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: nht81-1.28OpenDATE: 03/05/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Smith Industries Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: NOA-30 Mr. W. W. Bischoff Divisional Technical Director Smith Industries Limited Vehicle Instrumentation Division Cricklewood Works, London, England NW2 6NN Dear Mr. Bischoff: This responds to your letter of January 28, 1981 to John W. Carson regarding Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. You asked whether the encapsulation requirements of this standard (S4.2.5.2) are satisfied if a speedometer is housed in a metal case and sealed by a window and a spun-over metal bezel. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.) to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination. The agency is willing to offer an opinion on whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. Such an opinion is not binding on the agency or on the manufacturer. However, the information you have provided in your letter does not give us a sufficient basis on which to form an opinion. We must see the equipment in question, or at least pictures or drawings of the equipment design, to render a judgment. Please contact this office if you have more questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel 28th January 1981 Mr. John W. Carson, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street SW Washington DC 20590 Dear Sir, Re: FMVSS 127, Speedometers and Odometers Final Rule (Docket 76-06, Notice 9) Please advise by return whether the odometer tamper resistant requirement is satisfied relative to the 'Access to the odometer requirement', for a speedometer housed in a metal case and sealed by a window and spun over metal bezel. Thank you. Yours truly, for: Smiths Industries Limited W.W. BISCHOFF Divisional Technical Director |
|
ID: nht90-2.26OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: APRIL 25, 1990 FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: J. DOUGLAS SMITH -- ENGINEERING MGR., DURALITE TRUCK BODY AND CONTAINER CORP. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-10-89 TO TAYLOR VINSON, NHTSA, FROM J. DOUGLAS SMITH ATTACHED; (OCC-4119) TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office. I regret the delay in responding. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to the location of clearance lamps. You stated your understanding that "if a chassis cab is equipped with clearance and marker lamps, it is not necessary to add a second set of two lamps to act as clearance lamps to the front wall of the truck body." This is not correct. A chassis cab is an incomplete motor vehicle, and not required to comply with Standard No. 108. However, when the chassis cab is completed, the completed vehicle must comply, and be certified by its final-stage manufacturer as complying, with Standard No. 108 (and all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards). Standard No. 108, in pertinent part, requires front clearance lam ps to be mounted to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and as near the top as practicable. This means that if clearance lamps have been mounted on the chassis cab, and if in that location they do not indicate the overall width of the completed motor vehicle and are not as near the top of the completed motor vehicle as practicable, the final st age manufacturer must add a set of clearance lamps to the front of the truck body to meet that requirement. In this event, the cab-mounted clearance lamps may be disconnected or removed. However, this is not true with respect to the mounting of identification lamps on chassis cabs. Standard No. 108 allows them to be mounted as close as practicable to the top of the cab as an alternative to the top of the vehicle. Further, on truck trac tors, clearance lamps mounted on the cab may be located to indicate the width of the cab rather than the overall width of the vehicle. I hope this has answered your question. |
|
ID: GF005156OpenJack Sheehan, Managing Director Dear Mr. Sheehan: This responds to your March 15, 2005, letter asking whether this agency would permit voluntary compliance with the requirements of a recently published final rule before the stated effective date. On February 14, 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule establishing a new process under which intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers could obtain temporary exemptions from dynamic performance requirements (see 70 FR 7414). The final rule also amended the pass-through certification provisions. The preamble to the final rule states that the effective date for the amendments is September 1, 2006. First, notwithstanding the effective date, the agency will accept temporary exemption petitions submitted before the September 1, 2006, because, in certain circumstances, this will enable the agency to consider the exemptions in an expeditious manner. We note, however, that the agencys review process will not be limited to 120 days (as indicated in 555.14) until the September 1, 2006, effective date. We further note that because a good faith effort to comply with applicable requirements is a prerequisite for a temporary exemption petition, the agency will not consider a petition unless it demonstrates that the petitioner has made reasonable efforts to comply with the applicable dynamic performance requirements (see 49 CFR Part 555.13(b)). Second, parties affected by the February 14, 2005, final rule are not prohibited from voluntarily complying with the amended certification and documentation requirements in Parts 567 and 568 before the September 1, 2006, effective date. Finally, we will address the application and the effective date of the new section 571.8(b) when we respond to the petitions for reconsideration of the February 14, 2005 document. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:555 |
