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: aiam4221OpenHerbert Epstein, Esquire, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Herbert Epstein Esquire Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; Dear Mr. Epstein: This responds to your request for an interpretation of a portion of th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) response to the petitions for reconsideration of the final rule establishing the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (51 FR 8831, at 8835, March 14, 1986).; Specifically, you were concerned about the following language: >>>A manufacturer is free under this standard and the Theft Act to us a transparent paint mask and to specify in its contracts with its dealers that the dealer must remove the mask before selling vehicles or parts. However, if the dealer does not remove the mask, both the manufacturer and the dealer could be liable for violating section 607(a) of the Cost Saving (sic) Act. The manufacturer and dealer might both be liable for selling a vehicle not in compliance with the theft prevention standard (prohibited by section 607(a)(1)) and the manufacturer might be liable for falsely certifying that the vehicle complies with the theft prevention standard (prohibited by section 607(a)(4)(B)). The manufacturer must assume its portion of this risk if it wishes to use a transparent integral paint mask that must be removed by its dealers.<<<; You stated in your letter that this discussion could be read a imposing vicarious liability on the manufacturers for a dealer's failure to remove a paint mask after the dealer had painted over the mask. You then asked whether NHTSA's opinion would be affected if the manufacturer provided the dealer in writing, either by letter or service bulletin, instructions on how to protect the labels during dealer preparation and advice that Federal law required dealers to remove the paint mask after performing the dealer preparation operations. Such a step would affect the agency's opinion as to the manufacturer's liability for the non-removal of a paint mask as explained below.; The language you quoted from the preamble was intended to alert vehicl and parts manufacturers to their statutory obligations under section 607(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2027(a)). When dealers must take further actions to bring a vehicle into compliance with the theft prevention standard, sections 607 of the Cost Savings Act requires the vehicle manufacturer to exercise *due care* to ensure that the dealers will, in fact, perform such further actions. See sections 607(a)(4)(B) and 607(b) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2027(a)(4)(B) and 2027(b)). The language quoted above from the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration implicitly acknowledged this due care defense by stating that manufacturers 'could' and 'might' be liable for violations of section 607(a) if paint masks were not removed by dealers.; It is not possible for us to give a hard and fast rule of wha constitutes due care in all circumstances. For example, a manufacturer that learns that its dealers generally are not removing the paint masks must do more to establish that it exercised due care than it did before it learned of such failures by its dealers. As a general proposition, however, NHTSA believes that a manufacturer using transparent paint masks to protect its labels has exercised due care, and therefore is not liable for violations of section 607(a), when it takes the following steps:; >>>1. The manufacturer includes a provision in its contracts with eac of its dealers obligating the dealer to remove the transparent paint masks,; 2. The manufacturer issues a service bulletin to all of its dealer providing instructions on how to protect the label during painting, rustproofing, etc., and on how and when to remove the transparent paint masks, and; 3. The manufacturer reminds the dealers, either in the service bulleti or in a separate letter, of their contractual and statutory obligations to remove transparent paint masks after performing dealer preparation operations, if the label is then obscured by the paint mask.; << |
|
ID: aiam3152OpenMr. Hisakazu Murakami, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Suite 707, 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., P.O. Box 57105, Washington, D.C. 20037; Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. P.O. Box 57105 Washington D.C. 20037; Dear Mr. Murakami: This is in confirmation of the discussion with Mr. Schwartz of m office when you met with him on September 10, 1979, as well as further confirmation of the telephone conversation between you and Mr. Schwartz in response to the letter from Mr. Maeda of your company dated February 9, 1979. As you may remember, the questions raised in this letter were substantially answered in the Agency's response of February 13, 1979, to a previous letter from your firm. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the Agency's letter of Volvo on the same subject as requested.; Section 4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicl Identification Number) States that the second section of the vehicle identification number for passenger cars shall be decipherable into the vehicle's line, series, body type, engine type, and restraint system type. 'Line' is defined as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a family of vehicles which have a degree of commonality in construction, such as body, Chassis or cab type.' 