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: aiam1155OpenMr. J. W. Lane, Manager, Product Promotion, Technical, Publications and Packaging, Mobil Oil Corporation, 150 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017; Mr. J. W. Lane Manager Product Promotion Technical Publications and Packaging Mobil Oil Corporation 150 East 42nd Street New York New York 10017; Dear Mr. Lane: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1973 and confirms th telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff on June 14, 1973.; The amendments to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116 published o May 17, 1973 modified container labeling requirements only for silicone-based brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil (paragraph S5.2.2.3) and did not affect the requirements for conventional DOT 3 and DOT 4 fluids (paragraph S5.2.2.2) as your assumed. Therefore you appear to have no problem, and it is not necessary to consider your letter as a petition for reconsideration.; The sample label you enclosed appears to designate the contents a 'Super Heavy Duty Brake Fluid', rather than 'DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID' as paragraph S5.2.2.2(e) requires. Otherwise, it is adequate compliance with paragraph S5.2.2.2.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3400OpenMr. Brian Gill, Manager, Certification Department, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 100 W. Alondra Blvd., P.O. Box 50, Gardena, CA 90247; Mr. Brian Gill Manager Certification Department American Honda Motor Co. Inc. 100 W. Alondra Blvd. P.O. Box 50 Gardena CA 90247; Dear Mr. Gill: This responds to your recent letter regarding an emergency lockin retractor design which incorporates a secondary locking mechanism that is activated by webbing movement. The primary locking mechanism of the retractor is sensitive to both vehicle deceleration and webbing movement. You ask whether the secondary locking mechanism must be tested separately for compliance with Safety Standard No. 209, or whether it is sufficient that the retractor as a whole comply with the standard.; The secondary locking mechanism does not have to be tested separatel since it would be viewed by the agency as a voluntary system. I am enclosing a letter of interpretation on this same subject which was issued by the agency in February 1981 to Toyota Motor Company. I am also enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation issued to the United States Testing Company regarding the application of Safety Standard No. 209 to dual- sensitive retractors. This second letter might also be of interest to you since you state that the primary locking mechanism on the Honda retractor is sensitive to both vehicle deceleration and webbing movement.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5636Open"M. Guy Dorleans International Regulatory Affairs ManagerValeo 34, rue Saint-Andr 93012 Bobigny Cedex France"; "M. Guy Dorleans International Regulatory Affairs ManagerValeo 34 rue Saint-Andr 93012 Bobigny Cedex France"; Dear M. Dorleans: This responds to your letter of September 29, 1995 with respect to the use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to fulfill the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108. You have enclosed a design for a lamp incorporating tail, stop, and rear turn signal functions, the illumination for which will be provided by red LEDs. At night, the LEDs will provide sufficient illumination to meet taillamp photometrics, with increased illumination when the brake pedal is applied, 'so that the sum of the photometrics of the stoplamp and the tail lamp is fulfilled.' When the turn signal is activated, 'all the diodes are energized at full intensity during the on-period of the turn signal and t he sum of the photometrics of the rear turn signal lamp and the tail lamp is then fulfilled . . . .' You ask for 'confirmation that this new lighting combination is correct.' We consider this lamp, as you have more fully described it in your letter, to be an acceptable design for meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3267OpenJ. P. Koziatek, P.E., Director, Technical Services, Questor Juvenile Products Company, 771 N. Freedom Street, Ravenna, OH 44266; J. P. Koziatek P.E. Director Technical Services Questor Juvenile Products Company 771 N. Freedom Street Ravenna OH 44266; Dear Mr. Koziatek: This responds to your letter of January 25, 1980, requesting a interpretation of section S6.1.2.2.1 (c) of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. Section S6.1.2.2.1(c) specifies that in the 20 mph test of forward facing child restraints with fixed or movable surfaces designed to restrain the child, the restraint system's belts are not to be attached 'unless they are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface.' You asked whether the crotch strap used in your Kantwet 'One Step' Model 400 child restraint would be considered an integral part of the movable shield used on that device. After reviewing the diagrams and description contained in your letter, I conclude that the crotch strap is not an integral part of the movable surface and thus must not be connected during the 20 mph test.; Amended Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, th problem of misuse of child restraints. The principal misuse involves the failure to attach buckles and latches. To ensure that children using child restraints are afforded protection notwithstanding such misuse, the standard specifies that the belts are to be attached to restraining shields during testing only if they are integral parts of the shields. