NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
- 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
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: nht70-1.44OpenDATE: 03/10/70 FROM: D. W. TOMS -- DIR., NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY ROBERT BRENNER TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 13, 1970 to the Administrator, in which you requested an interpretation of Standard 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, as applied to motor homes and chassis-mount campers. Specifically, you asked whether door components must conform to the requirements of the standard when the door is located across the width of the vehicle from a seating position. The relevant language is in paragraph S4. of the standard: "Side door components referred to herein shall conform to this standard if any portion of a 90-percentile two-dimensional manikin as described in SAE Practice J826, when positioned at any seating reference point, projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view." This language clearly covers, and was intended to cover, the situation that you describe. The phrase "projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view" eliminates, in respect to the standard's application, any consideration of the lateral distance of the seating position from the door opening. The door components of vehicles you described in your letter must therefore conform to the standard. We are pleased to be of assistance. |
|
ID: nht70-1.45OpenDATE: 03/17/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Sofica TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: I regret our delay in responding to your letter of December 2, 1969, which evidently became lost after it reached us. In your letter you ask three questions. The questions, and our answers to them, are as follows: 1. If a European concern manufactures seat belts for installation in vehicles imported into the United States, is the vehicle manufacturer or the seat belt manufacturer responsible for compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 with respect to those seat belts? It is our view that both manufacturers are responsible for compliance with the standard. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale in the United States of a nonconforming vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. A seat belt manufactured for installation on a motor vehicle to be sold in the United States is itself manufactured for sale in the United States. The manufacturer of the motor vehicle in which the nonconforming seat belt is installed would be in violation of section 108(a) because Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires certain motor vehicles to be equipped with seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard No. 209. 2. Is a foreign manufacturer of seat belts which will be imported into the United States required to test the belts at approved facilities in the United States to demonstrate that they conform to Standard No. 209? The answer is no. There is no requirement in the law or the standard that seat belts must be subjected to approved tests before they can be imported and sold. The manufacturer must certify that the belts conform to the standard. In order to do so, a manufacturer would ordinarily make tests of his products. This is particularly the case because compliance with some of the standard's requirements can be ascertained only by actual tests of seat belts. However, there is no requirement that any particular test be made at any specific test facility. 3. Must a European seat belt manufacturer designate an agent for service of administrative process under section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if he is merely supplying the belts for installation as original equipment in motor vehicles to be imported into the United States. It is our view that a foreign manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment who knows or has reason to know that his products will be imported into the United States, whether as original equipment on motor vehicles or otherwise, is obligated under section 110(e) to designate an agent for service of process in accordance with that section. Section 110(e) is not limited in its scope to manufacturers who actually import their products; it also applies to manufacturers who are "offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States". The quoted language seems broad enough to cover suppliers of motor vehicle equipment who know or should know that the vehicles in which their products are installed will be imported for sale into the United States. Again, let me express my apologies for the delay in responding to your inquiry. If you have any further questions about your obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, please do not hesitate to contact me. |
|
ID: nht70-1.46OpenDATE: 03/19/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Melvin Hart TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: We have received your petition of March 10 for temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 (Occupant Protection in Interior Impact). The petition raises several questions. Standard No. 201 does not, as you appear to assume, pertain only to instrument panels. It also covers seat backs, interior compartment doors, sunvisors, and armrests. Please explain whether you are seeking an exemption from the entire Standard, or only from S3.1. The comment on p. 6 of the petition, "two of the standards loom higher than the rest as problems", raises the question whether you are still requesting an exemption from Federal Standard No. 103 (Defrosting and Defogging Systems). If so, then you should submit a supplemental petition containing the information we requested on February 19 in returning to you your petition of February 13. The signature "Melvin Hart Owner" does not fulfill the requirement (49 C.F.R. @ 355.5(b)(13)) that the application be signed "by an officer of the petitioner and state his authority and area of responsibility". If you will explain the scope of your request for exemption from Standard No. 201, whether an exemption from Standard No. 103 is still needed, and your corporate position with Transer, Inc. we shall consider your petition further. In closing permit me to suggest that it would be to your advantage to submit as much information as possible on the safety characteristics of the T6.A, including relevant drawings and photographs. An exemption is based in part upon a finding that it is "consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the [National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety] Act". Since an exemption is, in effect, a license to manufacture motor vehicles, the Administrator must more data than the written assurances of a manufacturer that it will produce a "safe" vehicle before he can find that the exemption is "consistent with the public interest". This is especially true concerning a new vehicle produced by a new company which his not manufactured motor vehicles before. If you would like to discuss the T6.A with our engineers we shall be happy to arrange such a meeting. |
