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: aiam4464OpenMr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 JAPAN; Mr. M. Arisaka Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 JAPAN; Dear Mr. Arisaka: This is in reply to your letter of September 23 1987, with respect to daytime running lamps (DRLs). With reference to the Canadian proposal on this subject, you have noted that it would allow optically combining the DRL with the parking lamp, using dual intensity bulbs within the same housing and covered by the same lens. (As you may be aware, the Canadian government recently issued a final rule which adopted the proposal). You have further noted that the maximum candela output of the parking lamp together with the candela of the DRL will be greater than the maximum permitted for the parking lamp. You believe that under this circumstance the parking lamp does not have to conform to the maximum values specified, and have asked for our opinion of this matter. Under the proposal by the United States, a DRL would have to be a lamp other than a parking lamp (proposed new paragraph S4.6.3(a)), because their brightness is inadequate for use as DRLs. However, the DRL could be incorporated into a multiple function lamp, one of whose functions is to serve as a parking lamp. A lamp with multiple functions must meet all requirements that apply when a specific function is being fulfilled. For example, a lamp that functions both as a parking lamp and a DRL and which is operated in daylight could act as either a DRL or a parking lamp, depending on the intensity of the light emitted, but it would have to meet the photometric requirements for the function being exercised. We cannot really be more specific in answering your questions, because we are still at the proposal stage of the rulemaking process. The final decision could differ. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4356OpenMr. Jack De Nijs, DeRonde Casings, Ltd., 202 Walden Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14211; Mr. Jack De Nijs DeRonde Casings Ltd. 202 Walden Avenue Buffalo NY 14211; Dear Mr. De Nijs: This responds to your letter to this office, in which you asked whethe you could import into the United States foreign truck tire casings that do not have either a DOT symbol or a tire identification number on the sidewall. You stated in your letter that you would either retread these tires yourself or sell them to other retreaders to be retreaded. Subject to certain conditions, you may import these casings.; The general provision dealing with the importation of items of moto vehicle equipment such as tires are set forth in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A)). That section makes it unlawful for any person to import into the United States any item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date that an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect, unless the equipment (tire) is in conformity with the standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.119) took effect on March 1, 1975. Standard No. 119 requires that truck tires and other tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars pass certain performance tests and be labeled with certain safety information, including the tire identification number. The tire manufacturer is required to certify that each of its truck tires complies with Standard No. 119 by permanently molding the symbol DOT into or onto the sidewall that were manufactured on or after March 1, 1975 would not be in compliance with Standard NO. 119 and could not legally be imported into the United States.; However, the agency reached a somewhat different conclusion wit respect to the permissibility of importing truck tire casings in a June 18, 1981 letter from former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Mr. Roy Littlefield (copy enclosed). In that letter, the agency concluded that truck tire casings that have less than 2/32 inch of tread and which are imported *solely* to be retreaded are *not* 'items of motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act. This conclusion means that truck tire casings that meet these conditions may be imported into the United States. Please note that you cannot legally import any non-complying casings that will not be retreaded before they are used on the public roads.; If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free t contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4284OpenMr. Hisashi Tsujishita, Chief Co-ordinator, Technical Administration Department, Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., 1.Daihatsu- cho, Ikeda City, Osaka Prefecture, JAPAN; Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co. Ltd. 1.Daihatsu- cho Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN; Dear Mr. Tsujishita: Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of th requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 219, *Windshield Zone Intrusion*. I regret the delay in this response. We will be responding to each of your questions concerning the other two standards in separate letters.; Your questions about Standard No. 219 concerns the requirements of S of the standard. That section provides as follows:; >>>When the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up t and including 30 mph impacts a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, under the conditions of S7, no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, *except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield*, shall penetrate the protected zone template, affixed according to S6, to a depth of more than one-quarter inch, and no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of the portion of the windshield, within the DLO, below the protected zone defined in S6. (Emphasis added.)<<<; Your specific question concerns a situation in which a windshield wipe penetrates the protected zone template during a crash test because, for example, the wiper was pushed rearward by the deformation of the cowl or the wiper switch was contacted by the test dummy during the crash, thus turning on the wiper. You noted the wiper blades are normally in contact with the windshield, but that the wiper arms only contact the windshield through the wiper blades. You asked whether the agency would consider the penetration of the wiper blade and arm into the protected zone template to be a violation of the standard. As discussed below, the answer is no, the penetration of the wiper blade and arm would not be a violation of the standard.; As you observed in your letter, the wiper blade is designed to b normally in contact with the windshield and is thus exempt from the requirements of the standard. While the arm will not be in direct contact with the windshield, the blade attached to the arm does contact the windshield. Also, the wiper arm is a small, light structure which, while not in direct contact with the windshield, is mounted only a fraction of an inch above the surface of the windshield and should pose little or no penetration hazard. Thus, the agency will consider the wiper arm, which is an integral part of the exempted wiper blade, to be exempted as well.; I you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5390OpenMr. Paul L. Anderson President Van-Con Inc. P.O. Box 237 Middlesex, NJ 08846-0237; Mr. Paul L. Anderson President Van-Con Inc. P.O. Box 237 Middlesex NJ 08846-0237; Dear Mr. Anderson: This responds to your letter of May 19, 1994 requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Section S5.5.3(c) reads: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color ... Your letter states that you are unable to continuously outline the perimeter of the rear emergency doors on your school buses due to the proximity of door hinges, tail light lenses, and a rubber gasket between the bottom edge of the door and the