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: aiam2354OpenMr. Roland E. Moser, Road America Tire, 13230 NE Bellevue-Redmond Rd., Bellevue, Washington 98005; Mr. Roland E. Moser Road America Tire 13230 NE Bellevue-Redmond Rd. Bellevue Washington 98005; Dear Mr. Moser: This is in response to your May 19, 1976, letter concerning th responsibilities that you would have as an importer and distributer of Dunlop passenger car tires. I understand that the tires would, before importation, be certified by Dunlop as conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*, and labeled with a tire identification number as required by 40 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*. This particular line of tires would at first be imported by Road America Tire but not by Dunlop Rubber and Tire Co. of Buffalo, New York (Dunlop New York), the usual importer of Dunlop tires.; You have inquired about your responsibilities concerning 'recor keeping, recall, and testing', with respect to the tires that you would import. The term 'manufacturer' is defined in Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.) (the Act), to be; >>>any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of moto vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.*(emphasis added)<<<; In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer me an obligation imposed on a 'manufacturer' by the Act or regulations issued thereunder, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party. Please note that S574.8 of Part 574 also establishes requirements applicable to Road America Tire as a distributor of the tires in question.; The above discussion applies to manufacturers' notification and remed obligations set out in Section 151 through 160 of the Act and to the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, among others. The Act does not specifically require any person to conduct tests of his products. Standard No. 109 establishes the performance tests which the NHTSA will conduct to determine conformity. A determination of nonconformity triggers the notification and remedy obligations regardless of the amount of testing the manufacturer has performed.; In conclusion, tires imported by Road America Tire would not be th responsibility of Dunlop New York. Conversely, tires imported by Dunlop New York would not be the responsibility of Road America Tire. While a factual issue might arise concerning which party actually imported a particular tire, such an issue would be resolved on the basis of information available in that particular case. You should note that, were the NHTSA to choose to proceed against Dunlop with respect to a tire imported by Road America Tire, the agency might serve administrative processes, notices, or orders on Dunlop New York. However, Dunlop New York would be served only in its capacity as the foreign Dunlop's designated agent for service of process pursuant to Section 110(e) of the Act, and not in its capacity as an importer.; Copies of the Act and Part 574 are enclosed for your convenience. Yo may rely on this letter in resolving any conflict that you might have with Dunlop New York.; Yours truly, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3115OpenMr. Ronald P. Mitchell, Executive Vice President, Phillips Motor Car Corporation, 1301 West Copan Road, Suite 3E, Pompano Beach, CA 33046; Mr. Ronald P. Mitchell Executive Vice President Phillips Motor Car Corporation 1301 West Copan Road Suite 3E Pompano Beach CA 33046; Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1979, asking whethe Phillips Motor Car Corporation is a 'manufacturer' or 'alterer' of the Berlina Coupe.; As you have described it, Phillips removes the body from a 198 Corvette, lengthens the frame and install (sic) newly manufactured body parts, retaining the interior safety features of the original vehicle.; It is clear from your description that Phillips alters previousl certified vehicles 'other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies ...' and is, therefore, subject to the certification requirements of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. I enclose a copy of the regulation for your information and would be pleased to answer such further questions as you may have.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1128OpenMr. Jack Molesworth, Partner, Signum Plastics, 2501 Poplar Street, Oakland, CA 94607; Mr. Jack Molesworth Partner Signum Plastics 2501 Poplar Street Oakland CA 94607; Dear Mr. Molesworth: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1973, requesting that yo be assigned a 'DOT' code number for purposes of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials'. You state that you purchase acrylic plastic sheet from Thailand and Japan, and indicate that you are sole importers of this material.; Under paragraph S6 of Standard No. 205, the assignment of a code numbe is restricted to prime glazing material manufacturers, who are those manufacturers who either fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. As you import only acrylic sheet, you are not a prime glazing material manufacturer, and the assignment of a code number to you is not appropriate.; I have enclosed a copy of marking requirements for glazing materials Paragraph S6.2 requires a prime glazing material manufacturer to apply a code number, which is obtained upon written request to this agency, to that glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper. The code number requirement does not apply to glazing sheets not designed for a specific motor vehicle or camper. If you plan to import glazing material that is designed for a specific motor vehicle or camper, the prime manufacturer of that material, whether foreign or domestic, must apply for and receive a DOT code number.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief counsel |
|
ID: aiam1082OpenMr. Kazushi Sakashita, Assistant Manager, Export Services Division, Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd., 6047 Fuchu-Machi, Aki-Gun, Hiroshima, Japan; Mr. Kazushi Sakashita Assistant Manager Export Services Division Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd. 6047 Fuchu-Machi Aki-Gun Hiroshima Japan; Dear Mr. Sakashita: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask tw questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacements parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; There are no requirements for the certification of replacement vehicl parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present Standard Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements tha manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that 'due care' was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.; It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or no subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the manufacturer of the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which he will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3545OpenMr. S. Robson, Executive Engineer, Vehicle Regulations, Engineering Division, Mack Trucks, Inc., P. O. Box 1761, Allentown, PA 18105; Mr. S. Robson Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations Engineering Division Mack Trucks Inc. P. O. Box 1761 Allentown PA 18105; Dear Mr. Robson This responds to your January 19, 1982, letter asking whether the hos that connects the air pressure gauge to the service reservoir system must comply with Standard No. 106, *Brake Hoses.