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: aiam2006OpenMr. Fred Long, South Texas Tire Test Fleet, Drawer J, Devine, TX 78016; Mr. Fred Long South Texas Tire Test Fleet Drawer J Devine TX 78016; Dear Mr. Long: This is to confirm your telephone conversation of July 31, 1975, wit Mark Schwimmer concerning the treadwear test procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* (UTQGS).; You had previously pointed out that the A78-13 and other tires ar available neither as original equipment nor as recommended replacement options on any 1975 model passenger cars, although they are available as replacement options for the 1974 Ford Pinto. You had asked whether it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to conduct treadwear testing for such tires on a 1975 Pinto, in light of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) statement that; >>>tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which the are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. (40 FR 23076, May 28, 1975)<<<; As Mr. Schwimmer explained to you, the UTQGS rules does not dictate th method by which a tire manufacturer must conduct his testing to assign grades. It merely specifies the procedures which the NHTSA will follow when testing tires for compliance with the rule. While the surest way for the tire manufacturer to be confident of compliance would be to follow these procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. His obligation is simply to ensure that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the specified procedures, his tires are capable of achieving the grades which he has assigned to them. He may fulfill this obligation by whatever means he believes reliable and necessary. Thus, for example, he might choose a 1975 Pinto to test an A78-13 tire, if he is confident that the model year change in the Pinto will have no effect on the tire's treadwear performance. This decision is his, however. The NHTSA, in its compliance testing, would test such a tire on a 1974 Pinto or on some other passenger car for which it is original equipment or a recommended replacement option.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0191OpenMr. J. C. Eckhold, Automotive Safety Director, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. J. C. Eckhold Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; >>>Re: Consumer Information<<< Dear Mr. Eckhold: This is in response to your telegram of December 15 concerning th submission of consumer information on passenger cars produced by your associated company in England. You stated, 'This data will be submitted to the Bureau thirty (30) or more days in advance of any of these cars being offered for sale in the United States as required by section 375.6 as published on October 22, 1969.'; The regulation (49 CFR S 375.6(b))requires information to be mad available to prospective purchasers, on or after January 1, 1970, on 'each of the vehicles offered for sale' at the dealer showroom. The general applicability of the information is to vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1970. The intent of the regulation is to provide prospective vehicle buyers with information on all the various types of vehicles currently being manufactured and available for purchase after that date.; You apparently are assuming that, within the meaning of the regulation no vehicles are 'offered for sale' to prospective purchasers except those that are physically present in the dealer showroom. This certainly does not reflect the practice of most manufacturers, whose dealers, while keeping a representative stock of vehicles on hand, offer for sale (and enter into contracts for sale of) the manufacturer's complete line of vehicles. This interpretation would, furthermore, tend to defeat the main reason for providing information to prospective purchasers, since a dealer would never be obligated to provide information on vehicles other than those that happened to be in his possession at a given moment.; We advise you, therefore, that the term 'vehicles offered for sale' i the prospective purchaser requirement, 49 CFR S 375.6(b), refers to all the types of vehicles that a manufacturer represents, or the dealer represents with the permission of the manufacturer, as being available for purchase by the general public at a particular dealer location. The regulation requires that consumer information be provided to prospective purchasers on each of there (sic) vehicles on or after January 1, 1970, and to the Administrator 30 days in advance of its availability to prospective purchasers.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam2211OpenEjner J. Johnson, Administrator, Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration, 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E., Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062; Ejner J. Johnson Administrator Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration 6601 Ritchie Highway N.E. Glen Burnie Maryland 21062; Dear Mr. Johnson: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, to Mr. Fre Vetter, expressing your concern about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs).; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is wel aware of the importance of the VIN and its use in requirements for certification, defect investigation, recall campaigns, inspection and registration. We are also well aware of its importance to other users such as State administrations, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies and vehicle manufacturers. The VIN is crucial to the identification of stolen, junked and recycled vehicles.; It was NHTSA's intention with the initial issuance of FMVSS No. 115, t include within its scope all aspects of vehicle numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applied, and to leave any aspects for which there were no