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: nht90-4.74OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: December 4, 1990 FROM: Stanley S. Zinner -- Greene & Zinner P.C. TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Re FMVSS Standard No. 123 ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 to Stanley S. Zinner from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 123); Also attached to letter dated 2-16-82 to Brian Gill from Frank Berndt (Std. 123); Also attached to letter dated 10-26-73 to Brian Gill from Richard B . Dyson TEXT: At the suggestion of Taylor Vincent, we are respectfully requesting information concerning 49 CFR Section 571.123, S5.2.4 which provides: Stands. A stand shall fold rearward and up-ward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward. We are requesting that your office issue an opinion as to the meaning, purpose and intent underlying the above cited Safety Standard. The reason for this request is that our office presently represents the estate of Jack Stein in a products liability ac tion against U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation and Suzuki Motor Company Ltd. Dr. Stein was killed on June 2, 1988 and we contend that the motorcycle was defective and defectively designed because the sidestand failed to retract from the deployed (down) posi tion when it came into contact with the surface of the roadway as Dr. Stein's motorcycle moved forward at a moderate rate of speed around a left hand curve in the road. In consequence of the failure to retract, the sidestand prevented Dr. Stein from neg otiating the left curve of the roadway and forced him off the road into a fatal crash. In light of the foregoing, we are requesting issuance of an opinion concerning the meaning, purpose and intent behind Safety Standard 123. In this fashion we can submit your response to Federal District Court Judge Kevin T. Duffy within the time frame f ixed by the court in its pre-trial order. The court has indicated a trial will be held shortly. Accordingly, given the press of time it would be greatly appreciated if your response could be issued within two weeks. To expedite matters I am transmitti ng this request via facsimile transmission. If there is anything further that you require, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone. In the meantime, awaiting your reply, I remain respectfully yours. |
|
ID: 1985-03.37OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/22/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Leo Kagan -- AMCO Manufacturing Corp. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605 This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1985, asking if a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The answer is no. Compliance with standard No. 108 is determined independent of whether the luggage rack is loaded. However, if the rack is installed before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, or if it is installed after sale by a person other than the vehicle owner, care must be taken to insure that the photometric and visibility requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps continue to be met with the unloaded rack in place. The lamp is intended to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions. Loading the rack in a manner that obscures the light will reduce the safety benefits that the lamp provides both the driver of the car, and of any vehicle that follows, and is a practice that should be discouraged. If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel July 19, 1985 Taylor Vinson-NHTSA Kevin Cavey suggested I write for a legal clarification relating to #571.108. Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, & associated equipment high mounted stoplamp. Since all passenger cars are to have a "brake" light (or high-mounted stoplamps) as of September 1985, would anyone having a luggage rack on the trunk lid (rear deck) and carry luggage that blocks out the brake light mounted either inside the car on the rear seat ledge or in an exterior location, be in any violation? Thanks for your help if there is any question to what I've asked please call me on 800/423-2353. AMCO MANUFACTURING CORP. Leo Kagan, Director of Marketing, Automotive Division |
|
ID: 86-1.20OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/03/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Patrick R. McCreary -- General Manager, Van Patton Vans TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. Patrick R. McCreary General Manager Van Patton Vans 22865 Pine Creek Road P.O. Box 1305 Elkhart, IN 46515 This responds to your recent letter concerning the manufacturing operations you intend to perform on Ford Econoline vans. In a December 16 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that the vans are incomplete vehicles which you will be receiving from a Ford dealership prior to the vehicles' first sale. A company other than your own will "stretch" the vehicle 48 to 60 inches, but your company will be completing the manufacture of the vehicle by adding seats (for 20 passengers), windows, carpeting, and so forth. You asked what your responsibilities would be under NHTSA's regulations and safety standards. Under our regulations, a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons is a "bus" (Part 571.3). Since the vans, as completed, will meet that definition, the applicable safety standards for the vehicle you will be producing are those applying to buses. If you are performing manufacturing operations on an imcomplete vehicle, as that term is defined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 568.3, so that is becomes a completed vehicle, then Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, set forth the requirements you must meet. Under Part 568.6, Van Patton Vans, as the "final-stage manufacturer," would be required to complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for buses in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture. Also, your company must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with the certification requirements set forth in Part 567,5, Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I have enclosed copies of 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568, for your convenience. I have also enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's regulations and motor vehicle safety standards. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures |
|
ID: 86-1.26OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/07/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. Lewis Quetel TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
