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: aiam0388OpenDr. Arnold J. Holland, Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd., King's Norton (sic) Birmingham B38 8SR, England; Dr. Arnold J. Holland Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd. King's Norton (sic) Birmingham B38 8SR England; Dear Doctor Holland: This is in reply to your letters of June 18 and 21, 1971, concernin the application of the proposed requirements for glazing materials (Docket 71-1, Notice 1) as they would apply to heated rear windows and mirrors.; In your letter of June 18 you state that the heating lines used in th rear window continue almost to the bottom of the glass at the ends. You propose putting an abbreviated mark at the bottom left hand corner, with the full trade mark appearing at the bottom center, and ask whether this would comply with the proposed requirements. The answer to this question is no. Paragraph S5.5 of the proposed amendment would require the complete mark to be placed in either the lower left or right hand corner of the rear window.; Your letter of June 21 asks whether it is likely that there will b further amendment to Standard No. 205. You mention that you were told that the proposed amendment should have referred to interior vanity mirrors and not the normal rear view mirror. Finally, you state that if the proposed requirements apply to the normal rear view mirror, you will need to do additional development work.; The proposed amendment to Standard No. 205 is still unde consideration, and no final determination has been made as to whether the proposal, or any part of it, will be issued as a final rule. With reference to your comments concerning the normal rear view mirror, S4.3 of the proposal clearly refers to glazing for use in all interior mirrors, including both the normal rear view mirror, and any other interior mirror, such as a vanity mirror. With reference to your comments concerning the need for additional development work, adequate lead times will be provided for in any final rule that is issued.; Copies of your letters will be placed in Docket No. 71-1. Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Crashworthiness, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0672OpenMr. George C. Nield, Engineering Advisor, Messrs. Busby Rivkin Sherman Levy and Rehm, 816 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Mr. George C. Nield Engineering Advisor Messrs. Busby Rivkin Sherman Levy and Rehm 816 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Nield: In your letter of April 5, you ask whether certain items of lightin equipment that you listed must be certified as conforming to applicable Federal standards, even though the assemblies of which they are a part may require certification.; This will confirm your understanding that the listed items need not b certified. The items of lighting equipment requiring certification are those equipment items specified in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1960OpenMs. Linda J. Hoffman, Director, Government Information Services, APAA, 1730 K. Street, N. W., Washington, DC 20006; Ms. Linda J. Hoffman Director Government Information Services APAA 1730 K. Street N. W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Ms. Hoffman: This is in response to your letter inquiring whether certain automotiv products are subject to the defect reporting requirements of the Traffic Safety Act (Section 158(a)(1)), and whether manufacturers are required to submit defect reports on communications arising out of improper customer maintenance or abuse.; Section 102(4) of the Traffic Safety Act defines 'motor vehicl equipment', in part, as:; >>>'. . . any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle a originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . .'<<<; Thus, any item of equipment which becomes 'part' of the motor vehicl is an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Act. We further have determined that any item of equipment intended by the equipment manufacturer for use principally by the user of a motor vehicle, or any item that is normally kept in the vehicle, is an 'accessory' to the vehicle and is also covered by the Act.; In deciding whether or not the items listed in your letter are items o motor vehicle equipment and thus subject to the defect reporting requirements of the Act, the above factors were considered. In the list below, those items not considered motor vehicle equipment are 'repair shop items,' not intended for principal use by the user of a motor vehicle. The particular reason for the inclusion of each of the other items within the coverage of the Act is given following each item.; *Hand tools*: >>>Lugnut tightner (sic): Yes, because it is principally intended fo use by a motor vehicle user with the vehicle. Therefore, it is an accessory.; Clutch adjusting tool: No. It is not an accessory as principal intende use is by someone other than the user, such as a repairman.; Feeler gauge: No. Battery carrier: No. Point file: No. Ratchet wrench: No.<<< *Mechanical tools*: >>>Sanders: No. Pullers: No. Crankshaft grinder: No. Honing machine: No.<<< *Repair kits*: >>>Soldering/welding kits: No. Tire repair kits: Yes, because the plugs, cement, vulcanizing liqui and patches become part of the tire and thus part of the motor vehicle.<<<; *Suspension devices*: >>>Sway bars: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle whe attached thereto.; Steering stabilizers: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle whe attached thereto.; Wheel balancers: If you are referring to the machine used to balanc wheels, then it is not an item of motor vehicle equipment as it is not an accessory. If you are referring to the actual weights attached to the wheels, then they are motor vehicle equipment because they become part of the vehicle.<<<; *Towing devices*: >>>Chains: Yes, because during the towing operation, they become par of the vehicle.; Hitches: Yes, because they are attached to the vehicle and thereb become part of it.; Towbars: Yes, because during the towing operation, they become part o the vehicle.