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: aiam2421OpenMr. M. J. Denholm, Director of Engineering, Power Controls Division, Midland-Ross Corporation, 490 South Chestnut Street, Owosso, MI 48867; Mr. M. J. Denholm Director of Engineering Power Controls Division Midland-Ross Corporation 490 South Chestnut Street Owosso MI 48867; Dear Mr. Denholm: This responds to Midland-Ross' September 30, 1976, question whether th 'method' specified by Compliance Testing, Inc., in its December 8, 1975, Technical Proposal for Solicitation NHTSA-6-A212 is consistent with the laboratory procedure contemplated by the NHTSA for its test contractors in evaluating the compliance of air-braked vehicles with Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. The NHTSA laboratory procedure for compliance contractors in the case of Standard No. 121 states in relevant part:; >>>*PROCEDURE*: A. Physically locate check valve or equivalent device. B. Following manufacturer's recommendation, check the check valve o equivalent device for proper function without disconnecting any air line or fitting. Describe method and technique used.<<<; The Compliance Testing, Inc. (CTI) solicitation was evaluated alon with other proposals and has been accepted by the NHTSA. The 'method' set forth by CTI as its intended course of action in evaluating the compliance of valves in accordance with the requirements of S5.1.2.3 will not appear in the manual produced for NHTSA compliance testing.; I would like to note in closing that this letter does not constitute a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 121. Although the laboratory procedure sets forth the method by which contractors satisfy NHTSA contracts, it does not mean that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of the standard when tested according to its terms by other methods.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2071OpenMr. 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: aiam4849OpenMs. Nancy J. Hunt Bankston & McDowell 3700 Chevron Tower 1301 McKinney Houston, TX 77010; Ms. Nancy J. Hunt Bankston & McDowell 3700 Chevron Tower 1301 McKinney Houston TX 77010; "Dear Ms. Hunt: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about test conditions in Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity (49 CFR 571.301, copy enclosed). In particular, you asked whether the spare tire must be in its proper place inside a vehicle at the time of testing. You also asked whether the spare tire must be in the vehicle during other types of vehicle testing. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you. Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidelines are called compliance test procedures and are available through the NHTSA Technical Reference Library. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities. The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 301 when they are tested in accordance with the test conditions set forth in section S7 of the standard. This section specifies the general test conditions under Standard No. 301. However, this section does not specify whether a spare tire must be included during the testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 301 may be based on tests with or without the spare tire, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 301 are satisfied. You should be aware that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that if the spare tire is standard equipment, it should be inflated to the vehicle manufacturer's specifications and be in the vehicle during the agency's compliance testing (see page 27 of the 'OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures,' copy enclosed). Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to include a spare tire that is standard equipment, absence of a spare tire might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the requirements of Standard No. 301. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, you should feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0559OpenMr. L. M. Preziosi, Division Engineering Manager, Westinghouse Specialty Lamp Division, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, One Westinghouse Plaza, Bloomfield, NJ 07003; Mr. L. M. Preziosi Division Engineering Manager Westinghouse Specialty Lamp Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation One Westinghouse Plaza Bloomfield NJ 07003; Dear Mr. Preziosi: In your letter of December 22, 1971 to Lawrence R. Schneider you as for a clarification of the relationship between 49 CFR Part 566 - *Manufacturer Identification*, and 49 CFR S 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. Specifically you ask whether identifying information is required for miniature bulbs.; Standard No. 108 establishes performance requirements for items o motor vehicle lighting equipment, and incorporates by reference certain SAE standards that specify requirements lamps must meet in laboratory tests when assembled. The SAE standard that applies to bulbs, J573d, *Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units*, is not incorporated by reference, and Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the output of bulbs furnished with a lamp assembly. When a lamp is tested for conformity, the production bulb is removed and a calibrated bulb substituted, in accordance with Paragraph C of SAE Standard J575d, *Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components*, the test bulb is to be 'representative of standard bulbs in regular production' and must be 'selected for accuracy in accordance with specifications listed in . . . SAE J573.'; In summary, Standard No. 108 does not specify performance requirement for lamp bulbs, and production bulbs are not used in lamp testing. Therefore, Standard No. 108 does not apply to bulbs and bulb manufacturers are not required to certify conformance to Federal standards, or to submit information pursuant to the *Manufacturer Identification* regulations.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2564OpenMr. 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 March 28, 1977, letter asking whether it is lega to certify a school bus manufactured after April 1, 1977, if the bus is painted a color other than National School Bus Glossy Yellow.; The certification requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration are found in Part 567, *Certification* (49 CFR 567). This part requires that a manufacturer certify that the vehicle he manufactures complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards promulgated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381). No safety standard promulgated under the Act requires that school buses be painted school bus yellow. Therefore, failure of a manufacturer to produce a school bus of that color would not be a violation of the Act, and his certification of the bus' compliance with motor vehicle safety standards would not be affected.; Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17, promulgated under the authorit of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), controls the color of school buses. This standard requires that all vehicles operating as school buses be painted National School Bus Glossy Yellow. Since this standard applies to the operation of school buses and not their construction, compliance with its requirements is not a prerequisite to motor vehicle safety standard certification.