2005 |
ID: 2406yOpen Mr. J. Douglas Smith Dear Mr. Smith: This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office. I regret the delay in responding. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 as it pertains to the location of clearance lamps. You stated your understanding that "if a chassis cab is equipped with clearance and marker lamps, it is not necessary to add a second set of two lamps to act as clearance lamps to the front wall of the truck body." This is not correct. A chassis cab is an incomplete motor vehicle, and not required to comply with Standard No. l08. However, when the chassis cab is completed, the completed vehicle must comply, and be certified by its final-stage manufacturer as complying, with Standard No. l08 (and all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards). Standard No. l08, in pertinent part, requires front clearance lamps to be mounted to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and as near the top as practicable. This means that if clearance lamps have been mounted on the chassis cab, and if in that location they do not indicate the overall width of the completed motor vehicle and are not as near the top of the completed motor vehicle as practicable, the final stage manufacturer must add a set of clearance lamps to the front of the truck body to meet that requirement. In this event, the cab-mounted clearance lamps may be disconnected or removed. However, this is not true with respect to the mounting of identification lamps on chassis cabs. Standard No. l08 allows them to be mounted as close as practicable to the top of the cab as an alternative to the top of the vehicle. Further, on truck tractors, clearance lamps mounted on the cab may be located to indicate the width of the cab rather than the overall width of the vehicle. I hope this has answered your question. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref: l08 d:4/25/90 |
1990 |
ID: nht73-1.19OpenDATE: 12/28/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Continental Rubber Products, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: At the request of Continental Tire Company by letter of November 27, 1973 (90316 - Ga/MAB/Sc), we are forwarding our response to their question through you. They asked to know the lettering height to be used in compliance with the labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is presently considering the lettering height to be used for labeling required by Standard 119. Our decision as to lettering size will appear in the Federal Register as soon as possible after it has been made. Yours truly, ATTACH. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration November 27, 1973 90316 - Ga/MAB/Sc Gentlemen: Re: Part 571 FMVSS 119 Docket 71-18, Notice 3 Part 571 S 109 Preamble 25-26, Docket 71-23, Notice 3, prescribes a height of 0.078" for the general lettering on tires; excepted herefrom is the Identification No, which can be 5/32" or 1/4". The abovementioned Notice referred to Standards 109 and 117 only, no mention being made of Standard 119. It would therefore be appreciated if you would advise us of the lettering height to be used in order to comply with the labeling requirements of Standard 119. If we might be permitted to voice an opinion, we would suggest a height of 0.078" in view of the fact that motorcycle tires, with limited sidewall space, will have to be labeled; the same applies to small trailer tires. We would be grateful for your early advices, as we intend to start soon with engraving of the relevant tire molds. May we suggest you notify our US representatives Conti Rubber Products Inc. Minue Street Carteret, N.J. per telex (transcontoret, No. 138 297) who will forward your instructions to us. Thanking you in advance for an early reply, we are Yours very truly, CONTINENTAL Gummi-Werke Aktiengesellschaft; Fritsche; Garbe |
|
ID: nht68-2.20OpenDATE: 05/14/68 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph R. O'Gorman; NHTSA TO: Center Truck Frame and Body Company TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 9, 1968, to the Federal Highway Administration, requesting certification information. Enclosed are copies of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 1966, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and a ruling, amendment, and correction relative to chassis-cabs. Please note the certification requirements in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Note also in the chassis-cab amendment that the person combining the chassis-cab with a body or other like structure will be responsible for assuring that the complete assemblage complies with all applicable standards in effect on the date of the chassis-cab, compliance with which has not been previously certified by the manufacturer of the chassis-cab and for assuring that compliance with standards previously met by the chassis-cab have not been adversely affected by reason of the addition of the body or like structure. Your label should reflect the foregoing requirements to be acceptable. Also, the location of the label is required by this office. We trust this answers your questions. |
|
