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: 08-002439asOpenMr. James D. Carroll 4608 Oakwood Circle Gastonia, NC 28056 Dear Mr. Carroll: This responds to your letter regarding the permissibility of an owner removing a label required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, from a certified motorcycle helmet. Specifically, you ask us to confirm whether certain statements made by the agency in a 1988 letter are still current. Our answer is yes. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. In your letter, you quote a statement we made in a December 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Wayne Ivie regarding the removal of the helmet label, and ask if that statement still reflected NHTSAs view. The statement is as follows: Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmets owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label. The relevant Federal prohibition on the modification of vehicles or items of equipment is 49 U.S.C. 30112, Making safety devices and elements inoperative.[1] This section reads, in part: 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 prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. Because the certification label is an element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218 (specifically, paragraph S5.6 of FMVSS No. 218), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 from removing the label. However, this prohibition does not apply to an individual owner modifying his or her own equipment. Nonetheless, NHTSA discourages owners from reducing the safety effectiveness of their vehicles or items of equipment by, for example, removing required labeling. The labeling is an indication to consumers, including secondhand purchasers, that the helmet provides a minimum level of safety protection. Generally, uncertified helmets provide a lesser level of head protection for riders involved in crashes. Furthermore, as stated in the Ivie letter, individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and are free to prohibit an owner from removing the label from his or her own helmet. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:218 d.11/20/08 [1] The provision discussed in the Ivie letter was set forth at 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) was recodified in July 1994 and 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) became 49 U.S.C. 30112. No substantive change was made to the provision. |
2008 |
ID: nht79-1.20OpenDATE: 09/20/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Volvo of America Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer, Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647 Dear Mr. Friberg: This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1979, and your telephone conversations with Mr. Schwartz of my office. Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) states that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. "Line" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, chassis or cab type." "Series" is defined as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line,' denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes." In Volvo's view, the only "line" it markets in the United States is the "200-series." Within this line, there are several models differentiated by body style and number of engine cylinders. Each model is offered in several different "sales versions," designated by a two- or three-letter suffix. Sales versions differ as to trim, upholstery, and other items which Volvo has designated as cosmetic. It is Volvo's desire not to encode the particular sales version of the vehicle in its VIN. Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that each "sales version" could also be designated a "series" if Volvo desired. Nonetheless, the definition of "series" makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the "series" designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality of the differences between the potential series, the agency will not require such a designation. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel February 5, 1979 Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS No. 115 Dear Mr. Levin: Section 4.5.2 of FMVSS No. 115 states that the second section (Vehicle Attributes section) of the VIN shall consist of five characters which shall uniquely identify attributes which, for passenger cars, must include line, series, body type, engine type, gross vehicle weight rating and restraint system type. Section 3 defines "series" as a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of a "line" denoting price, size or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes. Currently, Volvo markets only one line of passenger cars in the United States, the "200-series" which includes 2-door and 4-door sedans, 2-door coupe, and station wagon body types. Except for the differences dictated by body type, U.S. Volvo car models share the same chassis, suspension and, to a great degree, body components. In fact it can be said that, except for minor cosmetic differences, all Volvo cars of a given model year and body type are basically the same in structure and appearance. These minor differences are denoted by a "sales version" suffix which is a two or three-letter designation. The sales version's currently available in the U.S. are DL, GL, GLE, and GT. (A further designation, C, is used to designate the coupe, which is actually a different body type.) The cosmetic differences denoted by sales version may include such items as:
Grille Emblem Wheel Design Electric Mirrors Leather Upholstery Front Spoiler Rectangular Headlamps Tachometer Fog Lamps The distinction between sales version is further diluted by the fact that most of the components listed are available as options, and many Volvo owners select these options so that their car more closely resembles a higher priced version. In future model Volvos, the sales version may also designate engine type (number of cylinders, gasoline or diesel). However, this information is coded elsewhere in the Vehicle Attributes section of the VIN. While sales version may have some slight impact on retail price, this is determined to a far greater extent by body type, engine type, and the options chosen by the purchaser. It is our interpretation that sales version, as described above, must not necessarily be decipherable from the VIN. Please advise as to whether you agree with this interpretation. If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please feel free to call. Sincerely yours, VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning and Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer, Regulatory Affairs NF/EB |
