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: aiam4575OpenMr. Robbie Folino-Nazda Attorney-in-Fact Fritz Companies, Inc. 7550 22nd Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450; Mr. Robbie Folino-Nazda Attorney-in-Fact Fritz Companies Inc. 7550 22nd Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55450; Dear Mr. Folino-Nazda: We have received a copy of your letter o December l9, l988, to Commissioner Young of the Food and Drug Administration, forwarded to us by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. You have asked whether the 'vehicle safety device' you described (with samples enclosed) are subject to any restrictions which would prevent importation of the device. The device provides an 'ultrasonic animal warning.' At a speed 'over 30 mph air flow produces a high pitch whistle which animals try to avoid.' It is designed for owner installation on 'bumpers, grills, fenders, mirrors and roofs' of motor vehicles. Because the device is intended solely as an accessory to motor vehicles, it is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the jurisdiction of this agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to this type of equipment. You should also be aware that if the device's manufacturer ('manufacturer' includes both the maker as well as any importer for resale) or this agency were to determine that the device contains a safety-related defect, importers of this foreign-made device would be required by the Vehicle Safety Act to recall the device and remedy the defect or replace the device without charge. We are returning your samples to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1327OpenMr. L. Clinton Rich, R.F. & W. Auto Wheel Service, 2807 Cresmont Avenue, Baltimore, Md. 21211; Mr. L. Clinton Rich R.F. & W. Auto Wheel Service 2807 Cresmont Avenue Baltimore Md. 21211; Dear Mr. Rich: Confirming our recent conversation: No Federal motor vehicle safet standard regulates the straightening and subsequent sale of motor vehicle wheels.; Our regulations are applicable to the manufacture and sale of new moto vehicle and motor vehicle equipment only up to the point of their first sale for purposes other than resale. I assume that straightened wheels are used equipment that has been reworked, and as such they would not be subject to any standard unless they were placed on new vehicles as original equipment. There is a standard, No. 110, that applies to passenger cars, requiring the wheel rims to meet the rim manufacturer's specified rim dimensions and to retain a tire which loses all pressure at 60 miles per hour.; A regulation applying directly to wheels is under consideration, but i would still apply only to new equipment and vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4125OpenMr. Bob Carlson, 8305 29th Avenue, N.W., Seattle, WA 98117; Mr. Bob Carlson 8305 29th Avenue N.W. Seattle WA 98117; Dear Mr. Carlson: This responds to your January 23, 1986 letter inquiring about Federa motor vehicle safety standards applicable to your projected sale of aftermarket windshield wiper systems for trucks.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agenc has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*, applicable to new motor vehicles. As you note, this standard applies to trucks, as well as other types of vehicles. In your letter, you ask which performance requirements apply to wiping systems for trucks.; Under S4. *Requirements*, new trucks are required to have power-driven windshield wiping system that meets the requirements of S4.1.1. The frequency requirements in S4.1.1 apply to trucks, but the wiped area requirements of S4.1.2 apply only to passenger cars. Trucks must also have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965, except that the 'effective wipe pattern' is considered to be 'the pattern designed by the manufacturer for the windshield wiping system on the exterior surface of the windshield glazing.' Therefore, the vehicle manufacturer establishes the wipe pattern of the system.; If a new truck equipped with your wiper system did not comply wit Standard No. 104 due to some aspect of that system, the sale of that truck to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3930OpenMs. Beatrice Ho, Honest International Corp., P.O. Box 851391, Richardson, TX 75081; Ms. Beatrice Ho Honest International Corp. P.O. Box 851391 Richardson TX 75081; Dear Ms. Ho: This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of this agency' Rulemaking Division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a child restraint which has been certified as meeting the Japanese safety standard could automatically be considered as complying with Standard No. 213, and, if not, asked for the names and addresses of the U.S. testing laboratories.; There is no requirement that the measures, such as testing, taken by manufacturer to demonstrate it exercised due care to produce an item of equipment in accordance with Standard No. 213, be performed in this country. If a foreign standard is essentially identical to Standard No. 213, then it may be that the efforts made by a manufacturer in a foreign country to show compliance with that country's standard could form the basis for the manufacturer's certification that its product complied with Standard No. 213. The adequacy of those efforts would depend on a variety of factors, including the degree of similarity between the standards and the resources available to the manufacturer to determine its compliance. For additional information relating to your question, please see the enclosed letter written last year to an Austrian child restraint manufacturer. That letter explains in detail the procedures for certifying compliance with Standard No. 213.; For purposes of enforcing Standard No. 213, this agency conducts spo checks of child restraints after they have been certified by the manufacturer as complying with the standard, by purchasing child restraints and testing them in accordance with the procedures specified in the standard. If the child restraints pass those tests, no further steps are taken.; If a child restraint fails the tests and is determined not to compl with Standard No. 213 or if it is determined that the child restraint contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer of the child restraint is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:; (1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance i removed, or; (2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonabl equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.; Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacture must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.; Should you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2622OpenMr. Jerry W. McNeil, Director of Engineering, American Trailers, Inc., Box 26568, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126; Mr. Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering American Trailers Inc. Box 26568 Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73126; Dear Mr McNeil: This responds to your May 25, 1977, letter asking whether two sampl certification labels you submitted comply with the requirements of Part 567, *Certification*, and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The National HIghway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The two labels you submitted do not follow the format required by Part 567 for certification labels. Therefore, they do not appear to comply with the requirements. Your method of stating tire and rim sizes differs from that required in Part 567 and Standard No. 120. For example, you state your tire and rim information as follows: '10-20-f-Tires-7.5 Rims at 75 PSI Cold Dual.' By the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 as they apply to certification labels, this information should read: '10.00-20(f) tires, 20x7.5 rims, at 75 psi cold dual.' Further, the statement after GAWR 'maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below' should be deleted from the certification label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 for your information.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2272OpenMr. R. E. Mindheim, Chief Engineer, Safety & Warranty, White Motor Corporation, P.O. Box 91500, Cleveland, OH 44101; Mr. R. E. Mindheim Chief Engineer Safety & Warranty White Motor Corporation P.O. Box 91500 Cleveland OH 44101; Dear Mr. Mindheim: This responds to White Motor Corporation's March 26, 1976, request fo confirmation that the brake systems of incomplete and complete vehicles to which Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, applies, may be modified by White under provisions of paragraph 567.7 of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, or paragraph 568.5 of 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*.; Paragraph 567.7 provides that a person may alter a previously certifie vehicle prior to the first retail sale, and that the person must state that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with applicable standards if weight ratings or other than readily attachable components have been affected. The person may choose any point from the date of certification to the date alterations were completed as the date of the alterer's statement. The NHTSA would not consider White to be violating its certification responsibilities by alterations of the brake system that you describe, as long as White indicates the modifications under the provisions of paragraph 567.7.; Paragraph 568.5 of Part 568 provides that an intermediate manufacture may modify an incomplete vehicle. Under this paragraph, the intermediate manufacturer must furnish an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document reflecting any changes that should be made in the document because of modifications by the intermediate manufacturer that have affected validity of certain statements. White could utilize this provision to modify the vehicle so long as the addendum of changes is furnished along with the incomplete document.; As a practical result of the changes you describe, the final-stag manufacturer will not, as is normally the case, be able to utilize any date between the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle and the date of final completion as the basis of certification. Therefore, it may be advisable for White to issue a new incomplete vehicle document to assist the final-stage manufacturer in its certification responsibilities. Whenever this is not practical, a notation that the final-stage manufacturer's choice of dates has been limited by White's modification should be made in the addendum to the original document.; This discussion appears to conflict with the definition of intermediat manufacturer that appears in S 568.3. However, the definition is not intended to prevent the modifications you intend to undertake, and an interpretative amendment is being considered to clarify the breadth of the definition.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2788OpenMr. James N. Miller, Hess and Eisenhardt, Co., Blue Ash Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45242; Mr. James N. Miller Hess and Eisenhardt Co. Blue Ash Avenue Cincinnati OH 45242; Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the vehicle classification of a proposed new station wagon having a Cadillac commercial chassis. Specifically, you ask whether the vehicle can be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle on the basis that it has the same chassis that is used on hearses and ambulances, which are multipurpose passenger vehicles.; Based on your description, it is the agency's opinion that the propose new station wagon would be classified as a passenger car. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is described in 49 CFR S 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' The vehicle you described does not meet either of the criteria of that definition. The fact that your vehicle would be built on the same chassis as hearses and ambulances does not affect its classification as a passenger car.; The classification of hearses and ambulances as multipurpose passenge vehicles was based upon specific policy considerations. The unique functions of these vehicles are accommodated by a strengthening of their chassis. Because of the special uses to which they are put, other aspects of the vehicles are designed in a manner which inhibits compliance with several passenger car standards. Given the chassis modifications and the special uses of these vehicles, the NHTSA determined that the policy considerations that led to the placing of vehicles with truck chassis into a category separate from passenger cars apply equally to ambulances and hearses, and that the chassis used for these vehicles may reasonably be considered truck chassis for purposes of classification. These policy considerations are not relevant to the vehicle you describe since it is apparently designed to function primarily as a passenger-carrying vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3033OpenJohn H. Latshaw, Jr., Esq., Messrs. Topkins, Gammin & Krattenmaker, 151 Tremont Street, Boston MA 02111; John H. Latshaw Jr. Esq. Messrs. Topkins Gammin & Krattenmaker 151 Tremont Street Boston MA 02111; Dear Mr. Latshaw: RE: The Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier by Ennova, Inc. This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1979, to John Womack o this office on behalf of your client Ennova, Inc. Ennova wishes to market a 'back rack carrier', and you have asked several questions with respect to its legality under Federal requirements. The photographs which you enclosed show that the carrier structure is attached to both the front and rear bumpers, and that loads may be carried on the top of the vehicle as well as on a shelf directly behind the vehicle's rear bumper.; Your questions and our answers are: '1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned moto vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is preempted?; 2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining t roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?'; An equipment carrier that attaches to a motor vehicle is an item o 'motor vehicle equipment' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), and your client is a 'manufacturer' as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover this type of motor vehicle equipment, and, therefore, a State is not preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) (sic) from prescribing its own safety standards for it. If a safety related defect were discovered in the 'Back Rack', Ennova would be responsible for notification and remedy of it, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1411 *et seq*.; '3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumper or fenders which the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any Federal standards?; The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in semipermanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? Is (sic) so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?; 4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rac (T.M.) Carrier present a problem?; 5. The structural supports of the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier obscure th vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?; 8. If the Back Rack (T.M.) Carrier as it appears in the photograph were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment.'; Your questions concern our jurisdiction over a vehicle before and afte its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. A dealer has the responsiblity (sic) to deliver to its owner a new vehicle in full compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any 'additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment ... that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.' Paragraph S4.3.1 requires that 'no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its photometric output at any applicable group of test points specified in Figures 1 and 3 [Standard No. 108], or prevent any other lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable 'SAE Standard on Recommended Practice'. Therefore, a dealer could not deliver a new car with the Back Rack installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the car's lamps or reflectors or impairs photometric output. After sale, a dealer (or distributor or manufacturer, but not the vehicle owner) has a responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2) (A) of not 'knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element design installed on ... a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' In the context of Standard No. 108 we have equated a rendering inoperative with impaired effectiveness or impaired photometrics so that the same consideration would apply, a dealer could not install the Back Rack on a used vehicle if it affects compliance with Standard No. 108.; The installation of the Back Rack appears to present some complianc problems. Based upon an informal review and the photographs you submitted, the front part of the carrier may reduce headlamp candlepower output below the required minimum at several test points, as for example, at test points HV, H-3R and 3L and H 9R and 9L on the upper beam, and at test points 1 1/2 D-2R, 1/2 D-1 1/2 R on the low beam.; Looking at the turn signals which are required to have an 8.0 squar inch minimum projected luminous area, the carrier support design may mask them to the extent that the direction of the turn signal might not be clearly understood. The carrier support location may not allow these lamps to provide an unobstructed effective projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, of at least 2 square inches, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This requirement must also be met by the taillamps. Further with respect to the taillamps, with the carrier in place, they may not be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left and/or right, as Standard No. 108 requries (sic).; The design location of the carrier supports may reduce the minimu effective projected luminous area of the stop lamps below the 8 square inch minimum of Standard No. 108.; As for backup lamps, the visibility requirements are complex, those o SAE Standard J593c as modified by S4.