specific requirements to the discretion of the manufacturers until such requirements could be issued. This, of course, is the basis of our position that any state rules in this area must be the same as the Federal standards.; We agree, however, that the VIn may be more effective if it i standardized in structure, format, and information content. The NHTSA, though its personnel who are members of the Society of Automotive Engineers and International Standards Organization Committees, has been participating in the efforts to develop a worldwide VIN system for several years. The NHTSA plans to issue in the next few months an NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 115 that will specify requirements for a standardized, uniform identification numbering system for all motor vehicles on a worldwide basis. We welcome all help and recommendations in this action.; I sincerely hope that VESC will provide comments and recommendations t the docket as we proceed in our rulemaking action.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3816OpenMr. R. G. Brown, Chief Engineer, Materials Engineering, Wagner Division, McGraw-Edison Company, 18448 Craig Road, St. Louis, MO 63146; Mr. R. G. Brown Chief Engineer Materials Engineering Wagner Division McGraw-Edison Company 18448 Craig Road St. Louis MO 63146; Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 116, *Moto Vehicle Brake Fluids*. You asked whether paper labels on brake fluid containers are sufficient to comply with the 'indelibly marked' requirements of the standard. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.; By way of background information, I would note that NHTSA does no grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine that its motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116 states: >>>Each packager of a brake fluid shall furnish the followin information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . .<<<; It is our opinion that this section requires the relevant informatio to be marked directly on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label, whether paper or of some other material, that is affixed to the container. This is clear both from the plain language of the section and from the Federal Register notices proposing and adopting that language.; In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 30, 1970 NHTSA proposed the following language as part of the packaging and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake fluids:; >>>S4.2.2.2 Each packager of brake fluid shall furnish to eac distributor or dealer to whom he sells brake fluid, the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container, or on a label or tag firmly attached to each such container. . . . 35 FR 15229, 15231.<<<; The final rule, published on June 24, 1971, did not adopt the propose alternative of permitting the information to be provided on a label or tag firmly attached to the container, but instead required the information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. The language as adopted, which is very similar to the current language, was:; >>>S5.2.2.2 Each packager of motor vehicle brake fluid shall furnis the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . . 36 FR 11987, 11989.<<<; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0739OpenMr. Loy Rosner, Sales Manager, Checker Motors Sales Corporation, 35-30 38th Street, Long Island City, New York 11101; Mr. Loy Rosner Sales Manager Checker Motors Sales Corporation 35-30 38th Street Long Island City New York 11101; Dear Mr. Rosner: This is in reply to your letter o May 25, 1972, asking whether you, a a selling dealer, may install steel-belted radial ply tires in an 8-passenger Checker taxicab. You state that the vehicle is normally delivered to you with tires having the 'O' load range.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 (49 CFR 571.110, cop enclosed) requires each passenger car to be equipped at the time of sale to a first purchaser with tires if certain minimum load carrying capacity, based on the weight of the vehicle. Any steel-belted radial ply tire that meets these load carrying requirements with respect to your vehicles may be installed by a selling dealer.; Radial tires of similar of Related sizes, but of different manufacture however, may have different load ratings. We suggest, therefore, that you contact Checker Motor Corporation for their recommendations as to which radial ply tires may be installs on these vehicles without adversely affecting the vehicle's conformity with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson |
|
ID: aiam2704OpenMr. Stanley Brajer, Project Engineer, Ellcon National, Inc., P.O. Box 307, Totowa, NJ 07512; Mr. Stanley Brajer Project Engineer Ellcon National Inc. P.O. Box 307 Totowa NJ 07512; Dear Mr. Brajer: This responds to your September 2, 1977, letter concerning th applicability of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, to a thermopane driver's window in a bus.; In response to your first question, the window to which you refer i required to comply with the requirements of the standard. The fact that it is a driver's window does not exempt it from the coverage of the standard.; Your second question asks how to test thermopane glazing. According t our enforcement staff, testing of thermopane windows can be conducted using the same criteria used for other window glazing. By following the procedures established in S5.1 of the standard, you should be able to accurately test thermopane glazing.