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: aiam3149OpenMr. John W. Howard, III, Product Engineering Manager, Carolina International, Inc., 1 Hurstbourne Park, Suite 703, Louisville, Kentucky 40222; Mr. John W. Howard III Product Engineering Manager Carolina International Inc. 1 Hurstbourne Park Suite 703 Louisville Kentucky 40222; Dear Mr. Howard: This is in response to your letter of June 19, 1979, and i confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.; The VIN format you forwarded with your letter is essentially correct There are, however, several aspects of it which should be modified. They will be discussed as numbered in your letter.; It is important to point out at the outset that Standard 115 require Carolina International Inc. to assign a VIN to only those vehicles for which it is the first stage manufacturer, in this case trailers. Ford and General Motors will be assigning a VIN to those vehicles for which it is the first stage manufacturer, even though Carolina is the final stage manufacturer.; I. World Identification Numbers. The first three characters of the VIN designate the manufacturer, make and type of vehicle. While Carolina is the final stage manufacturer for several types of vehicles, it is the first stage manufacturer for only one type. Consequently, one manufacturer identifer is sufficient. As the Agency has contracted with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to act as its agent in assigning these identification codes (see enclosed notice), you should communicate with the SAE if your identifier was not assigned by it.; II. Vehicle Description Section (VDS). Your proposed coding for the VDS is satisfactory, except that i encodes data relating to vehicles produced by other manufacturers who would, as explained above, assign the VIN for those vehicles.; III. Check Digit. The mathematical values assigned to the alphabetic characters are no correct. Please consult Table IV in Notice 8 (44 FR 17489, March 22, 1979) which I have enclosed.; IV. Vehicle Indicator Section. The format utilized in this section is correct, except that the serie of trailer must be indicated in the Vehicle Descriptor Section. Perhaps this can be encoded where you previously intended to indicate chassis type (2.4).; I hope this information has been helpful. Please write or call Mr Schwartz of my office at 202-426-1834 should you have any additional questions.; Sincerely. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4376OpenMr. William A. Jones, The National Windshield Repair Service, 7214 W. Melrose Lane, Oklahoma City, OK 73127; Mr. William A. Jones The National Windshield Repair Service 7214 W. Melrose Lane Oklahoma City OK 73127; Dear Mr. Jones: This is in response to your letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch, formerly of m staff, concerning the agency's position on the use of windshield repair, as opposed to replacement, for motor vehicles. I apologize for the delay in this response. You indicate that you are very much interested in the credibility of windshield repair as a viable alternative to windshield replacement, and that you seek any information the agency can provide in the development of safety standards regarding the repair process. We have the following comments.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) i responsible for issuing safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment, or commercial services. Rather, each manufacturer must certify that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, we have never offered an opinion on the relative merits of repaired vs. replaced windshields. That choice is left for the market to decide, subject to the limitations set forth below.; The Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer must certify that its motor vehicle meets the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards before the vehicle is sold to the consumer for the first time. One of the standards with which a manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies is Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. If for some reason a windshield must be repaired before a new vehicle is sold to a consumer for the first time (for example, if the windshield is damaged in transit from the manufacturer to the dealer's place of business), the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our regulations (see 49 CFR Part 567). As an alterer, the person must certify that the windshield on the vehicle continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205, regardless of whether the windshield was repaired or is a replacement windshield.; Once the vehicle has been sold to a first purchaser for purposes othe than resale, any repairs or replacement of the windshield are restricted only by the provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from 'knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' This agency has stated in a September 3, 1981 letter to the National Glass Dealers Association that NHTSA does *not* consider repairing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205, even if the repaired windshield does *not* meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or event which damaged the windshield in the first place, not the repair shop, to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205. However, the repair shop must exercise caution that it does not render another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard in the course of fixing a damaged windshield. If this were the case, the repair shop could be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).; The Safety Act also places responsibilities on any manufacturer of windshield repair kit. Such a manufacturer is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and is subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.; These are the only requirements that we have with respect to windshiel repair. I can offer a suggestion in response to your request for