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: nht76-5.30OpenDATE: 04/12/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA TO: Cameo Industries COPYEE: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your March 17, 1976, letter concerning reporting forms for the mini motor homes that you contemplate building. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which motor vehicles must conform. In addition, the agency requires that the manufacturer certify that the vehicles as completed comply with applicable safety standards. A pamphlet summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification. The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects and noncompliances with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If the agency or the manufacturer determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, the manufacturer is obligated to notify the vehicle owners and remedy the problem without charge. A copy of the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, which deal with the responsibilities of manufacturers for safety-related defects and noncompliances in their motor vehicles or items of vehicle equipment (15 U.S.C. @@ 1411-1420) is also enclosed. Further, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect Reports, requires the submission to the NHTSA of information reports concerning defects. A copy of this regulation is enclosed. No particular reporting form is required. In addition, a new manufacturer of motor vehicles is required by 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit certain information to the NHTSA not more than 30 days after he begins manufacture. A copy of this regulation is also enclosed. SINCERELY, To: Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA From: Cameo Industries Subject: Motor home reports MESSAGE: We are contemplating building mini motor homes and are therefore interested in the reporting forms to be made on these vehicles. We would like to know what kind of monthly, quarterly etc. forms need to be filled out. Could your office send us a list of these forms? Thank you very much for your help on this matter. Date 3/17/76 Signed Sam F Lancaster President |
|
ID: Senator Collins2OpenThe Honorable Susan M. Collins United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Collins: This responds to the letter from your office regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) interpretation of the term motor vehicle for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and, in particular, the application of this interpretation to certain very small trucks, including Japanese mini Kei trucks, imported by B&M Mini Trucks and Tractors LLC, of Madawaska, Maine. Your offices letter says that any changes to NHTSAs interpretation of what is a motor vehicle could substantially impact this company, which has relied on this guidance in its business. Accordingly, your office enclosed a letter from Mr. Harvey B. Fox further detailing these concerns. The question of whether certain non-traditional vehicles, such as the Kei trucks at issue, are motor vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act, and therefore subject to regulation under its provisions, is currently before NHTSA in the form of several letters requesting interpretive guidance on whether various non-traditional vehicles fall within this definition. NHTSAs legal interpretations are written with the intent to clarify the meaning of the statutes and regulations it administers. In making an interpretation, NHTSA seeks above all to promote vehicle safety, after due consideration of all relevant factors, including the impact of alternative interpretations. Changes in the marketplace and in the motor vehicle population, however, may cause an established agency position to become inconsistent with achieving the goal of protecting drivers, their passengers, and other roadway users. As such, refinements to our guidance is periodically indicated to consider and address new or emerging trends or developments in transportation. The agency has not made any decision yet to seek a change in its existing interpretation of motor vehicle, as that term might relate to certain non-traditional vehicles such as very small trucks. If we decide to consider a change, we would follow our common process for the consideration of significant changes to established interpretations - we would publish a draft new interpretation in the Federal Register, solicit public comment, and then publish a notice setting forth our final conclusions. Page 2 The Honorable Susan M. Collins I hope this explanation responds to the concerns of you constituent. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel cc: Phillip R. Bosse ref:VSA d.12/18/06 |
2006 |
ID: 1985-04.12OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 30, 1985 FROM: NHTSA TO: K. Douglas Scribner -- Mini City, Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you were interested in learning whether that standard applies to tires for use on "antique and classic automobiles." You stated that your firm deals in tires which are authentic replacement tires for antique and classic cars, and that none of those tires has ever been marked with a DOT number. Standard No. 109 requires that all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 be marked with DOT numbers, among other things, and there is no exception to this requirement for tires designed for "classic" cars. It is unclear when you refer to a "DOT number" whether you are referring to just the tire identification number, which is required to appear on all new tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 by 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, or that identification number together with the symbol "DOT." The DOT symbol is a certification by the tire manufacturer that the tire complies with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. I have enclosed copies of both Standard No. 109 and Part 574 for your information. In any event, Standard No. 109 applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 of the standard requires the DOT symbol to be permanently marked on the tire, while section S4.3.2 requires the tire identification number assigned to a manufacturer in accordance with Part 574 to be permanently marked on the tire. Standard No. 109 contains no provisions making an exception to these requirements. Accordingly, if the antique and classic cars to which you refer were manufactured in or before 1948, the tires are not subject to Standard No. 109 or Part 574. Sales of such tires would not violate any of this agency's requirements. If, however, the tires are designed for use on cars manufactured after 1948, the tires must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109, including the requirements to have a DOT symbol and a tire identification number marked permanently on the sidewall. If you sell tires which are subject to, but do not comply with, the requirements of Standard No. 109, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). Section 109 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a maximum civil penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108, and this agency would consider each sale of a noncomplying tire to be a separate violation. If you need any further information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.
