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: aiam3668OpenMr. Yang Ru-tang, General Manager, China United Trading Corp., Ltd., Shanghai Division, One Penn Plaza, Suite 1915, 250 W. 34th Street, New York, NY 10119; Mr. Yang Ru-tang General Manager China United Trading Corp. Ltd. Shanghai Division One Penn Plaza Suite 1915 250 W. 34th Street New York NY 10119; Dear Mr. Yang: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements fo importing tires into this country from China. I have enclosed a copy of a 1981 letter I sent to Mr. Deng Shin- Wen, the chief engineer of the Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant. That letter generally explains the requirements which must be met in order to import tires into this country. While that letter answers many of your questions, I will repeat the requirements to ensure that you understand them, and respond to those questions not covered in the previous letter.; To receive a DOT code mark, a tire manufacturer must complete th enclosed application form and return it to the address shown on the form. A separate application must be filed for each manufacturing plant, and a separate code mark will be assigned to each plant.; Before a code mark is assigned, the tire manufacturer must designate a agent for the service of process, according to the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45 (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the designation of agent must meet the following six criteria:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear his name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent, the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. When this agency has received a completed application for a code mark and a valid designation of an agent, a code mark will be assigned to the manufacturer promptly, usually within two weeks. You should note that the code mark is sent to the manufacturer at the mailing or main office address shown on the application, and not to the designated agent. The DOT code mark assigned to the manufacturer remains valid until such time as the manufacturer notifies this agency that it is no longer using that code mark.; No testing of the tires is done by this agency before assigning the DO code mark. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which the manufacturer is required to deliver tires to be certified to the governmental entity for approval. Instead, in the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109) if they are passenger car tires or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119) if the tires are for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable standards. Certainly, we recommend that a manufacturer selling tires in the United States test those tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standards, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters 'DOT' on one sidewall of each certified tire.; For purposes of enforcement this agency conducts spot checks of tire after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken.; If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with th applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires which fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:; (1) repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or (2) replace the tires with an identical or reasonably equivalent tir which does not have the defect or noncompliance.; Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bea the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy.; With respect to the markings required on the sidewall of the tires those markings and their required size and location are set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and S6.5 of Standard No. 119 for tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part Part (sic) 574 (copy enclosed) also sets forth marking requirements for all types of tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject or need furthe information, please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4009OpenMr. Edmund Gabler, Colonial House, Apartment 507, 1150 Atlantic Shores Blvd., Hallandale, FL 33009; Mr. Edmund Gabler Colonial House Apartment 507 1150 Atlantic Shores Blvd. Hallandale FL 33009; Dear Mr. Gabler: Thank you for your letter asking about our requirements for lap belt and expressing your views on state laws requiring the proper use of safety belts. We appreciate hearing from concerned citizens on the important subject of improved motor vehicle safety.; You asked whether safety belts on your county buses are legal if thos belts are designed only as lap belts and do not restrain both the pelvic and upper torso areas of the body. The answer to your question is that those belts are permitted to be installed on buses. Some background information may be helpful. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. Our Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, requires installation of safety belts in new motor vehicles.; Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type o vehicle. For large 'buses' (i.e., those carrying 11 or more persons), the standard requires installation of a lap belt for the driver. The passenger seats on buses are not required to have belts, but lap belts may be installed if desired. For smaller van-type 'buses' (i.e., those carrying 10 or fewer persons) and for passenger cars, the standard requires installation of lap-and-shoulder belts for the driver and right-front passenger positions, and lap belts for all other seating positions.; Safety belt usage requirements are established by the states, not b the Federal government. To date, 14 states have enacted safety belt use laws, and two other states have belt use laws awaiting gubernatorial approval. Those laws generally require belt usage only in passenger cars, we are not aware of any state which requires belt usage in buses. Moreover, as a practical matter, belt use requirements are limited to the equipment actually installed in the vehicle. This agency does urge all motorists to use safety belts wherever they are