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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam0580OpenMr. Harold Visher, Vice President, Bandag Incorporated, 1055 Hershey Avenue, Muscatine, Iowa 52761; Mr. Harold Visher Vice President Bandag Incorporated 1055 Hershey Avenue Muscatine Iowa 52761; Dear Mr. Visher: #This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1972 asking whether your 'treadless' passenger car tire will be considered a new tire under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You enclosed a diagram and explain that the 'treadless' tire is a 'brand new ... tire that we will furnish our dealers and then they will apply a new bandag tread to the tire and then sell the finished unit. #Based upon your description you have provided, we are of the opinion that you treadless tire is a new tire, and consequently subject to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. Also, as each dealer applies the tread to the tire,each would be considered a 'manufacturer' under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.*), and be responsible for the requirements imposed upon manufacturers by the Act, and the standards and regulations issued pursuant to it. #We are pleased to be of assistance. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5278OpenMr. J. Z. Peepas Selecto-Flash, Inc. P.O. Box 879 Orange, NJ 07051; Mr. J. Z. Peepas Selecto-Flash Inc. P.O. Box 879 Orange NJ 07051; "Dear Mr. Peepas: This is in reply to your FAX of November 12, 1993, t Taylor Vinson of this Office, the latest in a series of communications about how the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108 are to be applied to gooseneck trailers. On October 20, we sent you a correction of our earlier interpretation of S5.7.1.4.2(a). Our correction stated that the requirement is that conspicuity treatment not be obscured by trailer cargo. If conspicuity treatment is applied to the gooseneck of a container trailer, we understand that it will be obscured by the container (cargo) when it is in place. S5.7.1.4.2(a) also specifies that conspicuity treatment 'need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable.' The length of the gooseneck is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of calculating the half length that must be covered by the conspicuity treatment (which, of course, would be greater than half the length behind the gooseneck). You have suggested that we reevaluate the effect of excluding the gooseneck from compliance with the conspicuity requirements. There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that prohibits a manufacturer from applying retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the entire trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered. An example may clarify this for you. Let us say that the overall length of the trailer is 40 feet, including an 8-foot gooseneck. The amount of the side to be covered is not less than 20 feet. The area to be covered is the 32 feet between the rear bolster to the point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus. Thus, regardless of whether conspicuity treatment is applied to the gooseneck, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108, and the spaces must be distributed as evenly as practicable. Standard No. 108 does not address the issue of the length of the spaces between strips, and a manufacturer may choose 4 feet or whatever is feasible for the trailer at hand. On the basis of this interpretation letter, we believe that Selecto-Flash ought to be able to judge whether the conspicuity treatments on Prints A-1, A-2, B-1 and B-2 accord with Standard No. 108. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4890OpenMr. Dwayne R. Szot 1404 Lay Boulevard Kalamazoo, MI 49001; Mr. Dwayne R. Szot 1404 Lay Boulevard Kalamazoo MI 49001; "FAX 616-382-0429 Dear Mr. Szot: This responds to your FAXed letter o June 28, l99l, with respect to your prospective importation from Poland of a 10-year old Syrena passenger car. We have also received a letter from Roy Slade, President, Cranbrook Academy of Art, relating to you. As you have explained, you intend to remove the engine upon arrival to meet EPA approval. You intend the remainder of the vehicle to become a 'time capsule' containing artifacts relating to the hopes and dreams of Poles, here and abroad, for the future, and their feelings about the past and present. You will transport the car among Polish communities here, and then seal the car in November in a Plexiglas box. For the next 25 years, the car will be displayed in its box at museums and art galleries, and, in 2016, will be returned to Poland. As you undoubtedly know, motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported into the United States, with such exceptions as Congress has authorized in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, and as have been set forth in the implementing regulation, 49 CFR Part 591. The Syrena, of course, does not meet these standards. The Act does not specifically permit the importation of a noncomplying vehicle for purposes of static display, though it does allow admission for purposes of 'research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training, or competitive racing events.' We have not interpreted any of these provisions as allowing importation for display. The question then is whether the importation of the Syrena for the purposes described may nonetheless be justified because it presents no threat to motor vehicle safety. We note that you will satisfy the concerns of EPA by removal of the engine. This, in itself, does not result in the Syrena becoming something other than a motor vehicle, but it does mean that the Syrena cannot be driven on the public roads. Further, under the circumstances you describe, should the vehicle be towed, it is unlikely to be occupied by passengers because of the quantity of its contents. Under the circumstances you have described, the Syrena time capsule will present no threat to motor vehicle safety. Although the importation of this vehicle may be a technical violation of the l988 Act, it would not be the type of violation that this agency, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, would pursue. You may therefore present this letter to the appropriate Customs officials at the port where the Syrena will arrive for entry into the United States as a statement from the Department of Transportation that it has no objection to your importation of the Syrena time capsule. If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) who spoke with your wife last week. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2047OpenMr. Rex Henger, Bergman & Hicks, Republic National Bank Tower, Dallas, TX 75201; Mr. Rex Henger Bergman & Hicks Republic National Bank Tower Dallas TX 75201; Dear Mr. Henger: This is in response to your letter of September 3, 1975, in which yo inquire as to the existence of regulations concerning vehicle certification.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgate regulations requiring vehicle manufacturers to affix to each vehicle a label stating that the vehicle as completed complies with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR SS 567 and 568). There is no requirement that 'stress capacity' be included in the certification label. However, the label must state the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (49 CFR S 567.4(g)(3)) and gross axle weight rating (49 CFR SS 567.4(g)(4) and 571.3). The gross axle weight rating is the value set by the manufacturer as the load- carrying capacity of a single axle system on the vehicle. The statutory basis for these regulations is section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1403).; We hope this information will be of assistance. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5628OpenMr. Lawrence A. Beyer Attorney at Law 674 Lake Road Webster, NY 14580; Mr. Lawrence A. Beyer Attorney at Law 674 Lake Road Webster NY 14580; Dear Mr. Beyer: This responds to your August 28, 1995, 'Petition fo Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance'. You state that 'the noncompliance relates to' 49 CFR Part 592. The effect of an inconsequentiality determination is to relieve a manufacturer of its obligation to notify and remedy when a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or a safety related defect is determined to exist. The failures you attributed to your client as a registered importer under part 592 do not encompass a failure to bring vehicles into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the existence of a safety related defect in vehicles that it has imported. Therefore, there is no legal basis for your 'petition'. Please read 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and 49 CFR Part 556. The proper forum for your arguments is in response to any penalty the agency may propose to impose on your client for its failure to meet the requirements of Part 592. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2417OpenMr. N. Harada, Yokohama Tire Corp., 1530 Church Road, Montebello, CA 90640; Mr. N. Harada Yokohama Tire Corp. 1530 Church Road Montebello CA 90640; Dear Mr. Harada: I am writing to confirm your October 15, 1976, telephone conversatio with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR Part 575.104).; As Mr. Schwimmer explained, (i) the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration has not yet established new effective dates for the UTQGS regulation, (ii) when the new effective dates are established, they will be announced in the Federal Register, and (iii) the interval between the announcement of the effective dates and the dates themselves will be sufficient to allow manufacturers to prepare for compliance with the regulation.; For your convenience, an information sheet entitled 'Where to Obtai Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' is enclosed.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1391OpenMr. Bernard Belier, U.S. Resident Engineer for Maserati, S.p.A., Officine Alfieri Maserati, S.p.A., Modena, Italy; Mr. Bernard Belier U.S. Resident Engineer for Maserati S.p.A. Officine Alfieri Maserati S.p.A. Modena Italy; Dear Mr. Belier: This is in replay to your letter of January 22, 1974, asking whethe paragraph S4.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 precludes the mounting of rear lamps in a transparent 'Lexan' panel 'not involved in the driver's rearward vision.'; Paragraph S4.3.1 states in pertinent part that '. . . each lamp . . shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair . . . .' The 'glazing' referred to is the glazing regulated by Standard No. 205, and refers generally to glazing used in windshields, windows, doors, and interior partitions. Accordingly, Standard No. 108 does not preclude the mounting of rear lamps in the 'Lexan' panel.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4469OpenMr. Jay Costa Assistant Procurement Specialist Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg., 821 Second Ave. Seattle, Washington 98104; Mr. Jay Costa Assistant Procurement Specialist Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. 821 Second Ave. Seattle Washington 98104; "Dear Mr. Costa: I am responding to your letter seeking a interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Specifically, you expressed concern that some transit system passengers are opening the rear emergency exits on your public transit vehicles. Apparently, some passengers open these emergency exits to commit acts of vandalism. You state that 'in the interest of safety the rear emergency window (in these vehicles) should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window.' You asked whether Standard 217 would prohibit your body shop from modifying your transit buses in this manner. Assuming that your body shop does not hold itself out to the public as a business that repairs motor vehicles for compensation, the shop would not be prohibited from modifying the buses as you describe. Under paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard 217, buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more (such as your transit buses) must have at least one rear emergency exit, unless the configuration of the bus precludes installing an accessible rear exit. The manufacturer of your buses has stated that the bus configuration does not preclude installing an accessible rear exit. Therefore, your manufacturer must deliver buses that are equipped with a rear emergency exit. On the other hand, your repair shop is subject to different considerations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits certain commercial establishments from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design included on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In your example, the rear emergency exit is an element of design included in the buses in compliance with an applicable safety standard, and removing these exits would render inoperative that element of design. However, the 'render inoperative' prohibition applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. A 'motor vehicle repair business' is defined in /108(a)(2)(A) as 'any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.' Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard. Assuming that your transit system body shop does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles for compensation, it can make the modification you describe without violating any Federal requirements. The problem you describe apparently involves the design for releasing the kind of emergency window exit in your vehicles. Standard 217 does not require a specific design for releasing an emergency exit. Rather, the Standard sets out a ceiling for the magnitude of force necessary to release the exit, and a required direction for applying the release force. The transit system could replace the 'operable' rear emergency window with a push-out window or other type of design that would still meet the release requirements of Standard 217, yet make it difficult or impossible for a passenger to commit the acts of vandalism you describe. Please note that the purpose of our emergency exit requirements for buses is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit in the event of an emergency. Though nothing prohibits you from modifying the vehicles to close off the rear emergency exit, I urge you to give your fullest consideration to the implications of making this modification. It is NHTSA's position that compliance with Standard 217 is the safest way to facilitate vehicle exit in an emergency, and it is my opinion that you needn't eliminate the rear window exit to resolve your problem. Further, you might want to check with the State of Washington to learn if it prohibits modifications that would make your transit buses no longer comply with Standard 217. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0979OpenMr. Robert L. Scates, R.R. No. 1, Box 168, Prairie Farm, WI 54762; Mr. Robert L. Scates R.R. No. 1 Box 168 Prairie Farm WI 54762; Dear Mr. Scates: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1973, requestin information on requirements regarding the manufacture of truck-mounted campers. You specifically mention requirements dealing with wiring.; There are several Federal requirements applicable to campers. Camper are items of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) and are required to conform to certain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Briefly, each camper must meet requirements applicable to the glazing materials (glass and plastics used in windows, doors, and interior partitions) used in the camper (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials', 49 CFR 571.205). Each slide-in camper must, in addition, have affixed to it a label that indicates among other things its loaded weight. (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, 'Truck-Camper Loading', 49 CFR 571.126). All campers must also be certified in accordance with Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) as conforming to applicable standards. Each camper manufacturer must submit certain information concerning his company pursuant to NHTSA regulations, 'Manufacturer Identification' (49 CFR Part 566). You may obtain copies of NHTSA standards and regulations as explained on the enclosure.; We understand that certain states also have requirements, includin requirements for wiring, that apply to campers. Information regarding these requirements should be obtained from State authorities. Trade associations that represent recreational vehicle manufacturers may be of help in obtaining this information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2944OpenMr. Sheldon C. Brooks, Marque Motors, 8711 Lyndale Ave., So., Bloomington, MN 55420; Mr. Sheldon C. Brooks Marque Motors 8711 Lyndale Ave. So. Bloomington MN 55420; Dear Mr. Brooks: This is in response to your letter dated December 11, 1978, requestin an exemption from the requirements of Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, for the Lamborghini Countach on the basis that this vehicle is manufactured for a special use under the terms of Section 102(d)(1)(B) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) (15 U.S.C. 1912). You state that the subject vehicle is purchased for purposes of show and display rather than daily transportation and therefore is manufactured for a special use.; Section 102(c)(1)(B) of the Cost Savings Act permits the Secretary o Transportation, for good cause shown, to exempt from the coverage of Part 581,; >>>'any make, model or class of passenger motor vehicle manufacture for a special use, if such standard would unreasonably interfere with the special use of such vehicle.'<<<; In adopting this section, Congress discussed 'special use' in terms o functional equipment such as winches and snow removal attachments, which must be connected in proximity to the vehicle bumper. It is doubtful whether COngress contemplated the granting of exemptions for show and display vehicles, since manufacturers undoubtedly consider their models 'works of art' and suitable for display.; |
|
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.