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: nht71-3.35OpenDATE: 07/14/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Bandag Incorporated TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1971 to Mr. E. H. Wallace concerning the methods one of your dealers is using to place the identification number on tires he retreads. The manner in which your retreader in placing the identification number on the tires he retreads is not in conformity with(Illegible Word) 574 because the regulation requires, in Figure 2, that the "H" and the retreader's identification code be parallel with the rest of the tire identification(Illegible Word). The only thing that can be above, below, or to the left or right of the tire identification number is the "DOT" certification which is not applicable to retread tires until such time as the retread tire standard becomes(Illegible Word). |
|
ID: nht71-3.36OpenDATE: 07/15/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; D. Schmeltzer for L. R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Engine Division TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 1971, concerning compliance of the Norton(Illegible Word) Commando Production Racer with the front side marker requirements of the Federal lighting standard, No. 108. It is our understanding that the racer fairing is detachable only with considerable time and effort. For all intents and purposes the fairing can be regarded as a permanent part of the vehicle and thus an appropriate place to mount the side markers. |
|
ID: nht71-3.37OpenDATE: 07/16/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Minnesota Automotive, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 29 asking whether the installation of MICO brake locks, as a supplemental parking brake system, is acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. We understand that the MICO brake lock is used only in hydraulic brake systems of trucks. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard currently in effect covering truck hydraulic brake systems, and installation of MICO brake locks by a dealer, prior to first sale of a vehicle, is permissible as long as the lock does not impair conformance of brake hoses and brake hose assemblies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. That the installation might impair conformance is inferred in the Chevrolet Dealer letter, DD-1412, May 19, 1971, which you enclosed. A proposal has been issued (Docket No. 70-27) that would require trucks equipped with hydraulic brake systems to meet certain performance requirements, effective with trucks manufactured on or after October 1, 1972. If this proposal is adopted as a Federal standard, installation of the MICO supplemental brake system on a truck, by a dealer, prior to first sale of a vehicle would be allowable as long as the installation does not affect conformance of the required mechanical parking brake system with Federal requirements, or with Standard No. 106. |
|
ID: nht71-3.38OpenDATE: 07/16/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: National Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 29, 1971, in which you ask who would be the manufacturer of a retreaded tire, when the tire is manufactured by a process, known as "cure out". You explain this process as one in which one retread shop will process a casing to the point where it would be placed in a mold for curing. The tire is then sent to a second shop for curing and subsequently returned as a finished product to the first retread shop. You indicate that one of your members is now involved in a legal case, and the outcome apparently hinges on who is legally responsible for the performance of the tire. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.) and motor vehicle safety standards and regulations issued pursuant to the Act (49 CFR @ 551 et seq.) the manufacturer in the "cure out" process as described above, would be the second retread shop, the one which produces the finished product. It is he who would be required to assume responsibility for the compliance of the tire with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires", and it is also he who would be assigned a code mark pursuant to the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574). 2 However, the person we consider the manufacturer for purposes of the Act and regulations issued pursuant to the Act, may not be responsible for the tire in a civil suit, and our opinion is not intended to speak to the issue of liability in a civil action. TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE June 29, 1971 David Smeltzer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Would you please give me in writing an interpretation of who is the legal manufacturer of a retread produced under the so-called "cure out" process. To refresh your mind a "cure out" is that operation whereby one retread shop will process a casing to the point where it would be placed in a mold for curing. At that stage the partially processed retread is sent to a second retread shop for curing and subsequently returned as a finished product to the first retread shop. One of our members is now involved in a legal case and apparently the outcome hinges on who is legally responsible for the performance of the retread when it is sold to a consumer. A timely response from you would be appreciated. Philip H. Taft Director |
|
ID: nht71-3.39OpenDATE: 07/16/71 FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY RICHARD B. DYSON TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1971, to Administrator Douglas W. Toms, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.2(h) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, and particularly of the sentence containing the phrase ". . . the retractor and webbing shall be suspended vertically . . ." Of the two interpretations you submitted, your interpretation 2 is correct. The retractor-webbing combination is suspended vertically -- there is no restriction on the attitude of the retractor with respect to the webbing. Thus, the retractor may be suspended in the position it will be mounted in the vehicle relative to the webbing when the webbing is in use. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. |
|
ID: nht71-3.4OpenDATE: 05/17/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Tanaka and Walders TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1971, in which you discussed the difficulties that may be caused by State enforcement procedures that require a manufacturer to obtain State approval of products covered by Federal standards before he may sell the products in the State. Your letter was an amplification of the JAMA petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 209, submitted April 3, 1971. The NHTSA is giving careful consideration to the situation you have described. We intend to take action to alleviate the problem in the near future. |
|
