NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam0809OpenMr. Seymour M. Lewis, Legal Counsel, Automotive Trade Association, 110 South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60602; Mr. Seymour M. Lewis Legal Counsel Automotive Trade Association 110 South Dearborn Chicago IL 60602; Dear Mr. Lewis: This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1972, to Miss Nanc Brownell concerning the placement of additional seats in a 'van' by a dealer.; Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. 1397) prohibits, among other things, the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction in interstate commerce of motor vehicles that do not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the day of the vehicle's manufacture. This prohibition applies until after the sale of the vehicle to a purchaser for a purpose other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).; This provision prohibits all persons, including dealers, from alterin a new vehicle before its sale to a user in such a way that the vehicle no longer conforms to the standards. A person who performs such alterations would be required to ensure that the vehicle conformed to all applicable standards after the alterations have been made. It appears that merely adding seats to a van without making additional alterations would cause it to fail to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 'Occupant Crash Protection', (49 CFR 571.208), and possibly other standards as well. The failure of the vehicle to conform could result in the imposition of civil penalties against the person making the alteration or selling the vehicle of up to $1,000 for each violation (15 U.S.C. 1398), and other sanctions (15 U.S.C. 1399).; You are right in your opinion that the vehicle may be modified withou regard to the standards after its first purchase for a purpose other than sale.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2834OpenHonorable Paul Trible, Member, House of Representatives, Tower Box 59, 2101 Executive Towers, Hampton, VA 23666; Honorable Paul Trible Member House of Representatives Tower Box 59 2101 Executive Towers Hampton VA 23666; Dear Mr. Trible: This is in response to the letter (enclosed) you received from you constituent Mr. Randy Churaman of Hampton, Virginia, concerning plexiglass covers for headlights.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 197 proposed rulemaking to allow fixed plastic covers over motor vehicle headlights. However, during the comment period of the proposed rulemaking some controversial items that were raised regarding fixed plastic headlight covers initiated concerns with respect to motor vehicle safety. These concerns were that: (1) moisture condenses inside the plastic covers and greatly increases headlight glare to oncoming traffic, (2) the plastic covers get scratched, thus reducing headlight output and increasing headlight glare at the same time, (3) plastic headlight covers have to be removed to mechanically aim headlamps, which becomes quite expensive to the vehicle owner and (4) correct aim of headlights is often made incorrect when installing fixed plastic headlight covers. Finally, the change in air drag by use of plastic headlight covers is extremely small since the air drag is primarily related to the overall frontal area projection of the vehicle.; Because of the foregoing disadvantages, and no major advantage to fixe plastic headlight covers other than styling, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*, prohibits fixed plastic covers over headlamps. Specifically, FMVSS No. 108 references SAE Standard J580a, which states in part... 'When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens.' There is, however, no prohibition on the installation of original equipment retractable clear plastic headlamp concealment devices on newly manufactured motor vehicles.; I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Acting Associate Administrator fo Rulemaking; |
|
ID: aiam3726OpenMr. Roderic A. Esmonde, P.E., Athey Products Corporation, Capital Equipment Division, P.O. Box 669, Raleigh, NC 27602; Mr. Roderic A. Esmonde P.E. Athey Products Corporation Capital Equipment Division P.O. Box 669 Raleigh NC 27602; Dear Mr. Esmonde: This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements o Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. You enclosed a sample of a rigid plastic you would like to use on the side windows of street sweepers, and asked whether the standard would be applicable to that type of material.; Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirement for glazing materials to be used on motor vehicles. Only those materials that are specified in the standard may be used on a vehicle, and only in the vehicle location specified for each glazing type. Thus, the sample you enclosed may be used only if it qualifies as one of the glazing types (Items) specified in the standard. A specific piece of glazing material qualifies as a particular glazing Item under the standard if it meets all of the performance tests specified in the standard for that Item. For example, your sample would be considered an Item 12 rigid plastic, which could be used in the vehicle locations specified for that glazing type, only if it passes all of the tests specified in the standard for Item 12 plastics.; Whether or not your sample does qualify as a permitted glazing Ite under the standard will have to be determined by your company. The agency does not provide advance approval for any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards and to certify that compliance.; I would also note that the glazing manufacturer is required to certify by markings etched on the material, any piece of glazing which is to be used in a motor vehicle (see S6. of Standard No. 205). These required markings would include a specification of the glazing type, e.g., 'Item 12.' The glazing sample you enclosed should be from a piece of certified material if that material is to be used on your motor vehicles.