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: aiam5407OpenMr. Walter Lavis 2467 Rt. 10 Bldg. 3 Apt. 7B Morris Plains, NJ 07950; Mr. Walter Lavis 2467 Rt. 10 Bldg. 3 Apt. 7B Morris Plains NJ 07950; "Dear Mr. Lavis: We have received your letter of June 6, 1994, wit respect to your 'Saf-T-Flec' reflectors. You say that you have been informed by a NHTSA representative that 'using the standard DOT approved reflector tape would allow the use of my reflector for the trucking industry.' Judging from the red, white, and amber samples you have enclosed, your 'reflectors' appear to be retroreflective tape which adheres to a semicircular aluminum base and is intended for vertical mounting on the side and back of vehicles. Several potential customers have asked whether your concept was 'DOT approved', and you have asked for a reply. The Department of Transportation has no authority to 'approve' items of motor vehicle equipment. We advise inquirers whether manufacture or use of any particular item of equipment is prohibited or permitted under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and associated regulations. However, if an item is deemed permissible, this must not be represented as 'approval' by DOT. Your letter is somewhat unclear as to the intended use and market for Saf-T- Flec. The fact that you have enclosed a highlighted copy of S5.1.1.4 leads us to believe that one application you envision for Saf-T-Flec is as a substitute for original equipment side reflex reflectors. This substitution is permitted if the reflective material conforms to Federal Specification L-S- 300 (September 7, 1965) and, as used on the vehicle, meets the performance standards of SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors, January 1977. Accordingly, if your red and amber samples meet these two requirements, they may be used as the side front, intermediate, and rear reflex reflectors that Tables I and III require on trucks and trailers. However, Standard No. 108 does not allow sheeting material to be used on the rear of vehicles in lieu of reflex reflectors. What if your reflectors do not meet the two specifications listed above? In this instance, they may be used as supplementary side reflectors to the reflectors that are required by Standard No. 108, and you may employ amber devices for this use as well as red and white. As supplementary equipment, they are subject to the Federal restriction only that they not impair the effectiveness of the required reflex reflectors. We do not believe that additional reflectors would have this effect. Supplementary lighting equipment such as additional reflectors is subject to the laws of the individual states. We are not able to advise you as to their acceptability under state laws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) provides opinions on state law. AAMVA's address is 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203. As you may know, S5.7 of Standard No. 108 requires red and white retroreflective material to be applied to the side and rear of large trailers that have been manufactured since November 30, 1993 (those whose overall width is 80 inches or more and whose GVWR is more than 10,000 pounds). This material may be retroreflective sheeting or reflectors. If sheeting is used, it must meet the photometric specifications of Figure 29. If reflectors are used, they must conform to SAE J594f, and provide specified minimum millicandela/lux at specified light entrance angles. Your initial question indicates that you may be interested in marketing Saf-T-Flec for use as a substitute for the conspicuity materials that conform to Standard No. 108. Manufacturers of conspicuity sheeting certify it with the material in a flat vertical plane (as evidenced by the DOT-C2 marking on your white sample). We have reservations whether the curved red and white Saf-T-Flec devices could meet the photometric specifications of Figure 29, for sheeting, or J594f and the millicandela/lux specifications of S5.7.2.1(b) or (c) for reflectors. Amber is not one of the specified colors for conspicuity treatment, and could not be used as a substitute. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5098OpenMr. Wayne Malbon National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc. 1250 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D. C. 20005; Mr. Wayne Malbon National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association Inc. 1250 I Street NW Suite 400 Washington D. C. 20005; Dear Mr. Malbon: This responds to your November 17, 1992 telephon conversation with Walter Myers of this office regarding a shipment of truck tire casings being imported into the United States but held up in customs because the casings do not have the DOT symbols molded onto the sidewalls. You asked for a letter from this office setting forth the requirements for the importation of truck tire casings which do not display the DOT symbol, saying that you would use such a letter to show the U. S. Customs Service (USCS)in order to secure the release of the casings. You will find enclosed a letter from this agency to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA, dated June 18, 1981, in which we explained at length the requirements for importation of truck tire casings and the rationale behind those requirements. The information contained in that letter is still fully applicable, except that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety referred to on page 2 is now the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration. Also, the reference on page 3 to Mr. Harrison Feese of the USCS is no longer valid. Point of contact in USCS is now Mr. Gary Manes, same address, (202) 927-1133, or Mr. Jeff Laxague, same address, (202) 927-0402. I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. Jeff Laxague U.S. Customs Service 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W. Room 4119 Washington, D. C. 20229; |
