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: 2620yOpen Mr. Brian Gill Dear Mr. Gill: This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 Honda Acura NS-X car line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Acura NS-X vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. As you are aware, the Acura NS-X car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Honda showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on February 5, 1990, and appeared in the Federal Register on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4746). The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device. In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Honda plans improvements in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Acura NS-X in two ways: First, the new antitheft system would be armed by using the auto door lock system control to lock either door. Honda states that in the system that was the subject of the exemption from the theft prevention system, it was necessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. According to the attachment provided in your letter, this change would make it possible to arm the the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked. Second, the radio would now be included in the alarm system. Thus, the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal or the coupler is disconnected, or if the radio's wiring is cut. After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Honda to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2). If Honda does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Honda notify the agency of such decisions. It is my understanding that, in a May 16, 1990, telephone conversation between Brian Tinkler of Honda and Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Tinkler confirmed that Honda was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket. Sincerely,
Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking / ref:Part 543 d:7/ll/90 |
1970 |
ID: 06-006238asOpenMr. Charles I. Sassoon Panor Corp. 125 Cabot Court Hauppage, NY 11788 Dear Mr. Sassoon: This responds to your letter regarding the permissibility of a combination Stop, Turn Signal, Taillamp (STT) and backup lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS). Based upon the information you provided the agency and the analysis below, we have concluded that your design incorporating 18 white Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) on the outer perimeter of the STT would not be prohibited under FMVSS No. 108. 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. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. 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. The lamp you have designed consists of two areas, an inner area containing what appear, from your illustrations, to be nine LEDs, and an outer ring containing 18 white, 8 millimeter LEDs, which will serve as a backup lamp. You ask if there is any provision of FMVSS No. 108 which would prohibit this configuration. The standard does not prohibit this combination lamp, as long as when a specific function is activated, the lamp performs that function in a manner that meets the minimum performance requirements established by Standard No. 108. It is the manufacturers responsibility to confirm that the lamp meets all FMVSS No. 108 requirements relative to the functions for which the lamp is certified. We note that these issues have been raised in a 1990 letter to Mr. Suichi Watanabe,[1] and a copy of that interpretation has been included for your convenience. If you have any more questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure d.3/5/07 ref:108 |
2007 |
ID: 86-6.8OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/08/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Roger C. Fairchild TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Roger C. Fairchild, Esq. Shutler and Low 12030 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 209 Reston, VA 22091
Dear Mr. Fairchild:
This is in reply to your letter of October 7, 1986, asking for an interpretation of the joint DOT-Customs regulations applicable to the importation of motor vehicles and equipment subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. You stated your understanding that under 19 C.F.R. l2.8O(b)(l)(iii), the importer of a nonconforming vehicle must certify that the vehicle will not be sold or offered for sale until the NHTSA Administrator issues an import bond release letter. You asked whether this or any other provision prohibits the lease of a vehicle prior to issuance of the NHTSA bond release letter.
Neither this provision nor any other prohibits the leasing of a vehicle during the period prior to issuance of the bond release letter. A sale is generally understood as a transfer of title and possession, whereas a lease involves transfer only of possession. The purpose for the restrictive language in 12.80(b)(l)(iii) is, as you correctly stated, "to assure that any remedial actions required by NHTSA...could be performed by the importer."
I hope that this answers your question satisfactorily. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
Erika Z. Jones, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590
Dear Ms. Jones:
I request an interpretation of the joint DOT-Customs regulations applicable to direct import motor vehicles. Under 19 C.F.R. 12.80(b) (l)(iii), the importer of such a vehicle must certify that the vehicle will not be sold or offered for sale until the NHTSA Administrator issues an Import bond release letter. Does this or any other provision administered by NHTSA prohibit the lease of an imported vehicle prior to issuance of the NHTSA bond release letter? If so, what provision imposes such a restriction?
Under a leasing arrangement, the importer would retain title to the vehicle. By retaining title, the importer would have a degree of control over the vehicle, to assure that any remedial actions required by NHTSA (i.e., further vehicle modifications or submission of additional compliance information) could be performed by the importer. Based on discussions with your staff, it is my understanding that this residual control by the importer should satisfy NHTSA's concerns which form the basis for the sale-before-release prohibition.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Roger C. Fairchild
RCF:hgc |
|
ID: nht81-1.23OpenDATE: 03/03/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: T. J. Welding Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: MAR 3 1981 NOA-30 Miss M. J. Riddle T. J. Welding Ltd. Box 98 Mount Albert, Ontario LOG 1M0 Dear Miss Riddle: In response to your recent letter, to Mr. Schwartz of my office, I have enclosed a copy of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and two recent amendments. The Canadian authority for the issuance of the three or six character manufacturer identifier is: MVMA of Canada Suite 1602 25 Adelide Street E. Toronto, Ontario M5C-1Y7 ATT: Mr. Brian Hickey Phone: 416-364-9333 Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures January 22, 1981
Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Jr. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A. Dear Sir: Your name has been given to us by Transport Canada - Surface concerning obtaining further details on your standard for a seventeen digit vehicle identification number, standard FMVSS 115. Any information you can supply us with concerning this, will be appreciated. Sincerely, Miss M. J. Riddle T. J. Welding Ltd. |
|
ID: 1984-1.12Open TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/08/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.) TEXT: Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573 This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.