ID: 15542.drnOpen Mr. Neil Henderson Dear Mr. Henderson: This responds to your July 1, 1997, request for an interpretation whether an emergency reflective triangle your company plans to distribute must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 Warning devices. The answer is no. Your letter states that the emergency reflective triangle will be distributed as part of a promotional road kit. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your company intends to distribute the kit to regular motorists, and not to commercial drivers. Since October 31, 1994, Standard No. 125 has applied only to warning devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds. Since your reflective triangle is intended for use with vehicles other than buses and trucks, Standard No. 125 does not apply to your triangle. Please note that if your triangle does not meet all of Standard No. 125's specifications, you must ensure that the triangle is not marked with the symbol "DOT" and does not include the statement that the warning device complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 1983-1.48OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/02/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Truck & Body Equipment Association TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
MAY 2 1983 NOA-30
Mr. James E. Forrester Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body & Equipment Association P.O. Box 70409 Washington, D.C. 20088-0409
Dear Mr. Forrester:
This responds to your March 15, 1983, letter asking whether emergency doors in school buses may be marked as "emergency exits" and still comply with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.
Paragraph S5.5.3 states that each school bus exit shall have the designation "Emergency door" or "Emergency exit" as appropriate. The agency has previously determined that emergency doors are considered to be emergency exits and thus can be marked as either doors or exits. Emergency windows must be marked only as emergency exits.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
March 15, 1983
Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Attention: Mr. Roger Tilton
Dear Sir:
One of our members has become involved in a difference of opinion with his customer over the labeling of Emergency Doors and Exits of School Buses, S5.5.3 of FMVSS 217-76.
The issue is that the school bus was manufactured with the emergency doors identified and marked as "doors" and the emergency exits as "exits" in accordance with S5.5.3 of FMVSS 217, now the customer wants the manufacturer to remark the emergency doors as emergency exits. The manufacturer maintains that in so doing he would violate FMVSS-217. Is the manufacturer correct in his interpretation? Your early response will enable a timely resolution to this difficulty. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
James E. Forrester Manager of Engineering Services |
|
ID: nht74-3.25OpenDATE: 09/27/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Solomon; Religan & Blake TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 9, 1974, inquiring as to the compliance of the AADA-65 odometer disclosure form with the Federal odometer requirements. Your letter suggests that this agency has "approved" the Form AADA-65 as complying with the provisions of the odometer regulation. We are, however, unaware of any past correspondence between this office and either the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association or Norwick Printers of Oklahoma concerning the validity of a disclosure statement. The Form AADA-65 enclosed in your letter fails to comply with our regulation in several respects. The statement referring to the mileage indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer must be phrased to indicate that the disclosure document was executed at the time of the vehicle's transfer, not at some later time. In addition, the statement must be written in such a manner that it is clear it is to be completed by the transferor alone. To satisfy these criteria the statement should read "I, , state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicle described above, at the time of transfer to , is as follows:" The portion of the document provided for disclosure of the odometer mileage and a statement as to its accuracy is also deficient on the AADA-65 form. Instructions are necessary on this part of the form to ensure that it is completed in a consistent manner by all persons. The number of miles indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer must appear. Also, if the seller wishes he may indicate on the form that the actual mileage is over 100,000 miles. In addition, the statement concerning the accuracy of the vehicle's reflected mileage must be more complete than the one included in the AADA-65 form. Completion of the disclosure document in accordance with these directions may be accomplished as follows: "(Complete line 1; and, where applicable, complete line 2 and check line 3:) 1. miles 2. total cumulative miles (if over 100,000). 3. [ ] I further state that the actual mileage differs from the odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown." You expressed some confusion concerning the circumstances under which a statement should be made that the actual odometer mileage is unknown. The intended purpose of the disclosure statement is to inform the purchaser of a vehicle as to the accuracy of the mileage registered on the odometer. In order to accomplish this purpose it has been determined that where the seller of a vehicle has good reason to believe that the mileage registered on the odometer differs from the vehicle's true mileage he must so inform the buyer in positive terms. In the situation where the transferor is uncertain whether the mileage is accurate, he must determine whether there is a credible basis for an assumption that the mileage is either correct or incorrect. If he has good reason to believe that the mileage is inaccurate, even though he is not positive, he should check the statement saying that the mileage indicated on the odometer is incorrect. A statement from a prior transferor that the odometer mileage is incorrect constitutes sufficient basis for a like statement upon subsequent transfer of the vehicle. |
