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: aiam0251OpenMr. Lawrence R. Walders, Tanaka and Walders, Federal Bar Building West, 1819 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006; Mr. Lawrence R. Walders Tanaka and Walders Federal Bar Building West 1819 H Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20006; Dear Mr. Walders: This will acknowledge your letter of July 27, 1970 to the Nationa Highway Safety Bureau requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.; You are correct in your statement that no formal petition for rul making action is necessary for tire and rim combination cited within the references of S3 of Standard No. 109.; Concerning your question on 'approval equivalent rim', we offer th following. The policy of the bureau in 1967 at the time of the promulgation of Standards No. 109 and No. 110 was to give a 'blanket' approval of all rims cited within the references. From that time on however, all *new* tire and rim combinations have to be approved by the Bureau. After the tire and rim combination was approved then it was listed within Table I, Appendix A of Standard No. 110.; Standards No. 109 and No. 110 do not have requirements for ri contours. Our Standards only specify the flange letter-code and width for a particular rim designation. Therefore, any request to change a rim dimension of an existing rim does not require a formal action by this Bureau.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider,Acting Deputy Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4212OpenMr. Rohit Vaidya, 10288 9th Street Circle, #103, Miami, FL 33172; Mr. Rohit Vaidya 10288 9th Street Circle #103 Miami FL 33172; Dear Mr. Vaidya: This responds to your April 30, 1986 letter concerning Safety Standar No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, and your planned built-in child seat. You asked for information concerning all safety standards that would be applicable to the seat and concerning a pending petition for amending Standard No. 213 to permit the installation of built-in child seats in new motor vehicles. I regret the delay in our response.; Standard No. 213 is the only standard which this agency has issue concerning child restraint systems. It was drafted at a time when add-on or portable systems were the only type of child restraint systems. Accordingly, the requirements of the standard are oriented toward that type of system. However, the agency has granted a petition to broaden the standard to permit the installation of built-in child restraint systems. We expect to issue a proposal regarding this matter later this year. Copies of the standard and the petition are enclosed.; As a new manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you should know tha a manufacturer has a variety of responsibilities in addition to certifying compliance with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects or noncompliances with standards in their products. If a child restraint system fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either (1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or (2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense for the remedy.; Installation of your product in a used vehicle would also be affecte by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from 'rendering inoperative' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Such a rendering inoperative could occur, for example, if the installer of a built-in child safety seat removed the original vehicle seat, installed a replacement vehicle seat containing the built-in child safety seat, but did not ensure that the seat belt anchorages for adult seating positions in the replacement rear seat continued to meet the location and strength requirements of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. A rendering inoperative could also occur if the installer did not ensure that a replacement vehicle seat continued to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on that seat as a result of vehicle impact.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on a individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any product they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's seats or seat belt assembly anchorages with the requirements of Standards Nos. 207 or 210. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install products which could lessen the occupant protection afforded by the original seats or safety belt assembly anchorages and thus adversely affect safety.; For further information concerning these responsibilities, pleas consult the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1010OpenMr. Harvey M. Klein, Southwest Auto Auction, Inc., 2400 South Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85040; Mr. Harvey M. Klein Southwest Auto Auction Inc. 2400 South Central Avenue Phoenix AZ 85040; Dear Mr. Klein: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1973, concerning th Federal Odometer Disclosure Requirements.; Our response to your three questions is as follows: (1) When a title is transferred several times from dealer to dealer each transferor must complete a disclosure form, not just the registered owner.; (2) Where several sales of a vehicle occur before March 1, 1973, and final sale of the same vehicle occurs after that date, only the final sale must have a disclosure form.; (3) If a transferor is not the original owner and does not know tha the indicated mileage is correct, yet does not *know* that the mileage is *incorrect*, he should state the indicated mileage reading without indicating that the mileage is unknown.