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: aiam2574OpenMr. S. L. Terry, Vice President, Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs, Chrysler Corporation, P.O. Box 1919, Detroit, MI 48231; Mr. S. L. Terry Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit MI 48231; Dear Mr. Terry: This responds to your November 29 and December 20, 1976, petitions fo rulemaking to amend the definition of 'unloaded vehicle weight.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grants your November 29 petition for rulemaking and denies your December 20 petition.; The NHTSA, in a letter of interpretation to the Jeep Corporation stated that 'unloaded vehicle weight' does not include the weight of accessories ordinarily removed when they are not in use. Your November 29 petition for rulemaking suggests that we formally incorporate this interpretation into the definition of 'unloaded vehicle weight' for purposes of clarity. The agency agrees that this change should be made. Accordingly, we intend to commence rulemaking in response to your petition.; Your December 20, 1976, petition amended your November 29, 1976 petition by suggesting that the agency permit barrier testing of specified vehicles at the lesser of the unloaded vehicle weight or 5,500 pounds. We have determined that this proposal would establish arbitrary weights for vehicles undergoing compliance testing which could result in vehicles being subjected to crash tests in a condition which is not representative of their actual on-road condition. Your suggested change in the definition could thus result in a reduction in the effectiveness of some motor vehicle safety standards. In Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, the Congress mandated that the agency not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard. Your proposal, if implemented, could violate that Congressional mandate since vehicles could be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight. Therefore, the recommendations advanced in your December 20 petition are denied to the extent that they differ from those originally proposed in your November 29 petition.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2827OpenMs. Lois M. Hebda, Mellon Bank, P.O. Box 360617M, Pittsburgh, PA 15230; Ms. Lois M. Hebda Mellon Bank P.O. Box 360617M Pittsburgh PA 15230; Dear Ms. Hebda: This is in response to your recent telephone conversation with Kath DeMeter of my staff concerning the retention of odometer disclosure statements. The question you raised was in what order the statements should be retained. The two methods you proposed using were alphabetically by the name of the individual or organization to which you transferred the vehicle. 49 CFR requires each dealer or distributor of a motor vehicle to retain the statements 'in an order that is appropriate to his business requirements and that permits systematic retrieval.'; Either method you propose would probably permit systematic retrieva and you may therefore select the method which best suits your business requirements.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3735OpenMr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek, Vice President, Continental Products Corporation, 1200 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. van Ruitenbeek: This responds to your recent letter asking for an interpretatio concerning Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. Specifically, you asked whether your company could label two maximum load ratings on the sidewall of certain motorcycle tires it manufactures. One maximum load rating would be applicable at the tire's top-rated speed, while the other would be applicable at a speed of 60 miles per hour. Such labeling would violate Standard No. 119.; Section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information b labeled on the sidewall of all tires to which the standard applies. Section S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on all motorcycle tires, shown as follows:; >>>Max load _____ lbs at _____ psi cold.<<< The maximum rating on the tire's sidewall, as the name implies, i intended to alert the consumer to the tire's *maximum* capabilities. Allowing tire manufacturers to specify more than one maximum load, based on various vehicle speeds, would dilute the value of the maximum load information to the consumer, by introducing the possibility of confusion and uncertainty about the actual *maximum* load the tire could carry while in use on a particular trip. To avoid this, the agency has stated on each occasion when questions have arisen in this area that only one maximum load rating may appear on the sidewall of tires.; Please understand that the agency does not doubt that these tires ca carry higher loads at lower speeds. Further, it does not have any objection to your publicizing those loads in your advertising literature, which you enclosed with your letter. However, the purpose of the labeling requirements on the sidewall of tires is not to give the consumer information for all possible operating conditions of the tire. Indeed, there is not enough space on the sidewall of the tire to do this. The purpose of the labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. In the case of the maximum load information, this necessitates providing only one maximum load rating on the sidewall of the tires.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1708OpenMr. T. W. Lucas, Vehicle Safety Coordinator, Mack Trucks, Incorporated, P. O. Box 1791, Allentown, PA 18105; Mr. T. W. Lucas Vehicle Safety Coordinator Mack Trucks Incorporated P. O. Box 1791 Allentown PA 18105; Dear Mr. Lucas: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 74-0120) concerning some trucks with Rockwell FL-901 front axle assemblies with possibly defective steering arms.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject vehicle does not completely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Since your company is notifying the owners regarding a defect in certain Mack trucks, the second sentence of your letter should have stated that Mack Trucks, Inc., has determined that a defect exists in those vehicles. The reference to item of motor vehicle equipment in Part 577.4(b) only applies to campaigns being conducted by equipment manufacturers.; Your letter also does not give an estimate of the day by which dealer will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect as required by Part 577.4(e). Although it will not be necessary to renotify owners in this instance, it is expected that all future defect notifications fully comply with all applicable regulations. A copy of Part 577 is enclosed.