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: aiam0272OpenMr. Harry B. Mitchell, Jr., President, Mitchell & Sons, Inc., 5961 E. 64th Avenue, Commerce City, CO 80022; Mr. Harry B. Mitchell Jr. President Mitchell & Sons Inc. 5961 E. 64th Avenue Commerce City CO 80022; Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is in response to your letter of December 16, 1970, requesting clarification of our October 8, 1970 letter on the subject of the compliance of your campers with Standard No. 206.; The second paragraph in our letter was intended to apply to both you 14-foot 6-inch and 12-foot 6-inch campers and should have read as follows: 'You are correct in stating that the door in camper bodies built according to either of the floor plans enclosed with your letter would not be required to comply with Standard No. 206 if, as it appears, no portion of a manikin positioned at any seating reference point would project into the door opening area.' Of course, it is your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to determine whether both types of your campers actually meet the provisions of that paragraph.; Please write if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4548OpenMr. Gary M. Ceazan Vice President Riken-America, Inc. PO Box 3698 Terminal Annex Los Angeles, CA 90051; Mr. Gary M. Ceazan Vice President Riken-America Inc. PO Box 3698 Terminal Annex Los Angeles CA 90051; "Dear Mr. Ceazan: This is in response to your letter asking whethe tires marked with both an ETRTO (European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization) size designation and a different ISO (International Standardization Organization) size designation can legally be imported into the United States. As discussed below, such tires cannot be imported into the United States, because they do not comply with the applicable safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. All new pneumatic tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.109), and all new pneumatic tires imported for use on motor vehicles other than passenger vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.119). Both of these standards prohibit 'dual-size markings,' or labeling two different size designations on one tire. In the case of passenger car tires, section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with 'one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used.' (emphasis added). This agency expressly prohibited dual-size markings on passenger car tires in a preamble amending Standard No. 109, 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. This prohibition was expressly repeated in subsequent amendments that addressed the question of tire labeling under Standard No. 109, see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974, and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. In the case of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, there is no express prohibition in Standard No. 119 against dual size markings. However, section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with 'the tire and size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1.' NHTSA has interpreted the use of the singular in the phrase 'tire size designation,' rather than the plural 'tire size designations,' to be a prohibition against marking more than one tire size designation on these tires. See the enclosed copies of my January 7, 1988 letter to Mr. E.W. Dahl and my February 16, 1988 letter to Mr. Mike Kaizaki. Since tires marked with two size designations would not comply with our tire standards, they could not legally be imported into the United States, according to the requirement specified in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). If you have any further questions about our tire standards or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures /"; |
|
ID: aiam2865OpenMr. Robert B. Kurre, Director of Engineering, Wayne Corporation, P. O. Box 1447, Industries Road, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering Wayne Corporation P. O. Box 1447 Industries Road Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 208 applies to side-facing seats in multi-purpose passenger vehicle vans. You also ask to be advised of the criteria to be used for the installation of seat belts in these vehicles.; Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, does requir side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*.; Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strengt requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side- facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0858OpenMr. William E. McSherry, Product Manager, Panduit Corporation, 17301 Ridgeland Avenue, Tinley Park, IL, 60477; Mr. William E. McSherry Product Manager Panduit Corporation 17301 Ridgeland Avenue Tinley Park IL 60477; Dear Mr. McSherry: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to the nylon cable ties you manufacture.; Paragraph S4.1 of the Standard does not include nylon cable ties o their equivalent and, accordingly, these components are not subject to the requirements of the Standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3777OpenMr. J. Wuddel, Westfalische Metall Industrie KG, Hueck & Co., Postfach 28 40, 4780 Lippstadt, Germany; Mr. J. Wuddel Westfalische Metall Industrie KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany; Dear Mr. Wuddel: This is in reply to your letter of September 23, 1983, to Augus Burgett of this agency with respect to an illuminated plate positioned between the right and left rear lamps. The plate would be illuminated by a separate light source, and would 'expose the manufacturer's name and the vehicle type.' You have asked if such a plate would be allowed on the rear of the vehicle.; Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10 prohibits the installation of any motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Each lamp on the rear of a motor vehicle under Standard No. 108 serves an informational purpose, either to mark the vehicle (taillamps, license plate lamps, hazard warning signals) or to indicate vehicle action (stop lamps, turn signal