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: aiam2198OpenMr. Hal H. Newell, Eaton Corporation, Government Relations Office, 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Hal H. Newell Eaton Corporation Government Relations Office 815 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Newell: This responds to Eaton Corporation's January 21, 1976, question whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stay of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, eliminated all requirements of the standard for the period of the stay, whether complying vehicles built prior to the stay may be modified so they do not comply, and whether non-complying vehicles built during the stay would have to be retrofitted upon reinstatement of the standard. Your other questions are no longer relevant in view of the recent reinstatement of the standard by the Supreme Court.; The NHTSA has interpreted the stay to have had the effect, nationwide of voiding the standard's force and effect as a whole during the period of January 16 through January 29, 1976.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act prohibits the sale of a vehicle unless it is in conformity with applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. Therefore, a vehicle manufactured in conformity with Standard No. 121 prior to January 16, 1976, would have to conform to the standard when sold. Non-complying vehicles built during the stay would not be required to be retrofitted under this provision, because the standard was not in effect on the date of manufacture.; Sincerely,, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam2032OpenMr. Hidekimi Inoue, Bridgestone Tire Co., Ltd., 350 Fifth Avenue, New York 10001; Mr. Hidekimi Inoue Bridgestone Tire Co. Ltd. 350 Fifth Avenue New York 10001; Dear Mr. Inoue: #This responds to your letter of July 14, 1975 concerning the permissibility of placing arrow-shaped markings on the tire sidewalls to show the locations of the treadwear indicators. #Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 specifies certain labeling requirements for passenger car tires. Standard No. 119 specifies similar labeling for tires designed for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. Although the arrows which you have described are not required by either of these standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to such markings provided that none of the required label information is omitted. #Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3273OpenMr. Robert Fondiller, President, WOW! Corporation, 200 West 58th Street, New York, NY 10019; Mr. Robert Fondiller President WOW! Corporation 200 West 58th Street New York NY 10019; Dear Mr. Fondiller: This responds to your March 18, 1980, letter to this agency in whic you posed some questions about a 3-wheeled vehicle your company plans to produce. First, you wanted to know if a 3-wheeled vehicle would be classified as a car, a motorcycle, or some other vehicle. Second, you asked if the vehicle could be licensed for street and/or highway use. Third, you asked if replacing the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel would result in the vehicle being classified as a 3- wheel or 4-wheel vehicle, and what effect, if any, classification as a 4-wheel vehicle would have on the answers given to the first two questions.; This agency classifies all 3-wheeled motor vehicles as motorcycles pursuant to the definition of 'motorcycle' given in 49 CFR S 571.3. The pertinent part of that section reads:; >>>'Motorcycle' means a motor vehicle with motive power having a sea or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.<<<; We determine the number of wheels on a vehicle simply by counting thos wheels. Hence, if you were to replace the single rear wheel with a double rear wheel, the vehicle would then be a 4-wheeled vehicle and could not be classified as a motorcycle. Such a vehicle would be classified as a passenger car.; The classification of a vehicle is important since it affects th Federal motor vehicle safety standards with which the vehicle must comply If a vehicle is a motorcycle, it must comply with the following safety standards: 108, 111, 112, 115, 120, 122, 123, and 127. If, on the other hand, a vehicle is a passenger car, it must comply with the following standards: 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 124, 127, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 219, and 302. As you see, the requirements for passenger cars are more stringent than for motorcycles.; I have enclosed a pamphlet prepared by this agency which gives a brie summary of the requirements of each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, because of the volume of these standards, we do not provide copies directly. I have also enclosed an information sheet which explains how you can obtain copies of our standards and other regulations.; This agency does not license any vehicles for street or highway use. W specify performance requirements, and any motor vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as being in compliance with all applicable safety standards as of the date of its manufacture. If the vehicle complies with these requirements, we specify no further steps which must be taken.; If you have any further questions concerning motor vehicle safety o need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3789OpenMr. J. Edwin McDonnell, Bailey & McDonnell, 180 Library Street, Spartanburg, SC 29301; Mr. J. Edwin McDonnell Bailey & McDonnell 180 Library Street Spartanburg SC 29301; Dear Mr. McDonnell: This is in response to your letter of January 6, 1984 regarding whethe South Carolina has received approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for use of its title documents in lieu of the Federal odometer disclosure statement.; South Carolina submitted its motor vehicle title forms to this agenc for approval, but its odometer disclosure statement was unacceptable. South Carolina