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3365OpenMr. Robert A. Belcher, President, Coded Electronics Corporation, 1239 Taylor, San Francisco, CA 94108; Mr. Robert A. Belcher President Coded Electronics Corporation 1239 Taylor San Francisco CA 94108; Dear Mr. Belcher: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1980 asking whether you emergency hazard signaling system conforms with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You also asked as to the steps necessary to make it mandatory.; From the specifications provided in your letter, it appears that bot modes of operation (hazard and distress) would comply with the flash rates and the percent of current 'on' time required by SAE J945, the standard for hazard warning signal flashers incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. If your device meets all other requirements of SAE J945 and SAE J910, the standard for hazard warning signal operating units also incorporated by reference, it should comply with Standard No. 108.; I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, setting forth the procedure under which you may petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108 that would require a distress signaling system on vehicles.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1358OpenMr. H. A. Sage, Director, Research & Development, Truck-Lite Company, P. O. Box 387, Jamestown, NY, 14701; Mr. H. A. Sage Director Research & Development Truck-Lite Company P. O. Box 387 Jamestown NY 14701; Dear Mr. Sage: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1973, concerning th placement of rear identification lamps on the header of Fruehauf trailers.; I enclose a copy of a recent exhange (sic) of correspondence betwee Fruehauf and this agency on this question which I believe is in point. It is our view that if a lamp is available which may be installed in a narrow header area, the upper location is 'practicable' even though the lamps may not be the one specified by the vehicle's purchaser.; Yours truly, Richard By. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1476OpenMr. Stanley Heller, Vice President, Open Road Industries, Inc., 2601 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Redondo Beach, CA 90278; Mr. Stanley Heller Vice President Open Road Industries Inc. 2601 Manhattan Beach Boulevard Redondo Beach CA 90278; Dear Mr. Heller: This is in reply to your letter of March 21, 1974, regarding Ope Road's defect notification letter in NHTSA campaign No. 73-0043. We indicated to you by letter of March 21, 1974, that notification letters in future campaigns must be modified to conform to S 577.4(e)(3) of the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577) if you continue to make repairs contingent upon the purchaser's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision found in Open Road's 'Authorization for Repair and Alteration' form. You state in your letter that the *sole* purpose of the indemnity and hold-harmless provision is to protect your company from claims from third parties for unauthorized repairs.; While it is true, as you point out, that the indemnity an hold-harmless provision is not part of the notification letter, that fact is not germane to our conclusion that your letter must conform to S 577.4(e)(3) if you continue only to make repairs contingent upon the owner's agreement to the provision in question. We are pleased to know that the provision's sole purpose is to protect the company against claims from unknown owners for unauthorized repairs, and we do not object to repairs being contingent upon the owner's agreement to such a provision. But if that is the case we would insist that the provision be more narrowly drafted so that its intent is clear. If that is done Open Road may continue to send notification letters that conform to S 577.4(e)(1). The responses we have had from owners of Open Road vehicles subject to defect notification and our own review of the provision are persuasive in our view that at present this limited intent is not clear.; Notwithstanding your reference to the meeting Open Road officials ha with Robert Carter and Andrew Detrick of NHTSA, at no time was approval given to Open Road's notification letter with knowledge that repair would be made only following the owner's agreement to the indemnity and hold-harmless provision.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4674OpenMr. John G. Sims Governmental Affairs Champion Motor Coach, Inc. 5573 North Street Dryden, Michigan 48428; Mr. John G. Sims Governmental Affairs Champion Motor Coach Inc. 5573 North Street Dryden Michigan 48428; "Dear Mr. Sims: This responds to your November 6, 1989 letter to Rober Hellmuth, Director of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). In that letter, you stated that OVSC had misinterpreted and misapplied the requirements of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). I conclude that OVSC correctly interpreted those sections of Standard No. 217 and correctly applied those sections to your company's buses. The buses in question are not school buses and have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, section S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: '... each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' ... followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism.' Your company has designated the door immediately adjacent to the driver's seating position in these buses as an emergency exit. Operating instructions for that emergency exit are located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. However, the designation of this door as an emergency exit appears on a label located on a stanchion immediately behind the driver's seat, facing the passenger seating area. This designation does not appear within 6 inches of the release mechanism. You suggest that this arrangement complies with Standard No. 217, because S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. I disagree with your suggestion. While it might be possible to construe the language of S5.5.1 in the manner you suggest, the agency has consistently interpreted S5.5.1 as requiring that both the emergency exit designation and the operating instructions be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Nothing in the correspondence you refer to undermines this conclusion. Contrary to the assertion in your letter, there is a clear safety basis for requiring the emergency exit designation to be within 6 inches of the emergency exit release mechanism. This ensures that any person reaching the exit can quickly find both the release mechanism and the instructions. In an emergency, persons are used to finding an emergency exit where they see a label with the designation 'Emergency