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: aiam2604OpenMr. Byron A. Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015; Mr. Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to your April 6, 1977, letter asking whether two propose labels satisfy the requirements for certification and information labels found in 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicles safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with NHTSA regulations. From the illustrations you present, it appears that you have closely followed the format suggested in our regulations, and therefore, the labels seem to comply with the agency's requirements. Section S5.3(b) of Standard No. 120 permits the use of both labels when affixed in accordance with Part 567.4(b)-(f).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0639OpenMr. Franklin E. de Luna, The Daystar Motor Homes, Inc., P.O. Box 20325, Los Angeles, CA 90006; Mr. Franklin E. de Luna The Daystar Motor Homes Inc. P.O. Box 20325 Los Angeles CA 90006; Dear Mr. de Luna: This is in reply to your letter of February 4 asking for copies o regulations applicable to a 'motor home' you wish to manufacture.; I enclose a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac of 1966, the basic statute setting forth your obligations as a manufacturer, and the authority for all applicable regulations. A publication titled 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and Other Regulations' is available from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The price of $8.00 includes a subscription of up to one year of supplements. The Federal standards and regulations also appear in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 19 for the importation regulations), generally available at law libraries. Amendments and proposals are published, when issued, in the *Federal Register*.; If you have any questions after obtaining and receiving these material I will be happy to answer them for you. A 'motor home' for your information, is defined as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' under the Federal standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1881OpenMr. H. P. Montgomery, Jr., Montgomery GMC Trucks, Inc., 836 North Glenstone, Springfield, MO 65801; Mr. H. P. Montgomery Jr. Montgomery GMC Trucks Inc. 836 North Glenstone Springfield MO 65801; Dear Mr. Montgomery: This responds to your March 26, 1975, request for guidance i establishing basis for certification to Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, in the case of a truck to which you add a third axle.; While your letter lists five bases which might be used i certification, it is not necessary to employ all of these approaches. Rather the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that you exercise 'due care' to assure that your products conform to the standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(B)(1)). What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.; As a general response to your questions, if testing facilities are no available to an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, or the cost of his testing a vehicle directly to the requirements of Standard No. 121 is prohibitive, such a company should develop an alternative method of determining that his alternations (sic) do not take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. These methods could include testing of typical installations by independent contractors working with associations of companies such as TBEA or TEBDA, testing of typical installations by suppliers of the axles or other components sought to be installed, engineering calculations by the alterer, the alterer's supplier, or by independent contractors, or copying of installations that have been approved by chassis manufacturers. Component (e.g., axle) suppliers would appear to be a prime source of the type of assistance needed by intermediate and final-stage manufacturers, since they are most familiar with the main components of the installation and have the greatest economic interest in seeing this segment of the industry maintained.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0793OpenMr. Charles R. Matthews, Senior Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P. O. Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Charles R. Matthews Senior Safety Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P. O. Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Matthews: This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1972, requestin information on a proper course of action to take concerning your placement of incorrect information on certification labels.; The placement of incorrect information of the type you describe (a overstatement of gross axle weight rating) may be a 'safety related defect' under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This would be the case if loading the vehicle to the specified rating would result in an unsafe operating condition.; Whether a defect exists is to be determined in the first instance b the vehicle manufacturer. If you determine that a defect exists, section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402) requires that you notify first purchasers by certified mail, describing the defect, its effect on safety, and measures to be taken to correct it. The determination that a defect exists can also be made independently by NHTSA, which would then order the manufacturer to send the required notification. Regulations issued by NHTSA (Defect Reports, 49 CFR Part 573) require manufacturers of vehicles having safety defects to submit certain information to NHTSA, and to compile a list of affected owners.; Replacing the improper labels, as you have suggested, would be a appropriate action to take to rectify this situation and satisfy the Certification regulations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2254OpenMr. Raymond Oleisky, Operations Manager, Trans-continental Tire Sales, Inc., 9 Fourth Street, S.W., Osseo, Minnesota 55369; Mr. Raymond Oleisky Operations Manager Trans-continental Tire Sales Inc. 9 Fourth Street S.W. Osseo Minnesota 55369; Dear Mr. Oleisky: I am writing to confirm your March 19, 1976, telephone conversatio with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*.; Standard No. 119 requires that the symbol 'DOT' appear on the sidewal of a non-passenger car tire, as a certification that the tire meets all of the standard's performance and labeling requirements. Assuming that the tire in question does meet those requirements and is so certified, there is no prohibition in the standard against additional labeling such as 'Blem' or 'A.B.O.' I hope this clarifies the status of your tires.