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 |
|---|---|
ID: aiam4858OpenDS America, Inc. 5110 Tollview Drive Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell; DS America Inc. 5110 Tollview Drive Rolling Meadows IL 60008 Attn: Messrs. Riani and Mitchell; Gentlemen: This responds to your letter of March 6, 'l990' with respec to your interest in importing for resale Volkswagen Beetles manufactured in Mexico. You've asked for information on 'all relevant requirements for cars being imported to the United States.' A motor vehicle must conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported permanently into the United States. The authority for this requirement is The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966, as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, which became effective January 31, l990. I enclose a copy of the l966 Act for your information, the amendments effectuated by the l988 Act are found at section 108 1397 , subsections (c) through (j). In brief, a nonconforming motor vehicle may not be imported into the United States unless the Admininstrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the vehicle complies or is capable of conformance to the FMVSS. Determinations are made pursuant to petitions received from manufacturers or registered importers. A 'registered importer' is one that NHTSA has officially recognized as capable of performing the conformance work. After an affirmative determination, the vehicle may be imported by the registered importer, or by any other person who has a contract with the registered importer to perform the conversion work. Certain performance bonds and fees payable to the government have been established. I enclose a copy of the most current list of registered importers. For the text of the FMVSS and other agency regulations, you may contact the outlet of the Government Printing Office closest to you, and obtain 'Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999 Effective October 1, l990'. NHTSA regulations are parts 501-594 inclusive. You will be particularly interested in Parts 571 (the FMVSS), 591 (import regulation), 592 (registered importer requirements), 593 (vehicle eligibility determinations), and 594 (fees). The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the conformance capability of Mexican Beetles with the FMVSS. If you wish to petition for such a determination, you must either become a registered importer or contract with one to act in your behalf. NHTSA would be especially concerned about the capability of Beetles manufactured on and after September 1, l989, to be conformed to meet the automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), Occupant Restraint Systems. You have asked for any information the Department may have about conformance problems. During the mid-l980s, Mexican Beetles were imported for resale by commercial enterprises in Texas and California. The Texas enterprise was able to satisfy the importation requirements that were effective before the stringent amendments of the l988 Act. The California enterprise was unable to meet our requirements. We do not view the Texas experience in conversion of vehicles as particularly relevant today in light of the extensive changes made by the l988 Act. Finally, you have asked whether 'documentation by Volkswagon of Mexico certifying these crash requirements can replace a crash tested vehicle or vehicles.' Under our regulations, the registered importer must certify that the converted vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, and, with the initial vehicle, provide NHTSA with documents in substantation. Certainly, if Volkswagen de Mexico had conducted successful barrier impact tests exactly in the manner set forth in the FMVSS, the test results would appear to afford a basis upon which the registered importer could certify compliance. But because conformance modifications could alter vehicle structure or weight, and hence potentially affect the test results previously obtained, your question cannot be answered simply yes or no. However, a registered importer is not legally obliged to conduct a crash test to demonstrate conformance, but could verify that the converted Mexican Beetles continue to conform with the Mexican test results through the use of computer simulations, engineering studies, or mathematical calculations. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to consider them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam2575OpenMr. Melvin R. Stahl, Vice President, Government Relations, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. Melvin R. Stahl Vice President Government Relations Motorcycle Industry Council Inc. 1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Stahl: This is in reply to your letter of April 7, 1977, requestin interpretations with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; You have asked whether a speedometer may be marked to register speed i kilometers per hour only. The answer is no. Table 3 of Standard No. 123 requires that motorcycle speedometers indicate speed in miles per hour. You have also asked whether a speedometer may be marked to register speed in both miles and kilometers per hour. The answer is yes. The requirement that speedometers be marked in miles per hour is a minimum requirement only and there is no legal objection to a manufacturer adding kilometer markings to the dial.; "Your next question is whether Standard No. 123 preempts a New Yor State law, passed in 1976, that requires speedometers of all motor vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1980, to measure speeds in both miles and kilometers per hour. The answer is yes, assuming that a j motorcycle is defined as a 'motor vehicle' under New York law. As you know 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that no State shall have authority to establish with respect to a motor vehicle a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicles as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Speedometers marking is clearly the same 'aspect of performance' in both the Federal and New York requirements, and it appears that New York would be preempted from requiring a motorcycle manufacturer to mark its speedometer in kilometers, though the manufacturer would not be prohibited by Standard No. 123 from voluntarily doing so."; Your final question is whether NHTSA contemplates changing Standard No 123 'mandating only or optional km/h speedometer markings.' The answer is yes. I enclose a copy of an NPRM published on December 13, 1976, proposing a new standard on *Speedometers and Odometers*. The proposal specifically allows use of kilometer markings on motorcycle speedometers in addition to the required markings in miles per hour. Note, however, that it would not apply to 'motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less' (*e.g.*, mopeds) or police motorcycles.