Exit.' In your company's buses, a person seeing the emergency exit label located on the driver's seat stanchion could be misled into thinking that there is an exit somewhere behind the driver's seat, rather than at the driver's door, thus wasting valuable escape time. This is exactly the type of situation S5.5.1 is intended to prevent. Your letter also suggests that requiring the emergency exit designation within 6 inches of the release mechanism would substantially reduce the visibility of the emergency exit sign, since the operating mechanism is frequently located below the shoulder level of seated passengers. While this may be true in some cases, I do not believe it would be likely to impede emergency egress. In an emergency situation, the occupants of the seat adjacent to the exit are likely to be the first ones out of the exit, and would thus no longer impede the visibility of the exit designation for other passengers seeking to exit. We are only focusing on the designation here. Also, once it is open, the instructions aren't needed. Your letter also suggests that the emergency exit requirements for school buses, contained in S5.5.3, support your interpretation of S5.5.1, because the school bus emergency exit requirements specifically authorize the separation of the emergency exit designation and operating instructions. I must again disagree with you on this point. NHTSA recognized the considerable differences between school buses and other buses when Standard No. 217 was being developed. S5.5.3 addresses a very different set of circumstances. School buses typically have one emergency door, located at or near the rear of the bus. The requirement in S5.5.3 that the designation be in letters at least two inches high 'at the top of or directly above the emergency exit' is designed to ensure that school bus passengers will be able to locate this exit from any seating position in the bus. This is not the case for your company's buses, which feature several window exits located throughout the bus, in addition to the exit at issue here. The second issue raised in your letter concerns the requirements of S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires that emergency exit 'markings' be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity conditions set forth in S5.5.2. You suggested that the emergency exit 'markings' referenced in S5.5.2 refers only to the designation of an exit as an emergency exit, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit. I disagree with this suggestion as well. As we noted earlier, S5.5.1 sets forth requirements for both emergency exit designations and emergency exit operating instructions. Immediately following these requirements, S5.5.2 specifies that 'each marking shall be legible ...' (emphasis added). S5.5.2 nowhere draws any distinction between markings designating an exit as an emergency exit and markings setting forth operating instructions for the emergency exit. Neither is any such distinction inherent in the use of the term 'marking.' Accordingly, the ordinary meaning of the term 'marking' and the background of this regulatory provision show that as used in S5.5.2, the word 'markings' refers to both the emergency exit designation and the emergency exit operating instructions required by S5.5.1. If you have any further questions concerning these issues, please feel free to contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1026OpenMr. Joseph R. Radzius, Food and Drug Counsel, Dow Corning Corporation, Midland, Michigan 48640; Mr. Joseph R. Radzius Food and Drug Counsel Dow Corning Corporation Midland Michigan 48640; Dear Mr. Radzius: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1973, in which yo inquired whether our brake fluid standard, No. 116, has preempted State regulation with respect to silicone-based fluids.; As you know, Standard No. 116 does not presently contain an performance requirements for silicone-based brake fluids. The recent amendment of January 31, 1973 (38 FR 2981) only establishes labeling requirements for these fluids.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 1 U.S.C. 1392(d), states that no State shall have a safety standard 'applicable to the same aspect of performance' as a Federal standard that is not identical to the Federal standard. In this case, no 'aspects of performance' at all, other than labeling, are covered by the Federal standard, so the State performance standards other than labeling cannot be said to cover the same aspects of performance. For these reasons the State performance requirements are not preempted by Standard No. 116. To hold otherwise would have the effect of voiding all State regulation of this product, leaving nothing in its place, until a Federal standard came into effect. No such results were intended by the issuance of the labeling amendment.; Work is in process to propose performance standards for silicone-base brake fluids, and we plan to have requirements in effect before very much more time passes. At that time, of course, all State regulations will have to be identical to the Federal standard.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4224OpenMr. Tom McRedmond, Motor Vehicle Division, 500 Deaderick Street, Nashville, TN 37242; Mr. Tom McRedmond Motor Vehicle Division 500 Deaderick Street Nashville TN 37242; Dear Mr. McRedmond: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been informe that you have been advising dealers that the Tennessee Certificate of Title may be used in lieu of a separate odometer disclosure statement. We have reviewed the title and have determined that it fails to meet the requirements of the Federal odometer disclosure regulation, 49 C.F.R. Part 580.; The Tennessee title cannot be used in lieu of a separate odomete disclosure statement. Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration allows the use of the abbreviated disclosure statements as they appear on the title, the title fails to meet the regulatory requirements because it does not include a space for the buyer's signature. This Agency considers the signature to be essential. It is an acknowledgment that the purchaser is aware of the mileage and prevents the purchaser from later alleging that he was not informed of the mileage or that the mileage was different from that appearing on the title. Furthermore, the buyer's signature is important to investigative and prosecutorial efforts.; Dealers who do not issue and/or retain a copy of a separate odomete disclosure statement may be liable for civil and criminal penalties. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call Judith Kaleta of my staff at (202) 366-1834.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.