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: nht90-3.55OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: August 14, 1990 FROM: Gerald F. Vinci -- Sun Refining and Marketing Company TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-90 from P.J. Rice to G.F. Vinci (A36; FMVSS 301; VSA 108(b)(1)); Also attached to letter dated 8-17-79 from F. Berndt (Signature by S.P. Wood) to M. Champagne TEXT: Our research and development department at Sun Refining and Marketing Company is interested in converting the fuel system of a new vehicle from gasoline to propane. Sun does not intend to act as a manufacturer. The only portion of the vehicle which wil l be substantially altered is the fuel system. The vehicle is intended to be driven under normal traffic conditions and would maintain a lower emission level than that required under the Clean Air Act. I spoke recently with Dee Fujita and Taylor Vinson of the Chief Counsel's Office. After factually reviewing the project, both concluded that such a vehicle would not violate the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its regulations. Ms. Fuj ita and Mr. Vinson did however caution that there may be requirements under state law. We recognize the importance of highway safety and intend to fully comply with all applicable federal laws. To assist us, I respectfully request an opinion letter addressing compliance of such a vehicle with the Act and its regulations. If you need any additional information, please contact me at (215)246-8251. |
|
ID: AviationUpgradeTechnologies.1OpenMr. Torbjrn Lundqvist Dear Mr. Lundqvist: This responds to your letter of October 10, 2002, regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) final rule establishing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 138, "Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS)", (67 FR 38704, June 5, 2002).You are concerned about a requirement in the final rule that a lighted indicator on the dashboard must be used to alert the vehicle operator when a tire is significantly under-inflated.You wish to meet with agency representatives to discuss the issue with them in further detail. We understand that on July 17, 2002, you filed a petition for reconsideration of the TPMS rule, in which you provide a detailed discussion of the alternative TPMS system manufactured by your company whose indicator is external to the vehicle (i.e., the Air Alert Valve Cap System).We also understand that you have contacted NHTSA staff via phone, personal meetings, and written correspondence to discuss your tire pressure monitoring system.If you have new information not currently contained within your petition for reconsideration, we invite you to supplement your earlier submission to the agency. However, we do not believe that a meeting is necessary at this time.Please be assured that all issues raised in your petition will be carefully considered and addressed in our rulemaking response to all petitions for reconsideration received by the agency. We thank you for your interest in the TPMS rule, and it is our intention to respond to all issues raised in petitions for reconsideration as expediently as possible.A copy of your letter has been included in the rulemaking docket for this final rule. I hope this information is helpful.If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman cc:Docket No. NHTSA 2000-8572 |
2002 |
ID: 1983-3.27OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/23/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Mr. Eddie Wayne TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
NOA-30
Mr. Eddie Wayne 4306 Emmet Drive Erie, Pennsylvania 16511
Dear Mr. Wayne:
Thank you for your recent note asking if motorcycle headlamps could not be required to have a blue or green lens across the top portion, so that cycles could be distinguished from a four-wheeled motor vehicle with only one headlamp.
This is an interesting suggestion. However, we would not wish to impose a requirement that would interfere with the effectiveness of the single headlamp with which most motorcycles are equipped. The other side of the coin is marking the four-wheeled vehicle so that it is distinguishable from a motorcycle when one of its headlamps is out. We currently require passenger cars, light trucks, and others, to have amber or white parking lamps and amber front side marker lamps that are illuminated when the headlamps are on. While these lights may not be as readily visible from greater distances as a headlamp, nevertheless their presence on a vehicle does help to distinguish that vehicle from a motorcycle at night, when a headlamp is missing.
