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: aiam4809OpenMr. Fred Ciampi Fred's Welding Service Route 86, Box 85 Jumping Branch, WV 25969-0085; Mr. Fred Ciampi Fred's Welding Service Route 86 Box 85 Jumping Branch WV 25969-0085; "Dear Mr. Ciampi: This responds to your letter requesting informatio concerning Federal requirements governing the manufacture of utility trailers. Your letter indicated that you plan to manufacture trailers. First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. For purposes of this authority, trailers are considered motor vehicles. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects. The following Federal safety standards apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification Number--Basic Requirements, and Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, depending on the type of braking system used, trailers must meet Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. All of these standards are found in 49 CFR Part 571. In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567. You may find a copy of 49 CFR at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of Title 49 from the United States Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 783-3238. With respect to laws governing trailer manufacture, the principal statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. You may obtain a copy of this Act from GPO. You may wish to note especially 151 of the Act, which requires a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to conduct notice and recall campaigns if you or this agency find that your product has a safety-related defect. There may be State regulations that apply to trailer manufacture and use. In many states, a person cannot register a new vehicle unless he or she has a statement or certificate of origin. I understand that the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association will supply a small quantity of form statements or certificates upon request. You may contact that organization by writing them at 1896 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 22090, or calling (800) 336-0154. You may wish to contact the local Department of Transportation or Motor Vehicle Administration in the states for which you have an interest for further information on state requirements. I hope you find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have specific questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0519OpenMr. Donald R. Meton, Systems Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Donald R. Meton Systems Safety Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Meton: This is in reply to your telegram of December 9, 1971, in which yo asked whether the effective dates of Standards 206, 207, 208, and 210 are postponed to January 1, 1974 for firefighting vehicles as a result of the adoption of the effective date provisions of 49 CFR 571.8 (36 F.R. 13926, July 28, 1971).; Our answer is that since all of the amendments making the liste standards applicable to trucks were issued prior to the September 1, 1971 reference date used in 571.8, these standards are effective on the dates established at the time of their issuance. Versions of Standards 208 and 210 became effective for trucks on July 1, 1971, and amended versions of these standards, as well as standards 206 and 207 become effective January 1, 1972.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2524OpenMr. Dennis J. Mahr, Attorney at Law, 232 Davidson Building, Sioux City, IA 51101; Mr. Dennis J. Mahr Attorney at Law 232 Davidson Building Sioux City IA 51101; Dear Mr. Mahr: Thank you for your letter of February 23, 1977, concerning the For Motor Company's record keeping practices involving a 1967 Mercury Cougar. Because of the legal nature of your inquiry, I am forwarding your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Chief Counsel for reply.; If I can be of further assistance to you, please let me know. Sincerely, William E. Scott, Acting Director, National Center fo Statistics and Analysis, Research and Development; |
|
ID: aiam0149OpenMr. E.E. Wolfe, Controller, Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company, Carlisle Corporation, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013; Mr. E.E. Wolfe Controller Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company Carlisle Corporation Carlisle Pennsylvania 17013; Dear Mr. Wolfe: Your December 27, 1968, request for a code number i accordance with subsection S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 and the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1421(1)) has been reviewed. Subsection S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 applies to passenger car tires, accordingly, the National Highway Safety Bureau has restricted the issuance of code numbers to manufacturers of these tires.; Since Carlisle Tire and Rubber Division does not engage in th manufacture of passenger car tires, and since the code number was requested in anticipation of future tire rule making, the issuance of a code number to the Carlisle Tire and Rubber Division would be premature and not in keeping with the intent of the regulations.; We have enclosed a Mailing List Questionnaire as promised. To assure flow of specialized mailings which may be of great importance to your particular organisation, please complete both sides with the correct information and return it to the Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Safety Bureau, Motor Vehicle Safety Performing Service, Washington, D.C. 20591. *Attention:* MVSPS Mailing List Questionnaire. If you require more than one form or have any inquiries concerning the form, Please direct your correspondence to the same address.; Sincerely, Roger H. Compton, Director, Office of Standard on Acciden Avoidance, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2174OpenMr. R. D. Coughlin, Vice President, Rol'on America, Inc., Melbourne, FL 32901; Mr. R. D. Coughlin Vice President Rol'on America Inc. Melbourne FL 32901; Dear Mr. Coughlin: This is in response to your letter of December 10, 1975, regarding th applicability of existing Federal regulations to the manufacture of 'Helmate.'; At the present time, there is no regulation pertaining directly to th type of helmet accessory your corporation produces. The general regulation concerning motorcycle helmets is 49 CFR S 571.218, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*. This standard establishes minimum