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: aiam0876OpenMr. William R. Graham, Bus and Truck Supply Company, 315 Continental Avenue, Dallas, TX; Mr. William R. Graham Bus and Truck Supply Company 315 Continental Avenue Dallas TX; Dear Mr. Graham: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1972, requesting a interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.; With respect to the rear emergency exit, you state that the top of th rear seat extends above the bottom of the rear window and that there is adequate clearance between the top of the seat and the top of the window to meet the requirements of S5.4', and you inquire whether this configuration satisfies the requirements of the standard. Assuming that the seat back does not obstruct the exit opening required by S5.4, from the information provided, it appears that the rear emergency exit you describe meets the requirements of Standard 217.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4566OpenMr. David W. Raney Environmental Activities Manager Saab-Scania of America, Inc. Saab Drive P. O. Box 697 Orange, CT 06477; Mr. David W. Raney Environmental Activities Manager Saab-Scania of America Inc. Saab Drive P. O. Box 697 Orange CT 06477; "Dear Mr. Raney: Thank you for your letter requesting ou interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, and 543, Exemption from Theft Prevention Standard. I apologize for the delay in this response. You asked two questions. Your first question concerned the scope of the exemptions granted under Part 543. You noted that the Saab 9000 car line has been determined to be a high theft car line. Accordingly, Part 541 requires that both the original equipment and the replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 be marked with certain information. Your letter states that your company marked both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 in the 1987 and 1988 model years. For the 1989 model year, the Saab 9000 was granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, pursuant to the provisions of Part 543. Your company understands that this exemption means that the original equipment parts on the Saab 9000 are no longer required to be marked. However, the replacement parts for the Saab 9000 that are produced in 1989 and thereafter pose a more difficult problem. On the one hand, Saab could consider these parts as replacement parts for the 1989 models, which would mean these parts are exempted from the parts marking requirement. On the other hand, these parts could also be considered as replacement parts for the 1987 and 1988 Saab 9000 line, which would mean the parts have to be marked because no exemption applies for such parts. The answer to your question is that once a high theft line is granted a Part 543 exemption in whole from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, as the Saab 9000 was, the replacement parts for that line are also exempted from the parts marking requirements even if those parts can be used as replacement parts for the high theft line during model years for which no exemption applies. NHTSA addressed this issue in the preamble to the September 8, 1987 final rule establishing Part 543 (52 FR 33821), as follows: Section 602(d)(2)(A) of Title VI (of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) states that the vehicle theft prevention standard can not require 'identification of any part which is not designed as a replacement for a major part required to be identified under such standard.' (Emphasis added.) As long as a manufacturer is producing a car line under an exemption granted in whole, there is no requirement to identify major parts otherwise subject to the theft standard, therefore, NHTSA can not require marking replacement parts. 52 FR 33828. Applying this reasoning to your company's situation, Saab was free to discontinue marking both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the Part 543 exemption took effect, provided that Saab actually installed the antitheft device described in its petition as original equipment on 1989 Saab 9000 vehicles. Your second question asked whether the manufacturer of a high theft car lines that has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, pursuant to Part 543, may discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and resume parts marking in some future model year. We addressed this issue in detail in a May 4, 1988 letter to Ms. Deborah Bakker, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. A manufacturer of a high theft line that has received an exemption under Part 543 is required to either install the antitheft device as standard equipment on every vehicle in that line produced during a model year or to mark all original equipment and replacement major parts for that line produced during the model year. As long as Saab marked all of the original equipment and replacement parts produced in a model year for the Saab 9000, your company is free to stop installing the antitheft device on those cars. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0525OpenMr. J.W. Kennebeck, Safety Project Engineer, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. J.W. Kennebeck Safety Project Engineer Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: Your letter of July 2, 1971, points out an apparent conflict within th upper torso seat belt anchorage location requirement of Standard No. 210. The conflict is between the provision of S4.3.2 that the range of permissible locations is established with the seat back in its most upright position and the provision that the 2 dimensional manikin shall have its 'H' point on the seating reference point. The manikin's 'H' point may not be capable of being positioned on the seating reference point if the manufacturer has used a 'nominal design riding position' other than the 'most upright position' in establishing the seating reference point.; We agree that the conflict exists and intend to eliminate it b appropriate amendment in the *Federal Register*.; We will advise you upon issuance of the amendment. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2518OpenMr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Engineering, 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, Colorado 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Engineering 5990 N. Washington Street Denver Colorado 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to Timpte's January 11, 1977, question whether NHTS regulations prohibit sale and delivery of a trailer to the first purchaser equipped with two used tires in place of the eight tires that are specified for the vehicle and which would form the basis of certification under Part 567, *Certification* and the basis of compliance with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; As you are aware, Part 567 of our regulations requires a statement b the vehicle manufacturer of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on any motor vehicle it manufacturers (S567.4(g) (4)). The term 'GAWR' is defined in S571.3 of our regulations as the value specified by the manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of the axle system, measured at the tire-ground interfaces. This clearly means that the tires and wheels on an axle must be taken into account in assigning a GAWR value for certification purposes.; Standard No. 120 specifies that 'each vehicle...shall be equipped wit tires that meet [specified requirements]' (S5.1.1) but makes provision for the installation of used tires owned by the purchaser if the maximum load ratings of the tires on an axle system are at least equal to the GAWR assigned to the axle system by the vehicle manufacturer (S5.1.3). Section S5.1.3 reflects the agency's view that existing commercial practices for delivery of vehicles with safe used tires has not created a significant safety problem to date.; In recognition of varying commercial practices for the delivery o vehicles, the agency has interpreted S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 to prohibit the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but not as a requirements that the tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale. A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your information. The interpretation makes clear that, while the agency interprets Standard No. 120 (and by implication Part 567) to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such a avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard could constitute a violation of law.; With regard to the practice you describe of delivering an empty ne trailer to the purchaser on fewer tires than necessary to confirm to the GAWR listed on the certification plate and the minimum requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, the agency interprets its motor vehicle safety standard and S567.4(g) (4) to permit such a good faith delivery practice. In the event any pattern of avoidance of Federal requirements becomes apparent, however, the agency would reconsider this interpretation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4835OpenMr. Ron Marion Sales Engineer Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261; Mr. Ron Marion Sales Engineer Thomas Built Buses Inc. P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; "Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your letter noting that Headstar facilities have been deemed by this agency to be schools for purposes of determining the applicability of this agency's standards for school buses asking whether 'privately owned and operated preprimary school type facilities' for children are also considered to be schools. I apologize for the delay in this response. The applicability of these standards is not dependent on whether the ownership of a facility is public or private, but on whether the function of the facility is educational or custodial. The definition of 'schoolbus' set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifically includes buses likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from preprimary schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued a number of interpretations concerning whether specific types of facilities are preprimary schools, within the meaning of this definition. These include the December 21, 1977, letter to James Tydings of Thomas Built, a copy of which was attached to your letter, as well as a May 12, 1981, letter to Doris Perlmutter and a May 10, 1982, letter to Martin Chauvin (copies of the latter two are enclosed). The Perlmutter letter explains that nursery schools are considered preprimary schools, while the Chauvin letter draws a distinction between day care centers and preprimary schools. This distinction is based upon the function of the facility. Facilities that are primarily educational in nature are considered schools, while those that are primarily custodial in nature are not considered schools. Hence, day care facilities, being custodial in nature, are not schools, while nursery schools and Head Start programs, which are educational in nature, are considered schools. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0175OpenMr. W.J. Sears, Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association, 1346 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. W.J. Sears Vice President Rubber Manufacturers Association 1346 Connecticut Avenue NW. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Sears: This will acknowledge your letter of August 1, 1968, to the Nationa Highway Safety Bureau, requesting the addition of test rims for certain tire size designations to Table II of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.; With your letter you transmitted data indicating satisfactor completion of the test requirements specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110. On the basis of this information, your request for the approved equivalent rims is granted.; Accordingly, the following approved equivalent rims will be added t Table II of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.; Tire Size Designation Alternate Rim E70-14 7JJ F70-15 8JJ G78-14 7J E70-15 7JJ; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr. Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2148OpenMr. Howard Shapiro, Helm, Shapiro, Ayers & Aldrich, P.C., 111 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12210; Mr. Howard Shapiro Helm Shapiro Ayers & Aldrich P.C. 111 Washington Avenue Albany NY 12210; Dear Mr. Shapiro: This is in response to your letters of November 11 and December 9 1975, asking two questions relating to the odometer mileage disclosure requirements contained in section 408 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513).; You explain in your letter that New York law requires, at the time vehicle is sold, the execution of a certification of sale (MV-50) containing the odometer mileage. This certificate must be signed by the vehicle purchaser unless a separate form is completed (MV-50.1) by which the purchaser waives his right to sign the certificate of sale. If the purchaser waives his right to sign the MV-50 form, it is filed with the State Department of Motor Vehicles and need not be shown to him.; You ask whether the execution and filing of both the MV- 50 and MV-50. forms (meaning the MV-50 is not seen by the purchaser) would constitute compliance with the Federal odometer requirements. Section 408 of the Cost Savings Act requires that the transferor of a motor vehicle give the transferee a written statement disclosing the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer. If the transferor knows that the mileage indicated on the odometer is different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually traveled, he must state this fact in writing on the mileage disclosure form. Section 408 directed the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules relating to this disclosure process. 49 CFR Part 580, *Odometer Disclosure Requirements*, was promulgated in compliance with this mandate and requires the following information to appear on the disclosure document in addition to that specifically mentioned in section 408: date of transfer, transferor's name, address and signature, make, body type, year, model, vehicle identification number, and last plate number of the vehicle, and a statement certifying that the seller is complying with the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972 and is aware that violation of the Act's provisions may subject him to civil liability. Neither the MV-50 nor the MV-50.1 forms contain this required information. In addition, under the New York scheme you describe, no written mileage information is provided to a purchaser when an MV-50.1 form is completed during a sales transaction. Thus, based on the information you have provided, compliance with the New York law alone would not satisfy the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.; You also ask whether a purchaser can waive his rights to receive a odometer disclosure statement. The duty to provide a mileage disclosure statement to the transferee of a motor vehicle at the time of transfer rests with the transferor. Relief from this Federally imposed duty cannot be provided by the individual to whom the duty is owed.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5377OpenCONFIDENTIAL ; CONFIDENTIAL ; "Dear CONFIDENTIAL : This responds to your request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. You asked whether footnote 4 of Table 3 of the standard applies to a motorcycle speedometer using a digital display. As explained below, the answer is no. In your letter, you requested that information identifying your company be kept confidential. As explained in the March 25, 1994 letter to you from Heidi L. Coleman, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, when confidential treatment is claimed for material submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), our confidentiality regulation, 49 C.F.R. 512, requires the submission of a certification stating that the submitter has made a diligent inquiry to ascertain that the information submitted has not been disclosed, or otherwise made public (49 C.F.R. 512.4(e)) and other supporting information (49 C.F.R. 512.4(b)). However, in order to expedite our response to you, I will waive the requirement of the certification contained in 49 C.F.R. 512. Under S5.2.3 of Standard No. 123, if a speedometer is provided, the item shall be identified by 'wording shown in both Column 2 and Column 4' of Table 3 of the standard. Column 4 of Table 3 specifies that a speedometer shall be identified by 'M.P.H.' You believe your speedometer meets this requirement. However, you ask whether footnote 4 of Column 4 applies to a digital display speedometer. Footnote 4 states: M.P.H. increase in a clockwise direction. Major graduations and numerals appear at 10 mph intervals, minor graduations at the 5 mph intervals. The answer to your question is no. Digital displays were not common in 1972, when the footnote 4 specifications were published. The original Standard No. 123 drafters had in mind only dial display speedometers. For these reasons, we interpret the specifications in footnote 4 of Column 4 not to apply to digital display speedometers on motorcycles that provide a reading of numeric vehicle speed. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4970OpenMr. Kenneth R. Brownstein Senior Counsel PACCAR Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue, WA 98004; Mr. Kenneth R. Brownstein Senior Counsel PACCAR Inc. P.O. Box 1518 Bellevue WA 98004; "Dear Mr. Brownstein: This responds to your letter, requesting that th agency clarify a provision in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. (49 CFR 571.120) Specifically, you asked whether under section S5.1.3, a vehicle manufacturer could, if requested by the purchaser, install retreaded tires procured by the manufacturer on a new vehicle. You stated that allowing the vehicle manufacture to buy retreaded tires would be more efficient and would help the truck owner to avoid having to make a separate purchase. I welcome this opportunity to respond to your request for an interpretation. Section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 states: In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol. For the vehicle manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new truck, bus, or trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that five conditions must be satisfied. These are: (1) the purchaser must request such a retreaded or used tire, (2) the vehicle must be equipped with the retreaded or used tire at the vehicle's place of manufacture, (3) the retreaded or used tire to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser, (4) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle, and (5) used tires equipped on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 (and contain the DOT certification symbol). Your letter indicates that in buying the retreaded tires at the purchaser's request, PACCAR's actions would comply with the first condition (and presumably the second condition). However, since PACCAR and not the vehicle purchaser would supply the tire, your requested action clearly would not comply with the third condition which requires the retreaded or used tire to be owned by the purchaser. This condition permits a purchaser to order a new vehicle without any tires and install any tire it may choose. It is not clear from your letter whether the fourth condition would be satisfied. The fifth condition is not applicable to retreaded truck tires, since such tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on their sidewalls. Based on the above, we conclude that having a vehicle manufacturer supply a retreaded or used tire for a new vehicle would not comply with S5.1.3. We disagree with your view that the purpose of section S5.1.3 is to allow the purchaser to choose whether the new vehicle has retread tires and to ensure it has knowledge of this fact. As discussed in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the purpose of the provision is to accommodate a practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to the vehicle manufacturer for installation on new vehicles they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been taken off vehicles no longer in service. (49 FR 20822, 20823, May 17, 1984). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5398OpenHerr P. Binder ITT Automotive Europe GmbH Bietigheim-Bissingen Germany; Herr P. Binder ITT Automotive Europe GmbH Bietigheim-Bissingen Germany; FAX 07142/73-2895 Dear Herr Binder: This responds to your FAX of Apri 28, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your letter shows a rear motor vehicle lighting array of four lamps, two on the body ('Rearlamp 1') and the other on the tailgate ('Rearlamp 2'). The four lamps appear to be equal in size. You cite the requirement of Standard No. 108 and 'SAE J588e Sept. 77' that the lamp must 'provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of 12.5 cm2 measured at 45 deg.' and state that this 'will not be performed by Rearlamp 1 because of the tailgate, however, the requirement is met by Rearlamp 2 and will be met by Rearlamp 1 if the tailgate is open. You have asked whether such a system is allowed. First, a correction. There has never been a standard known as 'SAE J588e Sep. 77.' We believe that your are referring to SAE Standard J588e September 1970, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, but now applies only to certain replacement turn signal lamps (See S5.8.4(b)). The standard that applies to new passenger car designs such as you have depicted is SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less than 2032 mm in Overall Width. The visibility requirements, however, remain as you have stated. They are set forth in paragraph 5.4.1 of SAE J588 NOV84. As you have noted, the turn signal lamps must be visible through horizontal angles of 45 degrees to the right or left, depending on whether they are mounted on the right or left. To be considered visible, 'the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface . . . of at least 12.5 cm2 measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' We believe that the design depicted is in accordance with Standard No. 108. It is, in operation, a turn signal lamp system of two lamps on each side of the vehicle. Contrary to your assertion, we believe that the outer lamp on each side, Rearlamp 1, will meet the visibility requirements when the tailgate is in place because visibility must be met only at 45 degrees outboard (the agency judges compliance with the vehicle in its normal operating condition, that is to say, with the tailgate closed). Thus, under Standard No. 108, Rearlamp 2 is regarded as a permissible supplementary turn signal lamp. I hope that this 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.