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: aiam0673OpenMr. Philip P. Friedlander, Jr., Director of Communications, National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc., 1343 l Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Mr. Philip P. Friedlander Jr. Director of Communications National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association Inc. 1343 l Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20005; Dear Mr. Friedlander: This is in response to your letter of March 28, 1972, asking whethe passenger car tires that have been reclassified, under Standard 109, as 'Unsafe for Highway Use' because they do not conform to the standard may be sold with, or for use on, a vehicle other than a passenger car. For the reasons given below, our answer to your question is no.; Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac states that:; >>>'*no person shall* manufacture for sale, *sell*, offer for sale, o introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, *any* motor vehicle or *item of motor vehicle equipment* manufactured on or after the date *any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard* takes effect under this title *unless it is in conformity* with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' (Emphasis supplied.)<<<; We presume that the argument for allowing use of a nonconformin passenger car tire on another type of vehicle (in your case a boat trailer) would be that by so using the tire, it ceases to be a 'tire for use on passenger cars' in the words of the application section of Standard 109, that the standard does not apply to it, and since there is currently no standard for tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, anything may be used on such vehicles.; We would reject this argument. We interpret Standard 109 as applying t tires that are designed and produced for use on passenger cars, and in this view a tire so designed and produced does not become something else because it is ultimately used for a different purpose. the effect of section 108, then, is not merely to prohibit nonconforming passenger car tires from being sold on passenger cars, but to prohibit them from being sold at all, as 'motor vehicle equipment.'; As an entirely separate matter, any reclassified tire sold as moto vehicle equipment would be presumed to contain a safety-related defect within the meaning of sections 111 and 113 of the Act.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1961OpenMr. R. J. Reed, V. P., Steer Safe, Inc., Box 149, Deming, NM 88030; Mr. R. J. Reed V. P. Steer Safe Inc. Box 149 Deming NM 88030; Dear Mr. Reed: This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1975, in which yo request a ruling that a person who installs a 'Steer Safe' steering stabilizer is not required to recertify the vehicle in which it is installed. You refer to a letter to Safety Products, Inc., dated August 24, 1972, in which it was stated that we would accept a determination that the installation of a steering stabilizer manufactured by Safety Products did not constitute remanufacturing, and that a person who installed such a device need not recertify the vehicle on which it is installed.; Since that letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio has issued regulations covering the alteration of completed, certified motor vehicles before their sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. These regulations (49 CFR SS 567.7 and 567.8, copy enclosed) supersede opinions such as the one we provided Safety Products, which was based solely on the more general provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the certification regulations in effect at that time. Under the new regulations, which were effective February 1, 1974, an alteration which either (1) invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings or (2) involves installation of other than 'readily attachable' components gives rise to a responsibility for affixing an alterer label, which identifies the alterer and contains some additional information.; From the description of your device, with the enclosed literature, i appears to require no special expertise or tools to install, and is thus probably readily-attachable. It would also seemingly not affect a vehicle's weight ratings. If this assessment is correct, we would accept as reasonable a manufacturer's determination that it is 'readily attachable', and that an altere label is not required when a 'Steer Safe' steering stabilizer is installed.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4149OpenRobert A. Hutton, Jr., Esq., Curtis, Bamburg & Crossen, Attorneys at Law, 230 South Bemiston, St. Louis, MO 63105; Robert A. Hutton Jr. Esq. Curtis Bamburg & Crossen Attorneys at Law 230 South Bemiston St. Louis MO 63105; Dear Mr. Hutton: This responds to your letter asking about inertial-locking seatbelt and seatbacks. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that your firm represents a woman who was injured in a 1982 Ford Escort GT. According to your letter, while braking to exit a highway, the driver's seatback was thrown forward, not locking, causing your client to lose control of the car and crash into a guardrail. You asked for information about inertial-lock mechanisms on automobiles, particularly for seat backs and belts in that car, and references to government safety standards. You specifically asked whether there was a standard for the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Two of our standards are relevant to inertial-lock mechanisms.