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: aiam2524OpenMr. Dennis J. Mahr, Attorney at Law, 232 Davidson Building, Sioux City, IA 51101; Mr. Dennis J. Mahr Attorney at Law 232 Davidson Building Sioux City IA 51101; Dear Mr. Mahr: Thank you for your letter of February 23, 1977, concerning the For Motor Company's record keeping practices involving a 1967 Mercury Cougar. Because of the legal nature of your inquiry, I am forwarding your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Chief Counsel for reply.; If I can be of further assistance to you, please let me know. Sincerely, William E. Scott, Acting Director, National Center fo Statistics and Analysis, Research and Development; |
|
ID: aiam0149OpenMr. E.E. Wolfe, Controller, Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company, Carlisle Corporation, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013; Mr. E.E. Wolfe Controller Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company Carlisle Corporation Carlisle Pennsylvania 17013; Dear Mr. Wolfe: Your December 27, 1968, request for a code number i accordance with subsection S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1421(1)) has been reviewed. Subsection S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 applies to passenger car tires, accordingly, the National Highway Safety Bureau has restricted the issuance of code numbers to manufacturers of these tires.; Since Carlisle Tire and Rubber Division does not engage in th manufacture of passenger car tires, and since the code number was requested in anticipation of future tire rule making, the issuance of a code number to the Carlisle Tire and Rubber Division would be premature and not in keeping with the intent of the regulations.; We have enclosed a Mailing List Questionnaire as promised. To assure flow of specialized mailings which may be of great importance to your particular organisation, please complete both sides with the correct information and return it to the Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Bureau, Motor Vehicle Safety Performing Service, Washington, D.C. 20591. *Attention:* MVSPS Mailing List Questionnaire. If you require more than one form or have any inquiries concerning the form, Please direct your correspondence to the same address.; Sincerely, Roger H. Compton, Director, Office of Standard on Acciden Avoidance, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2174OpenMr. R. D. Coughlin, Vice President, Rol'on America, Inc., Melbourne, FL 32901; Mr. R. D. Coughlin Vice President Rol'on America Inc. Melbourne FL 32901; Dear Mr. Coughlin: This is in response to your letter of December 10, 1975, regarding th applicability of existing Federal regulations to the manufacture of 'Helmate.'; At the present time, there is no regulation pertaining directly to th type of helmet accessory your corporation produces. The general regulation concerning motorcycle helmets is 49 CFR S 571.218, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*. This standard establishes minimum performance requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.; If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business were to install 'Helmates' on helmets, the helmets would have to remain in conformity with the requirements of Standard 218. However, persons other than manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may modify products, after purchase by a user, without regard to the requirements of a Federal safety regulation. Thus, if 'Helmate' is mounted on the helmet by an ordinary consumer, safety Standard 218 is inapplicable.; There is some question as to whether motorcycle helmets will still mee the performance requirements of Standard 218, after the 3/8 inch hole required to mount the 'Helmate' is drilled. If it becomes apparent that installing 'Helmate' type helmet accessories causes the performance level of helmets to drop below the requirements of Standard 218, the NHTSA might find it necessary to enact regulations to rectify the situation. Our main concern is to assure that motorcycle helmets afford riders the protection and safety needed.; If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3335OpenMr. R. H. Snyder, Vice President, Tire Technology, Uniroyal Tire Company, 6600 East Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. R. H. Snyder Vice President Tire Technology Uniroyal Tire Company 6600 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Synder: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1980, requestin interpretation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR S 575.104) with regard to the assignment of treadwear grades. You report that Uniroyal has encountered variations in treadwear test data derived from UTQG tests conducted by different testing organizations. You ask whether a tire manufacturer is obligated under the UTQG treadwear grading procedure to base its grades on those test results which produce the lowest treadwear grade, or may use any available test data as the basis for grade assignment.; Uniform Tire Quality Grading, as with other National Highway Traffi Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations, involves a self-certification process in which manufacturers bear the primary responsibility for assuring that their products conform to required levels of performance, in this case the levels represented by their assigned grades. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) conducts testing to verify that various tires actually provide levels of performance consistent with their grades. When OVSC testing produces results at variance with assigned grades, the manufacturer involved is given an opportunity to provide justification for its grade assignments.; In determining that a product achieves a particular level o performance under the UTQG procedures, a manufacturer may exercise a considerable degree of discretion as to the amount of testing necessary to assure that its conclusions regarding compliance will withstand NHTSA scrutiny. In evaluating the performance of a product, NHTSA does not require that a manufacturer base its judgment on any particular piece of test data or on all available data. In fact, a manufacturer may disregard data from a particular source entirely, if the manufacturer can establish that other data provides a reasonable basis for grading.; However, a manufacturer cannot establish compliance by arbitraril picking and choosing among available data to select results of that test which happened to produce the most favorable result. Data used to establish compliance must be reliable and consistently reproducible, and cannot have been derived through manipulative devices, e.g., abusive driving, or unexacting test procedures. