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: aiam5405OpenHerr Hellfried Sandig Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH & Co KG Eckenerstrasse 2 73730 Esslingen Germany; Herr Hellfried Sandig Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH & Co KG Eckenerstrasse 2 73730 Esslingen Germany; Dear Herr Sandig: This responds to your FAX of June 6, 1994, to Mr. Va Iderstine of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You present a drawing of a rear combination lamp incorporating one stop lamp and two taillamps. You have asked whether it is 'necessary that we must have the ratio 5:1/3:1 between the stop and the tail lamp measurements in this arrangement?' If the lamp is intended for use on narrower vehicles, the answer depends upon the distance between the optical axes of the stop and taillamp functions. SAE Standard J586 FEB84 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.3 of J586 is the source of the ratio: ' w hen a tail lamp is combined with the stop lamp, the stop lamp shall not be less than three times the luminous intensity of the tail lamp at any test point, except that at H-V, H- 5L, H-5R, and 5U-V, the stop lamp shall not be less than five times the luminous intensity of the tail lamp.' However, in a multiple compartment lamp such as yours, if 'the distance between optical axes for one of the functions exceeds the dimensions specified in paragraph 5.1.5.2 i.e., 560 mm the ratio shall be computed for only those compartments or lamps where the tail lamp and stop lamp are optically combined.' Although your combination lamp design combines the two functions, your drawing indicates that they are not optically combined, and the ratio will not apply if the optical axes are more than 560 mm apart. The ratio will apply if the distance between the optical axis of the stop lamp and that of either taillamp is 560 mm or less. SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width is the standard incorporated in Standard No. 108 that applies to lamps used on wider vehicles. Its paragraph 5.1.5.2 establishes the same 5:3 ratio (though not including H-5L in the five times ratio), but does not provide an exception based upon spacing of optical axes. Thus, if your lamp is designed for wider vehicles, the ratio applies regardless of the spacing of the optical axes. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0257OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: By letter of October 1, 1970, you asked for the opinion of this offic as to whether the State of California, in specifying approval procedures for seat belts to be sold within the State, must require seat belt manufacturers to produce data showing that they have performed the exact tests specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not instructions for, o descriptions of, manufacturer tests, nor do they specify types and numbers of tests. They are statements of requirements that each vehicle or item of equipment must meet when tested by the Bureau. Manufacturers are required to exercise due care to ensure that their vehicles will meet the standards if tested by the Bureau, and they are at their own discretion in devising an appropriate testing program for that purpose.; If a seat belt manufacturer presents data of tests conducted on webbin taken from rolls, rather than from individual assemblies, and if you are satisfied that such data demonstrates that the webbing would comply with Standard No. 209 when tested according to the procedures of that standard, you may, in our opinion, accept such data for purposes of State approval.; I trust that your question has been adequately answered. If you nee further clarification we will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3882OpenMr. Barry Merten, Senior Product Development Engineer, Fisher-Price Diversified Products, 630 Girard Avenue, Last Aurora, NY 14052-1885; Mr. Barry Merten Senior Product Development Engineer Fisher-Price Diversified Products 630 Girard Avenue Last Aurora NY 14052-1885; Dear Mr. Merten: This responds to your letter to Mr. Oesch of my staff and to Mr Radovich of our Rulemaking division, seeking interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 213, *Child restraint systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that your company plans to produce a new design of child restraint, which incorporates automatic belt retractors for the shoulder belts. These belts are permanently attached to a semi- rigid front restraining shield, which has a buckle built onto the bottom that attaches onto a tongue rigidly fixed within the seating surface. After connecting the buckle on the shield to the tongue, the parent must then push the shield toward the child so that it fits snugly. This automatically takes in the slack in the belts.; You asked two questions about the application of Standard No. 213 t this design of child restraint. The first concerned section S6.1.2.4, which specifies that, prior to testing, the belts on a child restraint shall be adjusted so that there is 1/4 inch of slack. The automatic belt retractors in your design may leave up to 3/4 inch of slack in the belts. You asked if the 1/4 inch slack requirement effectively prohibits the use of belts with an automatic retractor. It does not.; At the time Standard No. 213 took effect, all belts on child restrain systems then on the market were manually adjustable. Hence, they could be adjusted to introduce any amount of slack desired. To ensure that all child restraints would be tested under identical conditions, a provision was added to Standard No. 213 specifying the precise amount of slack which should be present. This specification of test conditions was not intended to establish a requirement that all belt systems on child restraints be manually adjustable, so that the specified amount of slack could be introduced. Instead, it was intended to function as an impartial specification for all belt systems, whether or not they were manually adjustable.; Section S6.1.2.4 sets forth the amount of slack to which all bel systems on child restraints should be adjusted before running the sled test. However, systems which are not manually adjustable may be tested with more slack present, since the greater slack would make the test more severe. No belt system, whether or not manually adjustable, can be tested with less than the specified 1/4 inch of slack, since that would make the test less severe for child restraints equipped with such a belt system. Section S6.1.2.4 is not intended to favor any particular type of belt system. Accordingly, you may test your child restraint with more than 1/4 inch of slack present in the belts.; The second question you asked was whether the language specified i section S5.5.2.