information to help develop standards for windshield repair. You stated in your letter that you are a member of both ANSI and ASTM. One way for you, as an advocate of windshield repair, to try to ensure the reliability or efficacy of windshield repair would be to work with ANSI and ASTM to adopt product design and repair practices that result in repaired windshields meeting the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.; If you have further questions or need additional information on thi subject, please feel free to contact Susan Schruth of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1524OpenHonorable Edwin D. Eshleman, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; Honorable Edwin D. Eshleman House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Congressman Eshleman: This is in reply to your letter of May 29, 1974, concerning a proble with retreaded tires experienced by your constituent, Mr. Leon Mentzer of Lancaster. Mr. Mentzer was concerned that a pair of retreaded tires which he purchased and returned as the new tread came off after 15 miles were, according to the dealer, to be retreaded again and resold. He asks if there are Federal regulation regarding retreads.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR 571.117 (cop enclosed)) does specify certain requirements for passenger car retreaded tires, primarily in the areas of casing selection and processing, treadwear indicators, and labeling. The standard at one time contained performance requirements as well, but these requirements were successfully challenged in an industry-sponsored lawsuit (*H & H Tire Company v. Volpe*, 471 F.2d 350 (7th Cir. 1972)). The re-retreading of a tire in the situation described by Mr. Mentzer would not fail to conform to Standard No. 117 if the casing were not damaged in a manner described in the standard. A further retreading, if done properly, would not necessarily be unsafe.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3519OpenMs. Kathy G. Phillips, Manager, Vehicle Safety Division, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA 17123; Ms. Kathy G. Phillips Manager Vehicle Safety Division Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Harrisburg PA 17123; Dear Ms. Phillips: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1981, concernin differences between the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) Regulation on sun screening devices and applicable Federal standards. In addition, you asked about the requirements of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and how they affect Pennsylvania vehicle inspection standards.; Your first question concerns any differences in light transmittanc requirements between the Federal standard and the 70 percent light transmittance requirement set by VESC in its Regulation No. 20, *Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Sun Screening Devices*. We have issued a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The standard sets a minimum light transmittance level of 70 percent for glazing materials used in areas requisite for driving visibility, such as the windshield and front side windows.; As explained in the enclosed letter, the agency does not consider su screening solar films to be glazing materials themselves and thus they would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, as the enclosed letter explains, use of such devices on motor vehicles would be prohibited in certain cases if the vehicle glazing no longer complies with the light transmittance or other requirements of the standard.; You also asked if bumper height is regulated by a Federal standard. Th agency has issued, under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 *et seq*.) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*.), a Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581, copy enclosed) that specifies performance requirements for bumper systems. One aspect of performance regulated by the standard is the impact protection provided by the bumper at certain heights.; Section 110 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1920) provides, i applicable part, that:; >>>No State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authorit to establish or enforce with respect to any passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment offered for sale any bumper standard which is not identical to a Federal bumper standard.<<<; Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides in applicable part, that:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.<<<; Therefore, unless the Pennsylvania regulation is identical to the Par 581 Bumper Standard, it is preempted.; Finally, you asked about Federal safety standards regulating the heigh of the windshield. The agency has not issued any safety standard specifying requirements for the vertical height of the windshield. Therefore, Pennsylvania's inspection standard on vertical windshield height is not preempted.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4726OpenMr. Anthony T. Greenish c/o U.N.D.P. B.P. 2183 Libreville Gabon; Mr. Anthony T. Greenish c/o U.N.D.P. B.P. 2183 Libreville Gabon; "Dear Mr. Greenish: Your letter of February 19, 1990, to the Departmen has been referred to this Office for reply. You are contemplating buying a car in Europe and importing it when you return to the United States in July. You have in mind the BMW 324d and the Honda Accord 1.6 LX, and ask for information 'as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards.' BMW does not offer the 324d for sale in the United States, and we assume that the Honda you mentioned was also produced for the European market. This means that these vehicles are not certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards. Because of the difficulties you would entail in attempting to import an uncertified vehicle, we recommend that you purchase a vehicle certified by its original manufacturer for the American market. As you know, many European