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies* specifies requirements for inertial-locking safety belts. Section S4.3(j) specifies the following:; >>>(j) *Emergency-locking retractor*. An emergency-locking retractor o a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)--; (1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the retractor i subject to an acceleration of 0.7 g. . . .<<<; Thus, for safety belts, there is a specific requirement for the maximu distance the webbing may extend before locking under load.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems* (4 CFR S571.207), specifies requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats and seat backs. See section S4.3. The standard requires that such seats be equipped with self-locking restraining devices, and specifies both static force and acceleration performance requirements which the restraining devices must meet once engaged. However, the standard does not specify either the load at which an inertial-locking seatback must lock or the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load.; In response to your request for information that relates to th particular car involved in your client's accident, we have enclosed a computer printout listing relevant vehicle owner reports which allege problems similar to that identified by your letter.; I hope this information is helpful. There is no fee for th information.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3376OpenMr. James E. Skeen, President, Cragar Industries, Inc., 19007 South Reyes Avenue, Compton, California 90221; Mr. James E. Skeen President Cragar Industries Inc. 19007 South Reyes Avenue Compton California 90221; Dear Mr. Skeen: The Office of Vehicle Safety compliance has asked me to respond to you October 14, 1980, letter asking for a clarification of the basis upon which it was suggested that your wheel spinners may not be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 211, *Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps*.; Standard No. 211 prohibits the manufacture or assembly of wheel nuts wheel disc and hub caps that incorporate winged projections. This safety standard has been in effect since 1968 and was implemented at that time, because it was determined that these devices presented potential safety hazard to pedestrians and to cyclists. Prior to 1968, manufacturers were constructing devices with winged projections that extended quite far from the wheel. To prevent this from arising again, the agency issued the standard prohibiting the manufacture of *all* such devices.; From reviewing the wheel spinner that you are producing, our technica staff has concluded that it incorporates a winged projection of the type prohibited by the standard. Accordingly, our staff notified you of your possible noncompliance. I trust that this clarifies the basis of our investigation. Any questions that you have with respect to this possible noncompliance would be referred to our office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.; Pursuant to your request, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration will provide confidential treatment, subject to the limitation of 15 U.S.C. 1418(a)(2)(B), for the total production figure in paragraph 4 of your October 14 letter; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4519OpenMr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Homologation Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 JAPAN; Mr. M. Arisaka Manager Automotive Lighting Homologation Sect. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 JAPAN; Dear Mr. Arisaka: This is in reply to your letter of May 31, 1988 asking about the acceptability of installing an additional red reflex reflector on the rear of a passenger car. The reflector would be centered between the two red reflex reflectors required by the standard. In your opinion, the additional reflector will not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. As you have properly noted, supplementary motor vehicle equipment including reflectors is permissible under paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that the standard requires. The determination of whether supplementary equipment, in fact, impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle upon which the supplementary equipment is to be installed, and who certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards including paragraph S4.l.3 of Standard No. 108. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration neither approves nor disapproves of specific vehicle designs, and unless there are reasons to believe that the supplementary equipment will, in fact, impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment this agency accepts the manufacturer's determination. The drawing you attached shows the location of the two required rear reflex reflectors, and the supplementary one, but does not depict the location or types of other required rear lighting equipment, i.e. stop lamps, center highmounted stop lamp, taillamps, turn signal lamps, license plate lamp, and backup lamps. However, in your opinion the reflector will not impair the effectiveness of these lamps and the required reflectors, and the agency has no reason to believe that the third reflector will, in fact, impair the effectiveness of them. I hope this answers your question, and that the guidelines given in this letter will encourage you to reach satisfactory determinations without the necessity of submitting them to this agency for comment. We appreciate your continuing interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0809OpenMr. Seymour M. Lewis, Legal Counsel, Automotive Trade Association, 110 South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60602; Mr. Seymour M. Lewis Legal Counsel Automotive Trade Association 110 South Dearborn Chicago IL 60602; Dear Mr. Lewis: This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1972, to Miss Nanc Brownell concerning the placement of additional seats in a 'van' by a dealer.; Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. 