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: aiam0581OpenMr. J. Frank Brasher, Salt lake Auto Auction, 460 Orange Street (1900 West), Salt Lake City, Utah 84104; Mr. J. Frank Brasher Salt lake Auto Auction 460 Orange Street (1900 West) Salt Lake City Utah 84104; Dear Mr. Brasher: This is in reply to your letter of January 5, 1972, inquiring whethe you may inlay whitewall rings in black tires. You state that in the process a narrow strip of black rubber around the tire is buffed or ground off and replaced with a strip of whitewall which is bounded or vulcanized to the tire in its place.; Assuming that you are discussing applying this process to new passenge car tires, whether the process is permissible depends upon whether or not it adversely affects the tire's compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 'New Pneumatic Tires,' which prescribed performance requirements for all passenger car tires sold in the United States. A copy of the standard is enclosed.; If after using the process the tire will not comply with Standard No 109, the use of the process is prohibited, and its use can result in the imposition of civil penalties of up to $1,000 per tire and of other sanctions as well (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1), 1398, 1399). In addition, it is the responsibility of the one who wishes to use the process to determine whether it will cause the tires to fail the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1674OpenMr. P.K. Kamath,Sr. Safety Engineer,Oshkosh Truck Corporation,P.O. Box 2566,Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901; Mr. P.K. Kamath Sr. Safety Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh Wisconsin 54901; Dear Mr. Kamath:#This is to confirm your telephone conversation o November 13, 1974, with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 106-74, *Brake hoses*.#You explained that Oshkosh Truck Corporation purchases air brake hose and air brake hose end fittings separately from its suppliers, and does not construct assemblies until the hose and fittings are installed in the vehicles which you manufacture. You asked whether these assemblies must be labeled with a band. S5.2.4 of the standard states:#>>>Each hydraulic brake system assembly, except those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly...<<<#Because S5.2.4 is incorporated in S7.2, the air brake hose assemblies you describe are exempt from the banding requirements.#The matters discussed in your letter of November 1, 1974, have been dealt with in the recent amendment to Standard No. 106-74 which was published november 11, 1974 (39 FR 39725) (Notice 14).#Your truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2261OpenMr. Richard H. Barry, President, Barry Tank and Bumper Co., Maple Plain, MN 55359; Mr. Richard H. Barry President Barry Tank and Bumper Co. Maple Plain MN 55359; Dear Mr. Barry: I am writing in response to your March 22, 1976, telephone conversatio with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the treatment of plastic fuel tanks under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*.; As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration has issued no safety standards that apply directly to fuel tanks. Standard No. 301-75, which applies to entire vehicles, specifies fuel spillage requirements for barrier crash and rollover tests, but does not include a flame envelopment test. In addition to passenger cars and school buses, the vehicles that are subject to the standard are multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less.; Standard No. 301- 75 applies to new vehicles. In addition, the Federa Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has established requirements for certain vehicles in use in interstate commerce. I understand that a fuel tank flame envelopment test is among these. For information concerning such a test, you should communicate with that agency.; For your convenience, a copy of Standard No. 301-75 is enclosed. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5442OpenMary B. Falls, Esq. Sherrard & Roe 424 Church Street, Suite 2000 Nashville, TN 37219; Mary B. Falls Esq. Sherrard & Roe 424 Church Street Suite 2000 Nashville TN 37219; "Dear Ms. Falls: This responds to your request for an interpretation o whether, in replacing stolen vehicle identification number (VIN) plates as prescribed by Tennessee state law, your client, Nissan, would conform to this agency's requirements concerning VINs. The answer is Nissan would not violate our requirements when it replaces the stolen 'VIN plate.' However, there may be other aspects of replacing stolen VIN plates that are under the U.S. Department of Justice's law enforcement jurisdiction. By way of background, Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements, requires manufacturers to assign a VIN to each motor vehicle, to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. S4.5 of the standard specifies that VINs shall appear on a permanent part of the vehicle or on a separate label or plate, called the 'VIN plate.' S4.6 requires the VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR to be included in the passenger compartment, and manufacturers typically meet S4.6 by placing the VIN plate on the vehicle's dashboard. Your letter explained that Nissan manufactures cars and light trucks in Tennessee, and leases these vehicles. Sometimes, the VIN plate in the passenger compartment is stolen from the leased vehicle, but the vehicle is otherwise not tampered with. You stated that: Section 55-5111 of Tennessee Code Annotated provides that it is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to buy, sell, offer for sale, or possess a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial, engine, or transmission number or other distinguishing number or identification mark or