February 7, 1986 Mr. Lewis Quetel PMI Inc. 1391 Wright Blvd. Schaumburg, IL 60193 Dear Mr. Quetel: This is in response to your telephone call on October 22, 1985, to Robert Nelson of this agency asking how our regulations would affect a product you intend to sell. The product, which you call a "Kumfi-Klip" safety belt comfort device, consists of a plastic device which attached to the upper torso belt anchorage. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt. As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards. Your particular aftermarket product is not covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your product. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 152-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I have enclosed an information sheet on our defect and other regulations for your review. The agency is concerned that a belted occupant could inadvertently use your product to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt and thereby reduce the effectiveness of the belt. The instructions you provide with the "Kumfi-Klip" do warn users not to introduce excessive slack, but the instructions provide no information to guide a user on what is an excessive amount of slack. We encourage you to provide more detailed guidance. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure |
|
ID: 86-1.47OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/26/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Kevin Rossman TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Kevin Rossman Vice president - Sales & Marketing The Highland Group 9300 Midwest Avenue Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125
Dear Mr. Rossman:
This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1986, to the former chief counsel of this agency, Jeffrey R. Miller, in which you ask whether a deck-mounted luggage rack loaded with luggage is a noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The answer is no. Compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined independent of whether the luggage rack is loaded. However, if the rack is installed before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, or if it is installed after sale by a person other than the vehicle owner, care must be taken to insure that the photometric and visibility requirements of the standard for center high-mounted stop lamps continue to be met with the unloaded rack in place. I hope that this answers your question.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
January 13, 1986
Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel US Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, Washington D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Miller:
The Highland Group is a US Manufacturer of Passenger Car Rear Deck Luggage Racks.
It has been rumored in the field that a deck - mounted luggage rack loaded with luggage may cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number #108. To alleviate potential problem in the field, any input you could provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,
THE HIGHLAND GROUP, INC.
Kevin Rossman Vice President - Sales & Marketing
KR/nc |
|
ID: 2644oOpen C.D. Black, Engineering Manager Dear Ms. Black: This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and October l7, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the l989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulations. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the "zero" position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the "zero" position when the engine is turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that "no aspect of FMVSS l08 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation." The sole restriction that Standard No. l08 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires (S4.l.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our understanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustment positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load. We hope the information is helpful. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:2/11/88 |
1988 |
ID: 2505yOpen Mr. Suichi Watanabe Dear Mr. Watanabe: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1990, asking whether a new combination rear lamp is permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. The lamp consists of three compartments. In its normal operating mode, when the taillamp and/or stop lamp are activated, all three compartments show a red light. Your question arises with respect to three different operating modes. The first occurs when the turn signal is activated; the red light in one of the compartments is replaced by an amber flashing one. The second occurs when the backup lamp is activated; the red light in another of the compartments is replaced by a white steady-burning one. The third occurs when both the backup lamp and turn signal are activated; in this event, the combination lamp would present an amber flashing light, a red steady-burning one, and a white steady-burning one. You have informed us that "the requirement of photometric and lighted area for each lamp function comply to FMVSS No. l08 and related SAE Standards." Further, as for the stop and taillamp functions, they comply with requirements for one and three compartment lamps when operating with one or three compartments (we assume that they would also meet the requirements for two compartment lamps). The lamp appears to be intended to fulfill the requirements of Standard No. l08 for turn signal, stop, tail, and backup lamps. Thus, your question appears to be whether Standard No. l08 requires separate lamps or compartments dedicated to a specific purpose, or whether your multiple purpose lamp is acceptable. Standard No. l08 does not prohibit a combination of the functions that any chamber of your lamp provides. When a specific function is activated, the lamp will perform that particular function in a manner that appears to meet the minimum standard established by Standard No. l08. Assuming that the CIE color definitions for white, amber, and red are met by the backup, turn, and stop/tail functions, the lamp appears to be permissible under Standard No. l08. Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l08 d: 5/3l/90 |
1970 |
