Pasar al contenido principal

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



Displaying 4001 - 4010 of 16513
Interpretations Date
 search results table

ID: aiam1165

Open
Mr. Chas E. Ferreira, Jr., Transportation Sash Co., Inc., Topton PA 19562; Mr. Chas E. Ferreira
Jr.
Transportation Sash Co.
Inc.
Topton PA 19562;

Dear Mr. Ferreira: This is in reply to your letter of May 21, 1973, requesting that w clarify the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. You indicate that you purchase block size glass and cut it to suit your customers.; The requirements to which you refer are found in Federal Motor Vehicl Safety standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials' (49 CFR S 571.205). They require each item of glazing material to be labeled with certain information, that specified in section 6 of ANS Z26.1-1966, which includes the manufacturer's trademark, the symbol AS or the words American Standard, a model number, and a reference, in the form of a number, that indicates the type of glazing material. All glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must be labeled with this information, which can be stencilled onto the material if it is removed during the cutting process.; In addition to these identifying markings, each item of glazin material must be certified as conforming to the Federal standard. Prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) certify glazing that is designed for use in any specific vehicle by including with the above markings the symbol DOT and a code number assigned to the manufacturer by this agency. Glazing that is not designed for a specific vehicle is certified pursuant to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), which includes, as you indicate, the use of a label or tag affixed to the glazing material that states that the material conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers other than prime glazing material manufacturers, such as those, like yourself, who cut larger sheets to size, are required to certify in the same fashion, that is, in accordance with section 114, and may certify by labels or tags affixed to the material.; I have enclosed a copy of the marking requirements of Standard No. 20 for your information. If you wish to obtain a copy of the American National Standard Z26.1-1966, you should write to the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief counsel

ID: aiam4367

Open
Mr. Troy C. Martin, Specification/Inspections Chief, Texas State Purchasing and General Services Commission, P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Building, Austin, TX 78711-3047; Mr. Troy C. Martin
Specification/Inspections Chief
Texas State Purchasing and General Services Commission
P.O. Box 13047 Capitol Building
Austin
TX 78711-3047;

Dear Mr. Martin: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1987, concerning th regulations applicable to buses used by State Schools to transport children to non-school related activities. You have asked us to address this question for each type of State School, some of which are not 'schools' at all, and for public and private schools generally.; In beginning my answer, I want to stress the distinction between th State and Federal regulation of school buses. The question of what bus to use for a particular trip is a question of State regulation. Although there are Federal guidelines for school bus use, these are not binding on the States and will not be discussed in this letter. The question of what bus may be sold for transporting children is a matter of Federal regulation. It is this question that we can answer.; A 'school bus' is defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act in terms of its *anticipated* use. A bus is thus a 'school bus if the Secretary of Transportation determines it is; >>>likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transportin primary, preprimary or secondary school students to or from schools or events related to such schools.<<<; A person who sells a new bus that will be 'significantly used' for th purposes listed in the school bus definition must ensure that the bus meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Selling a nonconforming bus for school bus use will subject the seller to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each vehicle and up to $800,000 for a related series of violations. The question of the bus's use is thus of considerable consequence both to the seller and to the buyer.; As you describe the State Schools in Texas, each type of Schoo provides 24-hour residential care for children but offers a differing degree of educational service. One type is certified as a school district and provides instruction on campus, a second type is certified as a school district but offers no instruction, and a third is neither classified nor equipped for instruction. In purchasing a new bus for any of the three types of State School, you would need to ask the same question: Is the bus going to be 'significantly used' to transport students to and from school or school-related events? If it will be used in this fashion, it will have to be certified as conforming to the school bus safety standards.; I can visualize circumstances under which a bus purchased for any o the three types of State School would have to be certified. The first type is a bona-fide school, so that any use of a bus to transport children to or from the School would be a trip 'to or from' school within the school bus definition of the Vehicle Safety Act. We expect that any new bus sold for use in this type of School would be certified as a school bus.; The second type of State School, though certified as a school district offers no instruction. We would not consider either this type or the third type to be a 'school,' which we define as an institution for the instruction of children at the preprimary, primary, or secondary level. A new bus purchased for the use of one of these types of State Schools, and used for no other school transportation, would not have to be certified as a school bus. However, if the bus were to be purchased for the purpose of transporting children from the State School to local public or parochial schools on a regular basis, we would consider it to be 'significantly used' for that purpose, even though it might also be used for other transportation unrelated to school.; A new bus sold for the use of a bona fide school, whether public o private, will almost invariably be required to be certified. Although a bus might conceivably be purchased by a school for the sole use of school employees, such a restriction would be rare. We would expect that virtually all buses purchased by a school would be required to be certified to the school bus standards.; Since the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest vehicl for children, we strongly endorse the use of a certified bus to transport children for any purpose, whether or not school-related. However, our regulatory authority extends only to the manufacture and sale of new buses, not to their use for a particular trip. For those trips for which a school considers using a noncertified bus, we suggest that you review the Texas regulations on the use of school buses.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you hav further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0324

