NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam1775OpenMr. H. W. Gerth, Assistant Vice President, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. H. W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 75-0005) involving the front wheel bearings on certain Mercedes-Benz trucks, model L1113.; Since the notification was issued after the effective date of Publi Law 93-492, the provisions of this law apply to this notification. A copy of this law is enclosed for your information.; Specifically, the defect notification does not comply with sectio 153(a)(5) in that no specific date is given. Because remedy without charge is contingent upon actual dates, we believe the inclusion of a specific date is required. You must also include information that is responsive to section 153(a)(6). As the procedures referred to in that section have not been published, it is sufficient if you advise owners that they may write the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590, if they find Mercedes- Benz to have failed or to have been unable to perform the repair satisfactorily.; In addition, we note from your defect report that you are notifyin first purchasers. Public law 93-492 has modified the statutory recipients of defect notification letters, and requires that notification be sent to the person who is registered under State law as the owner of the vehicle (section 153(c)(1)). First purchasers may also have to be notified under these requirements if registered owners cannot be found (153(c)(2)). We suggest you review these statutory changes and renotify owners, providing them with all required information. A letter containing the information in the notification letter forwarded to us plus the additional information referred to above will be considered to meet these statutory criteria.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3748OpenFrank B. Hill, Esq., Patent and Trademark Counsel, Bandag, Inc., Bandag Center, Muscatine, IA 52761; Frank B. Hill Esq. Patent and Trademark Counsel Bandag Inc. Bandag Center Muscatine IA 52761; Dear Mr. Hill: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, askin about marking requirements applicable to truck tires retreaded for non-highway use. You stated in your letter that the retreaded tires would be mounted only on vehicles used in shipyard areas to move cargo around. I will answer the three questions you raised in the order you presented them.; >>>1. *Is it required that a retreader put its DOT identification mar on truck tires when they are retreaded for non-highway use?*<<<; It is not possible to give a simple yes or no answer to this question 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*, sets forth certain marking requirements which must be met by manufacturers and retreaders of tires, including the requirement in section 574.5 that a DOT identification mark be molded on all new and retreaded tires. However, section 574.1 specifies that the requirements of Part 574 apply only to new and retreaded *tires for use on motor vehicles*. Hence, the question which must be answered to determine if a retreader is required to put its DOT identification mark on a retreaded tire is whether the tire is for use on motor vehicles.; 'Motor vehicle' is defined at 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) as 'any vehicle drive or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' If these retreaded tires are for use on forklifts or other types of mobile construction equipment intended and sold primarily for off-road use, the retreader would not be required to mold a DOT identification mark on the tires, because the tires would not be for use on motor vehicles. This is true even if these types of vehicles are incidentally used for highway travel from one job site to another.; If, on the other hand, the vehicles on which the retreaded tires ar mounted are conventional on-road trucks simply being used in a shipyard, the retreaders would be required to comply with the requirements of Part 574, because the tires are for use on motor vehicles. The determination of whether the retreaded tires are for use on motor vehicles must be made initially by the retreader, but it would be subject to review by this agency.; >>>2. *If a DOT identification mark is not required, is there any othe notice that is required on the retreaded trucks tires, retreaded for non-highway use?*<<<; If the retreaded truck tires are not subject to the Part 574 markin requirements, because they are not for use on motor vehicles, there are no other marking requirements applicable to retreaded truck tires.; >>>3. *If no notice is required and the DOT identification mark is no required, would it be permissible to place a disclaimer notice such as 'Not Retreaded for Highway Use' on the retreaded truck tire?*<<<; This sort of notice would be permitted, and would be a usefu disclosure for the retreader and the user of the tire, to show the intended use of the tire. Such a notice would not affect the retreader's duty to determine whether the tire was retreaded for use on motor vehicles, and mold its DOT identification mark on the sidewall of the tire if it were for use on motor vehicles.; Should you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4577OpenThe Honorable J. James Exon United States Senator 287 Federal Building l00 Centennial Mall North Lincoln, NE 68508; The Honorable J. James Exon United States Senator 287 Federal Building l00 Centennial Mall North Lincoln NE 68508; Dear Senator Exon: Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1989, i which you inquired about the status of a letter to this office from Mr. Ron Moxham, one of your constituents. I apologize for the delay in responding to Mr. Moxham. In his inquiry, Mr. Moxham asked about the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations to an add-on-trunk for mini vans, pickup trucks, Blazers, and other vehicles. He described his product as a detachable box that could be attached to the liftgate, bumper, or frame at the rear of a vehicle and extend 16 to 20 inches beyond the bumper. Your constituent asked whether there are any regulations applicable to this product, especially in relation to the vehicle's tail lights and other lighting components. He also asked whether his product would be required to have its own separate lighting equipment and its own separate bumper. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in Mr. Moxham's letter. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an add-on trunk. However, the addition of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, an add-on trunk could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, by obscuring the vehicle's rear lights from some angles of view. This adverse effect could be offset by the addition of supplementary lighting devices to the trunk. See S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108. (Copy enclosed.) If an add-on trunk is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If such a device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an 'alterer' under 49 CFR Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the add-on trunk either altered the vehicle's stated weight ratings or constituted the installation of something that is not a 'readily attachable' component. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. More information regarding the method of installation is necessary before we could determine whether the installation of the add-on trunk was the installation of a readily attachable component. A person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale is also affected by other Federal requirements, whether or not that person is considered an 'alterer.' Section 108(a)(l)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act generally provides that no person may 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States,' any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If an add-on trunk is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would be subject to the 'render inoperative' requirement cited above. Thus, the installer would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. I note that in a letter dated September 25, l987, NHTSA indicated that a person who installs a lift platform on the rear of a car, thereby blocking a lamp required by Standard No. 108, could avoid violating the prohibition against rendering inoperative by installing an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's photometric requirements. Since that situation may have similarities to the one faced by Mr. Moxham, I am enclosing a copy of the letter. Mr. Moxham did not specifically indicate whether his product would be sold for passenger cars. NHTSA has a bumper standard which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger cars in low speed front and rear collisions. The addition of an add-on trunk could affect a passenger car's compliance with the bumper standard. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Mr. Moxham should also be aware that state laws may apply to his device. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures cc: Washington Office /; |
|
ID: aiam1325OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA; Mr. W. G. Milby Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1973, concerning th installation of seat belts and seat belt anchorages for passenger seats in school buses. The belts would be used to assist handicapped passengers in remaining seated while the bus is in motion.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, which regulates the strength o seat belt anchorages, applies only to the driver's seat in a bus. The passengers' seats are not covered by the standard. As a result, an anchorage provided at a passenger seat in a bus does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 210.; If you plan to acquire conventional automotive seat belts for use i the buses, you will find that all belts must be certified to Standard No. 209, *Seat belt assemblies*, by the belt manufacturer. Because of this the belt should not be a problem for you.; We would encourage you to construct the belt anchorages so that the have the capacity to protect the passengers in sudden stops or crashes, as well as to keep them in the seat during normal service. However, the anchorage standard does not have to be met for these seats and will not be an impediment to fulfilling your customers' orders for anchorage-equipped seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3318OpenMr. Dennis Newton, School Pupil Transportation, Kansas Department of Transportation, State Office Building, Topeka, KS 66612; Mr. Dennis Newton School Pupil Transportation Kansas Department of Transportation State Office Building Topeka KS 66612; Dear Mr. Newton: This responds to your June 2, 1980, letter asking whether a school bu that is to be sold to a school district in your State will meet the Federal minimum requirements applicable to gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) and gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR).; To the best of my knowledge, the Federal government has no minimu specifications for GAWR or GVWR. Certainly, this agency does not specify minimum weight ratings. Our only requirement is that the GAWR and GVWR be appropriate for the size and weight of a vehicle taking into consideration the type of equipment installed on it. From the information that you have provided us, we cannot say that the vehicle in question would or would not comply with that requirement. It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the Federal safety standards. No school bus manufacturer can sell you a school bus that they know will not comply with the requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4127OpenRobert L. DuMond, P.E., Engineering Services Department, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Robert L. DuMond P.E. Engineering Services Department Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. DuMond: Thank you for your November 13, 1985 letter to our office enclosing blueprint illustrating maximum seat spacing and knee clearance on Blue Bird's school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify our requirements for seat spacing, because it appears that the method used in the blue print to measure the distance between school bus seats is not entirely consistent with the specifications of S5.2.1.; Paragraph S5.2 of the standard requires either a seat back or restraining barrier within 24 inches of each designated seating position's seating reference point (SRP). Under S5.2.1, the 24-inch distance is measured from the SRP to the rear surface of the forward seat back or restraining barrier. Therefore, the distance from the SRP would not be measured to a point forward of that surface, as depicted in your blueprint.