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin,Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1981OpenHonorable Robert Taft, Jr., United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Robert Taft Jr. United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Taft: This is in further response to your letter of July 1, 1975, forwardin correspondence from Mr. R. H. Lawrence concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation.; By Act of Congress (Public Law 91-265), the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act was amended in 1970 to require manufacturers and retreaders of tires to maintain the names and addresses of first purchasers so that owners of defective tires may be notified of any defect. The legislative history of this amendment makes it clear that the Congress recognized the need for regulations in the area. Earlier joint attempts by manufacturers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to notify purchasers of defective tires produced inadequate results even in cases where the manufacturer offered to replace the defective tires free of charge. The poor results were attributable to the fact that owners could not be directly notified of the defect.; The magnitude of the problem which the regulation seeks to alleviate i clear. Since the inception of the program in 1966 through 1973, there have been 1,427,670 tires recalled in 88 separate defect recall campaigns. In 1973 alone, there were 116,743 tires recalled in 11 defect recall campaigns.; With regard to the effectiveness of the recordkeeping regulation, ou records indicate the percentage of tires being recorded is increasing, and should continue to increase when additional enforcement action is taken against manufacturers and dealers who do not comply with the regulation. Of course, what is most needed to make the regulation effective is the voluntary cooperation of retreaders and dealers in recording, reporting and maintaining the required information.; While this regulation indisputably places an added responsibility o retailers, we also believe that the burden is neither onerous nor unjustified in view of the danger to the consumer. NHTSA has continually attempted to improve and simplify the procedures for the registration of tires, the most recent example being the Universal Tire Registration Format issued on June 3, 1974. I have enclosed a copy for your information.; For these reasons, we are convinced that the requirement that dealer record the name and address of tire purchasers at the time of sale is reasonable and appropriate.; Mr. Lawrence also suggested that it is inappropriate to require tire to be graded on the basis of mileage, because different drivers may obtain different total mileages from identical tires. He appears to have misunderstood the meaning of the treadwear grades established by the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. That regulation, issued pursuant to Section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, requires new tires to be graded in each of the following performance areas: treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The treadwear grade is based on the mileage which a tire can be expected to attain when tested on a specified course under controlled conditions and driving procedures. This grade is not designed to predict the actual mileage a consumer will obtain from a tire, because that mileage depends on many environmental factors, including the difference in driving styles to which Mr. Lawrence has referred. It is designed to permit a prospective tire purchaser to compare the performance of competing tires. For this reason, the treadwear grade is expressed as a percentage (of a nominal 30,000 miles), rather than as a mileage. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the regulation.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0693OpenMr. Richard M. Leek, President, Western Contractors Equipment, Inc., 4825 Lake Street, Melrose Park, IL 60161; Mr. Richard M. Leek President Western Contractors Equipment Inc. 4825 Lake Street Melrose Park IL 60161; Dear Mr. Leek: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1972, concerning problem you are having in certifying certain vehicles on which you install a boom-loading device. You state that the chassis on which you are to install this device has been altered by a person who added a tag axle but did not furnish you a GAWR for it. It was also altered by the owner, who partially installed a flat bed but did not install clearance lights or reflectors. You say that you cannot certify the vehicle because (1) you have no GAWR figures for the tag axle, and (2) the vehicle does not have appropriate lights or reflectors.; You can solve the problem you describe in either of two ways. First you may be able to install the boom-loading device as an intermediate manufacturer under the regulations governing 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 568, S 568.5, copy enclosed). You may do so if the vehicle, after the completion of your work, is still an incomplete vehicle as defined in section 568.3 of the regulations. The fact that lighting equipment has been omitted and a flat bed is still to be installed indicate that this would be a reasonable position for you to take. If you proceed in this manner you must furnish an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document, as provided in section 568.5, to the person to whom you deliver the vehicle.; Your other option is to provide the owner with a completed vehicle. I this case you must provide a GAWR for the tag axle, install the necessary lighting equipment, and certify the vehicle. You should seemingly be able to obtain the GAWR from the axle manufacturer, but we recommend you request that this information be furnished to you in writing, and that you retain it after you complete the vehicle. The requirements for proper lighting and reflective equipment are contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a copy of which is also enclosed. According to your letter, once you have made these modifications, there should be no obstacle to your properly certifying the vehicle.; We have forwarded a copy of your