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2567OpenHonorable John W. Wydler, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable John W. Wydler House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Wydler: Thank you for your letter of April 21, 1977, requesting informatio concerning Federal regulations regarding school bus safety on behalf on your constituent, Mrs. Peter Peugeot of Rockville Centre, New York.; I have enclosed a document, 'Summary Description of Motor Vehicl Safety Standards Applicable to Buses,' which should be helpful to Mrs. Peugeot. I have also enclosed an information summary, 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations,' along with a set of forms from our Technical Reference Branch indicating how specific information may be retrieved through computer assisted literature searches along with an outline of fees for this service.; In addition to the above material, I have enclosed an order form fo the entire set of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, in case Mrs. Peugeot desires this specific volume. I would call her attention to the fact that although this document is relatively expensive, it is furnished in looseleaf form and is updated periodically for an indefinite period with the latest amendments and changes at no additional cost.; I trust this information and material will be of value to Mrs. Peugeot If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5308OpenJames E. Schlesinger, Esquire Schlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey 3000 South Eads Street Arlington, VA 22202; James E. Schlesinger Esquire Schlesinger Arkwright & Garvey 3000 South Eads Street Arlington VA 22202; "Dear Mr. Schlesinger: This responds to your letter addressed to Walte Myers of this office in which you posed certain questions relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104. Reference is also made to our letter to you dated February 23, 1993, in which we addressed certain other of your questions concerning the UTQGS. In your most recent letter, you set forth a very complicated factual scenario about certain events which occurred during 1990-91, and which involved three companies. At the end of the letter you asked, with respect to each company, whether the company was in violation of one or more provisions of 49 CFR Part 575. You also asked whether, in addition to the penalties for violation of the UTQGS as set forth in 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Act or Safety Act), there are 'additional sanctions requiring the manufacturer or brand name owner to recall unlawful product or notification procedures intended to identify unlawful product in the marketplace.' The purpose of our interpretation letters is to explain or clarify the meaning of our standards and regulations. Our letters are not intended to be adjudicative in nature. Given that the issues you raise about the three companies concern past conduct, involve complicated factual issues, and ultimately relate to whether a violation of the UTQGS has occurred, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to issue an interpretation letter concerning them. It would be appropriate, however, to clarify a statement made in our February 23, 1993, letter. The second paragraph from the bottom of page 2 of that letter states: Although both the Act and the UTQGS are silent as to whether tires can be imported or distributed without the UTQGS information, there would be no point in doing so since the tires cannot legally be sold without that information. Please note that 102(5) of the Safety Act defines 'manufacturer' as including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, an importation of non-complying tires would be considered a manufacture of non- complying tires under the Act. Thus, if a tire is required to be manufactured with certain information molded into or onto the tire sidewall, it may not be imported without such molded information. Any person doing so would be in violation of 108(a) of the Act. Should you wish this agency to investigate whether there has been a violation of the UTQGS, you may write to Mr. William A. Boehly, this agency's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, at this address, providing all relevant facts in detail. If you wish to discuss enforcement policies with this office, you may contact Kenneth Weinstein, Esq., our Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, at this address or at (202) 366-5263. With respect to your last question, we assume you are referring to Part B of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq., which requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment to provide notification of, and a remedy for, safety-related defects and noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards prescribed pursuant to 103 of the Act. Those provisions do not apply to tires that fail to comply with the UTQGS, since the UTQGS were not 'prescribed pursuant to section 103.' Rather, they were prescribed as consumer information regulations pursuant to 203 and 112(d) of the Safety Act. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2137OpenMr. Andrew W. Brainerd, Brainerd & Bridges, 1 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602; Mr. Andrew W. Brainerd Brainerd & Bridges 1 North LaSalle Street Chicago Illinois 60602; Dear Mr. Brainerd: #This is in response to your October 30, 1975 letter requesting clarification of the status of the banding requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*. #The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has granted petitions, filed by General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor Company, which requested deletion of the banding requirement. This deletion is the 'change now being developed in our rulemaking proceedings' to which you have referred. The complete elimination of the banding requirement is inconsistent with any substitute labeling requirement. The petition of your client, Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer & Co., was denied for this reason. #You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. It does indicate, however, a determination that there is a reasonable possibility that the requested amendment will be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. If the NHTSA determines that such an amendment would not be appropriate, the amendment which you have requested will be considered as an alternative. We do expect to issue a proposal in the near future. #Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2422OpenColonel Dennis Eisnach, South Dakota Highway Patrol, 118 West Capital, Pierre, SD 57501; Colonel Dennis Eisnach South Dakota Highway Patrol 118 West Capital Pierre SD 57501; Dear Colonel Eisnach: This is in response to your telephone conversation with Hugh Oates o this office regarding the possibility of obtaining an exemption for police vehicles from the suspension requirements of Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*.; You desire to have vehicles delivered from the manufacturer wit suspensions that raise the vehicle bumper height above the levels required by Standard No. 215 because of the heavy gear you carry in your vehicles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a advance notice of proposed rulemaking November 9, 1973, (38 FR 31017) concerning the applicability of Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, to vehicles designed for use by law-enforcement agencies. This notice specifically mentioned the feasibility of exempting police vehicles from the requirements of Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 215 and sought comments from the public.; After serious consideration of the issues involved, the NHTSA withdre the subject rulemaking on July 9, 1974, (39 FR 25240). That notice stated the NHTSA had determined that rulemaking action to exempt all police vehicles from the requirements of the standards would be inadvisable. a copy of both the advance notice and the withdrawal notice are enclosed for your information. These notices should explain to you the rationale behind the NHTSA's final determination concerning this subject.; In further response to your inquiry, the NHTSA is not authorized t grant an individual exemption from Federal safety standards for vehicles manufactured specifically for the South Dakota Highway Patrol.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2072OpenMr. Dennis E. David, Manager, Legislative Section, Kawasaki Motors Corporation, U.S.A., 1062 McCaw Avenue, P.O. Box 11447, Santa Ana, CA 92711; Mr. Dennis E. David Manager Legislative Section Kawasaki Motors Corporation U.S.A. 1062 McCaw Avenue P.O. Box 11447 Santa Ana CA 92711; Dear Mr. David: Your letter of August 22, 1975, addressed to Mr. Robert F. Hellmuth Office of Defects Investigation, has been referred to this office for reply. You have identified all model year Kawasaki motorcycles models KZ400, H1, H2, and Z1 equipped with Kawasaki accessory half-fairing installed as containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. The defect involves the fatigue failure of the mounting bracket which attaches the half- fairing to the motorcycle.; Kawasaki has developed a new bracket for the KZ400 and Z1 models an intends to repair those models by installing the new bracket in place of the old. However, you have indicated that Kawasaki has been unsuccessful in developing a satisfactory mounting bracket for the models H1 and H2.; Based on the above facts, you have addressed two questions to th agency which will be answered in the order presented.; >>>1. To facilitate replacement of the mounting brackets on the model KZ400 and Z1, we intend to ship the newly designed parts to the Kawasaki Dealer nearest to the owner of the motorcycle. It is then our intention to direct the owner to go to this dealer for the replacement.; Question: Is it allowable for us to so direct the owner, and if so, ma such directions be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to *Part 577*, *Defect Notification*?<<<; *Answer* - It is allowable for Kawasaki to so direct the owner, an such directions may be given in the notification letter sent pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 577.; >>>2. Is it allowable to repurchase the half-fairing from the owners o the models H1 and H2 (estimated quantity 25 total for both models), and if so, is it allowable for Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. to contact these customers by telephone prior to sending a notification letter as required by Part 577?<<<; *Answer* - Unfortunately, it is not allowable to repurchase th half-fairing from the owners of the H1 and H2 models. The half-fairings are items of 'motor vehicle equipment' as defined in section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. S 1391(4) hereinafter 'the Act'). Congress has explicitly limited the options of manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment containing a defect related to motor vehicle safety. While repurchase of a motor vehicle is permissible when a safety related defect is contained therein, such is not the case when the defect is contained in an item of motor vehicle equipment. *Compare* 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(A) *with* 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(b), *accord* H.R. Rep. No. 1452, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 26-29 (1974).; Half-fairings can make a safety contribution by shielding the ride from flying stones or other small debris and reducing driver fatigue on long trips. It is therefore reasonable that Congress would require that such equipment be either repaired or replaced but not repurchased when it contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If Kawasaki is unable to repair the defective half-fairings on H1 and H2 models, the law requires that it replace them 'without charge with . . .identical or reasonably equivalent' items of replacement equipment. 