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: aiam0866OpenMr. Douglas MacGregor, TERRALAB, 5221 Major Street, Salt Lake City, UT, 84104; Mr. Douglas MacGregor TERRALAB 5221 Major Street Salt Lake City UT 84104; Dear Mr. MacGregor: This is in reply to your letter of August 31, 1972, to Robert C O'Connell, Region VIII Administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'. You raise several questions in your letter which are restated below.; 1. 'Does the standard apply to wood paneling used on the interior o campers, trailers, and mobile homes?'; The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenge vehicles, trucks, and buses. This does not cover trailers, a vehicle class that includes mobile homes among its members, but it does cover campers which are mounted on new chassis. Accordingly, wood paneling used as a component or portion of a component described in Paragraph S4.1 of the standard and installed in campers mounted on new chassis would be subject to the requirements of the standard.; 2. You ask whether the standard applies to the studs used to fasten th wood paneling to the structural framework.; The studs used to fasten the wood paneling to the structural framewor of campers mounted on new chassis are not listed in Paragraph S4.1 of the standard, nor are they incorporated into a component listed in Paragraph S4.1. Consequently, the studs would not be subject to the requirements of the standard.; 3. 'Does the standard apply to plastic door molding?' Paragraph S4.1 does not list door molding as one of the interio components that must meet the requirements of the standard and, therefore, door molding is not covered.; 4. 'Does the standard apply to carpeting, and if so, if the carpetin is tacked to the flooring, does the flooring have to be tested for flammability?'; Paragraph S4.1 lists 'floor coverings' among the components required t meet the requirements of the standard. Since carpeting is a floor covering, it would have to meet the requirements of the standard. The flooring underneath the carpeting would not be considered a 'floor covering' and, accordingly, would not have to meet the requirements of the standard.; 5. 'If the paneling or flooring, either separately or as a subassembly has to be tested, is it tested by this procedure, or a more applicable procedure such as ASTM E251, etc.?'; The flooring, as stated above, is not subject to the requirements o the standard when it is covered by a floor covering such as carpeting. While a manufacturer may test for conformity to the standard as he thinks best, whether his product conforms to the standard will be determined by the NHTSA by means of the test procedures specified in the standard. Manufacturers who use procedures different from those in the standard should correlate the results obtained from such tests with those that would be obtained by the procedures recommended by the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel. |
|
ID: aiam3749OpenFrank B. Hill, Esq., Patent and Trademark Counsel, Bandag, Inc., Bandag Center, Muscatine, IA 52761; Frank B. Hill Esq. Patent and Trademark Counsel Bandag Inc. Bandag Center Muscatine IA 52761; Dear Mr. Hill: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, askin about marking requirements applicable to truck tires retreaded for non-highway use. You stated in your letter that the retreaded tires would be mounted only on vehicles used in shipyard areas to move cargo around. I will answer the three questions you raised in the order you presented them.; >>>1. *Is it required that a retreader put its DOT identification mar on truck tires when they are retreaded for non-highway use?*<<<; It is not possible to give a simple yes or no answer to this question 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*, sets forth certain marking requirements which must be met by manufacturers and retreaders of tires, including the requirement in section 574.5 that a DOT identification mark be molded on all new and retreaded tires. However, section 574.1 specifies that the requirements of Part 574 apply only to new and retreaded *tires for use on motor vehicles*. Hence, the question which must be answered to determine if a retreader is required to put its DOT identification mark on a retreaded tire is whether the tire is for use on motor vehicles.; 'Motor vehicle' is defined at 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) as 'any vehicle drive or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' If these retreaded tires are for use on forklifts or other types of mobile construction equipment intended and sold primarily for off-road use, the retreader would not be required to mold a DOT identification mark on the tires, because the tires would not be for use on motor vehicles. This is true even if these types of vehicles are incidentally used for highway travel from one job site to another.; If, on the other hand, the vehicles on which the retreaded tires ar mounted are conventional on-road trucks simply being used in a shipyard, the retreaders would be required to comply with the requirements of Part 574, because the tires are for use on motor vehicles. The determination of whether the retreaded tires are for use on motor vehicles must be made initially by the retreader, but it would be subject to review by this agency.; >>>2. *If a DOT identification mark is not required, is there any othe notice that is required on the retreaded trucks tires, retreaded for non-highway use?*<<<; If the retreaded truck tires are not subject to the Part 574 markin requirements, because they are not for use on motor vehicles, there are no other marking requirements applicable to retreaded truck tires.; >>>3. *If no notice is required and the DOT identification mark is no required, would it be permissible to place a disclaimer notice such as 'Not Retreaded for Highway Use' on the retreaded truck tire?