1397) prohibits, among other things, the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction in interstate commerce of motor vehicles that do not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the day of the vehicle's manufacture. This prohibition applies until after the sale of the vehicle to a purchaser for a purpose other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).; This provision prohibits all persons, including dealers, from alterin a new vehicle before its sale to a user in such a way that the vehicle no longer conforms to the standards. A person who performs such alterations would be required to ensure that the vehicle conformed to all applicable standards after the alterations have been made. It appears that merely adding seats to a van without making additional alterations would cause it to fail to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 'Occupant Crash Protection', (49 CFR 571.208), and possibly other standards as well. The failure of the vehicle to conform could result in the imposition of civil penalties against the person making the alteration or selling the vehicle of up to $1,000 for each violation (15 U.S.C. 1398), and other sanctions (15 U.S.C. 1399).; You are right in your opinion that the vehicle may be modified withou regard to the standards after its first purchase for a purpose other than sale.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2834OpenHonorable Paul Trible, Member, House of Representatives, Tower Box 59, 2101 Executive Towers, Hampton, VA 23666; Honorable Paul Trible Member House of Representatives Tower Box 59 2101 Executive Towers Hampton VA 23666; Dear Mr. Trible: This is in response to the letter (enclosed) you received from you constituent Mr. Randy Churaman of Hampton, Virginia, concerning plexiglass covers for headlights.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 197 proposed rulemaking to allow fixed plastic covers over motor vehicle headlights. However, during the comment period of the proposed rulemaking some controversial items that were raised regarding fixed plastic headlight covers initiated concerns with respect to motor vehicle safety. These concerns were that: (1) moisture condenses inside the plastic covers and greatly increases headlight glare to oncoming traffic, (2) the plastic covers get scratched, thus reducing headlight output and increasing headlight glare at the same time, (3) plastic headlight covers have to be removed to mechanically aim headlamps, which becomes quite expensive to the vehicle owner and (4) correct aim of headlights is often made incorrect when installing fixed plastic headlight covers. Finally, the change in air drag by use of plastic headlight covers is extremely small since the air drag is primarily related to the overall frontal area projection of the vehicle.; Because of the foregoing disadvantages, and no major advantage to fixe plastic headlight covers other than styling, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*, prohibits fixed plastic covers over headlamps. Specifically, FMVSS No. 108 references SAE Standard J580a, which states in part... 'When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens.' There is, however, no prohibition on the installation of original equipment retractable clear plastic headlamp concealment devices on newly manufactured motor vehicles.; I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Acting Associate Administrator fo Rulemaking; |
|
ID: aiam3726OpenMr. Roderic A. Esmonde, P.E., Athey Products Corporation, Capital Equipment Division, P.O. Box 669, Raleigh, NC 27602; Mr. Roderic A. Esmonde P.E. Athey Products Corporation Capital Equipment Division P.O. Box 669 Raleigh NC 27602; Dear Mr. Esmonde: This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements o Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. You enclosed a sample of a rigid plastic you would like to use on the side windows of street sweepers, and asked whether the standard would be applicable to that type of material.; Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirement for glazing materials to be used on motor vehicles. Only those materials that are specified in the standard may be used on a vehicle, and only in the vehicle location specified for each glazing type. Thus, the sample you enclosed may be used only if it qualifies as one of the glazing types (Items) specified in the standard. A specific piece of glazing material qualifies as a particular glazing Item under the standard if it meets all of the performance tests specified in the standard for that Item. For example, your sample would be considered an Item 12 rigid plastic, which could be used in the vehicle locations specified for that glazing type, only if it passes all of the tests specified in the standard for Item 12 plastics.; Whether or not your sample does qualify as a permitted glazing Ite under the standard will have to be determined by your company. The agency does not provide advance approval for any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards and to certify that compliance.; I would also note that the glazing manufacturer is required to certify by markings etched on the material, any piece of glazing which is to be used in a motor vehicle (see S6. of Standard No. 205). These required markings would include a specification of the glazing type, e.g., 'Item 12.' The glazing sample you enclosed should be from a piece of certified material if that material is to be used on your motor vehicles.