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3187OpenSheila McDevitt, Esq., 7976 Seminole Boulevard, Suite 6, Seminole, FL 33542; Sheila McDevitt Esq. 7976 Seminole Boulevard Suite 6 Seminole FL 33542; Dear Mr. McDevitt: This is in response to your question to Mr. Schwartz of my offic concerning the need to prepare an odometer statement for a vehicle which is declared a total loss by an insurance company.; No odometer disclosure statement is required for a vehicle that is total loss. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that when there is no possibility that the vehicle can be put back on the road then it ceases to be a motor vehicle for purposes of the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.; If a vehicle is badly damaged, but will be rebuilt, an odomete disclosure statement must be issued. An insurance compnay that sells to a salvage dealer a vehicle that can be put back on the road must issue a disclosure statement to that dealer. The salvage dealer who rebuilds the vehicle must then issue a disclosure statement to the party who purchases the rebuilt vehicle. Likewise, if a salvage dealer sells the vehicle to someone else who is going to rebuild the vehicle, the salvage dealer must issue a disclosure statement to that person. Each time the ownership of that vehicle is transferred, the transfer must be accompanied by an odometer disclosure statement prepared by the owner and presented to the buyer. This requirement does not end until the owner makes a good faith determination that the vehicle cannot be put back on the road. The owner should make that determination and not rely on the buyer's representations as to how the vehicle will be used.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4642OpenMr. Larry P. Egley 109 Travelers Trail St. Charles, MO 63303; Mr. Larry P. Egley 109 Travelers Trail St. Charles MO 63303; Dear Mr. Egley: This is in reply to your letters with respect to th Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF), your invention, now registered with the U.S. Patent Office. Your first letter is a 'Request for Evaluation/Interpretation' of your invention, your second is 'An Appeal for Variant Interpretation.' I regret the delay in responding. You have explained that the SSF operates as follows: when a vehicle reaches a certain high rate of deceleration, the SSF automatically flashes all three of the stop lamps on passenger cars at a rapid rate. If the vehicle has crashed, the SSF continues to flash until the ignition switch is recycled. You recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning. You nevertheless ask for a favorable interpretation because the SSF will be actuated only rarely, and 'the concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system.' Because of the expense of developing the SSF, you state that you are not willing to undertake it 'unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model.' You are correct that Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady burning, and hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that stop lamps are intended to be operated while the vehicle is in motion, while the hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning begins to flash, the agency is concerned that the signal will prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its effectiveness. Even if we did not have this reservation about the SSF, we could not change the steady burning requirement through interpretation. A change could be made through rulemaking only. We do not currently have information indicating that a flashing signal would be superior to a steady burning one. The SSF is based upon the concept that a flashing lamp increases vehicle conspicuity, and hence should shorten the reaction time of following drivers. As you noted, 'whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration.' In research sponsored by this agency that led to the adoption of the center high-mounted stop lamp, a field study was conducted using 600 taxicabs in San Diego and Sacramento. The cabs were equipped with one of three kinds of center lamps, a steady-burning one, or one that flashed at 2.5 Hz, or one that flashed at either l.5, 2.5, 4.5, or 7.0 Hz depending on the degree of deceleration. The test fleet accumulated 4l million miles. The study found that there was no statistically significant differences among the lamps (Mortimer, R.G., Field test evaluation of rear lighting deceleration signals: II - Field test. Final Report, DOT-HS-806-125, 198l). The agency would be unlikely to issue grants or fund research for the SSF, a proprietary device. Most of its vehicle safety research is devoted to obtaining data to support the development of standards that are more performance-oriented. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive in our response, but we do appreciate your interest in reducing traffic accidents, and deaths and injuries associated with them. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1440OpenMr. Kanti Gada, Project Engineer, Great Dane Trailers, Inc., P.O. Box 67, Savannah, GA 31402; Mr. Kanti Gada Project Engineer Great Dane Trailers Inc. P.O. Box 67 Savannah GA 31402; Dear Mr. Gada: This responds to your November 1, 1973, letter and subsequen communication with Mr. Sidney Williams of the NHTSA Handling and Stability Division concerning the conformity of your trailers with Standard 121. You asked particularly about the diversion of service reservoir air for use in the air suspension unit, the location of the service reservoir check valve, and test conditions for extendable platform trailers. This will also acknowledge receipt of your March 14, 1974, petition for longer application and release time for special length trailers.; The NHTSA has not issued any prohibition on the use of service brak system air in auxiliary systems such as windshield wipers and air suspensions. You may tap air from the system as long as the system still meets all the requirements listed - in particular the ability of the reservoir, when pressurized to 90 psi, to release the vehicle's parking brakes at least once.; The check valve may be placed at the isolated tank to protect th trailer service reservoir as specified in S5.2.1.5, as you have detailed it in your schematic drawing.; With regard to extendable platform trailers, they should be certifie in the most adverse configuration. No special configuration has been specified, and the NHTSA is free to test the vehicle at any length at which it is designed to operate.; The Fruehauf Corporation has also petitioned for relief from th application and release time requirement as it applies to extendable trailers. These petitions are under consideration and will be answered when that consideration is complete.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4496OpenMr. Alberto Negro Director Fiat Research & Development -- U.S.A. Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn, MI 48126; Mr. Alberto Negro Director Fiat Research & Development -- U.S.A. Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn MI 48126; "Dear Mr. Negro: This responds both to your revised report, date January 20, 1988, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 585, on behalf of Alfa Lancia Industriale S.p.A. (Alfa Romeo), covering compliance with the automatic restraint 'phase-in' requirements during the 1987 production year, and to your February 4, 1988, letter to Stephen Wood, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Specifically, your question concerns whether Fiat may exclude automatic restraint-equipped convertibles from its determinations of annual production for the purpose of calculating the number of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraints requirements during the phase-in period. Alfa Romeo, a subsidiary of Fiat, equipped some of its convertibles with automatic restraints during the 1987 model year, and Fiat counted those convertibles toward satisfying the requirement that 10 percent of 1987 production year cars be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated in your February 4 letter that you need clarification of whether Standard No. 208 permits you to exclude from your annual production calculations those convertibles that were equipped with automatic restraints and that were counted in determining whether the requisite percentage of production complied with the automatic restraint requirements. In other words, you wish to know whether Fiat may 'count' Alfa Romeo convertibles equipped with automatic seat belts for the purpose of satisfying the 10% 'phase-in' requirement for production year 1987, found at S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208, while excluding those same convertibles from the annual vehicle production calculations covering the 1987 production year. The answer to your question is that Standard No. 208 does not allow Fiat to exclude from its annual production calculations any convertibles that comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in S4.1.2.1 of the standard. Section S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies the amount of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 shall be not less than 10 percent of either the manufacturer's average annual production between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, or the manufacturer's annual production between September 1, 1985, and August 31, 1986. Under these provisions, Fiat elected to use the average annual production from September 1, 1983, through August 31, 1986, for its 1987 production year report. The reference to production encompasses all passenger cars produced by the manufacturer during the relevant time period. Thus, absent an exception to S4.1.3.1.2, a manufacturer may not exclude any of its cars in determining either average annual production or annual production. For the period of September 1, 1986, to August 31, 1987, section S4.1.3.1.3 of Standard No. 208 provides a single exception from the requirement to include all of a manufacturer's cars in determining annual production. Under that exception, a manufacturer has the following option in calculating annual production: A manufacturer may exclude convertibles which do not comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1, when it is calculating its average annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(a) or its annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(b). (Emphasis added.) The same single exception is set forth in section S4.1.3.2.3 for the September 1, 1987, to August 31, 1988 production year, and in section S4.1.3.3.3 for the September 1, 1988, to August 31, 1989 production year. This exception expressly permits manufacturers to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations. However, this language does not permit manufacturers to exclude convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations. An