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: aiam4444OpenFrank S. Perkin, Esq. Assistant General Counsel The Budd Company Law Department 3l55 West Big Beaver Road Box 260l Troy, Michigan 48084; Frank S. Perkin Esq. Assistant General Counsel The Budd Company Law Department 3l55 West Big Beaver Road Box 260l Troy Michigan 48084; "Dear Mr. Perkin: This responds to your letter expressing concern abou a statement in one of our interpretation letters, which you believe could be read as condoning the practice of rebuilding wheels by processes which include heating and welding. As discussed below, our letter's reference to remanufacturing wheels was made only to serve as an illustrative example and was not intended to address either the safety of such processes or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. The interpretation letter in question is one that we sent on September 22, l986, to Steven R. Taylor, responding to a request concerning regulations that apply to manufacturers of reconditioned brake drums. The letter included the following paragraph: NHTSA has in the past considered the issue of what types of operations make a person a manufacturer with respect to retreaded tires and remanufactured wheels. A person who retreads tires is considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The retreading process involves significant manufacturing operations, which do not differ substantially from those of manufacturing new tires. By contrast, a person who remanufactures wheels is not considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The process of remanufacturing wheels consists of such things as straightening, re-welding parts, and repairing cracks by welding. These types of actions are not significant manufacturing operations, but instead are the type of operations commonly performed in repair shops. You stated that all of the things mentioned in our letter, i.e., straightening, re-welding parts and repairing cracks by welding, are specifically prohibited by the OSHA standard applicable to truck wheels, both multi and single piece. You also stated that the 'out of service' criteria adopted by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety mandate that a vehicle be placed out of service if welded repairs are found on certain disc wheels. According to your letter, any significant changes made after the manufacture of a steel truck wheel, especially involving bending, heating or welding, carry a significant risk of rendering the wheel unsafe. As is indicated from the context of our September 22, l986 interpretation letter, the reference to remanufacturing wheels was made solely for the purpose of providing an illustrative example and was not intended to address either the safety of such processes or their permissibility or impermissibility under the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. I would note that NHTSA has long taken the position that remanufactured wheels are considered to be used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See, for example, our November 28, l973 letter addressed to Mr. L. Clinton Rich and February 7, l983 letter to Mr. H. J. Lindekugel (copies enclosed). Again, however, these letters do not purport to address the safety of remanufacturing wheels or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. We appreciate your bringing to our attention your concern about the safety of remanufactured wheels. Copies of this correspondence are being placed in the public docket. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3381OpenMr. J. Federsel, Product Manager, Teleflex Industrial Inc. 1816 57th Street, Sarasota, FL 33580; Mr. J. Federsel Product Manager Teleflex Industrial Inc. 1816 57th Street Sarasota FL 33580; Dear Mr. Federsel: This responds to your letter of October 8, 1980, in which you requeste an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. You asked us to confirm that your speedometer/odometer meets all the requirements of the rule.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle in accordance with that determination.; However, the agency is willing to give an informal opinion concernin whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. The speedometer/odometer you sent to us does not comply with the speedometer requirements of Standard No. 127. Section S4.1.4 of that rule requires speedometers to include the number '55' in the mph scale, and to highlight that number in some fashion. There is no '55' on the speedometer you enclose with your letter.; It is not possible to determine upon brief examination whether th odometer meets all the requirements of S4.2.5.2, the encapsulation option. The type of examination necessary to make such a determination is not performed by this agency prior to the manufacturer's certification. It is readily apparent, however, that the odometer you sent to us is in violation of section S4.2.3, as you stated in your letter. The odometer would have to have a sixth wheel or other mechanism to indicate when the number of whole miles or whole kilometers travelled exceeds either 89,999 or 99,999, if the device were to comply with the standard. Note that the effective date of the odometer provisions (sections S4.2 through S5.2) is September 1, 1981. Thus, any odometer that you manufacture prior to that date does not have to comply with the odometer requirements. NHTSA encourages manufacturers to meet these provisions voluntarily, however. The speedometer requirements (section S4.1) of Standard No. 127 are presently in effect, and thus all speedometers you manufacture must currently be in compliance.; We emphasize that the above statements are only the agency's opinio based on the information you have supplied, and that opinion is not binding on you or the agency. It is your duty as the manufacturer to determine whether in fact your product meets the requirements of the standard and to certify that