'Series' is defined as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a subdivision of 'line', denoting price, size, or weight identification, and which is utilized by the manufacturer for marketing purposes.'; Your particular concern relates to the division of a particular Datsu model into several series based on the amount and type of optional equipment with which it is sold.; Based on the facts presented, it is apparent that Datsun models wit different optional equipment packages could each be designated a 'series' if Nissan desired. Nonetheless, the definition of 'series' makes clear that the responsibility for applying and utilizing the 'series' designation rests initially with the manufacturer. If the differences between the potential series are superficial and a manufacturer chooses not to designate separate series for marketing reasons because of the superficiality, the agency will not require such a designation.; Examples of series include Chrysler Plymouth Fury I, Fury II and Fur III.; You also wish to know which types of restraint systems need to b distinguished within the VIN. Active belts, passive belts, and air bags must each be separately designated. Please note that if all the vehicles of a particular model utilize one restraint system type, that type must be reported to the Agency, but need not be directly encoded in the VIN itself.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0181OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P. O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P. O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: Thank you for your letter of September 10, 1969, concerning lamp bulb to be used in photometric tests.; In answer to your first question, photometric testing of lamps usin 1034 and 1157 bulbs should be conducted with the minor filament operating at four mean spherical candlepower to determine conformance to SAE J573b. Bulbs utilizing three candlepower minor filaments would not be in conformance with SAE J573b, however, as provided by the enclosed interpretation issued August 12, 1968, on bulbs and bulb sockets, such bulbs may be used in lamp assemblies conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In accordance with the interpretation, such bulbs should be treated as special bulbs and should be tested at the three candlepower rating.; In answer to your second question, if photometric tests are conducte with a bulb operated at either three or four mean spherical candlepower ratings, it is not acceptable to interpolate (or extrapolate) the data to determine acceptability of the lamp in the other bulb rating.; Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director |
|
ID: aiam0739OpenMr. Loy Rosner, Sales Manager, Checker Motors Sales Corporation, 35-30 38th Street, Long Island City, New York 11101; Mr. Loy Rosner Sales Manager Checker Motors Sales Corporation 35-30 38th Street Long Island City New York 11101; Dear Mr. Rosner: This is in reply to your letter o May 25, 1972, asking whether you, a a selling dealer, may install steel-belted radial ply tires in an 8-passenger Checker taxicab. You state that the vehicle is normally delivered to you with tires having the 'O' load range.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110, cop enclosed) requires each passenger car to be equipped at the time of sale to a first purchaser with tires if certain minimum load carrying capacity, based on the weight of the vehicle. Any steel-belted radial ply tire that meets these load carrying requirements with respect to your vehicles may be installed by a selling dealer.; Radial tires of similar of Related sizes, but of different manufacture however, may have different load ratings. We suggest, therefore, that you contact Checker Motor Corporation for their recommendations as to which radial ply tires may be installs on these vehicles without adversely affecting the vehicle's conformity with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson |
|
ID: aiam4691OpenMr. Victor Crisci 70 Lenox Road Wayne, NJ 07470; Mr. Victor Crisci 70 Lenox Road Wayne NJ 07470; Dear Mr. Crisci: This is in response to the telephone call you made t me after receiving the interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 furnished you on August 7, l989. To summarize, you wished to know whether a 'safety light flasher' to be installed on your motorcycle would conflict with DOT regulations. This device flashes a motorcycle headlamp between upper and lower beam for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light to the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. We advised you that Standard No. 108 allowed flashing headlamps only on vehicles equipped with turn signals (S5.5.10(c)), and that the provision applicable to motorcycle headlamps (S5.5.l0(d)) permitted only headlamp modulators, which must provide varying intensities within a single beam, and not between beams. You have questioned this interpretation because motorcycles are required to be equipped with turn signals. We have reviewed Standard No. 108, and have concluded that your device is prohibited, albeit for reasons other than section S5.5.10(c). Section S5.5.1 requires that the means for switching between upper and lower beams conform to one of two SAE Recommended Practices, either J564a, or J565b. The first requires that the switch be operated by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. We