15 U.S.C. S 1414(a)(2)(B). Replacement may involve the design of a new half-fairing by Kawasaki or provision of a similar item of equipment produced by another manufacturer.; Thank you for your inquiry. Should you have any questions with regar to these matters, please contact the undersigned at 202-426- 9511.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2588OpenMr. Joseph W. Kennebeck, Manager, Emissions, Safety and Development, Volkswagen of America, Inc., 818 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632; Mr. Joseph W. Kennebeck Manager Emissions Safety and Development Volkswagen of America Inc. 818 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs N.J. 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to Volkswagen's March 9, 1977, petition fo reconsideration of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; Procedures for processing petitions for reconsideration are contains i the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 553. Part 553.35(c) states that '[t]he Administrator does not consider repetitious petitions.' Your March 9 petitions raises two issues that were also discussed in your February 20, 1976, petition for reconsideration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) carefully considered those issues in our February 7, 1977 (42 FR 7140) response to petitions for reconsideration. Since the Agency has considered these issues previously, the NHTSA declines to consider them again as you suggest.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3233OpenMr. Dick Pilch, P.O. Box 1311, Puyallup, Washington 98371; Mr. Dick Pilch P.O. Box 1311 Puyallup Washington 98371; Dear Mr. Pilch: This responds to your February 7, 1980 letter to the Department o Transportation, in which you complained about the failure of a tire on your truck. Specifically, you stated that the tires on the front axle of your truck were overloaded by 570 pounds each, and that no non-radial tire is currently manufactured which would not have been overloaded if used on this front axle.; If the tires which were overloaded came as original equipment on th truck, the manufacturer of the truck violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR 571.120). Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 requires the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to any axle to be at least equal to the gross axle weight rating of that particular axle. This requirement is applicable to all trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1976. If your truck was manufactured after that date, please send ne the name of the manufacturer as well as the information provided by the manufacturer specifying the appropriate tire sizes to be used on the truck. The information concerning appropriate tire sizes will appear on a label on the door latch post on the driver's side of the truck. If the manufacturer has violated Standard No. 120, appropriate steps will be taken by the agency.; You also stated that certain radial tires would have met th load-carrying requirements for your truck, but that you would not use radial tires because of erratic wear patterns. For your Information, I have enclosed a booklet published by the Rubber Manufacturers Association setting forth information on the care and service of radial and non-radial truck tires. On page 11 of this booklet there is a description of the irregular wear to which you refer, as well as instructions on how to prevent irregular wear from lessening the overall mileage the tire will give you. Hence, if you wish to use radial tires on your truck, there is no reason to expect them to perform unsatisfactory.; More significant, however, is the misunderstanding you have i suggesting that no bias ply tire is manufactured which would not have been overloaded on your truck. Such a tire is now manufactured and has been manufactured for at least the past 20 years. On page 30 of the enclosed booklet, you will find a table showing the load-carrying capacity of bias ply tire sizes mounted on 15 degrees drop center rims. The tire size mounted on your truck, the 11-22.5, does indeed have a maximum load of 5,430 pounds if it is a load range F tire. However, a load range G tire of the same size has a maximum load of 6,040 pounds, and would not overload if used on your truck. This is the tire you should probably use on the front axle.; I am sorry to hear of your accident and hope that you have recovere from your injuries. Your complaint about the failure of the Uniroyal Delta tire has been recorded, and the agency will be alert to other indications of problems with this tire. To date, however, we do not have sufficient data indicating a safety problem to open a formal investigation.; I want to thank you for taking the time to express your concern abou motor vehicle safety. It is only through the efforts of concerned citizens such as yourself that we can ensure maximum safety for all users of the highway. If you have any further questions or concerns about this matter or any other aspect of highway safety, please do not hesitate to contact me.; 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.