compliance. We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0407OpenMr. Louis C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Environmental Staff, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI, 48090; Mr. Louis C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Environmental Staff General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W Toms, Acting Administrator, concerning replacement equipment covered in FMVSS No. 108, effective January 1, 1972.; The requirements for original and replacement equipment in FMVSS No 108 cover those items listed in Tables I and III, namely:>>>; Headlamps, Tail lamps, Stop lamps, License plate lamps, Refle reflectors, Parking lamps, Side marker lamps, Backup lamps, Turn signal lamps,; Turn signal operating units, Turn signal flashers, Vehicular hazar warning signal operating units, Vehicular hazard warning signal flashers, Identification lamps, Clearance lamps, Intermediate side marker lamps, Intermediate reflex reflectors<<<; In addition the requirements cover the following items specified in th text of the standard:>>>; School bus warning lamps, Headlamp beam switching devices, Headlam upper beam indicator lamps, Turn signal pilot indicator lamps, Hazard warning signal pilot indicator lamps, Plastic lenses.<<<; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2722OpenMr. Philip H. Taft, Director, Tire Retreading Institute, National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc., 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Mr. Philip H. Taft Director Tire Retreading Institute National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association Inc. 1343 L Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20005; Dear Mr. Taft: This responds to your October 27, 1977, letter asking whether a tir retreader is permitted to change the designation of a tire from 'tubeless' to 'tubetype'.; Standard No. 117, *Retreaded Pneumatic Tires*, requires that th information appearing on the tire sidewall be the same as that which appeared on the tire as originally manufactured. This is indicated by the language in paragraph S6.3. If a retreader changed the tire designation from 'tubeless' to 'tubetype', he would be altering the information that was associated with the original tire. Thus, a retreader is not permitted to change the tire designation in the manner you describe.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2372OpenMr. Don Dekker, Attwood Corporation, Lowell, MI, 49331; Mr. Don Dekker Attwood Corporation Lowell MI 49331; Dear Mr. Dekker: This is in response to your letter of June 23, 1976, in which you as whether Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, applies to portable toilets.; Standard 302 applies to the motor vehicles listed in Section S3 including the equipment installed in them at the time of sale. Section S4 lists those parts of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements, and a portable toilet is not included. Therefore, it is not subject to the standard. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2688OpenMr. Dudley E. DeWitt, Assistant Director of Engineering, Great Dane Trailers, Inc., Lathrop Avenue, P.O. Box 67, Savannah, GA 31402; Mr. Dudley E. DeWitt Assistant Director of Engineering Great Dane Trailers Inc. Lathrop Avenue P.O. Box 67 Savannah GA 31402; Dear Mr. DeWitt: This responds to your July 8, 1977, letter posing several hypothetica questions concerning the responsibility to attach a new label to a vehicle if altered prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale.; Section 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), states that the prohibition against the delivery of a nonconforming vehicle 'shall not apply to the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle.....after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' You ask at what point in time the 'first purchase' is deemed to have occurred. We have taken the position that the purchase is not complete until the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser.; In general, the issuance of title to which you refer in your letter i irrelevant to a determination of whether there is a need for the manufacturer's representative to attach a new label to an altered vehicle, as required by Part 567.7, *Certification*. Delivery of the vehicle is the point at which the first purchase is complete and the responsibility to attach a new label ceases. We would note that if the issue of vehicle modification is raised and decided upon during the sales conversations we would consider a subsequent modification occurring after the point of delivery to be an event requiring the attachment of a new label.; In particular response to your hypotheticals, paragraphs B and through H represent occasions when vehicle alterations would result in the need to attach a new label in accordance with the requirements of Part 567.7. The reason for this conclusion is that all of the hypotheticals result in the alteration of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), or gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) or the attachment or removal of non-readily attachable components. There would be no need, in paragraphs B and D, to attach a new label if the vehicle manufacturer had availed himself of the option of listing alternative GAWR's, with appropriate tire sizes, as long as the newly installed tires were among those listed on the certification label.; Paragraphs A and C do not represent alteration situations in which th GVWR or the GAWR are affected. Although the tires would have a greater load capacity than that rated on the vehicle label, there is no need to change the rating of the vehicle, as is the case when tires are installed that have lower load capacities. Further, the installation of tires constitutes the installation of readily attachable components. Therefore, there is no need to attach a new