The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.
Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.
Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.
December 7, 1983 Dear Mr. Kratzke:
Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).
I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.
I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager
BDT:csy |
|
ID: nht91-5.22OpenDATE: August 12, 1991 FROM: John E. Calow -- Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Chassis Division TO: Taylor Vincon -- Legal Council, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-18-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John E. Calow (A38; Std. 108) TEXT: Quite a while ago I spoke with you about optically combined Brake Lights and Hazard Warning Lights. Per our conversation I understood that the Brake Lights would over-ride the Hazard Warning Lights if both were activated. Recently it was brought to my attention that my interpretation was in error. Thus, I am requesting that you review following questions and submit a written verification. 1) If the Brake Lights and Hazard Warning Lights are optically combined and both are activated (per federal regulations) which of the following will occur? A) The brake lights will over-ride causing a steady light emission. B) The hazard lights will over-ride causing a flashing light emission. 2) If the vehicle has a Center High Mounted Stop Lamp "CHMSL" is it acceptable to have the Hazard Warning Lights over-ride the Brake Lights if the CHMSL has a steady light emitance upon brake application? Please send the written verification to my attention. Our address is on my enclosed business card. Thank you for your time and consideration, if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. |
|
ID: nht93-1.27OpenDATE: 02/04/93 FROM: ROBERT A. ERNST -- RESEARCH COORDINATOR, I-CAR TO: CHIEF CONSUL -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA TITLE: INQUIRY REGARDING AIR BAG SYSTEM REPAIR ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-4-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT A, ERNST (A40; 108 (a)(2)(A); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-4-93 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LINDA L. CONRAD (STD. 208) TEXT: I-CAR produces technical training for the automotive collision repair industry. We have received numerous inquires regarding the legal liability exposure for a repair facility if an air bag system is not repaired following a collision. We would appreciate any information you can supply on the following. 1. Are there Federal regulations which specifically direct the collision repair facility to restore the supplemental restraint system to an operable condition following a deployment on vehicles the facility repairs? 2. If repairs are deliberately made to mask the fact that the air bag system is inoperative, has the repair facility violated any applicable laws? 3. If the owner of the vehicle requests that the supplemental restraint system not be restored to operational condition, is the owner of the repair facility or the vehicle liable for later injuries? 4. Can the vehicle be sold if the owner knows that the supplemental restraint system is inoperable because of a previous deployment? We appreciate your assistance in answering the above inquiries. Please call with any questions. |
|
ID: nht88-2.48OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/10/88 FROM: T. BAILEY -- LEGISLATION ENGINEER, INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN TO: NHTSA TITLE: FMVSS 104 Windshield WIPING & WASHING SYTEMS ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 11-3-88, TO T.P. BAILEY, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD. 104 TEXT: As an automotive design consultancy we need a clear understanding of this Standard, particularly the requirements of paragraph S4.1.2, Wiped Area. We have a problem with this and would appreciate some advice. Firstly, can you confirm this paragraph is only applicable to passenger cars. Secondly, the hypothetical results for a windscreen are shown on attachment 1. In this, Area A on one side extends to the DLO, on the other, overlaps it. (The DLO is taken to start at the inner edge of the obscuration band). As drawn, the correct perce ntage wiped area is still achieved. Should Area A be wholly:- 1. On exterior surface of glass, inside a perimeter line drawn one inch from edge of daylight opening. 2. On exterior surface of glass, inside the DLO. 3. On exterior surface of glass (ie. whole surface visible from outside vehicle including the obscuration band). 4. On total exterior surface of glass (ie. including the part normally hidden under trim and mouldings). Thank you for your attention. I look forward to hearing from you. See Illumtation on original |
|
ID: nht89-1.3OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 01/17/89 FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33[2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMET ER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN TEXT: Dear Ms. DeMeter: In a letter dated September 10, 1988, I resolved a concern with you regarding confidentially related to my requested evaluation of my invention, the "Sudden Stop Flasher." Your previous letter to me was dated July 13, 1988. I would like to know the status of the evaluation please, and also how much longer you believe the evaluation will require. Thank you very much for your attention. |
|
ID: nht94-5.15OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 21, 1994 FROM: Baysul Parker -- Manager, Safety Department, California Trucking Association TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/14/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO BAYSUL PARKER (A43; PART 567) 11/20/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO J. LESLIE DOBSON, 7/1/92 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO GENE FOUTS, 3/19/91 LETTER FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO JERRY TASS AN, AND 5/24/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN PAUL BARBER TEXT: I have received numerous inquiries recently regarding whether an alterer can alter and change the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of a vehicle prior to sale or first registered, and also on used vehicles. This is generally in regards to vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 lbs. or more, and the owner desires to lower the GVWR so that the driver would not be required to possess a commercial drivers license to operate. I have reviewed 49 CFR, Sections 567.4, 567.7 and 571.115. As I presently understand the statutes, only a manufacturer can assign a GVWR, including a VIN number. The original manufacturer, or an alterer approved by NHTSA who performs a manufacturing process prior to first sale or registration, can change the GV WR. Is there a list of NHTSA approved alterers? Please furnish any valid information, decisions and/or interpretations you may have that is related to this subject. |
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.