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: aiam0947OpenMr. F. S. Murley, Administrative Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Post Office Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. F. S. Murley Administrative Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation Post Office Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Murley: This is in reply to your letter of January 4, 1973, in which you as for our confirmation of your interpretation of Part 567 and Part 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations that would place the responsibility for certification on the user in those instances where he is the final-stage manufacturer.; Paragraph 567.5 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifies that '. . . each final-stage manufacturer, . . . of a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages shall affix to each vehicle a label . . . .' Therefore, end users who are also manufacturers would be required to affix the label.; If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1655OpenMr. James H. Thomas, 8 North Queen Street, Griest Building, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603; Mr. James H. Thomas 8 North Queen Street Griest Building Lancaster Pennsylvania 17603; Dear Mr. Thomas: This is in reply to your letter of September 27, 1974, requesting ou position regarding the micro-siping of tires. You also request copies of the government brief in *United States* v. *General Tire*.; The NHTSA does not consider the micro-siping process to be prohibite *per se* when applied to new motor vehicle tires subject to either Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR S571.109 (applicable to passenger car tires), or Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, 49 CFR S571.119 (applicable to tires for vehicles other than passenger cars). In the *General Tire* case, the particular tires involved havebeen(sic) micro-siped and were found to have failed certain laboratory wheel tests specified in Standard No. 109. The only issue in the case was General's responsibility for the failure and not whether the tires met the standard. General chose to stipulate that they did not.; The agency has no data on whether micro-siping adversely affects tire's ability to conform to the standards. It is possible that the quality of micro-siping may cause compliance problems. In any event, the agency does not consider micro-siped tires to fail to conform to either standard, unless there is an actual failure to meet the performance tests of the standards.; I have enclosed a copy of the government's brief in the Court o Appeals in the *General Tire* matter. There are other briefs in this litigation, but the agency's position is set forth in this brief and it should be satisfactory for your purposes.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3668OpenMr. Yang Ru-tang, General Manager, China United Trading Corp., Ltd., Shanghai Division, One Penn Plaza, Suite 1915, 250 W. 34th Street, New York, NY 10119; Mr. Yang Ru-tang General Manager China United Trading Corp. Ltd. Shanghai Division One Penn Plaza Suite 1915 250 W. 34th Street New York NY 10119; Dear Mr. Yang: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements fo importing tires into this country from China. I have enclosed a copy of a 1981 letter I sent to Mr. Deng Shin- Wen, the chief engineer of the Shanghai No. 1 Rubber Plant. That letter generally explains the requirements which must be met in order to import tires into this country. While that letter answers many of your questions, I will repeat the requirements to ensure that you understand them, and respond to those questions not covered in the previous letter.; To receive a DOT code mark, a tire manufacturer must complete th enclosed application form and return it to the address shown on the form. A separate application must be filed for each manufacturing plant, and a separate code mark will be assigned to each plant.; Before a code mark is assigned, the tire manufacturer must designate a agent for the service of process, according to the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45 (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the designation of agent must meet the following six criteria:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear his name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent, the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. When this agency has received a completed application for a code mark and a valid designation of an agent, a code mark will be assigned to the manufacturer promptly, usually within two weeks. You should note that the code mark is sent to the manufacturer at the mailing or main office address shown on the application, and not to the designated agent. The DOT code mark assigned to the manufacturer remains valid until such time as the manufacturer notifies this agency that it is no longer using that code mark.; No testing of the tires is done by this agency before assigning the DO code mark. The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European Economic Community, in which the manufacturer is required to deliver tires to be certified to the governmental entity for approval. Instead, in the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that the tires comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109) if they are passenger car tires or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119) if the tires are for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. Further, this agency does not require that the certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable standards. Certainly, we recommend that a manufacturer selling tires in the United States test those tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standards, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters 'DOT' on one sidewall