letter to our Office of Standard Enforcement for appropriate action regarding the failure of Reliable Spring Company to furnish you with the GAWR for the axle they installed, and we thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5491OpenMr. Ken Liebscher President/Director Electric Car Company P.O. Box 618 Everson, WA 98247; Mr. Ken Liebscher President/Director Electric Car Company P.O. Box 618 Everson WA 98247; Dear Mr. Liebscher: We have reviewed your application of January 16 1995, for temporary exemption of the M1-6 electric passenger car from six Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, on the basis that compliance would cause Electric Car Company ('Electric Car') substantial economic hardship. We need some additional information before we are able to consider the application further. A hardship applicant must provide corporate balance sheets and income statements for the three fiscal years preceding the filing of the application. You have filed statements for E.T.C. Industries and only for two years, those ending December 31, 1992, and December 31, 1993. This is acceptable since your submission indicates that E.T.C. Industries (apparently a Canadian corporation) is the parent of Electric Car (a Nevada corporation incorporated on November 24, 1993), and that 'the consolidated financial statements that you have provided us include the accounts of Electric Car . . . .' We would like to have balance sheets and income statements for Electric Car for the year ending December 31, 1994, but if these are not yet available, we would be willing to accept statements for E.T.C. Industries (or its predecessor Bradsue Resources, Ltd.) for the year ending December 31, 1991. If the information reflected in the financial statements is given in Canadian dollars, please provide a key indicating the value in American dollars on December 31 of each year for which the information is provided. In order to grant a hardship application, the Administrator must find that an applicant has tried to comply in good faith with each standard for which exemption is requested. Your application contains no information upon which the Administrator could make such a finding with respect to any of the six standards for which you seek exemption. In spite of your confidence about the MI-6's performance in a 30 mph barrier impact, the fact that the MI-6 uses equipment installed in motor vehicles that are certified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards does not mean that the MI-6 will meet any of the six standards with the equipment installed. We therefore suggest that you supplement the application with information demonstrating that you have examined each of the six standards in some detail, and have made a study of possible compliance problems and possible solutions to them. It is permissible to ask to be excused from only a portion of a standard, and you may find, after studying your problems, that you will be able to narrow your requests for exemption from Standards No. 201 and 208. We assume with respect to the latter that you are concerned with the airbag requirements. Although your letter speaks of 'restraint systems', we would like your further identification of them as two-point (lap belt) or three-point (lap and shoulder belt) systems. Although you appear to be a manufacturer in the start-up stage and one whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding the filing of the application was far less than 10,000, you have omitted to provide the number of motor vehicles that you produced in 1994 which is information that we require. Please do so in your response to this letter. When we have received this information, we shall prepare a notice requesting public comment which will appear in the Federal Register. We shall notify you when the Administrator has made a decision. We expect this to be three to four months after we have received your further submission. If you have any questions on our requirements, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202- 366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0369OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, General Manager, Toyota Motor Co., Ltd., Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima General Manager Toyota Motor Co. Ltd. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst New Jersey 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of June 2, 1971, requestin clarification of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, which requires a placard containing specified information to be 'permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location.' Your letter list seven locations on the vehicle (steering column, lower instrument panel pad or knee pad forward of the front seat occupants, sun visor, inside panel surface of the driver's door, door-latch post next to the driver's seat, door edge that meets the door-latch post next to the driver's seat, and door edge that meets the hinge pillar next to the driver's seat) and asks whether each would be considered an 'equally accessible location' under the standard.; The phrase 'glove compartment door or equally accessible location' i intended to require the placard to be affixed to a location where, like the glove compartment door, it can not only be easily referred to, but where it will also be relatively free from exposure to substances that may destroy it or render it illegible. With reference to your list of seven locations, we cannot determine without the specific configuration of the components involved whether placing the placard at any point on the component will meet the requirement. however, we believe the placard could be placed at some point on each of these components or locations so that the requirements of the standard would be met.; Please let us know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.