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0250OpenMr. Lowell A. Kintigh, Vice President, Engineering Staff, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. Lowell A. Kintigh Vice President Engineering Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Kintigh: On August 13, 1970, you petitioned, on behalf of General Motor Corporation, for reconsideration of the amendment of 49 CFR 571.3, published on July 14, 1970 (35 F.R. 11242), which established a definition of 'fixed collision barrier'. The views presented in your petition have been carefully considered. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.; You argued that the phrase 'absorb no significant portion of th vehicle's kinetic energy' was subjective, and therefore not in accord with the statutory requirement that standards be stated in objective terms. This argument is without merit. It appears to be based on the misconception that the purpose of the definition is to describe, or prescribe standards for, a manufacturer's test barrier, as evidenced by your statement that it 'gives manufacturer no guidelines for determining whether or not he has built a barrier which complies with the definition.' The Bureau does not intend that manufacturers should build barriers to 'comply with the definition.' As stated in the notice,; >>>'this is not intended to be a description of an actual test barrier It is a device used in various standards to establish required quantitative performance levels of a vehicle in a crash situation, and means simply that the vehicle must meet the requirement no matter how small an amount of energy is absorbed by the barrier.'; <<>>there is no known method of measuring the amount of energy absorbe by a barrier. Therefore, there is no way that the manufacturer could even attempt to determine whether or not his barrier complied with the definition, and, more importantly, whether or not his vehicle when tested complied with the performance requirements of the standards.'<<<; The energy absorption of a barrier is a direct function of the movemen of the barrier during the impact. To be sure, there are other properties, such as its effective mass and elasticity, that also are factors in energy absorption. But it is clear that as the barrier movement approaches zero, the energy absorption also approaches zero, and the barrier movement can be measured, as you indicated by your recommendation that a specified amount of movement be allowed. In all cases where the vehicle has a tangible margin of safety performance over the required minimum, therefore, a manufacturer will have no difficulty in determining that his vehicle complies.; If our standards 'allowed' barrier movement, it would be far mor difficult to establish conclusively that a given vehicle did *not* meet the standard, since it would always be open to the manufacturer to argue that the Bureau's barrier did not move as far, and consequently did not absorb as much energy, as the standard allowed. To the extent that there may be a small degree of uncertainty as to the variance in the vehicle test performance caused by the variance of a barrier from zero absorption, that uncertainty must rest with the manufacturer, who is free to design into his vehicles whatever margin of performance he desires.; This matter was thoroughly considered by the Bureau, and the opinion of knowledgeable members of the public were sought and carefully evaluated. For these reasons, your petition for reconsideration must be denied.; We appreciate your cooperation in the field of motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Director |
|
ID: aiam4213OpenMr. Gerald B. Eastland, Chief, Title Division, Mississippi State Tax Commission, P.O. Box 960, Jackson, MS 39205-0960; Mr. Gerald B. Eastland Chief Title Division Mississippi State Tax Commission P.O. Box 960 Jackson MS 39205-0960; Dear Mr. Eastland: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1986, concernin Mississippi House Bill 64 and Federal odometer disclosure requirements.; I have reviewed House Bill 64 and the reverse side of the ne Mississippi certificate of title. The disclosure statements as set forth in lines 155-164 of the bill and on the reverse side of the title conform to the Federal odometer disclosure requirements, 49 C.F.R. S 580.4. However, even assuming the front of the title includes the vehicle's year, make, model and body type and the vehicle identification number, the title fails to include a space for the buyer's signature. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers the signature to be essential because it is an acknowledgement that the purchaser is aware of the mileage. Furthermore, the signature prevents the purchaser from later alleging that he was not informed of the mileage or that the mileage was different from that appearing on the title.; Because the title does not contain all the information required b Federal regulation, transferors of motor vehicles in Mississippi must continue to issue a separate odometer disclosure statement. In addition, dealers and distributors must retain, for four years, each odometer statement they receive and a copy of each odometer statement they issue.; I hope this information will help you in your efforts to assist dealer in complying with the Federal regulations. If I could be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1011OpenMr. John H. Fildew, Attorney, Fildew, Gilbridge, Miller & Todd, 3156 Penobscot Building, Detroit, MI 48226; Mr. John H. Fildew Attorney Fildew Gilbridge Miller & Todd 3156 Penobscot Building Detroit MI 48226; Dear Mr. Fildew: This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1973, in which yo asked about the responsibilities with respect to the motor vehicle safety standards of an automobile dealer who sends a new vehicle to specialty manufacturer for modifications. You asked whether the dealer must file reports as a final-stage manufacturer, or ascertain whether the specialty manufacturer has filed reports or certified the vehicle.; The final-stage manufacturer in the case you describe is the specialt manufacturer, and all the responsibilities that pertain to that category lie with him, not the dealer. There is also no obligation for the dealer to ascertain that the specialty manufacturer has filed reports.; The answer with respect to the dealer ascertaining that the final stage manufacturer has certified the vehicle is somewhat less clear. There is no direct responsibility for this, a failure of the final-stage manufacturer to certify would not itself bring down any penalties on the dealer. However, the certification is designed to protect the dealer, in cases of nonconformity with the standards of which the dealer does not have actual knowledge. (See sections 108(b)(2) and 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2), 1403.) To put it negatively, if the vehicle were completed in violation of applicable standards and it were not certified, a dealer might be considered to have sold a nonconforming vehicle