NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

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

Displaying 7641 - 7650 of 16490

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam1165 Open Mr. Chas E. Ferreira, Jr., Transportation Sash Co., Inc., Topton PA 19562; Mr. Chas E. Ferreira Jr. Transportation Sash Co. Inc. Topton PA 19562; Dear Mr. Ferreira: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1973, requesting that w clarify the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. You indicate that you purchase block size glass and cut it to suit your customers.; The requirements to which you refer are found in Federal Motor Vehicl Safety standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials' (49 CFR S 571.205). They require each item of glazing material to be labeled with certain information, that specified in section 6 of ANS Z26.1-1966, which includes the manufacturer's trademark, the symbol AS or the words American Standard, a model number, and a reference, in the form of a number, that indicates the type of glazing material. All glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must be labeled with this information, which can be stencilled onto the material if it is removed during the cutting process.; In addition to these identifying markings, each item of glazin material must be certified as conforming to the Federal standard. Prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) certify glazing that is designed for use in any specific vehicle by including with the above markings the symbol DOT and a code number assigned to the manufacturer by this agency. Glazing that is not designed for a specific vehicle is certified pursuant to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), which includes, as you indicate, the use of a label or tag affixed to the glazing material that states that the material conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers other than prime glazing material manufacturers, such as those, like yourself, who cut larger sheets to size, are required to certify in the same fashion, that is, in accordance with section 114, and may certify by labels or tags affixed to the material.; I have enclosed a copy of the marking requirements of Standard No. 20 for your information. If you wish to obtain a copy of the American National Standard Z26.1-1966, you should write to the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief counsel
ID: aiam4992 Open L. Louis Raring, Esquire Raring & Lipoff 4400 MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660; L. Louis Raring Esquire Raring & Lipoff 4400 MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92660; "Dear Mr. Raring: This responds to your request for information o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). Specifically, you were interested in whether this agency 'approves' motorcycle helmets pursuant to Standard No. 218. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations for you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 218, which applies to all new helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. Standard No. 218 sets forth a series of performance tests to ensure that motorcycle helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head injuries. When a safety standard like Standard No. 218 is in effect, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any motorcycle helmet unless that helmet is in conformity with Standard No. 218 and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403). This statutory requirement that every motorcycle helmet be covered by a certification pursuant to section 114 of the Safety Act means that the United States follows a different approach to ensuring conformity with its motor vehicle safety standards than do some other countries. In the European countries, for example, a helmet manufacturer would deliver a sample of its helmets to a governmental entity for approval before any of those helmets can be offered for sale. The governmental entity would then conduct testing and, assuming the helmet passed the tests, assign an approval code to these helmets. The manufacturer could offer this type of helmet for sale after it receives this government approval code. The United States follows a substantially different approach. Instead of putting the burden on the government to initially decide if a motorcycle helmet or other item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, the Safety Act puts the burden on the manufacturer of the motorcycle helmet. It is the motorcycle helmet manufacturer that must, in the first instance, determine whether its helmets conform to Standard No. 218. Once the manufacturer is satisfied that its helmets conform to the requirements of the standard, it certifies that conformity by labeling the symbol DOT on the helmet, pursuant to S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218. The manufacturer may offer its helmet for sale as soon as it has certified the helmet as conforming with Standard No. 218. For enforcement purposes, NHTSA periodically purchases certified motorcycle helmets and tests them to the specific requirements of Standard No. 218. If, as is the case in the vast majority of instances, the helmets conform to all the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the helmets are determined not to conform to all the requirements of the standard, the manufacturer is liable to notify owners of the noncompliance and to remedy the noncompliance without charge to the consumer, pursuant to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). In addition, the helmet manufacturer would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying helmet it manufactured, pursuant to section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398). I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2635 Open Mr. Paul F. Bennett, Chief Engineer, Utility Trailer, Manufacturing Co., P.O. Box 1299, City of Industry, CA 91744; Mr. Paul F. Bennett Chief Engineer Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 1299 City of Industry CA 91744; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to your May 20, 1977, letter asking whether your propose certification labels comply with the requirements of Part 567, Certification.