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: aiam2710OpenMs. Jill M. Zick, Burley, Smiertka, Swank, and Misko, P.C., 2525 W. Jefferson, Trenton, MI 48183; Ms. Jill M. Zick Burley Smiertka Swank and Misko P.C. 2525 W. Jefferson Trenton MI 48183; Dear Ms. Zick: This responds to your September 6, 1977, letter asking whether th requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) apply to your client, an alterer of motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it appears that your client intends to alter previously certified vehicles to make them accessible to the handicapped. You ask what, if any, regulations would apply to this alteration.; There are no safety standards applicable to the installation of th devices to which you refer. Your client's responsibility for purposes of compliance with the regulations of the NHTSA would be to ensure that he does not affect the compliance of previously certified vehicles.; If your client modifies certified vehicles prior to their firs purchase for purposes other than resale, he would be responsible for ensuring that they continue to comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The applicable regulation, Part 567, *Certification*, (49 CFR Part 567.7), requires that he attach an alterer's label to each vehicle indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards.; If your client modifies vehicles after their first purchase fo purposes other than resale, he would not have to attach an alterer's label to them. However, he would not be allowed to render inoperative any device or element of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard (Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1397). Thus, whatever manufacturing operation was performed by your client, it would be necessary for him to ensure that all aspects of the vehicle covered by motor vehicle safety standards remain in compliance with those standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3558OpenDale R. Martin, Esq., Secretary and Counsel, Motor Wheel Corporation, Lansing, MI 48909; Dale R. Martin Esq. Secretary and Counsel Motor Wheel Corporation Lansing MI 48909; Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff requesting an interpretation concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR S 571.120). Specifically, you noted that your company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goodyear, wants to import rims from Lemmerz, a West German manufacturer, and mark those rims with the Goodyear name and trademark. This would be similar to the tires sold, for example, with Sears or Montgomery Ward labels and trademarks on the sidewalls. Your question concerns the requirement in section S5.2(d) of Standard No. 120, which specifies that each rim be marked with 'a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol.' You correctly recognized that Lemmerz would have to be identified as the actual manufacturer, and asked if the block letter 'L' would be a sufficient identification. Imprinting an 'L' on the rims manufactured for Goodyear by Lemmerz would satisfy the requirement of Standard No. 120.; In the notice initially establishing Standard No. 120 (41 FR 3478 January 23, 1976), this agency stated, 'The rim manufacturer is free to use his name, trademark, or a symbol of his choice.' The only limitation on this freedom is that the information cannot be presented in a deceptive or confusing manner. In the circumstances you have described, a consumer with a complaint or problem with the rims would know to contact Goodyear about the rims, and Goodyear would know that the block letter 'L' indicated that the rim had been manufactured for them by Lemmerz. This would not be confusing or deceptive. Hence, the purpose of the labeling requirement is fulfilled, so Goodyear is free to use the letter 'L' as the indicator that the rim was actually manufactured by Lemmerz.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2408OpenMr. Katsuhiko Yokoi, Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd., 9, I-chome, Nishiyabushitacho, Nishiku, Nagoya, Japan; Mr. Katsuhiko Yokoi Toyoda Gosei Co. Ltd. 9 I-chome Nishiyabushitacho Nishiku Nagoya Japan; Dear Mr. Yokoi: #This is in belated response to your April 9, 1976 letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to certain combination hydraulic brake hose assemblies. #Figure 3 of your letter depicts two typical brake hose assemblies that are connected end-to-end. Figure 4 depicts the intended installation of such a pair of assemblies, with the joined fittings meeting at a bracket that is attached to a shock absorber. Figure 1 and 2 show two designs to simplify the structure at this juncture. #Treating these figures in reverse order, the 'B type' design shown in Figure 2 is similar to the pair of assemblies shown in Figure 3, except that the pair of joined end fittings is replaced with a single center fitting. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers such a construction to be two distinct brake hose assemblies, which would be tested separately for compliance with Standard No. 106-74. The center fitting would simply be considered an end fitting for each of these assemblies. #the 'A type' design shown on figure 1 would be treated differently, however. In this design, the two separate pieces of hose are replaced by a single piece that runs the full length between the outermost end fittings. in place of joined fittings as in Figure 3 or a center fitting as in Figure 2, this hose would be surrounded by molded rubber and a metal ring. The ring would be mounted in the bracket that is attached to the shock absorber. The NHTSA considers this construction to be a single brake hose assembly, and testing for compliance with Standard No. 106-74 would be conducted accordingly. For example, the tensile strength test would be performed by pulling at the outermost fittings, on the full length of the hose. However, this interpretation