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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam3720OpenMs. Betty Thain, Harper, Robinson & Co., 9620 N.E. Colfax, Portland, Oregon 97220; Ms. Betty Thain Harper Robinson & Co. 9620 N.E. Colfax Portland Oregon 97220; Dear Ms. Thain: This responds to your recent letter to this office, asking whether client of yours may import used tires from Japan for resale. You noted that the tires met the requirements of Japanese Industrial Standards, but do not have a DOT symbol marked on the sidewall. Such tires may not be imported into this country, except under very limited circumstances.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A)) specifies that 'no person shall...import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title, unless it is in conformity with such standard.' You stated that your client wants to import used truck tires.; Section S6.5(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (4 CFR S 571.119) also requires tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars to have a DOT symbol permanently labeled on the sidewall, as a certification by the manufacturer that the tire fully complies with the standard. Without such a certification, the tires are not in conformity with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the law expressly prohibits importing such tires.; There are three very narrow exceptions to this principle First, tire which are not in compliance with applicable safety standards may be imported if the importer posts a bond with the Customs Service, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3), to insure that any nonconforming tires would be brought into conformity with the applicable standards (in terms of meeting performance and certification requirements). This would be very difficult for the importer, because the used tires would have to conform to new tire standards. To my knowledge, no importer has ever been able to do this with used tires.; The second exception which allows tires without a DOT symbol to b imported occurs when the importer can furnish proof that the tires were manufactured before the applicable safety standard came into effect. For tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 119 became effective March 1, 1975. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, it appears that the tires your client wishes to import are more recently manufactured than this date, and so this exception will not prove useful.; The third exception involves three conditions, all of which must b satisfied for the tires to be imported. Tires without a DOT symbol on the sidewall may be imported if:; (a) they are used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenge cars,; (b) they have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining on the tire, and (c) the tires are imported solely for the purpose of retreading. When these three conditions are met, the agency has interpreted th tires not to be 'items of motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the law. However, your client's tires appear to meet only the first condition.; If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free t contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by phone at (202)426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1208OpenSemperit, Aktiengesellschaft, Werk 2, A-2514 Traiskirchen, N.O., Attention: Gorter; Semperit Aktiengesellschaft Werk 2 A-2514 Traiskirchen N.O. Attention: Gorter; Dear Mr. Gorter: This is in reply to your letter of July 11, 1973, inquiring whether i is permissible under paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109, 'New Pneumatic Tires') to label tires as follows:; >>>1) TUBE-LESS TYPE instead of tubeless. 2) TUBE- TYPE for tube type.<<< While not stated in your letter it appears that you wish to facilitat the relabeling of the word 'tube type' on tires originally manufactured as tubeless. We understand many tire manufacturers redesignate tubeless tires as tube type when they contain some imperfection that may affect their tubeless air-retention capability, but which perform satisfactorily when tubes are installed.; Paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 specifically requires the wor 'tubeless' or 'tube type' as appropriate. Neither the phrase 'TUBE-LESS TYPE' nor the phrase 'TUBE- TYPE' conform to this requirement. the labeling you suggest would therefore not conform to Standard No. 109. We would expect that any redesignation of tubeless tires as tube type would be accomplished by obliterating the tubeless label and labeling the tire 'tube type', in the form required by the standard.; I would like to point out that our decision to interpret thes requirements strictly results in part from our efforts to stop a practice, which is occurring in the United States, in which some tire dealers sell tires that have been relabeled as tube type while representing to customers that tubes are not needed because the tires were originally tubeless. We believe labeling tires as you suggest will have the unfortunate consequence of promoting this activity, as it will make it more obvious that the tires were originally manufactured as tubeless.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3235OpenMr. W. C. Jones, Director, Vehicle Safety Programs, American Motors Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. W. C. Jones Director Vehicle Safety Programs American Motors Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Jones: This responds to your letter of January 14, 1980, requesting a interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the front seats of the 1981-model AMC Concord. Your letter states that the Concord front seats have over 50 inches of hip room as measured by SAE procedure J1100a, but you characterize the seats as 'individual' seats since they are separately adjustable. You ask whether the seats can qualify as having only two designated seating positions.; Based upon the information in your letter and on the photographs yo submitted February 22, it is our opinion that there must be three front designated seating positions in the 1981 AMC Concord. The amended definition of 'designated seating position' provides that there shall be at least three positions in any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless there is some obstruction or design preventing use of the center position. Although the seats in this model are on separate tracks and are separately adjustable, they are the functional equivalent of a split bench seat when the two sections are side-by side (as illustrated in your Number One photograph). There is not sufficient space between the seats for them to qualify as separate bucket seats. Bucket seats are typically separated by at least 8 to 