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: nht75-5.6OpenDATE: 12/24/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Conti Rubber Products TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your October 29, 1975, letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, to moped tires. Mopeds are classified under 49 CFR 571.3 as "motor-driven cycles", a subcategory of "motorcycles", for the purposes of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations. Therefore, tires designed for use on mopeds are tires designed for use on motorcycles and, as such, are subject to Standard No. 119. The NHTSA is considering an amendment of Standard No. 119 which would modify the requirements applicable to such tires, and expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the near future. Yours truly, ATTACH. Conti RUBBER PRODUCTS INC. October 29, 1975 Frank Berudt -- Acting Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Berudt: We would appreciate receiving a ruling whether MOPED tires in the sizes 2-17 and 2 1/4-17 fall under MVSS119. A MOPED is a motorized bicycle with a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour. We would appreciate your fastest possible reply. Very truly yours, George H. Schildge -- Exec. Vice President |
|
ID: 9344Open Ms. Kathryn A. Roach Dear Ms. Roach: This responds to your letter of November 11, 1993, requesting confirmation of a statement made by a NHTSA engineer that there is no federal regulation that requires replacement of a deployed air bag. I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref: 208 d:1/10/94 |
1994 |
ID: nht69-1.50OpenDATE: 04/29/69 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA TO: Hueck and Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 22, 1969, requesting a clarification of the location requirements for license plate lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. As you indicated, Standard No. 108 currently references SAE Standard J587B and also permits the location of license plate lamps at the top, side or bottom of the license plate. The latest revision of SAE Standard J587 (J587c) is no way changes the location provision of Standard No. 108. Therefore, a license plate lamp assembly may be tested according to SAE Standard J587b and Standard No. 108 when the license plate is illuminated from the bottom. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 states: "Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." Therefore, any State regulations on the location of license plate lamps should be identical to the requirements of Standard No. 108 on and after the effective date of the standard. |
|
ID: nht72-6.54OpenDATE: 06/08/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA TO: Scott's Trailer Market TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 10, 1972 to Mr. E. T. Driver requesting further clarification of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulations concerning your responsibility as a seller of trailer coaches. The regulation does not distinguish between the responsibility of manufacturers, distributors and dealers of trailer coaches as opposed to manufacturers, distributors and dealers of other type vehicles. Therefore, a manufacturer of a trailer coach is required, pursuant to section 574.10 of the regulation, to maintain a record of tires shipped on or in the vehicle and the name and address of the purchaser of the vehicle. The manufacturer is free to use the tire identification system on the tire or any other system as long as the system would enable him to notify the purchaser of the vehicle in the event the tires the vehicle is equipped with become the subject of a recall. Therefore, in most cases, if the manufacturer obtains the name of the purchaser from the seller and is able to identify the tires on the vehicle, he is able to meet this requirement. The method the manufacturer uses to maintain a record of the tires on the vehicle appears to vary, but the efficiency of that record is the responsibility of the manufacturer. On the other hand, if the vehicle dealer changes tires prior to the sale to the user, the manufacturer is no longer responsible for maintaining the record of the tires on the vehicle. In this case section 574.9(b) of the regulation would apply and the vehicle dealer would have to send the name and address of the purchaser of the vehicle, the tire identification number of the tire on the vehicle, and the dealer's name and address to the manufacturer of the tires. For your convenience enclosed is a copy of the regulation. |
|
ID: nht92-3.32OpenDATE: 10/02/92 FROM: FREDD SCHEYS -- PRESIDENT, S.C.C. CARAT INC. TO: PAUL J. RICE -- CHIEF COUNSIL, NHTSA; TAYLOR VINSON ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO FREDD SCHEYS (A40; PART 567) TEXT: Since our phone convertation on monday 9, 28, 1992, I would like to ask four your advice regarding the following questions. I am the official importer for CARAT DUCHATELET from Belgium. From the accompanying literature you can see the history of our company and the kind of work we do on Mercedes Benz and Rolls Royce motorcars. Since my first year here, I have conducted market surveys pertaining to the need for the type of convertions which we offer. I now have a customer here in the United States who would like his cars under go our conversion process. This particular klient lives in California and has allready purchased two new Mercedes Benz cars, U.S. specs, type 600 SEL. Both cars are titled in de owners name. He would like for our company to install a stretch convertion and in this case I would send these cars to our company in Belgium. There they would be stretched by an additional thirty-nine inches and the cars would than be shipped back to the United States. My questions is, what are the regulations which we will have to follow in this case? Also I would like to ask four your advice for the next case; An American klient can buy his U.S. spec car from a local Mercedes dealership with delivery from the Mercedes factory in Germany. When the car is ready he flyes to the factory and takes delivery of his car. After a trip in Europe he leaves his car in our company for a stretch convertion. After this convertion is done we ship the car back to the customer in the United States. . What are the regulations we will have to follow in this case? Also I like to ask your advice for the case where we have to convert a car into a armoured car. I would like to thank you for your help and advice in these matters. (ATTACHMENT OMITTED.) |
|
