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: nht88-2.78OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/22/88 FROM: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VP METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE TO: LARRY COOK -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL N.H.T.S.A TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO GARRY GALLAGHER; REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119 TEXT: Dear Larry, Per our phone conversation back on June 15, 1988. I am requesting a written determination in regards to specific requirements within the size designations on the side walls of motorcycle tires. My inquiry involves code #571.119 - section S6.5-c. As you may recall, my specific question was whether the letter B was required within the size designation if the tire is of bias-belted construction. As Metzeler Motorcycle tires are manufactured in Germany, we meet the sizing requirements and listings of the E.T.R.T.O. A Metzeler bias-belted tire is marked with both the number of plies and material of the plies of both the tread and sidewalls of the carcas. The letter B is sometimes added to the size as an internal code. Your verbal determination over the phone was that the letter B was not an actual requirement. This letter serves to request a written determination. Thank you for your assistance. Please call me if you have any further information or questions. |
|
ID: nht70-1.9OpenDATE: 10/26/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA TO: Long Mile Rubber Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Your letter of October 12, 1970, requesting clarification of the required testing for retreaded passenger car tires has been received. The notice of proposed rule making for Retreaded Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Car was published in the Federal Register (35 FR 4136) on March 5, 1970. Within the proposed standard is states: "S3.2 Retreaded tire requirements: Retreaded tires shall conform to the size, construction, performance and tread wear indicator requirements set forth in paragraphs S4.1 and S4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, no tire may be retreaded by a process which includes the removal of a ply or belt from the casing." Within S4.2 of Standard No. 109, paragraph S4.2.2.5 specifies the laboratory (dynamometer) test for tire endurance and paragraph S4.2.2.5 specifies the laboratory (dynamometer) test for high speed performance. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments. It was intended that the phrase "through testing" mean testing to Standard No. 109 and it was not intended that the phrase be construed to mean any form of testing. I hope the above clarifies your question concerning retreaded tires performing to the(Illegible Word) dynamometer tests for tire endurance and high speed performances(Illegible Word) Sincerely, |
|
ID: nht90-1.66OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: March 8, 1990 FROM: Daniel L. Giles -- Christianson, Stoneberg, Giles & Myers, P.A. TO: Dave Baker -- Department of Public Safety TITLE: Re Bev Wilson/Head Start/Marshall, Minnesota ATTACHMT: Attached to memo dated 3-6-90 from B. Wilson to D. Giles; Also attached to memo dated 2-22-90 from D. Baker to B. Wilson; Also attached to letter dated 3-18-88 from R.C. Rost to Chief Council, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 8-26-88 from E .L. Jones to R.C. Rost; Also attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from P.J. Rice to D.L. Giles (A36; Std. 108; VSA 103(d)); Also attached to letter dated 3-14-90 from D.L. Giles to S.P. Wood TEXT: Please find copies of the following: 1. March 6, 1990 Letter to Dan Giles from Bev Wilson. 2. Dave Baker Memorandum dated 2-22-90, with attachments. 3. U.S. Department of Transportation Letter (undated). 4. Minnesota Body Equipment Letter to U.S. Department of Transportation dated 3-18-88. After you have reviewed the enclosed documents, you will see that the Head Start director in Marshall, Minnesota appears to have good reason to be confused about the regulations she should be complying with. Could you please call so that we could discus s what actions my client should take, if any, or the manner in which any jurisdictional questions can be resolved without adverse consequences to my client. |
|
ID: nht91-3.44OpenDATE: May 9, 1991 FROM: M. Morino -- Manager, Far East Department, Guy B. Barham Company TO: Import Specialist, Motor Vehicle Equipment -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA TITLE: Reference: Importer: Wheelmate Products, 13238 Florence Ave, Santa Fe Springs, Ca 90670 ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-4-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Masaharu Morino (A37; Std. 211); Also attached to letter dated 11-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Maloney; Also attached to letter dated 5-13-87 from Erika Z. Jones to The Honorable William E. Dannemeyer (Std. 211); Also attached to letter dated 3-16-88 from Erika Z. Jones to The Honorable Terry L. Bruce (Std. 211) TEXT: We have been requested by Wheelmate Products, to verify with your department that there is currently no Sanctions or Seizures for the following items identified above. The Bulk Wheel Accessories, Spinners is currently being manufactured in the U.S. To make it feasible, and less expensive, the manufacturer here in the U.S. would like to have this identical product made in Taiwan by Zeta Ltd, 1 Fuhsiung North Rd, Taipei, Taiwan and import