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: 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 |
|
ID: aiam2971OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your February 1, 1979, letter asking whether any la or regulation prohibits the remanufacture of a school bus with an old chassis and a new body when the completed vehicle does not comply with the new safety standards.; As you are aware, the agency has stated many times that such remanufactured vehicle need only comply with the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the chassis as long as the remanufacturing process conforms to the guidelines established in Part 571.7(e) of our regulations. The agency does not view the remanufacturing problem as significant, because a vehicle's chassis normally wears out before its body. The recycling of noncomplying buses will cease when the supply of used chassis manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, disappears.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3663OpenMr. Anton (Tony) Ostermeier, 19240 S. Vermont Avenue, Gardena, CA 90248; Mr. Anton (Tony) Ostermeier 19240 S. Vermont Avenue Gardena CA 90248; Dear Mr. Ostermeier: Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1983, supplying the furthe information we requested on January 28.; The 1955 Mercedes replica which you contemplate building is a hybrid o new and old parts. The body is of your construction and consists of new parts. You fabricate the chassis using new tubing, however, its front cross member may be either a new replacement Mustang part (1974-1978 models) or one actually taken from a vehicle in use. Similarly, the front suspension, differential and rear suspension, and transmissions may be new replacement parts or taken from vehicles in use. You will employ used rear wheel cylinders in the braking system and used engines (either a 1964 Chrysler Slant 6 or a 1969 Chevrolet V-8). Any equipment that has previously been used will be rebuilt to the manufacturer's specifications, and new parts will be incorporated where necessary.; As a general rule, the agency has no requirements for 'used' vehicles Whether a vehicle is treated as new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage consisting of a new body on the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads as a 'used' motor vehicle and therefore not subject to the Federal motor vehicle standards. On the other hand, the agency will consider a truck newly manufactured when an old cab is replaced with a new one unless at least the engine, transmission, and drive axle of the assembled vehicle are not new and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.; The vehicle you propose to manufacture is somewhat different fro either of these examples, but we have concluded that it is a 'new' motor vehicle and must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new passenger cars. Not only do previously unused parts appear to predominate in your plans, but, in addition, the old parts that are used will be rebuilt with new parts where necessary, to the manufacturer's original specifications. With the exception of the 1964 engine, the rebuilt components were originally used in vehicles manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and there appears no reason why your product may not also be manufactured to comply, even though it is a replica of a 1955 car.; Use of the 1964 engine could raise problems of compliance with Safet Standard No. 124, *Accelerator Control Systems*, and with Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. However, in that event, we believe that you (as a producer of less than 10,000 vehicles a year) would be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from those standards, or any other standard where immediate compliance would cause you substantial economic hardship. I enclose an information sheet which tells you where you may obtain a copy of our regulations, including the standards and temporary exemption petition procedures.; If you have further questions, we would be happy to assist you. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3399OpenMarlin H. Dawdy, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Easter Office, 1500 State Farm Blvd., Charlottesville, VA 22909; Marlin H. Dawdy State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. Easter Office 1500 State Farm Blvd. Charlottesville VA 22909; Dear Mr. Dawdy: This is in response to your letter of April 17, 1981, asking whethe the Virginia Certificate of Title contains sufficient language in its odometer disclosure statement to serve as a substitute for the Federal Disclosure form.; The information on Virginia's revised title satisfies the requirement of the Federal odometer disclosure requirements and the title may be used in lieu of a separate form.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law an Legislation; |
|
ID: aiam4148OpenMr. Roland L. Lafleur, 1155 W. Grolee St., Opelousas, LA 70570; Mr. Roland L. Lafleur 1155 W. Grolee St. Opelousas LA 70570; Dear Mr. Lafleur: This is in reply to your letter of May 5, 1986, to our former Chie Counsel, Jeffrey Miller, asking about comparative costs of a center high-mounted stop lamp. You read that the cost of such a lamp was $4 to $7, but in fact it cost you $136.18, tax included, to have one installed on your 1984 Cadillac.; The figures of $4 to $7 represent the agency's conclusions as to th cost to a vehicle manufacturer to install the new lamp as standard equipment when its installation became mandatory for new vehicles. As the new requirement does not extend to aftermarket equipment such as the lamp you bought for your 1984 Cadillac, the agency's cost estimates should not be read as applying to it. Also, our estimate was for the 'average' vehicle. Costs will vary by manufacturer and by carline within a given manufacturers' (sic) fleet according to the particular design and placement chosen. In spite of your dissatisfaction over the cost you have nevertheless wisely equipped your car with a safety device which should lessen the likelihood of expensive rear end collisions and the injuries to passengers that can occur. We appreciate your interest in the lamp.