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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam5600OpenMs. Nancy Tavarez Bietrix Industries; Ms. Nancy Tavarez Bietrix Industries; "FAX 201-956-7070 Dear Ms Tavarez: This is in response to your FAX o August 8, 1995, with respect to the importation of 'Phoenix Halogen Auto Bulbs H4 series, H3, H1 and 9000 series- HB1 for the USA market.' We understand that you presently have a shipment of these awaiting entry. You state that 'Mr. Taylor Benson recently informed us that these lights required DOT approval.' Taylor Vinson repeatedly informed you on the phone that DOT does not approve bulbs or any other kind of equipment. If there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect covering an item of equipment, the manufacturer (or importer for resale) is responsible for certifying that the equipment complies with that standard. The certifier does not need DOT permission or approval for that action. The appropriate Federal regulations in this instance are Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment and 49 CFR Part 564 Replaceable Light Source Information. There is no Federal regulation that applies to the H4 bulb. Although the H4 bulb is legal for use only in motorcycle headlamps, neither Standard No. 108 nor Part 564 applies to motorcycle headlamp bulbs, and it is not necessary for H4 bulbs to be certified in order to enter the United States. H4 bulbs may not be used in headlamps for motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, the HB2 bulb, based on the H4, is legal for use in headlamps for all types of motor vehicles. If the H1 and H3 bulbs are to be used for auxiliary lamps such as fog lamps, there is no Federal regulation that requires their certification either. However, if the H1 and H3 bulbs are intended for use in headlamps (the markings on their boxes may indicate this), they are subject to both Standard No. 108 and Part 564. What we require is that the bulb be marked with (1) the name and/or trademark registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of its manufacturer or of its importer (Bietrix), (2) the ANSI number, ECE identifier, and manufacturer's part number, individually or in any combination, and (3) a DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is the certification by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the H1 or H3 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications for these bulbs that are on file in Part 564. We believe that Phoenix should be aware of these specifications. For your information, '(1)' is required by paragraphs S7.7(h) and S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108, '(2)' by paragraph S7.7(h) and section VIII of Appendix A of Part 564, and '(3)' by paragraphs S7.7(g) and (h) of Standard No. 108. I am FAXing a copy of paragraph S7.7 and Part 564 for your information. The HB1 light source is required to be marked with the same information as the H1 and H3 as indicated above, but the authority for this is paragraph S7.7(f), this also requires the base to be marked 'HB1'. However, the DOT symbol in this instance would represent the certification by Phoenix or by Bietrix that the HB1 bulb has been designed to conform to the specifications of paragraph S7.7(a) and Figure 3 of Standard No. 108. Again, we believe that Phoenix should be familiar with the specifications for the HB1 light source. If the HB1 light sources (or H1s and H3s for headlamp use) you wish to import bear all these markings, you may import them under Box 2A of the HS-7 Declaration Form as equipment certified as meeting the standards. If they do not bear these markings, they may not be imported until marked and certified by Phoenix or by Bietrix according to the regulations discussed above. If you have further questions, please call Mr. Vinson at (202)366-5263. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4912OpenMr. Ronald Van Campenhout US Liaison Officer ABC Coach/Van Hool 17469 West Highway 50 Winter Garden, FL 34787; Mr. Ronald Van Campenhout US Liaison Officer ABC Coach/Van Hool 17469 West Highway 50 Winter Garden FL 34787; Dear Mr. Van Campenhout: This responds to your letter of August 29 1991, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a situation you recently encountered in Florida. You state that 'one of our client's coaches was stopped by a DOT-inspector . . . and a compliance-audit with FMVSS-standards was performed.' According to the DOT inspector, 'the third, centrally mounted, rear stoplight needs to be illuminated, not only when the brake pedal gets activated, but also whenever the coach is parked with the engine running at high idle speed . . . .' It is your interpretation that the center light 'should only come on when pressure is applied to the brake pedal.' Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that applies to the center highmounted stop lamp. Standard No. 108 does not require that the center highmounted stop lamp be activated when a vehicle is parked with the engine running at idle. In fact, S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 specifies that the center lamp shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes. Thus, your interpretation is the correct one. There are other anomalies reported in your letter that I would like to address. First, Standard No. 108 does not require buses manufactured before September 1, l993, to be equipped with a center highmounted stop lamp (and, after that date, only buses with a GVWR less than l0,000 pounds and less than 80 inches in overall width must be so equipped). Apparently, the inspector was not informed that the requirement for certain buses to be equipped with center highmounted stop lamps does not take effect for nearly two more years. Second, this agency has no inspectors performing compliance audits of vehicles in service. We surmise that your coach may have been inspected by either the Florida State DOT, or the U.S. DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for compliance with the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The FHWA, which concurs in this letter, does not require in its Motor Carrier Safety Regulations or elsewhere that stop lamps on a bus be illuminated when the service brakes are not being applied, even if the vehicle is idling. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2296OpenMr. James E. Harris, President, Willamette Wheel Inc., 1235 S.E. Grand, Portland, OR 97214; Mr. James E. Harris President Willamette Wheel Inc. 1235 S.E. Grand Portland OR 97214; Dear Mr. Harris: I am writing in response to your April 21, 1976, telephone conversatio with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the modification work that you perform on previously certified Datsun pickup trucks, which consists of converting them from two-wheel- to four-wheel-drive vehicles.; As indicated in the October 30, 1975, letter from Richard B. Dyson t you, you are a vehicle alterer who is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. That section requires that you affix a label to the vehicle stating that, *as altered*, the vehicle conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The Federal government does not certify or otherwise issue advanc approval of motor vehicles. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the statement on the label constitutes your certification of conformity. If you fail to provide this certification, or if in the exercise of due care you have reason to know that it is false or misleading, you are subject to civil penalties under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.; All altered vehicles must comply fully with all applicable safet standards. Therefore, as Mr. Schwimmer further explained, you would not be relieved of the requirements of S567.7 simply by virtue of the fact that, as altered, the vehicle complied fully with the standards. You would be relieved of the requirements only if both of the following conditions were met:; >>>(i) the alteration is performed solely by the addition substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as tire and rim assemblies, or by minor finishing operations such as painting, and; (ii) the stated weight ratings of the vehicle are still valid.<<< Because the conversion of the vehicles in question does not meet th first condition, you are subject to the requirements of S 567.7. Please note further that, if your modifications affect the validity of the weight ratings assigned to the vehicles by Datsun, your label must show valid, modified ratings.; An information sheet entitled 'Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standards and Regulations' is enclosed for your convenience.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5553OpenMr. Stuart Sacks Tradepro, Inc. 7350 N.W. 35th Street Miami, FL 33122; Mr. Stuart Sacks Tradepro Inc. 7350 N.W. 35th Street Miami FL 33122; "Dear Mr. Sacks: This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, ou former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You stated that the tires do not display the 'molded D.O.T. code numbers,' and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), 'clearly does not require DOT code numbers for non-passenger tires.' Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct. I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by 'DOT code numbers' you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5. 49 U.S. Code 30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are items of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be 'raised above or sunk below the tire surface' a specified distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)). Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. The TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1843OpenHonorable Herman E. Talmadge, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Herman E. Talmadge United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Talmadge: This is in response to your letter requesting information concernin correspondence from Mr. James A. Graham, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal bumper standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a *Federal Register* notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5-mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5-mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a *Federal Register* notice that was published March 12, 1975, which is enclosed (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; In his letter Mr. Graham objects to the standard's regulation o surface damage, such as dents, stating that this is not the type of damage which should be addressed by an agency developing safety standards. The surface damage criteria are proposed as part of a standard being promulgated under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513). The Cost Savings Act directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a bumper standard that will obtain the maximum feasible reduction of costs to the public and the consumer. As such, the standard is not to be limited to affecting safety- related damage. Factors such as insurance costs and consumer time and inconvenience are to be considered in the rulemaking as well.; Mr. Graham's comments will be placed in the public docket where the will receive every consideration.; We appreciate your interest and that of Mr. Graham in this area o motor vehicle safety and performance.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0751OpenMr. Barry Kulik, 114 West 30th Street, New York, NY 10001; Mr. Barry Kulik 114 West 30th Street New York NY 10001; Dear Mr. Kulik: This is in reply to your letter of May 14, 1972, to Mr. Armstron asking whether combination turn signal and hazard warning signal flashers conforming to Federal requirements effective January 1, 1973, may be installed in vehicles manufactured before that date.; The answer is yes. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 was amended o December 28, 1971 to allow use of flashers manufactured to conform with Standard No. 108a. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0546OpenMr. H. H. Damman, Marketing Administration Manager, Manitowoc Engineering Company, 500 South 16th Street, P. O. Box 70, Manitowoc, WI 54220; Mr. H. H. Damman Marketing Administration Manager Manitowoc Engineering Company 500 South 16th Street P. O. Box 70 Manitowoc WI 54220; Dear Mr. Damman: I apologize for the delay in answering your letter regarding Part 566 Manufacturer Identification and Part 567, Certification. You describe the machines you manufacture and ask whether you are a final-stage manufacturer within the meaning of the regulation and therefore required to submit information regarding your products.; Part 566 and 567 apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and moto vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. 