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: aiam2823OpenMr. Don H. Pendergrass, Norris Industries, 1225 West Imperial Highway, Brea, California 92621; Mr. Don H. Pendergrass Norris Industries 1225 West Imperial Highway Brea California 92621; Dear Mr. Pendergrass: This responds to your January 7, 1978, letter asking whether final-stage wheel manufacturer is permitted to mark a rim in accordance with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. The standard currently specifies that rim marking shall be done by a rim manufacturer, not a final-stage wheel manufacturer.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha previously determined that a rim manufacturer is the responsible party for rim marking. The language of the standard is specific in this requirement. The agency, however, is reviewing the standard with a view to its possible modification along the lines suggested in your letter. Should the agency decide to amend the standard, a notice proposing such change would first be published in the Federal Register. A final rule would only be issued following analysis of comments submitted by interested parties.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3361OpenMr. T. M. Birdwell, General Electric Company, Silicone Products Division, 9119 Gaither Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760; Mr. T. M. Birdwell General Electric Company Silicone Products Division 9119 Gaither Road Gaithersburg Maryland 20760; Dear Mr. Birdwell: This responds to your letter of July 30, 1980, concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard 116, in which you inquired about the definition of 'purple' as specified for the color of DOT 5 brake fluid. During a telephone conversation regarding the question on September 2, 1980, with Edward Glancy of this office, you suggested that specific color coordinated be established and expressed concern about another manufacturer's DOT 5 brake fluid that appears to be blue rather than purple.; Paragraph S5.1.14 of the standard states: 'Brake fluid and hydrauli system mineral oil manufactured on or after September1, 1978, shall be of the color indicated:... DOT 5 -- purple.' This is in contrast to the color specification of DOT 3 nd DOT 4 brake fluid which are required to be colorless to amber and hydraulic system mineral oil which is required to be green.; The major purpose of the color coding requirements is to permit eas identification of fluids before they are placed in a vehicle, in order to prevent the mixing of an incompatible fluid in a braking system. See notice 12 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (41 FR 54942, 54943) on December 16, 1976. At an early stage in the rulemaking process, the Agency did propose color requirements defined in terms of millimicrons. See notice 5 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (i38 FR 32142, 32144) on November 21, 1973. (The colors proposed at that time were later changed.) Later, however, the Agency determined that visual inspection for color compliance was adequate and the proposed wavelength bands were deleted. See notice 6 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (39 FR 30353) on August 22, 1974.; As you noted in your letter, Notice 10 of Docket 71-13, published i the Federal Register 40 FR 56928) on December 5, 1975, does explain:; >>>...The specifications for fluid color are intended to refer to colo ranges as generally interpreted in daylight by persons of normal color vision. No color coordinates are proposed, since the fluids may change color in storage or in use (without detriment to the performance of the fluids).<<<; Establishing specific color coordinates would require rulemakin proceedings in accordance with agency regulations. If you believe that coordinates ought to be established, you may wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 116. The procedures for submitting such a petition are set forth at 49 CFR Part 552. If you should submit a petition, we would like to see it address the issue of why visual inspection for color compliance is inadequate and what type of definition should be established.; If you believe that another manufacturer is in noncompliance wit Standard 116, we suggest that you send the relevant information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for enforcement purposes.; We have enclosed copies of the Federal Register notices referred to b this letter.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2989OpenMr. Thomas E. Cole, Vice President, Tire Division, Rubber Manufacturers Association, 1901 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Thomas E. Cole Vice President Tire Division Rubber Manufacturers Association 1901 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Cole: In your letter of March 19, you pointed out that the tire industry ha printed tire tread labels and consumer information materials based on Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), as published in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Docket 25, Notice 24 (43 FR 30542, July 17, 1978). That notice contained a typographical error in the text of Figure 2, which was corrected in Notice 31 (44 FR 15721, March 15, 1979) by substitution of the word 'are' in place of the word 'of' in the first line of the third section of Figure 2.; The labels and other materials printed prior to the issuance of Notic 31 may be technically in noncompliance with the UTQG regulation. To avoid the waste which would result if use of these materials were prohibited, however, NHTSA will permit use of tread labels and information materials containing the Figure 2 text as stated in Notice 24, where orders for printing of these materials were submitted prior to March 15, 1979, the date of publication of Notice 31.; Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Associate Administrator fo Rulemaking; |