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. We will, however, issue an opinion of whether your labels appear to comply with the regulations. The labels you submitted appear to comply with all but one of the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. On your certification labels, you listed the symbol 'W/' before the rim information. This symbol should be dropped from the label. Further the rim size designation should use the symbol 'x' between the diameter and width. Information supplied on a certification label must be provided in the form detailed in Part 567.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2634 Open Mr. Paul F. Bennett, Chief Engineer, Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co., P.O. Box 1299, City of Industry, California 91744; Mr. Paul F. Bennett Chief Engineer Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 1299 City of Industry California 91744; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to your May 20, 1977, letter asking whether your propose certification labels comply with the requirements of Part 567, Certification.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approval of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. We will, however, issue an opinion of whether your labels appear to comply with the regulations. The labels you submitted appear to comply with all but one of the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. On your certification labels, you list the symbol 'W/' before the rim information. This symbol should be dropped from the label. Further the rim size designation should use the symbol 'x' between the diameter and width. Information supplied on a certification label must be provided in the form detailed in Part 567.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3499 Open Mr. L.J.A. Mills, G & C Mills Plastics, Inc., 2309 Langdale Avenue, Suite 5, Los Angeles, CA 90041; Mr. L.J.A. Mills G & C Mills Plastics Inc. 2309 Langdale Avenue Suite 5 Los Angeles CA 90041; Dear Mr. Mills: It has come to our attention that your are distributing auxiliary win deflectors for use on motor vehicles which may not be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You received a letter from this agency dated July 13, 1979, and a later letter from the Department of Commerce which may have misled you concerning your responsibilities for complying with Standard No. 205.; This matter was brought to our attention by Mr. Paul Hingtgen who tol the agency you had shown him the correspondence referred to above. I am enclosing copies of two letters we sent to Mr. Hingtgen which explain why and how the previous letter to you from this agency was misleading. From those letters, you will see that auxiliary wind deflectors are considered to be pieces of 'motor vehicle equipment' and, as such, they must be made from glazing materials that are in compliance with Standard No. 205. We hope you will ensure that any wind deflectors you sell or distribute are in compliance with the standard, since you could be subject to substantial civil penalties if you fail to do so. I am also enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205.; If after reviewing the enclosed letters you have any questions, pleas contact Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1759 Open Mr. Hans von Payr, General Manager, VDO Instruments, 116 Victor Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48203; Mr. Hans von Payr General Manager VDO Instruments 116 Victor Avenue Detroit Michigan 48203; Dear Mr. von Payr: This is in reply to your letter of December 26, 1974 asking question about Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays.; Standard No. 123 applies to motorcycles, and the manufacturer of th completed vehicle is responsible for compliance with the standard. The standard does not include items manufactured for the aftermarket. Under an amendment to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 that became effective late in December 1974 a dealer may not 'render inoperative', e.g. remove, equipment installed by the manufacturer that has been installed in compliance with a standard. There would be no objection, however, if a dealer removed an originally installed speedometer and replaced it with one that also met the Federal requirements.; The date of applicability of a standard is the date the vehicle wa manufactured, not the date it is sold. Therefore non-complying motorcycles manufactured before the effective date of Standard No. 123 - September 1, 1974 - may be sold after that date. The standard applies to those motorcycles manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and not to mini-bikes, trail bikes, ATVs, or other non-licensed vehicles intended for off-road use.; Standard No. 123 does not require a specific size for numerals, onl that 'Major graduations and numerals appear at 10 mph intervals, minor graduations of the 5 mph intervals' (Column 3, Table 3). With respect to your paragraphs a) and b) on page 3 of your letter, elimination of any speed indication at the required 10 mph intervals would result in a noncompliance of the cycle on which the speedometer was mounted. Since your enduro and chopper speedometers are marked only at 20 mph intervals they do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 123 for original motorcycle equipment.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1123 Open International Harvester Company, Motor Truck Division, 211 Meyer Road, Fort Wayne, IN 46801, Attention: Mr. D. E. Schmidt; International Harvester Company Motor Truck Division 211 Meyer Road Fort Wayne IN 46801 Attention: Mr. D. E. Schmidt; Dear Mr. Schmidt: By letter of February 26, 1973, International Harvester requested th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to postpone the effective date of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, with respect to vehicles having front axles with GAWR's of more than 12,000 pounds, rear axles with GAWR's of more than 23,000 pounds, or tandem rear axles with total GAWR's of more than 44,000 pounds.; After considering the request, which asks relief from all provisions o the standard, the agency has concluded that an exception of such magnitude is not warranted and therefore denies the request. The agency makes no finding as to whether more limited relief may be appropriate, and does not consider the denial of the February 26 request to preclude the company from submitting petitions for relief from specific aspects of the standard.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs;