these products to the U.S. We have enclosed photocopy of the Bulk Wheel Accessories and two samples, one chrome and one pink, both 3 bar mount as well as a copy of the binding ruling. We respectfully request your instructions as to whether these products can be imported into the U.S. We thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Attachment Photos and descriptions of Bulk Wheel Accessories Spinners and Colored Spinners (Text and photos omitted) Attachment DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE New York, N.Y. NY 835326 JAN 11 1989 CLA-2-87:S:N:N1:101 835326 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 8708.70.8050 Mr. Robert W. Snyder Attorney at Law Wellington Square-Second Floor 940 West 17th Street Suite F Santa Ana, CA 92706 RE: The tariff classification of a center cap from Taiwan. Dear Mr. Snyder: In your letter dated December 14, 1988, on behalf of Macklin Industries, you requested a tariff classification ruling. You have enclosed a sample of the imported product which is a metal spinning center cap (with three spinners) that will be mounted to a wheel. The spinning center cap is used as an ornamental wheel cover for automobiles, trucks and other motor vehicles. The applicable subheading for the spinning center cap will be 8708.70.8050, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for parts and accessories of motor vehicle wheels. The rate of duty will be 3.1 percent ad valorem. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction. Sincerely, Jean F. Maguire Area Director New York Seaport |
|
ID: nht94-1.34OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: January 31, 1994 FROM: Marc D. Marutani -- National Truck Sales Manager, ARI TO: Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Marc D. Marutani (A42; Part 571.3) TEXT: As a major national fleet leasing company, ARI has a broad cross section of clients in various industries. Recently, an inquiry was received concerning the use of a Ford Econoline Wagon, and whether or not the specific usage fell within the FMVSS defini tion of a "school bus." The vehicle in question would be a standard, factory-equipped fifteen passenger full-size van (commonly referred to as a "wagon" due to its primary function as passenger transport), with no after-market modifications. The client requesting the vehicle i s a mental health and substance abuse facility handling adolescents on a full-time on-site basis. There is a school located on the premises, since the children reside at the location. The vehicle's purpose would primarily be used for miscellaneous tran sportation of juvenile patients and facility personnel, both on and off campus, as opposed to providing commuting services to and from home. Because we interpret the FMVSS regulations regarding school buses as applying to those vehicles whose PRIMARY function is for the transporting of students to and from school and related scholastic events, we do not believe that the use of this wagon fall s within that definition. However, we would appreciate your ruling on the matter for verification, and for future reference on similar transactions. If further discussion on this subject is required, I can be reached at 609-727-6995. Thank you for your consideration. |
|
ID: nht94-8.36OpenDATE: January 31, 1994 FROM: Marc D. Marutani -- National Truck Sales Manager, ARI TO: Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA COPYEE: A. Crea; W. Cariss; D. Grant TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/94 from John Womack to Marc D. Marutani (A42; Part 571.3) TEXT: As a major national fleet leasing company, ARI has a broad cross section of clients in various industries. Recently, an inquiry was received concerning the use of a Ford Econoline Wagon, and whether or not the specific usage fell within the FMVSS definition of a "school bus." The vehicle in question would be a standard, factory-equipped fifteen passenger full-size van (commonly referred to as a "wagon" due to its primary function as passenger transport), with no after-market modifications. The client requesting the vehicle is a mental health and substance abuse facility handling adolescents on a full-time on-site basis. There is a school located on the premises, since the children reside at the location. The vehicle's purpose would primarily be used for miscellaneous transportation of juvenile patients and facility personnel, both on and off campus, as opposed to providing commuting services to and from home. Because we interpret the FMVSS regulations regarding school buses as applying to those vehicles whose PRIMARY function is for the transporting of students to and from school and related scholastic events, we do not believe that the use of this wagon falls within that definition. However, we would appreciate your ruling on the matter for verification, and for future reference on similar transactions. If further discussion on this subject is required, I can be reached at 609-727-6995. Thank you for your consideration. |
|
ID: 1983-2.5OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/11/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Truck-Lite Co. Inc. -- John E. Bennett, Director, Research & Engineering TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. John E. Bennett Director - Research & Engineering Truck-Lite Co., Inc. 310 East Elmwood Avenue Falconer, New York 14733
Dear Mr. Bennett:
This in response to your letter of April 12, 1983, asking for interpretation of paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.
