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: aiam1469OpenMr. William A. Goichman, Rozner and Yorty, Suite 1808, 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90024; Mr. William A. Goichman Rozner and Yorty Suite 1808 10960 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90024; Dear Mr. Goichman: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on sea belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection,* requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems* specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempt state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. S1392 (d)).; The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of sea belts and reclining seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4391OpenMr. John R. Niemela President Ranger International Inc. P.O. Box 311 Peterborough, NH 03458; Mr. John R. Niemela President Ranger International Inc. P.O. Box 311 Peterborough NH 03458; "Dear Mr. Niemela: This responds to your letter asking whether 'Mototractor' you may import into the United States would be considered a motor vehicle. The vehicle looks like a conventional motorcycle, except tractor tires are mounted on wheels that enclose auxiliary fuel storage tanks. It has a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour. Based on the information provided with your letter, it appears that your Mototractor would not be a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (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. 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. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle'. 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 owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to a motorcycle and a top speed that would allow it to keep up with the flow of traffic on low speed roads. These factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you state repeatedly that this vehicle is intended to be used as a two-wheeled tractor, it comes equipped with tires and wheels that are suited to off-road use, your advertising shows it pulling and powering a number of off-road attachments, and there is no evidence that it has been or will be substantially used on-road in this country. This suggests that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle. In past instances where the agency was asked whether a vehicle was a motor vehicle when it had both off-road and on-road operating capabilities and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, we have applied five factors in offering our advice. These factors were: 1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. The vehicle shown in your brochures does not have lights, mirrors, or a speedometer. We are not aware of any State that would license a vehicle without this equipment for on-road use. Further, the Canadian Tax Court has ruled that the vehicle should be classified as a tractor, which presumably means that the vehicle will not be licensed for use on public roads. Hence, this factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle. 2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. Your brochure shows that one of the functions the Mototractor can perform is 'road and trail maintenance.' Additionally, your advertising shows an attachment that is described 'ATT Transport, On/Off Road' (Part No. 104330). We generally consider such advertising to be evidence that the vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle, since purchasers have reason to believe the vehicle is intended to be used on the public roads. 3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. You stated that the Chinese manufacturer will provide a certificate of origin/title document. However, this is not the sort of action to which we were referring. Assuming that neither your company nor the Chinese manufacturer assist purchasers in registering Mototractors for on-road use, this would tend to indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle. 4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. You did not provide any information on U.S. dealers for this vehicle. However, you stated that the foreign dealers of Mototractors are agricultural equipment dealers. Assuming this is also true in the United States, this fact would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle. 5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads. You stated in your letter that a label limiting the vehicle's use will be placed on the Mototractor. Assuming that this label states that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads, this would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle. At this time and after considering the available information, we believe that the Mototractor does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel /"; |
|
ID: aiam3004OpenMr. Dave Williams, Studio Aguila, P.O. Box 1202, Gisborne, New Zealand; Mr. Dave Williams Studio Aguila P.O. Box 1202 Gisborne New Zealand; Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your March 12, 1979, letter asking whether a sport car designed for use without doors must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, *Side Door Strength* (49 CFR 571.214). The vehicle design discussed in your letter would apparently only have attachable doors for use in bad weather.; Since the test procedures in Safety Standard No. 214 require a loadin device to be placed against the vehicle door, a passenger car having no doors could not practicably be tested. Therefore, a vehicle having doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from the vehicle are not required to comply with Safety Standard No. 214, if the vehicle is designed to be operated without the doors.