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: aiam0596OpenMr. E. G. Allison, Purchasing Agent, Lempco Industries, Inc., Metals Division, S. Main Street, New Lexington, OH 43764; Mr. E. G. Allison Purchasing Agent Lempco Industries Inc. Metals Division S. Main Street New Lexington OH 43764; Dear Mr. Allison: This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1972, on the subject o an automobile dealer's obligations regarding seatbelts in new cars.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires seatbelts to b installed at all seating positions. Under the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which we administer, it is a violation of the law to sell a vehicle that does not conform to an applicable standard. A dealer may not, therefore, sell an automobile that does not have the required number of seatbelts.; Although the act does not prevent the purchaser of a vehicle fro removing the belts, after he has completed the purchase, we strongly advise him to leave the belts in and to wear them. A dealer who removes the belts after he has sold the vehicle does not violate the law, but he does his customer a disservice.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3569OpenMr. J. Mack Shively, Grebe, Gross, Jensen & Peek, P.C., 1530 S.W. Taylor Street, Portland, OR 97205; Mr. J. Mack Shively Grebe Gross Jensen & Peek P.C. 1530 S.W. Taylor Street Portland OR 97205; Dear Mr. Shively: This is in response to your letter of May 11, requesting our views a to the applicability of vehicle identification number requirements and certification label requirements to a semi-trailer to be manufactured by Cranston Diversified Industries. This trailer would have three interchangeable sections.; You are correct in your interpretation of the manner in which ou requirements would be applied to the trailers in question. Only one vehicle identification number and one certification label are required. Affixing the label to the left side of the front section would be consistent with our regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1554OpenMr. Rick Shue,Product Safety Engineer,Volvo of America Corporation,Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647; Mr. Rick Shue Product Safety Engineer Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh New Jersey 07647; Dear Mr. Shue:#This is in respond to your June 19, 1974,questio whether required hose labeling under Standard No. 106, *Brake hoses*, permits placing some required labeling on each of several hose sections which are joined together in one vacuum brake line to form the required label. You ask how a 2 3/8-inch section could otherwise be labeled.#It is not permitted under S9.1 to label a vacuum brake hose with only part of the required information, whether or not it appears with all other required labeling in the same brake line.#You state that 5 inches is required to place all labeling on vacuum hose. We do not understand why the legend could not be shortened to 2 3/8-inches or less. There is no width requirement for lettering and Notice 11 now permits labeling information to appear in any order on the hose to simplify cutting.#Please write again if we have misunderstood the problem you have posed.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3093OpenMr. Frank Pepe, Assistant Vice President, United States Testing Co., Inc., 1415 Park Avenue, Hoboken, NJ 07030; Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President United States Testing Co. Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken NJ 07030; Dear Mr. Pepe: This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirement applicable to automatic seat belts under Safety Standrd (sic) No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. Specifically, you ask for confirmation that all automatic belts must comply with the adjustment specifications of paragraph S7.1 of the standard.; Your understanding is correct. Automatic seat belts must meet th adjustment requirements of paragraph S7.1, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 incorporated by reference, whether or not they are required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 of the standard. Automatic belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other parts of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4756OpenMr. Brian Gill Senior Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 100 West Alondra Boulevard P. O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247-0805; Mr. Brian Gill Senior Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co. Inc. 100 West Alondra Boulevard P. O. Box 50 Gardena California 90247-0805; "Dear Mr. Gill: This responds to your request that this agenc 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 /"; |
|
ID: aiam3139OpenMr. M. S. Keshav, Manager - Research & Development, Bajaj Auto Limited, Bombay Poona Road, Akurdi - Poona - 411 035, India; Mr. M. S. Keshav Manager - Research & Development Bajaj Auto Limited Bombay Poona Road Akurdi - Poona - 411 035 India; Dear Mr. Keshav: This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 1979, to Franci Armstrong asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. SAE Standard J588e August 1970 is the referenced standard for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 4.2 of J588e requires that as mounted on the vehicle 'The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam'. You mentioned that on some motorcycles sold in the United States this requirement is satisfied only with the handlebar in the straight ahead position but not when turned to the full lock position. You asked whether this complies with Standard No. 108.; Table IV specifies that the minimum edge to edge separation between th headlamp and turn signal lamp on motorcycles is 4 inches. Most manufacturers have interpreted this requirement to mean that the separation is permanent, and have supplied turn signals that are mounted stationary with the headlamp, and that turn