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: aiam5280OpenMr. J. Frank Haasbeek President International Transquip Industries, Inc. 6131 Brookhill Drive Houston, TX 77087-1131; Mr. J. Frank Haasbeek President International Transquip Industries Inc. 6131 Brookhill Drive Houston TX 77087-1131; "Dear Mr. Haasbeek: Thank you for your recent letter to Vice Presiden Gore, concerning a rulemaking related to your product. You believe that this agency has proceeded too slowly in the rulemaking. The Vice President has forwarded your letter to me for a reply. I understand your concern over this issue, but please be assured that this agency is working diligently to reach a final decision concerning this rulemaking. As you know, the notice of proposed rulemaking was published in March of this year, and the agency received a number of conflicting comments. We must carefully assess all of the arguments raised by the commenters before reaching a final decision. We are nearing the completion of that process and expect to announce a final decision in January 1994. I hope this information is helpful and appreciate your patience in this matter. Sincerely, Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator "; |
|
ID: aiam0578OpenMiss Donna M. Bernard, Scott's Trailer Market, 2020 Fremont Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101; Miss Donna M. Bernard Scott's Trailer Market 2020 Fremont Street Las Vegas NV 89101; Dear Miss Bernard: In reply to your letter of January 28, 1972, we are enclosing a copy o Regulation Part 574 - Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.; To answer your specific question whether the manufacturer i responsible for furnishing the tire serial numbers, as a matter of record, on the invoice of the vehicle, the regulation does not specify this requirement.; The manufacturer is not required to retain a record of tir identification numbers for each vehicle prior to shipment of the vehicle. Normally, the dealer records these numbers at the time of sale along with the purchaser's name and address. The manufacturer provides the means to record this information and the dealer remits the information to him.; If the manufacturer chooses to retain a record of tire identificatio numbers for each vehicle prior to shipment, although he is not required to do so, he may request the dealer to send him only replacement numbers involved in a change, plus name and address of purchaser.; Please let us know if you need further clarification of the subject. Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2545OpenMr. Robert B. Kurre, Director of Engineering, Wayne Corporation, Post Office Box 1447, Industries Road, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering Wayne Corporation Post Office Box 1447 Industries Road Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: this responds to your February 22, 1977, letter asking whether restraining barrier in front of a seat with a back higher than that required in S5.1.2 of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the extended seat back.; The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found i paragraph S5.2.2 of the standard. That section states that: 'in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required.' The seat back of the seat for which a restraining barrier is required has dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of the standard. Therefore, a restraining barrier must only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. If a seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard No. 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0128OpenMr. H.F. Barr, Vice President, General Motors Engineering Staff, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, Michigan 48090; Mr. H.F. Barr Vice President General Motors Engineering Staff General Motors Technical Center Warren Michigan 48090; Dear Mr. Barr: This will acknowledge your letter of October 23, 1968, requesting th addition of the 5-inch alternative rim size for use with the 155-13/6.15-13 tire size designation.; In your request you cited a letter from the German Rubber Industr stating that 'for passenger car tires in addition to the rim specified in the German Industrial Standards (DIN) also the use of the next large size rims is permissible.' The subject of the foot note in the German standard was discussed by my staff in conversations with Mr. Von Polhemus. When the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were written, it was the intent to accept the German Industrial Standards (DIN) of 1967 for all tire and rim combinations listed based on established usage. We did not intend to apply foot notes from any 1967 reference materials to the present or future tire and rim combinations.; However, on the basis of the data submitted indicating compliance wit the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 and other information submitted in accordance with the procedural guidelines set forth in the *Federal Register,* Volume 33, No. 195, page 14969, dated october 5, 1963, the 5J alternative rim size for the 155-13/6.15-13 tire size designation will be listed within Table I of Appendix A to Standard No. 110. This change will be published in the *Federal Register* in the near future.; The addition on this new alternative rim size to the table i accomplished through an abbreviated procedure consisting of the publication in the Federal Register of the petitioned alternative rim size. If no comments are received, the amendment becomes effective after 30 days from the date of publication. If comments objecting to amendments are received, additional rule making pursuant to Part 216 of Procedural Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will be considered.; Sincerely, H.M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2115OpenMr. William F. Morie, Executive Vice President, Georgia Automobile Dealers Association, 508 Hartford Building, 100 Edgewood Avenue, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303; Mr. William F. Morie Executive Vice President Georgia Automobile Dealers Association 508 Hartford Building 100 Edgewood Avenue N.E. Atlanta GA 30303; Dear Mr. Morie: This is in response to your letter of September 19, 1975, inquiring a to the disclosure responsibilities of an individual who sells a vehicle with nonoperational odometer.; You describe a situation in which a dealer executed an odomete disclosure statement indicating