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines 'integral' as meaning 'formed as a unit with another part.' Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they are intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and thus are not subject to the type of misuse described above.; The crotch strap used in the Kantwet 'One Step' is not an integral par of the movable shield. The movable shield is a complete unit by itself. The crotch strap is a separate device that must be manually connected to the shield every time the unit is used. In contrast, the two upper torso restraints appear to be integral parts of the shield since they are designed to remain attached to an adjustment device and anchorage which are in turn permanently affixed to the shield. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the possibility that the upper torso restraint could be detached from the adjustment device. We urge that you and other manufacturers take the additional step of assuring that the belts permanently remain integral parts of the adjustment device.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5640OpenMr. Jim Young Wheeled Coach P.O. Box 677339 Orlando. FL 32867-7339; Mr. Jim Young Wheeled Coach P.O. Box 677339 Orlando. FL 32867-7339; Dear Mr. Young: This is in reply to your FAX of October 17, 1995 asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as in relates to 'customer specifications for options incorporated into, or in addition to FMVSS lighting.' You have described these options as: 'Brake override circuit for rear facing warning lights. The rear warning lights flash as warning lights until the brakes are applied, at which time they become steady burn. This option is in addition to the standard brake lights. If this is acceptable, should the lights be required to meet all requirements of stop lights? (ie., maximum luminous intensity, color, etc. . .)' As you clarified in a phone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office on November 2, the 'rear facing warning lights' are part of the ambulance lighting system which is not a system required by Standard No. 108. This option is permissible. Although there is no Federal legal requirement that governs the performance of ambulance warning systems, we recommend that the rear facing warning lights be red, the required color for stop lamps, inasmuch as the intent seems to be to provide an additional indication that the brakes have been applied. 'Brake Enhancer. Standard or additional stop lights are made to flash on/off several times before going steady burn.' This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires all stop lamps to be steady burning. 'Back -up alert strobes. Rear facing high intensity strobe lights that are activated when the gearshift lever is placed into reverse gear.' Optional equipment is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. You have not indicated the color of the strobe lamps. If they are red or amber, they could cause confusion in the eyes of an observer when operated simultaneously with the steady burning white backup lamp. There is a lesser possibility of confusion if they cast a white light, as long as they do not mask the steady burning backup lamp. In that event, the strobes could be fitted to the ambulances. 'Taillight flashers. Taillights or brake lights are flashed alternate to backup lights until brakes are applied, at which time they go steady burn. The option at times may be requested to only work if the rear doors on the ambulance are open.' This is not permissible. Standard No. 108 requires taillamps as well as stop lamps to be steady burning, under all circumstances. If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366- 5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4663OpenThe Honorable Bud Shuster U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Bud Shuster U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Shuster: Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Lester Hoover. Mr. Hoover requested information about laws that cover the branding of tires that are not first quality. In addition, he asked whether there is any way to apply such a law to other consumer goods such as batteries. This inquiry has already been referred to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which sent you a letter dated October 16, 1989 explaining its tire labeling regulations. The FTC's letter also indicated that this agency's tire labeling regulations might be of interest to Mr. Hoover. Let me begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated regulations related to tires. In particular, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, applies to new tires for use on passenger cars, Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, applies to new tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, applies to retreaded tires for use on passenger cars, and Part 569, Regrooved Tires, applies to all regrooved tires. Each of these regulations includes some