|
ID: aiam1872OpenMr. Byron Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc 5530 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975 inquiring whethe a State may require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; In your phone conversation of March 28 with Mr. Robert Donin of thi office you indicated that the vehicle in question was an ambulance outfitted with a raised roof designed to enable medical personnel to stand inside. The raised top increases the height of the vehicle to 9 feet. You stated that although you could not identify the specific State statute involved, it was your understanding that Virginia requires clearance lights near the top of all vehicles over 7 feet in height. The law to which you apparently were referring is Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265. A copy is enclosed. It states in part:; >>>(a) All motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers exceeding seve feet in height or in width or the widest portion of which extends four inches beyond the front fender extremes shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand front top corners of such vehicle, each of which lamps shall be capable of projecting an amber light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front of such vehicle, and shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand rear top corners of such vehicle, each of which lights shall be capable of projecting a red light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle,***; (b) In addition to the lamps required herein, each such vehicle shal be equipped with amber reflectors located on the side thereof, at or near the front. Red reflectors shall be used on the rear of each such vehicle. Such reflectors shall be securely fastened to the vehicle not less than twenty-four inches and not more than sixty inches from the ground, provided that in the case of a vehicle which is less than twenty-four inches in height such reflectors shall be securely fastened thereto at the highest point the structure of the vehicle will permit. The reflectors required therein shall be of a type that have been approved by the Superintendent. ***<<<; It is important to note that the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code als provides in S 46.1-267; >>>*** No motor vehicle shall be operated on any highway which is equippe with any lighting device other than lamps required or permitted in this article or required or approved by the Superintendent or required by the Federal Department of Transportation.<<<; As you may know, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect safety standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical. By virtue of this provision, the Federal government is said to 'preempt' the field of regulation with respect to any aspect of performance for which there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.; The key question, therefore, is whether Federal Standard No. 108 an Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265 regulate the same 'aspect of performance.' If so, Virginia may not apply its requirement unless the Federal and Virginia requirements are identical. From a comparison of the two laws, it is evident that both address the same aspect of performance and that they are not identical:; >>>*Both the Federal and Virginia laws apply to ambulances. A ambulance is a multipurpose passenger vehicle, under Federal Standard No. 108 and a 'motor vehicle' under Virginia Code 46.1-265.; *Both laws require that the vehicle be equipped with lights at certai specified locations to facilitate recognition of its dimensions.; *The configuration and color of the lights required by the two law differ.<<<; Consequently Federal Standard No. 108 is preemptive, and to the exten that they differ from the Federal requirements the State clearance lamp and reflector requirements quoted are void. The language of Virginia Code S46.1-267, to the effect that lighting devices may conform to Virginia *or* Federal standards, is incorrect.