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: aiam0101OpenMr. R. J. Hart, Bugetta Inc., 3037 Enterprise Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; Mr. R. J. Hart Bugetta Inc. 3037 Enterprise Avenue Costa Mesa CA 92626; Dear Mr. Hart:#With reference to your letter of August 14 and it enclosed specification sheet covering the Bugetta, this vehicle appears to be a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' for purpose of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards since it is constructed with features for occasional off road use.#Your understanding of the applicability of standards to multipurpose passenger vehicles is correct. We concur with your view that compliance with Standard No. 103 (Windshield Defrosting and Defogging) is a meaningless requirement for a vehicle with no top or windows.#Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam4841OpenWilliam F. Canever, Esq. Staff Attorney Office of General Counsel Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, MI 48l2l; William F. Canever Esq. Staff Attorney Office of General Counsel Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48l2l; "Dear Mr. Canever: This responds to your letter concerning Ford's pla to allocate MY l986 light truck credits to cover MY l985 and MY l989 shortfalls. For each of those model years, manufacturers have the option of complying with separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards or a combined standard. Ford elected to comply with the separate standards for MY l985 and the combined standard for MY l986 and MY l989. The MY l986 credits are applied in the plan on a prorated basis to MY l985. In response to your letter, we have reviewed Ford's credit allocation plan in light of 49 CFR 535.4(e). That section provides, among other things, that '(c)redits may not be applied between classes of light trucks, except as determined by the Administrator to account for changes made in the definitions of classes between model years.' Since Ford's plan involves applying credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, we have considered whether the plan represents a cross-class application of credits that is prohibited by 535.4(e). As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited. In your letter, you suggest that the regulatory scheme creates two methods of complying with light truck CAFE standards and not three classes of light trucks. You also state that the term 'class' is nowhere applied to the combined light truck fleet. You conclude that there is no cross-class application of credits. We do not agree with your suggested analysis. Section 535.3(a)(4) states that the term 'class of light trucks' is used in accordance with the determinations in Part 533 of this chapter. Section 535.4(b) then indicates that credits are earned 'whenever the average fuel economy for a class of light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer exceeds an applicable average fuel economy standard established in Part 533 of this chapter.' The term 'class' in Part 535 thus refers to each possible grouping of light trucks that is averaged together for determining compliance with CAFE standards. Looking at Part 533, there are, in fact, six classes of light trucks for the model years in question: (l) Combined captive import, (2) Combined other, (3) 2-wheel drive captive import, (4) 2-wheel drive other, (5) 4-wheel drive captive import, and (6) 4-wheel drive other. While we do not agree with your suggested analysis, we believe that there is ambiguity with respect to how 535.4(e) applies to the factual sitation at issue. First, Ford's plan involves overlapping classes. Thus, while there is a degree of cross-class application of credits, it is limited. Second, NHTSA has never addressed in rulemaking the issue of whether manufacturers should, in effect, forfeit credits as a result of choosing particular compliance options for particular years. This situation is analagous in some respects to the issue of whether forfeiture of credits should occur where NHTSA changes the definitions of classes between model years. In that situation, the agency decided, based on its understanding of statutory intent, against forfeiture. Third, in a letter dated April 26, l988, NHTSA approved a Ford carryback plan for MY l985 light trucks which set forth Ford's proposed allocation methodology. While the agency did not expressly address that methodology in the letter approving the plan, Ford could have assumed that the agency considered the proposed allocation to be permissible. Given the ambiguity surrounding this issue, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate to decide the issue, for now, in favor of the manufacturer. The agency believes that this is a type of ambiguity that should be resolved, for the future, by rulemaking. However, the issue will become moot, at least for the time being, since, beginning with the MY l992 light truck CAFE standards, NHTSA decided not to set optional separate two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive standards. Should the agency decide to issue optional CAFE standards at some future time, it will address this issue in rulemaking. For now, NHTSA will treat situations where a manufacturer changes compliance options between model years in the same manner as situations where the agency changes the definitions of classes between model years. In both types of situations, NHTSA will follow the policy first announced in a November 8, 1979 notice of interpretation (44 FR 64943), and reaffirmed in a December 18, 1980 Federal Register notice (45 FR 83233), of attempting to assure that credits are applied to offset shortfalls on the same types of vehicles which generated the credits. Ford's plan to apply, on a prorated basis, credits earned by exceeding the MY l986 combined standard to shortfalls incurred against the MY l985 separate 4x4 and 4x2 standards, is consistent with the examples set forth in the November l979 and December l980 notices. Ford's plan then to apply remaining MY l986 credits to its MY l989 shortfall, incurred against the MY l989 combined standard, does not involve any cross-class application of credits. I therefore conclude that Ford's allocation plan is not prohibited. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2096OpenJ.W. Boyd, Manager, Government & Industry Technical Relations, Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation, Box 1109, Buffalo, NY 14240; J.W. Boyd Manager Government & Industry Technical Relations Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation Box 1109 Buffalo NY 14240; Dear Mr. Boyd: Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1975, to Ed Wallace of our Tir Division, enclosing a letter from Mr. W. Preuss of Dunlop Germany, concerning the allocation, between vehicle manufacturers and tire manufacturers, of responsibility for the safety of original equipment tires.; Section 159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966, as amended by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, specifies that, except as otherwise provided in regulations of this agency, a defect in or noncompliance of an original equipment tire shall be the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer. The NHTSA has recently granted the petitions of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, General Motors, and the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation for a reallocation of this responsibility. We expect to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the near future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0551OpenMs. Reva B. Fuhrmann, Bookkeeper, Pioneer Machinery, Inc. 1725 Silverton Road, N.E., Salem, OR 97303; Ms. Reva B. Fuhrmann Bookkeeper Pioneer Machinery Inc. 1725 Silverton Road N.E. Salem OR 97303; Dear Ms. Fuhrmann: In your letter of September 15, 1972, you ask for clarification of th records that Pioneer Machinery, Inc., as a manufacturer and installer of truck hoists and racks, is required to keep.; There are several regulations issued by the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration that could apply to Pioneer. The first of these is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. Under this regulation manufacturers of vehicles and equipment to which a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies must file certain information with the NHTSA. Although Pioneer may not manufacture equipment subject to a standard, it could be a final-stage manufacturer, as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, and subject to both these regulations. I enclose a copy of each. If Pioneer determines it is a 'final-stage manufacturer' then it would also be subject to the obligations of Part 568 (S 568.6) and the requirements of Part 567 (S 567.5) *Certification*, copy enclosed.; If Pioneer is a 'final-stage manufacturer,' it must file quarterl reports of production figures pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, (S 573.5 (b)) *Defect Reports*. I have also enclosed a copy of this regulation for your review.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2079OpenMr. Byron Crampton, Truck Body and Equipment Association, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1210, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron Crampton Truck Body and Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1210 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to your September 8, 1975, question whether trucks tha carry specialized equipment (such as emergency medical equipment, fire fighting apparatus, or mobile power generator equipment), would qualify for exclusion from Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, if they are geared down or governed so that their speeds attainable in two miles are not more than 45 mph. You state that each vehicle's empty weight is more than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).; The section of Standard No. 121 that lists the vehicles to which th standard applies reads as follows:; >>>S3. *Applicability*. . . . In addition, the standard does not appl to any trailer whose unloaded vehicle weight is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR, or any vehicle that meets any one of criteria (a) through (d) as follows:; . . .(d)(1) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 45 mph and; (2) An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of th vehicle GVWR, and; (3) No passenger-carrying capacity. << |
|
ID: aiam0044OpenMr. Arnold Hosbach, Ander-BTT Incorporated, East Tawas, MI 48730; Mr. Arnold Hosbach Ander-BTT Incorporated East Tawas MI 48730; Dear Mr. Hosbach: We are in receipt of your letter dated November 30, 1967, forwarded t us through the Michigan Department of State Police.; This letter is in answer to your inquiry as to whether your mobile hom or trailer house is required to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. From the brief description of your product we would state that your vehicle would fall into the category of the multi-purpose passenger vehicle.; Enclosed is a copy of the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standards. Your attention is directed to Subpart B. This section indicates those safety standards which multi-purpose passenger vehicles are required to comply with.; Also enclosed is a notice published in the Federal Register date November 1, 1967, stating the Certification Requirement effective January 1, 1968.; If we can provide additional information, please feel free to contac this office.; Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis; |
|
ID: aiam2583OpenMs. Lea Jenny, Administrator, Senate Transportation Committee, 431 Capitol Building, Salem, OR 97310; Ms. Lea Jenny Administrator Senate Transportation Committee 431 Capitol Building Salem OR 97310; Dear Ms. Jenny: Permit me to comment upon Oregon House Bill 2998 which I understand i to be considered by the Transportation Committee of the Oregon Senate on June 3, 1977.; The Bill would amend ORS 483.404 to require that headlamps on moto vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or; >>>'...the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption of Approva and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts, done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both.'<<<; Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392 (a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for headlamps both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles. Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d); >>>'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, *no State* or political subdivision of a State *shall have any authority* either *to establish*, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment *any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard*.' [Emphasis added.]<<<; The United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by th Canadian Standards Association, permit the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000, and do not require that they be mechanically aimable. Standard 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and requires that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, do not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that if House Bill 2998 is enacted in its present form the language that I quoted from it would, in our opinion, be preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect. This means also that any person in Oregon manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States a headlamp that did not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon House Bill 2998 were it to be enacted, would be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A) in an amount up to $800,000 (15 U.S.C. 1393 (a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)).; Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariabl upheld. (See *e.g. Chrysler Corp v. Malloy*, 294 F. Supp 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), *Chrysler Corp v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)) We would also observe that the interpretation of the preemption language by this agency, as the administering agency, has been viewed by courts as 'of controlling weight.' (*Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra*, at 512.); If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad t assist you (202-426-9511).