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0269OpenJames A. Morgan, Esq., Assistant Counsel, B.F. Goodrich Company, 500 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44318; James A. Morgan Esq. Assistant Counsel B.F. Goodrich Company 500 South Main Street Akron OH 44318; Dear Mr. Morgan: This is in reply to your letter of November 20, 1970 concerning you telephone conversation with Mr. Schmeltzer of my office, relating to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulations (Docket No. 70-12, Notice No. 2).; You are not completely correct in your understanding that, as a resul of the tire identification regulations, the DOT symbol will only be required on the sidewall of the tire where the identification number will appear. As indicated in the preamble of the notice of proposed rulemaking on these regulations, it is anticipated that the identification number required by the regulation will replace the manufacturer's identification number required by Standard No. 109. However, no decision has been made as yet whether Standard No. 109 will also be amended to require the 'DOT' symbol on only one sidewall of the tire.; You are correct in your understanding that the regulations were no intended to restrict the third grouping of characters, the optional tire type code, to three symbols (sic) In addition, you are correct in your understanding that a tire manufacturer will receive individual identification numbers for each of its tire manufacturing and retread plants.; Under the regulations, B.F. Goodrich will not be required to apply fo identification marks for Goodrich owned brand name tires if sold and controlled by them.; Concerning your question as to what class of certified mail would b required in the event of a recall, a notification letter sent by certified mail to the addressee, himself, would be preferable but is not, at this time, required by the Act or any regulation issued thereunder.; Thank you for your interest. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5591OpenHelen A. Rychlewski MGA Research Corporation 900 Mandoline Street Madison Heights, MI 48071; Helen A. Rychlewski MGA Research Corporation 900 Mandoline Street Madison Heights MI 48071; "Dear Ms. Rychlewski: This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, t the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test. In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not), (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions. The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged. The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engagethe inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4553OpenMr. M. Iwase Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN; Mr. M. Iwase Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimuzi--shi Shizuoka-ken JAPAN; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is to provide you with a clarification of m letter to you dated March l6, l988. Your second question was whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamps and tail/stop lamps is required on a rear lighting array for motorcycles. I responded that 'The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement.' In actuality, the agency has required this separation only where a single motorcycle stoplamp/taillamp is mounted on the vertical centerline, and not when dual lamps are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline, the configuration depicted in your letter of January 25, 1988. Therefore, I am advising you that there is no legal requirement that the 4-inch separation distance be maintained in the configurations you depicted, and that we appreciate your continuing efforts to understand and comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. I enclose a copy of a letter from this Office dated November 2l, l984, which explains our views on motorcycle rear lighting configurations in more detail. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam3296OpenMr. Martin D. Davis, Meon, Inc., 221-18 Merrick Boulevard, Springfield Gardens, NY 11413; Mr. Martin D. Davis Meon Inc. 221-18 Merrick Boulevard Springfield Gardens NY 11413; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in response to your letter of May 12, 1980, requestin interpretation of paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR S 575.104). That paragraph provides that to qualify as a limited production tire a tire cannot have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the United States in quantities greater than 10,000 during the preceding calendar year. You ask whether a tire meets this requirement if its size is recommended for use on several new vehicles, none of which is produced in quantities greater than 10,000 yearly, but which in the aggregate account for annual production in excess of 10,000 vehicles.; Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) refers to '*a* vehicle manufacturer's recommende tire size designation (emphasis added)' and '*a* new motor vehicle (emphasis added)', indicating that the 10,000 vehicle limitation refers to the production or importation of a particular vehicle model, rather than the total of all models for which the tire size is recommended. Thus, if a tire's size is recommended for use on several vehicle models, none of which is produced in or imported into the United States in quantities greater 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, the tire would meet the criterion of paragraph (c)(2)(iii).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1751OpenMr. Robert F. Farrelly, Safety Products, Inc., 2974 Vantage Drive, Memphis, TN 38131; Mr. Robert F. Farrelly Safety Products Inc. 2974 Vantage Drive Memphis TN 38131; Dear Mr. Farrelly: This is in reply to your letter of December 23, 1974, asking whether person who installs a 'Steering Stabilizer' manufactured by Safety Products, Inc., is required to recertify the vehicle in which it is installed. You enclose a copy of a letter from me dated August 24, 1972, in which I stated that we would accept a determination that the installation of a 'Safti-Stabilizer' (the previous name of the Steering Stabilizer) did not constitute remanufacturing, and that a person who installed such a device need not recertify the vehicle on which it is installed.; Since my earlier letter, the NHTSA has issued regulations covering th alteration of completed, certified motor vehicles before their sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale. These regulations (49 CFR SS 567.7, 568.8, copy enclosed) supersede opinions such as the one we provided you, which was based solely on the more general provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the certification regulations in effect at that time. Under the new regulations, which were effective February 1, 1974, an alteration which either (1) invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings or (2) involves installation of other than 'readily attachable' components gives rise to a responsibility for affixing an alterer label, which identifies the alterer and contains some additional information.; From the description of your device, and the enclosed literature, i appears to require no special expertise or tools to install, and is thus probably readily-attachable. It would also seemingly not affect a vehicle's weight ratings. If this assessment is correct, we would accept as reasonable a manufacturer's determination that an alterer label is not required when a 'Steering Stabilizer' is installed on a completed vehicle before its sale for purposes other than resale.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.