would not require the assembly to be capable of meeting the whip resistance requirements of S5.3.3 with the full length subject to flex. The NHTSA considers such a brake hose assembly to have two distinct 'free lengths'--one on either side of the center metal ring. Therefore, the whip resistance test would be performed separately on each of these portions. In other words, the metal ring would be treated as an 'end fitting,' for the purposes of the whip resistance test described in S6.3. #Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0161OpenMr. William F. Remmert, Secretary-Treasurer, Parsons Mobile Products, Inc., 2013 Belmont, Parsons, KS 67357; Mr. William F. Remmert Secretary-Treasurer Parsons Mobile Products Inc. 2013 Belmont Parsons KS 67357; Dear Mr. Remmert: Thank you for your letter dated March 18, 1969, in which yo state,'[W]e differ from all other motor-home manufacturers in that we use an existing chassis body combination, which has already been certified by General Motors Corporation. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, all certification and safety requirements are being met or exceeded at this time.'; Your letter and the materials that you enclosed with it indicate tha you alter a completed vehicle in a way that affects components necessary for compliance with safety standards, and change the vehicle type from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle within the meaning of regulations issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 CFR S. 371.3). In so doing you are evidently acting as a manufacturer within the meaning of section 102(5) of the Act, and must comply with the Certification Regulations that apply to motor vehicle manufacturers (49 CFR Part 367, pp. 38-40 of the enclosed pamphlet). Copies of the Act and pertinent regulations are enclosed.; The information requested in our letter to you dated February 14, 1969 is still relevant. Could we please have your response to that inquiry as soon as possible.; We trust this reply will be of assistance to you in your desire t comply with existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Performance Analysis Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2621OpenMr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Technical Operations, Timpte, Inc., 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, CO 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Technical Operations Timpte Inc. 5990 N. Washington Street Denver CO 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking whether your tir information label complies with the requirements of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Part 567, *Certification*. Further, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expedite treatment of Docket No. 73-31, Notice 1, which, if implemented would simplify the certification and information labels.; Concerning Docket 73- 31, the NHTSA published on June 20, 1977, notice (42 FR 31161) implementing Notice 1 which proposed the use of the designation 'all axles' rather than listing each axle individually on the certification label. The implementation of this regulation should resolve many of your problems.; Regarding the sample information label you submitted with your letter the NHTSA does not give advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety regulations or standards. We will, however, give an informal opinion of whether your label appears to comply with the requirements. The label you submitted does not appear to comply with the requirements of Part 567 or Standard No. 120. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations for your information.; Your certification label should use the designation 'all axles' no 'each axle.' The tire and rim information should follow that designation stated in the form presented in the examples in Standard No. 120 and Part 567.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4840OpenThe Honorable Bill McCollum U.S. House of Representatives 1801 Lee Road, Suite 301 Winter Park, FL 32789; The Honorable Bill McCollum U.S. House of Representatives 1801 Lee Road Suite 301 Winter Park FL 32789; "Dear Mr. McCollum: Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of you constituent, Mr. Perry Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner requested a written interpretation about whether casings imported into this country are required to have the 'DOT number.' A 'casing' means a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading. As explained more fully below, casings for retreaded passenger car tires must have the DOT symbol, but casings for tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars (referred to as 'truck tires' in this letter) are not required to have the DOT symbol. At the outset, I note that Mr. Faulkner's letter stated that the 'DOT number' on a tire indicates that the Federal excise tax has been paid. That statement is inaccurate. The 'DOT number' on a tire only represents the manufacturer's or retreader's certification of compliance with this agency's standards and regulations. If Mr. Faulkner wants further information about Federal excise taxes on tires, he may wish to contact the Internal Revenue Service, since that agency administers the Federal excise taxes. Mr. Faulkner is mixing two different types of markings when he refers to a 'DOT number.' The first type of marking is the symbol 'DOT.' This marking by a tire manufacturer or retreader on a tire is a certification that the tire complies with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Federal safety standards applicable to tires include Standard No. 109 for new passenger car tires, Standard No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires, and Standard No. 119 for new truck tires. Standard No. 117 (the retreaded passenger car tire safety standard) includes a requirement that all passenger car tire casings to be retreaded must include the symbol 'DOT.' See