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: aiam5563OpenK. Olsen 8577 South State Spanish Fork, UT 84660; K. Olsen 8577 South State Spanish Fork UT 84660; "Dear Ms. Olsen: This responds to your letter of March 12, 1995 requesting an opinion as to the liability of the manufacturer, dealer, or customer in an accident involving a trailer originally sold with used tires. I apologize for the delay in our response. By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30112 of Title 49 provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, or import a new motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification of such compliance. Generally speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state regulation. This office cannot give you an opinion as to who may be liable in the accident you described. The question of liability would be a matter of state law. You may wish to consult with a local attorney on the question of liability. I can advise you that FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, generally requires tires installed on new trailers to be new, but includes certain specified exceptions which do not appear to be relevant here. In that connection, please find enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to a gentleman in Odessa, Texas, dated September 4, 1992, which discusses in some detail our requirements for tires installed on new trailers. This agency does not have any standards for trailer brakes other than air brakes. Also, as indicated above, matters relating to the use of a vehicle, such as connection of the electric brake control to the towing vehicle and loading of the trailer, are not under the jurisdiction of this agency. I hope this information is helpful to you. Based on your March 12, 1995 letter and your telephone and facsimile communications with the staff of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, that office has initiated an inquiry to the trailer manufacturer to determine if a noncompliance exists with FMVSS No. 120. If you have further information or data to offer in this regard, please contact Mr. Luke Loy at this address or at (202) 366-5288 or by FAX at (202) 366-3081. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4758OpenMr. Charles T. Thomas Prestige Travel 10333 Richmond Avenue, Suite 170 Houston, Texas 77042; Mr. Charles T. Thomas Prestige Travel 10333 Richmond Avenue Suite 170 Houston Texas 77042; "Dear Mr. Thomas: This is in reply to your recent undated letter askin for a waiver of one of the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(g) for persons working outside the United States and seeking to import a nonconforming vehicle, i.e., the requirement that 'the importer's assigned place of employment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, l988, and the date the vehicle is entered into the United States.' You are able to meet the other requirements of paragraph (g), but you returned to the United States in September l988 after a 12-year employment abroad, and your l985 Jaguar remains in Germany. We are sorry that we are unable to provide the waiver you seek. This specific requirement was established by Congress as part of an exception to more rigorous requirements that became effective on, and applicable to, vehicles imported on and after January 31, l990, of this year. Further, Congress did not provide us with any authority to waive this requirement. These provisions were added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562. However, our inability to waive this requirement does not mean that you will be unable to import your car. Under its new authority, the agency has tentatively determined that l985 Jaguar automobiles are eligible for importation (as well as a number of other cars). Public comments on the tentative determinations were due in mid-May. After a final determination is made, and assuming that it is favorable, you may then import your Jaguar pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(f). In other words, you may import the vehicle either through an importer registered with this agency as one who will certify compliance of the Jaguar with Federal safety standards, or by yourself upon demonstration that you have a contract with a registered importer. I enclose a copy of Part 591 for your information, as well as a list of registered importers approved as of April 13. We anticipate a final determination on vehicle eligibility this summer. If you wish to inquire as to the status of the determination, or to obtain an updated list of registered importers, please address your further correspondence to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2376OpenMr. Paul Atkinson, No. 13 Connell Dr., Little Rock, AR 72205; Mr. Paul Atkinson No. 13 Connell Dr. Little Rock AR 72205; Dear Mr. Atkinson: This is in response to your June 18, 1976, letter concerning th application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, *Retreaded Pneumatic Tires*, to passenger car tires that are retreaded from bead to bead.; I understand that in this process, the labeling information molded o the sidewalls of the tire to be retreaded is buffed off prior to the application of new rubber. You have requested our assurance that 'it is permissible to do bead to bead retreading, removing the present labeling and remolding all the pertinent information on the tire.'; The requirements for casings to be used in retreading are set out i S5.2.3 of Standard No. 117:; >>>Each retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing that bears permanently molded at the time of its original manufacture into or onto the tire sidewall, each of the following:; (a) The symbol DOT, (b) The size of the tire, and (c) The actual number of plies or ply rating.