bumper. You ask: Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continuous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and down the left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom? As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors? As explained below, your planned placement for the top and sides of the door, and your alternative placement for the bottom of the door would be acceptable. In a July 7, 1993 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA stated: NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets,rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter... When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape. According to this July 1993 letter, interruptions in the retroreflective tape to avoid and/or accommodate hinges (such as the hinge on the side of the rear emergency door) and other functional components are permitted if the interruption does not negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or does not reduce the conspicuity of the bus. NHTSA considers tail light lenses to be 'functional components' which do not have to be covered by the retroreflective tape. (Indeed, placement of the tape on the tail light lense could affect the efficacy of the light.) The interruptions in the tape for these components would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. Thus, the interruptions are permitted for the tape along the sides of your door. With regard to the bottom of your door, based on the pictures provided with your letter, it appears that there is no location available for the placement of retroreflective tape outside of the door's bottom edge. Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2433OpenMr. James M. Kommers, P.O. Box 1, Gallatin Block-40 E. Main, Bozeman, MT 59715; Mr. James M. Kommers P.O. Box 1 Gallatin Block-40 E. Main Bozeman MT 59715; Dear Mr. Kommers: This is in response to your letter of October 12, 1976, requestin information concerning the application of Federal standards to bumper systems produced as after-market replacement equipment.; Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, is a motor vehicle safet standard that applies to the performance of bumper systems on cars manufactured after certain dates. The requirements of the standard are not imposed on the manufacturers of bumpers as items of equipment. It is the manufacturer of the car who must certify the compliance of the bumper system with the provisions of Standard 215. Therefore the bumpers manufactured by Mr. Coddou do not fall within the application of the standard.; Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub L. 89-563), as amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, even though a replacement bumper is not required to meet the requirements of Standard 215 when it is produced or sold, its installation on a car by one of the above-named persons would invoke the application of section 108 of the Act. With the bumper installed, the car must comply either with the particular safety standard in effect at the time of its manufacture or with the standard in effect at the time the bumper is replaced.; Due to the requirements of section 108 it would be advisable for Mr Coddou to manufacture his bumpers so that they are capable of meeting the requirements of the applicable Federal bumper standard.; Mr. Coddou should note that although Standard 215 is currentl applicable to all passenger cars, a new and more stringent bumper standard, 49 CFR Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, will become effective September 1, 1978. Part 581 is promulgated under the authority of both the National Traffic and Vehicle Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) and will supplant Standard 215 when it becomes effective. I have enclosed copies of both Standard 215 and Part 581 for Mr. Coddou's information.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3027OpenMr. Troy Martin, Chief of Specifications, State Board of Control, 111 East 17th Street, Austin, TX 78711; Mr. Troy Martin Chief of Specifications State Board of Control 111 East 17th Street Austin TX 78711; Dear Mr. Martin: This confirms your May 23, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of m staff in which you asked whether it is permissible for vehicles to be modified by the addition of propane gas systems replacing their regular fuel systems.; As Mr. Tilton stated, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration permits the type of modification mentioned above. If the modification is done to a new vehicle, the person making the modification would be required to attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, *Certification*, of our regulations. That label states that the vehicle, *as altered*, continues to comply with all safety standards. The standard that may be affected by such a modification would be Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. If used vehicles are being modified, the person modifying the vehicle would not be required to attach a label. However, that person would be responsible for noncompliance with safety standards if he or she knowingly rendered inoperative any element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3025OpenMr. Troy Martin, Chief of Specifications, State Board of Control, 111 East 17th Street, Austin, TX 78711; Mr. Troy Martin Chief of Specifications State Board of Control 111 East 17th Street Austin TX 78711; Dear Mr. Martin: This confirms your May 23, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of m staff in which you asked whether it is permissible for vehicles to be modified by the addition of propane gas systems replacing their regular fuel systems.; As Mr. Tilton stated, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration permits the type of modification mentioned above. If the modification is done to a new vehicle, the person making the modification would be required to attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, *Certification*, of our regulations. That label states that the vehicle, *as altered*, continues to comply with all safety standards. The standard that may be affected by such a modification would be Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. If used vehicles are being modified, the person modifying the vehicle would not be required to attach a label. However, that person would be responsible for noncompliance with safety standards if he or she knowingly rendered inoperative any element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
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: aiam4868OpenMr. 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: aiam4164OpenMr. Davis C. Thekkanath, Sr. Supervising Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Mr. Davis C. Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Mr. Thekkanath: This is in reply to your letter of May 23, 1986, asking for a waive from compliance with the headlamp mounting height requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to prototype and future production trucks you have developed for military application.; No Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to a vehicl manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.7(c)). This means that the headlamps on production models of your military truck may be mounted higher than 54 inches without creating a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. If the truck is also sold for commercial applications, however, it would be required to conform with the 54-inch limitation.; Although the exception quoted above applies to vehicles manufacture for sale, the agency has no objection to limited use on the public roads of nonconforming prototype vehicles that have been developed expressly for sale to the Armed Forces of the United States.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.