ID: aiam2536 Open AIR MAIL#Mr. R. M. Ferrari, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design, Department of Transport, Box 1839Q, G.P.O., Melborne 3001, Australia; AIR MAIL#Mr. R. M. Ferrari Chairman Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design Department of Transport Box 1839Q G.P.O. Melborne 3001 Australia; Dear Mr. Ferrari: This is in response to your undated request (Ref. 75/1331) for a interpretation of the brake lining inspection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems. You asked whether the brake lining wear indicator system that you described would comply with FMVSS No. 122.; Paragraph S5.1.5 requires that 'The brake system shall be installed s that the lining thickness of drum brake shoes may be visually inspected, either directly or by use of a mirror without removing the crums....' Under the system you described 'the only means of determing the lining thickness of the rear brake shoes, without removing the brake drum, is a warning lamp system which becomes energized with the lining thickness is less than 2mm.' In our opinion, this system does not comply with S5.1.5. Although the warning lamp system alerts the operator when a predetermined limit has been reached, it does not provide the direct visual means of inspection of brake lining thickness that the standard requires. Were the warning lamp system to fail, the operator would be left without a means of determining lining thickness unless he removed the brake drum.; It is anticipated that during the next year a revision of FMVSS 12 will be proposed to modify the test procedure. At that time, consideration will be given to changing the requirements of paragraph S5.1.5. These changes would reflect advances in brake wear sensor technology since the original standard was promulgated. Since the intent of of (sic) paragraph S5.1.5 is to give the driver a simple means to determine the discard limit of the friction materials, we will consider allowing other than direct means to determine this limit, provided a check of the system's function can be performed to prevent the problem mentioned above.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam3023 Open Mr. Raymond L. Smallwood, Retread Plant Manager, Montgomery Tire Service, Inc., Box 515, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760; Mr. Raymond L. Smallwood Retread Plant Manager Montgomery Tire Service Inc. Box 515 Gaithersburg Maryland 20760; Dear Mr. Smallwood: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1979, with respect to you wish to import used truck tire casings for the purposes of recapping. You have been advised in a telephone conversation with our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that there are two ways to do this: the casings must bear DOT markings, or be accompanied by some proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975, the effective date of the truck tire standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. So believe that this is impossible and have requested our advice.; There is an additional solution whose feasibility we will leave to you determination. While Section 108(a)(1)(A)(15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as we interpret it, prohibits the importation of used truck tires that do not comply with Standard No. 119, Section 108(b)(3) (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b)(3)) allows their importation under bond 'to insure that any such [tire] will be brought into conformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard' (The corresponding provision of the importation regulation is 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(3)). Since the agency presently has no standard that applies to the retreading of truck tires, the applicable standard would be that in effect when the tires was new - Standard No. 119. Thus, if Montgomery Tires Service can demonstrate that its retreaded truck tires conform to Standard No. 119, and are willing to affix a DOT symbol to each tire as certification of that fact, your casings may enter the country under bond as provided for in 19 CFR 12.80 (b) (i) (3), releasable when upon an affirmation of compliance to Standard No. 119.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3437 Open Mr. Berkley C. Sweet, School Bus Manufacturers Institute, Truck Body and Equipment Association, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Berkley C. Sweet School Bus Manufacturers Institute Truck Body and Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Sweet: This responds to your January 19, 1981, letter making several comment about the agency's plan to modify Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, as it applies to maintenance access panels in school buses. I want to apologize for the delay in responding to your letter which was inadvertently combined with another agency action.; First, you disagree with an agency statement that manufacturers hav taken advantage of the existing maintenance access panel exemption from the standard's requirements. The agency's concern arises from several types of practices. Several manufacturers have produced buses with panels that have no wiring or other mechanisms behind them requiring maintenance. Other manufacturers have declared almost the entire rear walls of their buses as access panels. We believe that this is beyond the scope of the exemption of maintenance access panels from the standard's requirements.; Second, you ask several questions about supporting data for th standard and our planned modification of the standard. The agency is gathering information at this time and will make that data public when and if a rulemaking notice is issued.; Finally, you refer to unspecified agency statements relating t enforcement issues of noncomplying buses. We are unable to respond to this series of questions, because we are not immediately familiar with the correspondence to which you refer. If you could be more specific in your reference and in your questions, we would be happy to respond to you. If the correspondence to which you refer is from our Enforcement office, you might want to direct your inquiry to them.; 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.