This paragraph states in pertinent part that "means may be provided to flask...side marker lamps for signalling purposes." You have first asked whether the rear side marker can be made to flash. You have also asked whether this language may be interpreted as allowing both front and rear side marker lamps to be flashed. The answer to both questions is yes. In the absence of restrictive language, paragraph S4.6 may be interpreted as allowing flashing of either front or rear side marker lamps, or both sets of lamps. You have also asked whether, where the rear side marker and taillamp used the same optical source ("minor filament of a 1157 or similar bulb"), it is acceptable to have an overriding signal lamp is actuated. The answer is yes. The standard's prohibition against optical combinations (paragraph S4.1.1) does not preclude this design.
We hope that this answers you questions.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
April 12, 1983 Attention: Office of Chief Counsel (Room 5219)
Subject: Request for interpretation of an element of FMVSS-108 Dear Sir:
In our endeavor to continue the advancements of vehicle lighting devices, which is a continuing assignment within our company, and offer specialized products to our customers with inherent benefits to the consumers, we have under consideration a new product which requires an interpretation of Section S4.6 Item (b), FMVSS-108, before we finalize our programs.
This section (S4.6) of FMVSS-108 requires.. "when activated: a. Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall flash; and b. All other lamps shall be steady burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes."
Our questions are in reference to the rear side marker lamp and item (b) above. They are stated as follows:
a. Can the rear side marker be made to flash? Is Section S4.6, Item (b) to be interpreted as both front and rear side marker lamps may be flashed for signalling purposes? We know of only one current production (Jeep CJ) vehicle which the rear side marker lamp might be so viewed.
b. In a design where the rear side marker function and the rear tail lamp use the same optical source (minor filament of a 1157 or similar bulb), is it acceptable to have an overriding-flashing signal visible through the rear side marker lens when the signal lamp is actuated?
We are attempting to market a new product within the near future and do not wish to proceed until the above is cleared. Therefore we would appreciate your response to your questions as soon as possible.
Kindly accept our thanks for your prompt attention to this request. Do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of additional assistance. Sincerely,
TRUCK-LITE CO., INC. John E. Bennett Director - Research & Engineering JEB:h cc: R. Kotsi |
|
ID: nht74-1.23OpenDATE: 08/01/74 FROM: R. B. Dyson -- NHTSA TO: General Motors Corporation, David A. Martin (ASE) TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to General Motors' July 10, 1974, request for interpretation of paragraph S3., Application, of Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses, relative to brake booster hose. You refer to language in the preamble to Docket No. 1-5; Notice 11, published June 28, 1974 (39 FR 24012), which stated: The NHTSA has concluded that the difference in requirements for the hydraulic booster system justifies special performance requirements for this application. Until these requirements are developed, hydraulic brake booster hose running from pump to accumulator will be considered to be exempt from the requirements of this standard. Hose running from accumulator to booster will also be exempted if redundant booster is provided. This language exempts hoses used in certain functions, but not all. Clearly, booster hose running from accumulator to booster without redundant boost would not be exempt. Therefore, your conclusion that Standard No. 106-74 does not apply to any hydraulic brake booster hose, hydraulic brake booster hose end fittings, or hydraulic brake booster hose assemblies is overbroad and for that reason incorrect. We suggest you describe in another letter the booster applications in General Motors vehicles which are not clearly categorized by the Notice 11 language. We will then be able to tell you whether or not they are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106-74. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel August 5 - RAR,RLL,DPD,JAN LCL,WCC,CRS,GFB USG 1137 July 10, 1974 Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590 Dear Dr. Gregory: This letter requests an interpretation of paragraph S3., Application of the amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106-74, Brake Hoses (Docket 1-5, Notice 11, published on June 28, 1974) as it relates to hydraulic brake hoses. The General Motors petition (USG 1087, dated 3/27/74) for the exclusion of hydraulic booster hoses from applicability under MVSS 106 explained that both the low and high pressure hoses associated with the General Motors hydraulically boosted brake power assist units should be excluded from the hydraulic brake hose performance requirements due to their different working environment and construction. Moreover, we explained that the working fluid within these hydraulic booster hoses and the hydraulically boosted brake power assist unit is completely separate from the brake system master cylinder and the hydraulic brake hoses which contain the hydraulic brake fluid used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes. Notice 11 preamble refers to this General Motors petition requesting exclusion of hydraulic booster hoses from the MVSS 106-74 requirements and concludes: The NHTSA has concluded that the difference in requirements for the hydraulic booster system justifies special performance requirements for this application. Until these requirements are developed, hydraulic brake booster hose . . . will be considered to be exempt from the requirements of this standard. This portion of the preamble leads General Motors to conclude that the Administrator's intent was to exempt all hydraulic brake booster lines.
