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: aiam4873OpenMr. Dan P. Strauser Manager - Research and Development Elgin Sweeper Company 1300 W. Bartlett Road P.O. Box 537 Elgin, IL 60121-0537; Mr. Dan P. Strauser Manager - Research and Development Elgin Sweeper Company 1300 W. Bartlett Road P.O. Box 537 Elgin IL 60121-0537; "Dear Mr. Strauser: This responds to your letter of March 25, 199 regarding the applicability of this agency's safety standards to a number of models of Elgin and Ravo street sweepers. In general, all vehicles classified as 'motor vehicles' are subject to safety standards. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) defines the term 'motor vehicle' as follows: 'Motor vehicle' means any vehicle driven 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. Under a longstanding policy, this agency has regarded vehicles not to be 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Act and therefore not subject to safety standards, despite their use on the highways, if they (1) have an unusual body configuration which sets the vehicles apart from typical highway traffic and (2) have a maximum speed capability of 20 mph or less. Based upon the literature you provided, the Pelican 'SE' and Pelican 'P' 3-wheel street sweepers appear to meet these criteria. If the advertised speed ('Up to 20 mph') is the maximum speed these vehicles are capable of, these vehicles would not be considered 'motor vehicles' and therefore would not be required to comply with the safety standards. Since the advertised speed of the Whirlwind, Crosswind, and Eagle 4-wheel street sweepers, and the Ravo Model 5000 street sweeper exceeds 20 mph (or the description, i.e., 'legal highway speeds', suggests that the vehicle is capable of exceeding 20 mph), these vehicles would be considered 'motor vehicles.' The information you enclosed on the Ravo Model 4000 street sweeper did not indicate its maximum speed capability. If this vehicle is capable of speeds in excess of 20 mph, it would also be considered a 'motor vehicle.' Street sweepers which are considered to be 'motor vehicles' would be classified as 'trucks' and required to comply with all safety standards applicable to trucks. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0099OpenMr. Paul L. Nine, Manager, Product Regulations, Chrysler Corporation, Office of Civic Affairs, Detroit, MI 48231; Mr. Paul L. Nine Manager Product Regulations Chrysler Corporation Office of Civic Affairs Detroit MI 48231; Dear Mr. Nine: Thank you for your letter of August 9, 1968, containing literature o 'Super-Lite' which will be an optional lighting device on the 1969 Dodge Polara and Monaco Models.; According to the literature, 'Super-Lite' is an auxiliary o supplemental light to be used in conjunction with the low beams of the regular headlamps.; For many years, all lighting devices used on motor vehicles registere in New Jersey have been required to be approved by the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles. Lighting devices are added to our approved list after a sample has been submitted along with a report from an independent testing laboratory showing that the device meets the standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers. We will also add a motor vehicle lighting device to our approved list after we receive an Approval Certificate from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators showing that the device meets the SAE Standards.; Electric Supplementary Lamps, such as the 'Super- Lite' are covered b SAE Standard No. J582. Perhaps you have submitted a sample light and the necessary test report to the AAMVA, but as yet, we have not received a copy of the Approval Certificate.; In case you desire to have us approve the 'Super- Lite' on the basis o New Jersey alone, please send us a sample and test report, as mentioned above.; Unless the 'Super-Lite' is on our approved list at the time moto vehicles equipped with the lighting device are going through our inspection stations, the vehicles will have to be rejected.; New Jersey R.S. 39:3-51 concerns the mounting and aiming of auxiliar driving lights. A copy of this section is enclosed for your information.; Very truly yours, John A. McLaine, Chief, Automotive Engineerin Standards; |
|
ID: aiam0563OpenMr. Norman King, Crestview Service Center, 9201 W. Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90035; Mr. Norman King Crestview Service Center 9201 W. Pico Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90035; Dear Mr. King: This is in reply to your letter of January 7, 1972, regardin recordkeeping of tires manufactured before May 22, 1971.; Tires manufactured prior to May 22, 1971, are not subject to th recordkeeping requirements of Regulation Part 574.; Regulation Part 574 became effective May 22, 1971, for tire manufactured on and after that date.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5331OpenMr. Thomas Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter to NHTSA's Office o Vehicle Safety Compliance requesting an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements in Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. This letter confirms your understanding that a reflectorized stop signal arm that fully complies with the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1 complies with S5.3, regardless of whether a stop signal arm is equipped with strobe lights that do not comply with S5.3.2. As you are aware, S5.3 Conspicuity states 'The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both.' Section S5.3.1 sets forth requirements addressing reflectorization, and S5.3.2, which references S6.2, sets forth requirements addressing flashing lamps. Section S6.2.2 specifies a stop signal arm's flash rate. You explained that some of the stop signal arms that you install fully comply with the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1. However, these stop signal arms are also equipped with strobe lights that do not comply with S5.3.2 because they do not comply with the flash rate requirements in S6.2.2. As we noted above, compliance with the conspicuity requirements in S5.3 can be established by complying with either the reflectorization requirements in S5.3.1 or the flashing light requirements in S5.3.2. (emphasis added) Since the stop signal arms in question comply with the reflectorization requirements, they comply with the conspicuity requirements and need not comply with the flashing light requirements. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0133OpenMr. Michael Pinto, Nottingham & Pinto, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10020; Mr. Michael Pinto Nottingham & Pinto 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York New York 10020; Dear Mr. Pinto: #This is in response to your letter of December 26 1968, and as a follow-up of our meeting of January 9, both concerning your proposal to hot brand the legend 'SECOND NOT ADJ.' over part of the brand name 'ATLAS PLYCRON' tires. #Provided the branding of the legend does not make the brand name illegible it would be permissible under the motor vehicle safety standards. Examination of the photos you submitted indicates that no pard of the brand name is obliterated and only one letter is affected, although still clearly visible. Therefore, as long as one of the methods of branding shown in the photos is followed, the labeling requirements of standard No. 109 with regard to the brand name will have been met. #Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam1688OpenMr. Bob Nottingham, Silver Eagle Manufacturing Company, 10505 N.E. 2nd Ave., Portland, OR 97211; Mr. Bob Nottingham Silver Eagle Manufacturing Company 10505 N.E. 2nd Ave. Portland OR 97211; Dear Mr. Nottingham: This responds to your November 8, 1974, question whether permanently-attached steerable axle on a trailer is required to meet the parking brake requirements for trailer converter dollies or those for all other vehicles.; In answer to your question, the permanently-attached steerable axle yo describe is not a separate vehicle which would qualify as a trailer converter dolly. Therefore the axle is simply part of a trailer which must meet the parking brake requirements of either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2. Neither of these options specifies that there be parking brakes on steerable axles, although in satisfaction of S5.6.2 (grade holding), the manufacturer could utilize parking brakes on the steerable axle.; I would like to add that, although S5.8 does not presently specif emergency braking capability for steerable axles on trailers, we intend to issue a proposal in the near future to require such performance on these axles. Your redesign plans may wish to take this upcoming proposal into consideration.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4170OpenMr. Aaron M. Lowe, Executive Director, Vehicle Security Association, 5100 Forbes Boulevard, Lanham, MD 20706; Mr. Aaron M. Lowe Executive Director Vehicle Security Association 5100 Forbes Boulevard Lanham MD 20706; Dear Mr. Lowe: This responds to your letter dated July 22, 1986, requesting thi agency to withdraw the granting of four petitions for exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard.; You state in your letter that the Vehicle Security Association (VSA challenges the granting of petitions to Volkswagen of America, Inc., General Motors Corporation, Isuzu Motors Corporation, and Nissan Research and Development, Inc., for exemption of certain vehicle lines beginning in model year 1987. For the reasons given below, the agency believes these petitions for exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard were properly granted according to the requirements of section 605 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and 49 CFR Part 543, *Petitions for Exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*.; You state that the lack of theft data concerning vehicles marked i accordance with the theft prevention standard makes it difficult for NHTSA to make a determination, based upon substantial evidence, that a standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with Part 541 in reducing and deterring theft. You add that the agency is not required to approve petitions for exemption and request that the agency withdraw its grants of those petitions for that reason.; Section 605 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac permits vehicle manufacturers to petition NHTSA to allow high theft vehicle lines to be exempted from the standard. To be exempted, a high theft line must be equipped with an antitheft device as standard equipment and NHTSA must determine that antitheft device is likely to be as effective as parts marking in reducing and deterring theft. This section requires that the agency's determination to grant or deny a petition be made within 120 days after the date of filing the petition. If the agency fails to make a determination within the specified time period, this section also states that the petition shall be considered granted.; In the notices granting the petitions filed by these fou manufacturers, NHTSA noted that the limited and apparently conflicting data on the effectiveness of the pre-standard parts marking programs makes it difficult in the first year of this legislation's implementation to compare the effectiveness of an antitheft device with the effectiveness of compliance with the theft prevention standard. Section 605 clearly requires such a comparison, which the agency has made on the basis of the limited data available. However, the House Committee Report stated that section 605 was adopted because the Committee was willing to give standard equipment antitheft devices 'an opportunity to be proved as effective in deterring theft as the numbering standard.' H.R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 17. The agency believes that Congress did not intend that the data limitations in the early phase of implementing the theft prevention standard result in across-the board denials of exemption petitions.; If, as the standard is implemented, NHTSA receives data indicating tha a manufacturer's antitheft device has not been as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the theft prevention standard, the agency may terminate the exemption under section 605(d). The agency will be monitoring these and other theft data in an attempt to effectively implement the purposes of the vehicle theft legislation.