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: aiam3438OpenMr. R. W. Cheetham, Director of Quality Assurance, The Armstrong Rubber Company, 500 Sargent Drive, New Haven, CT 06507; Mr. R. W. Cheetham Director of Quality Assurance The Armstrong Rubber Company 500 Sargent Drive New Haven CT 06507; Dear Mr. Cheetham: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of th labeling requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically you asked if the requirements of section S6.5(f), requiring the tire label to show the actual number of plies, and the composition of the ply cord material would be satisfied by the Marking:; >>>'Tread - 2 plies Polyester + 2 Aramid Woven Belts Sidewall - 2 plies Polyester.' <<< It has been a longstanding policy of this agency not to issue advanc approval of labeling information. However, we will state that marking appears to satisfy the requirements of section S6.5(f) if it is slightly modified. Specifically, the reference to 'belts' should be deleted, and the word 'plies' should be substituted.; The purpose of the marking requirements in Standard No. 119 is t ensure that the user of the tire is provided with technical information in a straightforward manner. This information is necessary for the safe use of the tire. Section S6.5(f) of the Standard requires that the marking include only the actual number of *plies* and the composition of the *ply* cord material. To satisfy this requirement, the information for the tread should appear as: 'Tread - 2 plies Polyester + 2 plies Woven Aramid.'; Your desire to represent the ply cords as belts probably represents marketing effort by Armstrong to convince purchasers to buy this particular tire. This agency has no reason to believe that these tires are not outstanding performance tires or to reduce your marketing efforts. However, it is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required markings on the sidewall of the tires.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1659OpenMr. Harold D. Shall, Legal Counsel, Dana Corporation, P.O. Box 1000, Toledo, OH 43697; Mr. Harold D. Shall Legal Counsel Dana Corporation P.O. Box 1000 Toledo OH 43697; Dear Mr. Shall: This responds to Dana Corporations's October 22, 1974, request for statement by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, does not require antilock systems on the axles of air-braked trailers subject to the standard, and, if antilock systems are provided, that the standard does not specify the number or location of the speed sensing or logic components which constitute the system.; Standard No. 121 requires that wheels not lock-up under certai conditions (S5.3.1, S5.3.2) but it does not require the use of an antilock system to prevent wheel lockup. If a manufacturer chooses to install an antilock system on his vehicle, the standard requires that an anti-lock warning signal be installed (S5.1.6), that electrical failure of the antilock system not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes (S5.5.1), and that an antilock system on a trailer be powered through the stop lamp circuit (S5.5.2).; There are no other requirements for antilock systems used on air-brak equipped vehicles subject to Standard No. 121. This means that the manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. It should be noted, however, that the 'controlled lock-up' exception of S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.2(a) would not apply to a wheel which is not equipped with a wheel sensor that contributes to the control of the reduction of air pressure.; If the number and location of these components becomes a safety proble in the future, the NHTSA would consider appropriate specifications for them.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1082OpenMr. Kazushi Sakashita, Assistant Manager, Export Services Division, Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd., 6047 Fuchu-Machi, Aki-Gun, Hiroshima, Japan; Mr. Kazushi Sakashita Assistant Manager Export Services Division Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd. 6047 Fuchu-Machi Aki-Gun Hiroshima Japan; Dear Mr. Sakashita: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask tw questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacements parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; There are no requirements for the certification of replacement vehicl parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present Standard Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements tha manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that 'due care' was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.; It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or no subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the manufacturer of the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which he will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0806OpenMr. Sam Huff, Specifications Consultant, Associated General Contractors, Texas Highway-Heavy Branch, P. O. Box 2185, Austin, TX 78767; Mr. Sam Huff Specifications Consultant Associated General Contractors Texas Highway-Heavy Branch P. O. Box 2185 Austin TX 78767; Dear Mr. Huff: This is in reply to your letter of July 31, 1972, concerning work to b performed on new trucks. Your three questions are answered below.; You ask, 'What are the legal aspects of a road contractor doing th fifth-wheel work on a new truck?' The installation of a fifth wheel on a new vehicle would most likely make the installer a 'final-stage manufacturer' under NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) and regulations governing 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 568). Final-stage manufacturers bear the responsibility for certifying that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The procedure for certifying is specified in the Certification regulations, copies of which are enclosed.; Your second question is, 'At what stage after purchase may a new truc be legally termed a used truck?' For our purposes, a used vehicle is any vehicle that has been purchased in good faith for a purpose other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).; Your last question is, 'Would the installation of extra lights o safety items be construed as final manufacturing?' The installation of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tires, is not considered to be an activity which makes the installer a final-stage manufacturer. We are of the opinion that the same would be true regarding the installation of 'extra' lights (those not required pursuant to Motor vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, (49 CFR 571.108)). We cannot provide you with an opinion as to 'safety items' as this term is too general. However, assuming that you are referring to items not required by a motor vehicle safety standard, our answer would most likely be the same. The manufacturer should determine whether the component he installs affects to a significant extent either the configuration or purpose of the vehicle. If it does not, (we will accept a manufacturer's reasonable determination in this regard) then the installer would not be considered a final- stage manufacturer.