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5246OpenFrau Margret Schmock von Ohr Robert Bosch GmbH FAX 07121/35-1792; Frau Margret Schmock von Ohr Robert Bosch GmbH FAX 07121/35-1792; "Dear Frau Schmock: This responds to your FAX of July 9, 1993, t Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a further interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to reflex reflectors. In your earlier FAX, you asked whether it is permissible to have an amber painted reflex reflector lens, and the conditions under which it is permissible to have it painted. We informed you that the amber painted reflex reflector lens is permissible provided that the front reflex reflector assembly meets all requirements of Standard No. 108 including the referenced SAE J594f. You ask now whether 'the combination plastic + paint' has to meet SAE J576c, pointing out that the outdoor exposure test requires a period of three years. You also ask whether it is sufficient to have only the plastic material (without paint) tested, and if it is not sufficient, the means by which you may get an exemption from the rule. S5.1.2(c) of Standard No. 108 requires that, after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors shall meet the appearance requirements of paragraph 4.2.2 of SAE J576c. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J576c indicates that the plastic materials are to be tested with the colors that will be employed in their end use. We understand that Bosch is not the manufacturer of the plastic materials but is simply the entity that fabricates the reflex reflectors from the plastic materials. Your customer, in turn, will install these reflectors until December 1993 as original equipment on its motor vehicles. We have found, under Standard No. 108, that the manufacturer of the plastic materials advises the lamp manufacturer that, if used in the manner specified by the materials manufacturer, the plastic materials supplied to be incorporated into lamps will perform in accordance with the requirements of SAE J576c for plastic materials. The manufacturer of the materials should provide Bosch with such assurances of compliance with SAE J576c as Bosch deems suitable to support its own assurances in turn to the vehicle manufacturer, enabling the vehicle manufacturer to certify that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is no legal requirement that the plastics manufacturer conduct an actual 3-year test in order to provide Bosch with these assurances. Because our temporary exemption procedures involve a process of three to four months duration, and are not retroactive in applicability, there appears to be no feasible way to consider an exemption. You have asked that this request be treated 'as a confidential business information.' We are unable to do so in this instance because our interpretations are a matter of public record, and the matters discussed herein cannot be separated from our earlier interpretation which has been made available to the public. However, we have removed your name from the copy of this letter that will be publicly available. Furthermore, Taylor Vinson has removed the name of your customer from the publicly available copy of the earlier interpretation, in accordance with the concern you expressed to him in a phone call, and we believe that this meets the intent of your request. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2429OpenMr. Jackson Decker, Chief Product Engineer, E. D. Etnyre & Company, 200 Jefferson Street, Oregon, IL 61061; Mr. Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer E. D. Etnyre & Company 200 Jefferson Street Oregon IL 61061; Dear Mr. Decker: This is in belated response to your letters of June 22, 1976 concerning the availability of NHTSA interpretation letters and the assignment by vehicle manufacturers of Gross Axle Weight Ratings.; Letters written by this agency that interpret the Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standards or accompanying regulations are regularly compiled by standard or regulation number and placed in a public file (the 'redbooks') in the Docket Section at Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. Copies of these letters are distributed informally by various trade associations, as you have noted. However, there is currently no subscription service available directly from the NHTSA. I recommend that you periodically (bimonthly, perhaps) telephone the Docket Section (202 426-2768) to find out whether entries have recently been made in the Redbooks under the standards and regulations that are of particular concern to you.; You have also asked several questions concerning the relationshi between an axle's Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) and the overloading of that axle when the vehicle is in use. GAWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as; >>>the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.<<<; It is thus a rating assigned by the manufacturer at the time o manufacture. A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably forseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect. Such a vehicle would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1392 *et seq*.).; We cannot prescribe specific steps that a vehicle manufacturer mus take to ensure that a GAWR would not be found so low that it would be a safety-related defect. For example, if a warning in the owner's manual against loading in a certain manner is likely to be ignored, then such a warning would not, by itself, be sufficient. The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0414OpenMr. David A. Phelps, Jr., Group Supervisor, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. David A. Phelps Jr. Group Supervisor Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps:#This is in reply to your letter of July 7 askin whether paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 101 requires labeling of 'a heater water valve near the floor in the driver's area.'#As you know, Standard No. 101 requires identification of heating and air conditioning controls that are manually operable and mounted in a location other than on the floor. Your heater water valve is manually operable and not floor mounted, and it is our opinion that Standard No. 101 requires its identification. This agency published an interpretation on May 4, 1971, copy enclosed (see p. 8297), in response to a query from Ford 'whether controls visible to the driver but not in the normal forward line of sight must be identified.' We replied in the affirmative that although controls may be 'designed to be operable by touch, their function is not clear to an operator unfamiliar with the vehicle in which they are installed, and their identification is necessary.' For the same reason paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 101 requires identification of your heater water valve control.#Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.