ID: 2506yOpen Mr. Suichi Watanabe Dear Mr. Watanabe: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1990, asking whether a new combination rear lamp is permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. The lamp consists of three compartments. In its normal operating mode, when the taillamp and/or stop lamp are activated, all three compartments show a red light. Your question arises with respect to three different operating modes. The first occurs when the turn signal is activated; the red light in one of the compartments is replaced by an amber flashing one. The second occurs when the backup lamp is activated; the red light in another of the compartments is replaced by a white steady-burning one. The third occurs when both the backup lamp and turn signal are activated; in this event, the combination lamp would present an amber flashing light, a red steady-burning one, and a white steady-burning one. You have informed us that "the requirement of photometric and lighted area for each lamp function comply to FMVSS No. l08 and related SAE Standards." Further, as for the stop and taillamp functions, they comply with requirements for one and three compartment lamps when operating with one or three compartments (we assume that they would also meet the requirements for two compartment lamps). The lamp appears to be intended to fulfill the requirements of Standard No. l08 for turn signal, stop, tail, and backup lamps. Thus, your question appears to be whether Standard No. l08 requires separate lamps or compartments dedicated to a specific purpose, or whether your multiple purpose lamp is acceptable. Standard No. l08 does not prohibit a combination of the functions that any chamber of your lamp provides. When a specific function is activated, the lamp will perform that particular function in a manner that appears to meet the minimum standard established by Standard No. l08. Assuming that the CIE color definitions for white, amber, and red are met by the backup, turn, and stop/tail functions, the lamp appears to be permissible under Standard No. l08. Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l08 d: 5/3l/90 |
1970 |
ID: 77-1.16OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/02/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Caravan Trailer Rental Co. Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to Caravan Trailer Rental Company's December 22, 1976, question whether trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, may be imported into the United States for sale without being required to conform to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Standard No. 121 only regulates the manufacture and importation of trailers that are produced on or after January 1, 1975. Standard No. 121's only limitation on the importation and sale of trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, would be that any repair, refurbishment, or other modification of the trailer must not be so significant as to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. To qualify as a repair the NHTSA requires that the running gear assembly of the existing trailer be used in the refurbished trailer and that certain other identification and ownership (or leasing) aspects of the existing trailer be continued in the refurbished trailer. I have enclosed a copy of a notice which explains the NHTSA regulations in this area. You are reminded that a trailer imported into the United States as you described must bear a label that states the month and year of manufacture. SINCERELY, CARAVAN TRAILER RENTAL CO. LTD. December 22, 1976. Fred Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Our Company is looking at the feasibility of exporting, from Canada, used trailers to be sold in the American market. We are concerned with a potential problem vis a vis, the M.V.S.S. 121 Brake Regulation. Our question to you is this: Does the existing M.V.S.S. 121 Brake legislation prohibit us in any way from selling used trailers, manufactured in years 1974 and prior, into the American market? Would the braking system on these trailers have to be altered in any way, as they are obviously presently not equipped with any of the M.V.S.S. 121 specifications? We would appreciate an early reply to this inquiry and thank you in advance for your co-operation. CARAVAN TRAILER SALES - DIVISION OF CARAVAN TRAILER RENTAL CO. LTD. Jack D. Livingston, Executive Vice-President. cc: MARY SWEENEY |
|
ID: 77-3.14OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/28/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Collins Industries, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is applicable to all school buses or only to school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. You are correct in your statement that school buses are included in the broader classification, "buses", for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless otherwise specified in a particular standard. Safety Standard No. 301-75 is applicable to passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, including school buses under 10,000 pounds. The standard is also applicable to larger school buses, and the distinction is made in the standard since the large school buses are the only vehicles having a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds that are covered by the standard. Safety Standard No. 301-75 was made applicable to all school buses pursuant to a mandate under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(i) (1) (A)). SINCERELY, COLLINS INDUSTRIES INC. MAY 6, 1977 FRANK BERNDT ACTING CHIEF COUNCIL FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS PART 571.301-7S-1 STATES THAT SCHOOL BUSES WITH GVWR GREATER THAN 10,000 POUNDS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 6.5 OF 301. HOWEVER, SCHOOL BUSES BELOW 10,000 POUNDS GVWR ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN 301. I UNDERSTAND THAT ALL SCHOOL BUSES MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF BUSES IN GENERAL UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE IN FMVS STANDARDS. BY DEFINITION, A SCHOOL BUS IS A BUS. IS MY INTERPRETATION CORRECT ACCORDING TO NHTSA? A REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF OUR CHASSIS SUPPLIERS CALLED TO MY ATTENTION THAT ONLY THE LARGE SCHOOL BUSES (OVER 10,000 GVWR) WERE MENTIONED IN 301. HE SEEMED TO BE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS COULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN SCHOOL BUSES LESS THAN 10,000 GVWR ARE NOT INCLUDED IN 301. I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REPLY AND WILL APPRECIATE ANY INFORMATION YOU GIVE ME. JAMES M. BEACH DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING |
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.