without the exercise of due care, in violation of the Act. The question is further complicated by the fact that not all alterations would rise to the level of manufacturing (addition of trailer hitches probably would not, for example). and these minor changes would not require additional certification by anyone. In sum, although there is no direct legal obligation for the dealer to see that there is a certification where there are major alternations, it is a very good idea, for his own protection.; The regulations on this subject are codified in Parts 567 and 568 o Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The October 1, 1972 edition of that title is current with respect to those parts. We do have a proposal outstanding to make some amendments regarding the certification of altered vehicles (37 FR 22800, October 25, 1972), and an amended rule may be issued in the near future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4643OpenMr. Michael E. Kastner National Truck Equipment Association--Washington Office 1350 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005-4797; Mr. Michael E. Kastner National Truck Equipment Association--Washington Office 1350 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 800 Washington D.C. 20005-4797; Dear Mr. Kastner: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinne concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) actions to extend certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) to light trucks and vans. The Secretary has asked me to reply. Your letter was especially concerned with NHTSA's November 1987 amendment to FMVSS 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement, and our denial of NTEA's petition for reconsideration of that rule. I regret that I am unable to respond to your comments at this time. As you know, the Department and NTEA are presently involved in litigation concerning those actions. In view of the litigation, we feel it would be inappropriate to address your comments in this letter. We appreciate your interest in informing the Department of your views. I can assure you that Secretary Skinner is actively interested in each of the letters he receives regarding NHTSA's mission to improve motor vehicle safety. Let me assure you also that the potential impacts on small businesses is one of our concerns in each of our rulemaking actions. A copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed in NHTSA's docket section. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Acting Administrator; |
|
ID: aiam3186OpenMr. Charles Sidner, Products Safety Engineer, Grumman Flxible Corporation, 970 Pittsburgh Drive, Delaware, OH 43105; Mr. Charles Sidner Products Safety Engineer Grumman Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware OH 43105; Dear Mr. Sidner:#This is in response to your request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office, you asked whether section S5.2.2 of the standard would apply to the windshield wiper controls which Grumman Flxible intends to install in its transit buses. As I understand your description, there are to be separate controls for the left and right windshield wipers and each control will allow for operation of the wiper over a continuous range of speeds.#The answer to your question is no. Section S5.2.2 of Standard 101-80 provides that:#>>>Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed system control and any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of *any such control* that regulates a function over a quantitative range. (emphasis added).<<<#The function identification requirements are not applicable since their applicability is expressly limited to speed controls and to heating and air conditioning controls. The applicability of the extreme position identification requirements is similarly limited since 'such controls' refers back to those controls already identified in S5.2.2.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1441OpenMr. Hayso Hirai, Technical Representative, MAZDA, 1444 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, California 92705; Mr. Hayso Hirai Technical Representative MAZDA 1444 McGaw Avenue Irvine California 92705; Dear Mr. Hirai: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1974, which requests review of your new accelerator system to determine compliance with Standard No. 124, 'Accelerator Control Systems.'; The NHTSA does not provide a technical review of a manufacturer' product nor certify that a particular design meets the requirements of a standard. That is the manufacturer's responsibility. We will interpret or clarify the meaning of the standard in response to specific questions.; We understand your question to be whether two springs surrounding spring guide and separated by a washer meet the stipulation in S5.1 of Standard No. 124 for '... at least two sources of energy ...' This arrangement of springs would be considered 'two sources of energy' within the meaning of the standard.; As you requested, the technical description has been held confidentia as a 'trade secret' and we are returning it to your herewith.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0483OpenMr. R. O. Sornson, Manager, Environmental and Safety Relations Department, Chrysler Corporation, P O Box 1919, Detroit, MI, 48231; Mr. R. O. Sornson Manager Environmental and Safety Relations Department Chrysler Corporation P O Box 1919 Detroit MI 48231; Dear Mr. Sornson: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1971, to Mr. J. E Leysath of this Office, concerning the maximum candlepower for taillamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 108 (35 FR, 16840, October 31, 1970) i quoted as follows:; >>>'S5.1 SAE Standards and Recommended Practices subreferenced by th SAE Standards and Recommended Practices included in Tables I and III and paragraphs S4.1.4 and S4.5.1 are those published in the 1970 edition of the SAE Handbook.'<<<; Subreferenced SAE Standard J575, as published in the 1970 edition o the SAE Handbook, is the 'd' revision (SAE J575*d*, August 1967). SAE Standard J575d specifies a maximum of 15 candlepower for a single compartment taillamp, 20 candlepower for a 2-compartment taillamp, and 25 candlepower for a 3- compartment taillamp. These maximum candlepower values are, therefore, applicable requirements under Standard No. 108 (35 FR, 16840, October 31, 1970).; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2144OpenMr. Byron A. Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, D.C. 20015; Mr. Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington D.C. 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: #In response to your November 24, letter concernin the relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119, I am enclosing a copy of a prior interpretation letter on the same subject, which was sent to Mr. C.D. McCarthy of the B.F. Goodrich Company on October 15, 1975. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.