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: aiam1646OpenMr. Reno Laforest, After Sales Service Manager, Alouette Recreational Products, Ltd., 3700 St. Patrick Street, Montreal 205, Quebec, Canada; Mr. Reno Laforest After Sales Service Manager Alouette Recreational Products Ltd. 3700 St. Patrick Street Montreal 205 Quebec Canada; Dear Mr. Laforest: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign involvin 1973 and 1974 Alouette AX-125 motorcycles.; Since four different defects are involved, it has been found necessar to assign four different National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) identification numbers. Please refer to these numbers in all future correspondence concerning these campaigns.; Campaign numbers have been assigned as follows: >>>74-0178 - Rear brake pedal lever problem 74-0179 - Kick stand problem 74-0180 - Fuel leakage problem 74-0181 - Rear brake back plate holder lock nut problem<<< Although NHTSA will consider this matter as four campaigns, you ma still combine them in one owner notification letter and in communications with dealers.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the vehicles which wer sold in the United States of America does not entirely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter does not contain the precise wording that is required by Part 577.4(b). Use of the words 'potential' and 'may' also imply that possibly a defect does not exist and should therefore be deleted from this sentence.; Your letter also fails to adequately evaluate the risk to traffi safety as required by Part 577.4(d). If vehicle crash can occur, the letter must state this. Your letter also does not make clear if the repairs will be performed free of charge and also does not give an estimate of the time needed to perform the labor necessary to correct the defect, as required by Part 577.4(e).; It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notificatio letters and send a copy of the revised letter to this office and all known owners of the affected vehicles. Since you have stated that owners will receive a second notice at the time that parts have become available, the revised notification letter can be sent to owners at that time.; It is also necessary that you submit a Defect Report in accordance wit Part 573 of the regulations. The first Quarterly Reports, as required by Part 573.5, should be submitted before February 5, 1975, for the period ending December 31, 1974.; Copies of Part 573 and Part 577 are enclosed. If you desire furthe information, please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray at this office at (202) 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4444OpenFrank S. Perkin, Esq. Assistant General Counsel The Budd Company Law Department 3l55 West Big Beaver Road Box 260l Troy, Michigan 48084; Frank S. Perkin Esq. Assistant General Counsel The Budd Company Law Department 3l55 West Big Beaver Road Box 260l Troy Michigan 48084; "Dear Mr. Perkin: This responds to your letter expressing concern abou a statement in one of our interpretation letters, which you believe could be read as condoning the practice of rebuilding wheels by processes which include heating and welding. As discussed below, our letter's reference to remanufacturing wheels was made only to serve as an illustrative example and was not intended to address either the safety of such processes or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. The interpretation letter in question is one that we sent on September 22, l986, to Steven R. Taylor, responding to a request concerning regulations that apply to manufacturers of reconditioned brake drums. The letter included the following paragraph: NHTSA has in the past considered the issue of what types of operations make a person a manufacturer with respect to retreaded tires and remanufactured wheels. A person who retreads tires is considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The retreading process involves significant manufacturing operations, which do not differ substantially from those of manufacturing new tires. By contrast, a person who remanufactures wheels is not considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The process of remanufacturing wheels consists of such things as straightening, re-welding parts, and repairing cracks by welding. These types of actions are not significant manufacturing operations, but instead are the type of operations commonly performed in repair shops. You stated that all of the things mentioned in our letter, i.e., straightening, re-welding parts and repairing cracks by welding, are specifically prohibited by the OSHA standard applicable to truck wheels, both multi and single piece. You also stated that the 'out of service' criteria adopted by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety mandate that a vehicle be placed out of service if welded repairs are found on certain disc wheels. According to your letter, any significant changes made after the manufacture of a steel truck wheel, especially involving bending, heating or welding, carry a significant risk of rendering the wheel unsafe. As is indicated from the context of our September 22, l986 interpretation letter, the reference to remanufacturing wheels was made solely for the purpose of providing an illustrative example and was not intended to address either the safety of such processes or their permissibility or impermissibility under the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. I would note that NHTSA has long taken the position that remanufactured wheels are considered to be used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See, for example, our November 28, l973 letter addressed to Mr. L. Clinton Rich and February 7, l983 letter to Mr. H. J. Lindekugel (copies enclosed). Again, however, these letters do not purport to address the safety of remanufacturing wheels or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. We appreciate your bringing to our attention your concern about the safety of remanufactured wheels. Copies of this correspondence are being placed in the public docket. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3381OpenMr. J. Federsel, Product Manager, Teleflex Industrial Inc. 1816 57th Street, Sarasota, FL 33580; Mr. J. Federsel Product Manager Teleflex Industrial Inc. 1816 57th Street Sarasota FL 33580; Dear Mr. Federsel: This responds to your letter of October 8, 1980, in which you requeste an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. You asked us to confirm that your speedometer/odometer meets all the requirements of the rule.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle in accordance with that determination.; However, the agency is willing to give an informal opinion concernin whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. The speedometer/odometer you sent to us does not comply with the speedometer requirements of Standard No. 127. Section S4.1.4 of that rule requires speedometers to include the number '55' in the mph scale, and to highlight that number in some fashion. There is no '55' on the speedometer you enclose with your letter.; It is not possible to determine upon brief examination whether th odometer meets all the requirements of S4.2.5.2, the encapsulation option. The type of examination necessary to make such a determination is not performed by this agency prior to the manufacturer's certification. It is readily apparent, however, that the odometer you sent to us is in violation of section S4.2.3, as you stated in your letter. The odometer would have to have a sixth wheel or other mechanism to indicate when the number of whole miles or whole kilometers travelled exceeds either 89,999 or 99,999, if the device were to comply with the standard. Note that the effective date of the odometer provisions (sections S4.2 through S5.2) is September 1, 1981. Thus, any odometer that you manufacture prior to that date does not have to comply with the odometer requirements. NHTSA encourages manufacturers to meet these provisions voluntarily, however. The speedometer requirements (section S4.1) of Standard No. 127 are presently in effect, and thus all speedometers you manufacture must currently be in compliance.; We emphasize that the above statements are only the agency's opinio based on the information you have supplied, and that opinion is not binding on you or the agency. It is your duty as the manufacturer to determine whether in fact your product meets the requirements of the standard and to certify that compliance. We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0407OpenMr. Louis C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Environmental Staff, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI, 48090; Mr. Louis C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Environmental Staff General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W Toms, Acting Administrator, concerning replacement equipment covered in FMVSS No. 108, effective January 1, 1972.; The requirements for original and replacement equipment in FMVSS No 108 cover those items listed in Tables I and III, namely:>>>; Headlamps, Tail lamps, Stop lamps, License plate lamps, Refle reflectors, Parking lamps, Side marker lamps, Backup lamps, Turn signal lamps,; Turn signal operating units, Turn signal flashers, Vehicular hazar warning signal operating units, Vehicular hazard warning signal flashers, Identification lamps, Clearance lamps, Intermediate side marker lamps, Intermediate reflex reflectors<<<; In addition the requirements cover the following items specified in th text of the standard:>>>; School bus warning lamps, Headlamp beam switching devices, Headlam upper beam indicator lamps, Turn signal pilot indicator lamps, Hazard warning signal pilot indicator lamps, Plastic lenses.<<<; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4265OpenThe Honorable Guy Vander Jagt, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515-2209; The Honorable Guy Vander Jagt U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515-2209; Dear Mr. Vander Jagt: Thank you for your November 3, 1986, letter on behalf of you constituent, Miss Reva Darling of Ludington, Michigan, who asked about requirements for safety belts on buses used for school transportation and other purposes. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.; Miss Darling is interested in extending the applicability of Michigan' safety belt use law to belts on 'public' buses. She believes that safety belts should be installed on school buses used by transit and charter companies, and suggests that funding be made available to encourage the installation of belts on those vehicles.; I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. By way o background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to develop motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses and charter and transit buses. Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle, for example, different requirements apply to passenger cars than to buses. For buses generally, our requirements only specify that a safety belt must be installed for the bus driver. They do not require safety belts for passengers on large buses used for pupil transportation and other purposes.; We have not required large buses to have safety belts for passenger because we have not found sufficient justification for such a requirement, given that buses have excellent safety records. This safety record arises impart from the fact that, in crashes with other vehicles, buses tend to be substantially heavier than the other vehicle while cars tend to weigh approximately the same as the vehicle with which they crash. As a result, the crash forces experienced by bus occupants tend to be less than those experienced by car occupants. Also, because of the elevated seating positions in large buses, bus occupants sit above the area typically damaged in a collision with another vehicle. Further, we require large school buses to provide passenger crash protection with higher and stronger seats, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. That approach, together with the other attributes of large school buses, provides adequate levels of crash protection in school buses without safety belts. I have enclosed a copy of a NHTSA publication, 'Safety Belts in School Buses,' which addresses in more detail the issue of whether safety belts should be required on school buses.; NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish t order safety belts on their own large buses from doing so. Although large buses are not required by Federal law to have passenger safety belts, bus owners are free to purchase their buses with safety belts installed if they believe their particular circumstances warrant such installation. However, we have no reason at this time to believe that such an installation is necessary as a Federal requirement applicable to all transit buses.; Miss Darling asked whether there have been any proposals to appl Michigan's safety belt use law to public buses. Safety belt use requirements are a matter of State rather than Federal law. Therefore, Michigan state officials would be able to answer Miss Darling's particular question concerning the state law.; On a final matter, Miss Darling suggested that funding be mad available to equip buses with safety belts. For your information, while the Administration has not proposed any legislation effecting school buses, H.R. 749 (introduced in the 99th Congress) proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. H.R. 749, however, was not enacted.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we ca be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0226OpenMr. J. C. Eckhold, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. J. C. Eckhold Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1970 with which yo submitted for our examination a sample format for consumer information produced by a computer.; The sample that you submitted does deviate from the requirements of th consumer information regulations in that the required warnings and explanations are placed on a sheet that is separate from the numerical data. The regulations generally require that the information be presented in the form illustrated by the published figures, with the explanatory matter in proximity to the numerical data. I believe that computer printing is flexible enough to allow you to accomplish this.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Director |
|
ID: aiam5024OpenThe Honorable George Allen U. S. House of Representatives 255 West Main Street, Room 102 P.O. Box 136 Charlottesville, VA 22902-0136; The Honorable George Allen U. S. House of Representatives 255 West Main Street Room 102 P.O. Box 136 Charlottesville VA 22902-0136; "Dear Mr. Allen: Thank you for your letter in support of Philatro International's request for an immediate temporary exemption from the oil resistance requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106, Brake Hoses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) can appreciate the concern you have for distributors of Philatron's brake hoses such as your constituent, Truck Parts East. NHTSA closely examined Philatron's request and determined that the agency cannot provide the requested exemption. The reasons underlying this conclusion are fully explained in a May 26, 1992, letter from Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice to Anthony D. Padgett, counsel for Philatron. In his letter, the Chief Counsel explained that Philatron, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, is not eligible to be considered for an exemption under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Chief Counsel also concluded that a proceeding resulting from Philatron's rulemaking petition must include a full notice and comment procedure. A copy of the letter is enclosed. I would like to clarify an aspect of our rulemaking procedures mentioned in your letter. While it is correct that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration granted Philatron's rulemaking petition to amend Standard 106's oil resistance requirement, the agency did not inform Philatron that such an amendment would in fact be adopted. Whenever the agency grants a rulemaking petition, it states that it will subsequently decide whether to issue the requested rule based on all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. We hope that this information is helpful. Sincerely, Frederick H. Grubbe Acting Administrator Enclosure Letter Dated May 26, 1992 cc: Washington Office"; |
|