ID: nht75-2.25OpenDATE: 08/18/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Holiday Rambler Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of June 23, 1975, which inquired about the status of proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. The NHTSA expects to issue Standard No. 120 in the near future. It will not become effective September 1, 1975. An effective date which allows adequate lead time for manufacturers to prepare for compliance will be specified in a Federal Register notice when the rule is issued. Your second question, concerning the responsibility for providing GAWR and GVWR information for motor homes manufactured by you with chassis supplied by other manufacturers, will also be answered in that notice. SINCERELY, June 23, 1975 Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration This letter is in reference to proposed F.M.V.S.S. 120. Holiday Rambler Corporation is a large manufacturer of recreational vehicles and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles. As regards to the proposed Standard 120, we request your answer to the following questions. 1. What is the present status of this proposed standard; Does the effective date remain September 1, 1975? 2. HRC purchases from various manufacturers large numbers of chassis-cab type truck chassis for use in class "C" motor homes and commercial vehicles and will purchase a number of regular truck chassis for use in Class "A" Motor Homes. These manufacturers certify these "incomplete vehicles" at a specified G.V.W.R. and G.A.W.R. which our completed vehicle may not exceed. As regards proposed Standard 120 then, would the incomplete vehicle manufacturer be responsible for furnishing the required information label, or would HRC be responsible using such information as supplied by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer? Thank you for your time and consideration. If this letter requires further explanation, please feel free to call me at 219 862-4551. Otherwise you may address your reply to the address below. Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated. Terrell T. Coleman Codes and Standards Co-Ordinator CC: S. MOSS; T. COLEMAN |
|
ID: nht95-4.98OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 8, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Patrick Holmes TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 10/01/95 letter (est) from Patrick Holmes to whom it may concern (occ 11357) TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, if you manufacture a motorcycle helmet for personal use, and ensure that your helmet meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 Motorcycle helmets, you may certify the helmet. Subject to qualifications explained below, the answer is yes. NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the FMVSSs is Standard No. 218. In 49 U.S.C. section 30115, a self-certification system is estab lished whereby the vehicle or equipment manufacturer is responsible for exercising "reasonable care" in certifying the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. Section 30115 states: "A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect." I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities for manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note the discussion on page two concerning manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, as noted on page two, Part 566 of our regulations requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., motorcycle helmets) to submit identifying informatio n to NHTSA, with a description of the items they produce. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 and of Standard No. 218 for your information. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Enclosures omitted. |
|
ID: nht95-7.55OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 8, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Patrick Holmes TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 10/01/95 letter (est) from Patrick Holmes to whom it may concern (occ 11357) TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, if you manufacture a motorcycle helmet for personal use, and ensure that your helmet meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 Motorcycle helmets, you may certify the helmet. Subject to qualifications explained below, the answer is yes. NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the FMVSSs is Standard No. 218. In 49 U.S.C. section 30115, a self-certification system is established whereby the vehicle or equipment manufacturer is responsible for exercising "reasonable care" in certifying the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. Section 30115 states: "A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect." I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities for manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note the discussion on page two concerning manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, as noted on page two, Part 566 of our regulations requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., motorcycle helmets) to submit identifying information to NHTSA, with a description of the items they produce. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 and of Standard No. 218 for your information. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Enclosures omitted. |
|
ID: nht74-4.13OpenDATE: 07/10/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: University of Virginia TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1974, asking whether there are any Federal laws that would have a bearing on the University of Virginia's contemplated decision to purchase a tire grooving machine to regroove tires that will be used on buses operated by the University. The NHTSA has recently amended Federal "Regrooved Tire" regulations (49 CFR 569, copy enclosed) to prohibit any person from regrooving his own tires (49 CFR @ 569.7). The regulation would apply to the University with respect to the tires you contemplate regrooving for use on university buses, and should certainly bear on your decision to purchase a tire regrooving machine. The amendment to the regulation resulted from litigation National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar, 483 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973) in which the United States Court of Appeals held that under section 204 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1524) Congress authorized this agency to permit only the sale of regrooved tires. There are presently some efforts being made in the Congress to amend the Safety Act to alter the effect of this court decision. No final action of any kind has been taken, however, and we do not know whether or when such action might be taken. ENC. |
|
ID: 11357Open Mr. Patrick Holmes Dear Mr. Holmes: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, if you manufacture a motorcycle helmet for personal use, and ensure that your helmet meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 Motorcycle helmets, you may certify the helmet. Subject to qualifications explained below, the answer is yes. NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the FMVSSs is Standard No. 218. In 49 U.S.C. section 30115, a self-certification system is established whereby the vehicle or equipment manufacturer is responsible for exercising "reasonable care" in certifying the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. Section 30115 states: "A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect." I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities for manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note the discussion on page two concerning manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, as noted on page two, Part 566 of our regulations requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., motorcycle helmets) to submit identifying information to NHTSA, with a description of the items they produce. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 and of Standard No. 218 for your information. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:218 d:12/8/95
|
1995 |
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.