number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. In addition, 55-5-112 provides that the owner of an original engine, serial, engine, or transmission, or 'other number or mark' may restore such number or mark pursuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety. You asked whether Nissan, the vehicle owner, would be 'in full compliance' with NHTSA's regulations if Nissan replaced stolen VIN plates in accordance with Tennessee law. In response to your question, we note that Standard No. 115 applies only to new motor vehicles. In the event a VIN plate is stolen from a leased (i.e., used) motor vehicle, NHTSA has no authority to require that any party replace the VIN plate. Thus, under NHTSA's regulations, if the VIN plate is stolen from a used vehicle, Nissan, the owner, may use its discretion whether to replace the VIN plate. However, please note that there could be other implications under Federal law about replacing stolen VIN plates. The U.S. Department of Justice has jurisdiction over stolen VIN plates as a law enforcement matter. Therefore, I suggest that you consult with the Justice Department about possible Federal law enforcement implications of replacing the stolen VIN plates. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0241OpenMr. Richard Alexander, Capitol Tire Distributors, 2837 North Tecome Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46218; Mr. Richard Alexander Capitol Tire Distributors 2837 North Tecome Street Indianapolis Indiana 46218; Dear Mr. Alexander: This is in reply to your letter of June 6, 1970, asking if you ar violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, or, regulations issued pursuant to it, if you distribute tires marked seconds.; Neither the Act nor the regulations prohibit the sale of tires marke seconds. manufacturers are required to certify that their product complies with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and do so by labeling each tire they certify with the symbol 'DOT'. Tires that are certified by the manufacturer and marked 'seconds' are not necessarily unsafe, as the 'second' may de due to a cosmetic defect not affecting the tire's performance. In such cases, the distributer of the tire would not be in violation of the act.; Sometimes a tire manufacturer will make a tire that he believes i defective in a way that affects the safety of the tire. Often, that manufacturer will mark the tire 'farm use only' or 'non-highway use' and then sell it. In such instances, he is supposed to remove the dot symbol. Enclosed is a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking dealing with this problem which may be of interest to you or your members.; Thank you for your interest in the motor vehicle safety program. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulation |
|
ID: aiam3867OpenMr. Dennis Moore, Sierra Product, Inc., 1113 Greenville Road, Livermore, CA 94550; Mr. Dennis Moore Sierra Product Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore CA 94550; Dear Mr. Moore: This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1984, asking whether i is permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to combine a turn signal lamp with a center high mounted stop lamp that is intended for the aftermarket as a retrofit.; As you have noted, the recent amendments to Standard No. 108 cover th center high mounted stop lamp only as an item of original equipment and do not purport to regulate the item as an aftermarket device. This means that the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.1 against combining the center high mounted stop lamp with any other lamp does not apply. The legality of such a combination, indeed, the legality of the auxiliary stop lamp itself, is determinable under the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered and/or operated.; The sole federal restriction on use of aftermarket devices does no appear in Standard No. 108, but in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) in essence forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. The combination turn signal/center high mounted lamp would not appear to have this effect.; I hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2714OpenMr. Robert W. Becker, Reibold Building, Dayton, OH 45402; Mr. Robert W. Becker Reibold Building Dayton OH 45402; Dear Mr. Becker: This is in response to your letter of November 7, 1977, asking whethe a U.S. importer of tires for resale would be considered the 'manufacturer' of those tires for purposes of complying with the identification mark requirements contained in Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*.; Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*.) defines the term 'manufacturer' as; >>>any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of moto vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.<<<; According to this definition, the U.S. firm to which you refer would b considered the 'manufacturer' for purposes of compliance with the Traffic Safety Act and any standards or regulations promulgated thereunder. This would include compliance with the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements in 49 CFR Part 574. As the manufacturer of the tires, the U.S. importer would be permitted to place its own identification mark on the tires, as required under S 574.5, in lieu of the European tire producer as the manufacturer of the tires. By this action, all duties imposed upon tire manufacturers under Part 574 would be the responsibility of the U.S. importer.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4917OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; "Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of August 19, 1991 requesting an interpretation of section S5.3.