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: 08-000763--26 Feb 08--rlsOpenMr. Jack Jay McCracken Assistant Secretary Cooper Tire and Rubber Company 701 Lima Avenue Findlay, OH 45840-2315 Dear Mr. McCracken: This responds to your letter concerning laser-etched[1] date codes in the tire identification number (TIN) required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles, and Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 574 (49 CFR Part 574), Tire identification and recordkeeping. You ask whether FMVSS No. 139 and Part 574 would permit laser-etched date codes in the TIN at a minimum depth of 0.010 inches. Based on the information you provided and the analysis below, the answer to your question is yes, as FMVSS No. 139 and 49 CFR Part 574 do not specify a minimum depth for laser-etched date codes. However, please note that the agency is considering addressing in an upcoming rulemaking whether a minimum depth should be required for laser-etched date codes. By way of background, your letter states that you currently use traditional molded date codes to comply with the TIN requirement, but that you are considering switching to laser etching for the date codes for both technician safety and time-saving reasons. You believe that a laser-etched date code at a depth of 0.010 inches is at least as legible as a traditional molded date code with a depth of 0.020 inches. Further, you note that a depth of 0.020 inches for laser etching may create an undesirable cosmetic effect for some whitewall tires, in that at this depth, the white layer of rubber inside the sidewall would sometimes show through in one or more of the date code numbers. Discussion FMVSS No. 139, at paragraph S5.5.1(b), states that each tire manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 must be labeled with the TIN required by 49 CFR Part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire. 49 CFR Part 574, at 574.5, states that the TIN must be permanently molded into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1. Figure 1 specifies at Note 1: Tire identification number shall be in Futura Bold, Modified Condensed or Gothic characters permanently molded (0.020 to 0.040) deep. Section 574.5 also states that: at the option of the manufacturer, the information contained in paragraph (d) of this section [the date code section of the TIN] may, instead of being permanently molded, be laser etched into or onto the sidewall in the location specified in Figure 1. The question you raise is whether a date code laser-etched in the location specified in Figure 1 may have a minimum depth of 0.010 inches. Our answer is yes. Section 574.5 states that molding must be done in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, but states for etching only that it must be done in the location specified in Figure 1. In addition, Note 1 of Figure 1, as written, specifies the 0.020-0.040 inch depth only for permanent molding. Because 574.5 and Note 1 do not clearly specify that laser etching must be to the same depth as molding, you may laser etch the date codes at a shallower depth than 0.020 inch. Keep in mind, however, that we believe a depth requirement for laser etching should be considered to ensure sufficient long-term legibility of the TIN and date code. We plan to address the issue in an upcoming rulemaking on Part 574. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:574 d.5/8/08 [1] You use the term engraved instead of etched. The regulation at issue, 49 CFR Part 574, uses the term etched. For purposes of this letter, we consider engraved and etched to be synonomous and will use the term etched for consistency with Part 574. |
2008 |
ID: 10923Open Mr. Douglas Helbig Dear Mr. Helbig: This responds to your letter asking me to confirm your belief that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lacks the authority to require the periodic reinspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on alternative fuel motor vehicles. You are correct. NHTSA has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment. I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:303 d:6/7/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10992Open Mr. John Renock Dear Mr. Renock: Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for your Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Transit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years. The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With regard to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you. NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: M. Judson Brown ref:304 d:7/18/95
|
1995 |
ID: Hyundai_flaps_and_dotsOpenRobert Babcock, Manager Dear Mr. Babcock: This responds to your letter concerning the lower anchorage marking requirements in S9.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). As explained below, the concept you ask about would be permitted. By way of background, FMVSS No. 225 requires vehicles to have child restraint anchorage systems consisting of two lower bars and a tether anchorage. The standard contains "marking and conspicuity" requirements for the lower bars to increase the likelihood that consumers will know that a child restraint anchorage system is present in their vehicle and that they will use it. These requirements are for manufacturers either to mark the vehicle seat back with a small circle where the bars are located (S9.5(a)), or to install a child restraint anchorage system such that the bars are visible (S9.5(b)). You request confirmation "that the marking and conspicuity requirements of S9.5 are satisfied when child seat anchorages that are covered with a removable flap or cover are identified with words, symbols or pictograms within the spacing limitations provided by S9.5(a)(3)". Stated differently, you ask whether, having marked the seat back as specified by S9.5(a), you may cover the bars with an unmarked removable cap or cover. Our answer is yes, the cover is permitted, even if the cover is unmarked. In the situation you describe, Hyundais marking the vehicle seat back with the small circles specified in S9.5(a) satisfies the marking and conspicuity requirements of FMVSS No. 225. Having met the requirements by the option of S9.5(a), you are not prohibited from placing a cover over the bars. In fact, the requirements of S9.5(a) presume that the lower bars are hidden from view. Covering them as you describe is therefore not a problem. We assume, of course, that the covers will not obscure the circles required by S9.5(a). If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:225 |
2005 |
ID: GF003171OpenMr. Timothy C. Murphy Dear Mr. Murphy: This responds to your April 8, 2005, letter asking about clearance lamp location requirements for trailers equipped with outboard fenders. Your letter and accompanying diagrams show a dual axle trailer equipped with outboard fenders each extending approximately 10 inches from the main body of the trailer. The outer edges of the fenders are the widest part of the trailer. Specifically, the main body of the trailer measures 81 inches, and the distance between the outer edges of the trailer measured at the fenders is 102 inches. You intend to install both front and rear clearance lamps on the top of each fender, instead of on the main body of the trailer. You ask whether this is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that for a trailer with an overall width of 80 inches or more, the front and rear clearance lamps must be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . and as near the top thereof as practicable." As explained in our March 4, 1996, letter to Mr. Jerry Clay, when the widest part of a trailer is the outer edge of the fender, locating the front and rear clearance lamps on the fender satisfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 because the lamps would indicate the overall width of the trailer (see also, our September 4 letter to John W. Cook). By contrast, locating the clearance lamps on the main body of the trailer would not adequately indicate the overall width of the vehicle. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman NCC-112:Gfeygin:mar:5/13/05:62992:OCC 003171 |