with it so that the separation distance is maintained. Therefore, the configuration you describe would not comply with Standard No. 108 because Federal requirements for location and mounting of lighting equipment are intended to apply to a vehicle under all its operating conditions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1104OpenMr. Ralph H. Ullenberg, President, Milwaukee truck Center, Inc., 10521 West Layton Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53228; Mr. Ralph H. Ullenberg President Milwaukee truck Center Inc. 10521 West Layton Avenue Milwaukee WI 53228; Dear Mr. Ullenberg: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you as several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds, a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico, (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date, (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating, if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date, (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.; It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issu underlies all your questions, that is, whether a final- stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.; A truck that is equipped at the time of its manufacture with tire inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S. C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.; The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped withou tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case in within this exception.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4306OpenMs. Laurel Osborne, Regional Coordinator, National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses, P. O. Box 225, Galena, Alaska 99741; Ms. Laurel Osborne Regional Coordinator National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses P. O. Box 225 Galena Alaska 99741; Dear Ms. Osborne: This responds to your January 29, 1987 letter to Mr. Barry Felrice NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, asking about our agency's position on safety belt use in small school buses (i.e., school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less). Your letter has been referred to me for reply.; In your letter, you explain that you and the Alaska School Bus Safet Committee are interested in Alaska's implementation of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety.* You request clarification of NHTSA's position on safety belt use in small school buses because members of the committee believe that safety belts are provided on those buses only for the use of special education students. You also request information on safety belt education programs that schools could use to encourage the proper use of safety belts by student passengers in small school buses.; As you might know, NHTSA has two sets of regulations for school buses The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. One of these safety standards is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,* which requires the safety belts for passengers on small school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, includes Highway Safety Programs Standard No. 17 and relates to the use of school vehicles. Because requirements for the use of school buses are set by the states, Standard No. 17 sets forth recommendations to the states for the pupil transportation aspect of their highway safety programs. We encourage states to consider Standard No. 17's recommendations but do not insist on compliance with every aspect of the standard.; As you are aware, NHTSA does not believe that a Federal requirement fo safety belts on large school buses (GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) is necessary because large school buses are very safe due to their mass, seating configuration and 'compartmentalized' seating positions. However, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities. Of course, the belts on small school buses provide safety benefits only if they are properly used. We thus recommend they be used by all pupils whenever the children are transported. This recommendation is consistent with Program Standard No. 17, which states, 'Passengers in Type II school vehicles equipped with lap belts shall be required to wear them whenever the vehicle is in motion.' (IV.C.3.d(5).); With regard to your question about belt education programs, NHTSA an the National PTA have put together a 'Safety Belt A/V Resource Kit' and a 'Children's Training Kit' as part of our 1986 safety belt awareness campaign. The kit contains material geared toward increasing safety belt use by children in passenger cars, and might be helpful in promoting belt usage in small school buses. I am sending you the resource kits by separate cover.; Further, some states have developed their own safety belt eductio programs for school children. The person in your state who might be able to provide you with more information on the programs available in Alaska is:; << |
|
ID: aiam0345OpenMr. Donald W. Taylor, Product Techniques Section Manager, SAAB-Scania of America, Inc., 100 Waterfront Street, New Haven, CT 06506; Mr. Donald W. Taylor Product Techniques Section Manager SAAB-Scania of America Inc. 100 Waterfront Street New Haven CT 06506; Dear Mr. Taylor:#This is in reply to your petition of March 12, 1971 for amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Control Location, Identification, and Illumination*.#You petitioned that the abbreviation for the defroster control identification be changed from 'DEF' to 'DEFR.' In the preamble to the reconsideration and amendment of Standard No. 101, (36 F.R. 8269, May 4, 1971), a copy of which I enclose, this agency noted that additional identifying words or symbols are permissible if they do not conflict with the required or permissible words and symbols set out in Standard No. 101. In our opinion your use of 'DEFR' would create no conflict.