lamps, backup lamps). It is imperative for purposes of safety that the function of each rear lamp be clearly understood by drivers following the vehicle. Addition of a light source or lamp other than that required by Standard No. 108 contains the potential either for confusion or to mask the effect of one of the required lighting devices. In general, the agency is opposed to any lighting devices on the rear of vehicles other than those required by the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4118OpenMr. Jost Leite, Hanover Marketing & Trade Corporation, 1703 N.W. 38th Avenue, Lauderhill, FL 33311; Mr. Jost Leite Hanover Marketing & Trade Corporation 1703 N.W. 38th Avenue Lauderhill FL 33311; Dear Mr. Leite: This responds to your letters to this office which, in effect, aske about a manufacturer's certification responsibilities and who has the authority to determine a product does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. I regret the delay in our response. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes self-certification requirement for manufacturers. Thus, it is the responsibility of each manufacturer to certify that its products are in compliance. Under the Act, only the manufacturer of the product or the agency can formally determine that a product is not in compliance and commence a notification and remedy campaign.; The public is encouraged to notify this agency if they believe potential noncompliance exists in a particular product. The agency will, if appropriate, begin a compliance investigation. However, this agency could not and has not authorized any member of the private industry to conduct compliance investigations.; I hope this responds to your concerns. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3327OpenMr. Robert P. Spena, D.S.W., Director, Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations, Department of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg PN 17123; Mr. Robert P. Spena D.S.W. Director Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations Department of Transportation Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg PN 17123; Dear Mr. Spena: This is in reply to your letters of July 18, 1980, to the Administrato and myself and confirms a telephone conversation between Dr. Devin of your office and Taylor Vinson of ours, on August 5, 1980.; You have asked the following questions: '1. Does any Federal Regulation addresss (sic) the issue of intermixin motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?'; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *e seq*.), a copy of which I enclose, is the authority for Federal regulation of the manufacture of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571) implement the Act.; Neither the Act nor the Standards directly address the issue of th intermixing of parts of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. However, use of one half of a passenger car headlighting system is permitted as a motorcycle headlighting system (see paragraph S4.1.1.34 of 49 CFR 571.108). As a general rule, under the Act and Standards use of motorcycle equipment as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles is not prohibited unless such use creates a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the vehicles or a defect related to motor vehicle safety.; In addition, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Act prohibits an 'manufacturer', 'distributor', 'dealer', or 'motor vehicle repair business' from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding anyone but the owner of a vehicle in use from removing and substituting original vehicle equipment if it results in a noncompliance. This prohibition has at least a theoretical application to the intermixing of vehicle parts.; '2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations or guidance o this matter?'; We are unable to be helpful because few instances of intermixing cam to mind. We are currently in litigation with an importer of European passenger car headlamps that are purportedly certified only to 'motorcycle' requirements but which, in fact are being sold for use on passenger cars. This would not appear to be a true instance of intermixing since there appears to be little market for them as motorcycle headlamps. Generally, however, it would not appear sound practice to use equipment in an application not intended by its manufacturer.; '3. We would also like to know your position on 'kit cars''. There are no regulations or standards applicable to 'kit cars' per se nor do we even have a definition of the term. But some general principles apply under the Act nonetheless.; The classic 'kit car' operation involves the removal of an old vehicl body from its chassis and its replacement with a new one. The resulting assemblage retains the title of the vehicle's original incarnation. As the Act defines a 'manufacturer' to include one who assembles motor vehicles, a person in the business of assembling kit cars bears the manufacturer's statutory responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1411 *et seq*.) for notification and remedy in the event his assembly operations create a safety related defect in the vehicle.; A newly-assembled vehicle using its previous title is considered 'used and does not have to comply with the safety standards that apply to 'new' vehicles. However, we interpret Section 108(a) (2) (A), discussed in response to your first question, as requiring the assembler, if it is the party removing the old body, to insure that the vehicle upon completion of reassembly had it been originally manufactured with the new body meet the standards with which it would have complied. For example, if a new fiberglass convertible body is mounted on the chassis of a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle, the vehicle must meet all standards that apply to 1972 convertibles. If it does not, its assembler as a 'manufacturer' appears to be obligated under the Act to notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliances.; Some of the safety standards apply to individual equipment items suc as tires, lighting equipment, glazing and seat belts. Any item covered by a Federal equipment standard and supplied in the kit must meet such standard.; Outside this framework our position is necessarily determined by th facts of each use but generally, the greater the number of new parts used in a vehicle, the more likely we are to consider it as one which must meet the standards that apply to new vehicles.; If you have any further questions Mr. Vinson will be happy to answe them (202-426-9511).