|
ID: 21249.rbmOpen Mr. Thomas W. Blasingame Dear Mr. Blasingame: This letter responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) authorize you to certify a vehicle as a "modular truck/tractor chassis". I apologize for the delay in NHTSA's response. Your letter requesting a legal interpretation included a service manual for which you subsequently requested confidential treatment. Your request for confidential treatment was granted on August 29, 2000. You indicate in your letter that your company wants to market a new vehicle that can operate either as a truck or as a truck tractor. NHTSA does not have a vehicle classification for this type of hybrid vehicle. Rather, our regulations provide for a "truck", which is defined as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment, and "truck tractor", which is a truck designed primarily for drawing other motor vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn (49 CFR 571.3). While we do not specifically address hybrid vehicles such as yours in our regulations, nothing in the regulations would prohibit a manufacturer from certifying a particular vehicle as complying with all applicable safety standards for separate vehicle types. Thus, we would not object to your classifying your vehicles as "truck/truck tractors". Please note, however, that such a characterization would require your company to certify compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that are applicable to both vehicle types. As a practical matter, only FMVSS No. 108 and FMVSS No. 121 currently have requirements for truck tractors that are in addition to or different from the requirements for trucks. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, ref:567 |
2000 |
ID: nht95-3.2OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: June 7, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Douglas Helbig -- Vice President, Spencer Testing Services TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM DOUGLAS C. HELBIG TO JOHN WOMACK TEXT: Dear Mr. Helbig: This responds to your letter asking me to confirm your belief that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lacks the authority to require the periodic reinspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on altern ative fuel motor vehicles. You are correct. NHTSA has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container inte grity (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 a nd be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment. I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous mater ials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor veh icle. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht95-3.42OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 13, 1995 FROM: D. L. O'Connor -- Manager, Government And Customer Compliance, The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company TO: Walter K. Myers -- Office Of The Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK (STEPHEN WOOD) TO D. L. O'CONNOR (A43; PART 571) TEXT: Dear Walt: Goodyear is encountering difficulties in importing tires that meet all of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) into Colombia, South America. It appears that Colombia is attempting to regulate the quality and safety of all products being im ported into the country which is certainly a worthy goal. Colombia recognizes and accepts the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as adequate to meet the quality and safety levels they desire. The problem Goodyear is encountering is verification that we are a company that complies with all the safety standa rds when we place the DOT symbol on a tire. The Colombian Institute of Technical Standards (ICONTEC) requires a Certificate of Conformity which we provide. A copy of this Certificate is attached. Per our conversation on July 12, 1995, reference this subject, we believe that Goodyear-U.S.A. will be permitted to continue exporting tires to Colombia if NHTSA would recognize/endorse the fact that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and the DOT stamping on our tires is valid. Thank you in advance for your help. Attachment The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001 July 13, 1995 CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY We certified that all tires manufactured by Goodyear-USA which are exported into Colombia are of first quality, and in compliance to the United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, either FMVSS # 109 for new pneu matic tires for passenger cars, or FMVSS # 119 for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. J C Whiteley Vice President Government Compliance & Product Quality D L Knight Director, Tire Technology Latin America Region |
|
ID: nht95-3.48OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 18, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA TO: John Renock -- Director of Operations, Central New York Regional Transport Authority TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM M. JUDSON BROWN TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10992) TEXT: Dear Mr. Renock: Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for your Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Tran sit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years. The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With rega rd to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you. NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel contai ner integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS N o. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht95-5.21OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 13, 1995 FROM: D. L. O'Connor -- Manager, Government And Customer Compliance, The Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company TO: Walter K. Myers -- Office Of The Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/9/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK (STEPHEN WOOD) TO D. L. O'CONNOR (A43; PART 571) TEXT: Dear Walt: Goodyear is encountering difficulties in importing tires that meet all of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) into Colombia, South America. It appears that Colombia is attempting to regulate the quality and safety of all products being imported into the country which is certainly a worthy goal. Colombia recognizes and accepts the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as adequate to meet the quality and safety levels they desire. The problem Goodyear is encountering is verification that we are a company that complies with all the safety standards when we place the DOT symbol on a tire. The Colombian Institute of Technical Standards (ICONTEC) requires a Certificate of Conformity which we provide. A copy of this Certificate is attached. Per our conversation on July 12, 1995, reference this subject, we believe that Goodyear-U.S.A. will be permitted to continue exporting tires to Colombia if NHTSA would recognize/endorse the fact that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and the DOT stamping on our tires is valid. Thank you in advance for your help. Attachment The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001 July 13, 1995 CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY We certified that all tires manufactured by Goodyear-USA which are exported into Colombia are of first quality, and in compliance to the United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, either FMVSS # 109 for new pneumatic tires for passenger cars, or FMVSS # 119 for new pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. J C Whiteley Vice President Government Compliance & Product Quality D L Knight Director, Tire Technology Latin America Region |
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.