old principle of legal interpretation is expressed in the maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius', literally, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Applying this principle to Standard No. 208, one would conclude that since the standard was drafted to provide one means of excluding convertibles from calculations of annual production, the standard does not allow any other means of excluding convertibles from those calculations. In other words, since the standard allows you to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 when calculating annual production, the absence of a similar provision for convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 means that complying convertibles cannot be excluded. This interpretation does not raise any questions about the January 20 report's exclusion of all convertibles produced between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, since your letter states that none of those convertibles complied with S4.1.2.1. However, this interpretation does mean that Fiat cannot exclude the 803 Alfa Romeo convertibles it reported as complying with S4.1.2.1 when making its 1988 production year calculations, as required by S4.1.3.2, if Fiat again elects to base its calculations on the average annual production of passenger cars during the preceding three years, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(a). Similarly, if Fiat elects to base its calculations on the actual production between September 1, 1987, and August 31, 1988, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(b), Fiat cannot exclude convertibles that comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1. In this letter, we have assumed that the Alfa Romeo convertibles that are equipped with automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint provisions of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. If this is not the case, then Fiat may not 'count' those vehicles as complying with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208. See attached letter dated April 18, 1988 to Mr. Robert Munson of Ford Motor Company. Please notify Mr. George L. Parker, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, within 10 business days of your receipt of this letter, whether the Alfa Romeo automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3353OpenMr. S. A. Spretnjak, Excel Industries, Inc., 1120 North Main Street, Elkhart, IN 46514; Mr. S. A. Spretnjak Excel Industries Inc. 1120 North Main Street Elkhart IN 46514; Dear Mr. Spretnjak: This responds to your August 15, 1980, letter asking several question about your responsibilities for complying with Federal safety standards. You state that you manufacture a sun roof that can be installed by either an original vehicle manufacturer or a subsequent vehicle alterer.; Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to note tha Federal safety standards apply to different manufacturers depending upon the standard involved. Equipment standards are the responsibility of equipment manufacturers while vehicle standards fall within the responsibilities of a vehicle manufacturer or alterer. For sun roofs, Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, is an equipment standard and might apply to an equipment manufacturer who manufacturers sun roofs if they contain any glazing materials. Some vehicle safety standards might be affected also by the installation of a sun roof. The installer of a sun roof would be entirely responsible for compliance with all of the vehicle safety standards affected by the sun roof installation.; Your first question asks who certifies the sun roof if it is installe as original equipment on a vehicle. The equipment manufacturer who manufacturers the glazing would be responsible for certifying the glazing in accordance with Standard No. 205. The installer of the sun roof, the vehicle manufacturer, would certify the vehicle in compliance with all of the safety standards.; Second, you ask the same question as above with respect to a va conversion or motor home construction. Again, the equipment manufacturer would certify to the glazing standard, and the van converter or motor home builder would certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567, *Certification*.; Third, you ask who must certify if a dealer adds a sun roof before sal of the vehicle to its first purchaser. The equipment manufacturer certifies to the glazing standard, and the installer of the device would attach an alterer's label to the vehicle in accordance with Part 567.7.; Your fourth question asks who certifies if a body shop adds the su roof for a vehicle owner. As always, the sun roof glazing is certified by the equipment manufacturer. Businesses that modify used vehicles are not required to recertify those vehicles in compliance with any of the safety standards. Such businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard.; Fifth, you ask whether as a window manufacturer your onl responsibility is to certify to Standards Nos. 205 and 217. As stated earlier, you would have responsibility to certify to Standard No. 205. However, Standard No. 217 is a vehicle standard, and only a vehicle manufacturer or alterer has responsibility for certifying compliance with that standard.; Your final question asks about testing for compliance with the safet standards. Testing is usually conducted by vehicle manufacturers for those standards that apply to vehicles. For standards that