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: 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; |
|
ID: aiam5314OpenHarry C. Gough, P.E. Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles 60 State Street Wethersfield, CT 06161; Harry C. Gough P.E. Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles 60 State Street Wethersfield CT 06161; "Dear Mr. Gough: This is in reply to your letter of December 2, 1993 with respect to the term 'alternately flashing' as it applies under Safety Standard No. 108 to school bus lamps. You ask for our opinion because a manufacturer of strobe lighting has supplied documentation indicating that the system complies with Standard No. 108. According to your letter, in this system, the lamp on one side of the school bus (front and rear) 'flashes on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the bus repeats the aforementioned pattern.' You inquire as to whether 'alternately flashing' refers to this pattern, 'or do the four distinct on/off cycles on each side of the school bus defeat the intent of the term alternating.' As you know, paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J887, School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, which requires that school bus warning lamp systems 'flash alternately.' We believe that the light emanating from a strobe lamp that flashes four times in 0.255 second will be perceived as a single flash of varying intensity and not as four separate flashes, and that when this is followed by an identical pattern on the other side of the bus, the system is one that is alternately flashing within the meaning of Standard No. 108. Further, under this interpretation, the flash rate meets SAE J887's specification of 60-120 flashes a minute. Unlike other SAE materials incorporated by reference relating to signal lamps (e.g., J1133 School Bus Stop Arms in Standard No. 131 School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices and J590b Automotive Turn Signal Flashers in Standard No. 108), J887 contains no 'percent current 'on' time' requirements. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1357OpenMr. James M. Robertson, University Club Tower, Suite 2410, Tulsa, OK 74119; Mr. James M. Robertson University Club Tower Suite 2410 Tulsa OK 74119; Dear Mr. Robertson: This responds to your December 10, 1973, question whether a deale violates the odometer Disclosure Requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 49 CFR Part 580 if he simply duplicates the disclosure made to him when he bought the car.; If the dealer acts in good faith in making his disclosure, he i entitled to rely on the disclosure made to him as the basis of his statement. On the other hand, collusion between the dealer and the former owner to knowingly make a false disclosure would violate the Act. Either might be subject to suit and damages if intent to defraud can be shown.; We realize that such a burden of proof is difficult to meet and w suggest that, with regard to the dealer, an alternative remedy might be a report of possible misrepresentation to the state agency that licenses dealers.; 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.