|
ID: 004609-asOpenMr. Dennis J. Tualej Nu-Way Intermodal Services, Inc. 220 Roger Avenue Westfield, NJ 07090 Dear Mr. Tualej: This responds to your letter seeking clarification as to the appropriate maximum load markings and inflation pressures on the sidewall of truck tires. You asked if differing markings on similar tires provided to you by different suppliers are acceptable. As discussed below, our review of the sample markings set forth in your letter leads us to conclude that the first marking you cited conforms to the requirements of our tire safety standards, while the second marking does not conform. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, each manufacturer must self-certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards prior to sale. FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars sets forth, among other things, labeling requirements for tires for use on trucks. Of relevance here, the maximum load rating and corresponding cold tire inflation pressure marking requirements are provided in FMVSS No. 119 paragraphs S6.5(d) and S6.6, as described below. Paragraph S6.5(d) of the standard requires that the truck tires be marked on each sidewall with, among other things, the maximum load rating and corresponding cold inflation pressure for the particular tire. This information must be shown as follows: (Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. (Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Paragraph S6.6 of the standard sets forth requirements concerning how to determine the numerical values for the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure. That provision directs the manufacturer to use a maximum load not lower than the lowest maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure for the particular tire size contained in a current publication from one of the following entities: (a) The Tire and Rim Association; (b) The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation; (c) Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association, Inc.; (d) Deutsche Industrie Norm; (e) British Standards Institution; (f) Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization, and (g) The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia Turning to the specific examples cited in your letter, you asked which of two maximum load ratings and corresponding inflation pressures for 10.00-20 14 Bias Ply Tires is accurate. These markings, supplied by two tire manufacturers, differed in two ways: (1) they employed different syntaxes, and (2) the maximum load rating values were different. We have restated the content of these two tire markings below: (1) Max load single 2800 kg (6175 lb) at 690 kPa (100 psi) cold. Max load dual 2430 kg (5355 lb) at 620 kPa (90 psi) cold; (2) Max load single 6040 lb at 105 psi cold. Max load dual 5300 lb at 95 psi cold. In terms of format, because the tires you ask about are dual load tires, they must be marked so as to be consistent with the format specified in S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119 (i.e., Max load single __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.). Thus, in terms of syntax, marking #1 is consistent with the applicable requirement, whereas marking #2 is not. In terms of content, the values recited in marking #1 correspond to the maximum load ratings for a 10.00-20 14 Bias Ply Tire assigned by the Tire and Rim Association, one of the tire industry organizations whose tire-load tables is incorporated by reference in our standard. Therefore, the values provided in marking #1 would be appropriate for inclusion in the required marking on the tire sidewall. As to marking #2, in order to conform to paragraph S6.6, the maximum load rating values must not be lower than the lowest maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure for the particular tire size in one of the specified publications. The lowest such maximum load rating for 10.00-20 14 Bias Ply Tires for single tire application is 5842 lbs, as listed in the Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization 2006 Year Book, and the lowest such maximum load rating for dual tire application is 5346 lbs, as listed by the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association (JATMA). While the single tire application rating in marking #2 (6040 lbs) is not lower than the lowest allowable single tire load rating, the dual tire application rating (5300 lbs) is lower than the lowest allowed rating. As both the single and the dual maximum load rating values must comply with paragraph S6.6, marking #2 is not in conformity with that paragraph. We hope that the above information will assist you in advising your customers. If you have any additional questions about this matter, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel d.3/8/07 ref:119 |
2007 |
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.