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: aiam0271OpenMr. Michael Grossman, Peugeot, Incorporated, 300 Fuller Road, Clifton, NJ 07015; Mr. Michael Grossman Peugeot Incorporated 300 Fuller Road Clifton NJ 07015; Dear Mr. Grossman: This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1970, in which yo asked whether it would be permissible to add the words 'and Canadian' to your certification label.; With reference to a telephone conversation between you and Mr. Dyson o this office, I understand that the Canadian authorities will accept the certification statement that we presently require as long as the expression 'U.S.' does not appear on the label. Since use of the 'U.S.' is optional with the manufacturer under 49 CFR S367.4(g)(3), this appears to solve your problem in this regard.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4232OpenMr. Alvin A. Leach, Manager, Corporate Transportation Services, Carolina Power & Light Co., PO Box 1551, Raleigh, NC 27602; Mr. Alvin A. Leach Manager Corporate Transportation Services Carolina Power & Light Co. PO Box 1551 Raleigh NC 27602; Dear Mr. Leach: Thank you for your letter of September 5, 1986, to Administrator Stee concerning the safety belt installation requirements for heavy trucks. The Administrator has asked my office to respond since you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; You first asked whether lap/shoulder safety belts are required in truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. S4.3 of the standard, a copy of which is enclosed, sets out the requirements for such trucks. S4.3 permits a manufacturer to install either a lap safety belt, referred to as a Type 1 belt in the standard, or a lap/shoulder belt, referred to as a Type 2 belt, in a heavy truck. At the present time, we do not have any plans to require lap/shoulder belts in heavy trucks. We are taking steps to improve the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems in heavy vehicles. As explained in the attached notice, the agency is currently considering several changes to the standard which would make it easier to use safety belts in heavy vehicles. We expect to issue a final rule on this subject later this year.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1030OpenMr. Bill B. Wiggins, Wiggins & Christian, 602 First Federal Building, Post Office Box 994, Fort Smith, AR 72901; Mr. Bill B. Wiggins Wiggins & Christian 602 First Federal Building Post Office Box 994 Fort Smith AR 72901; Dear Mr. Wiggins: This is in response to your letter of February 27, 1973, concerning th application of the new Federal Odometer Disclosure Requirements to transfers between dealers.; The Federal requirements apply, with certain exceptions, to eac transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. Some types of vehicles, such as heavy trucks and antique vehicles, are exempt. Passenger cars and lighter vehicles, however, are exempted only in the case of transfers of *new* vehicles from a manufacturer or a distributor to a dealer or from one dealer to another. The transfer of a *used* car or light truck, whether from dealer to dealer, dealer to wholesaler, or dealer to customer, must be accompanied by a disclosure statement.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4662OpenMr. William E. Alkire CEO, Brakelight Enhancer, Inc. 1010 Rancheros Drive San Marcos, CA 92069; Mr. William E. Alkire CEO Brakelight Enhancer Inc. 1010 Rancheros Drive San Marcos CA 92069; Dear Mr. Alkire: This is in response to your letter of August 24, l989 in care of Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for our comments on your 'Brake Light Enhancer'. This device flashes the stop lamps of a vehicle three times within the first two seconds after actuation of the stop lamp system, the lamps remaining illuminated thereafter. Our comments on your device are restricted to its acceptability under the Federal regulatory scheme as either original or aftermarket equipment. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to lighting equipment on new vehicles is Standard No. 108. This standard must be met when the vehicle is manufactured, and when it is sold to its first purchaser (i.e., dealer-installed equipment must not affect compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards). Section S5.5.10(e) of Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be wired to be steady burning in use, and your device's initial cycle of three flashes in two seconds would create a noncompliance with this requirement. Accordingly, your device is not permissible as an item of original equipment. There is no aftermarket Federal standard applicable to your device. Equipment intended for vehicles in use are subject to the restriction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that they may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, if they are installed by a person other than the vehicle owner. In our view, if a modification creates a noncompliance with a standard that applies to a new motor vehicle, it is the equivalent of creating a partial inoperability of orignial safety equipment when that modification is performed on a motor vehicle in use. Installation of the Brake Light Enhancer by a person other than the vehicle owner would have this effect, and thus would be subject to the prohibition of the Act. Use of the device is also subject to the laws of the various States in which the device will be sold and operated. Although California may permit its use, per Calif. Senate Bill 1317 that you enclosed, other States may not. We are unable to advise on State laws, and recommend that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4398OpenMr. Hiroshi Kato, Assistant Vice President, Technical, MMC Services, Inc., 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Hiroshi Kato Assistant Vice President Technical MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Kato: This responds to your letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you sough my confirmation of a previous interpretation I sent to you. The issue is the classification of a new mini-van for the purposes of our safety and bumper standards. I stated in a July 28, 1987 interpretation to your company that, based on the information you had provided, this new mini-van could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the mini-van's chassis could be considered a