#You also petitioned that certain controls located below the drivers H point and available to all passengers be exempted from the control identification illumination requirement. The recent amendment to Standard No. 101 no longer required illumination of all heating and air conditioning controls, but only those that direct air directly upon the windshield. We believe this may be responsive to your petition.#Finally, you asked that we define our position on bilingual control identification. Identification in a language other than English is permissible, in the language of the preamble to the recent amendment, 'as long as the additional words . . . do not conflict with the required words . . .'#We hope this answers your questions.#Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2378OpenMr. Ray W. Murphy, Director, Research and Development, Freightliner Corporation, 4747 N. Channel Avenue, P.O. Box 3849, Portland, OR 97208; Mr. Ray W. Murphy Director Research and Development Freightliner Corporation 4747 N. Channel Avenue P.O. Box 3849 Portland OR 97208; Dear Mr. Murphy: This responds to your July 23, 1976, question whether the 'no lockup requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the 'no lockup' performance is provided by means of an antilock system. Sections S5.3.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.3.2 (trailers) specify that the vehicle shall, under various load, road surface, and speed conditions, be capable of stopping; >>>. . .without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for: (a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system. . . (b)<<< This basic requirement is stated in performance terms, permitting manufacturer to choose any brake system design that will ensure that the wheels do not lock up under the specified conditions.; The exception to the 'no lockup' requirement set forth above permit 'controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system.' Manufacturers demonstrated, during the course of rulemaking, that properly functioning antilock systems might be designed to allow wheel lockup for a fraction of a second, and that antilock design should not be inhibited by a prohibition on all lockup. The agency made the 'controlled lockup' exception a part of the standard (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971) and has subsequently interpreted the term to permit manufacturers latitude in the design of their systems.; In compliance with the basic requirement, most manufacturers hav equipped each axle of a vehicle with a valve to regulate the air pressure that applies the brakes, sensors at each wheel to send a signal when a wheel is locking up, and a logic module that receives the signals and instructs the valve when to release air pressure to prevent lockup ('axle-by-axle control'). Recently, some manufacturers have simplified their systems by utilizing only one valve and logic module to modulate the air supply to both axles of the typical tandem axle system found on many trucks and trailers ('tandem control'). Two approaches to wheel sensor placement have been used for tandem control systems. If it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only, knowing that reduced air pressure in response to a signal from the 'sensed' axle will also release the brakes on the 'unsensed' axle. In other cases, where it is not possible to predict which axle will lock first, tandem control systems may have sensors on all four wheels of the tandem.; In November 12, 1974, and March 7, 1975, letters of interpretation t Dana Corporation, the NHTSA confirmed that a manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. Thus, tandem control is not prohibited by the standard, regardless of the number of wheel speed sensors provided. When Dana asked if lockup on the unsensed axle of a single-axle sensor system would qualify for the 'controlled lockup' exception of the requirement, the agency said that it would not, reasoning that the logic module would not exert effective control over the lockup of the unsensed axle without benefit of input signals from wheels on that axle. Therefore, according to the Dana interpretation, the unsensed axle in a single-axle sensor system could not be allowed to lock at all, even momentarily, during the service brake stopping test. No data of actual performance was submitted with the Dana letter.; Your letter argues that the NHTSA's interpretation of 'controlle lockup' (to Dana Corporation) creates an anomalous and unjustified restriction on the use of 'tandem control.' Your submission, and data received by the agency from other interested persons, demonstrate that the Dana interpretation does not adequately reflect the degree of control which a single-axle sensor system actually can exert over the unsensed axle of a tandem system. Based on analysis of the submitted data, it appears that the amount of lockup permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the available antilock systems. While there is a measurable difference in stopping performance between 'axle-by-axle' control and 'tandem control,' the standard already permits either of these means to satisfy the requirements. When the narrower question of the performance difference between sensors on one or both axles is analyzed, it is apparent that virtually no difference exists in the stopping distance of vehicles equipped these two ways. The effective lateral stability available during a stop also appears comparable regardless of placement of sensors on one or both axles. A technical report summarizing these findings will be placed in the public docket as soon as possible.; For this reason, and based on review of test data unavailable at th time of the Dana interpretation, the agency concludes that its interpretation of 'controlled lockup' in response to the question posed by Dana should be, and is hereby, withdrawn. It is the agency's interpretation that the 'controlled lockup' exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting 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.