|
ID: aiam3674OpenMr. J. N. Uranga, Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Box 3005, Columbus, IN 47201; Mr. J. N. Uranga Cummins Engine Company Inc. Box 3005 Columbus IN 47201; Dear Mr. Uranga: This responds to your January 28, 1983, letter asking about th responsibilities of an original equipment manufacturer for compliance with Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*, and other agency recall-related regulations. In particular, you ask questions concerning a hypothetically defective original equipment fan that is a component of an original equipment engine that you manufacture. You ask whether your company would be responsible for compliance with agency regulations if you notified the fan manufacturer of a defect in its product and if that manufacturer refused to report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.; Part 579, *Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility*, states clearl that original equipment is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer. As such, the manufacturer(s) of the vehicles in which the equipment is installed would be responsible for recalling and remedying the defective fan. However, Part 573 states that in the case of original equipment, defect reports shall be submitted by either the equipment or the vehicle manufacturer when the defective equipment has been supplied to only one vehicle manufacturer. On the other hand, where such equipment is supplied to more than one manufacturer, both the vehicle manufacturers and the original equipment manufacturer must submit the required reports.; Your hypothetical situation further complicates the reports questio because the original equipment is a component of the original equipment that you manufacture. The agency concludes that in the situation that you posit, the manufacturer of the fan and the manufacturer of all of the vehicles in which the fan is installed would be required to supply the necessary defect reports. Failure to do so would subject all manufacturers to the penalties provided by law. If the fan manufacturer refuses to submit the required reports, it would be the responsibility of your company to issue the report to the agency, since you would also be considered an original equipment manufacturer and the defective component would be part of your equipment. The agency would not require both your company and the fan manufacturer to report. A report submitted by either company would be considered compliance by both companies. However, failure of both companies to report could result in the imposition of penalties on both.; I trust this fully answers your question. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1649OpenMr. J. W. Kennebeck, Manager, Emissions, Safety & Development, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. J. W. Kennebeck Manager Emissions Safety & Development Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to your October 17, 1974, request for an interpretatio of the term 'walk-in van-type vehicle' as it is used in S4.2.3 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*.; This vehicle category is not defined in the standard or in 49 CF S571.3, *Definitions*. Review of its use in the rulemaking which resulted in S4.2.3 makes clear that it includes only a small category of vehicles with a distinctive configuration. Our preamble discussion in Notice No. 9 of Docket No. 69-7 (36 F.R. 4600, March 10, 1971) stated 'Review of the comments and the petitions for reconsideration leads to the conclusion that this type of vehicle [open-body type vehicles], along with convertibles, walk-in van-type vehicles. . . cannot be satisfactorily equipped with a complete passive protection system.'; International Harvester used the term 'walk-in van-type truck' in it comments to describe its 'Metro' delivery vehicle (Comment 69-7-9, December 2, 1970). It requested exclusion of this vehicle from barrier crash testing as too severe for vehicles 'mainly used in low-speed, city-delivery type operations' while maintaining the necessary walk-in feature. Modifications, it argued, would eliminate the walk-in feature and much of the utility of short, high-capacity, city delivery vehicles. It is our interpretation that the term 'walk-in van-type truck' only covers the 'step van' delivery vehicle of which the International Harvester 'Metro' is one example. If you have a question concerning the categorization of one of Volkswagen's vehicles, I suggest that you submit a description of the vehicle to us, on the basis of which we will give you a definitive answer.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2966OpenMr. H.A. Kendall, Executive Secretary, United Sidecar Association, Inc., 1621 Palomino Lane, Kingwood, Texas 77339; Mr. H.A. Kendall Executive Secretary United Sidecar Association Inc. 1621 Palomino Lane Kingwood Texas 77339; Dear Mr. Kendall: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1979, asking for clarification of S5.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122, *Motorcycle Brake System*. This section requires each three-wheeled motorcycle to be equipped with a parking brake system. You have inquired whether this means a two-wheeled motorcycle equipped with a sidecar.; A two-wheeled motorcycle initially sold with a sidecar attached, o intended to be so sold, is a three-wheeled motorcycle for purposes of compliance with S5.1.4. The fact that a sidecar may be attached to a two-wheeled motorcycle at some point in its existence does not mean that the motorcycle must have a parking brake system when the cycle manufacturer does not intend it to be sold to its first purchaser with a sidecar attached.