truck chassis was based on information you had provided showing that the chassis design and construction was more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis.; In response to this letter, you sent me another letter dated August 3 1987, in which you stated that my previous interpretation may have been based on the erroneous belief that you were going to introduce a cargo version of this mini-van in to the United States, and that this cargo version would have a chassis that was substantially reinforced as compared with the chassis on a passenger version of this mini-van.; My previous interpretation was based on the fact that the mini-van yo will introduce into the United States is built on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the chassis can properly be characterized as a truck chassis was based on the facts that the chassis has a heavier-duty rear suspension and longitudinal members and a 25 percent higher gross vehicle weight rating than the sedan version of this vehicle. Assuming that these understandings are accurate, because nothing in your August 3 letter indicates they were inaccurate, the agency's position was accurately expressed in my July 28, 1987 letter to your company.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1379OpenMr. Richard Wright West, West & Wilkinson, P.O. Box 257, 2815 Huntington Avenue, Newport News, VA 23607; Mr. Richard Wright West West & Wilkinson P.O. Box 257 2815 Huntington Avenue Newport News VA 23607; Dear Mr. West: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requestin information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks or modifying existing gasoline tanks.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity* establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108(a)(1) of the National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or mtor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. the installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.; There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-o gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(e)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.; The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicle exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7). If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel thank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased ingood faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2943OpenMr. Heinz W. Gerth, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, P. O. Box 350, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Heinz W. Gerth Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive P. O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: This responds to your letter of December 19, 1978, asking whether manually adjustable seat belt anchorage for the upper torso portion of a 3-point safety belt is permissible under Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You state that this new anchorage is adjustable over a certain range and is intended to increase wearing comfort by providing a better 'fit' for all occupants.; We have reviewed the drawings and specifications enclosed with you letter and determined that the proposed adjustable anchorage design would not be precluded by Safety Standard No. 210 if the design meets the following two conditions: (1) the anchorage complies with the zone location requirements of the standard in any of the positions to which it can be adjusted, and (2) the anchorage complies with the strength requirements of the standard at all times, even when the adjusting mechanism (bolt) is in its loosened status. There is nothing in the standard that prevents the use of adjustable anchorages, per se.; From discussions with your engineers, we found that the proposed desig would require the use of a tool to tighten the adjusting bolt. We are concerned that this feature could reduce potential increases in belt use. For example, if driver A adjusts the belt anchorage to its lowest position, will driver B readjust the belt when he enters the car if the two drivers are of different sizes and the lowest position is uncomfortable for driver B? If the readjustment requires the use of a wrench to loosen and retighten the anchorage bolt, will driver B simply choose not to wear the belt? We believe that a manually adjusting anchorage that does not require the use of tools would be a preferable design in terms of potential seat belt use.; The agency is of course very interested in any seat belt design tha will increase comfort and convenience and, thereby, seat belt use. Therefore, we encourage innovative designs. Please keep us informed about the progress of your work on your new anchorage system.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hereby grants you request for confidential treatment of the drawings included in your letter (enclosures 1, 2 and 4). We have preliminarily determined that the drawings and specifications contain privileged commercial information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4194OpenMr. William Shapiro, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. William Shapiro Manager Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter concerning a newly designed Volvo chil safety seat. You stated that this child safety seat can be certified as complying with Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S 571.213), when secured only by a vehicle lap belt, in the rearward-facing mode for infants and in the forward-facing mode for toddlers. In addition, you indicate that this child safety seat can be used in certain vehicle specific installations in Volvo vehicles, and that the vehicle specific installations 'provide a higher level of protection.' You asked this agency's opinion as to whether this new child safety seat is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of Standard No. 213 and whether it can be used in both the universal application that is, secured by only a lap belt and Volvo vehicle-specific modes.; With respect to your first question, the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) provides no authority under which this agency can assure a manufacturer that its product has been designed in due care to comply with all applicable requirements or to otherwise 'approve' it. The Act establishes a process of self-certification under which a manufacturer