Thank you for your interest in safety.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht88-2.3OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 04/20/88 FROM: GEORGE ZIOLO -- DOT PAPERWORK PROCESSOR TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TITLE: HEADLAMP COMBINATIONS - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, FMVSS 108 ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/12/88 TO GEORGE ZIOLO FROM ERIKA Z JONES; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones: I assist graymarket automobile importers in conforming their vehicles. Some foreign models come equipped with four headlamps two of which are 7" diameter and two 5 3/4" diameter. My clients modify them by installing two Type 2D1 (7" dia) high & low beam units outboards, and two Type 1C1 (5 3/4" dia) high beam units inboards. OVSC (NEF-32) rejects such installations because they are "nonconforming" "headlighting systems". It is my opinion that such rejection is without basis. As I understand it, the FMVSS are "minimum standards". S4.1.1 confirms this by requiring that "...each vehicle...be equipped with at least the number of lamps...specified in Tables I and III,...." My clients' installation of two Type 2D1 lamps satisfies the minimum requirement specified in Table III. My clients' installation of two Type IC1 lamps in addition to the two Type 2D1 lamps is not counter to a "headlighting system" as I can find in the standard. In addition, S4.4 appears to permit such combination. While it may have been necessary to ensure symmetry in headlighting systems combinations in motorcycles by way of S4.1.1.34, where Table III calls for only one lamp, such clarification relative to vehicles other than motorcycles is obviously not needed s ince symmetry in such will be natural. I therefore kindly request that you determine whether or not FMVSS 108 allows lamp combinations as outlined above and advise me at your earliest convenience. The cited lamp combinations are desired by my clients for reasons of appearance. Also, modificat ion of such vehicles to delete the 2D1 (7") lamp in lieu of a 2C1 (5 3/4") lamp is costly, including replacement of the entire front grille. Sincerely, FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 52, NO 208 10/28/87 NHTSA 49 CFR PART 571 (DOCKERT 87-15 NOTICE 1) FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION (TEXT OMITTED) |
|
ID: 19033.drnOpenMr. Steven Butcher Dear Mr. Butcher: This responds to your request for clarification of marking requirements for tires in Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. In a final rule of May 27, 1998 (63 FR 28912), Standard No. 119 was amended to convert English measurements in that standard to metric measurements. Since a five year lead time was provided, the final rule is effective on May 27, 2003. You wish to know whether pound designations for markings specified in Standard No. 119 (at S6.5 Tire markings) may be designated as "lbs" rather than "lb", and whether it is "acceptable to use either upper or lower case letters." With respect to your question concerning "lb" vs. "lbs", we note that, as a general matter, the examples and language specified in the final rule must be followed exactly. However, given that "lb" and "lbs" represent very minor variations of the same abbreviation, and the standard has in the past used "lbs" instead of "lb", it is our interpretation that either variation may be used. Standard No. 119 does not specify whether upper case or lower case letters must be used. However, please note that S6.5 states in part: "Except as specified below, each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section." (Emphasis added). S6.5 further specifies permitted locations of the markings, the height of the markings' letters and numerals, and how high above or sunk below the tire surface the markings must be. S6.5 does not specify the case (upper or lower) of the markings that are used. Thus, since S6.5 specifies that the tire must be marked with "the information" specified in paragraphs (a) through (j) and does not further specify whether the information provided must be in letters that are upper or lower case, a manufacturer may use either upper or lower case letters. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: nht75-4.17OpenDATE: 09/11/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Flenniken Financial Services, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 1, 1975, concerning the legal duties of a tire recapping firm which you insure. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires. This standard does not specify the testing which a manufacturer of retreaded tires must do; it does specify the criteria which the tires must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance. While the surest way for the retreader to be confident of compliance would be to follow the procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires him to assure himself that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the procedures set out in the standard, his tires will meet the specified criteria. In addition, he is required to repair or replace without charge a non-complying tire. SINCERELY, July 1, 1975 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration James B. Gregory Administrator Re: Title 40 CFR 571-171A and Current Amendments We insure a tire recapping firm here in Knoxville, Tennessee. We are providing products coverage, and the company writing this coverage has set out some essential recommendations to be complied with in order to continue same. I an enclosing the recommendations and request that you advise me as soon as possible just what these people need to do to be in compliance with these. Thank you for your cooperation and prompt reply. FLENNIKEN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. Frank C. Howard, Jr. 8-5-75 I would appreciate a reply on this I can't do any think until I hear from you Thank you Frank C. Howard, Jr |
|