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5359OpenMr. John Bloomfield Manager, Engine Management Legislation and Certification Lotus Cars, Ltd. Hethel, Norwich, Norfolk NR14 8EZ England; Mr. John Bloomfield Manager Engine Management Legislation and Certification Lotus Cars Ltd. Hethel Norwich Norfolk NR14 8EZ England; Dear Mr. Bloomfield: This responds to the letter from Ms. Rachel Jelly formerly of your company, concerning low volume CAFE exemptions. I apologize for the delay in our response. Ms. Jelly asked whether Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. (Bugatti) and Lotus Cars, Ltd. (Lotus), both of which are controlled by the same holding company, may submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two alternative standards. The answer to this question is no. Since any alternative CAFE standard would apply to Bugatti and Lotus together, a single combined petition must be submitted for a single alternative standard. The reasons for the above response are discussed in the attached letter from NHTSA to Mr. Lance Tunick, of Bugatti. Mr. Tunick's letter to NHTSA raised issues that are of concern to both Bugatti and Lotus. Thus, NHTSA's response to Mr. Tunick should address Lotus' concerns about filing for alternative CAFE standards. I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2166OpenInterps. File, Safety Standard No. 218; Interps. File Safety Standard No. 218; SUBJECT: Telephone call from Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. a manufacturer of motorcycle helmets; Assistant Chief Counsel Dyson referred a call he received from Mr Elmer Rattner, President of Rebcor, Inc. on December 31, 1975. Mr. Rattner had a question concerning the labeling requirements of S.5.6.1(1) of Safety Stnadard (sic) No. 218, *Motor-Cycle* *Helmets.* Subsection of S.5.6.1(1) requires that each helmet be permanently labeled with the manufacturer's 'name or identification.' Rebcor, Inc. is in the process of manufacturing helmets to be sold by another company, and would like to cloak the fact that Rebcor is the manufacturer. Mr. Rattner wanted to know if Rebcor could use a number to meet the labeling requirements of Standard 218, rather than the corporate name.; I returned Mr. Rattner's call and told him that our office ha concluded that S.5.6.(1) did not embrace the type of labeling he had in mind. The words 'name' or 'identification' are synonymous terms in the respect that the intent of the requirement is to absolutely identify the original manufacturer of a helmet. 'Identification' might include, for instance, a corporate logo. However, a randum (sic) number that is not otherwise associated with the corporation or corporate name, would not be an 'identification' within the meaning of Standard No. 218. The purpose of the requirement is to assure that the helmet is traceable to the manufacturer. I informed Mr. Rattner that at the present time there is no system within the NHTSA to register a labeling number, although there is a proposal to establish such a procedure.; Mr. Rattner then asked if Rebcor could establish a dummy-corporation t produce the helmets and place the name of that corporation on the hemets (sic), rather than 'Rebcor.' I informed Mr. Rattner that this would be permissible if the dummy corporation adhered to the manufacturer identification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566.; Hugh F. Oates |
|
ID: aiam2536Open*AIR MAIL*#Mr. R. M. Ferrari, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design, Department of Transport, Box 1839Q, G.P.O., Melborne 3001, Australia; *AIR MAIL*#Mr. R. M. Ferrari Chairman Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design Department of Transport Box 1839Q G.P.O. Melborne 3001 Australia; Dear Mr. Ferrari: This is in response to your undated request (Ref. 75/1331) for a interpretation of the brake lining inspection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, *Motorcycle Brake Systems*. You asked whether the brake lining wear indicator system that you described would comply with FMVSS No. 122.; Paragraph S5.1.5 requires that 'The brake system shall be installed s that the lining thickness of drum brake shoes may be visually inspected, either directly or by use of a mirror without removing the crums....' Under the system you described 'the only means of determing the lining thickness of the rear brake shoes, without removing the brake drum, is a warning lamp system which becomes energized with the lining thickness is less than 2mm.' In our opinion, this system does not comply with S5.1.5. Although the warning lamp system alerts the operator when a predetermined limit has been reached, it does not provide the direct visual means of inspection of brake lining thickness that the standard requires. Were the warning lamp system to fail, the operator would be left without a means of determining lining thickness unless he removed the brake drum.; It is anticipated that during the next year a revision of FMVSS 12 will be proposed to modify the test procedure. At that time, consideration will be given to changing the requirements of paragraph S5.1.5. These changes would reflect advances in brake wear sensor technology since the original standard was promulgated. Since the intent of of (sic) paragraph S5.1.5 is to give the driver a simple means to determine the discard limit of the friction materials, we will consider allowing other than direct means to determine this limit, provided a check of the system's function can be performed to prevent the problem mentioned above.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
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.