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam1165 Open Mr. Chas E. Ferreira, Jr., Transportation Sash Co., Inc., Topton PA 19562; Mr. Chas E. Ferreira Jr. Transportation Sash Co. Inc. Topton PA 19562; Dear Mr. Ferreira: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1973, requesting that w clarify the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. You indicate that you purchase block size glass and cut it to suit your customers.; The requirements to which you refer are found in Federal Motor Vehicl Safety standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials' (49 CFR S 571.205). They require each item of glazing material to be labeled with certain information, that specified in section 6 of ANS Z26.1-1966, which includes the manufacturer's trademark, the symbol AS or the words American Standard, a model number, and a reference, in the form of a number, that indicates the type of glazing material. All glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must be labeled with this information, which can be stencilled onto the material if it is removed during the cutting process.; In addition to these identifying markings, each item of glazin material must be certified as conforming to the Federal standard. Prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) certify glazing that is designed for use in any specific vehicle by including with the above markings the symbol DOT and a code number assigned to the manufacturer by this agency. Glazing that is not designed for a specific vehicle is certified pursuant to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), which includes, as you indicate, the use of a label or tag affixed to the glazing material that states that the material conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers other than prime glazing material manufacturers, such as those, like yourself, who cut larger sheets to size, are required to certify in the same fashion, that is, in accordance with section 114, and may certify by labels or tags affixed to the material.; I have enclosed a copy of the marking requirements of Standard No. 20 for your information. If you wish to obtain a copy of the American National Standard Z26.1-1966, you should write to the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief counsel
ID: aiam4992 Open L. Louis Raring, Esquire Raring & Lipoff 4400 MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660; L. Louis Raring Esquire Raring & Lipoff 4400 MacArthur Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92660; "Dear Mr. Raring: This responds to your request for information o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). Specifically, you were interested in whether this agency 'approves' motorcycle helmets pursuant to Standard No. 218. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations for you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 218, which applies to all new helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users. Standard No. 218 sets forth a series of performance tests to ensure that motorcycle helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head injuries. When a safety standard like Standard No. 218 is in effect, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any motorcycle helmet unless that helmet is in conformity with Standard No. 218 and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403). This statutory requirement that every motorcycle helmet be covered by a certification pursuant to section 114 of the Safety Act means that the United States follows a different approach to ensuring conformity with its motor vehicle safety standards than do some other countries. In the European countries, for example, a helmet manufacturer would deliver a sample of its helmets to a governmental entity for approval before any of those helmets can be offered for sale. The governmental entity would then conduct testing and, assuming the helmet passed the tests, assign an approval code to these helmets. The manufacturer could offer this type of helmet for sale after it receives this government approval code. The United States follows a substantially different approach. Instead of putting the burden on the government to initially decide if a motorcycle helmet or other item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, the Safety Act puts the burden on the manufacturer of the motorcycle helmet. It is the motorcycle helmet manufacturer that must, in the first instance, determine whether its helmets conform to Standard No. 218. Once the manufacturer is satisfied that its helmets conform to the requirements of the standard, it certifies that conformity by labeling the symbol DOT on the helmet, pursuant to S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218. The manufacturer may offer its helmet for sale as soon as it has certified the helmet as conforming with Standard No. 218. For enforcement purposes, NHTSA periodically purchases certified motorcycle helmets and tests them to the specific requirements of Standard No. 218. If, as is the case in the vast majority of instances, the helmets conform to all the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the helmets are determined not to conform to all the requirements of the standard, the manufacturer is liable to notify owners of the noncompliance and to remedy the noncompliance without charge to the consumer, pursuant to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). In addition, the helmet manufacturer would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying helmet it manufactured, pursuant to section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398). I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam2635 Open Mr. Paul F. Bennett, Chief Engineer, Utility Trailer, Manufacturing Co., P.O. Box 1299, City of Industry, CA 91744; Mr. Paul F. Bennett Chief Engineer Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 1299 City of Industry CA 91744; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to your May 20, 1977, letter asking whether your propose certification labels comply with the requirements of Part 567, Certification.