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1039OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P. O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P. O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: This is in reply to your letter of February 28th to Mr. Douglas W Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the mounting of lamps and reflectors on mini-pickup trucks.; The December 8, 1972, letter from Commissioner W. Pudinski was place in Docket 69-19, Notice No. 3. We inadvertently failed to knowledge this action to Mr. Pudinski.; The visibility requirements of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 10 are predicated on the normal driving or closed tail gate position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with tail gates down or trunk lids open or otherwise having lights and reflectors obscured by a particular load on the vehicle, is under the jurisdiction of the individual states, we do not anticipate rule making on this subject.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0782OpenMr. Jacinto Navarro, 1701 E. Frierson Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33610; Mr. Jacinto Navarro 1701 E. Frierson Avenue Tampa Florida 33610; Dear Mr. Navarro: I am writing in response to your letter of July 5, 1972, regardin Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask whether the manufacture of the warning device you propose would be permitted under the standard. As stated in my letter to you dated July 11, 1972, the device must meet the requirements of Standard 125. It appeared from the picture of your device which you submitted that the device would fail to meet a number of these requirements.; You also ask what type of energy the phrase, 'self-contained energ source' refers to. The phrase refers to energy used by a device to provide a warning signal, as contrasted with reflective or luminous devices that utilize exogenous light. Thus the fact that your device utilizes compressed air and contains a magnet does not make it a device with a self-contained energy source within the meaning of Standard 125,; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1890OpenMr M. J. Denholm, Power Controls Division, Midland-Ross Corporation, 490 South Chestnut Street, Owosso, MI 48867; Mr M. J. Denholm Power Controls Division Midland-Ross Corporation 490 South Chestnut Street Owosso MI 48867; Dear Mr. Denholm: This responds to Midland-Ross' March 19, 1975, questions whether S5.7. of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, (as effective September 1, 1976) specifies reservoirs that are charged to 100 psi before or after introduction of a failure as specified in S5.7.1, static or dynamic testing of emergency brake system application and release, and design limits of 1 to 60 psi for emergency brake system application and release. You also asked whether S5.7.4(c) requires modulation of the towed vehicle emergency system in cases of control line failure, and whether such a failure qualifies as a 'single failure in the service brake system' for purposes of emergency brake system performance under S5.7.1.; Section S5.7.3 specifies emergency application and release capabilit with all air reservoirs charged to 100 psi, followed by introduction of a failure. The vehicle is tested for this application and release capability statically. In our reconsideration of this amendment, NHTSA will consider a clarification of this language.; The maximum of 1 psi for pressure release and minimum 60 psi fo pressure application are intended only as objective measures of what constitute an application or a release. In the petitions for reconsideration of this amendment, it has been suggested that the ability to move the vehicle and then stop it after an emergency brake application would permit greater design freedom in the design of emergency brake systems. This issue will be addressed in our response to petitions for reconsideration.; Section S5.7.4(c) requires that a towing vehicle be capable o modulating the air in the supply or control line following a single failure in the service brake system on the towing vehicle, but does not require modulation of the towed vehicle emergency brake system under any circumstance (including control line failure).; This language is intended to assure that a single failure in the truc itself will not prevent modulation of an unimpaired system from the tractor protection system rearwards. A clarification of this language may be necessary.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0278OpenMr. Gerhard P. Riechel, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Gerhard P. Riechel Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Riechel: In your letter of June 7, 1971, you asked for confirmation of you understanding that under the NHTSA regulation (49 CFR S 553.39) interpreting section 105(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a petition for judicial review of Standard No. 208 would be considered timely if filed within 60 days after the publication in the *Federal Register* of the Administrator's decision on any petitions for reconsideration of that standard.; Your understanding is correct. As the standard currently stands, w consider it (that is, the standard as it becomes effective January 1, 1972) a 'single rule', to use your phrase, and the judicial review period will not begin to run until the publication of the decision on any timely-filed petitions for reconsideration of any part of it. If at a future date we wish to sever any portion of the standard for judicial review purposes, and consider it 'final' despite pending action on other portions, we will give explicit notice of that action in the *Federal Register*.