Accordingly, General Motors interpretation of paragraph S3., Application, is that MVSS 106-74 does not apply to hydraulic brake booster hose, hydraulic brake booster hose end fittings, or hydraulic brake booster hose assemblies. A prompt verification of this interpretation is urgently needed, particularly since the amendment itself does not contain any provision stating that MVSS 106-74 is not applicable to hydraulic brake booster hoses, end fittings, and assemblies. Very truly yours, David E. Martin, Manager Automotive Safety Engineering ld |
|
ID: nht71-3.35OpenDATE: 07/14/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Bandag Incorporated TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1971 to Mr. E. H. Wallace concerning the methods one of your dealers is using to place the identification number on tires he retreads. The manner in which your retreader in placing the identification number on the tires he retreads is not in conformity with(Illegible Word) 574 because the regulation requires, in Figure 2, that the "H" and the retreader's identification code be parallel with the rest of the tire identification(Illegible Word). The only thing that can be above, below, or to the left or right of the tire identification number is the "DOT" certification which is not applicable to retread tires until such time as the retread tire standard becomes(Illegible Word). |
|
ID: 08-007276as smidlerOpenMr. Francis S. Smidler Director of Project Engineering Wabash National Corp. P.O. Box 6129 Lafayette, IN 47903 Dear Mr. Smidler: This responds to your letter concerning a trailer you are developing for the transport of long items, such as windmill blades. You ask whether your telescoping trailer design would be considered by NHTSA to be a pole trailer, and thus excluded from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear Impact Protection. Based on our understanding of the information you provided in your letter, our answer is yes. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. The definition of a pole trailer, set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, reads as follows: Pole trailer means a motor vehicle without motive power designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle and attached to the towing vehicle by means of a reach or pole, or being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle, for transporting long or irregularly shaped loads such as poles, pipes, or structural members capable generally of sustaining themselves as beams between the supporting connections. In describing your vehicle, you state that: The trailer has three main frame sections that telescope out from each other. From a closed length of 53 feet it can be extended to 128 feet or more. In addition, the bolster and rear frame can also be extended out further aft to accommodate payloads that may extend beyond the length of the main frame. We note that the definition of pole trailer has two parts. The first is that the vehicle must be a vehicle without motive power, and must be attached to the towing vehicle by means of a reach or pole, or being boomed or otherwise secured to the towing vehicle. We assume for the purposes of this letter that your trailer is unpowered, and that it would be otherwise secured to the towing vehicle. Thus, it meets this first part of the definition. The second part concerns the use for which the trailer was designed (for transporting long or irregularly shaped loads such as poles, pipes, or structural members capable generally of sustaining themselves as beams between the supporting connections). This means that the items pole trailers are designed to transport must be capable of being laid or secured across any gulf or gap between supporting connections. They have to be capable generally of sustaining themselves as beams. Windmill blades, like poles and pipes, are contiguous structural members that are capable of supporting themselves as beams. Thus, the second part of the definition appears to be met. Given what you have described in your letter, we have determined that your trailer meets the definition of a pole trailer. However, we note that you did not provide a picture or description of the telescoping frame sections that attach the rear part of the trailer to the tractor. If further information led us to believe that the trailer was capable of, and in fact used for, carrying loads other than those for which a pole trailer is designed, that could provide cause to change our determination. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:224 d.2/26/09 |
2009 |
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.