|
ID: nht70-1.47OpenDATE: 03/20/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA TO: A.L. Clark TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1970, to Mr. Jones Forrester, Deputy Director, Office of Standards Praparation, that has ben referred to this office. The information that you have attained from a firend, that a car built for you for your personal use and imported for purposes other than resale does not have to have a certification label, is correct. It should be noted, however, that the important criteria here is the matter of compliance with standards that are applicable on the date of manufacture. Section 108(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Public Law 89-563, states: "A motor vehicle . . . offered for importation in violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be refused admission into the United States under joint regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary; except that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary may, by such regulations, provide for authorizing the importation of such motor vehice . . . into the United States upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear to them appropriate to insure that any such motor vehicle . . . will be brought into comformity with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this title, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States." A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed. To augment this Section of the Act, 19 C.F.R. 12.80 has been established. This regulation states in essence that no vehicle shall not be refused entry if it bears a valid certification label. In the event the vehicle does not have a valid certification label other provisions for inportation are provided. A copy of that regulation is also enclosed. Iso Automotovcicoli held an Iteriam Temporary Exception Number 68-6, Public Law 90-283, that expired on December 19, 1968. This exemption covers passenger cars manufactured by that firm up to that date. This company subsequently filed another petition for temporary exemption and was granted Temporary Exemption Number 68-for thair Rivolta model only. Exemption(Illegible word) the Grifo model was withheld because it lacked certain technical information. We are currently in communication with Iso over this matter. The steps that you should take to free the ear from bond would be for you to contact Iso Automotoveicoli and establish the date of manufacture. If that date is sometime prior to December 19, 1968, an affidavit should be presented to Customs. If on the other hand the car was manufactured after that date, you should seek their advices as to what could be done to bring the vehicle into conformity commensurate with any temporary exemption that might be granted in the mean time. The regulations do not provide any other recourse other than corportation or abandonent to the United States. |
|
ID: nht70-1.48OpenDATE: 03/25/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA TO: The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 2, 1970, to the Federal Highway Administration, transmitting the August 1969, edition of the S.M.M.T. Tyre and Wheel Engineering Manual. Your letter also expressed your intention of having the 1969 manual supercede the 1965/66 data book as referenced in Section 83 of Standard No. 109. As we stated in our letter of March 14, 1969, to Mr. Woodbridge, Chief Engineer of S.M.M.T., "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, within Section 83, lists the Tyre and Wheel Engineering Data Book dated 1965/66 of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited (S.M.M.T.), "as one of the references containing acceptable test rims. When Standards No. 109 and 110 were developed, the National Highway Safety Bureau accepted the S.M.M.T. 1965/66 Data Book tire and rim combinations based on established usage. We did not, nor do we at present intend to accept general updating of these referenced publications, either foreign or domestic, as valid reasons for amending Standards No. 109 and 110. Consequently, any new tire size designations or alternative rim sizes that you wish to list within Standards No. 109 and 110 will have to comply, on an individual basis, with the abbreviated guidelines as outlined in the October 5, 1968, Federal Register. |
|
ID: nht70-1.49OpenDATE: 04/01/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Scandex Sakerhetaglas Aktiebolag TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1970 in which you applied to the National Highway Safety Bureau for registration of glazing materials your company intends exporting to the United States for use in motor vehicles. It is important that you understand that the National Highway Safety Bureau does not approve or certify that glazing materials meet the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applicable thereto (No. 205, copy enclosed). Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1405 ( a copy of the Act is also enclosed) requires the manufacturer to certify that his product complies with all applicable U.S. standards. You may certify that your company's glazing materials meet the standard by following the requirements of Section 114 of the Act or by following the certification alternative provided for in S3.4 of Standard No. 205. If you choose to use the alternative method provided for in the Standard you must apply for an approved manufacturer's code mark. Although the Bureau does not certify glazing material as complying, it does conduct a compliance program to determine if the manufacturer's product does, in fact, comply with the applicable standards. Persons selling non-complying items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation (see Sections 108 and 109 of the Act). In addition, your attention is directed to Section 110(e) of the Act which requires persons exporting motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment into the United States to designate an agent for service of process. See Subpart D-Service of Process: Agents, of the General Procedural Rules (copy enclosed). |
|