label in accordance with Part 567.7 in these situations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5458OpenMr. Clay F. West Garvey, Schubert & Barer Eighteenth Floor Second & Seneca Building 1191 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-2939; Mr. Clay F. West Garvey Schubert & Barer Eighteenth Floor Second & Seneca Building 1191 Second Avenue Seattle WA 98101-2939; Dear Mr. West: This responds to your letter of November 1, 1994 requesting information on any rules or standards applicable to a 'windshield cleaning device.' As your letter describes, '(t)he product is a clear strip which is adhered to the windshield of an automobile. The action of the wiper blades passing over the device causes the wiper blades to function more effectively.' I am enclosing a copy of a May 29, 1992 letter to Mr. John J. Jacoby concerning a similar device. I believe this letter contains the information you need. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam3975OpenMr. K. Weight, 65 E. 200 N., Provo, UT 84601; Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo UT 84601; Dear Mr. Weight: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows i automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.; FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a ne passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent, clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.; Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver t detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance *less* than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the 'black window' is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material i new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render 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 motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so lon as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1948OpenS. L. Terry, Vice President, Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs, Chrysler Corporation, P.O. Box 1910, Detroit, MI 48231; S. L. Terry Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1910 Detroit MI 48231; Dear Mr. Terry: This responds to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting confirmatio that Chrysler's new unibelt shoulder/lap belt system with a 'window shade' tension adjustment feature satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that the lap belt portion 'adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor.' You describe the seat belt assembly as of the single retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted 'window shade' emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way locking device in the buckle tip which prevents return of webbing to the lap portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use.; Section 7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion 'by means o an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor' and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion 'by means of an emergency-locking retractor.' The language permits some single refractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does 'automatically adjust' the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive belt slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the NHTSA has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.; One restriction, set forth in a letter to Renault, Inc., on Septembe 25, 1972, is that 'the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt cinches up the lap belt.'; We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform t the requirements, the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as 'automatically adjustable.' Thus, it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular belt is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your May 16, 1975, demonstration to Messrs. Hitchcock, Nelson, Medlin, Smith, Breedon, and Ziegler of the NHTSA, we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.; The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to Genera Motors. It limits the use of 'comfort clips' on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that 'a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1.'; This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposa (Docket 74-32, Notice 1) which would restrict the use of 'a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant' to seat belt assemblies that have 'an individually adjustable lap belt.' Chrysler's response to that proposal and stated plan to introduce a continuous loop belt system with a 'window shade' device in the new 1976 model four-door compact car assume that NHTSA intends to permit 'belt tension relief' devices on all continuous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is outstanding in Docket 74-32.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam2667OpenMessrs. George Schwarz and T. Szkolniki, Supervisors, Production and Mechanical Engineering, Motor Coach Industries, Inc., Pembina, ND 58271; Messrs. George Schwarz and T. Szkolniki Supervisors Production and Mechanical Engineering Motor Coach Industries Inc. Pembina ND 58271; Gentlemen: This will acknowledge receipt of the petition by Motor Coac Industries, dated July 22, 1977, for a determination that an apparent noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; We are preparing a notice for publication in the *Federal Register requesting public comment on your petition and you will be notified in due course as to its disposition. The notice will not include reference to the fact that the 'continuous warning' signal required by S5.1.5 of Standard No. 121 is an automatic flashing light on MCI vehicles. It is the opinion of this office that either an automatic flashing light or a continuous light will provide a 'continuous warning' within the intent of the Standard.; Yours truly, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.