that the actual odometer mileage was unknown where the odometer was nonfunctional. Apparently, the purchaser now claims sale of the vehicle with such an odometer inaccuracy constitutes misrepresentation by the dealer.; Based upon the facts of the case as you have presented them, th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider that a violation of the odometer requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513) has occurred. If the dealer in question executed an odometer disclosure statement, at the time of sale, that complies with the Federal disclosure requirements (49 CFR Part 580, *Odometer Disclosure Requirements), and states that the mileage indicated on the odometer differs from the true mileage for reasons other than calibration error he satisfied his responsibilities under the law. The buyer was informed that the odometer mileage was incorrect and therefore should not be relied upon as an indication of the vehicle's condition.; As long as a seller informs his buyer as to the validity of th odometer mileage, he has no additional responsibility to repair an apparently nonfunctional odometer.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0942OpenMr. R. L. Coleman, Assistant Manager, Crawford and Company Insurance Adjusters, 4915 Augusta Avenue, Post Office Box 6473, Richmond, VA 23230; Mr. R. L. Coleman Assistant Manager Crawford and Company Insurance Adjusters 4915 Augusta Avenue Post Office Box 6473 Richmond VA 23230; Dear Mr. Coleman: This is in reply to your letter of September 19, 1972, concerning a accident involving a 1972 International tractor which you maintain was not certified by its manufacturer as complying with applicable Federal standards. You state that the accident may have been due to 'insufficient gross vehicle weight'.; The Certifications regulations (49 CFR Parts 567,568) do requir final-stage manufacturers to certify the conformity of vehicles they complete, by affixing to them a label containing information specified in the regulations. In the case of vehicles manufactured on or after january 1, 1972, the regulations require that such information include a gross vehicle weight rating, and a gross axle weight rating for each axle. These ratings are set by the manufacturer based on definitional criteria found in the regulations (S 568.3, 49 CFR S 571.3). Your definition of a 'final-stage' manufacturer, 'anyone who installs a component that is not readily attachable', is correct only if the component installation is to an incomplete vehicle.; Your letter has been forwarded to our Office of Standards Enforcement who will conduct whatever investigation is appropriate to determine whether violations of NHTSA regulations have occurred. Such an investigation does not include ascertaining the cause of any accident, or whether a particular vehicle may have been overloaded. It concerns only whether the respective manufacturers have complied with NHTSA regulations applicable to them. If you wish to know the results of this investigation when it is completed, you may write our Office of Standards Enforcement, NHTSA, or call Mr. George Shifflett of that office at (202) 426-1693.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4002OpenMr. T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept., Stanley Electric Co. Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakamegura, Meguro-Ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakamegura Meguro-Ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1985, to the forme Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for an interpretation regarding Figure 4-1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; With reference to a two- lamp system headlamp with two reflectors, yo have asked which of three specified Points should be regarded as the 'center of aiming pattern' within the meaning of Figure 4-1. The answer is Point B, the center of the bulb for the lower beam. NHTSA provided a clarification of this in the final rule permitting two-bulb replaceable bulb headlighting systems, published on May 22, 1985. I enclose a copy for your information. In it, the agency remarked that 'NHTSA expects the aiming pads to be located on the optical axis of the lower beam portion of the headlamp when only one light source is used for the lower beam.'; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1200OpenMr. Stan Haransky, Associate Director, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Stan Haransky Associate Director Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Haransky: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1973, forwarding to us letter from Mr. Jim Finley of the Hughes Tool Company. Mr. Finley describes two situations, requesting an opinion on the applicability of NHTSA requirements to each of them.; The first question is whether an earth auger body that is mounted o crane carrier will conform to the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) if the vehicle exceeds its stated weight ratings when a derrick is mounted on the vehicle but a permanent metal plate is also affixed to the vehicle which states: 'The GVWR and GAWR require that the derrick be removed before operating this vehicle upon a public highway.'; We do not believe such a label may be used to bring a vehicle int conformity with the Certification regulations. Both 'gross vehicle weight rating' and 'gross axle weight rating' call for a rating set by the manufacturer, but each is intended to reflect a fully-loaded vehicle or axle condition as vehicle is likely to be used. Although your letter is not explicit in this regard, if it is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle will be operated on the public highways with the derrick mounted on it (but for the label), even though the derrick is 'removable', we would not consider the weight ratings to be consistent with the regulations if they do not take into account the weight of the derrick.; Similarly, the components used in the manufacture of the vehicle shoul be of sufficient strength to carry the derrick when the vehicle is in motion. On the other hand, if it is unreasonable to expect the derrick to be attached to the crane carrier when the carrier is operated on the highway, the weight ratings need not take into account the weight of the derrick. In neither case, however, would the label you illustrate affect the conformity of the vehicle to the regulations, in the former case the label does not correct the incorrect weight ratings, and in the latter case, the label is unnecessary,; Your second question is whether Federal regulations regarding lightin may be met if the rear lights of a truck-mounted earth auger utilize hinged covers that are intended to protect the lights during boring operations. You state that when the vehicle is operated, the cover is secured to expose the lights. You ask if we recommend the use of a warning sticker in the cab to remind the driver to open the covers.; The use of these covers is not prohibited by the Federal lightin standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lights, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment' (49 CFR 571.108). We thInk the idea of a warning sticker in the cab is nonetheless a good one.