S5.2.3(a). Therefore, it is illegal to sell or import into this country any passenger car tire casings that are not marked with the symbol 'DOT.' However, none of our Federal safety standards set forth requirements for retreaded truck tires. Since there is no standard for retreaded truck tires, there is no requirement that casings for retreaded truck tires be marked with the DOT symbol. I have enclosed a June 18, 1981 letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield that offers a more detailed discussion of this issue. The second type of marking to which Mr. Faulkner referred was the tire identification number specified in Part 574. This number identifies the manufacturer or retreader of the tire, along with the date of manufacture or retread and other attributes of the tire. A tire identification number is not required on any casing: Standard No. 117 does not require this marking on passenger car casings, and as explained above, there is no Standard for casings for truck tires. Please note, however, that Part 574 requires all finished retreads, including retreaded truck tires, to be marked with the retreader's identification number. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Jamie McLaughlin Fish Director, Intergovernmental Affairs Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4766OpenMr. Ron Boucher Energy Savings Systems P.O. Box 294 Centralia, WA 98531; Mr. Ron Boucher Energy Savings Systems P.O. Box 294 Centralia WA 98531; "Dear Mr. Boucher: Thank you for your letter asking whether th products you plan to market would comply with the laws and regulations administered by this agency. As explained below, the laws and regulations administered by this agency would not be applicable to these products. Enclosed with your letter were two brochures describing the 'Signal Flash' personal identification lights. The brochure included pictures and descriptions of several different types of battery-powered lights that are small enough to be carried on one's person, and include straps that make them suitable to be carried on one's arm, around one's wrist, or inserted into a life preserver. The brochures describe these 'Signal Flash' lights as suitable for use in 'diving, mountaineering, jogging, sailing, windsurfing, cycling, fishing, car breakdown, life jacket, etc.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate 'motor vehicles' and items of 'motor vehicle equipment.' Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines 'motor vehicle equipment', in part, as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle... Your 'Signal Flash' lights are plainly not a 'system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured,' nor are they a 'similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement' of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether these lights would be considered an 'accessory' within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an 'accessory,' the agency applies the relevant statutory language and the two following criteria: first, whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of the item are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. In evaluating the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your letter emphasizes the versatility of these personal identification lights. While these lights occasionally may be used in connection with a motor vehicle breakdown or repair, most of the suggested uses involve sports activities that have nothing to do with a motor vehicle. Thus, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the light would not appear related to the operation or maintenance of a vehicle, so these 'Signal Flash' lights would not be considered items of 'motor vehicle equipment.' This conclusion means that the 'Signal Flash' lights are not subject to any of the laws and regulations administered by this agency. You may wish to consult the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any requirements applicable to these lights. That agency protects the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products. You may write to the Consumer Product Safety Commission at 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20207, or contact them by telephone at (301) 492-6580. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /"; |
|
ID: aiam3592OpenMr. Masakatsu Kano, Executive Vice President, MMC Services Inc., 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Kano: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1982, concerning th application of Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*, to a passenger 'assist grip' provided in your vehicles. You asked whether the instrument panel impact test of the standard must be conducted both with and without the passenger grip mounted on the instrument panel.; The head impact test should be conducted with the passenger 'assis grip' mounted in place. It should not be necessary to test the panel with the grip removed. Section 5.3.1 of the Standard provides that if an area of the instrument panel is within the head impact zone, it must meet the performance requirements of the standard. In using the term 'instrument panel', the agency intended to include the basic panel and any integral design features of the panel. Your engineering drawing shows that the grip is solidly mounted on top of the panel as an integral part. You state that the grip is a standard design feature on all the vehicles you intend to manufacture. Because the grip is a standard design feature which is securely affixed to the instrument panel, the agency considers it an integral part of the panel. Thus, the performance requirements of the standard would be applicable with the grip mounted in place.