|
ID: nht72-4.41OpenDATE: 09/01/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Intercontinental Equipment Corp. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1972, in which you raise several questions concerning Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. You state that Intercontinental Equipment Corp. (I.E.C.) is the United States importer and distributer of certain vehicles manufactured by Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. in Japan. You also state that I.E.C. has contracted with Yachiyoda Sangyo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo to acquire vehicles from Suzuki, remove non-complying equipment, install approved devices, and affix necessary labels of conformity and arrange for shipment. The answers to your questions are as follows: 1. You ask whether the I.E.C. contract with Yachiyoda changes the status of Suzuki as manufacturer and I.E.C. as importer. It does not change the status with respect to our manufacturer identification and certification regulations. 2. You inquire as to the classification of Suzuki and Yachiyoda under Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Since Suzuki manufactures a completed vehicle, Yachiyoda is not considered a manufacturer under NHTSA regulations and is not required by the NHTSA to submit manufacturer identification or certification information. 3. You ask whether the label of conformity (Label #2) which you propose to have affixed to the vehicles is acceptable. The NHTSA finds it acceptable. I enclose copies of Parts 566, 567, and 568 for your information. |
|
ID: nht91-4.42OpenDATE: July 8, 1991 FROM: Ken Hanna -- Lectric Limited Inc. TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-29-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ken Hanna (A38; Std. 108) TEXT: In reference to our last conversation regarding the manufacturing of sealed beam bulbs for antique cars. As per your suggestion, we are gathering data so that we may submit a comprehensive petition with all pertinent information included requesting reinstatement of SAE J579A. Since it may take up to two years to reinstate SAE J579A and we are anxious to get our sealed beam headlight project underway, we would like to manufacture bulbs in the interim which meet J579C specifications in terms of candlepower and photometrics. However, since these bulbs will lack various identification nomenclature on the face of the lenses which are required by SAE J579C we would like to market these bulbs with clear identification on the packaging identifying them "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use". I discussed this possibility with you in our last conversation and as I recall you felt that NHTSA had no jurisdiction over products which are not intended for highway use and do not fall under the same regulations and specifications required of products which are intended for highway use. Please let me know as soon as possible whether or not we will be violating any NHTSA restrictions by manufacturing and marketing these bulbs in this manner. |
|
ID: nht89-2.64OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/09/89 FROM: KARL HEINZFABER -- MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA INC TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, FMVSS 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO KARLHEINZ FABER -- MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108 TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (MBNA) requests an interpretation of the word "headlamp" as used in Standard 108. Paragraph S7.2 of the Final Rule published in the Federal Register of May 9, 1989 (Docket No. 85-15, Notice 8), states that each headlamp or beam contributor must be marked with its voltage. The term headlamp is not defined separately under S4 definitio ns, however, a "replaceable bulb headlamp" is defined as a "headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sources." Based on the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp", it is our understanding t hat marking the lens, the reflector, or the light source with the voltage would be in compliance with paragraph S7.2. We would appreciate your response at your earliest opportunity as the effective date of this marking requirement is December 1, 1989. Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Toivo Raabis at (201) 573-2624 in our Safety Engineering Department. Thank you in advance for your reply. Sincerely, |
|
ID: 07-003911sfOpenThe Honorable George Radanovich Member, U.S. House of Representatives 1040 East Herndon, Suite 201 Fresno, CA 93720 Dear Congressman Radanovich: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Bret de St. Jeor, who submitted a series of questions to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding his product, Charlie Choo-Choos Party Train. Mr. St. Jeor contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in April via telephone and spoke with an attorney in the Office of the Chief Counsel, Ari Scott. Mr. Scott requested that Mr. St. Jeor submit his questions in writing regarding how the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to his product. As we discussed with Mr. St. Jeor, a response to his questions could take some time depending the complexity of the issue. We are currently reviewing Mr. St. Jeors request, and are in the process of preparing a response. Mr. St. Joers submission includes detailed information that requires careful analysis by NHTSA. We expect to provide Mr. St. Joer with a response to his questions in the near future. I hope this information if helpful. If I can be of further assistance, please have your staff contact me or Anthony M. Cooke, Chief Counsel at (202) 366-9511. Sincerely yours, Michael W. Harrington Director of External Affairs cc: Washington Office NCC-112:AScott/SForgues:mar:8/6/07:ES07-003911 Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, NIA-110, I10, I20 S:\INTERP\500\07-003911sf.doc Cc: NCC-112:AS:8/2/07:62992 NVS-100, NVS-200, Docket Std. 500 |
