United States Department of TransportationNHTSA 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: aiam3100OpenMr. Daniel I. Borovik, Director of Development and Planning, Essex Group, Wire Assembly Division, 6233 Concord Avenue, Detroit, MI 48211; Mr. Daniel I. Borovik Director of Development and Planning Essex Group Wire Assembly Division 6233 Concord Avenue Detroit MI 48211; Dear Mr. Borovik: This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1979, asking whethe 'trailer warning lamps [should] flash or be steady-burning' when the towing vehicle's hazard warning system is actuated and the service brakes are applied.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require trailer to be equipped with hazard warning signal lamps, and you may design your trailer tow electrical package without reference to it. Lack of Federal regulation in this area, however, means that each State may set its own requirements, and you should ascertain whether such exist before finalizing your design.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1428OpenMr. David E. Martin, Manager, Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. David E. Martin Manager Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Martin: This is in further reply to your letter of November 19, 1974 petitioning the NHTSA to amend Part 567, Certification (S 567.4(f)), to allow the use of certification labels on which the lettering is embossed or engraved without regard to whether it contrasts with its background.; The NHTSA has decided that your petition should be denied. Ou experience has been that certain types of engraving, those that are stencil- types or stamped, are difficult to read without color contrast. The NHTSA considers it essential that certification labels be readable under all lighting conditions, and has not found embossing or engraving to product by themselves sufficiently readable lettering for these labels. Of course, there is no prohibition against embossing or engraving if the finished lettering contrasts with its background.; We appreciate your point that Standard No. 105a accepts embossed o engraved lettering on the master cylinder reservoir label without requiring a color contrast. We are presently considering amending Standard No. 105a to eliminate this discrepancy.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3415OpenMr. Roy Littlefield, Director, Government Relations, National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc., 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Roy Littlefield Director Government Relations National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association Inc. 1343 L Street N.W. Washington DC 20005; Dear Mr. Littlefield: This responds to your March 27, 1981, letter to Mr. Kratzke of m staff. In your letter, you requested a clarification of a statement in my March 11, 1981, letter to Mr. Harry Shirai, concerning the importing of used tires into this country. Specifically, I had indicated that one means by which used tires could legally be imported into the United States would be for the tires to be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, met the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119). You have asked for more information on what steps would have to be taken to ensure that the imported tires complied with all of the requirements for this alternative.; Since receiving your letter, this agency has re-examined this subject We recognize the severe supply problems facing the industry at this time and the possibly grave adverse price effects on consumers if such shortages are not eliminated. Bearing in mind the serious safety concerns which are involved, the agency has concluded that precedents exist for another alternative solution that would achieve the desired result without compromise of safety.; Used tires imported for retreading are unquestionably 'pneumati tires,' as that term is defined in Standard 109. They cannot, however, legally be used on the public highways, since the tread on casings is almost always well under 2/32 of an inch. The use of tires with such minimal tread on trucks in interstate commerce is prohibited by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR S 393.75(c)) and would violate this agency's specifications for State vehicle inspection standards (49 CFR S 570.9(a) and 49 CFR S 570.62(a)). Hence, the majority of States would not certify a vehicle as passing inspection with these tires and trucks with these tires cannot be used in interstate commerce.; Further, it is important to examine the intent of the importers o these tires.; According to the representations made by your organization and som individual members, it is our understanding that these tires would be imported solely for retreading purposes. In other words, these casings are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment (retreaded truck tires), rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). Objective proof of this intent can be found in the fact that significant numbers of used foreign truck tires were imported into this country between 1975 and 1980, yet this agency has no information indicating that these tires, which did not meet the requirements of Standard 119, were used or sold without being retreaded.; Based on these considerations, we conclude that truck tire casing which have less than 2/32 inch tread and which are imported, introduced into interstate commerce, offered for sale or sold solely for the purpose of retreading are not 'items of motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of that Act. Precedent for the use of such criteria is found in action by the agency in 1969 when it decided that mini-bikes were not 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That decision was made because mini-bikes were prohibited from highway use in the vast majority of the States, and because the manufacturers' subject intent, proven by several objective factors, was not to build vehicles for use on the public roads (34 FR 15416, October 3, 1969).; As you know, there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truc tires. I urge you to stress to your members the need to assure the soundness of the casings used for retreading, so that no safety problems arise from retreading these tires. Should such a problem arise, this agency would consider rulemaking to establish a safety standard for retreaded truck tires, as well as exercising its authority with regard to items containing a safety-related defect.; Should you have any questions on the actual mechanics of importin these casings, and the duties which would be applicable, I suggest that you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U.S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20229. He can be reached at (202) 566-8651.