do not interpret this as allowing automatic switching between upper and lower beams. Although the second provides for automatic switching, it is in the context of changing the upper beam to the lower one when oncoming traffic is approaching. Your device does not contain this feature. We must also bring your attention to section S5.1.3. This section prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting devices if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. In our opinion, a device that switches between upper and lower beam at times when the headlamp is illuminated would impair the roadway illumination that the headlamp is intended to supply. In addition, if the flasher caused lamps other than the headlamp to flash (such as the taillamp, which must be activated when the headlamp is steady-burning), that are required to be steady-burning in use, a noncompliance with section S5.5.11(e) would result. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0502OpenMr. G. E. Fouche', Jr., Project Leader, Kendall Company, P. O. Box 1828, 6300 Carmel Road, Charlotte, NC, 28201; Mr. G. E. Fouche' Jr. Project Leader Kendall Company P. O. Box 1828 6300 Carmel Road Charlotte NC 28201; Dear Mr. Fouche': This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1971, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to synthetic fabrics. You state that certain of these fabrics do not ignite when tested with a stationary flame as they melt and shrink away from the flame, but burn faster than the 4-inch-per-minute rate if the flame is moved to keep it in contact with the fabric. You ask whether materials that behave in this manner comply with the standard.; The standard requires that the vehicle components specified in S4.1 o the standard meet the burn rate requirements when tested as provided in S5.3 of the standard. This procedure specifies a stationary flame. Consequently, we would consider materials which melt and shrink away from the flame, but do not ignite, as long as the other aspects of the test procedure were followed, to comply with the standard.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0738OpenCEAT S.p.A., Torino, Casella Postale 509; CEAT S.p.A. Torino Casella Postale 509; Gentlemen: This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1972, inquiring whether th State of Maryland may require tires to be labeled with a 'VI' marking.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 1 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides in pertinent part:; >>>'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no state or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment andy safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical with the Federal standard.'<<<; This provision, considered with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 109, prohibits the State of Maryland or any State from imposing any safety labeling requirements, for passenger car tires other than those contained in that Federal standard. Any differing safety labeling requirements include the 'VI' you mentioned, are thus preempted void.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2143OpenMr. Donald W. Taylor, Manager, Product Safety and Quality, Volvo of America Corporation, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. Donald W. Taylor Manager Product Safety and Quality Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Taylor: This responds to Volvo of America's October 9, 1975, question whether truck equipped with an air-assisted hydraulic brake system with hydraulic push through capability and, in the towing vehicle configuration, a source of compressed air for air braked trailer operation is subject to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; From your description of the system and the materials that accompanie your letter, the truck does not qualify as an air-braked vehicle to which the standard applies. The fact that it is capable of operation in combination with an air-braked vehicle and supplies the compressed air for braking that vehicle does not affect the truck's classification as an hydraulic-braked vehicle.; At the time Standard No. 121 was developed, it covered virtually all o the trucks and truck- tractors in the heaviest categories. In planning and making your decisions to introduce hydraulic-braked vehicles in these weight categories, you should be aware that this agency is planning to cover all such vehicles with the basic performance requirements presently contained in Standard No. 121.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4562OpenErman Jackson, Sales Manager Trailmaster Tanks, Inc. P. O. Box 161759 1121 Cantrell-Sansom Road Fort Worth, TX 76161-1759; Erman Jackson Sales Manager Trailmaster Tanks Inc. P. O. Box 161759 1121 Cantrell-Sansom Road Fort Worth TX 76161-1759; "Dear Mr. Jackson: This is in response to your letter which requeste our interpretation of the applicability of certification requirements to your company. You indicate that you attached a new body to a truck chassis that has been in service for a number of years. Your customer believes that Trailmaster Tanks, Inc., (Trailmaster) should have issued a new final-stage manufacturer certificate at the time of the mounting of the new body. Trailmaster, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the final-stage manufacturer certificate is only issued when the chassis is new. You asked me whether your company was