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to base its conclusions on data demonstrably developed in full conformance with the requirements of the regulation.; NHTSA will provide confidential treatment for your letter of August 14 1980, and the accompanying data.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1308OpenMr. Roy Stolpestad, 700 North Bryant Ave., #802, Minneapolis, MN 55411; Mr. Roy Stolpestad 700 North Bryant Ave. #802 Minneapolis MN 55411; Dear Mr. Stolpestad: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, concerning th 1966 Chrysler you recently purchased from Central Motors in Minneapolis.; As Miss Porter correctly pointed out in her column, the Federal law o odometer fraud enables you to bring a civil action against Central. The amount of recovery in such an action can be substantial. If the court were to accept your estimate of damages of $1490.24, the damages assessable under Federal law would be three times that amount - $4470.72. In no case would damages be less than $1500, a minimum value established by law. In addition, if you are successful, Central must pay your attorney fees as well as all court costs.; I appreciate your concern for the costs of litigation. However, b providing for the payment of attorney fees the odometer law places you in a better position than a personal injury litigant, whose recovery is usually diminished by his attorney's contingency fee. Your best course at this point is therefore to retain counsel if Central persists in its refusal to reimburse you.; By way of advice to your attorney, I would point out that the 'out that Central claims to have taken -- checking the box on the disclosure form that indicates the true mileage is unknown -- was taken too late to be of benefit to them. The Federal regulation governing disclosure requires the disclosure statement to be made 'before executing any transfer of ownership form.' If they mailed the statement the next day, their disclosure was untimely. Moreover, the representations made in the newspaper advertisment (sic) are evidentiary of their representation of 33,000 miles as being the true mileage on the vehicle. Your success in finding the previous owner is also useful in establishing that the actual mileage was greater than shown.; We will be willing to give you or your attorney further advice i questions arise concerning the intent and effect of the Federal odometer law. The enclosed copies of the law and regulations are provided to assist him in representing you.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2877OpenMr. Ken Yoneyama, Chief Engineer, Bridgestone Research Inc., 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4202, New York, NY 10001; Mr. Ken Yoneyama Chief Engineer Bridgestone Research Inc. 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4202 New York NY 10001; Dear Mr. Yoneyama: This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1978, askin whether tires listed in Table 1-A of Appendix A, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars*, must comply with Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards*, (UTQGS), if the tires are installed as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. You also inquire as to the effective dates for the provision of UTQGS information to first purchasers of new motor vehicles under Part 575.104(d)(1)(iii).; UTQGS applies to a tire type whose predominant contemplated use is o passenger cars, even if the manufacturer knows the tire type is also used as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A manufacturer's determination to certify a tire as conforming to Standard No. 109, will also determine the tire's classification for purposes of UTQGS. Thus, UTQGS would apply to any tire labeled with a size designation listed in Appendix A of Standard No. 109, other than a deep tread, winter-type snow tire or space- saver or temporary use spare tire, regardless of the tire's actual use.; On October 23, 1978, NHTSA issued a *Federal Register* notice (cop enclosed) granting the petition of American Motors corporation to revise the effective dates for Part 575.104(d)(1)(iii) to September 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 1, 1980 for bias-belted tires. On the basis of this change, your statement regarding effective dates is correct.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3765OpenMs. Patricia Hill, 2150 Hacker Road, Howell, MI 48843; Ms. Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell MI 48843; Dear Ms. Hill: This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specifi questions relating to Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Your questions and their answers are listed below:; 1. Provide a definitive interpretation of 'erratic burning' as used i the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.; 'Erratic burning,' as that term is used in the standard, relates t incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.; 2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word 'anticipate' as use in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?; In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.; 3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendmen limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?; The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No 302.; 4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply t a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?; We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The materia would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.; 5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 197 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?; The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302- 02. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1758OpenMr. Philip P. Friedlander, Jr., Director of Communications, Dealer News, 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Mr. Philip P. Friedlander Jr. Director of Communications Dealer News 1343 L Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20005; Dear Mr. Friedlander: This is in reply to your letter of December 24, 1974, forwarding to u a copy of an article in the December 23-30, 1974, issue of the NTDRA *Dealer News*, which attempts to clarify an earlier article interpreting the labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.; We believe your revised article is still somewhat unclear i interpreting the requirements, and we would like to clarify these requirements for you.; >>>*THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS ARE PRESENTLY EFFECTIVE*<<< The casing, before retreading, must contain in a permanent fashion, th following: the symbol 'DOT', the size of the tire, and the actual number of plies or ply rating.; The completed retread must be labeled,either permanently or with a affixed label that is not easily removable, with