available, regardless of whether usage is required by state law.; In your letter, you stated your disapproval of state laws that requir the use of safety belts by motorists. You expressed concerns that being restrained by a belt would be unsafe in an accident and that belt usage laws invade your privacy. We appreciate this opportunity to explain our position on those issues relating to belt usage laws, and hope that this discussion will help shed some light on this very important topic.; You seem to believe that the chances of escaping injury in a crash ar greater if safety belts are not worn. Our accident data clearly show that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. Our traffic records show that vehicle occupants who do not wear their safety belts are nearly twice as likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries than belted occupants. One important reason is that belt usage reduces that likelihood of being thrown outside the vehicle in a crash. We estimate that ejected occupants are 25 times more likely to be killed than those who remain inside the car. Even in the rare cases of vehicle fires or submersion under water, the use of a safety belt improves the chances for survival by keeping the occupants conscious and uninjured so that they may escape quickly.; While we believe the evidence is overwhelming as to the benefits o safety belt usage, we recognize that there are always a few exceptions to the general rule. We are aware that belt usage is not a panacea, some accidents are so severe that injuries or fatalities will result regardless of whether any occupant protection systems are used. However, we believe that the preliminary data from New York, the first state to enact a belt use law, confirms our belief in the lifesaving potential of belt usage. The New York belt usage law went into effect on January 1 of this year and belt usage climbed to roughly 60 percent, and traffic deaths during the first six months of the year declined by 18 percent compared to the same period last year.; We recognize that a safety belt use law requires an action that man people do not take voluntarily. However, all traffic laws involve some restraint on individual behavior. Most are accepted without a second thought: we drive on the right side of the road, obey speed limits and stop at red lights. In many cases, the failure of motorists to obey these laws will have an impact on other motorists as well as themselves. The same is true for failing to wear safety belts, because automobile accidents have many 'victims'--family, friends, employers and taxpayers--all of whom bear some measure of the human and economic cost. During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic injuries and deaths have resulted in an annual cost to society of $57 billion resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenues. We believe that the relatively small intrusion resulting from safety belt use laws is justified by the substantial societal burden of vehicle-related deaths and injury.; Thank you again for sharing your views with us. I hope this informatio is helpful.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2637OpenMr. John B. White, Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept., Michelin Tire Corporation, New Hyde Park P.O., P.O. Box 3467, New York 11040; Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept. Michelin Tire Corporation New Hyde Park P.O. P.O. Box 3467 New York 11040; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your June 7, 1977, letter asking who must mark a ri in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, in those cases where the rim is manufactured by one manufacturer and then supplied to a wheel manufacturer who welds the rim to a disk making a completed wheel.; The National Traffic Safety Administration has determined that the ri marking must be undertaken by the rim manufacturer. The rim manufacturer is best able to supply the required rim information and undertake the certification required by S5.2 of the standard. The subsequent addition of the disc to the rim should not alter the information marked on the rim.; Sincerely, Joseph J., Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1443OpenMr. Dick Umphrey, Director of Marketing, American Bumper Sales Company, 1150 E. Slauson Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90011; Mr. Dick Umphrey Director of Marketing American Bumper Sales Company 1150 E. Slauson Avenue Los Angeles CA 90011; Dear Mr. Umphrey: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1974, concerning th effect of the rules issued under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act upon the manufacture of after-market pickup truck bumpers.; If your sales are confined to the after-market, it is unlikely that an rules issued under the Act will affect you directly. At present, the bumper standard proposed under Title I of the Act would apply only to passenger cars. If other types of vehicles are subsequently included, the rules would affect you only insofar as they may affect the design of the vehicles on which your bumpers would be mounted.; The rule to be issued by February 1, 1975, relates only to insuranc costs and would have little or no effect on your business.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2700OpenMr. David R. Sapp, Assistant General Counsel, Texas Automobile Dealers Association, 1108 Lavaca, P.O. Box 1028, Austin, TX 78767; Mr. David R. Sapp Assistant General Counsel Texas Automobile Dealers Association 1108 Lavaca P.O. Box 1028 Austin TX 78767; Dear Mr. Sapp: This responds to your October 5, 1977, letter requesting a furthe clarification of our interpretation given to you on September 1, 1977, concerning 'kit cars.'; You ask whether there is a requirement to certify the vehicle if it i manufactured using an old chassis. As we stated to you in our first letter, the assembly of such a vehicle is not the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The certification requirements of Part 567 of our regulations apply only to new motor vehicles or the alteration of previously certified vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale. Since your remanufacturing operation constitutes neither the manufacture of a new motor vehicle nor the alteration of a previously certified vehicle, your vehicle would not be required to be certified.