NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam0954OpenJohn M. Carter, Esquire, messrs. Carter and Carter, 229 John Street, Clayton, NY 13624; John M. Carter Esquire messrs. Carter and Carter 229 John Street Clayton NY 13624; Dear Mr. Carter: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1972, to the Federa Highway Administration on behalf of your client, a snow plow dealer. You ask for verification 'that the addition of a snow plow to a completed truck is considered the addition of a readily attached component and does not require recertification.'; We confirm that a person adding a snow plow to a completed truck is no a final-stage manufacturer who is required by 49 CFR Part 568 to certify compliance of the vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. He is, however, responsible for insuring that the modified vehicle complies with Standard No. 108 before delivering it to its purchaser.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1646OpenMr. Reno Laforest, After Sales Service Manager, Alouette Recreational Products, Ltd., 3700 St. Patrick Street, Montreal 205, Quebec, Canada; Mr. Reno Laforest After Sales Service Manager Alouette Recreational Products Ltd. 3700 St. Patrick Street Montreal 205 Quebec Canada; Dear Mr. Laforest: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign involvin 1973 and 1974 Alouette AX-125 motorcycles.; Since four different defects are involved, it has been found necessar to assign four different National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) identification numbers. Please refer to these numbers in all future correspondence concerning these campaigns.; Campaign numbers have been assigned as follows: >>>74-0178 - Rear brake pedal lever problem 74-0179 - Kick stand problem 74-0180 - Fuel leakage problem 74-0181 - Rear brake back plate holder lock nut problem<<< Although NHTSA will consider this matter as four campaigns, you ma still combine them in one owner notification letter and in communications with dealers.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the vehicles which wer sold in the United States of America does not entirely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter does not contain the precise wording that is required by Part 577.4(b). Use of the words 'potential' and 'may' also imply that possibly a defect does not exist and should therefore be deleted from this sentence.; Your letter also fails to adequately evaluate the risk to traffi safety as required by Part 577.4(d). If vehicle crash can occur, the letter must state this. Your letter also does not make clear if the repairs will be performed free of charge and also does not give an estimate of the time needed to perform the labor necessary to correct the defect, as required by Part 577.4(e).; It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notificatio letters and send a copy of the revised letter to this office and all known owners of the affected vehicles. Since you have stated that owners will receive a second notice at the time that parts have become available, the revised notification letter can be sent to owners at that time.; It is also necessary that you submit a Defect Report in accordance wit Part 573 of the regulations. The first Quarterly Reports, as required by Part 573.5, should be submitted before February 5, 1975, for the period ending December 31, 1974.; Copies of Part 573 and Part 577 are enclosed. If you desire furthe information, please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray at this office at (202) 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4444OpenFrank S. Perkin, Esq. Assistant General Counsel The Budd Company Law Department 3l55 West Big Beaver Road Box 260l Troy, Michigan 48084; Frank S. Perkin Esq. Assistant General Counsel The Budd Company Law Department 3l55 West Big Beaver Road Box 260l Troy Michigan 48084; "Dear Mr. Perkin: This responds to your letter expressing concern abou a statement in one of our interpretation letters, which you believe could be read as condoning the practice of rebuilding wheels by processes which include heating and welding. As discussed below, our letter's reference to remanufacturing wheels was made only to serve as an illustrative example and was not intended to address either the safety of such processes or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. The interpretation letter in question is one that we sent on September 22, l986, to Steven R. Taylor, responding to a request concerning regulations that apply to manufacturers of reconditioned brake drums. The letter included the following paragraph: NHTSA has in the past considered the issue of what types of operations make a person a manufacturer with respect to retreaded tires and remanufactured wheels. A person who retreads tires is considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The retreading process involves significant manufacturing operations, which do not differ substantially from those of manufacturing new tires. By contrast, a person who remanufactures wheels is not considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The process of remanufacturing wheels consists of such things as straightening, re-welding parts, and repairing cracks by welding. These types of actions are not significant manufacturing operations, but instead are the type of operations commonly performed in repair shops. You stated that all of the things mentioned in our letter, i.e., straightening, re-welding parts and repairing cracks by welding, are specifically prohibited by the OSHA standard applicable to truck wheels, both multi and single piece. You also stated that the 'out of service' criteria adopted by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety mandate that a vehicle be placed out of service if welded repairs are found on certain disc wheels. According to your letter, any significant changes made after the manufacture of a steel truck wheel, especially involving bending, heating or welding, carry a significant risk of rendering the wheel unsafe. As is indicated from the context of our September 22, l986 interpretation letter, the reference to remanufacturing wheels was made solely for the purpose of providing an illustrative example and was not intended to address either the safety of such processes or their permissibility or impermissibility under the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. I would note that NHTSA has long taken the position that remanufactured wheels are considered to be used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See, for example, our November 28, l973 letter addressed to Mr. L. Clinton Rich and February 7, l983 letter to Mr. H. J. Lindekugel (copies enclosed). Again, however, these letters do not purport to address the safety of remanufacturing wheels or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. We appreciate your bringing to our attention your concern about the safety of remanufactured wheels. Copies of this correspondence are being placed in the public docket. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3381OpenMr. J. Federsel, Product Manager, Teleflex Industrial Inc. 1816 57th Street, Sarasota, FL 33580; Mr. J. Federsel Product Manager Teleflex Industrial Inc. 1816 57th Street Sarasota FL 33580; Dear Mr. Federsel: This responds to your letter of October 8, 1980, in which you requeste an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. You asked us to confirm that your speedometer/odometer meets all the requirements of the rule.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle in accordance with that determination.; However, the agency is willing to give an informal opinion concernin whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. The speedometer/odometer you sent to us does not comply with the speedometer requirements of Standard No. 127. Section S4.1.4 of that rule requires speedometers to include the number '55' in the mph scale, and to highlight that number in some fashion. There is no '55' on the speedometer you enclose with your letter.; It is not possible to determine upon brief examination whether th odometer meets all the requirements of S4.2.5.2, the encapsulation option. The type of examination necessary to make such a determination is not performed by this agency prior to the manufacturer's certification. It is readily apparent, however, that the odometer you sent to us is in violation of section S4.2.3, as you stated in your letter. The odometer would have to have a sixth wheel or other mechanism to indicate when the number of whole miles or whole kilometers travelled exceeds either 89,999 or 99,999, if the device were to comply with the standard. Note that the effective date of the odometer provisions (sections S4.2 through S5.2) is September 1, 1981. Thus, any odometer that you manufacture prior to that date does not have to comply with the odometer requirements. NHTSA encourages manufacturers to meet these provisions voluntarily, however. The speedometer requirements (section S4.1) of Standard No. 127 are presently in effect, and thus all speedometers you manufacture must currently be in compliance.; We emphasize that the above statements are only the agency's opinio based on the information you have supplied, and that opinion is not binding on you or the agency. It is your duty as the manufacturer to determine whether in fact your product meets the requirements of the standard and to certify that compliance. We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0407OpenMr. Louis C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Environmental Staff, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI, 48090; Mr. Louis C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Environmental Staff General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W Toms, Acting Administrator, concerning replacement equipment covered in FMVSS No. 108, effective January 1, 1972.; The requirements for original and replacement equipment in FMVSS No 108 cover those items listed in Tables I and III, namely:>>>; Headlamps, Tail lamps, Stop lamps, License plate lamps, Refle reflectors, Parking lamps, Side marker lamps, Backup lamps, Turn signal lamps,; Turn signal operating units, Turn signal flashers, Vehicular hazar warning signal operating units, Vehicular hazard warning signal flashers, Identification lamps, Clearance lamps, Intermediate side marker lamps, Intermediate reflex reflectors<<<; In addition the requirements cover the following items specified in th text of the standard:>>>; School bus warning lamps, Headlamp beam switching devices, Headlam upper beam indicator lamps, Turn signal pilot indicator lamps, Hazard warning signal pilot indicator lamps, Plastic lenses.<<<; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4917OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; "Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of August 19, 1991 requesting an interpretation of section S5.3.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. That section specifies two force application options for release mechanisms of emergency exits, low force application and high force application. Your letter was sent in connection with an investigation by NHTSA's Office of Enforcement of a possible noncompliance of a 1990 Blue Bird bus with that standard, and you sent a sample bus window to assist in understanding your letter. You requested confirmation of your understanding that the requirements of section S5.3.2, 'with regard to motion, apply to the application forces and not the release mechanisms being activated by the forces.' You also requested confirmation of your 'understanding of the principles of mechanics, as applicable to FMVSS 217 requirements, that straight linear forces can cause rotary motion to occur and can be used to manually operate a rotary mechanism.' You asked these questions to support your contention that the release mechanism of the 1990 Blue Bird bus window can be operated by a force that is straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface, and that the high force application option is therefore available for that window. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. Section S5.3.2 specifies that certain emergency exits 'shall allow manual release of the exit by a single occupant using force applications each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer, either to (a) or (b).' Subparagraphs (a) and (b) set forth requirements for the two application force options, low force and high force. The specified requirements cover location, type of motion, and magnitude. The type of motion specified in (a) for low force application is 'rotary or straight', the type of motion specified in (b) for high force application is 'straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' We agree that the requirements in (a) and (b) concerning type of motion refer to the force applications that would be made by a single occupant and not to the release mechanisms that are activated by such force applications. While we do not disagree with your contention that it is possible for straight linear forces to cause rotary motion to occur, we do not believe, based on our examination of your sample bus window, that the force application that must be made by a single occupant to release the window would be 'straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' We interpret the term 'type of motion,' as used in (a) and (b), to refer to the entire motion of a force application that would be made by a single occupant in releasing an exit. In order to operate the release mechanism on the Blue Bird bus, it appears that a single occupant must lift the release handle upward as well as pulling it outward. Given the upward part of the motion, it would not be 'perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' Therefore, the high force application option is not available for such a design, and it must meet the low force application requirements. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5605OpenKaren Coffey, Esq. Chief Counsel Texas Automobile Dealers Association 1106 Lavaca P.O. Box 1028 Austin, Texas 78767-1028; Karen Coffey Esq. Chief Counsel Texas Automobile Dealers Association 1106 Lavaca P.O. Box 1028 Austin Texas 78767-1028; FAX: 512-476-2179 Dear Ms. Coffey: This responds to your letter askin whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state, 'a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable.' In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually. As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor. By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement. Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law. In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Glancy of my staff at (202)366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0057OpenMr. A. D. Prickett, Chief Engineer - Special Duties, Joseph Lucas Limited, Great King Street, Birmingham 19, England; Mr. A. D. Prickett Chief Engineer - Special Duties Joseph Lucas Limited Great King Street Birmingham 19 England; Dear Mr. Prickett: Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1968, to the Deputy Director National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning your interpretation of certain requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; The installation requirements contained in the SAE Standards that ar referenced in Standard No. 108 are enforceable requirements unless specifically exempted by Standard No. 108. With respect to the installation of license plate lamps, Standard No. 108 provides an exception to the 'Installation Recommendations' contained in SAE Standard J587b, in that Standard No. 108 requires a location 'at rear license plate.' This exception permits installation of the lamp at the top, sides or bottom of the license plate, instead of top and sides only as specified by SAE installation recommendations.; With two exceptions, the lighting devices required by Standard No. 10 must use bulbs conforming to SAE Standard J573b and bulb sockets conforming to either SAE Standard J567b or SAE Standard J822. The two exceptions are (1) motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584, and (2) disposable (throw-away) type lamp assemblies (other than sealed-beam headlamps) that do not use sockets. Sealed-beam headlamps must conform to SAE Standards J579a and J580a which, in turn, require sealed units conforming to SAE Standard J573b, but do not require sockets conforming to SAE Standards J567b or J822. The disposable type lamps((2) above) are excepted from the requirements of SAE Standard J567b since they are equipped with non-replaceable bulbs and electrical connectors rather than sockets. It is to be noted that Standard No. 108 is not applicable to motorcycles until January 1, 1969.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2590OpenMr. Richard L. Kreutziger, Executive Vice President, Coach & Equipment Sales Corp., Post Office Box 36, Penn Yan, NY 14527; Mr. Richard L. Kreutziger Executive Vice President Coach & Equipment Sales Corp. Post Office Box 36 Penn Yan NY 14527; Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking what standards appl to vehicles designed to transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school.; Vehicles that transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school ar not considered buses according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of 'bus' found in 49 CFR Part 571.3. Accordingly, these vehicles transporting fewer than 10 passengers would not need to comply standards (sic) applicable to either school buses or buses in general. The vehicles to which you refer would be required to comply with standards applicable to passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles depending upon the type of vehicle being used to transport children. You should consult Part 571.3 (enclosed) of our regulations to determine the classification of the vehicle you intend to construct since the vehicle classification establishes the applicability of the standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5255OpenMr. Greg Biba 172820 Highway QQ #8 Waupaca, WI 54981; Mr. Greg Biba 172820 Highway QQ #8 Waupaca WI 54981; "Dear Mr. Biba: This responds to your letter asking about safet regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an 'infant observation mirror' that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror. I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the 'rebound' phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.