<<< This section requires the above information to be present on the casin at the beginning of the retreading process, to ensure both that the carcass was originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*, and that the retreader has reliable information on which to base the labeling of the completed tire. The section does not, however, require that this originally molded information be retained on the completed tire.; Certification and labeling requirements for completed retreaded tire are set out in S6 of the standard. The DOT symbol required by S6.1, however, is not a 'remolding' of the original DOT symbol (certifying compliance with Standard No. 109) that may have been buffed off. It is a new certification by the retreading party that his product complies with Standard No. 117. Further, this new DOT symbol must be followed by the letter 'R', as indicated in 49 CFR S 574.5, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*. 'Remolding' of the original DOT symbol is neither required nor permitted. Finally, the information required by S6.3 to appear on the completed tire is permitted, but not required, to so appear through retention of the original labeling.; In conclusion, bead- to-bead retreading is not prohibited by Standar No. 117, provided that the casings satisfy S5.2.3 at the beginning of the retreading process, and all other requirements of the standard are met.; Yours truly, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1014OpenMr. R. Debesson, General Secretary, E.T.R.T.O., 49, Rue Barathon, 03-Montlucon, France; Mr. R. Debesson General Secretary E.T.R.T.O. 49 Rue Barathon 03-Montlucon France; Dear Mr. Debesson: This is in reply to your submission No. 65/109 of January 23, 1973 petitioning that temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 be provided for European tire manufacturers who manufacture high speed tires. Your petition points out that Standards No. 109 does not allow the manufacture of high speed tires designed to be inflated to relatively high inflation pressures, but which do not have commensurate load-carrying ability at those pressures. You indicate that such tires are commonly used in Europe for high speed passenger cars, and have hot produced safety problems.; The temporary exemption regulations (49 CFR 555, copy enclosed), i accordance with the statutory authority under which they were issued (P.L. 92-548), apply only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. They do not apply to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and the relief which they provide is accordingly not available to tire manufacturers.; The NHTSA is of the opinion that the requirements of Standard No. 109 emphasizing the load-carrying as well as the high speed capability of passenger car tires, should be suited to driving condition which predominate in the United States. Despite the facts, as you mention, that it is possible for motorists to exceed postal speed limits, and that areas do exist where speed limits are not posted, the NHTSA believes the high speed requirements of Standard No. 109 are sufficient to guard against tire failures under these conditions. At the same time, the NHTSA will consider petitions to amend Standard No. 109, submitted pursuant to NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR 553.31, .33), and E.T.R.T.O. is free to petition to amend the standard to include requirements for European-type high speed tires. Your petition should contain full supporting data for the amendments requested. We would expect you as well to include possible performance requirements for such tires.; You refer briefly in your letter to the performance of these tires whe tested pursuant to the planned Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation. The NHTSA plans to publish in the very near future a revised notice of proposed rulemaking regarding this regulation, and we will be pleased to receive your comments to that proposal when it is published.; Yours truly, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2885OpenMr. Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr., Washington Representative, Volkswagen of America, Inc., 475 L'Enfant Plaza S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024; Mr. Philip A. Hutchinson Jr. Washington Representative Volkswagen of America Inc. 475 L'Enfant Plaza S.W. Washington D.C. 20024; Dear Mr. Hutchinson: Thank you for your letter of September 8, 1978, concerning Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, *Vehicle identification number*. Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard are enclosed.; In confirmation of your meeting with Messrs. Carson, Erikson, an Schwartz, you are correct in stating that vehicle description section (VDS) informational content can change from model year, to model year even though the actual characters in the VDS remain the same. All changes in the informational content of the VDS must, of course, be submitted to the NHTSA as required in S6 of the standard.; As you point out in your letter, 'dividers' which would appear at th beginning and the end of the VIN would not be considered part of the VIN and, therefore, would not be regulated by the standard. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the dividers are neither alphabetic not numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.; In your meeting with NHTSA staff, you requested clarificatio concerning which manufacturer identifier should be used when the vehicle assembly is carried out by one company on behalf of another. In this instance, the manufacturer identifier of the company under whose authority the assembly is carried out and which maintains responsibility for the vehicle's compliance with safety standards should be used. You have also asked for a definition of the term 'transfer document.' A 'transfer document' will vary in content from manufacturer to manufacturer, but means the document(s) given to the owner of the vehicle for use when the vehicle is being titled.; We would also call to your attention proposed changes to the standar contained in the enclosed notice of proposed rulemaking. If the proposed changes are adopted, the check digit would be placed in the fourth position of the VIN, and the first and second characters of the VDS, which immediately follow the check digit, would be alphabetic.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3036OpenMr. A. M. Dahm, President, Macdonald Equipment Company, P.O. Box B, 7333 Highway 85, Commerce City, CO 80022; Mr. A. M. Dahm President Macdonald Equipment Company P.O. Box B 7333 Highway 85 Commerce City CO 80022; Dear Mr. Dahm: This responds to your January 2, 1979, letter asking whether it i permissible to mount a snow plow on a vehicle when the weight of the snow plow will cause the vehicle to exceed its gross axle weight rating (GAWR). The answer to your question is no.; The GAWR of a vehicle is determined and established by a vehicle' manufacturer and represents a manufacturer's assessment of the maximum weight that each axle can safely sustain. When this weight rating is exceeded by the addition of equipment to a vehicle, the safety of a vehicle is jeopardized. Over a period of time, the excessive weight borne by the axle could result in unusual wear and eventual failure of the axle.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require manufacturers to label their vehicles with GAWR's to avoid the overload problem that you mention in your letter. The NHTSA has not granted exceptions from this requirement for snow plows. If you mount a snow plow on a new vehicle prior to first purchase, you must be sure that the vehicle continues to comply with all Federal safety standards and regulations. If the weight of the plow exceeds the GAWR of the vehicle, the vehicle would no longer comply with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. Further, the compliance of other safety standards could be impacted by the addition of that weight.; In the case of used vehicles on which you mount a snow plow, manufacturer, repair business, distributor, or dealer may not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. The attachment of a snow plow that exceeds the gross axle weight rating would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 120. Accordingly, whether a vehicle is new or used, the additional weight of a snow plow that would exceed the GAWR of a vehicle would not be permissible.; The NHTSA understands the budgetary constraints of municipalities However, financial considerations must be balanced against the potential loss of life that can occur when vehicles are routinely overloaded. Accordingly, vehicles that have snow plows or other devices mounted on them should have sufficient GAWR's to carry their intended load.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2178OpenMr. John Evans, Wenke, Burge, and Taylor, 1055 N. Main St., Suite 801, Santa Ana, CA 92701; Mr. John Evans Wenke Burge and Taylor 1055 N. Main St. Suite 801 Santa Ana CA 92701; Dear Mr. Evans: I am writing in response to questions you raised in a January 7, 1976 telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the determinations of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for a boat trailer.; >>>GVWR is defined as: the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of single vehicle. (49 CFR 571.3).<<<; One constraint on this specification is found in the Certificatio regulation, which requires that the GVWR be; >>>not less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated carg load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity ... . (49 CFR 567.4(g)(3))<<<; 'Rated cargo load' is not defined. If a manufacturer does not provide cargo load rating to dealers or consumers, the NHTSA expects his determination of GVWR to reflect a good faith evaluation of the vehicle's load carrying capacity. In the case of a boat trailer, this evaluation should be made with the assumption that the trailer is attached to a towing vehicle and should include that portion of the trailer's load that is carried by the towing vehicle.; >>>GAWR, on the other hand, is defined as: the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load varyin capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.<<<; The GAWR of a boat trailer's axle system could thus be less than th GVWR, because some of the trailer's load would be carried by the towing vehicle. However, the NHTSA would consider a boat trailer with a GAWR that is less than the actual load on its axle system, when loaded to its GVWR and attached to a towing vehicle, to contain a safety-related defect, which is subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.; The NHTSA expects to issue, in the near future, Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire and rim selection for vehicles other than passenger cars* (49 CFR 571.120). Until the effective date of that standard, however, we will continue to consider a vehicle with tires insufficient for its gross axle weight ratings to contain a safety-related defect.