required by Federal law or regulations to certify that the new body on the used truck chassis complies with all applicable safety standards. The answer to your question depends on whether the used chassis consisted of any new components and, if not, whether the used components of the chassis came from different vehicles, as explained below. As a general matter, our safety standards and certification requirements apply to vehicles only before the first sale of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Generally speaking, vehicles that are produced from a chassis that has already been sold to the public are not considered new vehicles, and are not subject to our safety standards or certification requirements. However, there is a special provision in our regulations for vehicles that are produced by combining new and used components. This provision is in 49 CFR 571.7(e), which provides: (e) Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components are from the same vehicle. This regulation means that a party attaching a new body to an old chassis is not required to attach a new certification label or make any certification under Federal law if that party simply uses the engine, transmission, and drive axle that are installed on the old chassis at the time the party receives the old chassis. Based on your statement that the truck 'was not modified in any way' at the time the new body was installed on the old chassis, this would appear to be the case in your situation. If this is true, you were not required to make any certification in connection with this vehicle. On the other hand, if you substituted a new engine, transmission, or drive axle in the old chassis when you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured under 571.7(e) and your company was required to certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567. Similarly, if you substituted used components on the old chassis at the time you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured unless at least two of the three specified components (engine, transmission, and drive axle) were from the same vehicle. It should be noted that, even if the vehicle created when you attached a new body to a used truck chassis did not result in a newly manufactured vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR 571.7(e), your company was still subject to the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from 'knowingly rendering inoperative' any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used vehicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the first instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited 'rendering inoperative' violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding. I believe you can use the information presented in this letter to determine whether or not the vehicle your company made was considered a newly manufactured vehicle, subject to our safety standards and certification regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1084OpenMr. Eric Feldmann, 113 West Broadway, Gettysburg, PA 17325; Mr. Eric Feldmann 113 West Broadway Gettysburg PA 17325; Dear Mr. Feldmann: Thank you for your letter of March 23, 1973, concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection.; Your first concern is the fact that bumpers which comply with Standar No. 215 still permit damage to occur to the vehicle during low- speed impacts. This situation occurs because Standard No. 215, which initially became effective on September 1, 1972, was developed in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. This Act provided the authority to develop standards to improve vehicle safety during collisions, not solely to reduce property damage. The authority to develop bumper standards primarily to reduce property damage, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, became law on October 20, 1972. As the result of this new Act, we are in the process of developing standards which limit automobile damage in low-speed bumper impacts.; Secondly, you cite the mismatch problems that continue to exist amon passenger car bumpers. Commencing with 1974 model cars, Standard No. 215 specifies requirements directed at correcting the mismatch problems that cause damage to safety-related components during low-speed, car-to-car collisions. It establishes a uniform interfacing surface among all cars that reduces the likelihood of override, underride, and interlock, all of which are quite prevalent with existing bumper designs.; Thirdly, you express concern over the numerous collisions involvin damage to corners of vehicles. Standard No. 215 also specifies requirements for 1974 model cars that will provide improved corner protection. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your use.; Lastly, you indicate the availability of inexpensive energy absorbin devices that could be used to manage the low-speed crash forces. We are aware of these and other devices of this type, however, as you will note, Standard No. 215 specifies minimum performance only without specifying the equipment or configuration to be used. We feel that this approach encourages competitive innovation and promotes technological progress to achieve the desired performance at minimum cost to the consumer.; We appreciate receiving your comments and your interest in improvin motor vehicle safety.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
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.