|
ID: nht92-7.14OpenDATE: May 6, 1992 FROM: Peter K. Brown -- President, KC HiLites TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/15/92 from Paul J. Rice to Peter K. Brown (A39; Std. 108) TEXT: I wrote to you in April of 1990, regarding your opinion and interpretation of the law relative to hi and low beam headlight use. The product in question is called, the quad beam and we have been selling it now since mid 1990, directed at vehicles with 4 headlamp systems. In as much, as vehicles with 2 headlamp systems represent a good part of the vehicle population, and that most of the 2 headlamp equipped vehicles, use only the low beam filaments when on low beam and only the high beam filament when high beam is selected, has prompted me to write to you again. Our quad beam will enable the low beam to work in conjunction with the high beam, which will dramatically increase the amount of light output. My question then is, can our product legally be used on two headlamp systems, either sealed beam or replaceable bulb type? I appreciate your help on this. I am including a copy of your previous letter for your reference. |
|
ID: nht76-1.36OpenDATE: 02/26/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: E.T.R.T.O. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, which inquired about the status of the E.T.R.T.O. petition for an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, concerning tires for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability. We expect to issue a Federal Register notice on this subject in the near future. Yours truly, ATTACH. The Director -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation JANUARY 26, 1976 ETRTO SUBMISSION No. 6/119 TYRES FOR LOW-POWER MOTORCYCLES WITH RESTRICTED SPEED CAPABILITY Dear Sir, The above Submission was made in ETRTO letter ref. RD/MS 048/75 dated February 5, 1975 and in a letter dated March 4, 1975, ref. N40-30 MS, signed by Mr. R.B. DYSON, Assistant Chief Counsel, receipt of the Submission was acknowledged with the advice that it was under consideration. Since then, as far as is known, there has been no further communication from NHTSA and no notice referring to the Submission has appeared in the Federal Register. News of the current status of this Submission would be greatly appreciated. Yours faithfully, J. TRIMBLE Secretary General cc: R.P. Monier, Chairman of the ETRTO Road Safety Sub-Committee. |
|
ID: nht67-1.22OpenDATE: 11/27/67 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Andrew K. Ness; NHTSA TO: Blue Bird Body Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 10, 1967, in which you requested a clarification of the use of the term "combined optically" as used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 188, Sections S8.3(c) and S3.4.4.3. S3.3(c) Lamp Combinations and Equipment Combinations. Two or more lamps, reflective devices, and items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are Met, except that -- (c) No clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp or identification lamp. This means that no clearance lamp may be combined to use a lense that is common to any other lamp such as a taillamp or identification lamp. The clearance lamp shall have a unique lense. S3.4.4.3 Stoplamps that are combined optically with turn signal lamps need not be operable when the combination is in use as a turn signal or as a vehicular hazard warning signal. This means that stoplamps that have a lense that is common with the turn signal lamps do not have to be operable when the combined stoplamp and turn signal lamp is used primarily as a turn signal or as a hazard warning signal. Stoplamps need not be operable when the combined stoplamp and turn signal lamp unit is used as a hazard warning or turn signal indicator. We trust these comments will be of assistance in clarifying your problems. |
|
ID: nht88-3.94OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/03/88 EST FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO: RICHARD W. WARD -- V. P; K-D LAMP COMPANY TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 TO ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA ADMIN., FROM RICHARD W. WARD, V.P., K-D LAMP CO.; OCC 2555 TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1988, asking for a clarification of Federal requirements for the minimum lens area for turn signal lamps and stop lamps. The understanding expressed in your letter is correct. The SAE materials for turn signal lamps and stop lamps for wide vehicles incorporated by reference in Table I apply to original equipment on vehicles currently being manufactured, and to equipment i ntended to replace such original equipment. These standards were expressly incorporated to supersede earlier versions of SAE standards for turn signal lamps and stop lamps. However, in recognition that original equipment lamps made to earlier SAE speci fications might not be compatible with the electrical systems of vehicles designed to conform to later SAE specifications, the agency adopted paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and 4.1.1.7, allowing the continued manufacture for replacement purposes only, of turn signa l lamps and stop lamps designed to conform to earlier specifications. Both sections incorporate in their text portions of the earlier SAE standards. Because the earlier specification for turn signal lamps, J588d, required an effective projected luminou s area not less than 12 square inches for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles, this requirement is also specified in S4.1.1.7 for replacement lamps manufactured in conformance with J588d. In short, your interpretation is correct with respect to turn signal lamps manufactured for installation on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Single compartment turn signal lamps designed to conform to SAE J588e need meet only a minimum luminous lens area of 8 square inches. But if a turn signal lamp is manufactured to replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to conform to SAE J588d, its minimum luminous lens area is 12 square inches. I hope this clarifies the matter for your customer. |
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.