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: aiam2456OpenMr. Keigo Ohgiya, The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc., 9th Floor, Toranomon Building, No. 15, Shiba Toranomon, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. Keigo Ohgiya The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association Inc. 9th Floor Toranomon Building No. 15 Shiba Toranomon Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Ohgiya: This responds to your April 22, 1976, letter advising the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the tire standards of the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association (JATMA) are being translated into English. You request that consideration be given to referencing JATMA standards in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that regulate motor vehicle tire manufacture. I regret that we have not responded to your letter sooner.; Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires*, and Standard No. 119, *Ne Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, presently reference the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS). Because the JATMA standards appear to be updated mote often than the JIS standards, and because the JATMA standards will be issued in English, the agency intends to substitute a reference to JATMA standards in its regulations for the existing reference to JIS standards.; Thank you for providing us with the English translation of th motorcycle tire standards. We request that you provide us copies of all English translations of the standards for all vehicle types as often as the are updated.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5393OpenErika Z. Jones, Esq. Mayer, Brown & Platt 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-1882; Erika Z. Jones Esq. Mayer Brown & Platt 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20006-1882; "Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your letter asking for ou concurrence that 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts a 'California flammability standard' as that standard applies to child restraint systems. The standard you enclosed is California Business and Professions Code, Division 8, Chapter 3, 19006 and 19161. I apologize for the delay in this response. Because it was not readily apparent from your letter that the California flammability standard applies to child restraint systems, Ms. Fujita of my staff contacted California state officials for more information about the standard. We were informed by Mr. Art Anderson, Chief of the California Highway Safety Office, that California does not have a flammability standard for child restraint systems. Mr. Anderson was aware that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302 applies to child restraints by way of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems.' As you point out, Federal preemption issues would arise if California had a flammability standard for child restraint systems that covered the same aspect of performance as FMVSSs 213 and 302. However, in view of Mr. Anderson's statement that California has no flammability standard for child restraint systems, we need not address those issues today. We hope this information is helpful. Mr. Anderson of the California Highway Safety Office (telephone (916) 445-0527) said he will be happy to answer any questions you might have about California's requirements. If you any further questions about 103(d), please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Art Anderson"; |
|
ID: aiam4428OpenMr. Dave Anderson Sales Manager Gist Ornamental Iron Works, Inc. l2l27 Woodside Avenue Lakeside, CA 92040; Mr. Dave Anderson Sales Manager Gist Ornamental Iron Works Inc. l2l27 Woodside Avenue Lakeside CA 92040; Dear Mr. Anderson: This responds to your letter about Federa requirements for trailers. According to your letter, you are in the planning stages of becoming a manufacturer of, and dealer for, automobile trailers. The trailers would hitch to the back of automobiles and be designed to carry cargo. You noted that in response to an earlier inquiry, you received a copy of the handout entitled 'Information For New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' You stated that you are unclear just how this applies to automobile trailers. You asked what you need to do to comply with any applicable Federal regulations, and what regulations apply to trailers of the kind you plan to build. Trailers are considered motor vehicles under Federal law. As a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. The procedure is specified in 49 CFR Part 567. The following safety standards apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, Safety Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, Safety Standard No. l20, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, trailers with certain braking systems must meet Safety Standard No. l06, Brake Hoses, Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and Safety Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems. All of these safety standards are found in 49 CFR Part 57l. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3617OpenMr. J. L. Campbell, Jr., 12813 95th Avenue, N.E., Kirkland, WA 98033; Mr. J. L. Campbell Jr. 12813 95th Avenue N.E. Kirkland WA 98033; Dear Mr. Campbell: I have recently received a copy of your letter to Senator Gorto concerning the difficulties small manufacturers of motor vehicles have in complying with Federal standards. To alleviate these difficulties, you suggested that blanket exemptions from the bumper regulations and the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on side door strength be granted to all 4-wheel vehicles under 800 pounds dry weight.; As explained more fully below, this agency does not have authority fro Congress to grant an exemption from the bumper standard for the ultra-lightweight vehicles you describe. Such authority would require new legislation. However, we do have authority either to exclude all of those vehicles from the side door strength standard or to exempt particular manufacturers of those vehicles from that standard.; Congress set forth the guidelines under which this agency could issu exemptions from the bumper standards in section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1912(c)(1). Exemptions may be granted only to passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. While neither the Cost Savings Act nor