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108, but in essence the lamps must be 'readily visible' to use your phrase.; These interpretations are based upon the photographs you supplied, an are meant to be illustrative as there are many different lighting configurations on vehicles, and we do not know that the Back Rack would affect compliance in all instances.; '7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?'; Dimensional requirements of headlights conform to SAE J571d *Dimensional Specifications of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units*, June 1966, parking lights, SAE J 222, *Parking Lamps (Position Lamps)* December 1970, direction lights (turn signals) SAE J588e *Turn Signal Lamps (Rear Position Light)*, August 1970. Copies of the foregoing SAE Standards are attached. In addition, the minima and maxima of lens visibility requirements for parking lamps, turn signal lamps and taillamps are set forth in these SAE Standards. The minimum and maximum photometric requirements of headlights are set forth in SAE J 579a, August 1965 and J 579c, December 1974, as well as the design parameters of rectangular headlamp units SAE J 1132, *Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles* (copies also attached).; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3463OpenMr. Frank J. Goossens, A. Lakin & Sons, Inc., 2044 North Dominick Street, Chicago, IL 60614; Mr. Frank J. Goossens A. Lakin & Sons Inc. 2044 North Dominick Street Chicago IL 60614; Dear Mr. Goossens: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation of a informal opinion you were given in a telephone conversation with Mr. Steve Kratzke of this office. You were concerned about the requirements of Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117) and 49 CFR Part 574 (copies enclosed) regarding the information which must appear on the sidewall of retreaded passenger car tires. Your company would like to use a bead-to-bead retreading process which will remove all of the safety information and the DOT certification and identification number molded on the sidewall of the tire by the original manufacturer.; A retreader of passenger car tires is permitted to remove thes markings, provided the retreader molds into or onto the sidewall of the retreaded tires the information and certification markings required by Standard 117 and Part 574. Section 6.3 of Standard 117 specifies the safety information which must appear on the sidewall of retreaded passenger car tires. This section explicitly gives the retreader a choice of retaining the information molded on the sidewalls by the original manufacturer or of molding the information into or onto the sidewalls during the retreading process. Since the retreading process you intend to use will remove the original labeling, you will have no choice but to mold the required information on the sidewalls during your retreading process.; With respect to the DOT certification label and the origina manufacturer's identification mark, section 5.2.3 of Standard 117 provides that any passenger car tire casing that is to be retreaded must bear the DOT symbol of the original manufacturer as a certification that, at the time of manufacture, the tire met all the requirements of Standard 109. Ordinarily, in cases other than retreading, the removal of this DOT symbol from the passenger car tire by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business is prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section reads in part: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on...an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....' Since the DOT symbol is an element of design on a tire installed in compliance with Standard 109, any knowing removal by the parties listed in this section would be a violation of the section.; The prohibition in Section 108(a)(2)(A) which acts to prevent remova of the new tire certification symbol ceases to have effect when the tire is converted into a retreaded tire. This result is consistent with previous agency interpretations indicating that when a motor vehicle is converted from one type to another, section 108(a)(2)(A) ceases to require the vehicle's continued compliance with standards applicable to the vehicle as originally manufactured but not as converted.; Although both Standard 109 and Standard 117 require that tires b marked with a DOT symbol to certify compliance, the symbol affixed by the manufacturer of the new tire cannot serve also as the symbol to be affixed by the retreader. The retreader is required by section 6.1 of Standard 117 to affix its own DOT symbol to certify that the tire, as retreaded, fully complies with all the requirements of Standard 117. Chapter 49 *Code of Federal Regulations* Part 574.5 specifies the location for the DOT symbol on the sidewall, as well as a manufacturer's code and other information which must be molded onto or into the sidewall immediately following the DOT symbol. The retreader's certification and identification mark serve the same purpose for the retreaded tire that the new tire manufacturer's certification and identification mark serve for the new tire. Thus, the retreader may remove the original DOT symbol and identification from passenger car tire casings during the retreading process.; If you have any further question on this matter, please contact Mr Steve Kratzke of my staff (202-426- 2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3199OpenLieutenant R. C. Dale, Secretary, Commission on Equipment, State of Washington, General Administration Bldg. AX-12, Olympia, WA 98504; Lieutenant R. C. Dale Secretary Commission on Equipment State of Washington General Administration Bldg. AX-12 Olympia WA 98504; Dear Lieutenant Dale: This is in response to your letter of January 24, 1980, asking whethe Federal motor vehicle safety standards prevent the installation of aftermarket trailer hitches in a manner which diminishes the damage resistance performance of the vehicle bumper. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that,; >>>'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard,...'<<<; However, Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 215, Exterio Protection, applicable to vehicles manufactured between September 1, 1972, and September 1, 1978, permitted the removal of trailer hitches prior to testing for compliance with the regulation (49 CFR S571.215, S6.1.5). Therefore, installation of a trailer hitch on such a vehicle would not be considered to have rendered the vehicle's bumper system inoperative.; Similarly, the Part 581 bumper standard, which replaced FMVSS No. 21 for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1978, provides for removal of trailer hitches prior to testing (49 CFR S581.6(a)(5)). The installation of a trailer hitch which impairs the damage resistance performance of a bumper is then not prohibited by Federal bumper regulations.; 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.