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. That section specifies two force application options for release mechanisms of emergency exits, low force application and high force application. Your letter was sent in connection with an investigation by NHTSA's Office of Enforcement of a possible noncompliance of a 1990 Blue Bird bus with that standard, and you sent a sample bus window to assist in understanding your letter. You requested confirmation of your understanding that the requirements of section S5.3.2, 'with regard to motion, apply to the application forces and not the release mechanisms being activated by the forces.' You also requested confirmation of your 'understanding of the principles of mechanics, as applicable to FMVSS 217 requirements, that straight linear forces can cause rotary motion to occur and can be used to manually operate a rotary mechanism.' You asked these questions to support your contention that the release mechanism of the 1990 Blue Bird bus window can be operated by a force that is straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface, and that the high force application option is therefore available for that window. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. Section S5.3.2 specifies that certain emergency exits 'shall allow manual release of the exit by a single occupant using force applications each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer, either to (a) or (b).' Subparagraphs (a) and (b) set forth requirements for the two application force options, low force and high force. The specified requirements cover location, type of motion, and magnitude. The type of motion specified in (a) for low force application is 'rotary or straight', the type of motion specified in (b) for high force application is 'straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' We agree that the requirements in (a) and (b) concerning type of motion refer to the force applications that would be made by a single occupant and not to the release mechanisms that are activated by such force applications. While we do not disagree with your contention that it is possible for straight linear forces to cause rotary motion to occur, we do not believe, based on our examination of your sample bus window, that the force application that must be made by a single occupant to release the window would be 'straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' We interpret the term 'type of motion,' as used in (a) and (b), to refer to the entire motion of a force application that would be made by a single occupant in releasing an exit. In order to operate the release mechanism on the Blue Bird bus, it appears that a single occupant must lift the release handle upward as well as pulling it outward. Given the upward part of the motion, it would not be 'perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.' Therefore, the high force application option is not available for such a design, and it must meet the low force application requirements. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0228OpenMr. Jackson Decker, Chief, Product Engineer, E. E. Etnyre and Company, 200 Jefferson Street, Oregon, IL 61061; Mr. Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer E. E. Etnyre and Company 200 Jefferson Street Oregon IL 61061; Dear Mr. Decker: This is in reply to your letter of March 27, 1970, to the Director Office of Performance Analysis, now changed to the Office of Compliance, in which you pose the following question: 'In the case of a body mounted on a chassis- cab which chassis-cab has had previous service as a completed vehicle, is it permissible to omit certification as required under Part 367, 49 C.F.R., since it is beyond the knowledge of the body manufacturer to ascertain compliance with the pertinent chassis-cab standards? The vehicle manufacturer will perform his work in compliance with current standards insofar as practicable.'; The answer to your question is yes. At this time it is permissible t omit certification in the case you have described in your question, since the motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to domestic used vehicles. In the event, however, that you use an item of automotive equipment for which there is an applicable standard, such as glazing material, you are required to certify in accordance with Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as it applies to items of motor vehicle equipment.; Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Thank you fo your letter and your interest in the programs of the National Highway Safety Bureau.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4553OpenMr. M. Iwase Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN; Mr. M. Iwase Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimuzi--shi Shizuoka-ken JAPAN; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is to provide you with a clarification of m letter to you dated March l6, l988. Your second question was whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamps and tail/stop lamps is required on a rear lighting array for motorcycles. I responded that 'The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement.' In actuality, the agency has required this separation only where a single motorcycle stoplamp/taillamp is mounted on the vertical centerline, and not when dual lamps are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline, the configuration depicted in your letter of January 25, 1988. Therefore, I am advising you that there is no legal requirement that the 4-inch separation distance be maintained in the configurations you depicted, and that we appreciate your continuing efforts to understand and comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I enclose a copy of a letter from this Office dated November 2l, l984, which explains our views on motorcycle rear lighting configurations in more detail. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
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.