this agency has defined 'special use', the Cost Savings Act is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: (1) the vehicle is manufactured for a special use, (2) compliance with the bumper standard would unreasonably interfere with that use. The example Congress cited for such a vehicle was a Jeep with snow removal equipment on the front. The agency believes that the purpose of an ultra-lightweight passenger vehicle is essentially the same as that of a lightweight vwehicle such as the Toyota Starlet, Honda Civic or Ford Escort, i.e., to carry passengers. The agency does not view that purpose to be a special use within the meaning of section 102. Further, even if the first condition could be met, it is not clear that the second one could be. Hence, an amendment to the Cost Savings Act would have to be made by the Congress before we could grant an exemption from the bumper standard to your ultra-lightweight passenger motor vehicles.; Concerning your request regarding Standard No. 214, side door strength NHTSA formerly excepted motor vehicles (other than trailers and motorcycles) of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight from all safety standards. However, that exception was eliminated in 1973 (38 F.R. 12808, May 16, 1973). At that time, the agency stated that manufacturers seeking relief from compliance problems peculiar to these vehicles could either petition for amendments to individual standards or petition for an exemption under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).; These options remain the ones available to manufacturers o ultra-lightweight vehicles. Thus, one option is to submit a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting the agency to amend Standard No. 214 to exclude those vehicles from that standard's applicability provision. I should point out that few, if any, petitions of this type have been submitted since the agency's May 1973 notice and none have been granted. Also, you should be aware that the rulemaking process is often a lengthy one.; The other option is for a manufacturer to submit a petition for th exemption of his vehicles from a particular standard. I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets forth the information that a manufacturer must include in its petition. Exemption petitions are not uncommon and are often granted at least in part. Also, because fewer procedural steps are necessary, the exemption process is typically much faster than the amendment process. Should you wish to submit an exemption petition, you may find useful the enclosed copies of section 123 of the Safety Act and Standard No. 214, *Side Door Strength* (49 CFR S 571.214).; If you need any further assistance or information on either of thes subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me. We try to minimize the regulatory difficulties experienced by small manufacturers to the extent we can do so consistent with our legislative authority.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2905OpenMr. F. Michael Petler, Assistant Manager, Safety & Legislation Department, U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation, P.O. Box 2107, Santa Fe Springs, California 90670; Mr. F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation P.O. Box 2107 Santa Fe Springs California 90670; Dear Mr. Petler: This is in response to your letter of August 11, 1978, requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers.; Standard 127 does not specify that the number '0' appear on the face o the speedometer. It is permissible for you to reletter the '0' mph position to read '5' mph, as the lowest measured speed indicated. This would solve the problem you indicate regarding the relationship of the graduation distance between the 0 and 10 mph to that between 10 and 20, 20 and 30, etc.; The NHTSA has received petitions for reconsideration requesting tha the 10 percent deviation requirement be eliminated. A determination will be made at a later date whether to grant the petitions.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0938OpenMr. Bernard P. O'Meara, Center for Auto Safety, 800 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20004; Mr. Bernard P. O'Meara Center for Auto Safety 800 National Press Building Washington DC 20004; Dear Mr. O'Meara: Thank you for your letter of 29 November, 1972, concerning allege non-compliance of the Defect Information Report regarding Volkswagen Windshield Wipers, submitted by Volkswagen of America on October 12, 1972, with the requirements of NHTSA's Defect Reports Regulations, 49 CFR Part 573. We agree that Volkswagen has failed to supply information required by Sections 573.4(c)(2) and 573.4(c)(6) of the Regulation, specifically, the months of manufacture of the affected vehicles and a chronology which includes warranty claims, field service bulletins, and other such information. We are contacting Volkswagen to determine why the Company has failed to furnish that information and to attempt to obtain it. We also agree with your conclusion that 100% of 1948-1969 Volkswagens are potentially affected by the windshield wiper defect. However, Volkswagen's statement that 'no information is available' as to either the total number of such vehicles operating in the United States, or the percentage potentially affected satisfies the disclosure requirement of the regulation (49 CFR 573.4(c)(3, 4)).; We cannot agree, however, with your remaining assertions o non-compliance with the Regulations. While the Volkswagen Information Report is lacking in detail and is a poor example of an informational communication, it does contain minimal responses to the enumerated requirements of the Regulations.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1780OpenMr. Byron Crampton, Truck Body & Equipment Assoc., 5530 Wisconsin, (sic) Ave., Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron Crampton Truck Body & Equipment Assoc. 5530 Wisconsin (sic) Ave. Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to your January 3, 1975, question whether a firefightin vehicle which articulates and has a configuration similar to that a conventional truck-trailer combinations qualifies as a 'truck' for test purposes under Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*. You describe the vehicle as a tractor trailer aerial ladder with articulating portions that cannot be uncoupled, and with permanently-connected air brake lines and hydraulic pressure lines between the articulating sections.; The vehicle you describe is a 'truck' as that term is defined in 49 CF S 571.3, *Definitions*. The rear articulated portion does not qualifiy (sic) as a 'trailer' as defined in S571.3, because the permanent connection to the truck tractor prevents it from standing alone as a 'vehicle'. Therefore, the tractor trailer aerial ladder would be tested as a truck under Standard No. 121. It is noteworthy that the lighting requirements which apply to the rear portion of this vehicle are those for trucks under Standard No. 108, *Lamps reflective devices, and associated equipment*.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4078OpenThe Honorable Don Sundquist, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 5909 Shelby Oaks Drive, Suite 112, Memphis, TN 38134; The Honorable Don Sundquist Member U.S. House of Representatives 5909 Shelby Oaks Drive Suite 112 Memphis TN 38134; Dear Mr. Sundquist: This is in response to your inquiry on behalf of Josephine Jackson, th president of the Tennessee County Clerk's Association, who is concerned about the burden placed on the clerks by motor vehicle odometer disclosure requirements. Specifically, the Association has approved a resolution requesting the exemption of vehicles more than seven years old from the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. We can understand the concern which led the Association to pass the resolution.; The Federal odometer law (15 U.S.C. SS 1981-1991) requires each perso who transfers ownership of a motor vehicle to disclose the vehicle's mileage. The law does not exempt older vehicles from this requirement.; In support of its resolution, the Association notes that many olde vehicles either have nonworking odometers or have travelled beyond 99,999 miles, making the actual mileage hard to verify. This is correct in our experience, and the Federal law therefore provides that, in cases where he has reason to know that the reading is inaccurate, either through inspection of the vehicle or paperwork, the owner may state that the actual mileage is unknown.; The Association's resolution states further that most purchasers o older vehicles are not concerned with mileage, but with the condition of the vehicle. In developing our regulation on odometers, we had accepted this view for vehicles of extreme age, and had, therefore, exempted vehicles 25 years old or older. However, several Federal District Courts have subsequently questioned our authority to grant exemptions under current law. Although the Department has supported measures in pending legislation to improve odometer enforcement by making odometer fraud a felony, we have taken no position as to whether the exemption of older vehicles by law would be advisable.; I hope that you will find this information helpful in responding to th Association.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0892OpenMr. R. A. C. Dandy, Senior Engineer, Head of Mechanical Section, British Standards Institution, Hemel Hempstead Centre, Maylands Avenue, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, England; Mr. R. A. C. Dandy Senior Engineer Head of Mechanical Section British Standards Institution Hemel Hempstead Centre Maylands Avenue Hemel Hempstead Herts England; Dear Mr. Dandy: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1972, concerning th application of S4.3(c) of Standard No. 209 to an upper torso anchorage bolt used to attach a seat belt assembly that has a continuous length of webbing for upper torso and pelvic restraint.; Our letter of July 20, 1972, to Standard Triumph, to which you refer did not rule directly on the question of whether a bolt on the upper torso side of a continuous loop assembly would be considered to secure the pelvic restraint' within the meaning of S4.3(c). It is our opinion that some part of the pelvic force is transmitted to such a bolt and that it is therefore required to conform to S4.3(c). Because the bolt cannot be used for more than one assembly, the applicable force requirement is 5,000 pounds.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4582OpenMr. Keith E. Madden Research Associate College of Engineering Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering 125B Chemistry Building The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242; Mr. Keith E. Madden Research Associate College of Engineering Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering 125B Chemistry Building The University of Iowa Iowa City Iowa 52242; "Dear Mr. Madden: This is in reply to your letter of February 3, l989 with respect to importation of ethanol-fueled trucks from Brazil. You have requested assurance that 'there are no legal or administrative roadblocks to this importation.' I am happy to provide the assurance you seek. Your letter indicates that you are well versed in our importation procedures, and that you have discussed this matter with Messrs. VanOrden and Vinson of this agency. The University of Iowa is permitted to import trucks that do not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for purposes of test and experimentation, pursuant to Title l9, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(i)(vii). When the trucks reach the United States, the importer of record makes the appropriate declaration (in this instance, Box 7 of the HS-7 Form). If vehicles imported for testing and experimenting will be used on the public roads, the importer must attach a sheet to the Form stating the purpose for which the vehicles are imported, the estimated amount of time that the vehicles will be used on the public road, and whether after testing they will be exported, abandoned to the United States, or brought into compliance. Permission for the noncomplying vehicles to remain in the United States for the purposes of testing and experimenting is renewable annually for a maximum total of three years. Thus, for example, at the end of the first year, if the importer requires more time for on-road testing, it must write this Department of that need. Generally, permission is granted for an additional year. If a third year is needed for on-road testing, the importer must again request permission of this agency. We see no legal or administrative impediments to this importation. Further, under these circumstances, the Brazilian manufacturer of these trucks has no responsibilities to the Department of Transportation under any of its laws or regulations. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.