labeling requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that every manufacturer certify that each of the tires it produces complies with these standards, including the labeling requirements. Thus, even a tire identified as something like 'blemished' or 'out-of-round' must be certified as complying with all provisions of the applicable safety standard(s). None of the regulations administered by this agency require, or establish any standards for, the identification of tires as something other than 'first quality.' If some Federal regulation exists that requires the identification of tires as something other than 'first quality,' it would be promulgated by the FTC under that agency's authority to regulate unfair and deceptive trade practices. If the FTC does not have any such regulation, I am not aware of any other Federal agency that would have authority in this area. Similarly, I am not aware of any such labeling regulations that could be applied to consumer goods such as batteries. I hope you find this information helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns in this area. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3857OpenMr. Billy W. Partridge, Assistant Director, Bureau of Revenue, Mississippi State Tax Commission, P.O. Box 960, Jackson, MI (sic) 39205; Mr. Billy W. Partridge Assistant Director Bureau of Revenue Mississippi State Tax Commission P.O. Box 960 Jackson MI (sic) 39205; Dear Mr. Partridge: This is in response to your letter of June 8, 1984 requesting a copy o the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulation regarding odometer disclosure, 49 CFR Part 580. A copy is enclosed.; You also ask whether the language that Mississippi uses (lines 184-96 and, in particular, the third statement (lines 192-93) is proper. All three statements should begin with the phrase 'I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge ....' The Agency believes that this language is important because it requires that the transferor certify his disclosure statement. For this reason, it is also important that the phrase precede each of the three statements. As an alternative, you might reword the entire form so that the introductory certification encompasses all alternative statements.; The language is otherwise proper. You sated, in your telephon conversation with Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, that you recalled that at one time, the disclosure statement required the transferor to certify that the mileage is unknown, rather than that it is not accurate. Your recollection is correct. The original rule, 38 FR 2978 (Jan. 31, 1973), promulgated by NHTSA, required:; >>>if the transferor knows that the odometer reading differs from th number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled, and that the difference is greater than that caused by odometer calibration error, he shall include a statement that the actual vehicle mileage is unknown.<<<; This statement, however, was changed in 1977 to that in the presen rule (42 FR , Feb. 14, 1977), 42 FR 38906 (Aug 1. 1977)). The Agency found that the statement, that the actual mileage is unknown had been improperly used. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we stated:; >>>This statement has provided a loophole for individuals who hav actually been guilty of rollbacks. Those persons merely check this statement, thereby hoping to exonerate themselves from blame if the mileage is later discovered to be greater than they stated it to be at the time of sale. In order to close this loophole, and at the same time not force transferors to certify a mileage to be correct which they know to be false, NHTSA proposes to adopt a new S580.4(c)(3) to allow transferors to indicate that the milage is not true and should not be relied upon. 42 FR at 9046.<<<; If you have additional questions, please feel free to call or write t our attention.; Sincerely, Kathleen DeMeter, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law |
|
ID: aiam5253OpenMr. Milford R. Bennett, Head Safety Affairs and Operations NAO Engineering Safety Center General Motors Corporation 30200 Mound Road/S3-N27 Warren, MI 48090-9010; Mr. Milford R. Bennett Head Safety Affairs and Operations NAO Engineering Safety Center General Motors Corporation 30200 Mound Road/S3-N27 Warren MI 48090-9010; "Dear Mr. Bennett: This is in reply to your letter of October 7, 1993 to Howard Smolkin concerning information labels for vehicles covered by NHTSA temporary exemptions (49 CFR Part 555). Paragraph 555.9(b) requires that a windshield or side window label containing an advisory statement be affixed securely to each exempted vehicle. You have concluded that this label is intended to notify prospective purchasers that the vehicle has been exempted from compliance with certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because General Motors (GM) does not intend to sell its recently exempted GMEV, it believes that it is not required to place the label on its vehicles. Section 123(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1410(b)) specifies that ' t he Secretary may require that written notification of an exemption be delivered to the dealer and first purchaser for purposes other than the resale of such exempted motor vehicle in such manner as he deems appropriate.' NHTSA chose