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: aiam4571OpenWilliam F. Canever Ford Motor Company Office of the General Counsel The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121; William F. Canever Ford Motor Company Office of the General Counsel The American Road Dearborn Michigan 48121; "Dear Mr. Canever: In your letter of July 14, 1988 and in subsequen conversations, you have requested information concerning the proper classification of a new vehicle for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program. You also requested confidentiality, to protect future product plans of the vehicles in question. The agency has agreed to protect your identity as well as details of the request which may reveal specific new or innovative features that the product may contain when produced. In the spirit of this agreement, we have described the content of your letter only to the extent deemed necessary to provide a coherent context for our response. Specifically, you are interested in whether the agency concurs with your opinion that this vehicle would be classified as a light truck for purposes of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) program. The vehicle has multiple purposes. You describe several features of this multipurpose vehicle, including that both the second and third seats are removable, by quick release levers in the case of the second seat, and by the use of simple tools in the case of the third seat, and that the vehicle has a variety of different seating/storage configurations. You also indicate that ' r emoval of the second and third seat will create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle.' You also describe other features of the vehicle, which need not be discussed in order to answer your letter. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not 'approve' the classification of a motor vehicle. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, in the first instance, to make any necessary classifications of vehicles and to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. For purposes of CAFE compliance, each manufacturer must classify its vehicles consistent with the definitions contained in 49 CFR Part 523. You are interested in knowing whether the vehicle, as described above, is properly classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. The definition of light truck (/523.5) provides, in relevant part: (a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) Transport more than 10 persons, (2) Provide temporary living quarters, (3) Transport property on an open bed, (4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume, or (5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. Your letter clearly indicates that both the second and third seats are removable easily, and when they are removed, what remains is a flat, floor level surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle. It appears from the description you have provided the agency that your vehicle would qualify as a light truck under /523.5(a)(5). We note that this conclusion does not constitute or imply an opinion as to whether the vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck for purposes of the safety standards. Definitions for classification purposes under the safety standards may be found in /571.3 of 49 CFR. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0861OpenMr. Paul G. Scully, Vice President, The Grote Manufacturing Company, State Route 7, P. O. Box 766, Madison, IN 47250; Mr. Paul G. Scully Vice President The Grote Manufacturing Company State Route 7 P. O. Box 766 Madison IN 47250; Dear Mr. Scully: This is in reply to your letter of September 25 to Mr. Lewis C. Owen o this Office concerning the mounting of front clearance lamps on trucks and buses over 80 inches in width.; You are correct in your interpretation that these lamps must be mounte to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as near the top as practicable. The width and height of the body in relation to that of the cab on a van type truck governs the proper location, therefore, each application must be judged individually. However, you are correct that the proper location should be the top front corners of the body when the height of the body is significantly higher than the cab.; Since this same question has been directed to us repeatedly and som manufacturers are installing cab mounted lights and others body mounted lights on quite similar vehicles, we anticipate that this aspect will be addressed in future rulemaking actions.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1773OpenMr. A. B. Kelly,Senior Vice President,Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,Suite 300,600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20037; Mr. A. B. Kelly Senior Vice President Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Suite 300 600 New Hampshire Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20037; Dear Ben:#This is to confirm our understanding with respect to publi meetings to be held on the subject of the Hydraulic Brake Standard No. 105-75.#If any significant changes are to be made in the standard, a notice of proposed rulemaking will be issued. Toward the end of the comment period on that NPRM, the agency will hold a public hearing concerning the contents of the proposal. At that time you will have the opportunity to present your views in full.#Sincerely,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4121OpenMr. Masaki Ogura, Manager Truck Engineering, MMC Services, Inc., 3000 Town Center, Suite 501, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Masaki Ogura Manager Truck Engineering MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 501 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Ogura: This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning th reservoir strength requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. You asked how those requirements apply to multi- chamber reservoirs.