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5085OpenMr. Ron Noirfalise Director of Pupil Transportation Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Post Office Box 480 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480; Mr. Ron Noirfalise Director of Pupil Transportation Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Post Office Box 480 Jefferson City MO 65102-0480; "Dear Mr. Noirfalise: This follows up your telephone conversation o November 10, 1992, with Walter Myers of my staff regarding a newly-effective statute in Missouri which revises state requirements on transportation of school children. You also stated that you were told by your counterpart in the State of Washington that Federal law prohibits transportation of school children in vehicles with a passenger capacity of less than ten people. As discussed in your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers, I have enclosed four recent letters explaining Federal law and pertinent regulations applicable to school buses and transportation of school children. These four are a November 3, 1992 letter to Mr. G. Thomas Owens, a July 7, 1992 letter to Senator Jim Sasser, a May 27, 1992 letter to Mr. Gerald A. Guertain, and a January 15, 1991 letter to Ms. Carol C. Verenea. These letters cover a variety of issues that, I think, will clarify your understanding of the issues with which you are concerned. Also enclosed is a copy of a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, revised June 1989, and an information sheet issued by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. In addition, I am enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines that states may refer to in developing their highway safety programs. Guideline 17 was jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Among other things, Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed to carry more than ten persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. I hope the enclosed information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-1992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1350OpenMr. Patrick C. Ross, President, B.F. Goodrich Tire Company, 500 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44318; Mr. Patrick C. Ross President B.F. Goodrich Tire Company 500 South Main Street Akron Ohio 44318; Dear Mr. Ross: This is in reply to your petition, dated may 18, 1973, for amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574). You request that the standard be amended to except tires having an 'unusual configuration and construction,' from the part of S4.3 which requires safety information to be labeled between each tire's maximum section width and bead. You request a similar exception in Part 574 for the tire identification number. Goodrich has experienced difficulties in placing this information in the proper location in tire molds used to manufacture Goodrich's Space Saver Spare tire. You indicate this is caused by the thinness of the mold, which is apparently necessitated by the folding sidewall characteristics of the tire.; In case of the Space Saver Spare, Goodrich wants to be able to plac the labeling information and the identification number in the shoulder area of the tire. Your request is supported with pictures of a Space Saver Spare that has been run to wear-out yet still retains legible labeling in this area. In your view it is unlikely that this tire will be retreaded. You argue that the location you desire to use, while not between the maximum section width and bead, has the advantage of making the information and identification number visible both when the tire is inflated and deflated. the latter condition is important in this case in that this tire is generally carried in a deflated, folded condition when it is not in use.; We do not believe the facts you present justify an amendment to th standard, and have therefore determined that your petition should be denied. The purpose of requiring safety information and the tire identification number to be placed between each tire's maximum section width and the bead is to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that the information will remain on the tire throughout its useful life, including a retreading process if the tire is retreaded. In our View, it is not all clear that the alternative location you suggest will still meet this objective. The justification which you provide does not show that labeled information cannot be removed in service or that these tires will not, in fact, be retreaded. We certainly would not object if Goodrich were to place identifying information in separate location in addition to that required by the standard.; With respect to the difficulty you have encountered in placing th information in the specified area, we do not find on the basis of the information you have supplied that the alternative possibilities are impracticable. For example, your letter does not mention whether you have attempted to engrave the safety information and that part of the identification number that is constant into the tire molds. While we understand engraving is generally more expensive and somewhat more inconvenient than branding the mold or using metal plates, we do not believe the added expense and inconvenience, particularly as it is amortized over the life of the mold, to be unreasonable in terms of the safety benefit achieved. It also appears that this labeling, in letters 0.078 inches in height, can be placed just above the rim centering rib, which from the sample submitted with your petition, does not appear to have been damaged upon removal. This location would allow removal of the tire from the mold without deformation of the lettering and would place the required information between the tire's maximum section width and bead. With respect to date codes, for which engraving is unsuited, it appears that the code stamp could be recessed so as to be flush with the mold surface, thus eliminating or substantially reducing the destruction of the lettering during removal.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
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.