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2567OpenHonorable John W. Wydler, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable John W. Wydler House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Wydler: Thank you for your letter of April 21, 1977, requesting informatio concerning Federal regulations regarding school bus safety on behalf on your constituent, Mrs. Peter Peugeot of Rockville Centre, New York.; I have enclosed a document, 'Summary Description of Motor Vehicl Safety Standards Applicable to Buses,' which should be helpful to Mrs. Peugeot. I have also enclosed an information summary, 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations,' along with a set of forms from our Technical Reference Branch indicating how specific information may be retrieved through computer assisted literature searches along with an outline of fees for this service.; In addition to the above material, I have enclosed an order form fo the entire set of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, in case Mrs. Peugeot desires this specific volume. I would call her attention to the fact that although this document is relatively expensive, it is furnished in looseleaf form and is updated periodically for an indefinite period with the latest amendments and changes at no additional cost.; I trust this information and material will be of value to Mrs. Peugeot If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5308OpenJames E. Schlesinger, Esquire Schlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey 3000 South Eads Street Arlington, VA 22202; James E. Schlesinger Esquire Schlesinger Arkwright & Garvey 3000 South Eads Street Arlington VA 22202; "Dear Mr. Schlesinger: This responds to your letter addressed to Walte Myers of this office in which you posed certain questions relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104. Reference is also made to our letter to you dated February 23, 1993, in which we addressed certain other of your questions concerning the UTQGS. In your most recent letter, you set forth a very complicated factual scenario about certain events which occurred during 1990-91, and which involved three companies. At the end of the letter you asked, with respect to each company, whether the company was in violation of one or more provisions of 49 CFR Part 575. You also asked whether, in addition to the penalties for violation of the UTQGS as set forth in 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Act or Safety Act), there are 'additional sanctions requiring the manufacturer or brand name owner to recall unlawful product or notification procedures intended to identify unlawful product in the marketplace.' The purpose of our interpretation letters is to explain or clarify the meaning of our standards and regulations. Our letters are not intended to be adjudicative in nature. Given that the issues you raise about the three companies concern past conduct, involve complicated factual issues, and ultimately relate to whether a violation of the UTQGS has occurred, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to issue an interpretation letter concerning them. It would be appropriate, however, to clarify a statement made in our February 23, 1993, letter. The second paragraph from the bottom of page 2 of that letter states: Although both the Act and the UTQGS are silent as to whether tires can be imported or distributed without the UTQGS information, there would be no point in doing so since the tires cannot legally be sold without that information. Please note that 102(5) of the Safety Act defines 'manufacturer' as including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, an importation of non-complying tires would be considered a manufacture of non- complying tires under the Act. Thus, if a tire is required to be manufactured with certain information molded into or onto the tire sidewall, it may not be imported without such molded information. Any person doing so would be in violation of 108(a) of the Act. Should you wish this agency to investigate whether there has been a violation of the UTQGS, you may write to Mr. William A. Boehly, this agency's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, at this address, providing all relevant facts in detail. If you wish to discuss enforcement policies with this office, you may contact Kenneth Weinstein, Esq., our Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, at this address or at (202) 366-5263. With respect to your last question, we assume you are referring to Part B of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq., which requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment to provide notification of, and a remedy for, safety-related defects and noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards prescribed pursuant to 103 of the Act. Those provisions do not apply to tires that fail to comply with the UTQGS, since the UTQGS were not 'prescribed pursuant to section 103.' Rather, they were prescribed as consumer information regulations pursuant to 203 and 112(d) of the Safety Act. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, John Womack 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.