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: aiam3985OpenMr. William Pesce, 8 P Origionals, 2892 Crownview Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274; Mr. William Pesce 8 P Origionals 2892 Crownview Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90274; Dear Mr. Pesce: Thank you for your May 18, 1985 letter inquiring about the existence o any Federal safety requirements applicable to your projected sale of colored windshield wiper blades.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agenc has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing System*, applicable to new motor vehicles. While this standard does not regulate wiper color, it does among other things, require that a wiping system clear a minimum percentage of a vehicle's windshield; In addition, Standard No 107, *Reflecting Surfaces*, also applies t new motor vehicles. This standard specifies reflecting surface requirements for certain components, including windshield wiper blades, in the driver's field of view. Its purpose is to reduce the likelihood the unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces will hinder safe and normal operation of the vehicle.; If a new vehicle equipped with your blade did not comply with Standar No. 104 or Standard No. 107 due to some aspect of that blade, the sale of that car to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.; As to used vehicles, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) o the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and vehicle repair businesses form knowingly rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle under Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Care should be taken that the installation of your product would not have that effect. A rendering inoperative might occur if, for example, your blade were not large enough to enable the wiping system to clear a sufficient area of the windshield. We urge you therefore to ensure that the substitution of your blade for an original equipment blade provided by a vehicle manufacturer would enable the wiping system to continue to perform as required by Standard No. 104, and would not produce unacceptable glare in the driver's field of view, as required by Standard No. 107.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3986OpenMr. William Pesce, 8 P Origionals, 2892 Crownview Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274; Mr. William Pesce 8 P Origionals 2892 Crownview Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90274; Dear Mr. Pesce: Thank you for your May 18, 1985 letter inquiring about the existence o any Federal safety requirements applicable to your projected sale of colored windshield wiper blades.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agenc has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*, applicable to new motor vehicles. While this standard does not regulate wiper color, it does, among other things, require that a wiping system clear a minimum percentage of a vehicle's windshield.; In addition, Standard No. 107, *Reflecting Surfaces*, also applies t new motor vehicles. This standard specifies reflecting surface requirements for certain components, including windshield wiper blades, in the driver's field of view. Its purpose is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces will hinder safe and normal operation of the vehicle.; If a new vehicle equipped with your blade did not comply with Standar No. 104 or Standard No 107 due to some aspect of that blade, the sale of that car to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.; As to used vehicles, you should be aware that section 108()(2)(A) o the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle under Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Care should be taken that the installation of your product would not have that effect. A rendering inoperative might occur if, for example, your blade were not large enough to enable the wiping system to clear a sufficient area of the windshield. We urge you therefore to ensure that the substitution of your blade for an original equipment blade provided by a vehicle manufacturer would enable the wiping system to continue to perform as required by Standard No. 104, and would not produce unacceptable glare in the drivers field of view, as required by Standard No. 107.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2573OpenMr. Byron A. Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's February 8 1977, petition for rulemaking to amend the definition of 'unloaded vehicle weight' and to add a new definition to 49 CFR Part 571.3 for 'special purpose vehicle.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.; Your petition requests an amendment of the term 'unloaded vehicl weight' similar to that proposed by Chrysler's December 20, 1976, petition. Both petitions recommend that, for purposes of barrier crash testing of certain vehicles, the unloaded vehicle weight be the lesser of the weight of a completed comparable model vehicle from which the particular vehicle is derived or 5,500 pounds. Further, you request an additional definition of 'special purpose vehicle' that would distinguish vehicles designed for a specific work function from other vehicles produced from the same chassis. We have determined that the effect of creating such a vehicle category as special purpose vehicle in conjunction with the establishment of arbitrary weights for vehicles when undergoing compliance testing would, in some situations, undermine the effectiveness of the motor vehicle safety standards. Vehicles falling into the category could, according to your suggested scheme, be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight as equipped.; In the case of Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*, such a resul would possibly violate Congress' order in the 1974 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) that the NHTSA not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard.; To allow certain vehicles to be tested at a weight which differs fro their actual weight, would permit the operation of vehicles which, as equipped, could fail the requirements of the standard.; You should note that the agency intends to proceed with the rulemakin to amend the definition of 'unloaded vehicle weight' as recommended in a petition from Chrysler dated November 29, 1976. This amendment will incorporate changes in the definition previously made by the NHTSA through interpretation.