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5132OpenMs Beverley Silver-Corber 6738 Montgomery St. Vancouver, B.C. V6P 4G4; Ms Beverley Silver-Corber 6738 Montgomery St. Vancouver B.C. V6P 4G4; "Dear Ms Silver-Corber: This is in reply to your letter to the agenc with respect to your wish to import into the United States a l992 Honda Accord, which was not manufactured to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. You would like to use the car for a two-year period in the U.S. while your husband is in graduate school. You have asked whether you qualify for an exemption, and whether you will be allowed to import the car for the two years of study. Under regulations of the Department of Transportation that govern the importation of motor vehicles, you, as a nonresident of the United States, are permitted to import your nonconforming Honda for a period of up to one year, provided that the importation is for your personal use, that you will not sell it during that time, and that the vehicle will be exported not later than the end of one year after entry (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 591.5(d)). The reason for the one-year limitation is that, under the Road Traffic Convention (1952) and the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles (1957), Conventions to which the United States is a party, an imported vehicle may be subjected to all the laws of any country in which it has remained longer than one year, including import duties and taxes. In recognition of the effect of these Conventions, we have adopted a one-year limitation on the temporary importation of nonconforming vehicles by nonresidents, and we do not grant waivers or exemptions from this requirement. However, if you return in the Honda to Canada at the end of the first year of your husband's studies, we would regard the export provisions as having been met, and a new one-year period would begin when the car is re-imported into the U.S. for your husband's second year of studies. Although our regulations do provide for indefinite entry of nonconforming vehicles that are imported for 'research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training' (Section 591.5(j)), we do not interpret this as applying to importers who come to the U.S. to study. Rather, it applies to the importer who wishes to import a vehicle so that it may be studied. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0330OpenDavid A. Phelps, Jr., Group Supervisor, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; David A. Phelps Jr. Group Supervisor Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps: This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 1971, to Mr. Carte concerning section 574.10 of Part 574 - Tire Identification and Record Keeping, as it applies to tires on a chassis for which you sell and mount the body.; In cases where the chassis are manufactured and sold with tires by th chassis manufacturer or chassis dealer, it would be permissible for the manufacturer of the chassis to maintain the record of tires on the chassis, and the name of the user of the chassis, and notify the user in the event a defect notification is required.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0625OpenStephen F. Hefner, Esq., Nance, Caston, Hefner and Green, Attorneys at Law, 421 North Crockett Street, Sherman, TX 75090; Stephen F. Hefner Esq. Nance Caston Hefner and Green Attorneys at Law 421 North Crockett Street Sherman TX 75090; Dear Mr. Hefner: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1972, concerning th certification of new trailers which your client manufactures. You state that some of these trailers are shipped (to customers) equipped with used tires that are intended primarily to be used to ship the trailers to their destination, and ask whether these tires should be taken into account in the values for GVWR and GAWR on the certification label.; We do not consider that temporary tires attached to a vehicle fo purposes of shipment should be reflected in the GVWR and GAWR on the certification label, if these tires are not intended to be part of the completed vehicle. consequently, we would expect trailers shipped with such tires to be treated similarly for purposes of certification as vehicles for which no tires have been provided. In such a case, the complete vehicle manufacturer, as indicated in the preamble to the Certification regulations (April 14, 1971, 36 F.R. 2054) must still bear responsibility and certify the vehicle, even though he does not install the tires with which the vehicle will ultimately be equipped. We suggest that one manner in which this could be accomplished by the manufacturer is to list GAWR and GVWR for the optional tire sizes which he recommends in accordance with the amendment to the Certification regulations published December 10, 1971 (35 F.R. 23571). The manufacturer should make it clear to the purchaser of the vehicle that the temporary tires should be replaced when the vehicle is put into use.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2618OpenMr. Gustavo R.. Lima, Vice-President, Algus Enterprises, Inc., P. O. Box 520576, Miami, Florida 33152; Mr. Gustavo R.. Lima Vice-President Algus Enterprises Inc. P. O. Box 520576 Miami Florida 33152; Dear Mr. Lima: This responds to your June 27, 1977, letter asking whether tires tha you export for use on agricultural vehicles are required by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to be labeled with the letters DOT.; The answer to your question is no, unless the tires can also be used o vehicles other than agricultural vehicles. If the tires can be so used, they must be marked with the DOT symbol and meet any Federal requirements applicable to them.