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: aiam0232OpenDavid Sugarman, Esq., 119 West 57th Street, New York, NY 10019; David Sugarman Esq. 119 West 57th Street New York NY 10019; Dear Mr. Sugarman: In response to your letter of April 16 I enclose copies of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 107 (Reflecting Surfaces) and 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). Copies of the ASTM and SAE standards cross-referenced in the Federal standards are available from the American Society for Testing and Materials and the Society of Automotive Engineers. You may find particularly helpful SAE Handbook Supplement 19, 'SAE Technical Reports Referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards'.; The answer to your first question is that Standard No. 108 require passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1970, to be equipped with a total of 4 side marker lamps and 4 side marker reflectors, one marker and one reflector, amber in color, on each side of the vehicle 'as far forward as practicable', and one marker and one reflector, red in color, on each side of the vehicle, 'as far to the rear as practicable'(sic) Between January 1, 1969 and January 1, 1970 the option of reflectors or markers, or a combination of the two, was permitted. Prior to January 1, 1969 the Federal lighting standard did not apply to passenger cars. I will note in passing that the rear marker lamps on the Monteverdi displayed at the recent New York show were amber and must be changed to red before these vehicles are sold. There are no requirements as to size and shape of lamps and reflectors, but the SAE standards applicable to them and incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 do set forth certain photometric requirements which must be met.; In answer to your second question, Table III of Standard No. 10 requires tail lamps to be red, but permits stop lamps and rear turn signals to be either red or amber. A proposal has been issued however (35 F.R. 106) that stop lamps be red only on passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1971.; You have asked in your third question whether headlamps may be place in the grille. The answer to this is yes, provided that this location meets the lateral spacing and height above road surface requirements of Table IV of Standard No. 108. Also, headlamps must not be covered by a grille or plastic shield when in use.; Standard No. 107 does not specify a particular color for the horn rin and hub of the steering assembly but it does specify a maximum permissible value for specular glass.; Finally, other than Standard Nos. 205 (Glazing Materials) and 21 (Windshield Mounting) which all passenger cars must meet, there is no 'specific safety requirement as to the windshield' for convertibles, and there is no 'requirement as to a roll bar'.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief, Regulations Division |
|
ID: aiam2018OpenMr. Robert J. Ostrander, Dana Corporation, Tech. Center, 8000 Yankee Road, Ottawa Lake, MI 49267; Mr. Robert J. Ostrander Dana Corporation Tech. Center 8000 Yankee Road Ottawa Lake MI 49267; Dear Mr. Ostrander: This responds to Dana Corporation's July 11, 1975, question whether system which controls a truck engine throttle from a remote location by means of compressed air from the truck's brake system would violate the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*.; The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 121 does not contain prohibition on the use of air pressure from the air brake system for powering auxiliary devices. The vehicle must of course conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of the device, if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. For example, the compressor build-up pressure would still be required to meet S5.1 of the standard.; Although not a requirement of the standard, the NHTSA does consider i appropriate that a pressure protective valve be placed in the line to the auxiliary device so that a rupture of an auxiliary line does not cause depletion of air pressure in the brake system.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0025OpenMr. Henri B. Combe, Executive Vice President, Peugeot, Inc., 107-40 Queens Boulevard, Forest Hills, NY 11375; Mr. Henri B. Combe Executive Vice President Peugeot Inc. 107-40 Queens Boulevard Forest Hills NY 11375; Dear Mr. Combe: In answer to your letter of May 26, concerning Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standards Nos. 208 and 210, your interpretation is correct: a four-passenger automobile (such as the Peugeot 404) must have two Type 2 seat belt assemblies for the front seat passengers if the windshield header is within the head impact area, two Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies for the front seat passengers if the windshield header is not within the head impact area, and two Type 1 seat belt assemblies for the rear seat passengers. However anchorages for Type 2 seat belt assemblies are required in the rear to enable the owner to install Type 2 seat belt assemblies should he desire to afford his rear seat passengers this means of protection.; Sincerely yours, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant General Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5227OpenKenneth G. Koop, Risk Control Representative Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181; Kenneth G. Koop Risk Control Representative Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace IL 60181; "Dear Mr. Koop: This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993 requesting information on a modification for police vehicles. You seek permission to remove the passenger seat and passenger air bag from police vehicles, and to permanently mount equipment where the passenger seat had been. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7). Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the 'render inoperative' prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new. Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the render inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position. However, the render inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. You should also note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. You should be aware that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only. As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the 'render inoperative' provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you will 'place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place.' It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2448OpenMr. Woods King, Jr., Vice President-General Counsel, Warner & Swasey, 11000 Cedar Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106; Mr. Woods King Jr. Vice President-General Counsel Warner & Swasey 11000 Cedar Avenue Cleveland OH 44106; Dear Mr. King: This is in response to your October 29, 1976, letter concerning th status of Warner and Swasey Company with regard to the fire truck chassis that it manufactures.; Strictly speaking, the status of Warner and Swasey is simply that o 'manufacturer,' as the term is defined in Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391,; et seq*.) (the Act). Your real concern appears to be with the lega classification of the company's products.; From the description in your letter, the chassis that are produced b Warner and Swasey for sale to fire truck apparatus manufacturers are clearly 'incomplete vehicles,' as that term is defined in S 568.3 of 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. The current definitions of the terms 'motor vehicle,' 'motor vehicle equipment,' 'original equipment,' and 'replacement equipment' are found in Sections 102 and 159 of the Act. With these definitions, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers an incomplete vehicle to be an item of original equipment, which is in turn an item of motor vehicle equipment rather than a motor vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0475OpenMr. John Lucas, Commercial Rubber Company, 1659 East 23rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90011; Mr. John Lucas Commercial Rubber Company 1659 East 23rd Street Los Angeles CA 90011; Dear Mr. Lucas: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1971, in which you as whether matrices (or molds) must be relettered to a new identification code mark when the ownership of a company is transferred from father to son. The son may continue to use the existing number if he will write a letter to us stating that he is the new owner, the date on which he became the new owner, that he wishes to continue to use the same identification code mark, and that he assume all responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et*. *seq*.) for tires manufactured with the identification mark on or after the date he assumes ownership of the company. This letter should also refer to the name of the old company and should include any changes being made in company name, address and types of tires being retreaded.; With the above procedure the matrices would not have to be relettered We will change our records to conform to the information contained in the letter.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4965OpenMr. James G. White Head, Crash Avoidance Standards (ASFBE) Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Transport Canada; Mr. James G. White Head Crash Avoidance Standards (ASFBE) Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Transport Canada; FAX: 613-998-1965 Dear Mr. White: This responds to your FAX of Februar 18, 1992, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, who has asked this office to respond to your question 1.a. That question is: 'Is Koito correct in stating that FMVSS 108 does not require the 'O' point on IHAD (sic) indicators to be marked by the numeral '0''? In the letter from Koito that you furnished, Koito had remarked that the requirement in S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and (2) of Standard No. 108 'to have a zero mark' did 'not necessarily mean a mark of figure 'O', but may be just a reference mark.' Koito is incorrect. S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming specifies requirements for Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Devices (VHADs). VHADs provide for headlamp aim inspection in both the vertical and horizontal axes. S7.7.5.2(a)(2) Horizontal aim states that 'An 'O' mark shall be used to indicate alignment of the headlamps relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' This clearly establishes the requirement for use of the figure '0' as the mark, and not use of a reference mark. You will note that S7.7.5.2(b) references setting the VHAD 'at 'O' vertical and 'O' horizontal.' This means at the 'O' mark. Both S7.7.5.2(a)(1) Vertical aim and (a)(2) reference the necessity to provide 'an equal number of graduations from the 'O' position representing angular changes in the axis.' These graduations are not required to be marked. The presence of the 'O' mark will assist the person aiming the headlamp to ensure that the VHAD is set at the junction of the horizontal and vertical axes, rather than at one of adjacent, unmarked graduations. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1634OpenMr. F.S. Vukan, B.F. Goodrich Tire Company, 500 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44318; Mr. F.S. Vukan B.F. Goodrich Tire Company 500 South Main Street Akron Ohio 44318; Dear Mr. Vukan: This is in further reply to your letter of August 21, 1974, askin whether tires manufactured by B.F. Goodrich that are filled with 'Tyrfil' will be subject to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119.; On the basis of the information you have provided,we have determine that tires filled with Tyrfil are not 'pneumatic' tires, and are therefore subject neither to the requirements of Standards Nos. 109 nor 119. We find that Tyrfil, which is a solid polyurethane, differs significantly as a tire-filling medium from cellular foam, whose use has been determined to be within the scope of Standards Nos. 109 and 119 (37 FR 24908, November 23, 1972).; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3609OpenMr. Jerome N. Sonosky, Mr. Mark S. McConnell, Hogan & Hartson, 815 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Jerome N. Sonosky Mr. Mark S. McConnell Hogan & Hartson 815 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Messrs. Sonosky and McConnell: This is in further response to your letter concerning the applicatio of several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to mopeds. You asked whether Standard No. 108 and Standard No. 127 would preempt States statutes or regulations on the same subjects.; Your specific question on Standard No. 127 was whether section 3 of th standard, which excluded mopeds from the coverage of the standard, would preempt State laws that require all motor vehicles operated on the highways to be equipped with a speedometer. Subsequent to your letter, the agency rescinded Standard No. 127 (47 FR 7250). In rescinding the standard, the agency stated that it recognized that there is a nexus between having a speedometer and motor vehicle safety. Based on available information, however, the agency concluded that the specific requirements of the standard concerning the markings on a speedometer, such as the highlighting of the numeral '55', were not yielding and could not be expected to yield significant safety benefits. Because the marking requirements were not yielding safety benefits, the agency stated that it intended that other levels of government be preempted from establishing similar requirements. In preempting States from establishing marking requirements, the agency did not intend to preempt States from enforcing laws or regulations which only require the presence of a speedometer and do not set marking requirements for the speedometer.; Your final question concerned section 4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108 which exempts motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less from the requirement that motor vehicles be equipped with turn signal lamps. You asked if that provision preempts State laws to the extent they require all motor vehicles to be equipped with turn signal lamps. The answer is yes.; In adopting section 4.1.1.26, the agency specifically addressed th issue of what turn signal requirements are necessary and appropriate for mopeds. The agency determined that the speed and weight characteristics of mopeds made the problems associated with hand signaling less significant than they are for larger motorcycles. The agency concluded that exempting mopeds from the turn signal requirement would ease the burden of compliance for moped manufacturers without jeopardizing safety. Since Standard No. 108 specifically addresses the issue of what turn signal requirements are applicable to mopeds, States are preempted from establishing or enforcing a safety standard on that aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0926OpenMr. Steven M. Sharp, Managing Director, Intercontinental Equipment Corp., 5383 Overland Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123; Mr. Steven M. Sharp Managing Director Intercontinental Equipment Corp. 5383 Overland Avenue San Diego CA 92123; Dear Mr. Sharp: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1972. You hav enclosed a copy of a letter from Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd., dated September 14, 1972, in which it objects to the certification label that you propose to attach to Suzuki trucks imported by you for sale. The label shows Suzuki as the manufacturer and Intercontinental Equipment Corporation (IEC) as the importer of the trucks.; Suzuki bases its objection on the fact that: >>>'. . . the vehicles as manufactured by Suzuki does (sic) not confor to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards *in effect on the date of manufacture*, and it will be misrepresentation by our company to make such statement.'<<<; Suzuki also comments 'the responsibility for compliance rests sorel (sic) on both IEC and Yachiyoda but this fact is not clearly shown on the label.'; This agency's position is that the certification scheme you hav described is an appropriate one for imported vehicles that have been modified after manufacture to conform to the standards.; We do not consider the certification label necessarily to be representation by the original manufacturer. The question of who is responsible for the correctness of the certification, and for conformity, must be decided on the facts of the individual case. In this case, the representation is by IEC, not Suzuki, and IEC is responsible for conformity of the vehicle.; 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.