Open
Lawrence D. Heitsch, Darden, Neef & Heitsch, Attorneys and Counselors, 3066 Penobscot Building, Detroit, MI 48226; Lawrence D. Heitsch
Darden
Neef & Heitsch
Attorneys and Counselors
3066 Penobscot Building
Detroit
MI 48226;

Dear Mr. Heitsch: This is in response to your letter of January 20, 1971, petitioning fo rulemaking pursuant to 49 CFR 553.31, asking that the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation be inapplicable to mobile homes. The points raised in your petition have been thoroughly considered, however, your petition, by copy of this letter, is denied. As you know, many of the points you raised were considered in connection with the interpretation of 'Motor Vehicle' as it refers to trailers, issued March 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 5333) (Copy Enclosed). The interpretation concluded that a mobile home is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). As such, mobile home manufacturers are required to comply with the requirements of Part 574,(sic); The burden placed on the mobile home manufacturer by the regulatio does notaappear (sic) unreasonable. The regulation requires that the vehicle manufacturer or his designee maintain a record of the tires shipped on or in its vehicles and maintain the names and addresses of the purchasers of its vehicles. Locating the purchaser should be a comparatively easy task.; Mobile homes are constructed with a view, of course, to thei over-the-road capabilities. The Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation should be applicable to mobile homes since it relates directly to one of the instrumentalities for moving a mobile home. Should a tire sold with a mobile home be defective, we consider it essential that the purchaser of the vehicle be notified of this fact.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2319

Open
Mr. G. Buzzi-Ferraris, Technical Manager, Pirelli Tire Corporation, 600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016; Mr. G. Buzzi-Ferraris
Technical Manager
Pirelli Tire Corporation
600 Third Avenue
New York
New York 10016;

Dear Mr. Buzzi-Ferraris: I am writing in response to your March 12, 1976, letter to Mr. Rober Aubuchon of this agency, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*, to motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.; You have inquired whether such vehicles may be equipped with tires tha --; >>>(i) 'Carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus th marking 'MAX SPEED' because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH -- S.6.5.'; (ii) 'Have passed the endurance test -- S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance wit table III --- speed restricted service: 35 MPH'; (iii) 'have not been tested for high speed S.6.3-- in fact they ar speed restricted ...'<<<; an otherwise comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119. I assume that, where your letter refers to the marking 'MAX SPEED', yo intended 'MAX SPEED 35 MPH'. Although such labeling is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Tires for motor driven cycles are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires. In particular, the schedule for endurance testing is that found in the 'motorcycle' entry of Table III, rather than the '35 m.p.h.' entry. Similarly, these tires are subject to the high speed performance requirements of S.6.3 without exception. An amendment of Standard No. 119 on this subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.; Standard No. 119 prohibits the manufacture of the tires that you hav described on and after March 1, 1975. Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*, prohibits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles equipped with such tires on and after September 1, 1976.; Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5126

