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: aiam0297OpenEisuke Niguma, Manager, Export Vehicle Engineering Department, Toyo Kogyo Company, Limited, 6047 Fuchu-Machi, Aki-Gun, Hiroshima 730-91, Japan; Eisuke Niguma Manager Export Vehicle Engineering Department Toyo Kogyo Company Limited 6047 Fuchu-Machi Aki-Gun Hiroshima 730-91 Japan; Dear Mr. Niguma: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1971, to Mr. Rodolfo A Diaz, regarding attachment bolts used to secure seat belt assemblies to a motor vehicle.; The intent of the requirement in paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of Standard 20 is to assure that inadequate attachment bolts will not be used to attach seat belt assemblies to the vehicle. This paragraph does not require that the specific models of vehicles be listed on the label. It provides that if a seat belt assembly is *designed* for use in specific vehicles in which *only* one end of a belt assembly can be attached by a single bolt, then the bolt need only have a breaking strength of 5,000 pounds.; It should be noted, however, that paragraph S4.1(1) of the Standar requires the manufacturer of seat belt assemblies for aftermarket use to furnish an instruction sheet stating whether the assembly is for universal installation or for installation only in specifically stated motor vehicles. If, as you state, the seat belt assemblies used in MAZDA vehicles are designed exclusively for specific models, such models must be listed on the installation instruction sheet.; Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Crashworthiness, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3511OpenMr. Berkley Sweet, Truck Body & Equipment Association, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Chevy Chase, MD 20815; Mr. Berkley Sweet Truck Body & Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Chevy Chase MD 20815; Dear Mr. Sweet: Since you represent the School Bus Manufacturers Institute, I a writing for your assistance. We are reinterpreting the requirements of S5.3.3 of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, as they apply to audible warning devices and would like your assistance in disseminating this interpretation.; As you know, the standard requires that a continuous warning soun shall be audible at both the driver's seating location and in the vicinity of the unclosed door. In the preamble to the notice implementing this requirement, the agency stated that section S5.3.3 requires two warning devices, one located at each position. The agency made this interpretation based upon the then available data indicating that a single warning device in a bus might not be audible in both locations.; In the years that this requirement of the standard has been in effect the agency has reexamined the issue in light of experience and finds that it is possible to have only one warning device audible at both locations. We have determined that this device can be heard even when a bus is loaded with noisy children. In accordance with this finding, the agency is reinterpreting the language of section S5.3.3 to permit one warning device if that device is audible at both locations. We caution manufacturers to ensure that their warning devices will be audible at both locations even when the bus is loaded.; Thank you for your assistance in providing this information to you members and others in the school bus industry.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4684OpenRobert B. Roden, Esq. Roden & Hayes 2015 First Avenue No. Suite 400 Birmingham, AL 35203; Robert B. Roden Esq. Roden & Hayes 2015 First Avenue No. Suite 400 Birmingham AL 35203; "Dear Mr. Roden: This responds to your letter that asked whethe Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires some form of certification on 'every replacement item of motor vehicle equipment.' The answer to this question is that manufacturers of replacement items of motor vehicle equipment that are regulated by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must certify these items. The background for this response is provided below. Section 114 requires manufacturers or distributors of motor vehicle equipment to furnish dealers and distributors of such equipment with a certification that the items of motor vehicle equipment conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The first issue to be discussed, therefore, is whether replacement parts are encompassed within the definition of 'motor vehicle equipment.' 'Motor vehicle equipment' is defined at Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). This definition includes systems, parts and components of motor vehicles that are 'manufactured or sold for replacement.' The second issue to be discussed is what items of replacement motor vehicle equipment must be certified. In an interpretation letter of June 3, 1977 to Mr. Larry Stroble, this agency stated if there are no safety standards in effect regulating particular items of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of the equipment would not be required to certify in accordance with Section 114 and in the regulation promulgated thereunder (49 CFR Part 567). I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of this letter. Examples of items of motor vehicle equipment that have corresponding Federal motor vehicle safety standards are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), lighting (Standard No. 108), brake fluid (Standard No. 116), tires (Standard No. 109 and 117), glazing (Standard No. 205), seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209), and wheel covers (Standard No. 211). I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3141OpenMr. Lawrence D. Smith, Hein, Smith & Berezin, 25 East Salem Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601; Mr. Lawrence D. Smith Hein Smith & Berezin 25 East Salem Street Hackensack NJ 07601; Dear Mr. Smith: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1979, asking whethe the Federal Government has any rule, regulations or statutes that obligate an insurance carrier to maintain a log of odometer readings with respect to vehicles declared a total loss. If a vehicle is repairable and will subsequently be used as a motor vehicle, disclosure of the actual miles would have to be made to the purchaser and those statements would have to be maintained by the insurance carrier for four years. However, if the vehicle is so badly damaged that it cannot be returned to the road, it will have ceased to be a motor vehicle for purposes of the regulations. Disclosure and retention would, therefore, not be required. In those instances where disclosure and retention are required, the format is specified in 49 CFR Part 580. For your information, I have enclosed copies of the relevant portions of the regulations, along with a sample disclosure form.; Sincerely, John Womack, Assistant |
|