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0907OpenMr. Stan Haransky, Associate Director, Truck Body & Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Stan Haransky Associate Director Truck Body & Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Haransky: Thank you for your letter of November 15, 1972, and your kind word about my participation in your convention.; In your letter you asked a question that arose at the convention concerning the responsibility of a tank manufacturer who completes a tank truck for a customer who carries both gasoline an fuel oil. You asked,; >>>'Can a tank manufacturer by simply certifying the GVWR make a uni which will be legal at full load with gasoline, the lighter of the two products, and leave it to the user to ensure that he does not exceed the GVWR when he is carrying a mixed load or fuel oil only?'<<<; On the specific and limited facts that you have given, the answer i that the manufacturer will not be in violation of the Certification regulations. There are two ways in which a manufacturer might find himself liable on slightly different facts, however. If in an way the manufacturer provides information to the purchaser, through owner's manuals, promotional materials, or otherwise, which could reasonably be considered a 'rated cargo load', he will be in violation of S567.5(a)(5) if the GVWR does not reflect that figure. For example, if the vehicle were described explicitly as being capable of carrying 5,000 gallons of fuel oil, we would consider that to be the equivalent of a rating of that volume times the normal density of the oil.; The other possible liability would be for a safety-related defect. Thi would arise in a case where the vehicle was found to be unsafely equipped for carrying the loads that the manufacturer has reason to know would be imposed on it. Such a finding would depend on all the facts of an individual case. Obviously, the best course for the manufacturer, from the standpoint of both safety and the avoidance of liability, is to equip his vehicles fully with equipment that is rated to carry the loads that he believes the vehicles will carry.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0908OpenMr. Stan Haransky, Associate Director, Truck Body & Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Stan Haransky Associate Director Truck Body & Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Haransky: Thank you for your letter of November 15, 1972, and your kind word about my participation in your convention.; In your letter you asked a question that arose at the convention concerning the responsibility of a tank manufacturer who completes a tank truck for a customer who carries both gasoline an fuel oil. You asked,; >>>'Can a tank manufacturer by simply certifying the GVWR make a uni which will be legal at full load with gasoline, the lighter of the two products, and leave it to the user to ensure that he does not exceed the GVWR when he is carrying a mixed load or fuel oil only?'<<<; On the specific and limited facts that you have given, the answer i that the manufacturer will not be in violation of the Certification regulations. There are two ways in which a manufacturer might find himself liable on slightly different facts, however. If in an way the manufacturer provides information to the purchaser, through owner's manuals, promotional materials, or otherwise, which could reasonably be considered a 'rated cargo load', he will be in violation of S567.5(a)(5) if the GVWR does not reflect that figure. For example, if the vehicle were described explicitly as being capable of carrying 5,000 gallons of fuel oil, we would consider that to be the equivalent of a rating of that volume times the normal density of the oil.; The other possible liability would be for a safety-related defect. Thi would arise in a case where the vehicle was found to be unsafely equipped for carrying the loads that the manufacturer has reason to know would be imposed on it. Such a finding would depend on all the facts of an individual case. Obviously, the best course for the manufacturer, from the standpoint of both safety and the avoidance of liability, is to equip his vehicles fully with equipment that is rated to carry the loads that he believes the vehicles will carry.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3878OpenMr. Eddie Cole, Answer Products, Inc., 27967 Beale Court, Valencia, CA 91355; Mr. Eddie Cole Answer Products Inc. 27967 Beale Court Valencia CA 91355; Dear Mr. Cole: This responds to your letter regarding the importation of motorcycl helmets by your company from Italy.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets* applies to helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. You stated in your letter that there is a DOT *approval sticker* on the helmet and that your company's name is clearly displayed on the helmet. Standard No. 218 requires that each helmet be permanently and legibly labeled with the manufacturer's name or identification, model designation, size, month and year of manufacture, and the symbol DOT. The DOT symbol does not indicate approval of any helmet by the Department of Transportation. Instead, the DOT symbol represents the manufacturer's certification that the helmet meets all the requirements of Standard No. 218. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information.; As an importer, your company is also considered a manufacturer unde the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is administered by this agency. Therefore, either your company's name or the Italian manufacturer's name should be affixed to each helmet. Your company and the Italian manufacturer are both responsible for any defect in the helmet or failure to comply with the standard's requirements.; You asked about other regulations of which you should be aware. Copie of these are enclosed:; >>>49 CFR Part 551-- *Procedural Rules* (Subpart D--Service of proces on foreign manufacturers and importers).; 49 CFR Part 566--*Manufacturer Identification*.<<< If you need additional information, please contact this office. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3879OpenMr. Eddie Cole, Answer Products, Inc., 27967 Beale Court, Valencia, CA 91355; Mr. Eddie Cole Answer Products Inc. 27967 Beale Court Valencia CA 91355; Dear Mr. Cole: This responds to your letter regarding the importation of motorcycl helmets by your company from Italy.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets* applies to helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. You stated in your letter that there is a DOT *approval sticker* on the helmet and that your company's name is clearly displayed on the helmet. Standard No. 218 requires that each helmet be permanently and legibly labeled with the manufacturer's name or identification, model designation, size, month and year of manufacture, and the symbol DOT. The DOT symbol does not indicate approval of any helmet by the Department of Transportation. Instead, the DOT symbol represents the manufacturer's certification that the helmet meets all the requirements of Standard No. 218. A copy of this standard is enclosed for your information.; As an importer, your company is also considered a manufacturer unde the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is administered by this agency. Therefore, either your company's name or the Italian manufacturer's name should be affixed to each helmet. Your company and the Italian manufacturer are both responsible for any defect in the helmet or failure to comply with the standard's requirements.; You asked about other regulations of which you should be aware. Copie of these are enclosed:; >>>49 CFR Part 551--*Procedural Rules* (Subpart D-- Service of proces on foreign manufacturers and importers).; 49 CFR Part 566--*Manufacturer Identification*.