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5580OpenMr. John N. Quinata Customs and Quarantine Agency Government of Guam Suite 225, 2nd Floor, GITC Bldg. Tamuning, Guam 96911; Mr. John N. Quinata Customs and Quarantine Agency Government of Guam Suite 225 2nd Floor GITC Bldg. Tamuning Guam 96911; Dear Mr. Quinata: This responds to your letter asking whether use Nissan Truck Crane Lorries from Japan are subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in our response, but we had difficulty contacting Nissan for some information we needed to answer your question. From your letter, I assume that Sanko Bussan Guam has imported this vehicle for use in the dock area, and that your agency is holding the vehicle pending this interpretation because the vehicle is not certified as complying with the FMVSS. The short answer to your question is that the truck crane is a motor vehicle, subject to the FMVSS. I will outline the applicable law and point out some of our regulations that you should consider. The issue you raise is whether the truck crane is a 'motor vehicle,' since the regulations you ask about apply only to motor vehicles. Title 49 of the U.S. Code, section 30102(a)(6), defines a motor vehicle as 'a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . . .' Work-related vehicles generally are 'motor vehicles' for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site for only a limited time. We believe the truck crane is a motor vehicle. Nissan Diesel North America informs us that this truck crane is a general purpose medium-duty crane that can be used for short-duty jobs and driven from site to site on the public roads. The photographs you enclosed show the crane mounted on what appears to be a conventional truck chassis. The vehicle appears to be manufactured for use on the highways, and is thus a motor vehicle. The vehicle is a 'truck' under our regulations, and must meet the FMVSSs for trucks that were in effect on the vehicle's date of manufacture. As you know, NHTSA has regulations related to the importation of vehicles. They appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), at parts 591 to 593. In particular, note the declarations in 49 CFR 591.5 that are required for importation. Since your letter says that you enforce the FMVSSs in 49 CFR Part 571, I assume you have a copy of Parts 591-593. If you do not, we can send one to you. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel NCC-20:PAtelsek:62992:OCC 10868:5/22/95:revised 7/3/95; |
|
ID: aiam2245OpenMr. Martin V. Chauvin, Chief, Carrier Safety Bureau, Department of Transportation, 1220 Washington Avenue, State Campus, Albany, NY 12226; Mr. Martin V. Chauvin Chief Carrier Safety Bureau Department of Transportation 1220 Washington Avenue State Campus Albany NY 12226; Dear Mr. Chauvin: This responds to your February 20, 1976, question whether this agenc considers Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, preemptive of New York State law or regulations mandating a 28-inch-high back and armrests for school bus passenger seating. Section 103(d) provides (15 U.S.C. S1392(d)):; >>>S 103<<< >>>(d) Whenever a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Standard No. 222 specifies a formula for minimum seat back height tha necessitates a heights of at least 20 inches. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 20 inches, is preempted under S 103(d).; The second sentence of S 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on safet regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, New York State or its political subdivisions could specify a seat back height higher than 20 inches in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.; There are presently no requirements in Standard No. 222 dealing wit armrests on school bus passenger seating. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standards on school bus seating performance were intended generally to cover this aspect of performance, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in *Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger*, No. CIV 574-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul*, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is 'whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field.' Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as *Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is 'of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'; The NHTSA has determined that the requirement for armrests by New Yor State does not conflict with or otherwise impair our present regulation of school bus passenger seating, and that armrests are not within the intended scope of the present Federal safety standards. Therefore, Standard No. 222 is not preemptive of the New York State regulation of armrests.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0628OpenG. E. Masters, General Manager, U. M. Electrical Distributors Ltd., UMED, Beaumont Road, Banbury, Oxon, ENGLAND; G. E. Masters General Manager U. M. Electrical Distributors Ltd. UMED Beaumont Road Banbury Oxon ENGLAND; Dear Mr. Masters: This is in response to your letter of March 6, 1972, concerning warnin buzzers for the automobile industry.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued tw safety standards which specify warning requirements. These requirements are given in Paragraph S4.4 of Standard 114 and Paragraph S7.3.1 of Standard 208. A copy of these two standards are enclosed for your review and further information.; You will note that these standards do not stipulate minimu requirements for the warning devices, and, at the present time, we have no plans to specify such requirements. The data sheet, however, which you enclosed will be useful to us should we specify such requirements in future amendments to these standards.; We appreciate your writing to us, and if we can be of any furthe service, please let us know.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle 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.