of each certified tire.; For purposes of enforcement this agency conducts spot checks of tire after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing tires according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken.; If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with th applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires which fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:; (1) repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed, or (2) replace the tires with an identical or reasonably equivalent tir which does not have the defect or noncompliance.; Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bea the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy.; With respect to the markings required on the sidewall of the tires those markings and their required size and location are set forth in section S4.3 of Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and S6.5 of Standard No. 119 for tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part Part (sic) 574 (copy enclosed) also sets forth marking requirements for all types of tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject or need furthe information, please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4457OpenMartin Chauvin Chief, Carrier Safety Bureau State of New York Department of Transportation Albany, NY 12232; Martin Chauvin Chief Carrier Safety Bureau State of New York Department of Transportation Albany NY 12232; "Dear Mr. Chauvin: This is a response to your letter of last year wher you asked us to address a statement allegedly made by an unidentified school bus manufacturer that a school bus driver's seat equipped with an upper torso restraint or shoulder harness violates 'head impact protection' requirements contained in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Nothing in our Federal standards prohibits a manufacturer from installing a seat belt assembly that includes a lap belt and upper torso restraint at the driver's seat of a school bus. Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies occupant protection requirements for the driver's seat of all buses. Section S4.4 of that standard gives a manufacturer the choice of equipping a bus driver's seat either with a complete automatic restraint system, a Type 1 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap belt), or a Type 2 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap and shoulder belt). There are no 'head impact protection' requirements in Standard No. 208 for the driver's seating position in a bus. Thus, the driver's seat of all buses may be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt if the manufacturer chooses to do so. Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, sets forth additional requirements for occupant crash protection for school buses. Section S5.3 of Standard 222 refers to a 'head protection zone,' and establishes head impact requirements within the head protection zones. However, the head protection zones are established with respect to passenger seats in the school bus. Standard 222 does not contain any head impact protection requirements for the driver's seat in school buses. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3392OpenRoy M. Trantham - General Manager, Armstrong Ford, Estate Golden Rock, P.O. Box 339, Christiansted, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands; Roy M. Trantham - General Manager Armstrong Ford Estate Golden Rock P.O. Box 339 Christiansted St. Croix United States Virgin Islands; Dear Mr. Trantham: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1980, requestin information on the Federal odometer disclosure requirements.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration does not print form for the disclosure of odometer information. In states that are using their titles in lieu of the separate Federal form, the states provide the forms. In other states dealers generally have their own forms printed and individuals either use a dealer's form or simply write out the information on a sheet of paper.; I have enclosed a copy of the Federal regulations detailing the Federa odometer disclosure requirements. You may adopt that format or alter it to meet your specific needs as long as all of the information in it is included.; If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, Shirley Ransom, Trial Attorney |
|
ID: aiam1205OpenMr. Ralph Nader, Mr. Carl E. Nash, 1719 - 19th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Ralph Nader Mr. Carl E. Nash 1719 - 19th Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Messrs. Nader and Nash: This is to acknowledge your letter of July 23, 1973, in which yo protested against the categorization of the Volkswagen 'Thing' as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; In light of the information you have provided, I have asked my peopl to review the situation and, as soon as they have presented their views to me for my consideration, I will be back in touch with you.; I certainly appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention. Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3238OpenMr. William N. Whitley, Vice President, Whitley & Whitley, Inc., 20600 Chagrin Boulevard, Tower East, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; Mr. William N. Whitley Vice President Whitley & Whitley Inc. 20600 Chagrin Boulevard Tower East Shaker Heights Ohio 44122; Dear Mr. Whitley: This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter asking whether th CarVan that you manufacture would be required to comply with Federal safety standards. The CarVan is designed to be mounted over the trunk of a car and weight approximately 80 pounds.; The CarVan is considered a piece of motor vehicle equipment fo purposes of compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards. Since it does not slide into the cargo area of a truck, however, it would not be considered a slide-in camper subject to Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading. However, as a piece of equipment, it would be required to comply with Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. I am enclosing an information sheet detailing where you can obtain a complete copy of all motor vehicle safety standards.; The agency notes that the CarVan would be installed in such a locatio that it would obscure the rear lights of the vehicle upon which it is mounted. The agency considers this to be very dangerous and concludes that you should adopt a tail light system for the CarVan. The Federal safety standard for lighting is Standard No. 108. Without a tail light system, the agency concludes that the installation and use of your CarVan would constitute a safety related defect, and we would exercise our authority to require any such defect to be remedied. We also note also that many States prohibit any device that covers the licence plates.; The agency would like to take this opportunity to correct som misinformation that was supplied to you an May 4, 1978, when we responded to your previous request for information on a camper that was designed to be loaded in a car's trunk.; In that letter, the agency stated that the camper would be required t comply with Standard No. 126. That statement is incorrect. Since your camper is designed for a passenger car and not a truck, it would not be required to comply with Standard No. 126. It would be subject to the other standard mentioned above for the CarVan. We regret any inconvenience our error may have caused you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4007OpenMr. Fernando Benabbi, Ditta Alice, Via Trieste 18, 20146 Milano, Italy; Mr. Fernando Benabbi Ditta Alice Via Trieste 18 20146 Milano Italy; Dear Mr. Benabbi: Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1985, asking about compliance o the child seat, 'Titti,' manufactured by Bizzi in Milan, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. You state in your letter that you plan to export these child seats to the United States.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, *et seq*. (the Act). Unlike the type-approved or homologation process used in Europe, we have a self-certification process in the United States. Under the Act, manufacturers are responsible for certifying that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as child seats, which are made by them, comply with the requirements of any applicable safety standard. For this reason, the agency does not approve equipment items prior to their sale.; Each child restraint system, such as the 'Titti' child seat, must b labeled and certified according to the requirements of S5.5 of Standard No. 213. The label which you enclosed does not state, as required by S5.5, that 'THIS CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS.' The label should be changed to meet the requirements of S5.5. If the manufacturer chooses, he may, but is not required to, certify that the child restraint also complies with the provisions of section S8 and state on the label: 'THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT.'; In your letter and on the label you enclosed there is the followin reference: 'ATG CALSPAN No. 7174-1.' This may refer to a contract between the manufacturer, Bizzi, and Calspan to test the child restraint for compliance with Standard No. 213. You can write to Calspan to inquire about any testing at the following address:; >>>Ms. Barbara Kelleher, Arvin-Calspan, Inc., Advanced Technolog Center, 4455 Genesee Street, Buffalo, New York 14225<<<; Please note that Calspan's test may not cover requirements of Standar No. 213 regarding webbing abrasion, flammability, or hardware corrosion, for example. Testing by Calspan or any other testing laboratory does not relieve the manufacturer from its responsibility of certifying the equipment item.; Under the Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations, manufacturers hav the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety related defects or noncompliances in their products (VSA SS151-159). The Vehicle Safety Act defines a manufacturer as; >>>any person engaging in the manufacturing or assemblying (sic) o motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.<<<; In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer me an obligation imposed on a 'manufacturer' by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party.; In addition, there are two other regulations which affec manufacturers. Those regulations require manufacturers to provide the agency with certain identifying information (49 CFR Part 566), and, in the case of foreign manufacturers, to designate an agent for the service of process (49 CFR Part 551).; A copy of Standard No. 213, the Vehicle Safety Act, Part 566, Part 551 and an instruction sheet for new manufacturers is enclosed.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4729OpenMr. Kenneth E. Tompor Auto Brokers & Leasing LTd. 4140 S. Lapeer Road (M24) Pontiac, MI 48057; Mr. Kenneth E. Tompor Auto Brokers & Leasing LTd. 4140 S. Lapeer Road (M24) Pontiac MI 48057; "FAX: 313-373-0565 Dear Mr. Tompor: This is in reply to your FAX o April 26, l990. You would like a statement from this agency, for purposes of litigation that commences on May 1, that a l985 Ferrari 288 GTO cannot be legally imported into the United States. Pursuant to amendments made to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) by P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, a motor vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, cannot, subject to the exception noted below, be imported permanently into the United States on and after January 31, l990, unless the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that it is capable of being readily modified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or