10 inches. The juxtaposition and design of these 'individual' seats creates a well-padded center position. Further, although the inboard buckle portion of the seat belt assemblies occupy the center position, the buckles can be easily pushed down between the seats and would not be an impediment to use of the center position (as illustrated in your photograph Number Three).; For these 'individual' seats to qualify as having only two designate seating positions, it is our opinion that they would have to be much further apart, as is true of typical bucket seats, since they currently provide over 50 inches of hip room. Alternatively, the buckle ends of the seat belt assemblies would have to be on much stiffer cables that could not be moved out of the way or pushed between the seats. Moreover, these buckle ends must extend far enough onto the seat to provide true obstructions to use of the center position.; Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents th agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your submissions. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify the vehicles in accordance with that determination.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2977OpenMr. R. M. Premo, Director, Vehicle Safety Activities, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 3555 St. Johns Road, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. R. M. Premo Director Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Premo: This responds to your January 22, 1979, letter asking several question about the application of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. These questions involve the construction of a bus with a door that is made inoperable until its user desires to install a lift gate.; First, you ask whether a door that is always operable must comply wit all of the standard's requirements. The answer to this question is yes. In a related question, you ask whether the lettering and operating instructions must be removed if a user subsequently installs a lift gate and the exit no longer complies with the necessary opening dimensions of Standard No. 217.; As you know, only the manufacturer of the vehicle prior to firs purchase is responsible for ensuring the compliance of the completed vehicle with the applicable safety standards. Subsequent to the first purchase, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.; Any of the above-mentioned businesses may install a lift gate in vehicle as long as they do not otherwise knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle. Accordingly, for example, a lift gate could be installed as long as sufficient other emergency exits are available in a vehicle so that it remains in compliance with the requirements. The fact that the exit in which the lift is installed no longer complies is not important as long as there continues to be sufficient exits in the vehicle to continue its overall compliance with the standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's authority over the modification of vehicles after first purchase extends to preventing the rendering inoperative of the vehicle with the safety standards. The agency does not have the authority to force a modifier of a vehicle, after its first purchase, to undertake other responsibilities. Therefore, it would not be necessary for modifiers to remove the operating instructions or lettering applicable to the former emergency exit, although the NHTSA would encourage them to do so to avoid possible confusion in the event of an accident.; If a dealer or other business installs a lift gate prior to firs purchase, it becomes an alterer of the vehicle and must attach an alterer's label indicating compliance of the altered vehicle with the standards. In such a case, the alterer would be required to remove the label and operating instructions from the exit in which the gate was installed.; Finally, you ask whether a door that is constructed so as to b inoperable by either removing the operating mechanism or through the installation of a rub rail over its outside would have to comply with the requirements applicable to joints (Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*). When a door is made inoperable by a vehicle manufacturer in the manner you suggest, it becomes part of the bus wall structure. As such, any joints on the door that would fall within the ambit of the joint strength standard would be required to comply with that standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1658OpenMr. P. K. Kamath, Oshkosh, P.O. Box 2566, Oshkosh, WI 45901; Mr. P. K. Kamath Oshkosh P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh WI 45901; Dear Mr. Kamath: This responds to your October 8, 1974, question whether a front axl automatic pressure limiting valve may be removed during the burnish procedure to permit effective burnish of the front brakes.; The answer to your question appears in Notice 6 to Docket 74-10 i response to a similar inquiry from International Harvester. A copy of that notice is enclosed for your information. It amends S6.1.8.1 to require that any automatic pressure limiting valve be in use except in the case where the temperature of the hottest brake on a rear axle exceeds the temperature of the hottest brake on a front axle by more than 125 degrees F. A bypassed valve is reconnected if the temperature of the hottest brake on a front axle exceeds the temperature of the hottest brake on a rear axle by 100 degrees F.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3665OpenMr. Robert A. Wirffel, J.V.R. Enterprises, 8511 N. Canterbury Avenue, Sun Valley, CA 91352; Mr. Robert A. Wirffel J.V.R. Enterprises 8511 N. Canterbury Avenue Sun Valley CA 91352; Dear Mr. Wirffel: This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1983, to Mr. Vinson o my staff regarding the legality under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of your 'Safe-T- Signal' directional indicator. The signal, an 8-inch amber arrow, is located under the right side of a semi-trailer, approximately at mid point, and is intended to warn vehicles in the adjacent right traffic lane that the semi-trailer makes wide right turns. The system supplements the trailer's existing turn signal system, as we understand it.; There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that prohibits use of your syste as it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment, such as turn signals, required by Standard No. 108 as original equipment. However, you must insure that it is permitted in States in which the device is likely to be used.; We note the statement in your letter that the amber arrow is 'D.O.T approved' and in your descriptive sheet as well, plus the statement that it 'Conforms to applicable federal motor vehicle standards (C.H.P. approved).' This is legally incorrect, as the U.S. Department of Transportation does not 'approve' lighting equipment, nor does Standard No. 108 specify requirements with which a supplementary turn signal system conform. If you wish to assure prospective purchasers that Federal requirements are not being violated, we would prefer you use a phrase such as 'Permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.'; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4909OpenDr. Robert A. Adams Vice President Solar Car Corporation 1300 Lake Washington Road Melbourne, FL 32935; Dr. Robert A. Adams Vice President Solar Car Corporation 1300 Lake Washington Road Melbourne FL 32935; "Dear Dr. Adams: This responds to the petition by Solar Car Corporatio dated September 12, l991, for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The basis of the petition is 'low-emission engine features.' According to the petition, Solar Car 'retrofits' Ford Festivas, Dodge Colts, and Chevrolet S 10 pickup trucks to electric and solar electric configuration. We understand this to mean that Solar Car converts new, previously untitled vehicles, rather than that it converts vehicles that are brought to it by their owners. If the latter is the situation, a temporary exemption is unavailable for these vehicles, as our authority to provide exemptions does not cover vehicles that have been in use. The petition requests a blanket exemption from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If such a petition is to be submitted, it must follow the format specified by the exemption regulation, 49 CFR 555.6(c), providing information with respect to each standard as to how an exempted vehicle would differ from a conforming one, and why an exemption from that standard would not unduly degrade motor vehicle safety. This information is completely lacking from the Solar Car petition. As you might imagine, NHTSA does not encourage petitions that request exemption from all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and, in point of fact, has never considered such a petition. Furthermore, in the case of Solar Car, such a comprehensive petition does not appear necessary for it to pursue its business plan. The base car or truck converted by Solar Car will already have been certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (which are found at 49 CFR Part 571). What Solar Car must do is to determine which of those standards may be affected by its conversion operations, and then determine the extent of any noncompliance that may be created. With the thought that it may assist you, I enclose a copy of a Federal Register notice that discusses the petition of another vehicle converter, and the standards which appeared to be affected by its conversion operations. Although the notice was published in l975, our requirements have not changed since that time. We shall be pleased to consider this matter further when we have received a petition that meets the procedural requirements of Part 555. If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of my staff is available to answer them (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2424OpenMr. David E. Martin, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your September 14, 1976, request fo confirmation that seat belt webbing with one woven selvage and one knitted selvage qualifies as webbing', as that term is defined in paragraph S3 of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*.; The definition of webbing' in Standard No. 209 does not specify tha selvages must be woven. Rather, the definition only specifies that selvages be finished', for the purpose of ensuring that the webbing will not ravel. We conclude that the new webbing you submitted, with one woven and one knitted selvage, has finished selvages' and would qualify as webbing' within the meaning of Standard No. 209.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0419OpenMr. J. C. Eckhold, Automotive Safety Director, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 43121; Mr. J. C. Eckhold Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 43121; Dear Mr. Eckhold: In the conference that was held on July 23, 1971, between For representatives and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration personnel concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (memorandum dated July 29, 1971, filed in Docket 69-7), your legal counsel raised a question concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's position with respect to enforcement of the standard.; The question raised was whether this agency would consider a moto vehicle not to conform to the standard if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tests showed noncompliance, but the manufacturer's analogous tests showed compliance, and the difference in results were due to the use of slightly different anthropomorphic test devices, with both sets of tests assumed to be run in accordance with the prescribed conditions and procedures of the standard. We agree that the question is an important one and that it may arise, because the complexity of the physical variables in crash testing with anthropomorphic devices makes it difficult if not impossible to refine the standard's specifications to the point where all relevant conditions are specified and all permissible variations eliminated.; In a case where tests conducted by the NHTSA show noncompliance with standard, and the manufacturer's tests, valid on their face, appear to give complying results, the NHTSA conducts an inquiry to determine the reason for the differing results. If, after completing such an inquiry, the NHTSA were to conclude that the difference in results was entirely due to differences in the test devices used by each, and further that the manufacturer's tests, including his test devices, were in complete conformity with the standard, then the agency would not consider that particular series of tests to be the basis for finding of noncompliance against the manufacturer.; I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, Charles H. Hartman, Acting Administrator |
|
ID: aiam2074OpenMr. James P. Walters, High & Walters, P.O. Box 619, Iowa Falls, Iowa 50126; Mr. James P. Walters High & Walters P.O. Box 619 Iowa Falls Iowa 50126; Dear Mr. Walters: This is in response to your August 11, 1975, request for information o regulations concerning the matching of innertube sizes with motorcycle tire sizes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (copy enclosed) specifies performance and labeling requirements for motorcycle tires manufactured after March 1, 1975. There are no Federal regulations, however, containing requirements for proper matching of tubes with tires.; 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.