*<<<; This sort of notice would be permitted, and would be a usefu disclosure for the retreader and the user of the tire, to show the intended use of the tire. Such a notice would not affect the retreader's duty to determine whether the tire was retreaded for use on motor vehicles, and mold its DOT identification mark on the sidewall of the tire if it were for use on motor vehicles.; Should you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke at this address or at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1774OpenMr. H. W. Gerth, Assistant Vice President, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. H. W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 75-0005) involving the front wheel bearings on certain Mercedes-Benz trucks, model L1113.; Since the notification was issued after the effective date of Publi Law 93-492, the provisions of this law apply to this notification. A copy of this law is enclosed for your information.; Specifically, the defect notification does not comply with sectio 153(a)(5) in that no specific date is given. Because remedy without charge is contingent upon actual dates, we believe the inclusion of a specific date is required. You must also include information that is responsive to section 153(a)(6). As the procedures referred to in that section have not been published, it is sufficient if you advise owners that they may write the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590, if they find Mercedes- Benz to have failed or to have been unable to perform the repair satisfactorily.; In addition, we note from your defect report that you are notifyin first purchasers. Public law 93-492 has modified the statutory recipients of defect notification letters, and requires that notification be sent to the person who is registered under State law as the owner of the vehicle (section 153(c)(1)). First purchasers may also have to be notified under these requirements if registered owners cannot be found (153(c)(2)). We suggest you review these statutory changes and renotify owners, providing them with all required information. A letter containing the information in the notification letter forwarded to us plus the additional information referred to above will be considered to meet these statutory criteria.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4576OpenRaymond F. Brady, Esq. 1216 N.W. 8th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601; Raymond F. Brady Esq. 1216 N.W. 8th Avenue Gainesville FL 32601; "Dear Mr. Brady: This responds to your letter asking whether certai seats in a limousine would be considered 'designated seating positions' within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR /571.3. You stated that the seats in question are two free-standing, rearward facing passenger seats installed in the rear passenger compartment of a limousine. According to your letter, these seats are mounted to the floor and do not fold into the back of another seat, nor are these seats labeled to indicate that they are not designated for occupancy while the limousine is in motion. In a February 24, 1989 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that the vehicles in which these seats are installed have not previously been sold for purposes other than resale. If the situation is as described in your letter, these seats would be considered 'designated seating positions' within the meaning of 49 CFR /571.3. Title 49 CFR /571.3 defines a 'designated seating position' as follows: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. The seats described in your letter appear to be capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female. Further, the overall seat configuration and design and the limousine's design is such that these seats appear likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. Finally, the seats do not appear to be auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. For a more complete explanation of what type of seats the agency considers to be 'auxiliary seating accommodations,' I have enclosed an April 28, 1971 letter from this agency to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota. Based on these conclusions, this agency would consider each of the two rear facing seats to be 'designated seating positions.' If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3319OpenMr. Dennis Newton, School Pupil Transportation, Kansas Department of Transportation, State Office Building, Topeka, KS 66612; Mr. Dennis Newton School Pupil Transportation Kansas Department of Transportation State Office Building Topeka KS 66612; Dear Mr. Newton: This responds to your June 2, 1980, letter asking whether a school bu that is to be sold to a school district in your State will meet the Federal minimum requirements applicable to gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) and gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR).; To the best of my knowledge, the Federal government has no minimu specifications for GAWR or GVWR. Certainly, this agency does not specify minimum weight ratings. Our only requirement is that the GAWR and GVWR be appropriate for the size and weight of a vehicle taking into consideration the type of equipment installed on it. From the information that you have provided us, we cannot say that the vehicle in question would or would not comply with that requirement. It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with the Federal safety standards. No school bus manufacturer can sell you a school bus that they know will not comply with the requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1324OpenMr. Paul R. Hodgson, Attorney At Law, 420 Harvard Tower, 4815 South Harvard Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135; Mr. Paul R. Hodgson Attorney At Law 420 Harvard Tower 4815 South Harvard Avenue Tulsa Oklahoma 74135; Dear Mr. Hodgson: This is in reply to your letter of October 26,, 1973, requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Paragraph S3.2.1.2 (Mounting).; Paragraph S3.2.1.2 requires, in part, that the outside mirror on th driver's side be capable of adjustment from the driver's seated position. The purpose of this requirements is to ensure that any necessary adjustment of the mirror can be readily accomplished without affecting the continued safe operation of the vehicle in motion. I for some reason the position of the outside mirror were altered so as to obstruct the clear view of the driver to the rear, he would be compelled to leave the highway and remove himself from the vehicle in order to make an adjustment. This possibility defeats one of the purposes of paragraph S3.2.1.2.; Paragraph S3.2.1.2 also provides that the mirror shall not be obscure by the unwiped portion of the windshield. As you stated in your letter, the curvature of the Traveco windshield will not afford an unobscured view of the mirror in that the mirror only retains about 80% of its visibility in the rain and snow. Visibility of 80% does not satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 111.; In summary, the mounting you have suggested for rearview mirrors on th Traveco motor homes is not in conformity with the requirements set out in Paragraph S3.2.1.2 of Standard No. 111. However, pursuant to section 108 (b)(1) of the Vehicle Safety Act, the nonconforming mirrors you have described may be installed if the installation is accomplished after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. You should also be aware that a revision of the standard is presently under consideration which may have an effect on the future compliance of the mirrors.; We appreciate your inquiry. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4126OpenMr. Paul Utans, Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Subaru of America, Inc., 7040 Central Highway, Pennsauken, NJ 08109; Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Governmental Affairs Subaru of America Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennsauken NJ 08109; Dear Mr. Utans: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the Par 581, Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle with an adjustable suspension height control system is tested at the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position. You stated that the very reason that adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) would be defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings.; As discussed below, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must b capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted.; As noted by your letter, section 581.6 of the Bumper Standard set forth conditions applicable to bumper testing. For example, the vehicle is at unloaded vehicle weight, the front wheels are in the straight ahead position, etc. The standard does not, however, include a test condition specifically addressing suspension height.; Given the absence of the specific test condition concerning suspensio height, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted. There is no language in the test requirements of the standard limiting their applicability to 'the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position.'; This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Bumpe Standard, set forth in section 581.2, to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed collisions. If a vehicle's suspension could be adjusted so that its bumper height resulted in bumper mismatch with other vehicles in the event of low speed collisions, the reduction in physical damage attributable to the Bumper Standard would be defeated in whole or part.; We appreciate your concern that the very reason that the adjustabl height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cited reasons along those lines in a notice published in the *Federal Register* (49 FR 34049) denying petitions for rulemaking to establish safety requirements for bumpers on vehicles *other* than those covered by Part 581. If the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0165OpenMr. J. J. Serota, General Counsel, Grumman Allied Industries, Inc., 600 Old Country Road, Roosevelt Field, garden City, NY 11532; Mr. J. J. Serota General Counsel Grumman Allied Industries Inc. 600 Old Country Road Roosevelt Field garden City NY 11532; Dear Mr. Serota: This is in further response to your letter dated April 9, 1969 addressed to Robert M. O'Mahoney, which has been referred to this Bureau.; The location you have selected on the windshield wiper motor bracket as shown in your enclosed drawing number 69028, sheet 2, is approved as an alternative to the specified locations. We note, however, that you intend to use binding-head screws as your method of attachment. This method does not appear to fulfill the requirements of permanency and destruction on removal in section 367.4(b) of the Certification Regulations, 49 CFR Part 367.; As issued January 24, 1969 (34 F.R. 1148) the above section reads: 'Th label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without the use of tools and without destroying it.' a proposal issued on April 29, 1969 (34 F.R. 7032) would amend the section to read: 'The label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying it.' The requirements of permanency and destruction on removal remain in both versions.; Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director |
|
ID: aiam2158OpenMr. S. L. Smead, Motocross Engineers, Inc., P.O. Box 861, Wilbraham, MA 01095; Mr. S. L. Smead Motocross Engineers Inc. P.O. Box 861 Wilbraham MA 01095; Dear Mr. Smead: This is in response to your letter of February 6, 1976, concerning th application of 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*, to certain off-road motorcycle tires that you plan to import.; 'Motor vehicle' is defined in Section 102(3) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as:; >>>any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<; The Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulation does not apply t tires that are not manufactured for use on motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it appears that the vehicles for which the tires in question are designed are not motor vehicles. Therefore, unless these tires are also designed for use on other vehicles that do meet the statutory definition of 'motor vehicle', they are not subject to any labeling requirements of the Department of Transportation.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5367OpenMr. Fred Carr, Engineer Utilimaster 65266 State Road 19 P. O. Box 585 Wakarusa, IN 46573-0585; Mr. Fred Carr Engineer Utilimaster 65266 State Road 19 P. O. Box 585 Wakarusa IN 46573-0585; "Dear Mr. Carr: This responds to your question asking whether Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to 'motor vehicle equipment relating to light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty trucks or truck manufacturers.' As explained below, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. S2. Application of Standard No. 211 states the following: This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment. 'Multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less, which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Since Standard No. 211 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and their equipment, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. 'Truck' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. Accordingly, manufacturers of trucks or truck equipment are not required to certify their trucks and truck equipment to the requirements of Standard No. 211. I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack 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.