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: aiam3265OpenMr. Robert A. Eddy, Manager, Quality Assurance, McCreary Tire & Rubber Company, Indiana, PA 15701; Mr. Robert A. Eddy Manager Quality Assurance McCreary Tire & Rubber Company Indiana PA 15701; Dear Mr. Eddy: This is in response to your letter of March 7, 1980, asking whethe ASTM E501 and E524 tires must be graded in accordance with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104). You state that these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for traction testing and are not manufactured for general highway use. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's understanding that these tires are used only on a test trailer designed for use in skid testing.; The UTQG regulation applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenge cars (49 CFR 575.104(c)(1)). Thus, ASTM E501 and E524, which are manufactured solely for use on a traction test trailer, would not fall within the application of the UTQG Standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2024OpenHonorable Bob Packwood, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Bob Packwood United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Packwood: Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1975, forwarding a copy of letter to me from Mr. William G. White, President of Consolidated Freightways Corporation, and asking for early consideration of Mr. White's request. In that letter, Mr. White asks that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require reports from all truck operators and antilock system manufacturers on any malfunction they experience with antilock systems.; I have given full consideration to the important matter of collectin sufficient data on the reliability of antilock systems used on production vehicles, and I have responded to Mr. White with my conclusions. A copy of that response is enclosed to provide you with a complete explanation of my decision.; Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr. |
|
ID: aiam0019OpenPenn Affiliates, Inc., American Seat Belt Council, Inc., 271 North Avenue, New Rochelle, NY 10801; Penn Affiliates Inc. American Seat Belt Council Inc. 271 North Avenue New Rochelle NY 10801; Gentlemen: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1967. Motor Vehicle Safety *Standard No. 209* applies to seat belt assemblie manufactured after February 28, 1967, for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Since Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, which provides that a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 shall be installed in each passenger car seat position, has an effective date of January 1, 1968, until that date seat belt assemblies installed in passenger cars need not conform to Standard No. 209 unless the seat belt assemblies have been manufactured after February 28, 1967.; Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we can be of further servic to you.; Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Administrator |
|
ID: aiam4959OpenMr. Paul N. Wagner President Bornemann Products Incorporated 402 Industrial Drive P.O. Box 427 Bremen, IN 46506; Mr. Paul N. Wagner President Bornemann Products Incorporated 402 Industrial Drive P.O. Box 427 Bremen IN 46506; "Dear Mr. Wagner: This responds to your letter seeking furthe information about the extension of the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection to light trucks and vans. You indicated that you were particularly interested in the application of the dynamic testing requirements to vehicles manufactured in more than one stage. Your letter stated that throughout 1991 your company was repeatedly led to believe there would be no delay of the September 1, 1991 effective date for the application of the dynamic testing requirements to light trucks and vans. Your letter also indicated that, after proceeding with testing to ensure that your company's van conversions would comply with the dynamic testing requirements, you found additional complications hampering your testing efforts. In response to these complications, your company filed a petition asking that the applicability of the dynamic testing requirements to light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage be delayed from the scheduled September 1, 1991 date until April 1, 1992. NHTSA received your petition on August 29, 1991. This petition was rejected as untimely and you were notified of the rejection in an October 10, 1991 letter from Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Your company proceeded with further testing after you learned that NHTSA had not accepted your petition, and have been able to certify that your conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. Your letter estimated that the total cost of the research and testing performed by your company to certify compliance with the dynamic testing requirements was nearly $200,000. Then, on January 21, 1992, your company received a memorandum from the trade group Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), announcing that representatives of RVIA had met with representatives of this agency on January 14, 1992. You believed that the RVIA memorandum 'indicates a delay of the September 1, 1991 effective date for the dynamic testing requirements is on the horizon.' Your letter suggested that there is now confusion among van converters and other multistage manufacturers about the status of the dynamic testing requirements for vehicles manufactured in more than one stage. You asked us to state whether a delay in the effective date for the dynamic testing requirements as applied to multistage vehicles is now being considered by the agency. The answer is no. There was a meeting between representatives of this agency and the RVIA on January 14, 1992. From our