apply only to equipment, the testing is usually done by the equipment manufacturer. When a vehicle is altered and the alterer must attach a label indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards, the alterer can certify compliance through any means that, in the exercise of due care, he or she feels is sufficient to assure compliance with the safety standards. Methods available to alterers include: retesting, simulated testing, mathmatical (sic) modeling, or any other device appropriate for assessing continued compliance with the standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1694OpenMr. John A McLaine, Chief, Automotive Engineering Standards, State of New Jersey, Division of Motor Vehicles, 25 South Montgomery Street, Trenton, NJ, 08666; Mr. John A McLaine Chief Automotive Engineering Standards State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles 25 South Montgomery Street Trenton NJ 08666; Dear Mr. McLaine: This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1974 expressing you opinion that the Front Brake Light Adapter causes 'front signal lamps [to] become stop lamps which do not meet Standard 108.' You ask for our concurrence in this interpretation.; In our view, the Adapter does not convert front signal lamps into sto lamps, even though their purpose is to indicate a vehicle stop. Since the vehicle on which the system is installed will be equipped with conventional red rear-mounted stop lamps, the Adapter is considered only as additional lighting equipment that may be installed unless it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment. You have informed us that it does not override the flashing effect of the front signal lamps, and therefore, Standard No. 108 does not forbid its use as original equipment, or as replacement equipment for a similar system that has been original equipment on a motor vehicle. Its sale in the aftermarket and use as an accessory device, however, would be subject to New Jersey law.; You have also made the general comment that 'New Jersey laws requir all lamps or motor vehicles registered in New Jersey to meet the SAE Standards.' I am sure you are aware that under Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Standard No. 108 preempts State laws on all aspects of performance that the standard covers. This means that if Standard No. 108 allows a deviation from a referenced SAE standard, or if the referenced SAE standard differs from the current SAE standard, the SAE-referenced requirements of Standard No. 108 preempt New Jersey's requirements, unless they are identical.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0986OpenMr. W.J. Sears, Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association, 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. W.J. Sears Vice President Rubber Manufacturers Association 1346 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Sears: This is in reply to your letter of January 5, 1973, to Dr. Edward H Wallace, concerning your objections to the informal rulemaking procedures employed by NHTSA in adding new tire sizes and rims to the Appendices to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 110 (49 CFR 571.109,110). You enclose two form letters sent to you by NHTSA which indicate that certain tire sizes and rims will be included in the Appendices, and object to the delay that appears to occur between your receipt of these letters and the time the amendment to the Appendices is published in the *Federal Register*.; Your letter indicates a possible misunderstanding of the requirement affect the publication of new tire sizes and rims in the Appendices of the two safety standards. The NHTSA is required, under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), to amend all motor vehicle safety standards (amendments to the appendices of Standards Nos. 109 and 110 are amendments to the standards) by publication if the *Federal Register*. The submittal of documents to the Federal Register is governed by regulation (Title 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1-40) which the NHTSA must follow in submitting documents for publication. Simply stated, these regulations would not permit the NHTSA to merely send to the *Federal Register* copies of these acknowledgment letters, for publication, as you suggest. Documents must be prepared utilizing a specific format. We have recently modified the method by which NHTSA amends the Appendices in a way that permits these documents to be prepared in a shorter time. Moreover, normally notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity to comment is required to be published before such amendments can become effective. The procedures about which you complain actually shorten the time that would otherwise be necessary for these changes to take effect. The form letter which you refer to as providing approval is no more than an acknowledge and indicates only that the tire size designation and rim sizes in question will be included in the next amendment to the Appendices, under the special procedures which allow their use in 30 days if objections are not received. For these reasons, we have not found it administratively practicable to publish notices of additional tire sizes whenever they may be received. We have indicated our intention to publish amendments quarterly. While we have not met this schedule as consistently as we hoped, we expect to improve our efforts in this regard in the future.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.