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3728OpenMr. Buck Burwell, Vice President, Merchant's, Inc., 9073 Euclid Ave., Manassas, VA 22110; Mr. Buck Burwell Vice President Merchant's Inc. 9073 Euclid Ave. Manassas VA 22110; Dear Mr. Burwell: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, askin questions about a group of trucks tires you wish to sell. Specifically, your company received a large shipment of truck tires from Tong Shinn Chemical Company in Korea. Some of those tires did not have the D.O.T. symbol and other information labelled on the sidewall, as required for all new truck tires by Safety Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR S571.119). Your company tried to return the tires to the Korean manufacturer, because tires which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 119 may not be legally sold in this country. However, the Korean manufacturer has gone out of business, leaving your company with $15,000 worth of tires which may not be sold legally in this country unless appropriate information is labelled on the sidewalls.; You indicated in your letter that you would be willing to label th appropriate information onto the sidewalls of the tires. Tong Shinn has indicated that those tires are of the same quality as the tires it shipped to you with the DOT markings. Further, you indicated that your company would be willing to store the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, in the event a safety-related recall is necessary. After considering these facts and representations, I believe you may label the tires with the necessary information and sell them, provided that you get some more information from the Korean manufacturer.; This agency has previously allowed the marking of truck tires by party other than the manufacturer in only one instance. That case, which also involved imported truck tires, included four factors which led the agency to make an exception to the policy that only a tire manufacturer can label the necessary information on the sidewall of the tires. Those factors were:; >>>(1) The manufacturer certified that the unmarked tires met th requirements of Standard No. 119, except for the labelling requirement,; (2) The manufacturer provided the appropriate information to b labelled on the tires,; (3) The manufacturer agreed to be responsible for the tires in th event of a safety-related recall, and; (4) The manufacturer agreed that the marking method to be used by th importer would not weaken the tires and destroy their compliance with Standard No. 119.<<<; In this case, Tong Shinn has already provided the first item liste above. It will be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn to learn what information should be labelled on the tires for purposes of section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) and also the appropriate codes and information for the tire identification number, which must be labelled on the sidewalls of the tires per 49 CFR 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping* (copy enclosed). Please furnish Mr. Kratzke with a copy of the information you receive from Tong Shinn on this subject.; As to the third item above, you indicate that your company would b willing to be responsible for the tires in the event of a safety- related recall. To do so, it will be necessary for your company to record the names and addresses of the purchasers of these tires, and store that information for a three year period. For further information on the responsibilities you will have to undertake, see section 574.7 for tire registration requirements for tire manufacturers.; It will also be necessary for you to contact Tong Shinn and explain ho you propose to mark the information of the sidewalls of these tires, and get them to agree that this method of marking the tires will not affect their compliance with Standard No. 119. Again, please furnish a copy of that agreement to Mr. Kratzke of this office.; After you have received this additional information, this agency has n objection to your company marking the tires and selling them. Please understand that this is permitted only because of the unique circumstances of this particular situation, and that if the Korean manufacturer had not gone out of business, you would not be allowed to mark these tires. However, in these circumstances, some flexibility in the requirements is necessary to help you avert a financial loss, while maintaining the necessary safety assurances for purchasers of these tires. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1715OpenMr. Randall D. Bartlett, 225 Ginger Drive, Auburn, CA, 95603; Mr. Randall D. Bartlett 225 Ginger Drive Auburn CA 95603; Dear Mr. Bartlett: This is in reply to your letter of November 27, 1974, asking about th legality of rectangular headlamps, particularly with respect to the aftermarket.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflectiv Devices and Associated Equipment*, permits the use of a four-headlamp system with rectangular lenses of specified dimensions (approximately 4-1/4 by 6-1/2 inches), on vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1974, and August 31, 1976. The standard also permits manufacture of replacement headlamps for this system for sale in the aftermarket. The standard does not allow rectangular headlamps of other sizes, or a two-headlamp system, either as original equipment or for sale in the aftermarket.; I enclose a copy of that portion of Standard No. 108 covering th rectangular headlamps.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, 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.