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: aiam4729OpenMr. Kenneth E. Tompor Auto Brokers & Leasing LTd. 4140 S. Lapeer Road (M24) Pontiac, MI 48057; Mr. Kenneth E. Tompor Auto Brokers & Leasing LTd. 4140 S. Lapeer Road (M24) Pontiac MI 48057; "FAX: 313-373-0565 Dear Mr. Tompor: This is in reply to your FAX o April 26, l990. You would like a statement from this agency, for purposes of litigation that commences on May 1, that a l985 Ferrari 288 GTO cannot be legally imported into the United States. Pursuant to amendments made to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) by P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, a motor vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, cannot, subject to the exception noted below, be imported permanently into the United States on and after January 31, l990, unless the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that it is capable of being readily modified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or that its safety features comply with or are capable of being modified to comply with all such applicable standards. The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the l985 Ferrari 288 GTO. However, no such determination is necessary if the following criteria are met at the time of importation. The importer's assigned place of employment was outside the United States as of October 31, l988, and (s)he has not had an assigned place of employment between that time and the entry of the motor vehicle. The importer has not previously imported a motor vehicle into the United States before October 31, l988, that was not in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The importer had acquired (or had entered into a binding contract to acquire) the motor vehicle before October 31, l988. The vehicle must be entered not later than October 31, l992. Only if an importer meets these criteria may (s)he at the present time legally import a nonconforming l985 Ferrari 288 GTO into the United States (subject, of course, to the obligation to bring it into compliance with the safety standards after its entry). Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2869OpenMr. E. M. Ryan, Chief Design Engineer, Ward Industries, Inc., P. O. Box 849, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. E. M. Ryan Chief Design Engineer Ward Industries Inc. P. O. Box 849 Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your August 22, 1978, letter asking whether you proposed emergency door label complies with the requirements of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; Paragraph S5.5.3 requires that each school bus emergency exit shal have the designation 'Emergency Exit' or 'Emergency Door' as appropriate, in letters at least 2 inches high, of a color that contrasts with its background, located at the top of or directly above the emergency exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus. The label that you propose would be located on the inside of the glass but would be visible from the outside of the vehicle.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha indicated in the past that the location of the emergency exit label can be directly above or on the top half of the emergency exit. Your location near the top of the glass on the rear emergency door appears to fall within this acceptable area. The standard further requires that the label be located on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus. The intent of this requirement is to provide a visible emergency exit designation on both the inside and outside of a bus. Since your label would be visible outside the school bus even though its location would be on the inside of the glass, the NHTSA concludes that it complies with this requirement. In reaching this conclusion, the agency assumes that you will have a similar label that will be visible inside the bus.; In summary, since your described label is the required size, consist of contrasting colors, and is placed in the appropriate location, it appears to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5508OpenMr. Takashi Tohse Quality Assurance Group Fabricated Glass General Division Asahi Glass Company 2-1-2 Marunouchi Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100 Japan; Mr. Takashi Tohse Quality Assurance Group Fabricated Glass General Division Asahi Glass Company 2-1-2 Marunouchi Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100 Japan; "Dear Mr. Tohse: This responds to your inquiry about whether variou ways of marking your automotive glazing comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Specifically, you ask the agency to assess the merits of what you refer to as 'plural company Ids' in your logo mark. By 'plural company Ids,' we assume you mean more than one distinctive designation or trademark. We also assume that you are a 'prime glazing material manufacturer' which the Standard defines as 'one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.' Under Standard No. 205, a replacement windshield is required to be marked with information that includes the prime glazing manufacturer's 'distinctive designation or trademark' and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. See, S6.1 and S6.2. You first ask, 'Can a manufacturer use different kinds of Ids for different grades of products?' The answer to this question is yes. We understand that what you refer to as 'Ids' is the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. As long as an item of glazing has a manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark, a manufacturer would comply with this requirement. The Standard does not prohibit a manufacturer from varying this distinctive designation or trademark among its different grades. (We note that each of your products would be marked with the same manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by NHTSA. This code mark will help NHTSA identify the manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns.) Your second question asks 'Can a manufacturer used the same distinctive designation or trademark for two different companies?' The answer is yes. The requirements do not prohibit two companies from sharing a distinctive designation or trademark. As mentioned above, the glazing must be marked with the manufacturer's code mark that identifies the glazing's actual manufacturer. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4407OpenMr. D. Burkard, Mr. H. T. Ebner, Alfred Teves GMBH, Postfach 900120, 6000 Frankfurt 90, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY; Mr. D. Burkard Mr. H. T. Ebner Alfred Teves GMBH Postfach 900120 6000 Frankfurt 90 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY; Dear Mr. Burkard and Mr. Ebner: This responds to your letter concerning the brake fluid reservoi labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. You enclosed a sample and drawing of a new labeling design and asked whether it complies with the standard, even if there is no warning on the filler cap. Your labeling consists of a white plastic sleeve which is inserted over the mouth of the reservoir, such that the following letters, in red, surrounds the filler cap: WARNING--CLEAN FILLER CAP BEFORE REMOVING. USE ONLY DOT 4 BRAKE FLUID FROM A SEALED CONTAINER. The plastic sleeve can be removed undamaged by lifting it over the mouth of the reservoir. You stated that the material is resistant to DOT brake fluid. Your question is addressed below.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105 reads as follows: >>>S5.4.3 *Reservoir labeling*--Each vehicle shall have a brake flui warning statement that reads as follows, in letters at least on-eighth of an inch high: 'WARNING, Clean filler cap before removing, Use only * * fluid from a sealed container'. (Inserting the recommended type of brake fluid as specified in 49 CFR 571.116, e.g., 'DOT 3'). The lettering shall be--; (a) Permanently affixed, engraved, or embossed, (b) Located so as to be visible by direct view, either on or within inches of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or cap, and; (c) Of a color that contrasts with its background, if it is no engraved or embossed.<<<; It is our opinion that your new design would not comply with th requirement in section S5.4.3 that the lettering be permanently affixed, engraved, or embossed. Since the lettering is obviously not engraved or embossed, I will discuss the only remaining option, that the lettering be 'permanently affixed.' The dictionary defines 'affix' as follows: to attach physically ( as by nails or glue) . . . .' The word 'permanent' is defined as 'continuing or enduring (as in the same state, status, place without fundamental or marked change: not subject to fluctuation or alteration: fixed or intended to be fixed . . . .' (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) In light of these definitions, we do not believe that your brake fluid warning lettering would be 'permanently affixed.' Since your design permits the lettering to easily be removed and replaced, its physical attachment cannot be considered to be continuing or enduring and not subject to fluctuation or alteration. However, it may be possible for your to attach the lettering to the reservoir in a manner that it would be permanently affixed. One such method would appear to be bonding, although there may be other methods as well.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1314OpenMr. Rudolfo H. Schroeter, Suite 2600 Equitable Plaza, 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90010; Mr. Rudolfo H. Schroeter Suite 2600 Equitable Plaza 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles California 90010; Dear Mr. Schroeter: This is in reply to you letter of October 24, 1973, in which you as the following questions:; 1. Is it true that Standard Nos. 109 and 110 are not applicable to 1/2-ton pickup truck with camper because such vehicle is not a 'passenger car' as defined in Standards 109 and 110?; 2. Is it true that in Appendix A of Standard 110 no 'alternative rims are listed for the L70-15 tire simply because no one has requested (in the manner provided in Appendix A to Standard 110) inclusion of such additional or alternative rim widths.; With respect to question 1, a pickup truck is not a passenger car but 'truck' (as defined in 49 CFR S571.3) for purposes of all the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard Nos. 109 and 110. Standard No. 110 (49 CFR S571.110) applies only to passenger cars, not to pickup trucks.; In response to your second question, the answer is not an unequivoca 'yes', and I regret that you may have drawn that conclusion from your conversation with Michael Peskoe of this office. In order for alternative rims to be listed with a tire size designation in the Appendix of Standard No. 110, data showing that the tire and rim combination meets the requirements of both Standard No. 109 and 110 must first be submitted to the agency. Once that data has been provided, the NHTSA will publish the alternative rim size in Standard No. 110, and if no objections are received within a 30-day period, the tire/rim combination becomes part of the standard. Thus, there are not one but two possible reasons way a rim size is not listed in Standard No. 110:; >>>The tire/rim combination fails to meet either Standard No. 109 o 110, or; It does meet both standards, but no one has requested approval of th combination. This could occur simply if the combination was not intended to be used as original equipment on a passenger car.