ID: aiam1486OpenMr. J. Baskin, Dave's Tire & Fuel Oil Corp., 284 Bedford Street, Fall River, Massachusetts 02720; Mr. J. Baskin Dave's Tire & Fuel Oil Corp. 284 Bedford Street Fall River Massachusetts 02720; Dear Mr. Baskin: #This is in reply to your letter of March 21 and Apri 22, 1974, in which you ask whether a tire sold as a 'blemish' must be guaranteed for workmanship, material, and road hazards. #There are no Federal requirements that manufacturers guarantee blemish (or non-blemish) tires. Such guarantees are within the discretion of each manufacturer. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109) requires all new passenger car tires to meet minimum safety performance levels for high speed performance, endurance, strength, bead unseating, physical dimensions and treadwear indicators. These requirements apply similarly to both blemish and non-blemish tires. #We have enclosed for your information a copy of the Federal Trade Commission's Tire Advertising and Labeling Guides which contain in Guide 11 requirements for the labeling of blemish tires. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1193OpenMr. Hank Thorp, Hank Thorp Inc., Post Office Box 201. Edison, New Jersey 08817; Mr. Hank Thorp Hank Thorp Inc. Post Office Box 201. Edison New Jersey 08817; Dear Mr. Thorp: This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1973, which asks if th Manufacturer Code proposal (38 FR 14968, June 7, 1973) as it applies to wheel nuts (1) requires all manufacturers, including vehicle manufacturers, to label their products, (2) permits labeling with self-adhesive stickers, and (3) has authorized the issuance of codes at this time. In addition, you requested a clarification of an interpretation of Standard 211, *Wheel nuts*.; The answer to your first question is yes. The labeling requirement apply to foreign and domestic manufacturers of passenger cars and multi-purpose passenger vehicles and to manufacturers of equipment for those vehicles. The term 'manufacturer' includes an importer of vehicles or regulated equipment.; The use of a self-adhesive sticker in satisfaction of the permanent an legible labeling requirement of the proposal is permissible , so long as the information printed thereon is indelible and the label is affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.; No codes have been assigned at this time. Assignment will not occu until a decision is reached as to issuance of a final rule.; The small hexagonal nuts which you import and which you describe a serving the same purpose as the small hexagonal nuts which secure factory-mounted, steel wheels to an axle, are not wheel nuts under the standard. The reference to normal coverage by a hub cap or wheel disc is simply descriptive of their location.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3454OpenMr. V. J. Adduci, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, Suite 300, 1909 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Mr. V. J. Adduci Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Suite 300 1909 K Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Adduci: On June 5, representatives of MVMA met with representatives of thi agency to discuss various issues concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. At that meeting, the MVMA representatives requested clarification of the agency's policy on correction of errors made by vehicle manufacturers in their vehicle identification numbers (VIN's). This letter responds to that request.; The agency shares your concern about the potential difficultie associated with correcting erroneous VIN's and will attempt to minimize the burdens involved with any required corrective action. Nevertheless, the agency must consider the safety benefits of an accurate, national VIN system, as well as the anti-theft and other benefits of such a system.; This letter focuses on some of the most likely VIN errors and discusse whether those errors in vehicles sold to consumers would be inconsequential as the errors relate to safety, and, if not, what type of remedy would have to be provided to vehicle owners. Corrective action involving the replacing of an erroneous VIN plate or label or the restamping of the VIN on part of the vehicle is the most desirable remedy. However, there may be less burdensome remedies that would be effective and satisfy the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; One type of error which could be easily corrected is an error in single VIN character other than the check digit or a character monitored by VIN users. The agency would likely regard such an error as inconsequential if the vehicle manufacturer submitted the necessary corrected decoding information to the agency. The agency would place this information in a public file, thereby making it available to other VIN users. With this corrected decoding information available, the agency's safety research activities would not be impaired and manufacturers would still be able to conduct recall campaigns where necessary.; A second type of error involves an erroneous check digit or othe character monitored by vehicle records systems of States or other VIN users. Erroneous check digits could adversely affect our ability to conduct research and to monitor recalls, since the error rate of VIN transcription would presumably be higher in the absence of a properly functioning check digit. Further, without some form of corrective action by the manufacturer (such as restamping or the use of a correction label), vehicle purchasers could face rejections by State, insurance, and other data-processing systems using the check digit to verify transcription accuracy. However, the agency is also concerned that the use of labels could create opportunities for auto theft operations to generate bogus VIN's. Therefore, the agency is presently inclined to treat erroneous check digits as inconsequential noncompliance if the manufacturer reports the errors to the agency. However, as discussed below, the agency is planning to invite public comment on this question before establishing a final position on the matter.; A third type of error involves the physical aspects of the VIN itself For example, a manufacturer might use a type face other than the sans serif type face required by the standard. Although errors of this type would have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, they would likely be deemed inconsequential because they would present no problems to the agency, other VIN users, or vehicle owners.; The most difficult type of errors would involve a major error i numbering which would impair the safety and other uses of the VIN. An extreme example of such an error would be a situation where a manufacturer numbered many of its vehicles identically, or where the VIN's were totally illegible. An error of that magnitude could impair the manufacturers' (sic) ability to conduct recall campaigns and the ability of the agency to monitor them. It would also cause serious problems for all VIN users. In this type of situation (which should arise rarely, if ever), some form of corrective action would be necessary. The use of a correction label which meets all requirements of FMVSS 115 including indelibility would be one possible approach.; One final matter discussed at the June 5 meeting relates to th correction of VIN errors on vehicles already produced but still in the possession of the manufacturer. We would treat these vehicles the same as the vehicles already sold, i.e., if the noncompliance were inconsequential for the vehicles already sold, it would also be inconsequential for the vehicles produced but still in the manufacturer's possession. However, the agency would expect that once the error is detected, similar vehicles produced thereafter would fully comply with the standard. There is precedent for this approach, since the agency has previously treated as inconsequential noncompliance erroneous identification numbers on tires still in the manufacturer's possession, where an inconsequentiality petition has been granted with respect to tires already sold.; The agency will issue in the near future a notice inviting comment o MVMA's petition to change Standard 115 to a general regulation. In this notice, we will seek comment on the types of corrective action discussed above. If you have any thoughts on other means of making these types of corrections, we would of course be pleased to receive your views.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
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 |
|
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.