ID: nht88-4.19OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/28/88 EST FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL TO: ROBERT L. RIPLEY -- PRESIDENT KNAACK MANUFACTURING CO. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/11/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM ROBERT L. RIPLEY OCC -- 2406 TEXT: Dear Mr. Ripley: This is a response to your letter asking this agency to review three product catalogs you submitted with your letter, and tell you whether your company is required to furnish information pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Based on the information you supplied with your letter, your company is required to file information under Part 566 for the warning devices shown in one of the catalogs, but not for any of the other items shown in the three catalogs. As specified in the Application section of Part 566 (@ 566.3), Part 566 applies to (1) all manufacturers of motor vehicles and (2) manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, other than tires, to which a safety standard applies. The only item advertised i n the three catalogs that is motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies is the "Safety Reflector Kit" shown on page 6 of the catalog entitled "weather guard For Full-Size and Mini Vans." These devices are subject to Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). Accordingly, your company, as the manufacturer of these devices, must furnish the information specified in @ 566.5 within the time period specified in @ 566.6. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
|
ID: nht80-2.22OpenDATE: 04/24/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: McCreary Tire & Rubber Company TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: APR 24, 1980 IN REPLY REFER TO: NOA-30 Mr. Robert A. Eddy Manager, Quality Assurance McCreary Tire & Rubber Company Indiana, Pennsylvania 15701 Dear Mr. Eddy: This is in response to your letter of March 7, 1980, asking whether ASTM E501 and E524 tires must be graded in accordance with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104). You state that these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for traction testing and are not manufactured for general highway use. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's understanding that these tires are used only on a test trailer designed for use in skid testing. The UTQG regulation applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars (49 CFR 575.104(c)(1)). Thus, ASTM E501 and E524, which are manufactured solely for use on a traction test trailer, would not fall within the application of the UTQG Standards. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel March 7, 1980
Office of Chief Counsel ATTENTION: Mr. Richard J. Hipolit National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D. C. 02590 Dear Sir: We are requesting an interpretation of Part 575.104 - Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards - with reference to the ASTM E501 and E524 tires. Since these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for skid resistance testing and are not manufactured for general highway use, it is our understanding that they are not covered by the requirements of Part 575.104. Would you please confirm this interpretation. Sincerely, Robert A. Eddy Manager, Quality Assurance RAE/pel |
|
ID: nht92-1.29OpenDATE: 12/10/92 FROM: STAN KAPLAN -- SHIMAZAKI CORP. TO: CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-25-90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LARRY E. SNOWHITE (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-29-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO STAN KAPLAN (A40; STD. 108) TEXT: We at the Shimazaki Corporation are most interested in getting a review and knowing if a automotive product we are wanting to import into the U.S. for sales meets the required federal standards set by the traffic safety administration. The product is called Red Alert. It is a safety device that automatically alerts the driver behind you that you are about to make a sudden stop before your foot hits the brake pedal. Red Alert is a sophisticated sensor that is activiated only when there is a sudden release of the accelerator, as in the case during an emergency stop. RedAlert is located on the accelerator rod (not on the part that is by the foot) and does not interfere with driving habits. You can install red alert in your car without making any changes in its electrical system. Installing Red Alert is quick and simple and only takes 15 minutes to install and requires no special tools. Please advise if it meets the standard set by your administration and the how we can get a waiver on this product or does it require one at all? Enclosed please find brochures on the Red Alert system for your study. I previously discussed this on the telephone with Mr. George Shifflett. He advised me to send you a letter to get a definitive statement on this product. Hope to here from you in this regard as soon as possible. (BROCHURES OMITTED.) |
|
ID: nht80-2.21OpenDATE: 04/24/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: McCreary Tire & Rubber Company TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 7, 1980, asking whether ASTM E501 and E524 tires must be graded in accordance with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104). You state that these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for traction testing and are not manufactured for general highway use. It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's understanding that these tires are used only on a test trailer designed for use in skid testing. The UTQG regulation applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars (49 CFR 575.104(c)(1)). Thus, ASTM E501 and E524, which are manufactured solely for use on a traction test trailer, would not fall within the application of the UTQG Standards. Sincerely, ATTACH. McCREARY TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY March 7, 1980 Richard J. Hipolit -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Sir: We are requesting an interpretation of Part 575.104 - Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards - with reference to the ASTM E501 and E524 tires. Since these tires are manufactured in limited quantities as standards for skid resistance testing and are not manufactured for general highway use, it is our understanding that they are not covered by the requirements of Part 575.104. Would you please confirm this interpretation. Sincerely, Robert A. Eddy -- Manager, Quality Assurance |
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.