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2159OpenHonorable Roy A. Taylor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 20515; Honorable Roy A. Taylor House of Representatives Washington D. C. 20515; Dear Mr. Taylor: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1976, forwarding a plea fro Mr. Ralph O. Howard, Executive Vice President of the North Carolina Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, for help in changing Public Law 91-265, HR 10105, that would permit voluntary registration of tires. The law which became effective May 22, 1971, amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 to require tire manufacturers, including retreaders, to maintain records of the names and addresses of first purchasers. The law also authorized the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe procedures to be followed by distributors and dealers to assist manufacturers in securing the required information. In order to implement the law, our Regulation Part 574 (copy enclosed) specifies that tire dealers shall record the purchaser's name and address at time of sale.; The purpose of tire registration is to enable manufacturers to notif consumers in the event of defective or nonconforming tires. The Congress took steps in amending the Safety Act only after attempts by manufacturers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to inform owners of defective tires proved ineffective. Congressional action would again be necessary to change the law as Mr. Howard's letter requests.; To provide additional orientation pertinent to this subject, we ar enclosing a copy of Secretary Coleman's recent letter to the Honorable C. E. Wiggins.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0164OpenMr. W.J. Sears, Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association, 1346 ConnecticutAvenue(sic), N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. W.J. Sears Vice President Rubber Manufacturers Association 1346 ConnecticutAvenue(sic) N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Sears: This will acknowledge your letter of May 14, 1969, to the Nationa Highway Safety Bureau requesting the addition of the 6JJ alternative rim size for the E78-14 tire size designation to Table I of Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.; On the basis of the data submitted indicating compliance with th requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 and other information submitted in accordance with the procedural guidelines set forth in the *Federal Register*, Volume 33, No. 195, Page 14964, dated October 5, 1968, the 6JJ alternative rim size for the E78-14 tire size designation will be listed within Table I of Appendix A of Standard No. 110. This change will be published in the *Federal Register* in the near future.; The addition of new alternative rim size designations to the table i accomplished through an abbreviated procedure consisting of the publication in the Federal Register of petitioned alternative rim size. If no comments are received, the amendment becomes effective 30 days from the date of publication. If comments objecting to amendments are received, additional rule making pursuant to Part 216 of the Procedural Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will be considered.; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5366OpenMr. Fred Benford 100+ Motoring Accessories 2220 East Orangewood Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806-61100; Mr. Fred Benford 100+ Motoring Accessories 2220 East Orangewood Avenue Anaheim CA 92806-61100; "Dear Mr. Benford: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without 'protruding objects.' You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since 'wheel discs' encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part: As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections ... In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any 'protruding objects.' Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with 'winged projections,' if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate 'winged projections,' the wheel covers would satisfy Standard No. 211. 'Winged projection' is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contact with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle. You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are 'motor vehicle equipment,' your company must ensure that the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2509OpenMr. Steven Katz, Silver Thread Studios, 413 A Sixth Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11215; Mr. Steven Katz Silver Thread Studios 413 A Sixth Avenue Brooklyn NY 11215; Dear Mr. Katz: This responds to your February 1, 1977, letter requesting informatio concerning the Federal regulations that would be applicable to glazing for use in van-type vehicles. Your assumption that the glazing regulation is not applicable to plastic material used for porthole windows and sun-roofs in vans is incorrect.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, 4 CFR 571.205, specifies requirements for all glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard specifies the types of glazing that may be used in various locations in vehicles and, in addition, specifies performance requirements for each type of glazing. Although the standard does permit the use of plastic glazing in side windows and sun-roofs of van-type vehicles, the plastic glazing must meet specified performance requirements.; I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 (and the ANS Z26 standar that is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) for your information. From the standard you will be able to determine the various types of glazing that may be used for side windows and sun-roofs in vans.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.