* You also ask whether the air pressure gauge is part of the Standard No. 121, *Air Brake System*.; The air pressure gauge to which you refer is required by S5.1.4 o Standard No. 121. Accordingly, it is considered as part of the air brake system. With respect to whether the tubing connecting that gauge to the air supply reservoir must comply with Standard No. 106, that standard defines brake hoses as:; >>>a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.<<<; The agency has previously determined that hoses connected to the ai pressure gauges need not comply with Standard No. 106 if they do not transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle s brakes. To determine whether your system transmits or contains the pressure, you must determine whether a failure of the hose to the gauge would result in a loss of air pressure in the system. If you use a check valve or some other device to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with Standard No. 106. This answer would also apply to other air pressure gauges that you may install to monitor other portions of the brake system performance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4280OpenMr. James R. Mitzenberg, Project Engineer, The Flxible Corporation, 970 Pittsburgh Drive, Delaware, Ohio 43015; Mr. James R. Mitzenberg Project Engineer The Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware Ohio 43015; Dear Mr. Mitzenberg: This is in reply to your letter of January 22, 1987, asking furthe questions of permissible lamp operations.; With reference to the deceleration warning system discussed previousl in our correspondence, you have asked whether there would be a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 if the triple steady burning amber lamps are operated simultaneously wit the steady burning rear stop lamps, or with the flashing turn signal lamp (either red or amber). In neither instance do we believe that an impairment of required lighting equipment would result, within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1578OpenMr. R. L. Limbaugh, General Manager, Rite-Way Inc. of Indiana, 4301 Bluffton Road, Fort Wayne, IN 46809; Mr. R. L. Limbaugh General Manager Rite-Way Inc. of Indiana 4301 Bluffton Road Fort Wayne IN 46809; Dear Mr. Limbaugh: This responds to your July 29, 1974, request for a copy of ou temporary exemption regulations, and for information on the effective date of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, as it applies to vehicles with a driven front axle. I have enclosed a copy of NHTSA's 'Temporary Exemption' regulations, Part 555 of Title 49, the Code of Federal Regulations.; Standard No. 121 applies to trucks manufactured on or after March 1 1975, with only limited exceptions. Fire trucks are excluded from regulation until September 1, 1975, and vehicles with an overall width of 108 inches or more or a gross axle weight rating for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more, are excluded until September 1, 1976.; In addition, a truck manufactured before September 1, 1975, that has front steerable axle with a gross axle weight rating of 16,000 pounds or more, or a front steerable drive axle, is exempt from some of the stopping distance requirements if its brakes conform to a certain retardation force and values. Aside from these exemptions, any truck with a front steerable drive axle must meet all other requirements of the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2906OpenMr. T. F. Brown, Mack Trucks, Inc., P.O. Box 1761, Allentown, PA 18105; Mr. T. F. Brown Mack Trucks Inc. P.O. Box 1761 Allentown PA 18105; Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your October 10, 1978, letter asking whether you ar permitted to mark the certification documents of some of your incomplete vehicles as MACK TRUCKS, INC./RVI. These incomplete vehicles will be manufactured abroad by Renault Vehicules Industriels and imported in the United States by Mack Trucks, Inc.; Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, requires a incomplete vehicle manufacture to furnish with the incomplete vehicle certification its name and mailing address. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states that the term manufacturer includes any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Since your company will be importing these incomplete vehicles and an importer may be considered a manufacturer, it is permissible for you to label incomplete vehicles assembled by Renault with the MACK TRUCKS, INC./RVI designation.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1629OpenMr. Phil Hooley, Federal Codes and Standards Engineer, Starcraft Company, 3010 College Avenue, Goshen, IN 46526; Mr. Phil Hooley Federal Codes and Standards Engineer Starcraft Company 3010 College Avenue Goshen IN 46526; Dear Mr. Hooley: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 74-0170) concerning some camper trailers which may have incorrect inner wheel bearing grease seals installed.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject trailer does not completely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, your letter does not provide an estimate of the day by which dealers will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect as required by Part 577.4(e)(1). Your statement that the inspection and repair procedure 'should not take very long,' is too vague to qualify as an estimate of the time reasonably necessary to perform the necessary labor as required by Part 577.4 (e)(1). The second sentence of your letter is also incorrect in that where the vehicle manufacturers are concerned, the defect should be described as existing in the vehicle itself rather than a specific part or component of the vehicle.; Since the discrepancies in your notification letter do not appear t discourage owner response in this case, mailing of a revised letter will not be required. It is, however, expected that all future defect notification campaigns will conform completely with the applicable regulations.; Although it may be desirable to issue a service bulletin as soon a possible, we do not believe that justification exists for delaying the submission of a defect report beyond the five working days time limit specified by Part 573 (49 CFR). It is therefore expected that all future reports will be submitted on a timely basis.; Copies of Part 577 and Part 573 of the regulations are enclosed. Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3614OpenMr. Shizuo Suzuki, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Suite 707, 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Shizuo Suzuki Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Suzuki: This is in response to your September 23, 1982, letter regarding th applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118, *Power-Operated Window Systems*, to power sunroofs. The agency apparently has never previously addressed this question.; Standard 118 specifies requirements only for power-operated window an partition systems. A power sunroof would be considered neither a 'window' nor a 'partition,' and therefore would not be subject to the standard. Our standard was intended to apply to the typical power side windows and the power tailgate windows of station wagons. The reference to 'partitions' in the standard was adopted as part of the July 23, 1970, final rule establishing Standard 118 and was intended to assure that power-operated interior partitions, such as might be used in a taxi or a limousine, would comply.; Although Standard 118 does not apply to power sunroofs, we strongl recommend that safety precautions along the lines of those established in that standard be incorporated in power sunroof designs. It appears possible that the types of accidents which the standard was intended to prevent could also occur as a result of the unsupervised operation of power sunroofs.; If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.