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2588OpenMr. Joseph W. Kennebeck, Manager, Emissions, Safety and Development, Volkswagen of America, Inc., 818 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632; Mr. Joseph W. Kennebeck Manager Emissions Safety and Development Volkswagen of America Inc. 818 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs N.J. 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to Volkswagen's March 9, 1977, petition fo reconsideration of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; Procedures for processing petitions for reconsideration are contains i the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 553. Part 553.35(c) states that '[t]he Administrator does not consider repetitious petitions.' Your March 9 petitions raises two issues that were also discussed in your February 20, 1976, petition for reconsideration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) carefully considered those issues in our February 7, 1977 (42 FR 7140) response to petitions for reconsideration. Since the Agency has considered these issues previously, the NHTSA declines to consider them again as you suggest.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2823OpenMr. Don H. Pendergrass, Norris Industries, 1225 West Imperial Highway, Brea, California 92621; Mr. Don H. Pendergrass Norris Industries 1225 West Imperial Highway Brea California 92621; Dear Mr. Pendergrass: This responds to your January 7, 1978, letter asking whether final-stage wheel manufacturer is permitted to mark a rim in accordance with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. The standard currently specifies that rim marking shall be done by a rim manufacturer, not a final-stage wheel manufacturer.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ha previously determined that a rim manufacturer is the responsible party for rim marking. The language of the standard is specific in this requirement. The agency, however, is reviewing the standard with a view to its possible modification along the lines suggested in your letter. Should the agency decide to amend the standard, a notice proposing such change would first be published in the Federal Register. A final rule would only be issued following analysis of comments submitted by interested parties.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1327OpenMr. L. Clinton Rich, R.F. & W. Auto Wheel Service, 2807 Cresmont Avenue, Baltimore, Md. 21211; Mr. L. Clinton Rich R.F. & W. Auto Wheel Service 2807 Cresmont Avenue Baltimore Md. 21211; Dear Mr. Rich: Confirming our recent conversation: No Federal motor vehicle safet standard regulates the straightening and subsequent sale of motor vehicle wheels.; Our regulations are applicable to the manufacture and sale of new moto vehicle and motor vehicle equipment only up to the point of their first sale for purposes other than resale. I assume that straightened wheels are used equipment that has been reworked, and as such they would not be subject to any standard unless they were placed on new vehicles as original equipment. There is a standard, No. 110, that applies to passenger cars, requiring the wheel rims to meet the rim manufacturer's specified rim dimensions and to retain a tire which loses all pressure at 60 miles per hour.; A regulation applying directly to wheels is under consideration, but i would still apply only to new equipment and vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1536OpenGerahd(sic) P. Riechel, Attorney, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632; Gerahd(sic) P. Riechel Attorney Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632; Dear Mr. Riechel: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1974 informing us tha Volkswagen of America, Inc. has decided not to initiate a notification campaign as a result of a technical violation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110. You ask for our concurrence in your decision.; The designated seating capacity of the Dasher vehicle is 5 (2 in front 3 in rear) and you have informed us that 'some early production cars' bore tire inflation pressure labels stating that the capacity was 4 (2 in front, 2 in rear). The other required information (vehicle capacity weight, tire size designation, and recommended inflation pressures) are, you state, correctly indicated.; We agree with you that 'religious observance of the instruction contained on the placard would provide the car with additional load capacity that would go unused', and have concluded that the situation you describe does not indicate the existence of a safety-related defect.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1452OpenMr. J.K. White,Domi Racer Distributors, inc.,5218 Wooster Road,Cincinnati, Ohio 45226; Mr. J.K. White Domi Racer Distributors inc. 5218 Wooster Road Cincinnati Ohio 45226; Dear Mr. White:#This responds to your March 19, 1974, request to kno if aircraft hydraulic hose is suitable for motor vehicle use under Standard 106, *Brake hoses*.#Standard No. 106, *Brake hoses*, presently applies to hydraulic brake hose for use in passenger cars, and therefore sale of aircraft hydraulic hose for use in motorcycles is presently legal. However, Standard 106 has been recently amended to require extensive performance testing and labeling of all motor vehicle brake hose manufactured after September 1, 1974. Sale of an aircraft hose manufactured after that date which has not been certified to conform to Standard 106 would violate S108 (a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. This means that the hose must be properly tested for conformity to the standard, and labeled according to the standard, before it can be sold as motor vehicle hose.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
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.