performance requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.; If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business were to install 'Helmates' on helmets, the helmets would have to remain in conformity with the requirements of Standard 218. However, persons other than manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may modify products, after purchase by a user, without regard to the requirements of a Federal safety regulation. Thus, if 'Helmate' is mounted on the helmet by an ordinary consumer, safety Standard 218 is inapplicable.; There is some question as to whether motorcycle helmets will still mee the performance requirements of Standard 218, after the 3/8 inch hole required to mount the 'Helmate' is drilled. If it becomes apparent that installing 'Helmate' type helmet accessories causes the performance level of helmets to drop below the requirements of Standard 218, the NHTSA might find it necessary to enact regulations to rectify the situation. Our main concern is to assure that motorcycle helmets afford riders the protection and safety needed.; If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3335OpenMr. R. H. Snyder, Vice President, Tire Technology, Uniroyal Tire Company, 6600 East Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. R. H. Snyder Vice President Tire Technology Uniroyal Tire Company 6600 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Synder: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1980, requestin interpretation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR S 575.104) with regard to the assignment of treadwear grades. You report that Uniroyal has encountered variations in treadwear test data derived from UTQG tests conducted by different testing organizations. You ask whether a tire manufacturer is obligated under the UTQG treadwear grading procedure to base its grades on those test results which produce the lowest treadwear grade, or may use any available test data as the basis for grade assignment.; Uniform Tire Quality Grading, as with other National Highway Traffi Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations, involves a self-certification process in which manufacturers bear the primary responsibility for assuring that their products conform to required levels of performance, in this case the levels represented by their assigned grades. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) conducts testing to verify that various tires actually provide levels of performance consistent with their grades. When OVSC testing produces results at variance with assigned grades, the manufacturer involved is given an opportunity to provide justification for its grade assignments.; In determining that a product achieves a particular level o performance under the UTQG procedures, a manufacturer may exercise a considerable degree of discretion as to the amount of testing necessary to assure that its conclusions regarding compliance will withstand NHTSA scrutiny. In evaluating the performance of a product, NHTSA does not require that a manufacturer base its judgment on any particular piece of test data or on all available data. In fact, a manufacturer may disregard data from a particular source entirely, if the manufacturer can establish that other data provides a reasonable basis for grading.; However, a manufacturer cannot establish compliance by arbitraril picking and choosing among available data to select results of that test which happened to produce the most favorable result. Data used to establish compliance must be reliable and consistently reproducible, and cannot have been derived through manipulative devices, e.g., abusive driving, or unexacting test procedures. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to base its conclusions on data demonstrably developed in full conformance with the requirements of the regulation.; NHTSA will provide confidential treatment for your letter of August 14 1980, and the accompanying data.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1308OpenMr. Roy Stolpestad, 700 North Bryant Ave., #802, Minneapolis, MN 55411; Mr. Roy Stolpestad 700 North Bryant Ave. #802 Minneapolis MN 55411; Dear Mr. Stolpestad: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, concerning th 1966 Chrysler you recently purchased from Central Motors in Minneapolis.; As Miss Porter correctly pointed out in her column, the Federal law o odometer fraud enables you to bring a civil action against Central. The amount of recovery in such an action can be substantial. If the court were to accept your estimate of damages of $1490.24, the damages assessable under Federal law would be three times that amount - $4470.72. In no case would damages be less than $1500, a minimum value established by law. In addition, if you are successful, Central must pay your attorney fees as well as all court costs.; I appreciate your concern for the costs of litigation. However, b providing for the payment of attorney fees the odometer law places you in a better position than a personal injury litigant, whose recovery is usually diminished by his attorney's contingency fee. Your best course at this point is therefore to retain counsel if Central persists in its refusal to reimburse you.; By way of advice to your attorney, I would point out that the 'out that Central claims to have taken -- checking the box on the disclosure form that indicates the true mileage is unknown -- was taken too late to be of benefit to them. The Federal regulation governing disclosure requires the disclosure statement to be made 'before executing any transfer of ownership form.' If they mailed the statement the next day, their disclosure was untimely. Moreover, the representations made in the newspaper advertisment (sic) are evidentiary of their representation of 33,000 miles as being the true mileage on the vehicle. Your success in finding the previous owner is also useful in establishing that the actual mileage was greater than shown.; We will be willing to give you or your attorney further advice i questions arise concerning the intent and effect of the Federal odometer law. The enclosed copies of the law and regulations are provided to assist him in representing you.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2877OpenMr. Ken Yoneyama, Chief Engineer, Bridgestone Research Inc., 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 4202, New York, NY 10001; Mr. Ken Yoneyama Chief Engineer Bridgestone Research Inc. 