that its safety features comply with or are capable of being modified to comply with all such applicable standards. The Administrator has made no determination with respect to the l985 Ferrari 288 GTO. However, no such determination is necessary if the following criteria are met at the time of importation. The importer's assigned place of employment was outside the United States as of October 31, l988, and (s)he has not had an assigned place of employment between that time and the entry of the motor vehicle. The importer has not previously imported a motor vehicle into the United States before October 31, l988, that was not in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The importer had acquired (or had entered into a binding contract to acquire) the motor vehicle before October 31, l988. The vehicle must be entered not later than October 31, l992. Only if an importer meets these criteria may (s)he at the present time legally import a nonconforming l985 Ferrari 288 GTO into the United States (subject, of course, to the obligation to bring it into compliance with the safety standards after its entry). Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3516OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1981, requesting severa interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. The answer to each of your questions is discussed below.; Your first question concerned section 3.3 of the standard, which amon other things, requires that an 'interior compartment door assembly located in...a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position...' must remain closed when tested under certain conditions. You stated your belief that the requirement only applies to interior compartment doors located within the head impact area, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49. You asked if the area adjacent to a designated seating position is to be determined by projecting laterally from the head impact area for a designated seating position to the side panel next to it.; The impact protection requirement for interior compartment doors wa added to the standard on October 25, 1968 (33 FR 15794). As explained in that notice, a copy of which is enclosed, the agency specifically denied requests to limit the interior compartment door requirement to doors located in the head impact area. The requirement is designed to provide protection to the head and other portions of an occupant's body that can be thrown against an interior compartment door opened by inertial forces in a crash. To accomplish the purpose of the standard, any interior compartment door, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49, that is located in a side panel and is next to a designated seating position is covered by the requirements of section 3.3 of the standard.; You also asked how the term 'instrument panel' is defined for th purposes of section 3.3 of the standard. You are correct that the term refers to the panel below the windshield which is used to mount the speedometer, other gauges, etc. For the reasons discussed in response to your first question concerning S3.3, any interior compartment door on the instrument panel is covered by the requirements of section 3.3, not just those located in the head impact area.; You also asked about the requirements of section 3.3.1 of the standard You state that section 3.3.1 allows the use of either option (b) or (c) to show compliance. Your statement is not correct. Section 3.3 of the standard requires more than compliance with either option (b) or (c) of section 3.3.1. Section 3.3 requires interior compartment doors to remain closed when 'tested in accordance with either S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(b) or S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(c).'; You also state that you interpret option (c) of section 3.3.1 to be horizontal inertial load of 30g in a longitudinal direction which would simulate a forward 30 mile per hour flat barrier impact. Your interpretation is correct. Section 3.3.1(c) provides that an interior compartment door latch must be subject to 'a horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction in accordance with the procedures described in section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b, 'Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems,' or an approved equivalent.' The purpose of the requirement is to impose loads similar to the loads experienced by a door latch tested in the 30 mile per hour forward barrier crash required by section 3.3.1(b) of the standard.; You further state that the loading applied in accordance with sectio 3.3.1(c) should be a forward deceleration inertia loading. Your interpretation is not correct. To ensure that the requirements of sections 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.1(c) are equivalent in stringency, the agency believes that the 30g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(c) must take into account the distortion and deformation that would occur in a 30 mile per hour barrier impact. Therefore, the 30g inertia load must be applied in both the forward and rearward direction. Likewise, the 10g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(a) must be applied in both the inboard and outboard direction.; Your final question concerned the requirements of section 3.5.1 of th standard, which specifies that armrests must comply with at least one of three options. Section 3.5.1(c) specifies that one option is providing an armrest which has 'Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length...when measured vertically in side elevation... at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.' You are correct that an armrest complying with section S.3.5.1(c) can be made of any material, as long as it meets the dimensional requirements set by that section.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.