ID: nht71-3.40OpenDATE: 07/11/71 FROM: CLUE D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY J. ZEMAITIS TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 18 and 21, 1971, concerning the application of the proposed requirements for glazing materials (Docket 71-1, Notice 1) as they would apply to heated rear windows and mirrors. In your letter of June 18 you state that the heating lines used in the rear window continue almost to the bottom of the glass at the ends. You propose putting an abbreviated mark at the bottom left hand corner, with the full trade mark appearing at the bottom center, and ask whether this would(Illegible Word) with the proposed requirements. The answer to this question is no. Paragraph S5.5 of the proposed amendment would require the complete mark to be placed in either the lower left or right hand corner of the rear window. Your letter of June 21 asks whether it is likely that there will be further amendment to Standard No. 205. You mention that you were told that the proposed amendment should have referred to interior vanity mirrors and not the normal rear view mirror. Finally, you state that if the proposed requirements apply to the normal rear view mirror, you will need to do additional development work. The proposed amendment to Standard No. 205 is still under consideration, and no final determination has been made as to whether the proposal, or any part of it, will be issued as a final rule. With reference to your comments concerning the normal rear view mirror, S4.3 of the proposal clearly refers to glazing for use in all interior mirrors, including both the normal rear view mirror, and any other interior mirror, such as a vanity mirror. With reference to your comments concerning the need for additional development work, adequate lead times will be provided for in any final rule that is issued. Copies of your letters will be placed in Docket No. 71-1. |
|
ID: nht71-3.41OpenDATE: 06/04/71 FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER TO: Williamsen Body & Equipment Company TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1971, requesting an interpretation of the Tire Identication and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. Part 574) as it applies to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. The final-stage manufacturer, as a vehicle manufacturer, under section 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, is required to keep a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and to maintain a record of the tires shipped on or in the completed vehicle (49 C.F.R. 574.10). Although the final-stage manufacturer may designate someone to maintain the records required under section 574.10 of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, the legal responsibility for maintaining the records remains with the final-stage manufacturer. However, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediate manufacturer, may assume "legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by (the Act) with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured . . . " (49 C.F.R. 568.7). In such a case, the responsibilities for maintaining the records required by the Act and by the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation will be assumed by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediate manufacturer, and the final-stage manufacturer will be relieved of all liability for maintaining the records. Under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, the manufacturer is not required to keep a record of tires manufactured before May 22 1971, but sold after that date. However, where feasible, we recommend that the manufacturer maintain some system whereby he can identify the type of tire on vehicles he sells as well as the purchaser of the vehicle. For your convenience, we have enclosed copies of the Act with its amendments, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, and the Certification Regulation. ENCLOSURES |
|
ID: nht71-3.42OpenDATE: 07/19/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1971, concerning a dispute you are having with your supplier of glazing materials concerning who is the "prime glazing material manufacturer" as specified in S3.4 of Standard No. 205, and who would consequently be required to obtain a manufacturers' code number under S5.2 of the proposed amendment to Standard No. 205, published January 9, 1971 (Docket 71-1, Notice 1) (36 F.R. 326). You indicate that you purchase the glazing material from your supplier, and cut it to size for motorcycle windshields. You state that your supplier claims that although he manufactures the material to specification, he considers it to be purely a raw material, and that he is not a motor vehicle window or windshield manufacturer. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 applies to "glazing materials for use in . . . " specified types of motor vehicles, one of which is motorcycles. It applies to glazing material that is manufactured for use in these vehicles before as well as after it has been cut to size or installed in the motor vehicle. If a manufacturer is producing glazing materials that he knows are for use in motor vehicles he is, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturing glazing (1) which must comply with Standard No. 205 and (2) which he must certify, as specified in section 114 of the Act, and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed) as complying with the standard. A prime glazing material manufacturer may certify the material by the alternative method specified in S3.4 of Standard No. 205. The standard clearly distinguishes between the prime manufacturer and those who merely cut the material, and places responsibility for compliance and certification on the former as well as the latter. A producer of the basic glazing material, to be used in motor vehicles, is a "prime glazing material manufacturer" under the standard, and would be required to obtain the manufacturers' code mark under S5.2 of the proposed standard. That proposal is currently under consideration, however, and it is recommended that no action be taken until a final regualtion is published. ENCLOSURE |
|
ID: nht71-3.43OpenDATE: 07/19/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: General Telephone Company of California TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 1971, concerning General Telephone's obligations under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574). You have asked if General Telephone is required to keep records under the regulation in connection with the sale of used vehicles, and if it is, whether a specific exemption is required. If you are selling used vehicles to purchasers who are the ultimate users of these vehicles, and you are equipping those vehicles with new or newly retreaded tires, you are considered a tire dealer under section 574.9 of the regulation and you are required to maintain the records required by section 574.8 of the regulation. If, however, you are selling used vehicles without equipping them with new or newly retreaded tires, to dealers rather than users, the regulation does not apply to General Telephones and no specific exemption is necessary. Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of the regulation, if we can be of further assistance please feel free to write. ENCLOSURE |
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.