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: aiam2889OpenMr. R. W. Cheetham, Director, Quality Assurance, The Armstrong Rubber Company, 500 Sargent Drive, New Haven, CT 06507; Mr. R. W. Cheetham Director Quality Assurance The Armstrong Rubber Company 500 Sargent Drive New Haven CT 06507; Dear Mr. Cheetham: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1978, requestin approval of the tread labels Armstrong Rubber Company proposes to use in satisfaction of the labeling requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS)(49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). You propose to include the applicable UTQGS grades for a particular tire on a tread label identifying the tire brand, type and size. A separate label would contain the general grading information from Figure 2 of the rule, including a listing of all possible traction and temperature grades, with the text on the label oriented along the tread circumference instead of across it.; Part 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) requires that each passenger car replacemen tire, other than a snow tire or temporary use spare tire, have affixed a tread label containing both the specific UTQGS grades for the tire and an explanation of the grades in the form illustrated in Figure 2. Thus, the specific grades for the tire must appear on the same label that contains the explanation of the grading system. The regulation calls for a depiction of all possible traction and temperature grades with the grades applicable to the specific tire indelibly circled.; While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has n objection to the inclusion of the required UTQGS information on the same label with other data such as tire size and brand name, failure to provide the required explanations on the same label with the applicable tire grades is not permitted by the regulation. Your proposed labels also fail to meet the regulation's requirement that applicable traction and temperature grades be denoted by circling the appropriate letter in a display of all possible grades. Finally, the general UTQGS information in your proposal is not in the form illustrated in Figure 2, since the text in your example will appear along the tread rather than at right angles as specified by Figure 2.; While your proposed tread labels do not meet the present requirement of Part 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B), NHTSA will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking and consider amending the UTQG regulation to permit greater flexibility in tread labeling.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2020OpenMr. C. J. Baker, Peerless Division-Royal Industries, P.O. Box 447, Tualatin, OR 97062; Mr. C. J. Baker Peerless Division-Royal Industries P.O. Box 447 Tualatin OR 97062; Dear Mr. Baker: This responds to your July 3, 1975, request for confirmation that final-stage manufacturer (as defined in 49 CFR S 568.3) is responsible for certification of its motor vehicle products under Part 568 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (vehicles manufactured in two or more stages) and that it would be illegal for a final-stage manufacturer to complete a truck with a volumetric capacity which would accommodate more weight than the rated cargo load, causing the loaded vehicle weight to exceed the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) specified by the manufacturer. You also request confirmation that the cargo container designed for a specific commodity must have a load center of gravity (CG) that does not cause the total vehicle CG to exceed the chassis manufacturer's specified CG.; You are correct that Part 568 makes the final-stage manufacture responsible for certification of a completed vehicle which is manufactured in two or more stages.; If a final-stage manufacturer specifies a rated cargo load for th completed vehicle, the weight of the vehicle when carrying that load must not exceed the GVWR. If you supply no rated cargo load, but only the volumetric capacity, the capacity would not on its face lead to a violation of the certification regulations, since the weight of specific commodities can vary considerably.; You should be aware, however, that completing the vehicle so that it apparent carrying capacity exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common law product liability doctrines. As you suggest, the final-stage manufacturer who completes a vehicle for specific commodity is clearly on notice that providing 'overload capacity' could constitute a safety-related defect if that vehicle is involved in an accident due to overloading. I enclose copies of two interpretations on this subject provided to a manufacturer and a trade association.; Part 568 contains no requirements for limitation of cargo load cente of gravity. I assume your question about CG concerns completion of air-braked vehicles in a fashion which permits you to certify to Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*. I enclose a copy of a notice which explains that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will test a vehicle under Standard No. 121, whether or not designed for a specific capacity, using a CG height which does not exceed that specified by the chassis manufacturer. I would note that the preamble of the enclosed notice points out that, if the NHTSA should discover vehicles being produced that do not perform safely when loaded in a normal manner and can establish that this condition is attributable to deficiencies in vehicle manufacture or design, it can proceed against their manufacturers under its safety-related defect jurisdiction.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2470OpenMr. J.L. Hollis, Vice President/ Engineering, Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company, P.O. Box 99, Carlisle, Pa. 17013; Mr. J.L. Hollis Vice President/ Engineering Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company P.O. Box 99 Carlisle Pa. 17013; Dear Mr. Hollis: This responds to Carlisle Tire and Rubber Company's May 7, 1976 request for assurance that certain of its tires are in Compliance with Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, and your request for a meeting on the issue of reduced performance requirements for tires used on motor0driven cycles with a maximum speed capability of 30 mph or less. I regret that we have not responded sooner.; The National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C S1391, *et seq.