ID: nht70-1.5OpenDATE: 02/12/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Oesterreichisch-Amerikanische TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Re: Farm Use Only Tires and Request for Interpretation of Standard No. 109 Thank you for your reply to our letter of December 11, 1969 concerning tires marked with the legend "Farm Use Only Tires". Concerning the questions you raise in your letter relating to the DOT symbol, Standard No. 109 requires that the symbol be between the maximum section width and the bend to protect the lettering from obliteration during use. Therefore, placing the DOT symbol at the widest place on the side wall rib as illustrated in your enclosed drawing would not be permitted. With regard to your question asking if the approved symbol and the manufacturer's code mark is necessary, the approved symbol signifies that the manufacturer certifies that the tire complies with the Standard and is, therefore, necessary. Tires exported to this country without the symbol would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The code number is only required if your company manufactures a tire with a brand name other than its own. The purpose of the code number is to identify the manufacturer of the tire. |
|
ID: nht70-1.50OpenDATE: 04/01/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA TO: Florence L. Dawson TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Your letter of March 2, 1970, to Mr. Douglas Toms concerning the failure of the electrical system in your 1968 Volkswagen has been forwarded to this office for reply. Present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards include no specific requirement for electrical systems. However, there are minimum performance requirements for certain vehicle components--such as a brake system warning light and various lighting components--which necessarily rely upon a properly functioning electrical system for compliance with the applicable Standards. I have enclosed for your information a booklet describing briefly the Federal Standards which are presently in force. A copy of the complete Standards publication and all supplements may be purchased at an annual price of $ 8.00 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20102. This Bureau does not become involved in individual contractual relationships, such as exists between you and(Illegible Word) Motors or Volkwagon of America, Incorporated. Accordingly, we cannot assist you in obtaining further repairs for your vehicle. We are, however, interested in your experience from the point of view that what you have encountered might occur in other 1965 Volkwagon vehicles. Presently, we have no knowledge of other related failure, but we have made note of your complaint and we will remain alert for any similar reports. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 does not create a right of action by which a vehicle owner way sue a vehicle manufacturer if a safety-related defect is discovered in a vehicle. I suggest you contact an attorney as to possible recourse under Pennsylvania law. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review your experience. |
|
ID: nht70-1.6OpenDATE: 05/01/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA TO: Donald B. Haaversen TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1970, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning our Federal motor vehicle tire standards. The only tire standard promulgated to date is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, "New Pneumatic Tires-Passenger Cars" which was effective January 1, 1968. This standard specifies minimum performance for size, strength, endurance, high speed laboratory testing and labeling. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments. The replies to your specific questions are as follows: 1.Question: New American made tires have DOT load ranges, load capacity and inflation pressures molded into the sidewall. Is this required (that they be permanently marked), or is it sufficient to affix a temporary marking (such as a sticker) with this same information? Response: Section S4.3 states that this information shall be permanently molded into or onto all new passenger car tires manufactured after August 1, 1968. If the tire was manufactured between January 1, 1968 and July 31, 1968 the labeling requirements may be met by use of a label or tag. 2. Question: How is load capacity information arrived at? Is it by manufacturer certification, government conducted tests, or some other method? Response: The load/inflation schedule is calculated by use of empirical formulas and coordinated through the various Tire and(Illegible Word) Associations as well as the Society of Automotive Engineers. 3. Question: Is it necessary that these tires be subject to safety tests? These particular tires are already imported by another organization and may already have passed the necessary tests, if any.Response: The application of the "DOT recital to a tire, is the tire manufacturers self certification that his tire conforms to all the minimum performance standards of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. I have also enclosed for your review and information the following data: 1. U.S. Customs Regulations for Importation of Motor Vehicles and Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment. 2. Automobiles Imported Into the United States. |
|
ID: nht70-1.7OpenDATE: 03/28/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA TO: Industrija Gouijevih TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: In response to your letter of January 8, 1970, the Department of Transportation hereby assign number 212 to Sava, Industrija Gouijevih,(Illegible Words) Jugoslavija as its approved code mark. The approved code mark is for use in identifying the tire manufacturer in accordance with S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1421(1)). You are correct that all passenger car tires manufactured after August 1, 1968 must have permanently molded into or onto them the approved "DOT" recital. However, the application of the recital is not to import purposes only. The application of the(Illegible Words) by a tire manufacturer is the tire manufacturers self certification that his tire conforms to all of the minimum performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. Standard 109 specifies tire dimensions and laboratory test requirements for bend unseating resistance, strength, endurance and high speed performance; defines tire load ratings; and specifies labeling requirements. A copy of the standard is enclosed. The National Highway Safety Bureau does not certify tires prior to the manufacturer's application of the "DOT" symbol. However, we do maintain a compliance test program by which certification of manufacturers are verified. Violations of this certification are subject to a fine of $ 1,000.00 per tire. Your attention is directed to the requirements for designation of an agent in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Subsection (110(a)). This requirement is implemented by our General Procedural Rules, Subpart D - Service of Process: Agents. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements for your information. |
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.