(h) could be slightly modified for use on the labels to be affixed to your child restraints. That section requires that the following language appear on the label: 'Snugly adjust the belts provided with this child restraint against your child.' Since the belts on your child restraint will not be manually adjustable, you would like to modify the language to read: 'Snugly adjust the shield provided with this restraint against your child and test that the belts are locked.'; Your proposed modification would ensure that the directions, whic again were written with manually adjustable belts in mind, contained the appropriate modifications for belts with automatic retractors. Your proposed modification does not make any substantive change in the meaning of the directions specified for the label. Since the proposed change is a minor variation intended to clarify the language of the instructions for child restraints where the belts themselves are not manually adjustable, it is permitted.; Should you have any further questions or need further information o this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5055OpenMr. William G. Rosoff Chief, Entry Rulings Branch Department of the Treasury U.S. Customs Service Washington, D.C. 20229; Mr. William G. Rosoff Chief Entry Rulings Branch Department of the Treasury U.S. Customs Service Washington D.C. 20229; "Dear Mr. Rosoff: This responds to your letter of September 18, 1992 forwarding a letter and documentation from Dr. Irina Elovaara. Dr. Elovaara imported a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States around October 9, 1991, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(d), and is requesting permission to keep it here longer than the one year that the regulation permits. You inform us that Customs does not have the authority to grant an extension or exception. Paragraph 591.5(d) permits nonresidents of the United States to temporarily import a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States for a period not to exceed one year, provided that the importer will export it not later than the end of one year after entry. Dr. Elovaara, who holds a visiting fellow appointment at the National Institutes of Health, apparently must export her vehicle not later than October 9, 1992. However, her one-year appointment has been extended for three months, through December 31, 1992, and she wishes to keep her car here until that time. In the meantime, according to Dr. Elovaara, her car has been insured, inspected, and titled in Maryland, as well as passing an emission test. Paragraph 591.5(d) reflects this agency's attempt to accommodate the terms of the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles, to which the United States has subscribed. Under the Convention, a contracting state shall allow nonresidents to import a motor vehicle for their private use on the occasion of a temporary visit without payment of import duties and import taxes and free of import prohibitions and restrictions, and the importation shall be covered by temporary importation papers. However, the period of validity of the temporary importation papers shall not exceed a year from the date of issue. Thus, under the Convention, a 'temporary' importation would appear to be one that does not exceed a year. This is the genesis of our regulatory requirement that a nonresident, upon importing a nonconforming vehicle for private use, declare that the vehicle will be exported not later than a year after its entry, and the reason why the regulation contains no provisions for extension of a period beyond one year. Given the existence of the Convention, we believe you are correct in your conclusion that Customs has no authority to provide an extension or exception, and we have drawn the same conclusion as to the authority of this agency. The question becomes whether, in the absence of timely export of the vehicle, either agency effect to implement the remedies available to it. This is a matter within the general discretionary authority of each agency. The primary concern of this agency, as you know, is motor vehicle safety. Given the fact that Dr. Elovaara's vehicle has already been subjected to local registration, inspection, emissions and insurance laws, we do not believe that there would be any adverse impact upon safety if her vehicle remains in the United States for three additional months, even if that would constitute a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We hope that this resolves Dr. Elovaara's concerns. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2790OpenMr. Moe Pare, Jr., Director of Design, Cars & Concepts, Inc., 12500 E. Grand River, Brighton, MI 48116; Mr. Moe Pare Jr. Director of Design Cars & Concepts Inc. 12500 E. Grand River Brighton MI 48116; Dear Mr. Pare: This responds to your letter of February 16, 1978, asking whether th certification markings required on glazing materials by Safety Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation.; The answer to your question is no. There is nothing in th certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked his glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as these markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer there is no prohibition against covering the markings.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0083OpenMr. Ernest Farmer, Director, Pupil Transportation, Department of Education, 111-C Cordell Hull Building, Nashville, TN 37219; Mr. Ernest Farmer Director Pupil Transportation Department of Education 111-C Cordell Hull Building Nashville TN 37219; Dear Mr. Farmer: Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield concerning the State Board of Education's requirement for school bus warning signal lamps.; The warning signal system as described in your letter does not meet th requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, effective January 1, 1969. A copy of this Standard is enclosed for your reference. A minimum of four red signal lamps is required and they shall be designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July, 1964, a copy of which is also enclosed. Four additional amber lamps are permitted. The red and amber system and the red only system shall be installed in accordance with paragraph S3.1.3.2 and S3.1.3.3, respectively, of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4869OpenMr. David A. White Manager, Reliability Grumman Olson P.O. Box 2005 Sturgis, MI 49091; Mr. David A. White Manager Reliability Grumman Olson P.O. Box 2005 Sturgis MI 49091; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your 'notification of noncompliance with 49 CFR Part 567 dated March 12, l99l, and addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Grumman has omitted to provide a VIN on the vehicle certification label, as required by section 567.4(g)(6). You have petitioned 'to have the noncompliance deemed inconsequential', and are 'seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires notification and remedy for noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for defects that relate to motor vehicle safety. The requirement that Grumman fails to meet is not contained in Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, but in a regulation that is not part of the Safety Standards (Part 571). Thus, a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not occurred. Furthermore, failure to provide information on the certification label in accordance with Part 567 is not a 'defect'. The Act defines a defect as a 'defect in performance, construction, components or materials.' Clearly this does not exist. In sum, there is no legal obligation upon Grumman Olson to notify and remedy under these circumstances, and the company is free to take whatever action it deems desirable in this case. Failure to comply with Part 567 is a violation of the Safety Act for which a civil penalty may be imposed, but the agency does not intend to seek a penalty in this matter. Nonetheless, we encourage Grumman Olson to take steps necessary to ensure that further violations do not occur. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2544OpenMr. Jeffrey L. Link, Supervisor, Product Safety, Safety and Legislation Department, U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation, 13767 Freeway Drive, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Mr. Jeffrey L. Link Supervisor Product Safety Safety and Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 13767 Freeway Drive Santa Fe Springs CA 90670; Dear Mr. Link: This responds to your February 23, 1977, letter asking whether thre proposed labels satisfy the requirements for label identification found in Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120. A review of the labels you supplied indicates that you have used a different format than illustrated in our notice of February 7, 1977 (42 Federal Register 7140). For example, the amended Standard No. 120 does not require the words 'with the tires listed below' or even the word 'with' before the tire size. The deletion of such superfluous words from the label requirements of Standard No. 120 resulted from comments by manufacturers, particularly motorcycle manufacturers, that unnecessary words needlessly increase the size of the label.; The example of label information shown in S5.3 of the standard i intended only as a guide to manufacturers. A manufacturer can vary the illustrated format somewhat as long as the requirements of S5.3 are satisfied. Since the additional words on your labels do not obfuscate the certification statement, the labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 and Part 567.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5281Open"Herr Dr. Thomas L ckemeyer ITT Automotive Europe Bietigheim-Bissingen Dept. VER/LB"; "Herr Dr. Thomas L ckemeyer ITT Automotive Europe Bietigheim-Bissingen Dept. VER/LB"; "FAX 07142/73-2895 Dear Dr. L ckemeyer: This responds to your FAX o December 10, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked the following questions with respect to the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars: 'Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the FMVSS 108.' Paragraph S5.1.3. of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation as original equipment of additional lamps such as rear fog lamps if the additional lamp 'impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard.' The determination of whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit impairs the effectiveness of other lighting equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the lamp is installed. Unless such a determination is clearly erroneous, this agency will not question it. We do not know whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit is permissible in all the States. Because a fog lamp is not required motor vehicle equipment under Federal law, each State in which it is used may regulate it according to its own laws. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, and suggest that you ask the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its FAX number is 001 703 522 1553, and its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203. 'Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?' There are no Federal requirements that apply to rear fog lamps, and, as noted above, we are not conversant with state requirements. For your information, the latest specification of the Society of Automotive Engineers for this item of equipment is SAE Recommended Practice J1319 AUG87 'Fog Tail Lamp (Rear Fog Light) Systems.' 'Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?' No. The certification of the vehicle manufacturer is its representation that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. A State has no authority to question this certification. However, a State is permitted to have a State vehicle lighting standard provided that the State lighting standard is identical to the Federal lighting standard in those areas covered by the Federal lighting standard. Under these circumstances, a State may enforce the State lighting standard even if the vehicle is certified as conforming to the Federal lighting standard. Furthermore, a State may have its own State lighting standard in those areas where there is no Federal lighting standard, such as fog lamps. 'Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S.' AAMVA may be able to provide you with this information as we are unable to. Because State requirements must be identical with respect to the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, State specifications and prohibitions will differ only with respect to supplementary lighting equipment not covered by Standard No. 108 such as cornering lamps and front and rear fog lamps. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0579OpenMr. George Diederich, West Coxsackie, NY 12192; Mr. George Diederich West Coxsackie NY 12192; Dear Mr. Diederich: This is in reply to your letter to Secretary Volpe concerning the Tir Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR 574).; It is unfortunate that you feel the way you do concerning th regulation. However, it does not appear to be an unreasonable burden on the seller of the mobile home to record the name of the purchaser of the mobile home and forward it to the manufacturer.; With regard to the need for the regulation the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) was amended by adding section 113(f) (15 U.S.C. 1402) which requires manufacturers of tires to maintain the names of first purchasers. The amendment also provides that the Secretary may establish procedures for the maintainance (sic) of these records.; The legislative history of section 113(f) clearly indicates that th Congress recognized that in spite of defective tires reaching the marketplace, tire manufacturers had no way of notifying the purchaser of the defective tire and that he could be jeopardizing his life and property, as well as the life and property of the general public, by continuing to use the defective tire.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.