Open
Christopher J. Daniels, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough 1330 Lady Street P. O. Box 11070 Columbia, SC 29211; Christopher J. Daniels
Esquire Nelson
Mullins
Riley & Scarborough 1330 Lady Street P. O. Box 11070 Columbia
SC 29211;

"Dear Mr. Daniels: This responds to your letter to Paul Jackson Rice our former Chief Counsel, in which you referred to a tire manufactured in Canada that had had the 'DOT number' obliterated. Because you think the tire was improperly sold in that condition, you asked whether it was illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT number and whether it was illegal to sell or use a tire on the highway without a 'DOT serial number.' By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq., as amended (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, the latter of which includes tires. All new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. This requirement is found at Section 1397 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act which provides 'No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . .' The effect of that language is to require that tires manufactured on or after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be legally imported into the U.S. Pursuant to Standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109, New Pneumatic Tires) and Standard 119 (49 CFR 571.119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars), tire manufacturers must certify compliance therewith by molding the symbol 'DOT' onto the tire sidewalls. Further, 49 CFR 574.5 requires that all tires sold in the U.S. have tire identification numbers (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the manufacturers to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect. With that background in mind, your specific questions are answered as follows: 1. Is it illegal to import a tire from Canada without a DOT serial number? Answer: Yes. Each tire imported into the U.S. for highway use must have molded into or onto the sidewall a TIN and a DOT symbol or in the alternative, be accompanied by proof that the tire was manufactured prior to the effective date of applicable safety standards. The only exception to these requirements is that used truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread remaining and which are being imported solely for retreading prior to on- road use may be imported without displaying the TIN or the DOT symbol. 2. Is it illegal to sell or use a tire for highway use without the DOT serial number? Answer: It is illegal for a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to sell a new or retreaded tire to the first customer for purposes other than resale without the DOT symbol and the TIN molded into or onto the sidewall. There are no Federal requirements for the use of such tire once it has been sold to the first customer. There may, however, be state safety requirements pertinent to the use of motor vehicle equipment. For that information you should check with appropriate state officials. If the tire in question is intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check also with the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (Room 3404), of the Federal Highway Administration, at this address. (Telephone (202) 366-1790.) I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0774

Open
Mr. Barry G. Taylor, Executive Vice President, Argo Plastic Company, 6830 E. Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90040; Mr. Barry G. Taylor
Executive Vice President
Argo Plastic Company
6830 E. Washington Boulevard
Los Angeles
CA 90040;

Dear Mr. Taylor: This is in reply to your letter of June 27, 1972, requesting Federa 'approval' for plastic glazing material you manufacture. You enclose copies of certificates showing approval by the State of California.; The NHTSA does not provide approvals for glazing materials subject t its requirements. These requirements are found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials,' and apply to glazing materials for use in motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. (This includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, and American Samoa, and not 37 States as you mention.); Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 138 *et seq.*) manufacturers must use due care to ensure that products they manufacture conform to applicable standards (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b)(2)). The manufacturer must certify conformity as specified in section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), and in the case of Standard No. 205, as specified in the standard. The NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or their certification, but monitors compliance with the standards by purchasing materials on the open market, and testing them to the requirements of the standard. The failure of materials to conform can result in the imposition of civil penalties against the manufacturer, and other sanctions (15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).; A copy of Standard No. 205 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act are enclosed for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2749

Open
William Shapiro, P.E., Volvo of America Corporation, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; William Shapiro
P.E.
Volvo of America Corporation
Rockleigh
NJ 07647;