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1372OpenMr. Stanley J. Marx, President, Gillig Brothers, P. O. Box 330, Hayward, CA 94543; Mr. Stanley J. Marx President Gillig Brothers P. O. Box 330 Hayward CA 94543; Dear Mr. Marx: This is in acknowledgment of your Defect Information Report, i accordance with the defect reporting regulations, Part 573.; The Defect Information Report involves: 1600 coaches manufacture during a period dating from January 1, 1972, through December 13, 1973, with Ross HPS71 and HF64 power steering gear boxes. Possibility that the lower steering shaft bearing has failed due to a lack of lubricating and/or the failure to maintain proper alignment with the gear box.; The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA identification number has been assigned to the campaign *73- 0247*. The first quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by February 5, 1974.; Please refer to the above number in all future correspondenc concerning this campaign.; In addition, the letter which you have sent to first purchasers doe not meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577, 'Defect Notification.' Specifically, it does not evaluate the risk to traffic safety in the manner set forth in section 577.4(d). (If vehicle crash is the potential result of steering loss, as appears likely, your letter should reflect the requirements of 577.4(d)(1).) The letter also fails to conform to section 577.4(e)(3), requiring a statement of the measures to be taken to repair the defect when the manufacturer does not bear the cost of repair. Specifically, it is not clear from the drawing you enclose which parts may have to be replaced. For each part section 577.4(e)(3)(i) required the name, part number, and suggested list price to be included. You are also required to specify the day after which parts will be generally available (section 577.4(e)(3)(iii). If parts are presently available, the letter should so state.; For your information, your December 1973 quarterly report which yo sent this office does not meet the requirements of Part 573 (49 CFR). This regulation requires the submission of quarterly reports not more than 25 working days after the close of each calendar quarter, that is, the end of March, June, September, and December. Also, each report shall contain the total number of manufacturer's vehicles by make, model, and model year produced or imported during the quarter whether or not they are involved in a recall campaign. Therefore, the NHTSA requests that in the future quarterly reports be composed in accordance with Part 573.; Failure to comply with this regulation can result in the imposition o civil penalties and injunctive sanctions.; If you desire further information please contact Messrs. James Murra or Marx Elliott of this office at (202) 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4520OpenMr. Jay V. Wright Page Avjet Corp. 2230 W. Southcross Blvd. PO Drawer Z San Antonio, TX 78211; Mr. Jay V. Wright Page Avjet Corp. 2230 W. Southcross Blvd. PO Drawer Z San Antonio TX 78211; "Dear Mr. Wright: This is in response to your letter of April 21, 1988 asking whether a vehicle produced by your company is a motor vehicle subject to the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This vehicle, referred to as a hydrant truck, consists of a chassis-cab with an equipment platform mounted on its rear. According to your letter, the platform would be equipped with accessories that allow the vehicle to be used to filter and meter aircraft fuels as fuel is pumped from airport storage tanks into aircraft. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven 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. We have interpreted this language as follows. On the one hand, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use are not motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Examples include airport runway vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, jeep-type utility vehicles are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. We have found vehicles to be motor vehicles if their on-road use is substantial, even though these vehicles' predominant intended use is off-road. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of vehicle owners, NHTSA has found that the vehicle is a 'motor vehicle.' This finding was made in the case of dune buggies, regardless of the manufacturers' stated intent that the vehicles were to be used off-road only. You stated in your letter that this vehicle is not 'perceived as being moved over public roads or from airport to airport in its daily use.' It appears that this vehicle is intended and sold solely for off-road use, even though the vehicle appears operationally capable of highway travel. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that your company's 'Hydrant Truck' does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is regularly being used on the public roads. We note that if your vehicle ever came to be regarded as a motor vehicle, there are probably few changes that would have to be made to bring it into compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). NHTSA encourages (but cannot require) you to make these changes. The chassis-cab used to produce the hydrant truck already has been certified by its manufacturer as an incomplete vehicle. Therefore, in order to achieve compliance, it is likely that few standards would require any changes by your company. One such standard is FMVSS 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Additional changes might also be required if the weight added by the equipment platform exceeds any weight maxima specified by the chassis-cab manufacturer in making his certification. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0830OpenMr. Robert Craig, Kennedy, Holland, Delaey and Svoboda, Attorneys at Law, Suite 1900, One First National Center, Omaha, Nebraska 68102; Mr. Robert Craig Kennedy Holland Delaey and Svoboda Attorneys at Law Suite 1900 One First National Center Omaha Nebraska 68102; Dear Mr. Craig: Your letter dated July 27, 1972, to the Department of Commerce regarding information pertaining to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, initial standards, was referred to this office for reply.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, i establishing the legislative basis for the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, required that the initial standards, to the maximum extent possible, be based on existing safety standards. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making, soliciting suggestions, opinions, and proposals for consideration in promulgating the initial standards, was published in the *Federal Register* on October 8, 1966. Paragraph S3.3(d) of the Initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 was published in the *Federal Register* on July 15, 1966, (31 F.R. 9628), after consideration of the comments received in response to the Advance Notice. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 515/3a.; Thank you for your letter. Your interest in automotive safety i appreciated.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
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.