ID: aiam3959OpenMr. M. Ojima, Manager, Asahi Glass Company, Ltd., 1-2, Marunouchi 2-Chome., Chiyoda-Ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. M. Ojima Manager Asahi Glass Company Ltd. 1-2 Marunouchi 2-Chome. Chiyoda-Ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Ojima: Thank you for your letter of May 8, 1985, to Administrator Stee concerning the requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, that apply to glass-plastic glazing. The answers to your questions are discussed below.; Your first question concerns the requirements of the boil and humidit tests that apply to glass-plastic glazing. You explained that after the boil test and the humidity test, your plastic material develops a haze. You stated that the maximum haze resulting from the boil test is approximately 45 percent and the maximum haze resulting from the humidity test is approximately 10 percent. However, after the sample had been left at room temperature for 24 hours, the plastic haze disappeared and the plastic 'completely recovered to the original condition.'; As you correctly noted, Standard No. 205 requires glass-plastic glazin to pass Test No. 3, Humidity, and Test 4, Boil Test, of the American National Standard Institute's 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways' Z26.1-1977, January 26, 1977 as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980, which is incorporated by reference in our standard. As explained in the preamble to the November 16, 1983, final rule setting performance requirements for glass-plastic glazing, the purpose of the humidity and boil tests is to ensure that the plastic layer of glass-plastic glazing does not delaminate when exposed to high temperatures and humidity. Since the temporary haze does not result in a permanent change in the structure of the glazing, which would occur if the glazing delaminated, we do not consider the temporary haze to be a failure of the boil or humidity tests. The glazing must, of course, comply with Test No. 17, Abrasion Resistance, as modified by Standard No. 205, which is directly meant to limit haze.; Your second question concerned whether you should mark glass-plasti glazing as 'AS1' or 'AS14'. You noted that ANSI Z26.1-1983 specifies that glass- plastic glazing should be marked 'AS1', while our standard specifies the use of 'AS14'. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the 1977 version of Z26.1, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980, and does not incorporate Z26.1-1983. Therefore, in accordance with S6.1 of Standard No. 205, you must mark glass- plastic glazing manufactured for sale in the United States with 'AS14'.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1964OpenMr. Robert P. Crawford, President, Athens Sport Cycles, Inc., 20 W. Stimson Avenue, Athens, OH 45701; Mr. Robert P. Crawford President Athens Sport Cycles Inc. 20 W. Stimson Avenue Athens OH 45701; Dear Mr. Crawford: This is in response to your letter of May 18, 1975, in which you ask number of questions relating to tire registration procedures, and in amplification of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office. We will answer your questions in the order raised.; >>>1 and 2. There is a universal tire registration form (figure 3 i the enclosed Part 574) which manufacturers are required to furnish to you or you may reproduce pursuant to S 574.7 of the regulation.; 3. Since the regulation requires that the manufacturers or their agent maintain the records, the forms should either be sent to the manufacturer or his designated agent. A number of manufacturers utilize services such as the Tire Safety Registry in New Jersey to keep their records, but they merely act as the manufacturer's agent. There is to our knowledge no central place to send the forms for all manufacturers.; 4. We have no idea what is meant by a retailer I.D. number. Ou recommendation is that you contact the manufacturers to determine what they mean.; 5. Our tire recordkeeping regulation only applies to tires for use o motor vehicles. Thus, tires for use on off-road vehicles would not fall within the regulation.; 6. As required by S 574.8 of the enclosed regulation, completed form must be sent to manufacturers every 30 days. The only exception is where you sell less than 40 tires of all makes and manufacturers in the 30- day period, in which case you may wait until you sell 40 tires or for 6 months, whichever comes first.; 7. Retailers are not required to keep any tire owner forms. 8. It is the responsibility of the dealer to mail the forms, althoug he may ask the customer to fill out the form at the time of purchase.<<<; On behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, let m commend you for your desire to fully comply with the requirements of our tire recordkeeping regulations. It is through the efforts of dealers such as you that motorcyclists and their passengers are protected against tire defects which might lead to injury or death.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0676OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ, 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1972, in which you as whether, under the procedures of paragraph S5.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' you may interpret the reference to materials having a 'thickness' exceeding 1/2 inch to mean the 'design thickness.' You request this interpretation because it appears that some materials having a design thickness of 1/2 inch or less may increase in thickness due to vibration or moisture absorbtion. In cutting these materials down to the 1/2-inch thickness for testing purposes, you say a fluffy surface is created which burns at a much higher rate than the material's original surface.; For purposes of testing for compliance with the standard, manufacturer are free to deviate from the procedures specified in the standard as long as the results they obtain can be correlated to results obtained using the test procedures of the standard. The test procedures specified in S5.2.1 are not, however, intended to result in a changing of the texture of a material's surface when the material is cut to the specified size. Consequently, while we cannot approve of the interpretation you request, we would consider a slight deviation in the thickness of tested materials from the 1/2-inch specification, in order to preserve the original surface of the material, to be consistent with the standard's test procedure. I point out further that the NHTSA is aware of the problems you have encountered, and is presently considering amendments to the standard which would alter this result.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.