is not required to submit a product to the agency for approval before sale, but simply to provide a certification to dealers and distributors that it does meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that product does not in fact comply, the manufacturer must notify and remedy the noncompliance according to the Act, and it is in presumptive violation of it (and therefore subject to civil penalties) unless it can establish that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the product was noncompliant. The statute thus provides an affirmative defense to the manufacturer, but it is a defense that does not arise until there is a violation of the Act, and the burden is upon the proponent to establish it.; Under the Act a product must comply at the time of sale to its firs purchaser for purposes other than resale. This means that a manufacturer's responsibility to insure compliance does not end at the design stage, but extends through manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product. In this context whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in the design stage can be an irrelevant question if the noncompliance was caused by an error in the manufacturing process which should have been detected and corrected, for example. For these reasons we cannot provide the opinion that you seek.; With respect to your second question, Volvo can recommend its chil seat for use with a lap belt in vehicles other than those manufactured by Volvo and for vehicle- specific uses in Volvo cars. The preamble to the 1979 final rule establishing Standard No. 213 included the following statement: 'As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions.' 44 FR 72131, at 72136, December 13, 1979. Therefore, Volvo can provide the vehicle-specific installation conditions for its child safety seat in Volvo automobiles. Please note that section S5.6 of Standard No. 213 requires manufacturers recommending vehicle-specific installations to provide step-by-step instructions for securing the child restraint in those particular vehicles, as well as providing such instructions for securing the child restraint when it is used in vehicles for which no vehicle-specific installation is recommended.; Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions o need more information on this subject.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3651OpenMr. J. W. Lawrence, Manager, Compliance and Recall, Volvo White Truck Corporation, P.O. Box D-1, Greensboro, NC 27402-1200; Mr. J. W. Lawrence Manager Compliance and Recall Volvo White Truck Corporation P.O. Box D-1 Greensboro NC 27402-1200; Dear Mr. Lawrence: This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 101 *Controls and Displays*. You asked whether the standard's identification and illumination requirements are applicable to an optional windshield wiper control you are planning to make available on some heavy duty trucks.; By way of background information, the agency does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is up to the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The following interpretation represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. It also takes into account information provided in a follow-up telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office.; The standard wiper controls for the vehicles in question consist of tw knobs which independently control the left and right wipers. These controls provide both the on-off function and variable speed. According to your letter, these controls are identified and illuminated as required by the standard.; The proposed optional control, the specific subject of your letter would provide a time delay for windshield wiper operation during light mist conditions. The control would be a knob which, if turned to the left, would provide no pause, and if turned toward the right, would offer a variable time delay.; We are unable to agree with your suggestion that the control is no covered by Standard No. 101. As discussed below, Standard No. 101 requires that this control, like the standard controls, be identified and illuminated in accordance with the standard's requirements. Additional words or symbols may be provided for the purpose of clarity.; Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires, among other things, that eac truck manufactured with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 meet the requirements of the standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control. One of the controls listed by S5.1 is 'windshield wiper.' Also, 'windshield wiping system' is among the controls listed in column 1 of Table 1. The issue raised by your letter is therefore whether an optional control for intermittent wiper operation is within the meaning of 'windshield wiper' control and/or 'windshield wiping system' control. It is our interpretation that such a control is within the meaning of both terms.; Neither the term 'windshield wiper' control nor 'windshield wipin system' control is limited to specific wiper functions, such as on-off, variable speed, etc. Since a control for intermittent wiper operation controls one function of windshield wipers, it is a 'windshield wiper' control or 'windshield wiping system' control. Such a control is therefore subject to the standard's requirements for location, identification and illumination.; We would note that while section S5.2.1 and Table 1 require such control to be identified by the symbol specified for windshield wiping system controls, additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for purposes of clarity. Since your vehicles would have three windshield wiper controls, you may wish to provide such additional words or symbols to explain the function of each.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1396OpenMr. Jim Lang, President, L and R Enterprises, P.O. Box 2201, Wichita Falls, TX 76307; Mr. Jim Lang President L and R Enterprises P.O. Box 2201 Wichita Falls TX 76307; Dear Mr. Lang: Since the questions raised in your letter of February 15, 1974, ar under the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, we have taken the liberty of forwarding it to the General Counsel of that agency.; You can expect to hear directly from that office in the near future. Sincerely, Fred J. Emery, Director of the Federal Register |
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.