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter of December 20, 1977, enclosing a previou letter requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.3(j) of Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. I am sorry that your earlier letter was misplaced.; Volvo is correct in its interpretation that the requirements fo emergency locking retractors in S4.3(j) (2) and (3) were promulgated for reasons of comfort and convenience, although this in turn is directed toward a safety objective. As you know, the more comfortable and convenient belts are, the more likely they will be worn by motorists. Further, the requirements in these paragraphs assure that the driver can make necessary movements in the occupant compartment safely.; Paragraph S4.3(j) (2) specifies that an emergency locking retractor >>>'shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbin withdrawal, before the webbing extends 2 inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g or less.'<<<; Volvo interprets this to require that the retractor not lock before th webbing extends 2 inches when the *webbing* is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g. This is incorrect. The requirement specifically states that the *retractor* is to be accelerated. The agency does not agree that keeping the belt stationary and accelerating the retractor is equivalent to keeping the retractor stationary and accelerating the belt. This is due to the fact that inertial forces react upon the retractor during its acceleration that are not present when the webbing alone is accelerated. Therefore, results from the two methods of testing could differ significantly.; I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry, and if we can be o any further assistance please let us know.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1866

Open
Mr. George E. Talmage, Bowes Seal Fast Corporation, 5902 East Thirty-Fourth Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46218; Mr. George E. Talmage
Bowes Seal Fast Corporation
5902 East Thirty-Fourth Street
Indianapolis
Indiana 46218;

Dear Mr. Talmage: This is in reply to your letter of March 31, 1975, to Mr. Fred Redle of this agency, asking our comments on apparent hardships involved with brake fluid containers and labels that have been obsoleted by the recent deletion of color coding requirements.; Since the deletion leaves Standard no. 116 without mandatory colo requirements, and does not prohibit the use of any color, you may use such cans as you have in hand, or on order, until the effective date of any new color requirements. However, in the interim, this does not preclude any State from specifying or prohibiting fluid and container label color.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5576

Open
Director of Operations Central New York Regional Transport Authority 200 Cortland Avenue Syracuse, NY 13205; Director of Operations Central New York Regional Transport Authority 200 Cortland Avenue Syracuse
NY 13205;

Dear Mr. Renock: Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for you Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Transit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years. The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With regard to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you. NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: M. Judson Brown;

ID: aiam3271

Open
Mr. Warren Robbins, Manager, Automobile Division, Sleek-Craft Boats, P.O. Box 3563, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Mr. Warren Robbins
Manager
Automobile Division
Sleek-Craft Boats
P.O. Box 3563
Santa Fe Springs
CA 90670;

Dear Mr. Robbins: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation o Safety Standard No. 214, *Side Door Strength*, as it would apply to a new sports car that your company intends to market. You state that the side doors of this vehicle design can meet the 'intermediate' and 'peak' crush resistance requirements of the standard but not the 'initial' crush resistance requirement because of an outer fiberglass veneer component of the door. You ask whether the vehicle can be exempt from this 'initial' requirement since the door can withstand the maximum forces required by the standard.; The answer to your question is no. Safety Standard No. 214 require doors to comply with all three stages of the crush resistance requirements and there is no provision for an averaging of the crush resistance abilities. Although inboard mounted structures may be effective in preventing intrusion if the door has a large cross section, with a correspondingly large distance between the protective structure and the inner panel, the standard reflects a determination by the agency that doors afford the greatest protection if the crush resistance elements are as close to the outer panel as possible. Additionally, the 'initial' crush resistance requirements are necessary to ensure that the entire door system is structurally sound. This is particularly important because of the risk of occupant ejection if door hinges and latches separated during an accident, allowing the door to fly open.; Although the relief you seek cannot be granted by interpretation o Safety Standard No. 214, there are provisions for temporary exemptions from Safety Standards or portions of safety standards under certain circumstances, such as economic hardship. I am enclosing a copy of the regulation governing temporary exemptions for your information (49 CFR Part 555). After reviewing this regulation, you may wish to petition the agency for a temporary exemption from the 'initial' crush resistance requirements of the standard. The regulation explains the procedures you must follow.; If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of m office at 202-426- 2992.; 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.