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: aiam5302OpenMichael J. Siris, Esq. Attorney at Law 1615 Northern Boulevard Manhasset, NY 11030; Michael J. Siris Esq. Attorney at Law 1615 Northern Boulevard Manhasset NY 11030; "Dear Mr. Siris: This responds to your letter of December 8, 1993 following a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff. Your letter requested 'confirmation that a manufacturer's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer.' You also asked whether there might be any standards other than Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which might apply to a '1987 Ford vehicle which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column.' Section 108(k) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(k)) states: Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this title does not exempt any person from any liability under common law. Thus, you are correct that a vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer from liability under other causes of action. With regard to your second question, S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states that, with certain exceptions,: the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a 'park' position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. However, as explained in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, this requirement was added to Standard No. 114 in 1991 and was effective September 1, 1992. There was no Federal standard which prohibited a 1987 vehicle from having an automatic transmission which could be shifted when the key was removed. I am also unaware of any other standard or regulation containing such a requirement. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0100OpenCharles S. Quarles Esq., Messrs. Quarles, Herriott, Clemons, Teschner & Noelke, 411 East Mason Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202; Charles S. Quarles Esq. Messrs. Quarles Herriott Clemons Teschner & Noelke 411 East Mason Street Milwaukee WI 53202; Dear Mr. Quarles: This is in reply to your letter of July 23 to the attention of th Federal Highway Administrator enclosing product literature on the 'Model 16' and 'Cruiser' manufactured by your client, the M-B Company. You have asked what Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to these vehicles.; Since the Model 16 line striper is 'driven...by mechanical power' it i a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. However, it does not fall into any of the vehicle types defined thus far, to which standards are applicable, and consequently there are no standards applicable to it at this time.; Section 255.3(b), quoted by you, defines a 'truck' as 'a motor vehicl with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' The definition thus excludes all trailers, but would include the Cruiser which transports special purpose equipment necessary for street sweeping. Therefore, the Cruiser must conform to all Federal standards applicable to trucks.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Director |
|
ID: aiam4840OpenThe Honorable Bill McCollum U.S. House of Representatives 1801 Lee Road, Suite 301 Winter Park, FL 32789; The Honorable Bill McCollum U.S. House of Representatives 1801 Lee Road Suite 301 Winter Park FL 32789; "Dear Mr. McCollum: Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Perry Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner requested a written interpretation about whether casings imported into this country are required to have the 'DOT number.' A 'casing' means a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading. As explained more fully below, casings for retreaded passenger car tires must have the DOT symbol, but casings for tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars (referred to as 'truck tires' in this letter) are not required to have the DOT symbol. At the outset, I note that Mr. Faulkner's letter stated that the 'DOT number' on a tire indicates that the Federal excise tax has been paid. That statement is inaccurate. The 'DOT number' on a tire only represents the manufacturer's or retreader's certification of compliance with this agency's standards and regulations. If Mr. Faulkner wants further information about Federal excise taxes on tires, he may wish to contact the Internal Revenue Service, since that agency administers the Federal excise taxes. Mr. Faulkner is mixing two different types of markings when he refers to a 'DOT number.' The first type of marking is the symbol 'DOT.' This marking by a tire manufacturer or retreader on a tire is a certification that the tire complies with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Federal safety standards applicable to tires include Standard No. 109 for new passenger car tires, Standard No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires, and Standard No. 119 for new truck tires. Standard No. 117 (the retreaded passenger car tire safety standard) includes a requirement that all passenger car tire casings to be retreaded must include the symbol 'DOT.' See S5.2.3(a). Therefore, it is illegal to sell or import into this country any passenger car tire casings that are not marked with the symbol 'DOT.' However, none of our Federal safety standards set forth requirements for retreaded truck tires. Since there is no standard for retreaded truck tires, there is no requirement that casings for retreaded truck tires be marked with the DOT symbol. I have enclosed a June 18, 1981 letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield that offers a more detailed discussion of this issue. The second type of marking to which Mr. Faulkner referred was the tire identification number specified in Part 574. This number identifies the manufacturer or retreader of the tire, along with the date of manufacture or retread and other attributes of the tire. A tire identification number is not required on any casing: Standard No. 117 does not require this marking on passenger car casings, and as explained above, there is no Standard for casings for truck tires. Please note, however, that Part 574 requires all finished retreads, including retreaded truck tires, to be marked with the retreader's identification number. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Jamie McLaughlin Fish Director, Intergovernmental Affairs Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2097OpenMr. Walter C. Robbins, Jr., Walt Robbins, Inc., 6121 Lincolnia Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; Mr. Walter C. Robbins Jr. Walt Robbins Inc. 6121 Lincolnia Road Alexandria Virginia 22312; Dear Mr. Robbins: This is in response to your letter of June 5, 1975, enclosing a copy o your patent for a tire described as a 'Radial, Bias Ply Tire' and requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*. The tire would be constructed with three full body plies: two bias plies (angle 35 degrees) and on radial ply (angle 90 degrees).; S4.3(g) of the standard requires permanent molding of the word 'radial into or onto both sidewalls if the tire is a radial ply tire and, by implication, prohibits the use of the word 'radial' if the tire is not a radial ply tire. In S3., 'radial ply tire' is defined as:; >>>a pneumatic tire in which the ply cords which extend to the bead are laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread.<<<; The tire you have described is not within the scope of this definitio because it includes ply cords extending to the beads which are not laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread. Therefore, the word 'radial' must not appear on either sidewall.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0550OpenMr. William S. Magenau, President, Chespeake Marine Products, Route 256, Deale, MD 20751; Mr. William S. Magenau President Chespeake Marine Products Route 256 Deale MD 20751; Dear Mr. Magenau: In your letter of September 21, 1972, you ask, 'are there any 'partia built' certification standards which would govern our operation as a boat trailer distributor?'; I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, and Part 568 *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, for your review as to their applicability to your operations. They apply to manufacturers who initiate or complete the manufacture of motor vehicles. They do not, however, impose an obligation upon a distributor of boat trailers who does not alter the vehicles he receives from a manufacture in a manner that affects compliance with applicable standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0045OpenMr. John A. Diehl, The Armstrong Rubber Company, 475 Elm Street, West Haven, Connecticut 06516; Mr. John A. Diehl The Armstrong Rubber Company 475 Elm Street West Haven Connecticut 06516; Dear Mr. Diehl: #In our telephone conversation of January 8, 1968, an your letter of January 9, 1968, your requested: #>>>'...an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on *one sidewall*, except the basic label. (Basic Label Information - DOT-153) It is also our feeling that the labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards.'<<< #This letter confirms my statement in our telephone conversation that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 may be met if the information required in S4.3 of this standard is molded on one or both sidewalls of the tire in lieu of a label until August 1, 1968, after which this information is required on each sidewall. #Sincerely, Roger H. Compton, Director, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2078OpenMr. Don W. Wieriman, Staff Engineer, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Don W. Wieriman Staff Engineer Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Wieriman: This is in reply to your letter of August 26, 1975, to Dr. Gregor requesting our review of TTMA's revised Recommended Practice No. 9-75 - Lighting Devices for trailers and Container Chassis.; We note that the text, charts and drawings submitted with your lette of June 17, 1975, have been revised in accord with our recommendations of July 15, 1975. Your revised RP No. 9-75 does, therefore, accurately reflect the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Again, your efforts in promoting compliance with the requirements o Standard No. 108 are greatly appreciated.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5247OpenMr. Michael F. Hecker Micho Industries Post Office Box 2017 Lompoc, CA 93438; Mr. Michael F. Hecker Micho Industries Post Office Box 2017 Lompoc CA 93438; "Dear Mr. Hecker: This responds to your letter concerning our June 29 1993, letter to your associate, Mr. Michael Dunn, about the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R- Bar). The R-Bar, an item of motor vehicle equipment, is a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses to fold down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seats. You have further questions about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA regulations, as applied to R-Bars. In our letter to Mr. Dunn, we addressed several statements that we believed were potentially misleading that Micho made to school officials. These statements include, among other things, that NHTSA has 'approved' R-Bars and that R-Bars are certified as complying with Federal safety standards. We noted that, while Micho indicated that it would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars, we sought assurances that Micho would not continue to represent that it can 'certify' the compliance of R-Bars. You ask for clarification of that letter. You state that there 'appears to be some confusion' resulting from past correspondence with this agency regarding certification of compliance with applicable FMVSSs. You believe, based on previous correspondence, that the R-Bar must comply with FMVSSs that apply to the school bus seat and 'the general safety of school buses,' such as school bus exits and flammability resistance. Accordingly, you believe that Micho can properly 'certify' the R-Bar to these school bus FMVSSs. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our requirements. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system whereby the manufacturer of the vehicle or item of equipment is responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence of the manufacturer. Because of the self-certification system established by law, NHTSA can neither approve, disapprove, endorse, nor offer assurances of compliance for any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification of the product. Rather, this agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing a vehicle or item of equipment in the retail market and conducting the compliance tests specified in the pertinent standards. The agency also investigates safety- related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of its product and remedying the problem free of charge. The recall responsibility for noncomplying or defective vehicles is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a product is installed on a new vehicle by that vehicle manufacturer. As stated in our previous letters to your company, there are no FMVSSs specifically applicable to R-Bars. Our school bus FMVSSs apply to whole vehicles, rather than to individual items of school bus equipment. If R-Bars are installed as original equipment on a new school bus, the vehicle manufacturer is required by the Safety Act to certify that, with the devices installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222), Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (571.217), Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (571.302), and, with regard to small school buses, the pertinent provisions of Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection (571.208). 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1403, and 49 CFR Part 567. Because these FMVSSs apply to the vehicle, there are no standards to which Micho can, or must, certify compliance. If the R-Bars are added to a previously-certified new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person who so modifies the vehicle would be an 'alterer' of a previously certified new vehicle. As an alterer, the person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR 567.7. The vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs an R-Bar may, in order to meet its duty to exercise due care, in part rely on information from you concerning the R-Bar's performance characteristics, to the extent such reliance is reasonable. Since compliance with Standard 222 appears to be a significant concern with respect to the installation of R-Bars, you might wish to test a bus or buses equipped with an R-Bar, using the test procedures set out in Standard 222. The results of such tests might be useful to a school bus manufacturer in determining whether it could certify a school bus equipped with R-Bars as complying with Standard 222. If R-Bars were installed on a used school bus, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would be required to ensure that by installing the R-Bars, the installer did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). In this case, the installer would be responsible for ensuring that the R-Bars did not cause the school bus to fail to comply with any safety standards, including but not limited to the standards enumerated above. This agency has addressed various compliance issues and other safety concerns applicable to R-Bars and similar devices on a number of occasions in the past. As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using 'safety bars' as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of 'safety bars' in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard 208. You asked for our comments on two statements you intend to make to your customers. The first statement is that there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to R-Bars. As discussed above, that statement is correct. The second statement is that, when properly installed, R-Bars will not violate any standard or regulation or render inoperative any safety feature on a school bus. NHTSA lacks information on which to assess the accuracy of that statement. However, it appears unlikely that you could provide such assurances for school buses in general, since the question of whether adding R-Bars would result in a school bus no longer complying with safety standards is likely to depend, at least in part, on factors specific to a particular school bus, such as the seats, floor, etc. Accordingly, absent data to substantiate this statement for all bus configurations and potential installation procedures, we believe that is would not be proper for you to make such a statement. I hope this resolves the issues raised in your letter. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam2582OpenMr. Noah Stone, 2620 Equitable Building, Atlanta, GA 30303; Mr. Noah Stone 2620 Equitable Building Atlanta GA 30303; Dear Mr. Stone: This letter is to confirm a telephone conversation you had with Kath DeMeter of this office on May 17, 1977. You asked whether the Federal odometer mileage disclosure statement, required to be executed by 49 CFR Part 580, needed to be a separate piece of paper. The answer is 'no.' The regulation does not require the disclosure to be separate from other documents. If the full information required by section 580.4 can be included, a disclosure on the bill of sale or other document would satisfy the requirements. The only limitation is that it would have to be executed prior to the completion of the sale as required by section 580.4(a) of the regulation.; If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0415OpenMr. David A. Phelps, Jr., Group Supervisor, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. David A. Phelps Jr. Group Supervisor Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps:#This is in reply to your letter of July 7 askin whether paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 101 requires labeling of 'a heater water valve near the floor in the driver's area.'#As you know, Standard No. 101 requires identification of heating and air conditioning controls that are manually operable and mounted in a location other than on the floor. Your heater water valve is manually operable and not floor mounted, and it is our opinion that Standard No. 101 requires its identification. This agency published an interpretation on May 4, 1971, copy enclosed (see p. 8297), in response to a query from Ford 'whether controls visible to the driver but not in the normal forward line of sight must be identified.' We replied in the affirmative that although controls may be 'designed to be operable by touch, their function is not clear to an operator unfamiliar with the vehicle in which they are installed, and their identification is necessary.' For the same reason paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 101 requires identification of your heater water valve control.#Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.