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: 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; |
|
ID: aiam0460OpenMr. S. Nishibori, Engineering Representative, Liaison Office in U.S.A., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 400 County Avenue, Secaucus, NJ, 07094; Mr. S. Nishibori Engineering Representative Liaison Office in U.S.A. Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. 400 County Avenue Secaucus NJ 07094; Dear Mr. Nishibori: In your letter of October 14 you ask whether reflex reflectors on th tail gate of a pick-up truck, as shown in Figure 1 of the drawings you enclosed, meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; Standard No. 108 requires, in part, that reflex reflectors be mounte 'on the rear' of a vehicle. Compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 is judged with the vehicle in its normal road operating condition. In our view, a pick-up truck is normally operated with the tail gate in a closed position, and the reflex reflectors mounted as shown in Figure 1 appear to meet the rear reflector location requirements of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5232OpenThe Honorable Charles E. Schumer Chairman Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice Committee on the Judiciary U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-6216; The Honorable Charles E. Schumer Chairman Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice Committee on the Judiciary U. S. House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515-6216; "Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter requesting NHTSA's view on whether Title VI 'Theft Prevention' of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., Cost Savings Act) places a limit of $15 on the cost of an antitheft device to be installed in a high theft vehicle pursuant to an exemption from the parts marking standard. You believe the answer is no. As explained below, we agree. The $15 limitation applies only to the cost of complying with the parts marking standard. The cost limitation appears in 2024(a), which provides that 'The standard under section 602 (section 2022) may not (1) impose costs upon any manufacturer of motor vehicles to comply with such standard in excess of $15 per motor vehicle...' (Emphasis added.) Further, 2024(a) makes no reference to 2025 or to the costs of installing antitheft devices pursuant to exemptions issued under that section. Thus, unless the costs of an antitheft device installed in lieu of compliance with the standard can be regarded as costs imposed by the standard, the $15 maximum does not apply to the costs of those devices. We do not regard the costs of those devices to be costs imposed by the standard. Instead, they are costs which the manufacturer has chosen to bear by voluntarily seeking an exemption from the standard. Further, we note that 2025 does not itself contain any cost limitation. Although the foregoing analysis of the statutory language is sufficient to answer your question, we note that the legislative history of the 1984 Theft Act speaks directly to that question. Chairman John Dingell of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce commented on concerns that the costs for antitheft devices will be far greater than the costs of parts marking. He believed that manufacturers will not install devices that add a substantial cost to a vehicle and indicated that, regardless of the potential costs, Title VI 'does not provide for consideration of costs by DOT.' (See, Congressional Record-House October 1, 1984, p. H 10462, at 10472.) Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Cost Savings Act does not limit the cost of an antitheft device that is installed pursuant to the issuance under 2025 of an exemption from the standard. Please note that the passage of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (ACTA) did not amend, in any way relevant to our conclusions, the provisions limiting costs of parts marking and authorizing the installation of antitheft devices in lieu of parts marking. I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator"; |
|
ID: aiam0030OpenMr. John J. Paxton, Honda of New York, 215 West 64th Street, New York, NY 10023; Mr. John J. Paxton Honda of New York 215 West 64th Street New York NY 10023; Dear Mr. Paxton: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1967, to Mr. Donald H Schwentker in which you request confirmation that the Japanese-made CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF- 7SVH compact trucks are multipurpose passenger vehicles under the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; You state that the CONY line is primarily a line of commercia truck-type vehicles and that the Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH, although providing for four persons, are built on the same truck chassis as the purely commercial models.; A 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined in section 255.3 as ' motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.'; Therefore, the CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH are multipurpos passenger vehicles, since they are designed to carry 10 persons or less and are constructed on a truck chassis.; Sincerely, William Haddon Jr., M.D., Director |
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.