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1937OpenMr. John M. Burlake, 1757 Yuba Street, P.O. Box 2073, Redding, CA 96001; Mr. John M. Burlake 1757 Yuba Street P.O. Box 2073 Redding CA 96001; Dear Mr. Burlake: This is in response to your letter of April 3, 1975, requestin information concerning the compliance of the seat belt assembly of a 1972 BMW sedan.; Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required by section 114 of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) to affix permanently to their vehicles a certification label that confirms each vehicle's compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 detail the procedure for satisfying the certification requirement. Manufacturers are not required to furnish the Department with a certification statement.; There are three motor vehicle safety standards that relate to the sea belt assembly. Depending upon the date of manufacture of the BMW in question, it should have been certified as complying with the standards that were in effect at that time.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defect Investigation maintains a log of reported defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, if you wish to ascertain whether or not there have been similar reports of seat belt assembly defects in certain 1972 BMW models, I suggest you write to that office enclosing full information on the nature of the alleged defect and the vehicle model. You may also be interested in obtaining information pursuant to the procedure described in the enclosed Federal Register notice.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5427OpenMr. David Huff Co-Chairperson, Special Transportation Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation Central Missouri State University Warrensburg, MO 64093; Mr. David Huff Co-Chairperson Special Transportation Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation Central Missouri State University Warrensburg MO 64093; "Dear Mr. Huff: This responds to your letter to Mr. Charles Hott o this agency asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222), for wheelchair securement devices. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask about the need to increase Standard 222's strength requirements for wheelchair securement devices that are part of an integrated system. In an integrated system, the occupant restraint system (lap and shoulder belts) is anchored to the wheelchair securement device. You suggest that a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system should be required to withstand twice the load that is required for a securement device that is not integrated with the occupant restraint system. While we share your belief that wheelchair securement devices should be sufficiently strong, we do not believe there is a need to increase Standard 222's present requirements for securement devices that are part of an integrated system. Rather, we believe a securement device that meets the standard's present requirements is capable of withstanding the forces imposed on that device in a crash, even when the device is part of an integrated system such as the one you described. As you point out in your letter, S5.4.1.3 of Standard 222 provides for increasing the load requirement for a wheelchair securement anchorage when that anchorage is used by more than one wheelchair securement device. Moreover, S5.4.3.2(e) of the standard specifies that When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1.3 13,344 Newtons and S5.4.3.2 13,344 Newtons shall be applied simultaneously... Stated differently, the floor anchorage used for an integrated system must withstand a load of 26,688 Newtons, which is the sum of the load specified for the wheelchair securement device and the load specified for the occupant restraint. However, Standard 222 does not require increasing the load for a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system, and there is valid reason for the different approach. Under S5.4.2(a) of Standard 222, wheelchair securement devices that incorporate webbing or a strap must comply with the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Type I systems are lap belts, and are required by S4.2(b) of FMVSS 209 to have a breaking strength of not less than '6,000 pounds or 2,720 kilograms.' The 6,000 pound (2,720 kg.) requirement is equivalent to the 26,688 Newton requirement for an anchorage used for an integrated system. Thus, Standard 222 requires wheelchair securement devices to be as strong as an anchorage that secures both the wheelchair and the occupant restraint. Requiring the wheelchair securement device to be stronger than the anchorage cannot be justified by a safety need. I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0275OpenMr. James O. Blakenship, Director of CentiMile Programs, Long Mile Rubber Company, 155 South Court - Exchange Park, P.O. Box 45228, Dallas, Texas 75235; Mr. James O. Blakenship Director of CentiMile Programs Long Mile Rubber Company 155 South Court - Exchange Park P.O. Box 45228 Dallas Texas 75235; Dear Mr. Blakenship: This is in reply to your letter to Mr. Van Orden dated May 20, 1971. Tires retreaded prior to the effective date of the retreaded standar (January 1, 1972) are not permitted to contain the DOT symbol on the tire. If you have marked your matrices with the symbol, I suggest you buff the letters off the tire after it is retreaded, or remove the symbol from the matrix, or fill in that portion of the matrix.; The retreading of tires without the DOT markings before the effectiv date of the standard is permissible.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting 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.