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not give approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; The issue raised by your letter concerning the application of FMVSS No 121's reservoir strength requirements to multi-chamber reservoirs appears to be the same issue discussed in a letter of interpretation dated May 23, 1978, addressed to the Johnson Manufacturing Company. As discussed in that letter, only the circumference of the outer reservoir shell is measured, and internal baffles are not stressed by separate compartment-by- compartment testing. We are enclosing a copy of that letter and two *Federal Register* notices cited by the letter. (Please note that an interpretation provided in the earlier of the two notices was withdrawn by the later notice.); Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1323OpenMr. James C. Martin, Attorney at Law, P. O. Box 1019, Carson City, NV 89701; Mr. James C. Martin Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1019 Carson City NV 89701; Dear Mr. Martin: This is in reply to your letter of November 9 to the U. S. Departmen of Transportation concerning the operation of 4-way flashers and brake lights on a 1972 Toyota.; Since there is no requirement that the hazard warning signal (4-wa flashers) be capable of operating independently of the stop signal, it is permissible for the stop signal to override the hazard warning signal. If fact, these signals on most passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured in the United States operate similarly.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0924OpenMr. Edward L. Hawes, Hawes Industries Inc., 1651 E. 9 Mile Road, Hazel Park, Michigan 48030; Mr. Edward L. Hawes Hawes Industries Inc. 1651 E. 9 Mile Road Hazel Park Michigan 48030; Dear Mr. Hawes: This is in response to your letter of October 30, 1972, regarding th amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices, published on June 22, 1972 (37 F.R. 12323). You observed that the preamble to that amendment erroneously described the device you manufacture as 'designed to be secured to the roof of a motor vehicle', while your device is actually secured to the window of the vehicle and displayed above the vehicle roof. Your request that the notice be amended to correct the description of the device.; As you have noted, the paragraph dealing with your device conclude that 'the standard does not prohibit manufacture or sale of a device *capable of being mounted on a vehicle roof*, so long as it meets all the Standard 125 requirements, including the capacity of being set up on the ground'. This language indicates that it is the clear intent of this agency to permit the manufacture and sale of a device such as you have described. Although I regret the misstatement concerning your device, I do not feel that a notice to clarify the preamble is called for.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2919OpenNorman Friberg, P.E., Engineer, Regulatory Affairs, Volvo of America Corporation, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Norman Friberg P.E. Engineer Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Friberg: This is in response to your letter of November 1, 1978, asking whethe the Volvo 'Child Cushion' must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Seating Systems*. You state that the 'Child Cushion' is 'designed to be used by children in the approximate age range of 6 to 12 years' for the purpose of raising the child 'so that the seat belt system properly distributes deceleration forces over the child's torso in the event of impact, and to greatly reduce the probability of 'submarining'.'; Section 3 of Standard No. 213 currently defines a 'child seatin system' as 'an item of motor vehicle equipment for seating a child being transported in a motor vehicle.' In adopting that definition, the agency intended to cover all devices designed to seat children in motor vehicles, regardless whether a device provides restraint (38 FR 7562, 1973). Although you state that the Volvo 'Child Cushion' is 'in itself not a restraint system' it would be covered by Standard No. 213 if it is designed to seat a *child*.; As you point out, Standard No. 213 does not currently specify the siz or age range of children to which the standard is applicable, while proposed Standard No. 213-80, *Child Restraint Systems*, does specify a size range (43 FR 21470, 1978). Section 4 of the proposed new standard defines a 'child restraint system' as 'any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds.'; Although current Standard No. 213 does not specify the size and ag range of the children intended to be protected, an upper limit of 50 pounds is indicated by a number of the standard's requirements. Section 5 of Standard No. 213 provides that the torso block to be used in conducting the static tests specified in the standard is the same torso block as used in Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, to test Type 3 belt assemblies. Standard No. 209 defines a Type 3 assembly as 'a combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds or 23 kilograms and capable of sitting upright by themselves, that is children in the approximate age range of 8 months to 6 years.' In addition, the static load requirements of Section 4.11 of Standard No. 213 were designed to reflect the loads that would be imposed on a 40-50 pound child in a 30 mph crash (35 FR 5120, 35 FR 14778, 1970). Therefore, Standard No. 213, like proposed Standard No 213-80, is intended to apply only to child restraints for children weighing 50 pounds or under.; If the Volvo 'Child Cushion' is designed only for children larger tha those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, the 'Child Cushion' would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. However, the agency is interested in learning of any test data that Volvo has comparing the protection provided by use of the 'Child Cushion' and a three-point belt with the protection provided by use of only a three-point belt. A representative of the agency's rulemaking office will contact you concerning this request. Likewise, in order to ensure the safe use of the Volvo 'Child Cushion,' it is recommended that the device be clearly and permanently labelled to show that it is to be used with a three-point belt only by a specific size and age range of children.