was advised that before its title form could be approved, certain additional information must be incorporated. We do not know if the recommended changes were made.; Please note, however, that if South Carolina has incorporated th required information into its title, it need not obtain the approval of this agency in order to use that title in lieu of a separate Federal form. If you have additional questions regarding South Carolina's title documents, please submit them to my attention. I will be glad to review them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3623OpenMr. F. E. Bettridge, Board Chairman, Middlekauff, Inc., 1615 Ketcham Avenue, Toledo, OH 43608; Mr. F. E. Bettridge Board Chairman Middlekauff Inc. 1615 Ketcham Avenue Toledo OH 43608; Dear Mr. Bettridge: This is in reply to your letters of September 27 and October 7, 1982 concerning your wish for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301.; In our letter of August 12, 1982, we informed you that the statemen which 49 CFR Part 568 requires an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the vehicle affords a basis for certification without the necessity of testing. We asked you which of the statements had been provided you. Your subsequent correspondence with us does not answer this question. You refer to a print furnished you by AM General Corporation after August 12 which, with your engineering studies, leads you to believe that you may comply, but the print is extraneous to the Part 568 statement.; Therefore, we would still like to know whether AM General has provide you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform with Standard No. 301, or, alternatively, with a statement that the vehicle will conform if no alterations are made in certain specified components of the incomplete vehicle. Perhaps you could send us a copy of that portion of the Part 568 statement pertaining to Standard No. 301.; We shall consider your petition further when we have this information. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2931OpenMr. Heinz W. Gerth, Mercedes-Benz, P.O. Box 350, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Heinz W. Gerth Mercedes-Benz P.O. Box 350 Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth:#This is in response to your letter of November 27 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. Specifically, you asked whether it is permissible to use symbols for the parking lamp functions of the headlamp switch, in addition to the headlamp symbols required in Table I of the Standard.#The answer to your question is yes. Section 5 of the standard states that each passenger car 'with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1, ... shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display.' Since no symbols or other designations are required under the standard for parking lamps where their control is not combined with that for headlamps or for 'lamps-off' positions on controls, it is up to the manufacturer whether to label these additional functions and whether to use words or symbols. Footnote 2 of Table 1 of the standard does provide that a manufacturer must use the single headlamp symbol to designate several functions when clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps are all controlled with the headlamp switch. This footnote was not intended to preclude additional symbols for these other functions, however. In fact, S5.2.1 provides that 'additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity.'#Regarding your drawings, clearance lamps are listed in paragraph S5.1 and in column 1 of Table 1 of the standard. Therefore, they must be identified by the symbols shown in column 3 of Table 1 or by the words 'Clearance Lamps' or 'Cl Lps'. The 'parking right and left' symbol shown on the drawing submitted with your letter would not satisfy the requirements for clearance-lamp designations. However, the symbol labeled 'Clearance Lamps' that appears on the drawings which Mr. Gebhard M. Hespeler and Mr. Craig Jones submitted on December 20, 1978, would conform with the requirements. I have enclosed a copy of that drawing.#If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.#Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0326OpenPhilip N. Shrake, Standards Director, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., 2720 Des Plaines Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018; Philip N. Shrake Standards Director Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. 2720 Des Plaines Avenue Des Plaines IL 60018; Dear Mr. Shrake: This is in reply to your letter of February 1, 1971, requesting ou interpretation of the term 'provision' as used in the definition of seat belt assembly anchorage in Standard No. 210 (35 F.R. 18116, November 26, 1970).; The change from the use of the word 'device' in the prior issuance o the rule (35 F.R. 15293) to the use of 'provision' in the November 26 issuance was made to avoid any appearance of requiring a specific type of structure.; A hole capable of accepting a seat belt assembly's attaching hardwar would therefore qualify as an anchorage. It would not, of course, be an anchorage conforming to Standard No. 210 unless it could also withstand the forces specified in that standard.; Please advise us if you have further questions on this matter. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5124OpenMr. Frank E. Timmons Rubber Manufacturers Association 1400 K St., N.W. Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Frank E. Timmons Rubber Manufacturers Association 1400 K St. N.W. Washington DC 20005; "Dear Mr. Timmons: This responds to your letter about our November 199 letter to the Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce. In that letter, NHTSA discussed Federal requirements for tires sold in the United States for passenger cars and other 'motor vehicles.' You wish to ensure that the Under Secretary understands that the term 'motor vehicles' only refers to vehicles 'manufactured primarily for use on highways.' We are glad to clarify the meaning of the term 'motor vehicle.' 