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1582OpenMr. Zenjiro Hase,Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.,9, I-chome, Nishiyabushitacho,Nishiku, Nagoya, Japan; Mr. Zenjiro Hase Toyoda Gosei Co. Ltd. 9 I-chome Nishiyabushitacho Nishiku Nagoya Japan; Dear Mr. Hase:#This responds to your August 8, 1974, question whethe the effective date of Standard No. 106-74, *Brake hoses*, is September 1, 1974, for hose (and fittings) and March 1, 1975, for hose assemblies.#Your interpretation is correct. The standard requires conforming hose (and fittings) as of September 1, 1974. It requires conforming assemblies (including the label band) only on March 1, 1975, and thereafter.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1078OpenMr. Arthur H. Davis, RFD 2, Box 174A, Bangor, ME 04401; Mr. Arthur H. Davis RFD 2 Box 174A Bangor ME 04401; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in reply to your letter which we received April 5, 1973, whic asks if you, as a dealer of tires, may register all new and retreaded tires sold to first purchasers on a single form and send that form to a tire registry service.; Under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CF Part 574) dealers selling cars to first purchasers must record the sale and forward the required information to the manufacturer or his designee. Therefore, you can only record all the tire sales from various manufacturers and retreaders on a registry service form if that registry service is the designee of all of the manufacturers and retreaders whose tires you sell.; For your information we have enclosed a copy of the Tire Identificatio and Record Keeping regulation (Notice No. 5) and a copy of an interpretation of the regulation dealing with the question of manufacturers' designees (Notice No. 10).; Thank you for your interest in auto safety. Sincerely, David Schmeltzer, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4780OpenMr. Roman L. Cepeda P.O. Box 3571 Agana, Guam 96910; Mr. Roman L. Cepeda P.O. Box 3571 Agana Guam 96910; Dear Mr. Cepeda: This is in reply to your letter of July 24, l990, t Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency. You wish to import 8 to 12 stainless steel parts. After importation, the parts would be put together to form a Jeep body. Ultimately, an engine, chassis, and all other parts, which are from Guam, would be added to form a completed motor vehicle. You have asked for confirmation that 'the stainless steel jeep body is not a motor vehicle and is not required to meet any provision of the U.S. 49 CFR Part 400 to 999.' Apparently, you are having a misunderstanding with Guam Customs on this point. We are pleased to provide confirmation of your interpretation. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the stainless steel body parts that you describe. This means that you may import them, as individual body parts, into Guam without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Under 49 CFR 591.5(i)(2), the appropriate declaration for entry is that they were manufactured on a date when no Federal motor vehicle safety standards were in effect that applied to them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3045OpenMr. R. G. Clifton, Manager, Tyre Legislation, Dunlop Limited, Tyre Technical Division, Fort Dunlop, Birmingham, England B24 9QT; Mr. R. G. Clifton Manager Tyre Legislation Dunlop Limited Tyre Technical Division Fort Dunlop Birmingham England B24 9QT; Dear Mr. Clifton: This is in response to your letter of May 8, 1979, requesting a exemption from the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), Federal motor vehicle safety standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109), and the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Part 574 (49 CFR Part 574) for several lines of 'antique' tires.; Dunlop's petition for exemption does not qualify as a petition fo temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards under Part 555 (49 CFR Part 555), since that part applies only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. However, the regulations you refer to apply only to tires for use on vehicles manufactured after 1948 (49 CFR 575.104(c)), (sic)49 CFR 571.109, S2, 49 CFR 574.4), and therefore, many of the tires listed in your letter are not within the scope of these regulations. Also, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to issue in the near future a notice of proposed rulemaking to exclude limited production tires from the application of the UTQG Standards, regardless of the tire's intended use.; You also asked that some form of labeling system be adopted for tire which are not required to be graded under the UTQG regulation, to facilitate processing of such tires by United States customs authorities. Regulations governing importation of motor vehicle equipment (19 CFR 12.80) only require compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Any tire marked with the DOT symbol as required by Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109, S4.3.1) or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119, S6.5(a)), as applicable, or which is not required to comply with such standards, will be processed expeditiously by customs authorities, and the question of compliance with the UTQG regulation should not arise. While NHTSA does not consider it necessary to impose a labeling system for tires excluded from the UTQG Standard, the agency has no objection to voluntary labeling by manufacturers or importers.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2204OpenMr. John L. O'Connell, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles, State Street, Wethersfield, CT 06109; Mr. John L. O'Connell State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles State Street Wethersfield CT 06109; Dear Mr. O'Connell: This is in response to your letters of June 24, 1975, and May 30, 1975 regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217 and 205. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions.; In your letter of June 24, 1975, you asked whether Standard No. 21 applies to school buses, and if so, whether Connecticut's regulations concerning emergency exits for school buses are in conflict with the Federal standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, 49 CFR 571.217, was amended to specify requirements for emergency doors for school buses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 202 of the Motor Vehicle and Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392).; Since Standard No. 217, as amended, applies to school buses, effectiv October 26, 1976, any State regulations which differ are voided by S103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The Connecticut regulations are, therefore, preempted by Standard No. 217, since S103(d) requires the State regulations to be identical' to the Federal standard.; It should be noted, however, that while the State of Connecticut ma not issue a regulation which differs from similarly applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements, Connecticut (or any of its political subdivisions) may in its own contracts for school bus purchases require more stringent specifications, as long as the Federal minimum requirements are met.; In your letter of May 30, 1975, you asked whether Lucite AR and othe similar rigid plastics are allowed for use as side windows of buses under Standard No. 205, even though S5.1.2.1 does not list the use for Item 12' rigid plastics.; Item 12' is a classification created by the NHTSA for rigid plastic which comply with all tests required of Item 5' rigid plastics as defined in ANS Z26, with the exception of the test for resistance to undiluted denatured alcohol. Paragraph S5.1.2.1, Item 12 - *Rigid plastics*, provides that Item 5' safety plastic materials may be used in motor vehicles *only* in the locations specified, at levels not requisite for driving visibility. These locations include Standee windows in buses' and readily removable windows'. However, there is no provision in S5.1.2.1 which allows the use of Item 12' plastic materials for fixed, side windows in buses.; Standard No. 205 defines readily removable windows in buses having GVWR of more that 10,000 pounds to include pushout windows and windows mounted in emergency exits that can be manually pushed out of their location in the vehicle without the use of tools, whether or not one side remains hinged to the vehicle. Rigid plastics can only be used for side windows in buses if the side window is a readily removable window as defined by S5.1.1.4 or a standee window.; I hope this letter clarifies your questions concerning Standard Nos 217 and 205. Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0239OpenMr. F. Clayton Meserve, President, Micro Machinery Products, Inc., 808 Main Street, Winchester, Massachusetts 01890; Mr. F. Clayton Meserve President Micro Machinery Products Inc. 808 Main Street Winchester Massachusetts 01890; Dear Mr. Meserve: Thank you for your comments and suggestions contained in your April 23 1970, letter to Mrs Douglas Toms concerning motor vehicle Safety.; In your letter, you ask that the Bureau clarify whether a dealer wh sells 'Micro-siped' tires that do not comply with Standard no. 109 would be subject to a civil penalty. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. *et seq*) prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling or offering for sale any item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in conformity with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. the prohibitions specified in the Act, do not apply after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (108(b)(1)). Therefore, if a dealer offers for sale or sells new tires that have been micro-siped and those tires do not comply with Standard No. 109 he would be subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each tire that did not comply. This penalty provision would not be applicable, however, if the tires to be micro-siped are owned by the user of the tires.; It is noted for your information that section 569.7(c) of the Regroove Tire Regulation (formerly 369.7(c), copy enclose) prohibits sale, offer for sale, or introduction in interstate commerce 'siped tires produced by cutting the tread surface of a regrooved or regroovable tire without removing rubber, if the tire cord material is damaged as a result of the siping process, or if the tire is siped deeper than the original, retread, or regrooved groove depth.'; Your interest in the motor vehicle safety program is greatl appreciated.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz,Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0393OpenMr. Frank S. Elliott, Assistant to the Vice-President- Treasurer, Grove Manufacturing Company, Shady Grove, PA 17256; Mr. Frank S. Elliott Assistant to the Vice-President- Treasurer Grove Manufacturing Company Shady Grove PA 17256; Dear Mr. Elliott: This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1971, regarding the Tir Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574).; You have asked if Grove Manufacturing Company is a 'Motor Vehicl Manufacturer' within the meaning of section 574.10 of the regulation. As you indicated in your letter, you are the final-stage manufacturer of a truck mounted hydraulic crane, and as such, you are considered the vehicle manufacturer under section 568.3 of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (49 CFR 568). As the vehicle manufacturer, you are required to maintain records of the name and address of the first purchaser of your vehicles, for purposes other than resale, along with a record of the tires on the vehicle at the time it is shipped.; Enclosed for convenience are copies of both regulations. For your information, I would direct you to section 568.7 which allow an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to assume all the responsibilities of a manufacturer, this would include the record keeping responsibilities of Part 574.; If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to write. 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.