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: aiam1981OpenHonorable Robert Taft, Jr., United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510; Honorable Robert Taft Jr. United States Senate Washington DC 20510; Dear Senator Taft: This is in further response to your letter of July 1, 1975, forwardin correspondence from Mr. R. H. Lawrence concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation.; By Act of Congress (Public Law 91-265), the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act was amended in 1970 to require manufacturers and retreaders of tires to maintain the names and addresses of first purchasers so that owners of defective tires may be notified of any defect. The legislative history of this amendment makes it clear that the Congress recognized the need for regulations in the area. Earlier joint attempts by manufacturers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to notify purchasers of defective tires produced inadequate results even in cases where the manufacturer offered to replace the defective tires free of charge. The poor results were attributable to the fact that owners could not be directly notified of the defect.; The magnitude of the problem which the regulation seeks to alleviate i clear. Since the inception of the program in 1966 through 1973, there have been 1,427,670 tires recalled in 88 separate defect recall campaigns. In 1973 alone, there were 116,743 tires recalled in 11 defect recall campaigns.; With regard to the effectiveness of the recordkeeping regulation, ou records indicate the percentage of tires being recorded is increasing, and should continue to increase when additional enforcement action is taken against manufacturers and dealers who do not comply with the regulation. Of course, what is most needed to make the regulation effective is the voluntary cooperation of retreaders and dealers in recording, reporting and maintaining the required information.; While this regulation indisputably places an added responsibility o retailers, we also believe that the burden is neither onerous nor unjustified in view of the danger to the consumer. NHTSA has continually attempted to improve and simplify the procedures for the registration of tires, the most recent example being the Universal Tire Registration Format issued on June 3, 1974. I have enclosed a copy for your information.; For these reasons, we are convinced that the requirement that dealer record the name and address of tire purchasers at the time of sale is reasonable and appropriate.; Mr. Lawrence also suggested that it is inappropriate to require tire to be graded on the basis of mileage, because different drivers may obtain different total mileages from identical tires. He appears to have misunderstood the meaning of the treadwear grades established by the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards. That regulation, issued pursuant to Section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, requires new tires to be graded in each of the following performance areas: treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The treadwear grade is based on the mileage which a tire can be expected to attain when tested on a specified course under controlled conditions and driving procedures. This grade is not designed to predict the actual mileage a consumer will obtain from a tire, because that mileage depends on many environmental factors, including the difference in driving styles to which Mr. Lawrence has referred. It is designed to permit a prospective tire purchaser to compare the performance of competing tires. For this reason, the treadwear grade is expressed as a percentage (of a nominal 30,000 miles), rather than as a mileage. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the regulation.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0693OpenMr. Richard M. Leek, President, Western Contractors Equipment, Inc., 4825 Lake Street, Melrose Park, IL 60161; Mr. Richard M. Leek President Western Contractors Equipment Inc. 4825 Lake Street Melrose Park IL 60161; Dear Mr. Leek: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1972, concerning problem you are having in certifying certain vehicles on which you install a boom-loading device. You state that the chassis on which you are to install this device has been altered by a person who added a tag axle but did not furnish you a GAWR for it. It was also altered by the owner, who partially installed a flat bed but did not install clearance lights or reflectors. You say that you cannot certify the vehicle because (1) you have no GAWR figures for the tag axle, and (2) the vehicle does not have appropriate lights or reflectors.; You can solve the problem you describe in either of two ways. First you may be able to install the boom-loading device as an intermediate manufacturer under the regulations governing 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 568, S 568.5, copy enclosed). You may do so if the vehicle, after the completion of your work, is still an incomplete vehicle as defined in section 568.3 of the regulations. The fact that lighting equipment has been omitted and a flat bed is still to be installed indicate that this would be a reasonable position for you to take. If you proceed in this manner you must furnish an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document, as provided in section 568.5, to the person to whom you deliver the vehicle.; Your other option is to provide the owner with a completed vehicle. I this case you must provide a GAWR for the tag axle, install the necessary lighting equipment, and certify the vehicle. You should seemingly be able to obtain the GAWR from the axle manufacturer, but we recommend you request that this information be furnished to you in writing, and that you retain it after you complete the vehicle. The requirements for proper lighting and reflective equipment are contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a copy of which is also enclosed. According to your letter, once you have made these modifications, there should be no obstacle to your properly certifying the vehicle.; We have forwarded a copy of your letter to our Office of Standard Enforcement for appropriate action regarding the failure of Reliable Spring Company to furnish you with the GAWR for the axle they installed, and we thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5491OpenMr. Ken Liebscher President/Director Electric Car Company P.O. Box 618 Everson, WA 98247; Mr. Ken Liebscher President/Director Electric Car Company P.O. Box 618 Everson WA 98247; Dear Mr. Liebscher: We have reviewed your application of January 16 1995, for temporary exemption of the M1-6 electric passenger car from six Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, on the basis that compliance would cause Electric Car Company ('Electric Car') substantial economic hardship. We need some additional information before we are able to consider the application further. A hardship applicant must provide corporate balance sheets and income statements for the three fiscal years preceding the filing of the application. You have filed statements for E.T.C. Industries