<<< If you need additional information, please contact this office. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2382OpenMs. Judith E. Ciani, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, 225 Bush Street, P. O. Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120; Ms. Judith E. Ciani Pillsbury Madison & Sutro 225 Bush Street P. O. Box 7880 San Francisco CA 94120; Dear Ms. Ciani: This responds to your May 11, 1976, question whether S 574.7 of Par 574 (*Tire Identification and Record Keeping*) (49 CFR Part 574), requires that the brand name owner of a single tire brand must supply to its dealers tire registration forms that conform to the dimensions specified for the 'universal form' described in Figure 3 of the regulation. You also request confirmation that a tire registration form 'which fits credit card imprinters and provides for the registration of only two tires' is similar in format to the form described in Figure 3.; Section 574.7 of the regulation specifies in part that '. . . form conforming in size and similar in format to Figure 3 shall be provided to those dealers who request them. . . .' As stated in the preamble accompanying the requirement, the purpose of the specification is to ease the problem of the multi-brand dealer who was 'faced with a multiplicity of different forms and procedures for tire registration' (39 FR 19482, June 3, 1974). The requirement that the 'universal form' conform in size as well as format was added in conjunction with a similar requirement for dealers, in response to petitions for reconsideration of the June amendment (39 FR 28658, November 1, 1974).; Review of the changes indicates clearly that the requirement fo conformity in size of the 'universal form' was directed only to the situation of multi- brand dealers. The NHTSA does not consider the manufacturer or brand name owner of one tire brand to be subject to this requirement in the case of a dealer who sells only one brand of tires. It is clear that any advantage in the storage of different forms from different tire manufacturers would not apply in the case of a one-brand dealer. Accordingly, the NHTSA interprets S 574.7 to not require conformity in the size of forms supplied by a tire manufacturer, brand name owner, or its designee, in the case of requests from dealers that sell only one brand of tire.; In answer to your second request, the NHTSA considers a tir registration form which provides for the registration of only two tires to be similar in format to the form described in Figure 3. Any variation from the size of the form described in Figure 3 would, of course, be subject to the limitation just discussed.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0597OpenMr. V. A. Nolte, Fairmont Railway Motors, Inc., Fairmont, MN 56031; Mr. V. A. Nolte Fairmont Railway Motors Inc. Fairmont MN 56031; Dear Mr. Nolte: This is in reply to your letter of January 4, 1973, concerning th applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to passenger cars with railway guide wheels manufactured by your company.; You indicate that the guide wheels are installed on a passenger car b removing the bumpers, installing the wheels, and reinstalling the bumper shock absorbers with a new bumper of your own design. This operation is considered to be a manufacturing operation, for purposes of our regulations. If Fairmont installs the wheels on a new vehicle, then sells the vehicle to a customer, the vehicle will have to conform to the applicable safety standards. If, however, Fairmont installs the wheels on a completed vehicle that is owned by the customer, or if it sells the wheel assemblies for installation by a customer, the vehicle will not be required to conform.; The safety standard applicable to passenger car bumpers is Standard No 215. I have enclosed a copy for your reference.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3029OpenMr. John Cordner, Technical Assistant, Product Compliance, Subaru of America, Inc., 7040 Central Highway, Pennsauken, NJ 08109; Mr. John Cordner Technical Assistant Product Compliance Subaru of America Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennsauken NJ 08109; Dear Mr. Cordner: This is in response to your letter of May 23, 1979, addressed to Ms Eileen T. Leahy of my staff, in which you provide further information in support of your earlier request for this agency's opinion as to whether a 1980 4WD Hatchback Sedan to be imported by Subaru of America can be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV).; As I stated to you in my letter of May 31, 1979, the fact that vehicle is equipped with four-wheel drive is not, in itself, sufficient to qualify the vehicle as an MPV, as that term is defined in 49 CFR S 571.3. Your second letter lists six other features of the 1980 hatchback sedan which you state are designed to permit occasional off-road use. The additional features you describe are: a ground clearance of 8.07 inches, or 1.57 inches higher than a similar 2WD vehicle, adjusting devices to permit an additional 0.78 inches of ground clearance front and rear, an engine undercover to protect the engine from rocks and other debris, a clutch cover to prevent entry of dust and sand, bumper overriders to protect front and rear bumpers, and a tubular guard in front of the air dam for protection from rocks and other debris.; The ground clearance you describe exceeds that specified in th definition of automobiles 'capable of off-highway operation' contained in the fuel economy regulations (49 CFR S 523.5(b)(2)(iv)). In addition, the other features you describe appear to be designed to protect various parts of the vehicle from damage from rocks, sand and other types of debris that are more likely to be encountered in off-road driving. Therefore, all of the items you mention can be considered 'special features for occasional off-road operation' when determining the proper classification of the vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; Since the vehicle as you have described it in your letters has severa features in addition to four-wheel drive that make it suitable for occasional off-road use, it is the agency's opinion that the 4WD Hatchback Sedan would qualify as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; 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.