the following: the tire's size designation, its maximum permissible inflation pressure, the actual number of plies, ply rating or both, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type,' as appropriate, the word radial, if the tire is of radial construction, and if the tire is of bias-belted construction, the words 'bias belted' *or* the actual number of plies in the sidewall and the actual number of plies in the tread area.; The completed retreaded tire must be permanently labeled only with it maximum permissible load. Permanent labeling includes molding, branding, or other method that will produce a permanent label, and includes any original casing label that is retained through the retread process.; >>>*THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS ARE EFFECTIVE MAY 12, 1975*<<< The casing before retreading must contain in a permanent fashion th following: the symbol 'DOT', the size of the tire, and the actual number of plies or ply rating. These requirements are the same as those presently in effect.; The completed retread must be labeled, either permanently or with a affixed label that is not easily removable, with the following: the tire's size designation, its maximum permissible inflation pressure, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type' as appropriate, and the word 'radial' if the tire is of radial construction.; The completed retread must be permanently labeled only with th following: the tire's maximum permissible load, the actual number of plies in the tire sidewall, and the actual number of plies in the tire tread area, if different, and the generic name of each cord material used in the plies (both sidewall and tread area) of the tire.; The changes made by the amendment published November 12, 1974 (39 F 39882), which are effective May 12, 1975, are, in summary, that (1) the labeling of the actual number of plies in the sidewall, and tread area if different, must after May 12, 1975, be permanently labeled, and (2) the generic names of each cord material, which prior to May 12, 1975, is not required to be labeled at all, must after May 12, 1975, be permanently labeled.; We believe some further clarification of the requirements should b conveyed to your readers.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5062OpenMr. Jerry Beck One Leatherwood Court Burtonsville, MD 20866; Mr. Jerry Beck One Leatherwood Court Burtonsville MD 20866; "Dear Mr. Beck: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about how this agency's regulations would apply to the product you are developing. While you initially requested that the agency keep your inquiry confidential, you removed this request for confidentiality in a September 18, 1992 letter to Marvin Shaw of my staff. You described your product as a reflective decal that would be placed on the backside of a motor vehicle's rear view mirror and on its rear bumper. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ... In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to your reflective decals, it appears that your product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of your letter, it appears that a substantial portion of your device's expected use will be during the operation of a motor vehicle. In addition, it appears that your product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. While your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, this agency has not issued any standards setting forth performance requirements for such a device. Nevertheless, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, with this device installed. After the first sale of the vehicle to the public, certain persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)). That section provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, 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...' To avoid a 'rendering inoperative' violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, commercial after market installers of your device should examine any installation instructions that you may have for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a 'rendering inoperative' of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements. The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. You should be aware that, as a manufacturer of an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1888OpenHonorable Birch Bayh, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Birch Bayh United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Bayh: This is in response to your letter requesting information concernin correspondence from Mr. James A. Graham, commenting on a proposed amendment to the Federal bumper standard.; On January 2, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) issued a *Federal Register* notice (copy enclosed) proposing to reduce the current 5-mph bumper impact requirements to 2.5 mph until the 1979 model year. The impact requirements would have been increased to 4 mph for 1979 and later model year cars.; The proposal was based primarily on the results of two agency-sponsore studies which indicated that the cost and weight of many current production bumpers, in light of inflation and fuel shortages, made the bumpers no longer cost beneficial. Information presented at public hearings on the bumper notice and comments submitted to the docket in response to the proposal have brought to light additional data. The NHTSA has carefully examined all of this evidence and reviewed its studies in light of the new information. As a result, the agency has concluded that the 5 mph protection level should not be reduced. This decision is contained in a *Federal Register* notice that was published on March 12, 1975 (Docket No. 74-11, Notice 7, Docket No. 73-19, Notice 6).; In his letter Mr. Graham objects to the standard's regulation o surface damage, such as dents, stating that this is not the type of damage which should be addressed by an agency developing safety standards. The surface damage criteria are proposed as part of a standard being promulgated under Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513). The Cost Savings Act directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop a bumper standard that will obtain the maximum feasible reduction of costs to the public and the consumer. As such, the standard is not to be limited to affecting safety-related damage. Factors such as insurance costs and consumer time and inconvenience are to be considered in the rulemaking as well.; Mr. Graham's comments will be placed in the public docket where the will receive every consideration.; We appreciate your interest and that of Mr. Graham in this area o motor vehicle safety and performance.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
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.