manufacturers have a factory delivery program for U.S. tourists. That way you can ensure that your car meets 100% of Federal requirements. If you nevertheless wish to pursue the idea of buying and importing a passenger car not certified by its original manufacturer to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you should be aware of some recent changes in law. Because of new regulations which were mandated by Congress and became effective January 31, l990, such a vehicle may not be imported unless the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that that specific model and model year is capable of conversion to meet the standards. Importation of the vehicle is also subject to the requirement that it be imported either by a person who has been approved by this agency as a Registered Importer and will be responsible for converting the vehicle to meet the standards, or by a person who has a contract with a Registered Importer. In either instance, a bond in an amount equal to l50% of the entered value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs Service must be given to ensure performance of the conversion work. We anticipate that the effect of these stringent regulations will be to convince many prospective importers not to buy vehicles intended for markets other than the United States. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1877OpenMr. Geoffrey R. Myers, Hall & Myers, Suite 200, Free State Bank Building, 10,000 Falls Road, Potomac, MD 20854; Mr. Geoffrey R. Myers Hall & Myers Suite 200 Free State Bank Building 10 000 Falls Road Potomac MD 20854; Dear Mr Myers: This is in response to your submission of March 25, 1975, whic consisted of a request to reconsider the decision on your petition of February 6, 1975, along with several interpretive questions concerning the NHTSA's position on what courses of action small intermediate and final-stage manufacturers might take to certify vehicles they modify to Standard 121.; I. The main reason advanced for the request to reconsider the decisio was that the concept of due care on the part of these modifiers is 'subjective and esoteric,' and does not constitute an objective criterion. The due care requirements for these modifiers were discussed extensively in a meeting between you and your clients and DOT representatives on March 18. We do not agree that the NHTSA requirements are not objective. The requirements of the standards are phrased in precise, quantitative terms, as far as possible. In contrast, the steps that private party must take to conform to the requirements are left to him, as is the case with most of our nation's laws. The fact that we have taken the time to discuss with you the steps that an individual company might take in obeying the law, and that these steps might vary depending on the situation and the resources of that company, do not alter in any way the objectivity of the requirements of the standard.; It is the standard that is required to be phrased in objective terms not the public's response to it.; The other arguments raised in your submission are either repetitive o those raised in the previous petition, or arguments against the standard itself that have been considered in the course of the rulemaking. Your request for reconsideration of the petition is therefore denied.; II. Our answers to the questions you have raised are as follows: 1., 2., and 3. If testing facilities are not available to a intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, or the cost of his testing a vehicle directly to the requirements of Standard 121 is prohibitive, such a company should develop an alternative method of determining that his alterations do not take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. These methods could include testing of typical installations by independent contractors working with associations of companies such as TEBDA, testing of typical installations by suppliers of the axles or other components sought to be installed, engineering calculations by the alterer, the alterer's supplier, or by independent contractors, or copying of installations that have been approved by chassis manufacturers. Component (e.g., axle) suppliers would appear to be a prime source of the type of assistance needed by intermediate and final-stage manufacturers, since they are most familiar with the main components of the installation and have the greatest economic interest in seeing this segment of the industry maintained.; 4. The above answer applies to the requirements for brake actuation an release times just as to other requirements of the standards. If a company wishes to perform completion work outside the limits of the chassis manufacturer's specifications, it should take the steps reasonably available to it to ascertain that the vehicle will remain in conformity. In the example given, the axle suspension supplier would be the logical best source of conformity information.; 5. and 6. The NHTSA does not consider it necessary or appropriate t develop alternative 'objective procedures' for testing to the requirements of its standards. The objective requirements are set forth in the standard. The agency continues as it has in the past to consider the development of actual test protocols, to determine that products conform to those requirements, as the responsibility of the regulated industries and the associated industries that service them. We have found no reason to believe that there is a lack of available engineering expertise, or of sources of supply of suitable test equipment, to perform this function in and for the private sector.; 7. The NHTSA does not at this time have facilities 'of its own' to tes to Standard 121. It uses contractors to perform this function.; You should note that our discussion of due care does not deal with th question of what action must be taken by a manufacturer by way of remedy, if a nonconformity is discovered in his vehicles that is not 'inconsequential' within the meaning of section 157 of the Act (1974 Amendments). Except for the case of an inconsequentiality finding, the duty to remedy a nonconformity exists regardless of prior testing or any other measures taken by the manufacturer.