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1636OpenMr. Norman E. Salzman, General Manager, The Fairmount Press, P.O. Box 3, Bronx, NY 10453; Mr. Norman E. Salzman General Manager The Fairmount Press P.O. Box 3 Bronx NY 10453; Dear Mr. Salzman: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1974, requesting further explanation of this agency's conclusion that your odometer disclosure form does not satisfy Federal requirements.; Our determination that your disclosure form was not in compliance wit the Federal regulation was not based on any change in the odometer law. In past letters we pointed out to you that your form was deficient, however, we did not characterize the deficiency as constituting a noncompliance. Over the past year it has become apparent that disclosure forms not printed in the manner prescribed in the regulation have been responsible for misleading buyers who are confused by their ambiguous format. These forms have also been abused by certain sellers who rely on their ambiguity in misrepresenting the accuracy of a vehicle's odometer. Due to this situation, the NHTSA has concluded that a stricter interpretation of the odometer regulation is necessary in order to fulfill the Act's intended purpose.; We have, therefore, determined that because of the variance of th disclosure form that you submitted from the format specified in the regulation (49 CFR Part 580) it must in the future be considered not in compliance. The form prescribed in our regulation should in the future be closely adhered to.; We want to make clear that our determination of a noncompliance is no retroactive, since we previously gave a broader interpretation to the disclosure form requirements. Your prompt conformity to the format suggested in our letter is greatly appreciated.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4434OpenRaymond M. Momboisse, Esq. General Counsel Immigration and Naturalization Service U.S. Department of Justice 425 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20536; Raymond M. Momboisse Esq. General Counsel Immigration and Naturalization Service U.S. Department of Justice 425 Eye Street NW Washington DC 20536; "Dear Mr. Momboisse: Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the Genera Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver 'exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchased directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation.' This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured for, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for your request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, the Border Patrol will save $5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs. This agency has jurisdiction over 'motor vehicles' as that term is defined by l5 U.S.C. 139l(3). If a vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle,' then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicability of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 57l.7(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be 'motor vehicles' required to comply with the standards. Under l5 U.S.C. 1391(3), a 'motor vehicle' is 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways....' The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibikes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public roads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads. You have informed us that the Hummer will 'generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas.' However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to consider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a 'motor vehicle.' However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operations and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original military specifications. Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that one of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has become of paramount importance in the 'war against drugs.' In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-l4 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United States, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a component of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufactures and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1266OpenMr. John H. Mueller, Manager, Engineering Standards, The Weatherhead Company, 300 East 131st Street, Cleveland, OH, 44108; Mr. John H. Mueller Manager Engineering Standards The Weatherhead Company 300 East 131st Street Cleveland OH 44108; Dear Mr. Mueller: This is in reply to your letter of August 16, 1973, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to nylon tubing used in the interior of a motor vehicle.; The components that must meet the requirements of the standard ar listed in Paragraph S4.1. Nylon tubing is not listed in Paragraph S4.1 and normally will not be subject to the standard's requirements. However, materials may nevertheless be covered to the extent that they are 'designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash,' or to the extent that they form part of a component listed under Paragraph S4.1.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.