*) does not permit the assurance of compliance with Standard No. 119 that you request. The act requires 'self-certification' by the manufacturer that each of its products actually complies with all applicable standards (15 U.S.C. SS1397(a)(1)(A), 1403). The NHTSA does not issue 'approvals' for this reason.; With regard to your request for a meeting on the subject of performanc standards for tires used on low-speed motor-driven cycles, I would like to advise you that the NHTSA has decided to reduce some of the performance requirements for these tires. If you believe that a meeting would be desirable before we have issued a specific proposal, please contact Mr. Elwood Driver at the above address (tel. (202) 426-1740) to meet on the technical aspects of this issue.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2165OpenInterps. File, Safety Standard No. 218; Interps. File Safety Standard No. 218; SUBJECT: Telephone call from Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. a manufacturer of motorcycle helmets; Assistant Chief Counsel Dyson referred a call he received from Mr Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. on December 31, 1975. Mr. Rattner had a question concerning the labeling requirements of S.5.6.1(1) of Safety Stnadard (sic) No. 218, *Motor-Cycle* *Helmets.* Subsection of S.5.6.1(1) requires that each helmet be permanently labeled with the manufacturer's 'name or identification.' Rebcor, Inc. is in the process of manufacturing helmets to be sold by another company, and would like to cloak the fact that Rebcor is the manufacturer. Mr. Rattner wanted to know if Rebcor could use a number to meet the labeling requirements of Standard 218, rather than the corporate name.; I returned Mr. Rattner's call and told him that our office ha concluded that S.5.6.(1) did not embrace the type of labeling he had in mind. The words 'name' or 'identification' are synonymous terms in the respect that the intent of the requirement is to absolutely identify the original manufacturer of a helmet. 'Identification' might include, for instance, a corporate logo. However, a randum (sic) number that is not otherwise associated with the corporation or corporate name, would not be an 'identification' within the meaning of Standard No. 218. The purpose of the requirement is to assure that the helmet is traceable to the manufacturer. I informed Mr. Rattner that at the present time there is no system within the NHTSA to register a labeling number, although there is a proposal to establish such a procedure.; Mr. Rattner then asked if Rebcor could establish a dummy- corporatio to produce the helmets and place the name of that corporation on the hemets (sic), rather than 'Rebcor.' I informed Mr. Rattner that this would be permissible if the dummy corporation adhered to the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566.; Hugh F. Oates |
|
ID: aiam0158OpenMr. Richard R. Miller, President, Amerada Glass Company, 2001 Greenleaf Avenue, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007; Mr. Richard R. Miller President Amerada Glass Company 2001 Greenleaf Avenue Elk Grove Village IL 60007; Dear Mr. Miller: This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 1969, forwarded to me b the Federal Trade Commission.; A windshield classified as a second by the manufacturer mus nevertheless meet the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (Glazing materials).; If you have any information indicating that windshields marked second do not comply with the standard I would appreciate your sending me such information with the names of the manufacturers and dealers selling the windshields so that the Bureau can further investigate the matter.; Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director |
|
ID: aiam4818OpenMs. Carol Zeitlow Manager, Engineering Services Oshkosh Truck Corp. P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Ms. Carol Zeitlow Manager Engineering Services Oshkosh Truck Corp. P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Ms. Zeitlow: This is in response to your letter of December 21 l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, in which you ask a question about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have also asked for confirmation of your understanding with Mr. Vinson with respect to three other aspects of motor vehicle safety regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. With respect to Standard No. 108, you believe that our letter to you of August 27, l990, stated that 'the hazard warning signal should always override the stop lamp signal when both are red in color.' Mr. Vinson, by telephone on October 9, said that he believed that at some time previous the override feature had been at the option of the vehicle manufacturer. You have asked the date that Standard No. 108 changed, and 'in which section of the regulations can I find the ruling.' Actually, our letter of August 27, l990, did not state that the hazard warning signal should override the stop lamp signal. We explained that Standard No. 108 requires a turn signal lamp to override the stop lamps if the lamp optically combines stop and turn signals, and that because the hazard system operates through the turn signal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use. The specific wording of the regulatory requirement is 'When a stop signal is optically combined with a turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing.' You will find this in paragraph 4.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps August l970, and in paragraph 4.4 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps September l970, both of which are incorporated by reference in Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108. And a vehicular hazard warning flasher is a device which causes all the required turn signal lamps to flash, see Definition in SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher February l966, also incorporated by reference. We note that this regulatory requirement was not originally contained in Standard No. 108. The predecessor SAE Standards J586b June l966 and SAE J588d June l966 originally incorporated in Standard No. 108 did not include override language. Standard No. 108 was amended on January 5, l976, to incorporate SAE J586c and SAE J588e, with an immediate effective date, but allowed compliance with the older standards until September 1, l978 (41 FR 765). Thus, during the period January 5, l976, to September 1, l978, a manufacturer had the option of providing the override feature in a combination lamp in which the hazard and turn signal functions used the same circuit. You have also asked whether a sun visor is required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is no, if the vehicle is a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR that exceeds 10,000 pounds. However, if the GVWR of those vehicles is l0,000 pounds or less, or if the vehicle is a passenger car, paragraph S3.4 of Standard No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact requires that a sun visor be provided for each front outboard designated seating position. In addition, you asked whether any regulation specified the type or quantity of horns required on a motor vehicle. The answer is no. Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays does not require that any motor vehicle be equipped with a horn. However, if a horn is provided, it is subject to the requirements of the standard for horn control location, identification, and illumination. Finally, you asked whether Standard No. l04 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems contains 'the percentage of area of the windshield that the windshield wiper must wipe', or specifies only the frequency of the wipers. Standard No. l04 does not specify wiped area percentages for windshield wiping systems on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses. However, it does specify percentages for passenger car systems, and it specifies the frequency for all motor vehicle windshield wiping systems. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2535OpenMr. R.M. Ferrari, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design, Department of Transport, Box 1839Q, G.P.O., Melbourne 3001, Australia; Mr. R.M. Ferrari Chairman Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design Department of Transport Box 1839Q G.P.O. Melbourne 3001 Australia; Dear Mr. Ferrari: This is in response to your undated request (Ref. 75/1331)for a interpretation of the brake lining inspection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, *Motorcycle Brake Systems*. You asked whether the brake lining wear indicator system that you described would comply with FMVSS No. 122.; Paragraph S5.1.5 requires that 'The brake system shall be installed s that the lining thickness of the drum brake shoes may visually inspected, either directly or by use of a mirror without removing the drums...' Under the system you described 'the only means of determining the lining thickness of the read brake shoes, with out removing the brake drum, is a warning lamp system which becomes energized when the lining thickness is less than 2mm.' In our opinion, this system dies not comply with S5.1.5. Although the warning lamp system alerts the operator when a predetermined limit has been reached, it does not provide the direct visual means of inspection of brake lining thickness that the standard requires. Were the warning lamp system to fail, the operator would be left without a means of determining lining thickness unless he removed the brake drum.; It is anticipated that during the next year a revision of FMVSS 12 will be proposed to modify the test procedure. At that time, consideration will be given to changing the requirements of paragraph S5.1.5. These changes would reflect advanced in brake wear sensor technology since the original standard was promulgated. Since the intent of of(sic) paragraph S5.1.5 is to give the driver a simple means of determine the discard limit of the friction materials, we will consider allowing other than direct means to determine this limit, provided a check of the system's function can be performed to prevent the problem mentioned above.; Sincerely, E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0508OpenMr. Vic Trahd, Import-Export, 7308 Hinds Avenue, #4, North Hollywood, CA, 91605; Mr. Vic Trahd Import-Export 7308 Hinds Avenue #4 North Hollywood CA 91605; Dear Mr. Trahd: This is in replay to your letter of November 20, 1971, to Mr. Frankly Bergsman, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning your 'Flash Mirrors.'; As described in the documents you furnished to us, your 'Flash Mirror does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. If this is indeed the case, the use of your 'Flash Mirrors' as original vehicle equipment is not prohibited by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Nor is there a Federal prohibition against sale of your device in the aftermarket, Standard No. 108 covers only specified replacement lighting equipment for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972.; Since your product is not regulated by Standard 108, the sale and us of it is, however, subject to the regulations of the individual States.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1749OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Executive Director, Truck Equipment & Body D/A, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Executive Director Truck Equipment & Body D/A 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1974, asking whether person who installs a third axle or dromedary unit to a completed vehicle, or removes the body from a pickup truck and installs a service body, should affix a vehicle alterer label to the vehicle in accordance with 49 CFR SS 567.7 and 568.8. You refer to two earlier letters we had written to you in which we took the position that each of these activities was 'remanufacturing,' requiring recertification.; Requirements for vehicle alterers were published June 13, 1973 (38 F 15961) (effective February 1, 1974), and were intended to supplant our prior opinions regarding 'remanufacturing,' or, as we described it, the modification of previously completed, certified vehicles so as to significantly affect either the vehicle's configuration or purpose. Those opinions, which included our letters to you, were based on our interpretation of rather general provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) then in effect.; The alterer requirements provide specific criteria for a determinatio of whether additional certification is required, viz., when the alterations either involve other than readily attachable components or invalidate existing weight ratings. In each of the three cases you present, it appears to us that other than readily attachable components are involved, and alterer labels would be required. Moreover, the changes to the vehicle would appear to alter the load-carrying capacity or the intended full load, and these changes might make it necessary or desirable to change the weight ratings on the certification label.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3774OpenLarry D. Beall, P.A., 2500 Louisiana Blvd., N.E., Suite 400, Albuquerque, NM 87110; Larry D. Beall P.A. 2500 Louisiana Blvd. N.E. Suite 400 Albuquerque NM 87110; Dear Mr. Beall: This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1983 asking whethe the State of New Mexico has been authorized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to use a form of document in lieu of the federal odometer disclosure statement.; On April 9, 1982, NHTSA approved New Mexico's odometer disclosur statement for use in lieu of the federal form. Pursuant to your inquiry, however, NHTSA has found that New Mexico is not currently using the approved form. New Mexico's current Certificate of Title does not satisfy the requirements of 49 CFR 580 and, therefore, the Federal odometer disclosure statement must be used.; 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.