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. We will, however, issue an opinion of whether your labels appear to comply with the regulations. The labels you submitted appear to comply with all but one of the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. On your certification labels, you listed the symbol 'W/' before the rim information. This symbol should be dropped from the label. Further the rim size designation should use the symbol 'x' between the diameter and width. Information supplied on a certification label must be provided in the form detailed in Part 567.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam2634 Open Mr. Paul F. Bennett, Chief Engineer, Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co., P.O. Box 1299, City of Industry, California 91744; Mr. Paul F. Bennett Chief Engineer Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 1299 City of Industry California 91744; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to your May 20, 1977, letter asking whether your propose certification labels comply with the requirements of Part 567, Certification.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approval of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. We will, however, issue an opinion of whether your labels appear to comply with the regulations. The labels you submitted appear to comply with all but one of the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. On your certification labels, you list the symbol 'W/' before the rim information. This symbol should be dropped from the label. Further the rim size designation should use the symbol 'x' between the diameter and width. Information supplied on a certification label must be provided in the form detailed in Part 567.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3499 Open Mr. L.J.A. Mills, G & C Mills Plastics, Inc., 2309 Langdale Avenue, Suite 5, Los Angeles, CA 90041; Mr. L.J.A. Mills G & C Mills Plastics Inc. 2309 Langdale Avenue Suite 5 Los Angeles CA 90041; Dear Mr. Mills: It has come to our attention that your are distributing auxiliary win deflectors for use on motor vehicles which may not be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You received a letter from this agency dated July 13, 1979, and a later letter from the Department of Commerce which may have misled you concerning your responsibilities for complying with Standard No. 205.; This matter was brought to our attention by Mr. Paul Hingtgen who tol the agency you had shown him the correspondence referred to above. I am enclosing copies of two letters we sent to Mr. Hingtgen which explain why and how the previous letter to you from this agency was misleading. From those letters, you will see that auxiliary wind deflectors are considered to be pieces of 'motor vehicle equipment' and, as such, they must be made from glazing materials that are in compliance with Standard No. 205. We hope you will ensure that any wind deflectors you sell or distribute are in compliance with the standard, since you could be subject to substantial civil penalties if you fail to do so. I am also enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205.; If after reviewing the enclosed letters you have any questions, pleas contact Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1759 Open Mr. Hans von Payr, General Manager, VDO Instruments, 116 Victor Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48203; Mr. Hans von Payr General Manager VDO Instruments 116 Victor Avenue Detroit Michigan 48203; Dear Mr. von Payr: This is in reply to your letter of December 26, 1974 asking question about Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays.; Standard No. 123 applies to motorcycles, and the manufacturer of th completed vehicle is responsible for compliance with the standard. The standard does not include items manufactured for the aftermarket. Under an amendment to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 that became effective late in December 1974 a dealer may not 'render inoperative', e.g. remove, equipment installed by the manufacturer that has been installed in compliance with a standard. There would be no objection, however, if a dealer removed an originally installed speedometer and replaced it with one that also met the Federal requirements.; The date of applicability of a standard is the date the vehicle wa manufactured, not the date it is sold. Therefore non-complying motorcycles manufactured before the effective date of Standard No. 123 - September 1, 1974 - may be sold after that date. The standard applies to those motorcycles manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, and not to mini-bikes, trail bikes, ATVs, or other non-licensed vehicles intended for off-road use.; Standard No. 123 does not require a specific size for numerals, onl that 'Major graduations and numerals appear at 10 mph intervals, minor graduations of the 5 mph intervals' (Column 3, Table 3). With respect to your paragraphs a) and b) on page 3 of your letter, elimination of any speed indication at the required 10 mph intervals would result in a noncompliance of the cycle on which the speedometer was mounted. Since your enduro and chopper speedometers are marked only at 20 mph intervals they do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 123 for original motorcycle equipment.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1123 Open International Harvester Company, Motor Truck Division, 211 Meyer Road, Fort Wayne, IN 46801, Attention: Mr. D. E. Schmidt; International Harvester Company Motor Truck Division 211 Meyer Road Fort Wayne IN 46801 Attention: Mr. D. E. Schmidt; Dear Mr. Schmidt: By letter of February 26, 1973, International Harvester requested th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to postpone the effective date of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, with respect to vehicles having front axles with GAWR's of more than 12,000 pounds, rear axles with GAWR's of more than 23,000 pounds, or tandem rear axles with total GAWR's of more than 44,000 pounds.; After considering the request, which asks relief from all provisions o the standard, the agency has concluded that an exception of such magnitude is not warranted and therefore denies the request. The agency makes no finding as to whether more limited relief may be appropriate, and does not consider the denial of the February 26 request to preclude the company from submitting petitions for relief from specific aspects of the standard.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs;