and only for two years, those ending December 31, 1992, and December 31, 1993. This is acceptable since your submission indicates that E.T.C. Industries (apparently a Canadian corporation) is the parent of Electric Car (a Nevada corporation incorporated on November 24, 1993), and that 'the consolidated financial statements that you have provided us include the accounts of Electric Car . . . .' We would like to have balance sheets and income statements for Electric Car for the year ending December 31, 1994, but if these are not yet available, we would be willing to accept statements for E.T.C. Industries (or its predecessor Bradsue Resources, Ltd.) for the year ending December 31, 1991. If the information reflected in the financial statements is given in Canadian dollars, please provide a key indicating the value in American dollars on December 31 of each year for which the information is provided. In order to grant a hardship application, the Administrator must find that an applicant has tried to comply in good faith with each standard for which exemption is requested. Your application contains no information upon which the Administrator could make such a finding with respect to any of the six standards for which you seek exemption. In spite of your confidence about the MI-6's performance in a 30 mph barrier impact, the fact that the MI-6 uses equipment installed in motor vehicles that are certified as meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards does not mean that the MI-6 will meet any of the six standards with the equipment installed. We therefore suggest that you supplement the application with information demonstrating that you have examined each of the six standards in some detail, and have made a study of possible compliance problems and possible solutions to them. It is permissible to ask to be excused from only a portion of a standard, and you may find, after studying your problems, that you will be able to narrow your requests for exemption from Standards No. 201 and 208. We assume with respect to the latter that you are concerned with the airbag requirements. Although your letter speaks of 'restraint systems', we would like your further identification of them as two-point (lap belt) or three-point (lap and shoulder belt) systems. Although you appear to be a manufacturer in the start-up stage and one whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding the filing of the application was far less than 10,000, you have omitted to provide the number of motor vehicles that you produced in 1994 which is information that we require. Please do so in your response to this letter. When we have received this information, we shall prepare a notice requesting public comment which will appear in the Federal Register. We shall notify you when the Administrator has made a decision. We expect this to be three to four months after we have received your further submission. If you have any questions on our requirements, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202- 366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0369OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, General Manager, Toyota Motor Co., Ltd., Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima General Manager Toyota Motor Co. Ltd. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst New Jersey 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of June 2, 1971, requestin clarification of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, which requires a placard containing specified information to be 'permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location.' Your letter list seven locations on the vehicle (steering column, lower instrument panel pad or knee pad forward of the front seat occupants, sun visor, inside panel surface of the driver's door, door-latch post next to the driver's seat, door edge that meets the door-latch post next to the driver's seat, and door edge that meets the hinge pillar next to the driver's seat) and asks whether each would be considered an 'equally accessible location' under the standard.; The phrase 'glove compartment door or equally accessible location' i intended to require the placard to be affixed to a location where, like the glove compartment door, it can not only be easily referred to, but where it will also be relatively free from exposure to substances that may destroy it or render it illegible. With reference to your list of seven locations, we cannot determine without the specific configuration of the components involved whether placing the placard at any point on the component will meet the requirement. however, we believe the placard could be placed at some point on each of these components or locations so that the requirements of the standard would be met.; Please let us know if you have further questions. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2354OpenMr. Roland E. Moser, Road America Tire, 13230 NE Bellevue-Redmond Rd., Bellevue, Washington 98005; Mr. Roland E. Moser Road America Tire 13230 NE Bellevue-Redmond Rd. Bellevue Washington 98005; Dear Mr. Moser: This is in response to your May 19, 1976, letter concerning th responsibilities that you would have as an importer and distributer of Dunlop passenger car tires. I understand that the tires would, before importation, be certified by Dunlop as conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*, and labeled with a tire identification number as required by 40 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*. This particular line of tires would at first be imported by Road America Tire but not by Dunlop Rubber and Tire Co. of Buffalo, New York (Dunlop New York), the usual importer of Dunlop tires.; You have inquired about your responsibilities concerning 'recor keeping, recall, and testing', with respect to the tires that you would import. The term 'manufacturer' is defined in Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.) (the Act), to be; >>>any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of moto vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.*(emphasis added)<<<; In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer me an obligation imposed on a 'manufacturer' by the Act or regulations issued thereunder, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party. Please note that S574.8 of Part 574 also establishes requirements applicable to Road America Tire as a distributor of the tires in question.; The above discussion applies to manufacturers' notification and remed obligations set out in Section 151 through 160 of the Act and to the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, among others. The Act does not specifically require any person to conduct tests of his products. Standard No. 109 establishes the performance tests which the NHTSA will conduct to determine conformity. A determination of nonconformity triggers the notification and remedy obligations regardless of the amount of testing the manufacturer has performed.; In conclusion, tires imported by Road America Tire would not be th responsibility of Dunlop New York. Conversely, tires imported by Dunlop New York would not be the responsibility