to exercise this discretionary power through promulgating paragraph 555.9(b) requiring windshield and side window labels on exempted vehicles, commenting that ' t he window label appears to be the most appropriate way of providing written notification of exemptions to dealers and first purchasers' (37 FR 25534). We read in The New York Times on October 14, 1993, that GM will build 50 Impacts (presumably the exempted GMEVs) 'and lend them for two to four weeks to 1,000 drivers around the country over the next two years, with the help of 14 utilities.' If these cars are made available through GM's dealer network, then we believe that the label should nevertheless be provided even if the vehicle is not sold, and that it should remain affixed until the vehicle is first lent or leased through the dealer. Although subsequent users of the GMEV will not have access to the temporary label in order to evaluate the risk they assume by accepting temporary use of a nonconforming motor vehicle, the permanently affixed exemption certification label will furnish this information should they care to consult it. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5223OpenMr. Howard Schecter P. O. Box 61353 Honolulu, HI 96839; Mr. Howard Schecter P. O. Box 61353 Honolulu HI 96839; "Dear Mr. Schecter: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements (49 CFR 571.115). In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you own a three-wheel motorcycle built with all used parts. The engine and other parts are from a used Corvair passenger car, and additional parts are from used motorcycles. Your letter asks whether your motorcycle must be assigned a vehicle identification number (VIN). The answer is no. Standard No. 115 applies to new motor vehicles, including motorcycles. NHTSA does not consider your motorcycle as new, since it was built entirely out of used parts. Since Standard No. 115 applies only to new motor vehicles, and NHTSA does not consider your motorcycle to be new, the motorcycle's rebuilder need not, under NHTSA's regulations, assign a VIN to the motorcycle. Your letter stated that the State of Hawaii's Reconstructed Vehicle Department (RVD) would not register your motorcycle since it has no VIN. Registration procedures for motor vehicles are set by each State, not NHTSA. However, we suggest that you show this letter to the RVD officials to explain that your motorcycle need not be assigned a VIN under NHTSA's regulations. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4718OpenMr. Gary R. Balanza P.O. Box 88112 Honolulu, HI 96830; Mr. Gary R. Balanza P.O. Box 88112 Honolulu HI 96830; "Dear Mr. Balanza: This is in reply to your letter asking for a interpretation whether your invention 'will interfere with the standard equipment' required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. I regret the delay in responding. Your invention, 'Pinlights', is described as an auxiliary lighting system designed to fit an automobile's side contours. Its purpose is to light up the entire length of a vehicle, so that it will be more conspicuous at night. We note your uncertainty as to 'number of stripes allowed on a car', 'colors allowed on a car', and 'maximum brightness allowable.' There are two ways to approach your invention under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, our authority for the issuance of the motor vehicle lighting standard, Standard No. l08. The first is as an item of original equipment, in place on the vehicle at the time it is bought by its first owner. You have asked the correct question: does the invention impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08? The equipment most likely to be impaired are the side marker lamps and reflectors. These items are located near the front and rear of the vehicle, to enhance vehicle conspicuity by affording an approximation of vehicle length, and an indication of the vehicle's front and rear. The lamps are amber to the front, and red to the rear. Your invention would be located along the side of the vehicle, from front to rear. This suggests that the color of your device should similarly be amber to the front and red to the rear, so as not to impair the effectiveness of the directional function of the side marker lamps. The second way to approach your invention is as an item available in the aftermarket. Standard No. l08 does not apply to a vehicle in use. However, as it applies to your question, the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits modifications by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, any of the required lighting equipment. In most cases, we consider an impairment of new vehicle equipment to be equivalent to a partial inoperability. Further, if installation of aftermarket equipmentdirectly affects the performance of original equipment (such as a reduction of light output through an interference with the wiring), that would certainly be considered a partial inoperability. Lighting equipment that is not covered by Standard No. l08 remains subject to the requirements of each State in which a vehicle on which it is installed is registered and/or operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that, for an opinion, you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood 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.