ID: aiam2536 Open AIR MAIL#Mr. R. M. Ferrari, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design, Department of Transport, Box 1839Q, G.P.O., Melborne 3001, Australia; AIR MAIL#Mr. R. M. Ferrari Chairman Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design Department of Transport Box 1839Q G.P.O. Melborne 3001 Australia; Dear Mr. Ferrari: This is in response to your undated request (Ref. 75/1331) for a interpretation of the brake lining inspection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems. You asked whether the brake lining wear indicator system that you described would comply with FMVSS No. 122.; Paragraph S5.1.5 requires that 'The brake system shall be installed s that the lining thickness of drum brake shoes may be visually inspected, either directly or by use of a mirror without removing the crums....' Under the system you described 'the only means of determing the lining thickness of the rear brake shoes, without removing the brake drum, is a warning lamp system which becomes energized with the lining thickness is less than 2mm.' In our opinion, this system does not comply with S5.1.5. Although the warning lamp system alerts the operator when a predetermined limit has been reached, it does not provide the direct visual means of inspection of brake lining thickness that the standard requires. Were the warning lamp system to fail, the operator would be left without a means of determining lining thickness unless he removed the brake drum.; It is anticipated that during the next year a revision of FMVSS 12 will be proposed to modify the test procedure. At that time, consideration will be given to changing the requirements of paragraph S5.1.5. These changes would reflect advances in brake wear sensor technology since the original standard was promulgated. Since the intent of of (sic) paragraph S5.1.5 is to give the driver a simple means to determine the discard limit of the friction materials, we will consider allowing other than direct means to determine this limit, provided a check of the system's function can be performed to prevent the problem mentioned above.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs;
ID: aiam3023 Open Mr. Raymond L. Smallwood, Retread Plant Manager, Montgomery Tire Service, Inc., Box 515, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760; Mr. Raymond L. Smallwood Retread Plant Manager Montgomery Tire Service Inc. Box 515 Gaithersburg Maryland 20760; Dear Mr. Smallwood: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1979, with respect to you wish to import used truck tire casings for the purposes of recapping. You have been advised in a telephone conversation with our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that there are two ways to do this: the casings must bear DOT markings, or be accompanied by some proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975, the effective date of the truck tire standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. So believe that this is impossible and have requested our advice.; There is an additional solution whose feasibility we will leave to you determination. While Section 108(a)(1)(A)(15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as we interpret it, prohibits the importation of used truck tires that do not comply with Standard No. 119, Section 108(b)(3) (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b)(3)) allows their importation under bond 'to insure that any such [tire] will be brought into conformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard' (The corresponding provision of the importation regulation is 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(3)). Since the agency presently has no standard that applies to the retreading of truck tires, the applicable standard would be that in effect when the tires was new - Standard No. 119. Thus, if Montgomery Tires Service can demonstrate that its retreaded truck tires conform to Standard No. 119, and are willing to affix a DOT symbol to each tire as certification of that fact, your casings may enter the country under bond as provided for in 19 CFR 12.80 (b) (i) (3), releasable when upon an affirmation of compliance to Standard No. 119.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3437 Open Mr. Berkley C. Sweet, School Bus Manufacturers Institute, Truck Body and Equipment Association, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Berkley C. Sweet School Bus Manufacturers Institute Truck Body and Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Sweet: This responds to your January 19, 1981, letter making several comment about the agency's plan to modify Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, as it applies to maintenance access panels in school buses. I want to apologize for the delay in responding to your letter which was inadvertently combined with another agency action.; First, you disagree with an agency statement that manufacturers hav taken advantage of the existing maintenance access panel exemption from the standard's requirements. The agency's concern arises from several types of practices. Several manufacturers have produced buses with panels that have no wiring or other mechanisms behind them requiring maintenance. Other manufacturers have declared almost the entire rear walls of their buses as access panels. We believe that this is beyond the scope of the exemption of maintenance access panels from the standard's requirements.; Second, you ask several questions about supporting data for th standard and our planned modification of the standard. The agency is gathering information at this time and will make that data public when and if a rulemaking notice is issued.; Finally, you refer to unspecified agency statements relating t enforcement issues of noncomplying buses. We are unable to respond to this series of questions, because we are not immediately familiar with the correspondence to which you refer. If you could be more specific in your reference and in your questions, we would be happy to respond to you. If the correspondence to which you refer is from our Enforcement office, you might want to direct your inquiry to them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: aiam1165

ID: aiam4992

ID: aiam2635

ID: aiam2634

ID: aiam3499

ID: aiam1759

ID: aiam1123

ID: aiam2536

ID: aiam3023

ID: aiam3437

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?