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0803OpenMr. Sam Huff, Specifications Consultant, Associated General Contractors, Texas Highway-Heavy Branch, P. O. Box 2185, Austin, TX 78767; Mr. Sam Huff Specifications Consultant Associated General Contractors Texas Highway-Heavy Branch P. O. Box 2185 Austin TX 78767; Dear Mr. Huff: This is in reply to your letter of July 31, 1972, concerning work to b performed on new trucks. Your three questions are answered below.; You ask, 'What are the legal aspects of a road contractor doing th fifth-wheel work on a new truck?' The installation of a fifth wheel on a new vehicle would most likely make the installer a 'final-stage manufacturer' under NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) and regulations governing 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 568). Final-stage manufacturers bear the responsibility for certifying that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The procedure for certifying is specified in the Certification regulations, copies of which are enclosed.; Your second question is, 'At what stage after purchase may a new truc be legally termed a used truck?' For our purposes, a used vehicle is any vehicle that has been purchased in good faith for a purpose other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).; Your last question is, 'Would the installation of extra lights o safety items be construed as final manufacturing?' The installation of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tires, is not considered to be an activity which makes the installer a final-stage manufacturer. We are of the opinion that the same would be true regarding the installation of 'extra' lights (those not required pursuant to Motor vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, (49 CFR 571.108)). We cannot provide you with an opinion as to 'safety items' as this term is too general. However, assuming that you are referring to items not required by a motor vehicle safety standard, our answer would most likely be the same. The manufacturer should determine whether the component he installs affects to a significant extent either the configuration or purpose of the vehicle. If it does not, (we will accept a manufacturer's reasonable determination in this regard) then the installer would not be considered a final- stage manufacturer.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5071OpenMr. Christopher Leone NewBold Designs 765 Allens Avenue Providence, R.I. 02905; Mr. Christopher Leone NewBold Designs 765 Allens Avenue Providence R.I. 02905; "Dear Mr. Leone: This responds to your FAX of August 6, 1992, to Taylo Vinson of this Office, asking for rules and regulations of the Department on electric vehicles. I understand that you talked with Mr. Vinson later in the day, and received an overview of the matter. I further understand that you intend only the construction of a single experimental vehicle, and have no plans for its production. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the introduction into interstate commerce, by any person, of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation, for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 may be imposed. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are set out in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. There are no standards that apply specifically to electric vehicles, and the standards that apply to your project car are those that apply to 'passenger cars' in general. However, the manufacturer of an electric vehicle may petition us for a temporary exemption (up to 2 years) from one or more of the safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle. The temporary exemption regulations are found at 49 CFR Part 555. An exemption covers up to 2,500 vehicles per year for any 12-month period that the exemption is in effect. Regulations governing the licensing of motor vehicles are the prerogative of the individual States. Thus, you should inquire as to what Rhode Island requires for your contemplated vehicle. There is a regulatory gap which your situation highlights, and that is the legal status of a person who intends to build only a single motor vehicle. Such a person is not a 'manufacturer' under the Act, since the operative portion of the definition of 'manufacturer' is one who manufactures or assembles 'motor vehicles'. The temporary exemption authority appears directed towards commercial enterprises and not single motor vehicles. Nevertheless, we believe we have the authority to exempt a single motor vehicle under these provisions. If you wish to consult us further in this matter, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to help you. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4807OpenMr. Gordon Bonvallet 1686 Lighthouse Hill Road Homer, NY 13077; Mr. Gordon Bonvallet 1686 Lighthouse Hill Road Homer NY 13077; Dear Mr. Bonvallet: This is in reply to your letter of October 5, l990 with respect to a prospective headlighting system. It is contemplated that the lower beam on the system would be furnished by a gaseous discharge headlamp, an 'integral beam' headlamp under Standard No. 108. The upper beam would be furnished by a replaceable bulb headlamp using an HB3 light source. You comment that a combination system such as this is not specifically addressed by Standard No. 108, and you ask for confirmation of your opinion that the photometric requirements of Figure l5 would apply to both the upper and lower beam headlamps. At the present time, such a hybrid headlighting system is impermissible under Standard No. 108. The standard establishes separate requirements for integral beam headlighting systems (S7.4), and for replaceable bulb headlighting systems (S7.5). Though 'integral beam headlighting system' is not specifically defined by Standard No. 108, such a system would appear to be one that consists of integral beam headlamps. Standard No. 108 does define 'integral beam headlamp', and that definition specifically excludes 'a replaceable bulb headlamp' such as one containing an HB3 light source. Similarly, a 'replaceable bulb headlamp system' is one that consists solely of headlamps containing HB1, HB2, HB3, HB4, or HB5 light sources. It is true that Figure l5 is one of three lower beam photometric options that apply to an integral beam headlamp, such as one producing illumination through gaseous discharge. However, under the language of the standard, Figure l5 applies when the lamp is used in a four headlamp integral beam headlighting system (S7.4(a)(l)(i)). It is also true that the upper beam photometrics of Figure 15 apply to an HB3 replaceable bulb headlamp (S7.5(e)(3)(ii)), but only when used in a four lamp headlighting system in which each headlamp contains a single replaceable light source. As you know, the policy of this agency for the last decade has been to reduce design restrictions on headlighting systems. Removal of the implicit prohibition against hybrid headlighting systems would be a further step in this direction. If your client is seriously considering such a system, it may submit a petition for rulemaking at the appropriate time. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3434OpenMr. W. D. Smith,, Acting Chief of Staff, United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, CA 92311; Mr. W. D. Smith Acting Chief of Staff United States Marine Corps Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow CA 92311; Dear Mr. Smith: Your letter of June 23, 1981 was forwarded to this office for reply. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued number of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that are mandatory under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for all motor vehicles operated on public streets and highways. Included in those FMVSS are some that specifically apply to vehicles classified by the manufacturer as school buses. The vehicle manufacturer's certification label, generally on the door pillar, or the door, or in the driver's compartment, identifies this classification of the vehicle (TYPE) and the date of manufacture, this information in turn identifies the FMVSS that are applicable to the vehicle. These FMVSS pre-empt all state standards that apply to the same area of performance or component and require that the state standard shall be identical with the FMVSS.; Under the provisions of the Highway Safety Act the NHTSA has als issued, eighteen Highway Safety Program Standards (HSPS). Number 17 of this group applies to Pupil Transportation Safety. A copy of the 18 HSPS is enclosed for your information and there are also more detailed manuals available for guidance. These 18 HSPS are not mandatory for Federal requirements and are for the purpose of providing uniform guidelines for the states to develop their own standards. Where a state has developed its own standards from such guidelines or as its needs may require, the state is fully in control of its laws and enforcement that is applicable. The color used for school buses, as an example, can be a mandatory state law requirement. Laws concerning the transportation of school children on California streets and highways are also the state's responsibility.; We have also enclosed a current copy of the three Acts administered b the NHTSA and a leaflet indicating where the detailed FMVSS can be obtained. A booklet briefly summarizing some of the FMVSS and Motor Vehicle Regulations is also enclosed.; We have forwarded your letter, plus the attachments of CH correspondence, to our office of Chief Counsel in Washington D.C. for their review and comment concerning exemptions or pre-emptions.; Joseph F. Zemaitis |
|
ID: aiam0741OpenMr. David Rothschild II, Executive Vice President, David Rothschild Company, Post Office Box 20, Columbus, GA, 31902; Mr. David Rothschild II Executive Vice President David Rothschild Company Post Office Box 20 Columbus GA 31902; Dear Mr. Rothschild: This is in reply to your letter of April 11, 1972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' You ask whether the standard applies to motor homes and recreational vehicles being towed. You also ask what type of certificate or guarantee is required of a fabric manufacturer.; Standard No. 302 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenge vehicles, trucks, and buses. It does not apply to trailers, the vehicle category which includes mobile homes and other towed recreational vehicles, and these vehicles are consequently not subject to its requirements. With respect to your questions regarding certification by fabric manufacturers, the standard applies to motor vehicles, and it is the vehicle manufacturer who bears the responsibility to certify, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the vehicle conforms to the standard. There are no Federal requirements regarding certification to this standard imposed on fabric suppliers. However, manufacturers who purchase materials from such suppliers may require some form of certification or guarantee from them that the materials meet the standard.; If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1044OpenMr. Gerald R. Green, 110 Winnsboro Court, Jackson, MS 39206; Mr. Gerald R. Green 110 Winnsboro Court Jackson MS 39206; Dear Mr. Green: This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1973, concerning th mileage on the used Volkswagen you recently purchased.; I am enclosing two documents for your reference. The first is a copy o Title IV, Odometer Requirements, of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Public Law 92-513. This is the basic Federal law applicable to odometers. Section 409 of the Act describes the principal remedy available to defrauded buyers. The second document is the odometer disclosure regulation issued by this agency pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act.; Of particular relevance to your situation are the dates on which th provisions of Federal law become effective. Public Law 92-513 was signed by the President on October 20, 1972, and became effective 90 days later - on January 18, 1973. On and after that date it became unlawful to reset an odometer with the intent to change the mileage. A person who resets an odometer before that date would not have committed an unlawful act under Federal law. In your case, it must be established that the odometer was reset on or after January 18 in order to hold the seller liable under the Act.; In sales occurring after March 1, 1973, the disclosure requirement apply, and a seller who fails to disclose a reset odometer may be held liable, regardless of when the odometer was reset. However, you purchased your car before the disclosure requirements went into effect. Craigo Volkswagen was therefore not obliged, under Federal law, to make an accurate disclosure to you on January 22, 1973.; We cannot go further than to say that a private civil action might li against Craigo, it if can be shown that Craigo reset the odometer on or after January 18. You may want to consult an attorney as to the possibility of proving these facts.; On our part, the NHTSA is anxious to obtain as much information a possible concerning this and other suspected cases of odometer resetting. The government has injunctive powers under Section 410 of the Act and intends to use them when it appears that a person is making a practice of resetting odometers.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.