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3377OpenMr. Ronald H. Wonders, Wisconsin State Patrol, District No. 1, Junction I-90 & Hwy. 151, 4845 E. Washington Avenue, Madison, WI 53704; Mr. Ronald H. Wonders Wisconsin State Patrol District No. 1 Junction I-90 & Hwy. 151 4845 E. Washington Avenue Madison WI 53704; Dear Mr. Wonders: This responds to your October 28, 1980, letter asking whether Standar No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, requires that there be an aisle to provide access to a side exit. The answer to your question is no.; Standard No. 217 states that side emergency exits on school buses mus have an opening of 45 by 24 inches. The standard further states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of the emergency exit. These requirements mean only that the size of the opening must be 45 by 24 inches, and that the opening must be located in a specific place with reference to the seat back.; The Federal government does not require an aisle or other access to side emergency exit. Although some seats may partially block a side emergency exit, it can still be used for emergency exit purposes and is supplementary to a rear emergency exit. The agency adopted this approach to side emergency exits as a balance between the desire for additional exits in school buses and the need to maintain the fullest possible seating in school buses as well as the proper seat spacing.; A State is permitted to require an aisle leading to the side exit i the State determines that this is an area that it would like to regulate. Such a regulation would not be preempted, because the Federal government does not regulate the placement of aisles in buses. However, the required seat spacing would need to be retained. This means that the seat behind the aisle leading to a side emergency exit would need to have a restraining barrier placed in front of it. The net effect of the aisle and the restraining barrier could be a substantial loss of seating capacity.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4518OpenMr. Amnon Shomlo President, A.A.S. 3364 Catamaran Way Jacksonville, FL 32217; Mr. Amnon Shomlo President A.A.S. 3364 Catamaran Way Jacksonville FL 32217; Dear Mr. Shomlo: This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1988 enclosing a 'Peace' decal designed to be affixed to the center highmounted stop lamp. The letters and design are in white, printed on transparent plastic, 'in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specified candela.' You have asked what 'Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating that we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product.' There are no regulations that apply directly to the decal, nor any Federal restrictions on its sale. Thus you cannot state in any sales materials that the product meets Federal requirements, for there are none. If a center highmounted brake lamp would continue to meet all applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 after installation of your decal, there are no restrictions on its use. Although you intend the product to preserve the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, it is not certain that this will occur. The decal has the potential of obscuring light from some of the l3 test points at distances where candela photometrics must be measured and the specified minima met. However, its actual effect can be determined only through laboratory tests on lamps of different sizes and lens and reflector designs. Although you have no liability under Federal law for selling this decal, a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act will result if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer before the first sale of the vehicle. A violation will also occur if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied after the vehicle's first sale by any of these persons or by a motor vehicle repair business. There is no violation of Federal law if the decal is applied by a person other than those named above, such as the vehicle owner. In the absence of a violation of Federal law there may nonetheless be State statutes restricting the application of the decal under any circumstances. We are unable to advise you on State laws. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2835OpenMs. Janine M. Schulte, North Central Tank Repair, Box 300, Holdingford, MN 56340; Ms. Janine M. Schulte North Central Tank Repair Box 300 Holdingford MN 56340; Dear Ms. Schulte: This responds to your January 30, 1978, letter asking whether you ar permitted to mount temporarily a body on a vehicle when you know that the body is of a greater load carrying capacity than is appropriate for the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You indicate that some other manufacture would finish the mounting process and certify the vehicle for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha indicated on many occasions that vehicle overloading poses a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle, in particular, and the motoring public in general. Accordingly, the agency has stated its determination to hold manufacturers responsible for vehicles that they manufacture which will exceed their GVWR's when fully loaded with their intended cargo. The NHTSA considers such overloading to constitute a safety-related defect.; In the operation that you are considering, you would be considered a intermediate vehicle manufacturer. As such, you would be required to comply with all of the requirements in Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, that apply to intermediate manufacturers. The NHTSA would consider you to be partially responsible for the construction of a vehicle that when loaded with its intended cargo will exceed its GVWR. Possible agency action might include a mandatory recall and remedy and civil penalties of up to $1,000 per vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.