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam2758OpenMr. M. H. Holloway, Route 4, Box 441C, Arab, AL 35016; Mr. M. H. Holloway Route 4 Box 441C Arab AL 35016; Dear Mr. Holloway: This is in further reply to your September 16, 1977, letter askin whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled 'Farm Tire' on a passenger car.; We inadvertently neglected to point out in our February 14, 1978 response to your letter that any tire which is marked with a Department of Transportation (DOT) symbol is presumed to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to it. Any tire with such a symbol may therefore be mounted on a motor vehicle without violation of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the former tires are removed, regardless of the appearance of words associating the tire with farm use.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0765OpenMr. Richard L. Curotto, Treasurer, Stutz Motor Car of America, Inc., Time & Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, New York 10020; Mr. Richard L. Curotto Treasurer Stutz Motor Car of America Inc. Time & Life Building Rockefeller Center New York New York 10020; Dear Mr. Curotto: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1972. As I understand it your company purchases Pontiac Grand Prix models for conversion into vehicles bearing the Stutz nameplate. Your converter, however, has a number of vehicles in stock, the majority of which will not be converted until after September 1, 1972. You ask, in effect, that we require compliance only with those Federal standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the original Pontiac Grand Prix, and that we do not require compliance with standards which may have come into effect after that time and before completion of the Stutz conversion.; The information contained in your letter indicates that the changes yo make to the Grand Prix are confined to cosmetic changes such as alteration of the exterior sheet metal, reupholstering the interior, and replacement of the back light with glazing conforming to Standard No. 205. If the converted Grand Prix conforms to those Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which temporary exemption was granted Stutz (Standards Nos. 104, 201, 205, 210 and 212), we will consider it permissible for General Motors to continue to be the 'manufacturer' of the vehicle for certification purposes. In that case, the date of manufacture is considered to be the date of completion by General Motors, and the original certification label should be retained on the car when converted.; The vehicle must nevertheless conform at the time of sale to all safet standards and other regulations (for example, 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information) that are applicable on its date of manufacture.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam5567OpenJ. Gregory Studemeyer, Esq. 1804 Bull Street Post Office Box 12201 Columbia, SC 29211-2201; J. Gregory Studemeyer Esq. 1804 Bull Street Post Office Box 12201 Columbia SC 29211-2201; Dear Mr. Studemeyer: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1995 to this agency and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on June 12, 1995, regarding the school bus standards we administer. You asked whether 'your agency or any other federal agency notifies educational institutions of these school bus requirements.' The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not maintain data on all schools or school districts throughout the nation, and does not routinely communicate with individual schools or school districts. The agency does, however, attend and disseminate information at school bus meetings and conferences nationwide and publishes all changes in school bus requirements in the Federal Register. In addition, NHTSA works closely and frequently with state directors of pupil transportation with regard to school transportation matters. In South Carolina, that official is the Director, Office of Transportation, Department of Education, 1429 Senate Street, Room 512, Columbia, SC 29201. Their telephone number is (803) 734- 8244, and their fax number is (803) 734-8624. Also for your information please find enclosed a fact sheet prepared by this office summarizing Federal school bus safety requirements. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam2308OpenHonorable William M. Brodhead, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable William M. Brodhead House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Brodhead: This is in response to your letter of May 14, 1976, forwarding petition from Gulf + Western Manufacturing Company for reconsideration of the bumper standard recently issued as Part 581 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations.; A number of requests for our view on the Gulf + Western petition hav been forwarded by members of Congress who have received copies of the Gulf + Western petition accompanied by a letter from Mr. James A. Graham.; It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's policy t issue a notice of action taken on petitions for reconsideration within 120 days after publication of the final rule, unless action within that time is impracticable. Since the agency is currently in the process of considering the petitions received, it would not be appropriate for us to comment at this time on the remarks made by Gulf + Western.; I assure you that Gulf + Western's comments and the informatio contained in all of the petitions for reconsideration will receive thorough consideration. The agency's response to the petitions will be published in the *Federal Register*.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
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.