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2292OpenMr. John Eckhold, Automotive Safety Director, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. John Eckhold Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; Dear Mr. Eckhold: I am writing to inform you that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) will, for a limited time, refrain from enforcing one portion of 49 CFR Part 575, *Consumer Information Regulations*.; Subpart B of Part 575 specifies certain items of consumer informatio that apply to motor vehicles and their tires. Section 575.6 in Subpart A requires this information to be delivered to first purchasers (paragraphs (a) and (b)), made available to prospective purchasers (paragraph (c)) and submitted to the NHTSA (paragraph (d)). In particular, S 575.6(d) requires that:; >>>Each manufacturer of motor vehicles...shall submit to th Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Part B of this part that is applicable to the vehicles or tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before that information is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.<<<; I understand that the strike by the United Rubber Workers has, b cutting off the supply of new tires, created an emergency situation within the motor vehicle industry, making it difficult for a manufacturer to know more than several days before it completes a vehicle which tires will be available for installation on the vehicle. I understand further that the provision of such information to the NHTSA 30 days before it is made available to prospective purchasers has become virtually impossible.; In view of the impracticability under the current circumstances of th 30-day-notice requirement, the NHTSA has concluded that enforcement of the requirement at this time is inappropriate. Accordingly, with respect to vehicles offered for sale during the strike and the 60-day period following its settlement, the NHTSA will refrain from enforcing the 30-day-notice requirement in S 575.6(d). Submittals of information to the agency must continue to be made, however, not later than the time the information is made available to prospective purchasers. With respect to vehicles that will be offered for sale at the expiration of the 60-day period, the NHTSA expects to begin receiving submittals after the thirtieth day following settlement of the strike.; Please note that the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of 575.6, as well as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims--Passenger Cars*, are not affected by this letter.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3037OpenMr. A. M. Dahm, President, Macdonald Equipment Company, P.O. Box B, 7333 Highway 85, Commerce City, CO 80022; Mr. A. M. Dahm President Macdonald Equipment Company P.O. Box B 7333 Highway 85 Commerce City CO 80022; Dear Mr. Dahm: This responds to your January 2, 1979, letter asking whether it i permissible to mount a snow plow on a vehicle when the weight of the snow plow will cause the vehicle to exceed its gross axle weight rating (GAWR). The answer to your question is no.; The GAWR of a vehicle is determined and established by a vehicle' manufacturer and represents a manufacturer's assessment of the maximum weight that each axle can safely sustain. When this weight rating is exceeded by the addition of equipment to a vehicle, the safety of a vehicle is jeopardized. Over a period of time, the excessive weight borne by the axle could result in unusual wear and eventual failure of the axle.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require manufacturers to label their vehicles with GAWR's to avoid the overload problem that you mention in your letter. The NHTSA has not granted exceptions from this requirement for snow plows. If you mount a snow plow on a new vehicle prior to first purchase, you must be sure that the vehicle continues to comply with all Federal safety standards and regulations. If the weight of the plow exceeds the GAWR of the vehicle, the vehicle would no longer comply with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. Further, the compliance of other safety standards could be impacted by the addition of that weight.; In the case of used vehicles on which you mount a snow plow, manufacturer, repair business, distributor, or dealer may not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with the safety standards. The attachment of a snow plow that exceeds the gross axle weight rating would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 120. Accordingly, whether a vehicle is new or used, the additional weight of a snow plow that would exceed the GAWR of a vehicle would not be permissible.; The NHTSA understands the budgetary constraints of municipalities However, financial considerations must be balanced against the potential loss of life that can occur when vehicles are routinely overloaded. Accordingly, vehicles that have snow plows or other devices mounted on them should have sufficient GAWR's to carry their intended load.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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 |
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.