perspective, the meeting was informative and constructive, and provided us with further insights into the efforts that were needed for van converters to ensure that their vans complied with the new dynamic testing requirements. We hope to maintain such dialogues with RVIA and any other interested multistage manufacturers. However, our January 14, 1992 meeting did not change some facts. First, the dynamic testing requirements took effect for light trucks and vans on September 1, 1991, including light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage. This means that each light truck and van manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 had to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with the dynamic testing requirements. Second, any member of the public can petition the agency to modify any of its standards, including the dynamic testing requirements as they apply generally to light trucks and vans manufactured in more than one stage. If RVIA should submit a petition to modify the dynamic testing requirements, as it suggested it would in the memorandum you received, NHTSA would consider that petition according to the same procedures followed in the case of your company's petition on this subject or any other petition from the public. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further concerns or questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2474OpenHonorable Albert H. Quie, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; Honorable Albert H. Quie House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Mr. Quie: This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1976, regarding complaint by Mr. Russ Fink, that tires marked within a certain size classification are not uniform.; Mr. Fink's letter does not report any actual tire dimensions and doe not fully explain the age of his tires, the amount of treadwear, the type of tread pattern, inflation pressures, and the width of the rims when he was making his measurements. All of these factors have an effect on tire size matching, and must be considered in making dimensional comparisons.; Contrary to Mr. Fink's claim, tire manufacturing is carefull controlled to meed rigid dimensional requirements. These requirements are a part of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 109 for new passenger car tires, No. 119 for other new motor vehicle tires, and No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires. A copy of each is enclosed . Every effort is made in our standards enforcement program to assure that manufacturers and retreaders comply with the specified dimensional requirements.; Referring to the tables in Appendix AS of FMVSS No. 109, Mr. Fink ca see that there are differences is specifications for the three tires he mentions:; Tire Rim Max. Load Section Min. Size Size Width at 24 psi Width Facto H78-15 6'' 1450 8.55 36.50 7.60-15 5-1/2'' 1450 7.90 36.05 8.55-15 6'' 1510 8.45 36.57; In purchasing new or retreaded tires from a tire dealer, consumers ar entitled to dimensions held within specified tolerances, and when tires are found to exceed these tolerances we would appreciate being notified so that we may initiate investigation.; Sincerely, John W. Snow, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam0449OpenMr. Paul H. Lawrenz, American Motors Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI, 48232; Mr. Paul H. Lawrenz American Motors Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Lawrenz: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1971, to Mr. Lewis C Owen of this Office concerning an interpretation on the visibility requirements in FMVSS No. 108 as referenced in FMVSS No. 215.; Paragraph S4.3.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that the lamps be visibl at the extreme photometric test angles or as otherwise specified in the applicable SAE Standards. This paragraph does not require photometric tests at these extreme angles.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4373OpenMs. Laurie J. Schonauer, Bethell Company, P.O. Box 191, Colton, CA 92324-0087; Ms. Laurie J. Schonauer Bethell Company P.O. Box 191 Colton CA 92324-0087; Dear Ms. Schonauer: Your letter of May 14, 1987, addressed to the office of Vehicle Safet Standards, was referred to me for reply. Along with your letter, you sent marketing literature, and samples of your product, a device you are marketing under the name 'Insta-cone.' Your literature indicates your intention to market this device principally as an emergency traffic warning device.; The product is made of bright orange corrugated paper and has thre connected triangular faces. You shipped your product folded along the legs of the triangles, and packaged in a clear paper wrapper. A user unfolds your device, and connects tabs and slots along the legs of the triangles to form a pyramid. At the base of two triangles that form the pyramid is a long tab with covered adhesive strips. According to your literature, a user assembles your product, uncovers the adhesive, and secures it to the ground with these adhesive tabs. Buried in one leg of the triangle is a small nail for securing the product in ground where the adhesive will not take hold.; You ask two questions. The first is whether this agency will send you letter stating that your product may be used to indicate the presence of a disable passenger vehicle. The second question is whether this agency will send you a 'statement...that it is a good idea for passenger vehicles to have a first aid kit, (your product), or even flares in the trunk in case of an accident or breakdown.'; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agenc of the Department of Transportation, and has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.; Standard 125, *Warning Devices* sets uniform design specifications fo devices used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a disabled vehicle. The Standard applies to any such device without a self-contained energy source that it designed to be carried in motor vehicles and erected when needed to warn approaching traffic. Your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and falls under this Standard. Thus, the 'Insta-Cone' must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configuration, color, and reflectivity. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards.; In answer to your first question, you do not need a letter from thi agency to market your device as a motor vehicle equipment for use to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, so long as your device meets FMVSS 125 requirements. However, NHTSA's preliminary review of your product indicates that the 'Insta- cone' may not comply with the color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability requirements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market and sell it as a warning device.; As I stated earlier in this letter, this agency does not endors commercial products. In answer to your second question, NHTSA must decline to supply you with the kind of statement you suggest.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1171OpenF. A. Stewart, Vice President, Jeep Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; F. A. Stewart Vice President Jeep Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1973, concerning th procedure for testing seat belt attachment bolts specified in section S5.2(c)(1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; The attachment bolts that you describe have extremely long shoulder and are installed in the vehicle by being passed through a hat section before entering the floor pan. Your question is whether the test procedure of S5.2(c)(1) permits the hat section to be used in conjunction with the test fixture shown in Figure 3. It is our opinion that section S5.2(c)(1) permits some discretion in the manner in which the Figure 3 test fixture is to be used and that a hat section duplicating the section used in the vehicle would be permitted as part of the test apparatus. We therefore confirm your impression that you may use the hat section in testing your bolts.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4689OpenMr. Joe W. Humphrey 10250 Goodman Road, #l0l Olive Branch, MS 38654; Mr. Joe W. Humphrey 10250 Goodman Road #l0l Olive Branch MS 38654; Dear Mr. Humphrey: This is in reply to your letter of November 9, 1990 with respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp. You have asked if it is acceptable to add amber turn signal lamps to each side of the center stop lamp. The answer is yes, if the turn signal lamps are separate from the stop lamp. Under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, the center stop lamp cannot be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4723OpenMr. Richard L. Martinez Santa Fe Insurance Agency, Inc. 231 Washington Avenue Santa Fe, NM 87501-1926; Mr. Richard L. Martinez Santa Fe Insurance Agency Inc. 231 Washington Avenue Santa Fe NM 87501-1926; "Re: Europa International, Inc. Dear Mr. Martinez: This is in reply t your letter of March 9, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to 'the $2,000 liability policy' that you discussed with him. You have asked four questions with respect to this subject on behalf of a client who intends to apply for recognition as a registered importer by this agency, and as an independent commercial importer (ICI) under EPA regulations. Initially, let me provide you with some background information. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, specifically Title l5, United States Code, Section 1397(c)(3)(D)(ii), the Department of Transportation is required to prescribe by regulation 'provisions for ensuring that the registered importer (or any successor in interest) will be able technically and financially to carry out the importer's responsibilities under part B of this title (relating to discovery, notification, and remedy of defects).' These responsibilities primarily are to notify vehicle owners in the event that either a safety related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist in the owner's vehicle, and to remedy the situation. In developing a regulation to implement the statutory requirement, the agency examined the regulations of the EPA pertaining to ICIs. In a final rule published on September 25, l987 (52 FR 36136), EPA required ICIs to provide to vehicle or engine owners warranties, and to ensure that the warranties 'are insured by a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance company', and 'are transferable to each successive owner . . . .' (40 CFR 85.1510(b)(2)). In commenting on EPA's proposed regulation, the State of California had noted that CARB's own new regulation addressing non-conforming vehicles required modifiers to post a prepaid surety bond in the amount of $1,000 per vehicle to cover its obligation to perform recalls, or alternatively, to purchase insurance which will cover the modifier's recall obligation. The Department of Transportation, wishing to conform as closely as possible to procedures already in practice for grey market importers who were ICIs, proposed and adopted 49 CFR 592.6(h), requiring registered importers to 'maintain in effect a prepaid mandatory service insurance policy underwritten by an independent insurance complany as a guarantor of its performance under paragraph (f) of this section.' (which relates to notification and remedy). With this background in mind, I shall reply to your four questions: '1. Is it required that the term of the policy be for eight years from the date of purchase/sale?' In essence, yes. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are required to provide remedy without charge for a period of 8 years following the first purchase of a vehicle (however, there is no limit on the time for notification). The general requirement for registered importers, established by Section 592.6(f)(2)(i), is that the obligation to provide remedy without charge shall not apply if the noncompliance or safety related defect exists in a motor vehicle whose first sale after importation occurred more than 8 calendar years before notification respecting the failure to comply is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. However, during the 8-year period following sale after importation, the registered importer is not obligated to provide repair without charge if two factors are present. The first is that the condition is a safety related defect that is attributable solely to the original manufacturer of the vehicle, and not to the registered importer. The second is that the date of the original first purchase of the vehicle, if known, or, if not known, the date of manufacture, as determined by the Department of Transportation, is more than 8 years from the date on which notification is furnished by the registered importer to vehicle owners. '2. The limit is $2,000. Would that apply annually or would it be for the entire eight-year period? The reason for this question is that the companies are wondering whether or not this is a cumulative limit, e.g., $2,000 x eight years = $16,000.' The purpose of the policy is to ensure that any noncompliance or safety related defect that is determined to exist in a vehicle may be remedied without charge to the vehicle owner. If the registered importer is financially unable to effect remedy, then the policy is intended to cover the cost of remedy. The most usual form of remedy is repair. Pursuant to comments received during the course of rulemaking that $2,000 appeared to be the uppermost sum necessary to repair a single noncompliance or safety related defect, the agency adopted section 592.5(a)(8) stating that the policy is 'in an amount that equals $2,000 for each motor vehicle . . . .' The answer to your question can be expressed in the following example. If a registered importer becomes insolvent in the second year following sale of the vehicle, for the next 6 years the policy should be available to any owner of the vehicle to cover the costs of repairing any safety related defect or noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle, with a limit of $2,000 on the cost of correcting any such defect or noncompliance covered by a single campaign. Records of past remedial campaigns are available if insurance companies wish to study the types of noncompliances and safety related defects that have occurred over the years, as well as the model and model years involved. In our judgment, the cost of each repair has been far less than $2,000. If repair is impossible, alternative forms of remedy established by statute are replacement with a vehicle of equivalent value, or repurchase of a vehicle. Obviously this form of remedy cannot occur if the registered importer has gone out of business. '3. You mentioned that the policy was to cover non-compliance or safety defect situations. What are areas to be covered: emissions controls, latent defects, brake problems, warranty situations such as drive train, etc.?' Each system, part, or component of a motor vehicle is covered by the remedial authority. If a component is part of a system necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle does not comply with that standard because of the design or manufacture of that component, replacement of the component with a satisfactory one would be the object of a remedial campaign. For example, if a vehicle could not meet the stopping distance requirement of Standard No. l05 Hydraulic Brake Systems, and that failure was due to the inadequacy of the brake lining, the object of the campaign would be to recall all affected vehicles and replace the brake lining with one by which the vehicle would comply. The statute defines a defect as one that is inclusive of any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. But only defects that are determined to be safety related require correction. The question of whether a defect is safety related depends upon the facts of the individual case. Generally, defects in emission controls are not safety related, nor are 'warranty situations such as drive trains'. Determinations of the existence of noncompliances or safety related defects are made by the registered importer, the Department of Transportation, or the original manufacturer of the vehicle. '4. Europa is looking into whether or not MBNA would provide a warranty policy for the G-wagon multipurpose passenger vehicle not sold in the United States as they currently do for their private passenger vehicles. The present warranty covers for a 12/12 plan. If they were to extend this, is it possible that that could be acceptable as an alternative to the $2,000 limit?' We doubt that MBNA would be willing to extend any type of warranty to a vehicle that is not originally manufactured by its parent company to comply with Federal safety standards, that it does not import, and that is not sold through its dealers. Further, such a vehicle could not be imported into the United States unless the Department of Transportation had determined that it was capable conformance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, assuming that the G-wagon is deemed eligible for entry and that MBNA is willing to extend a warranty to it, there is no legal reason why MBNA could not assume responsibility for remedial work without charge in the event the registered importer were unable to provide it, whether in the form of an express warranty, or other document. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.