'Motor vehicle' is defined in 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 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.' (Emphasis added.) Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function. This agency has issued many interpretations of what is and what is not a 'motor vehicle.' In general, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Likewise, vehicles that are designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of its customers actually would use them on the highway. Vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are considered motor vehicles. Furthermore, even if the majority of a vehicle's use will be off-road but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, this agency has interpreted that to be a motor vehicle. We appreciate your interest in this matter and will provide the Under Secretary with a copy of this letter. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce"; |
|
ID: aiam1864OpenMr. D. F. Ryman, Assistant Counsel, Clark Equipment Company, Buchanan, MI 49107; Mr. D. F. Ryman Assistant Counsel Clark Equipment Company Buchanan MI 49107; Dear Mr. Ryman: This is in acknowledgment of your Defect Information Report, i accordance with the defect reporting regulations, Part 573.; The Defect Information Report involves: 57 Brown trailers equipped wit a Kelsey Hayes anti-lock braking system which may malfunction. The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administration identification number has been assigned to the campaign *75-0051*. The first quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by August 5, 1975. Please refer to the above number in all future correspondence concerning this campaign.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject vehicle does not meet the requirements of Part 577(49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. It also does not meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. Specifically it does not have the statements required by Part 577.4(a) and (b). The first sentence of your letter should have described the defect as existing in the vehicle itself rather than in the brake control system, since a vehicle manufacturer can only determine the existence of a defect in his vehicles. Properly modified, your first sentence should then be used after the statement required by Part 577.4(a).; Your notification letter also does not inform recipients that they ma inform the Secretary of Transportation if they are unable to have the defect remedied without charge, as required by section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment. The address for this purpose may be given as: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590. Also, in response to section 153(a)(5), we believe that an actual date should be given as the earliest date when the defect will be remedied free of charge, since remedy without charge is contingent on actual dates.; It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification lette and send a copy to each owner whose vehicle has not yet been corrected. Mailing of the notifications should follow the procedure specified by section 153(c). Please note also that section 153(c)(5) requires that defect notifications (and defect reports) be sent to this office by certified mail.; A copy of Part 577 and the 1974 Amendment is enclosed. If you desir further information, please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3859OpenMr. Kevin C. Graves, Firma Leupp, Lerchenfelder Str. 63, 1070 Wien, Austria; Mr. Kevin C. Graves Firma Leupp Lerchenfelder Str. 63 1070 Wien Austria; Dear Mr. Graves: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch, of my staff asking for information about testing your client's child restraint system for use in automobiles. You indicated that you were interested in making arrangements for testing that child restraint system under the U.S. requirements. You also stated that the restraint has been tested for compliance with the European ECE Regulation 44, and asked for instructions on how to proceed with testing, how much time should be allowed for testing, and an estimate of the costs involved in testing.; Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in o imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213) (copy enclosed). This standard sets forth performance and labeling requirements which must be satisfied by the child restraint system. This country does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that the child restraint system fully satisfies all requirements of Standard No. 213. Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint systems comply with Standard No. 213. Certainly we recommend that a manufacturer selling child restraint systems in the United States test the systems according to the test procedures specified in the standard. Once a manufacturer determines that its child restraints meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by labeling that certification onto the child restraint, as specified in section S5.5 of Standard No. 213.; If your client decides to market its child restraint system in th United States, I would like to call your attention to the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45 (copy enclosed). That section requires that before offering any item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States, a manufacturer must designate an agent for the service of process. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:; 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding o the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address of the manufacturer,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin or any o the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in S551.45(b).; Should you need further information on this subject, please feel fre to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.