of Road America Tire. While a factual issue might arise concerning which party actually imported a particular tire, such an issue would be resolved on the basis of information available in that particular case. You should note that, were the NHTSA to choose to proceed against Dunlop with respect to a tire imported by Road America Tire, the agency might serve administrative processes, notices, or orders on Dunlop New York. However, Dunlop New York would be served only in its capacity as the foreign Dunlop's designated agent for service of process pursuant to Section 110(e) of the Act, and not in its capacity as an importer.; Copies of the Act and Part 574 are enclosed for your convenience. Yo may rely on this letter in resolving any conflict that you might have with Dunlop New York.; Yours truly, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3115OpenMr. Ronald P. Mitchell, Executive Vice President, Phillips Motor Car Corporation, 1301 West Copan Road, Suite 3E, Pompano Beach, CA 33046; Mr. Ronald P. Mitchell Executive Vice President Phillips Motor Car Corporation 1301 West Copan Road Suite 3E Pompano Beach CA 33046; Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1979, asking whethe Phillips Motor Car Corporation is a 'manufacturer' or 'alterer' of the Berlina Coupe.; As you have described it, Phillips removes the body from a 198 Corvette, lengthens the frame and install (sic) newly manufactured body parts, retaining the interior safety features of the original vehicle.; It is clear from your description that Phillips alters previousl certified vehicles 'other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies ...' and is, therefore, subject to the certification requirements of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. I enclose a copy of the regulation for your information and would be pleased to answer such further questions as you may have.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1128OpenMr. Jack Molesworth, Partner, Signum Plastics, 2501 Poplar Street, Oakland, CA 94607; Mr. Jack Molesworth Partner Signum Plastics 2501 Poplar Street Oakland CA 94607; Dear Mr. Molesworth: This is in reply to your letter of April 26, 1973, requesting that yo be assigned a 'DOT' code number for purposes of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials'. You state that you purchase acrylic plastic sheet from Thailand and Japan, and indicate that you are sole importers of this material.; Under paragraph S6 of Standard No. 205, the assignment of a code numbe is restricted to prime glazing material manufacturers, who are those manufacturers who either fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material. As you import only acrylic sheet, you are not a prime glazing material manufacturer, and the assignment of a code number to you is not appropriate.; I have enclosed a copy of marking requirements for glazing materials Paragraph S6.2 requires a prime glazing material manufacturer to apply a code number, which is obtained upon written request to this agency, to that glazing designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper. The code number requirement does not apply to glazing sheets not designed for a specific motor vehicle or camper. If you plan to import glazing material that is designed for a specific motor vehicle or camper, the prime manufacturer of that material, whether foreign or domestic, must apply for and receive a DOT code number.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief counsel |
|
ID: aiam1082OpenMr. Kazushi Sakashita, Assistant Manager, Export Services Division, Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd., 6047 Fuchu-Machi, Aki-Gun, Hiroshima, Japan; Mr. Kazushi Sakashita Assistant Manager Export Services Division Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd. 6047 Fuchu-Machi Aki-Gun Hiroshima Japan; Dear Mr. Sakashita: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask tw questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacements parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; There are no requirements for the certification of replacement vehicl parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present Standard Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements tha manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that 'due care' was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.; It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or no subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the manufacturer of the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which he will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3545OpenMr. S. Robson, Executive Engineer, Vehicle Regulations, Engineering Division, Mack Trucks, Inc., P. O. Box 1761, Allentown, PA 18105; Mr. S. Robson Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations Engineering Division Mack Trucks Inc. P. O. Box 1761 Allentown PA 18105; Dear Mr. Robson This responds to your January 19, 1982, letter asking whether the hos that connects the air pressure gauge to the service reservoir system must comply with Standard No. 106, *Brake Hoses.* You also ask whether the air pressure gauge is part of the Standard No. 121, *Air Brake System*.; The air pressure gauge to which you refer is required by S5.1.4 o Standard No. 121. Accordingly, it is considered as part of the air brake system. With respect to whether the tubing connecting that gauge to the air supply reservoir must comply with Standard No. 106, that standard defines brake hoses as:; >>>a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.<<<; The agency has previously determined that hoses connected to the ai pressure gauges need not comply with Standard No. 106 if they do not transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle s brakes. To determine whether your system transmits or contains the pressure, you must determine whether a failure of the hose to the gauge would result in a loss of air pressure in the system. If you use a check valve or some other device to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with Standard No. 106. This answer would also apply to other air pressure gauges that you may install to monitor other portions of the brake system performance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4280OpenMr. James R. Mitzenberg, Project Engineer, The Flxible Corporation, 970 Pittsburgh Drive, Delaware, Ohio 43015; Mr. James R. Mitzenberg Project Engineer The Flxible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware Ohio 43015; Dear Mr. Mitzenberg: This is in reply to your letter of January 22, 1987, asking furthe questions of permissible lamp operations.; With reference to the deceleration warning system discussed previousl in our correspondence, you have asked whether there would be a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 if the triple steady burning amber lamps are operated simultaneously wit the steady burning rear stop lamps, or with the flashing turn signal lamp (either red or amber). In neither instance do we believe that an impairment of required lighting equipment would result, within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.