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0109OpenMr. D. C. Gershon, Director of Engineering, Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd., Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, England; Mr. D. C. Gershon Director of Engineering Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd. Newport Pagnell Buckinghamshire England; Dear Mr. Gershon: This is in response to your letter of August 27 and your cable o September 5.; You have written me with respect to the possibility of crash-testing a Aston Martin with weight added to the 6 cylinder engine so as to approximate the weight of a V8 engine which you may introduce in the future.; I am puzzled by your opening statement 'We are arranging . . . to cras one of our DBS cars . . . on your instructions and as we previously agreed to do . . ..' A review of the correspondence between the Federal Highway Administration/National Highway Safety Bureau and Aston Martin Lagonda does not disclose either our instructing you, or you (sic) agreeing, to crash test any motor vehicle. Generally, this correspondence has concerned the limited production vehicle problem and Public Law 90-283.; Since the demonstration procedure set forth in certain of the standard involves a crash test, an actual crash test seems the best way for a manufacturer to verify conformance with these standards. The standards, however, do not *per se* require a crash test, and 23 C.F.R. S255.11 specifically states that 'As approved equivalent may be substituted for any required destructive demonstration procedure.'; With respect to your planned test for September 13, our engineers d not view the 40 pound weight differential as significant, and, assuming no further modifications to the DBS, crash testing a 6 or a V8 simulation would be sufficient to demonstrate compliance for the current 6 or projected V8 model.; I understand your concern with the 'thought of having to smash car every time there is a change in specification', but you will have to face this issue every time a new Federal standard appears with a crash demonstration procedures (sic). You may not know of newly issued Standard No. 212 (Windshield Mounting - Passenger Cars), requiring a barrier collision test, and I enclose a copy for your information.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations |
|
ID: aiam2134OpenMr. Ralph Blake, 3319 W. Osborn Road, Suite A, Phoenix, AZ 85015; Mr. Ralph Blake 3319 W. Osborn Road Suite A Phoenix AZ 85015; Dear Mr. Blake: As you requested in your December 1, 1975, telephone conversation wit Karen Kreshover of this office, I am answering by letter your question as to whether motor vehicle dealers must retain copies of Federal odometer disclosure statements which they either receive or execute.; Section 408(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac (15 U.S.C. 1988(a)) gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to promulgate rules relating to the execution of statements disclosing odometer mileage on vehicles at the time of their sale. Such rules may, according to the Act, contain requirements prescribing the manner in which the necessary information is disclosed or retained.; Pursuant to the mandate of section 408, the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration promulgated 49 CFR Part 580, *Odometer Disclosure Requirements*. This regulation does not, however, require individuals to retain either copies or originals of odometer disclosure statements that come into their possession. This means that a dealer need not retain statements that are provided to him when he purchases a vehicle, nor must he retain copies of statements executed by him to purchasers of vehicles he sells.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3375OpenMr. Carl G. F. Pedersen, Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc., P.O. Box 1102, Blue Bell, PN 19422; Mr. Carl G. F. Pedersen Iveco Trucks of North America Inc. P.O. Box 1102 Blue Bell PN 19422; Dear Mr. Pedersen: This is in reply to your letter of October 30, 1980, asking question with respect to the term 'overall vehicle width' contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have first asked whether door handles are a part of the vehicle t be included in the definition. The answer is that they need not be included. The definition in 49 CFR 571.3(b) excludes outside rearview mirrors and other equipment items in computing 'overall vehicle width.' Although the definition does not list door handles among the equipment to be excluded in determining the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, they are substantially similar in character to outside rearview mirrors and the other equipment items listed and may be deemed included.; Your second question is whether vehicles, whose tolerances are suc that they are less than 80 inches in overall width, must nevertheless be equipped with clearance and identification lamps if the basic vehicle design is such that the 'nominal design dimensions of the widest part of the vehicle' is 80 inches or greater. The answer is yes. If the engineering drawings, etc. of the basic vehicle design posit an overall vehicle width of 80 inches or more, all vehicles manufactured on the basis of that specification must be equipped with clearance and identification lamps even if an occasional vehicle is produced whose overall width may be slightly less than 80 inches due to the tolerances involved.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt |
|
ID: aiam1348OpenMr. Alexander F. Klein, 43 Columbine Lane, Kings Park, NY 11754; Mr. Alexander F. Klein 43 Columbine Lane Kings Park NY 11754; Dear Mr. Klein: Your letter of December 3, 1973, indicates that the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration Region II office referred you to this office for an explanation of your rights under the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.; After January 18, 1973, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act prohibited alteration, resetting, or disconnection of a vehicle odometer with the intent to defraud a purchaser. After March 1, 1973, regulations under the Act require each seller to make a signed, written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage to his purchaser. If he knows the odometer reading is inaccurate, he must also state that the actual mileage is unknown. This statement must be made before the vehicle is sold.; If these regulations were violated in your particular case, as Troope Moran's investigation may indicate, a civil remedy is available to you under S 409 of the Act for $1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain your remedy, S 409 provides that you may bring a private civil action in State or Federal court.; You may wish to consult an attorney about the possibility of bringin an action in your case. I am enclosing the relevant portion of the Act and the odometer regulation for your information.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3725OpenMr. Robert J. Ainsworth, President, TOPAC International Trading Company, 325 N. Baldwin Park Blvd., City of Industry, CA 91746; Mr. Robert J. Ainsworth President TOPAC International Trading Company 325 N. Baldwin Park Blvd. City of Industry CA 91746; Dear Mr. Ainsworth: This is in response to your letter of July 12, 1983, with respect t UTQGS requirements and tires you intend to import form Shanghai, China. You have asked whether it is permissible, as an interim step to cover your initial order, if the factory affixes a label stating the traction and temperature ratings assigned to its 'Warrior' tires, subsequent tires will have this information molded into the sidewalls.; We understand from Mr. Vinson's phone conversation with you on July 2 that the tires have not been imported for sale previously and indeed are the product of a new factory which has recently opened. According to the UTQGS regulation, a tire need not have information molded into its sidewalls if it is 'a tire of a new tire line, manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line' (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)). We interpret this time frame as meaning within six months of the initial production of the tire line for export to the United States. Therefore, your initial shipment would appear to come within the exception established by the regulation.; If you have any further questions, please let us know. 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.