<<<; *Test instruments*: Timing light: No. Tire gauges: Yes, to the extent that they are sold principally t owners for use with the vehicle.; Compression tester: No. Vacuum and fuel pump tester: No.<<< *Chemicals*: >>>Traction compound chemical: If by this you mean some sort o substance designed to help owners get their vehicle moving on slippery surfaces, then it is an accessory and is covered.; Lubricants: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle.<<< *Miscellaneous*: >>>Anti-theft devices: Yes, because they become part of the vehicle. Battery cables: Yes, if they are sold to vehicle users for us primarily with (sic) vehicle.; Battery charger: No. Fire extinguisher: Yes, if it is sold principally to users for use wit the vehicle.; Flares: Yes, because they (sic) principally intended for use with th vehicle by users.; Fusees (sic): Yes, because they are principally intended for use wit the vehicle by users.; Mudflaps: Yes, because they become part of the motor vehicle. Traction bars: Yes, because upon installation they become part of th vehicle.; Wheel adaptors: Yes, because upon installation they become part of th vehicle.<<<; In response to your question concerning the submission of defec reports, it is important to note that the intent of Section 158 of the Act is to provide the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with the information it needs in order to fulfill its responsibility to examine manufacturers' judgments regarding the relationship to safety of vehicle and equipment defects. If a manufacturer discovers a safety-related defect in its product the manufacturer is avoiding the imposition of a penalty by forwarding copies of communications regarding such defect to NHTSA. If, on the other hand, the product does not contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer does not incur any liability for having forwarded copies of communications concerning the defect to the NHTSA.; The regulations concerning defect reporting provide that onl communications 'sent to more than one dealer or purchaser . . .regarding such defect' be forwarded to the NHTSA (49 CFR SS 573.4(c)(8) and 573.7). It would appear that the communications about which you are concerned are principally individual communications to individual purchasers or dealers. The manufacturer would not have to submit copies of such communications to the NHTSA. This provision is carried over into the proposed amendments to Part 573 which are being issued in order to bring the regulation into line with Section 158 by including equipment manufacturers (39 F.R. 1863, January 15, 1974, 39 F.R. 43075, December 10, 1974).; If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2161OpenMr. Tokio Iinuma,Staff, Safety,Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.,560 Sylvan Avenue,Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632; Mr. Tokio Iinuma Staff Safety Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma:#This responds to Nissan's December 12, 1975, questio whether a manufacturer may comply with the requirements of Standard no. 105-75, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, For 'a lens labeled in letters' (S5.3.5) by means of painting or otherwise printing the required label directly onto the lens.#The answer to your question is yes. Section S5.3.5's requirement for 'a lens labeled in letters' permits labeling by means of printing directly on the lens itself.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2531OpenMr. John O. Bohmer, President, Bohmer - Reed, Inc., Motorhome Conversions, Brooten, MN, 56316; Mr. John O. Bohmer President Bohmer - Reed Inc. Motorhome Conversions Brooten MN 56316; Dear Mr. Bohmer: This responds to your February 25, 1977, letter asking whether you motor home conversions make you a manufacturer or an alterer for purposes of compliance with the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; In your conversion of motor homes, you install used bodies on ne chassis. The NHTSA considers the mounting of a used body on a new chassis to be the manufacture of a new motor vehicle that requires certification. This makes you a manufacturer rather than an alterer. The rules for certification are found in Part 567, *Certification*, and Part 568, *Vehicles Manufacturer in Two or More Stages*. I have enclosed copies of these regulations for your information.; Your second question asks whether the converted vehicle must compl with Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, even though the original body was manufactured prior to the effective date of the standard. Vehicles must comply with all standards in effect on the date of their manufacture. For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a new chassis, you are permitted to treat as the date of manufacture, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (as defined in Part 568), the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. Therefore, it appears that the vehicle you manufacture would be required to comply with Standard No. 302.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2862OpenMr. Richard H. Attenhofer, Manager, Tire Technical Relations, Dunlop Tire Company, Box 1109, Buffalo, NY 14240; Mr. Richard H. Attenhofer Manager Tire Technical Relations Dunlop Tire Company Box 1109 Buffalo NY 14240; Dear Mr. Attenhofer: This responds to your August 2, 1978, letter noting two standards o the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that you consider to be in conflict. You suggest that Part 569, *Regrooved Tires*, conflicts with Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, in their requirements for the size of the molding of the word 'regroovable'.; Standard No. 119 specifies all of the labeling of tires for moto vehicles other than passenger cars. The size of that required labeling is set at not less than .078 inches. This size provision applies generally to all of the various information required to be labeled on a tire. The information labeled on the tire includes the tire identification number and word 'regroovable' if appropriate. Both of these requirements, however, are subjects of their own regulations. The tire identification number is specifically regulated by Part 574 and regroovable tires are regulated by Part 569. Each of these Parts further specifies the size designation of the information that it requires. For example, Part 569 specifically requires the word 'regroovable' to be in letters .38 to .50 inches in height.; The two standards do not conflict. The size requirement in Part 56 falls within the acceptable size levels of Standard No. 119. Part 569 merely further restricts the size of the word 'regroovable' beyond that specified in Standard No. 119. Accordingly, the two are consistent. To understand both requirements, apply the general size requirements of Standard No. 119 to all information that is not otherwise regulated elsewhere. For information specifically regulated elsewhere, apply the size criteria specified in the applicable regulation.