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4202 New York NY 10001; Dear Mr. Yoneyama: This is in response to your letter of September 22, 1978, askin whether tires listed in Table 1-A of Appendix A, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars*, must comply with Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards*, (UTQGS), if the tires are installed as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. You also inquire as to the effective dates for the provision of UTQGS information to first purchasers of new motor vehicles under Part 575.104(d)(1)(iii).; UTQGS applies to a tire type whose predominant contemplated use is o passenger cars, even if the manufacturer knows the tire type is also used as original equipment on multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A manufacturer's determination to certify a tire as conforming to Standard No. 109, will also determine the tire's classification for purposes of UTQGS. Thus, UTQGS would apply to any tire labeled with a size designation listed in Appendix A of Standard No. 109, other than a deep tread, winter-type snow tire or space- saver or temporary use spare tire, regardless of the tire's actual use.; On October 23, 1978, NHTSA issued a *Federal Register* notice (cop enclosed) granting the petition of American Motors corporation to revise the effective dates for Part 575.104(d)(1)(iii) to September 1, 1979 for bias-ply tires and March 1, 1980 for bias-belted tires. On the basis of this change, your statement regarding effective dates is correct.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3765OpenMs. Patricia Hill, 2150 Hacker Road, Howell, MI 48843; Ms. Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell MI 48843; Dear Ms. Hill: This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specifi questions relating to Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Your questions and their answers are listed below:; 1. Provide a definitive interpretation of 'erratic burning' as used i the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.; 'Erratic burning,' as that term is used in the standard, relates t incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.; 2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word 'anticipate' as use in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?; In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.; 3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendmen limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?; The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No 302.; 4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply t a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?; We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The materia would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.; 5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 197 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?; The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302- 02. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1758OpenMr. Philip P. Friedlander, Jr., Director of Communications, Dealer News, 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Mr. Philip P. Friedlander Jr. Director of Communications Dealer News 1343 L Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20005; Dear Mr. Friedlander: This is in reply to your letter of December 24, 1974, forwarding to u a copy of an article in the December 23-30, 1974, issue of the NTDRA *Dealer News*, which attempts to clarify an earlier article interpreting the labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117.; We believe your revised article is still somewhat unclear i interpreting the requirements, and we would like to clarify these requirements for you.; >>>*THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS ARE PRESENTLY EFFECTIVE*<<< The casing, before retreading, must contain in a permanent fashion, th following: the symbol 'DOT', the size of the tire, and the actual number of plies or ply rating.; The completed retread must be labeled,either permanently or with a affixed label that is not easily removable, with the following: the tire's size designation, its maximum permissible inflation pressure, the actual number of plies, ply rating or both, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type,' as appropriate, the word radial, if the tire is of radial construction, and if the tire is of bias-belted construction, the words 'bias belted' *or* the actual number of plies in the sidewall and the actual number of plies in the tread area.; The completed retreaded tire must be permanently labeled only with it maximum permissible load. Permanent labeling includes molding, branding, or other method that will produce a permanent label, and includes any original casing label that is retained through the retread process.; >>>*THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS ARE EFFECTIVE MAY 12, 1975*<<< The casing before retreading must contain in a permanent fashion th following: the symbol 'DOT', the size of the tire, and the actual number of plies or ply rating. These requirements are the same as those presently in effect.; The completed retread must be labeled, either permanently or with a affixed label that is not easily removable, with the following: the tire's size designation, its maximum permissible inflation pressure, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type' as appropriate, and the word 'radial' if the tire is of radial construction.; The completed retread must be permanently labeled only with th following: the tire's maximum permissible load, the actual number of plies in the tire sidewall, and the actual number of plies in the tire tread area, if different, and the generic name of each cord material used in the plies (both sidewall and tread area) of the tire.; The changes made by the amendment published November 12, 1974 (39 F 39882), which are effective May 12, 1975, are, in summary, that (1) the labeling of the actual number of plies in the sidewall, and tread area if different, must after May 12, 1975, be permanently labeled, and (2) the generic names of each cord material, which prior to May 12, 1975, is not required to be labeled at all, must after May 12, 1975, be permanently labeled.; We believe some further clarification of the requirements should b conveyed to your readers.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, 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.