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3224OpenMr. C. Crissy, Manager, Mechanical Products, Aeroquip Corporation, 300 South East Avenue, Jackson, MI 49203; Mr. C. Crissy Manager Mechanical Products Aeroquip Corporation 300 South East Avenue Jackson MI 49203; Dear Mr. Crissy: This responds to your Janaury 17, 1980, letter asking whether th performance requirements of the parking brake sections of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, permit the use of a common piston for both the service and parking brakes.; In our August 9, 1979, Federal Register notice (44 FR 46850), we state that the performance requirements of the parking brake system must be achieved with any single leakage- type failure in the service brake system, including a ruptured diaphragm. The use of the diaphragm example was intended only to clarify a question that had been raised by a commenter to the notice proposing the parking brake amendment. The diaphragm example does not limit the requirement that any single leakage- type failure of a component of the service brake system must not affect the peformance of the parking brake system.; With respect to your question, you state that a piston does not fail i the sudden manner of a diaphragm. Although this may be accurate, it is not the correct approach for interpretation of the performance requirements of the parking brake sections of the standard. If your parking brake system would comply with the requirements of the standard once the piston in the service brake system has failed, then you would be permitted to use a common piston. If, on the other hand, a failure of the service brake piston would cause the parking brake system to fail the requirements, a common piston would not be allowed.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1219OpenMr. D. Black, Technical Director, Alfa Romeo, Inc., 250 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. D. Black Technical Director Alfa Romeo Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Black: This is in response to your letter of August 9, 1973, in which yo inquire whether Alfa Romeo may add to the consumer information 'handouts' for prospective purchasers, required by NHTSA regulations, the consumer information required by the Environmental Protection Agency.; As long as the information required by NHTSA is presented in conformit with 49 CFR Part 575, we have no objection to the inclusion within the same covers of additional information relative to EPA requirements.; The wall posters you mentioned are not required by our regulations, s you may do with them as you please.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0058OpenMr. C. A. Pierquet, Truck Equipment, Incorporated, 680 Potts Avenue, P. O. Box 2345, Green Bay, WI 54306; Mr. C. A. Pierquet Truck Equipment Incorporated 680 Potts Avenue P. O. Box 2345 Green Bay WI 54306; Dear Mr. Pierquet: Thank you for your letter of March 6, 1968, to Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator, in which you inquired about certification responsibility for lighting on your truck bodies.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on lighting applies t motor vehicles, not to motor vehicle equipment such as truck bodies.; When the body is mounted on the chassis cab, the lighting requirement of Federal Standard No. 108, not certified by the manufacturer, must be fulfilled.; Certification must be provided to the dealer when the chassis cab i completed for the dealer. A dealer selling to the final purchaser need not certify, but is responsible for lighting to be in compliance with Federal standard No. 108, for that part of the lighting (or other standards) which have not been previously certified.; Trusting this information answers your questions. Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2065OpenMr. Joseph E. Casson, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, Federal Bar Building, 1815 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Joseph E. Casson Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn Federal Bar Building 1815 H Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Casson: This responds to your September 23, 1975, request for confirmation tha a manufacturer of air-braked buses that conform to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, may direct owners of these vehicles to disconnect the antilock system used to meet the standard, for the period necessary to correct a safety-related defect in the system that may make its operation hazardous. Your concern is with S 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) that states:; >>> S 1397 (2)(A) No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall 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 <<<; Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits, with one exception, the knowin disconnection of the antilock system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. This prohibition does not prevent an owner of air- braked buses from disconnection of the antilock system. The NHTSA has determined that a manufacturer of air-braked buses that conform to Standard No. 121 may instruct the owners of its products to disconnect the antilock system used to meet the standard, for the period necessary to correct a safety-related defect in the system that may make its operation hazardous.; A manufacturer that has determined the existence of a safety- relate defect in his vehicle must, of course, comply with the Defect Report requirements of 49 CFR Part 573 and the Defect Notification requirements of 49 CFR Part 577.; 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.