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3770OpenMr. Eddie Wayne, 4306 Emmit Drive, Erie, PA 16511; Mr. Eddie Wayne 4306 Emmit Drive Erie PA 16511; Dear Mr. Wayne: Thank you for your recent note asking if motorcycle headlamps could no be required to have a blue or green lens across the top portion, so that cycles could be distinguished from a four-wheeled motor vehicle with only one headlamp.; This is an interesting suggestion. However, we would not wish to impos a requirement that would interfere with the effectiveness of the single headlamp with which most motorcycles are equipped. The other side of the coin is marking the four- wheeled vehicle so that it is distinguishable from a motorcycle when one of its headlamps is out. We currently require passenger cars, light trucks, and others, to have amber or white parking lamps and amber front side marker lamps that are illuminated when the headlamps are on. While these lights may not be as readily visible from greater distances as a headlamp, nevertheless their presence on a vehicle does help to distinguish that vehicle from a motorcycle at night, when a headlamp is missing.; Thank you for your interest in safety. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3320OpenMr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren, Michigan 48092; Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren Michigan 48092; Dear Mr. Haenchen: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1980 asking for information of your interpretation of Section 4.31 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This section states that lamps 'shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle...that is not designed to be removed except for repair.' It is your belief that this section would allow a configuration in which back-up lamps and license lamps could be mounted on the deck lid. We concur with this interpretation. The requirement for rigidity is meant to ensure that lamps and reflectors do not sway in the wind on hinges or flexible mud flaps when the vehicle is in motion. The passenger cars you propose to manufacture will normally be operated with the deck lid closed and the lamps in full view on a rigid part of the vehicle as the standard requires. However, placement of a stop lamp and taillamp on a deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance, and hence a safety related defect requiring notification and remedy. Sincerely Frank Berndt Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2927OpenWilliam Shapiro, P.E., Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Volvo of America Corporation, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; William Shapiro P.E. Manager Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Shapiro: Please excuse the delay in responding to your letter of October 25 1978. You asked whether a webbing guide you are planning for the rear seat belt in station wagon vehicles would have to comply with the strength requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*.; The agency has examined the drawings included in your letter an discussed this new webbing guide with Volvo engineers. We have concluded that the webbing guide would not qualify as an 'anchorage' and, therefore, would not have to comply with the Standard 210 requirements for anchorages. The standard defines 'anchorage' as a device that transfers seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure. Your proposed webbing guide is not intended to transfer loads to the vehicle structure, and will only be added to increase the comfort of the assembly. As you indicated, the device marked 'B' on your drawings would qualify as an anchorage and would have to meet the strength requirements of the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1608OpenMr. C. J. Baker, Research & Development Engineer, Peerless Division, Royal Industries, P.O. Box 447, Tualatin, OR 97062; Mr. C. J. Baker Research & Development Engineer Peerless Division Royal Industries P.O. Box 447 Tualatin OR 97062; Dear Mr. Baker: This responds to your August 28, 1974, question whether a 'logging pol trailer', which consists of a beam to which an axle-mounted bolster can be clamped at different points to accomodate (sic) different log lengths, qualifies as a heavy hauler trailer as that term is defined in Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*:; >>>'Heavy hauler trailer' means a trailer with one or more of th following characteristics:; (1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension o the vehicle frame, or; (2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carryin surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent 'front-end structure' as that term is used in S 393.106 of this title.<<<; The logging pole trailer you describe is a heavy hauler trailer, and a such, Standard No. 121 does not apply to this trailer until September 1, 1976. The beam or 'reach', together with the bolster, constitutes the frame of the trailer, and the brake lines are designed to adapt to extension of the bolster element along the beam.; This arrangement differs from the standard highway van which has one-piece frame with an adjustable tandem axle. The purpose of this sliding arrangement is unrelated to an extension of the frame itself to accomodate (sic) the transportation of heavy or oversize loads.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting 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.