'Motor vehicle' is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. ; Since the truck cranes you describe appear from the information yo provide us to have a primary purpose of transporting the cranes on public highways, you are considered a manufacturer of motor vehicles and thus you are covered by Parts 566 and 567. Because you 'mount the crane upperworks and outrigger assemblies to the carrier' you are a final-stage manufacturer as defined in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, and are required to submit information to us under these regulations. As a manufacturer of motor vehicles you are also required to submit information under Part 573, Defect Reports.; I enclose copies of Parts 566, 567, 568, and 573 for your reference. have also attached a description of Government Printing Office documents services which cover NHTSA rulemaking developments.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2081OpenHonorable Barber B. Conable, Jr., House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Barber B. Conable Jr. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Conable: This is in response to your letter of September 5, 1975, requestin information concerning an inquiry from one of your constituents, Mr. F. J. Guppenberger, relating to the permissibility of raising cars' rear bumpers.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, impose performance requirements on automobile bumper systems. One of these requirements specifies impacts at certain heights, and has the effect of requiring bumpers to be manufactured at fairly uniform heights.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563), a recently amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (S 108(a) (2) (A)). Therefore, if the bumper were raised by one of the above classes of persons causing it no longer to comply with the Standard No. 215 requirements, a violation of the Act would have occurred. That law does not, however, prohibit an individual from altering the bumper on his own car.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency tha administers the Traffic Safety Act, is not authorized by that Act to prohibit vehicles with raised bumpers from operating on the highways. Except for certain limited areas such as motor carriers in interstate commerce, the regulation of vehicles operating on the highways is within the authority of the States.; Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr. |
|
ID: aiam4856OpenMr. B. Wendling-Malusev Manager, Government Relations Yugo America, Inc. 120 Pleasant Avenue P.O. Box 730 Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458-0730; Mr. B. Wendling-Malusev Manager Government Relations Yugo America Inc. 120 Pleasant Avenue P.O. Box 730 Upper Saddle River NJ 07458-0730; "Dear Mr. Wendling-Malusev: This responds to your letter of March 5 1991, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems. Specifically, you requested an interpretation of the phrase 'without manual assist' as used in section S4.3 of that standard. You stated in your letter that Transport Canada interpreted the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 in a way that is not used by U.S. testing facilities. Let me preface my discussion by stating that although the two standards may have identical wording, they remain different standards. Our interpretation relates only to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103 and has no bearing whatsoever on Transport Canada's interpretation of their own standard. Section S4.3 of the standard, Demonstration procedure, incorporates the testing procedure of paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recommended Practice J902 or J902(a) (J902). Paragraph 4.2.6 of J902 requires that the windshield wiper not operate during the test. Section S4.3(d) of Standard No. 103 is one of the listed exceptions to the J902 test procedure. S4.3(d) allows the use of windshield wipers during the test 'if they are operated without manual assist.' Section S4.3(d) does not define 'manual assist.' When terms used by a regulation are not defined by the regulation, the terms are defined by their common, everyday use. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines 'manual' as 'involving or using human power, energy, etc.' That same dictionary defines 'assist' as 'to give support, aid, or help to.' Given this definition, human power used to assist the functioning of the wipers, beyond turning the wipers on or off, is precluded by the standard. As your letter correctly states, prohibited 'manual assist' would include such things as manually freeing the wipers of ice. This interpretation is supported by a consideration of windshield wiper system designs in use in 1968, the year in which the standard was promulgated. At that time, some vacuum and air-assisted windshield wiper systems were still in use. Having less power than electric windshield wiper systems, vacuum and air-assisted wipers were more susceptible to drag caused by ice on the windshield. Ice-induced drag severely limited the frost-clearing effectiveness of these wipers. The 'manual assist' provision was intended to prohibit the use of human energy to overcome this disadvantage. The 'manual assist' provision was not intended to prohibit those wipers being turned on or off by use of human power, as the wipers were designed to be used. Even today, except for the very few windshield wiper systems that operate automatically when they sense water or frost on the windshield, the vast majority of windshield wiper systems require manual switching to initiate operation. I hope that this information has been helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0116OpenMarti, O'Cara, Dalton and Bruckner, 303 Lincoln Building, Lincoln, NE 68508; Marti O'Cara Dalton and Bruckner 303 Lincoln Building Lincoln NE 68508; Attention: Mr. Warren K. Dalton Gentlemen: Your letter of September 16, 1968, addressed to Mr. George C. Nield o the National Highway Safety Bureau has been forwarded to my office for reply.; From the brief description presented in your letter, it would appea that the proposed Cushman motor vehicle would be considered a 'passenger car' under the definitions included in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. At the present time, the standards do not apply to vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight. However, we are presently contemplating amendment of the Standards to include such vehicles in the near future as presented in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making published October 14, 1967. The rated horsepower of the engine is not relevant in determining applicability of the standards.; Enclosed is a copy of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making fo your perusal.; Sincerely, Eugene B. Laskin, Acting Director, Office of Standard Preparation, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
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.