<<<; Sincerely, Lawrence, R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5496OpenMr. Steve Brooks General Manager IAD West Coast, Inc. 5761 McFadden Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92649; Mr. Steve Brooks General Manager IAD West Coast Inc. 5761 McFadden Ave. Huntington Beach CA 92649; Dear Mr. Brooks: This replies to your letter of November 1, 1994, t John Womack, former Acting Chief Counsel. IAD West Coast ('IAD') is converting a Subaru panel van from internal combustion to electric drive. The vehicle is currently a prototype but 'will be modified in the state of California, to OEM build standards.' You have asked for help 'with the definition of crash testing for front and side impact for the vehicle for current and future production, also with the requirement for dual air bags if necessary.' Because we did not understand what you meant by 'definition', Taylor Vinson of this Office spoke with you on January 24, 1995. He learned that IAD is engineering the prototype for production by another company, and that your question related to the extent of crash testing that is required before production. He then explained to you that there is no legal requirement that prototype vehicles be crashed, but that production vehicles must conform with the performance requirements of standards with crash demonstration procedures, and that the manufacturer's certification of compliance may be based upon good faith surrogates to crash testing such as computer simulation, engineering studies, and mathematical calculations. The Department of Transportation, however, tests in the manner specified in a standard, and if there is a test failure, will ask the manufacturer to supply the data upon which it based its certification. Your letter also asks about 'the requirement for dual air bags if necessary in the future.' Manufacturers of light trucks will be required to install dual air bags in not less than 80% of vehicles produced between September 1, 1997, and September 1, 1998, and in 100% of production from September 1, 1998, on. Finally, you have asked whether we have information on approach and departure angles. These are not part of the FMVSS, and are established by the manufacturer in designing a vehicle. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4793OpenMr. Hiroshi Kato Vice President Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. Suite 1960 3000 Town Center Southfield MI 48075; Mr. Hiroshi Kato Vice President Mitsubishi Motors America Inc. Suite 1960 3000 Town Center Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of September 4, l990 asking for an interpretation of paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 with respect to two of Mitsubishi's contemplated rear lighting plans. In the first plan, the rear garnish panel located between the lamps that are mounted at the right and left extremities of the car would be dark but the word 'Mitsubishi' in the center would be illuminated. In the second plan, the panel would be illuminated as a supplemental taillamp, and the word would not. You ask if either plan would create an 'impairment' of the required lighting equipment, within the prohibition of S5.1.3. Judging by the photograph of the Pontiac Fiero that you enclosed, which featured a design similar to your first plan, it does not appear that this plan would create an impairment. We note that the backup lamp is located in the garnish panel, approximately l5 mm from the word 'Mitsubishi', and this raises a question with respect to the second plan. When the taillamps are illuminated, so that there is a broad sweep of red light across the rear of the car, we would be concerned that the backup lamps in the garnish panel might not be readily perceived when activated. We would also be concerned that the illuminated panel might detract from the effectiveness of the stop lamps when they are activated. To ensure that the lighted panel creates no impairment of either the stop lamps or the backup lamps, it might be advisable to design it with an intensity that is lower than that of the adjacent taillamps. The determination of impairment is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer in its certification that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3386OpenMr. Kenneth C. Lenz, Jr., Hendrickson Mfg. Co., Mobile Equipment Division, 8001 West 47th Street, Lyons, IL 60534; Mr. Kenneth C. Lenz Jr. Hendrickson Mfg. Co. Mobile Equipment Division 8001 West 47th Street Lyons IL 60534; Dear Mr. Lenz: This responds to your November 25, 1980, letter asking whether an safety standards have been violated by a truck modification that you perform. In your modification, you alter a chassis to provide right-hand controls. The vehicle is then sent to a final-stage manufacturer for completion.; As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, you are required to attach th appropriate label to the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, *Certification*. That label makes certain statements about the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards as a result of your modifications.; You ask whether any safety standards have been violated by you modifications. It is impossible for the agency to determine compliance without testing one of your vehicles. You list several changes that you make to the vehicle, including the addition of: a foot throttle, foot service brake, hand spring brake, turn signal, transmission selector, and steering wheel. The agency has safety standards that govern many of these devices. These standards are found in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, in Part 571. It is a manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that its vehicles comply with these standards. The only advice that we can offer is that nothing precludes the type of modifications that you propose. The installation of right-hand controls is permissible as long as the compliance with all safety standards is maintained.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3387OpenMr. Kenneth C. Lenz, Jr., Hendrickson Mfg. Co., Mobile Equipment Division, 8001 West 47th Street, Lyons, IL 60534; Mr. Kenneth C. Lenz Jr. Hendrickson Mfg. Co. Mobile Equipment Division 8001 West 47th Street Lyons IL 60534; Dear Mr. Lenz: This responds to your November 25, 1980, letter asking whether an safety standards have been violated by a truck modification that you perform. In your modification, you alter a chassis to provide right-hand controls. The vehicle is then sent to a final-stage manufacturer for completion.; As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, you are required to attach th appropriate label to the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, *Certification*. That label makes certain statements about the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards as a result of your modifications.; You ask whether any safety standards have been violated by you modifications. It is impossible for the agency to determine compliance without testing one of your vehicles. You list several changes that you make to the vehicle, including the addition of: a foot throttle, foot service brake, hand spring brake, turn signal, transmission selector, and steering wheel. The agency has safety standards that govern many of these devices. These standards are found in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, in Part 571. It is a manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that its vehicles comply with these standards. The only advice that we can offer is that nothing precludes the type of modifications that you propose. The installation of right-hand controls is permissible as long as the compliance with all safety standards is maintained.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4520OpenMr. Jay V. Wright Page Avjet Corp. 2230 W. Southcross Blvd. PO Drawer Z San Antonio, TX 78211; Mr. Jay V. Wright Page Avjet Corp. 2230 W. Southcross Blvd. PO Drawer Z San Antonio TX 78211; "Dear Mr. Wright: This is in response to your letter of April 21, 1988 asking whether a vehicle produced by your company is a motor vehicle subject to the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This vehicle, referred to as a hydrant truck, consists of a chassis-cab with an equipment platform mounted on its rear. According to your letter, the platform would be equipped with accessories that allow the vehicle to be used to filter and meter aircraft fuels as fuel is pumped from airport storage tanks into aircraft. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. On the one hand, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use are not motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Examples include airport runway vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, jeep-type utility vehicles are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. We have found vehicles to be motor vehicles if their on-road use is substantial, even though these vehicles' predominant intended use is off-road. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of vehicle owners, NHTSA has found that the vehicle is a 'motor vehicle.' This finding was made in the case of dune buggies, regardless of the manufacturers' stated intent that the vehicles were to be used off-road only. You stated in your letter that this vehicle is not 'perceived as being moved over public roads or from airport to airport in its daily use.' It appears that this vehicle is intended and sold solely for off-road use, even though the vehicle appears operationally capable of highway travel. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that your company's 'Hydrant Truck' does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is regularly being used on the public roads. We note that if your vehicle ever came to be regarded as a motor vehicle, there are probably few changes that would have to be made to bring it into compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). NHTSA encourages (but cannot require) you to make these changes. The chassis-cab used to produce the hydrant truck already has been certified by its manufacturer as an incomplete vehicle. Therefore, in order to achieve compliance, it is likely that few standards would require any changes by your company. One such standard is FMVSS 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Additional changes might also be required if the weight added by the equipment platform exceeds any weight maxima specified by the chassis-cab manufacturer in making his certification. 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.