Sincerely, Enclosures ATTACH. Mini City Ltd. SEPTEMBER 16, 1985 JEFFREY R. MILLER -- Office of Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Further to conversations with your office today, regarding DOT Standard 109 and its application to our marketing of tires for antique and classic automobiles, I am writing to request a copy of the "interpretation book" which will explain qualifying exceptions or exemptions. Basicall, we have dealt, and wish to continue dealing, in tires which are obsolete in nature (non-radial, odd sizes, etc.) but which are necessary for authentic replacement tires on antique and classic cars. Some of these are still supplied by their original manufacturers (Firestone, Goodyear, Dunlop, etc.) and some are reproductions made from original molds (Denman, Lucas, etc.). None of these have ever carried DOT numbers. I look forward to your reply at your early convenience. Sincerely, K. Douglas Scribner -- President |
|
ID: nht87-3.7OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 10/05/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. Hiroshi Kato -- Assistant Vice President, Technical, WC Services, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous (Part 581); 12/1/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H. Nakaya, Mazda, Inc. TEXT: Mr. Hiroshi Kato Assistant Vice President, Technical WC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075 This responds to your letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you sought my confirmation of a previous interpretation I sent to you. The issue is the classification of a new mini-van for the purposes of our safety and bumper standards. I stated in a july 2 8, 1987 interpretation to your company that, based on the information you had provided, this new mini-van could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the mini-van's chassis cou ld be considered a truck chassis Has based on information you had provided showing that the chassis design and construction Has more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis. In response to this letter, you sent me another letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you stated that my previous interpretation by have been based on the erroneous belief that you were going to introduce a cargo version of this mini-van into the United States, and that this cargo version would have a chassis that was substantially reinforced as compared with the chassis on a passenger version of this mini-van. My previous interpretation Has based on the fact that the mini-van you will introduce into the United States is built on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the chassis can properly be characterized as a truck chassis has based on the facts that the chas sis has a heavier-duty rear suspension and longitudinal members and a 25 percent higher gross vehicle weight rating than the sedan version of this vehicle. Assuming that these understandings are accurate, because nothing in your August 3 letter indicates they were inaccurate, the agency's position was accurately expressed in my July 28, 1987 letter to your company.
Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel August 3, 1987 Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Ms. Jones: This is a letter to confirm your response dated July 28, 1987 (attached II) to our letter seeking an interpretation (attached I) as to whether a new mini van will be classified as a "Multi-purpose Passenger Vehicle" for the purposes of the FMVSS and the bumper standards. Because it seems to me that you may misunderstand our statement, I will illustrate our statement and ask your interpretation again as soon as possible. The component reinforced for commercial vehicle o rear suspension changed o rear floorpan and longitudinal members are changed o GM + 300kg o the flat cargo floor o the roof raised for cargo o the end of the cargo floor, no stepped up cross rail MMC is going to launch Vehicle 3 in U.S. market as MPV. Vehicle 3 & 1 have been sold in Japan as passenger car and Vehicle 2 as van. MMC is asking that, although Vehicle 3 has been sold as wagon in Japan, Vehicle 3 should be classified to be MPV. Because Vehicle 3 has the same chassis and body (continued)
construction as Vehicle 2 (Van), and Vehicle 2 is developed to withstand the commercial use criteria changing rear suspension, rear floor pan configuration, longitudinal members, GM and roof configuration, etc. from Vehicle l (Sedan). Therefore, Vehicle 3 is considered to have truck chassis... NHTSA' s understanding We presume that you misunderstand our statements as follows after reading your response. However, Vehicle 2 has the same construction as Vehicle 3 and there is no fact that vehicle 2 is substantially reinforced from Vehicle 3 as mentioned before. MMC's request Therefore, could you re-examine our statement and give us your interpretation on Vehicle 3's classification as soon as possible. We do believe that Vehicle 3 should be classified as an MPV because Vehicle 3 has the truck chassis although MMC is responsib le for the proof that this Vehicle 3 has a truck chassis. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (313) 355-5444. Sincerely yours, MMC SERVICES, INC. Hiroshi Kato HK/xsg Assistant Vice President, Technical Attached: I: MMC Services letter to NHTSA II: NHTSA's response letter See 7/28/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Anonymous. |
|
ID: 18912.ztvOpenMr. Bill Cox Dear Mr. Cox: After you received our letter of September 29, 1998, you faxed Taylor Vinson of this Office several additional questions on October 6, 7, and 9. You previously informed us that you were building Minis for export to Japan. On October 6 you asked "Do you want copies of the export shipping documents for proof that the new Minis are not being sold in the USA?" We appreciate your offer, but the export shipping documents would prove only that those particular Minis were not being sold in the United States. The documents would not cover any Minis that were not being exported. You also asked "We assume that for compliance in the USA the rebuilt Minis have to be a rolling chassis, is this correct." In a second fax on the 6th you explained that "A rolling chassis is one that rolls by itself and stops with brakes. It also has steering rack, brakes, engine and transmission and can be driven." We are not sure what your question is. As I explained on September 29:
You seem to be asking "We assume that, to excuse compliance in the USA, the rebuilt Minis have to use an original chassis with steering rack, brakes, engine and transmission." That is essentially correct. The vehicle must also retain its original title, i.e., must continue to be registered with its original model year designation. You also asked "Why can the tires not be replaced [if they have] DOT markings?" We think you mean to ask whether a rolling chassis whose tires have DOT markings needs to have new tires when a new body is placed on the chassis. If the vehicle that results when a new body is placed on a rolling chassis is not considered a new vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new vehicles, then it need not have new tires but may retain its old ones. Your October 7 fax is the first indication we have had that you intend to rebuild Minis for the American market. You ask:
If your "rebuilt" Mini is a "new" vehicle, it must conform with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, "Hydraulic Brake Systems," no matter how it is designed, as well as with all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Finally, on October 9 you faxed us asking whether a statement had changed that was made to you in a letter of March 24, 1997, from this Office. That statement was "Because vehicles more than 25 years old are exempt from compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you are free to make modifications without violating our regulations." This remark was made with reference to pre-1973 Minis that you import. This remains true: a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old at the time of importation, and which was not originally manufactured for the U.S. market, is not required to be brought into conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: nht71-4.22OpenDATE: 10/18/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Feldman Engineering and Manufacturing Company Inc. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: The material furnished you by Mr. Peskoe of this office, as listed in your letter of September 28 is complete to date. This will also confirm that the Mini Brute all terrain vehicle is a "motorcycle" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. |
|
ID: nht92-4.49OpenDATE: August 6, 1992 FROM: Mike Hawkes -- General Manager, Uinque Motors and Upholstery, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/17/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Mike Hawkes (A39; Std. 207; 208; 209; 210) TEXT: We wish to install 26 sets of lap belts in a mini bus for a retirement home. Our question is, can we attach these belts to the existing seat forms or do we need to drill holes through the floor and attach them this way. Any help would be greatly appreciated. |
|
ID: nht88-2.57OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/26/88 FROM: RON MOXHAM TO: ERICA JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HWY. TRAFFIC SAFETY ADM. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/17/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO J. JAMES EXON -- SENATE, REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108, VSA 108(A)(1)(A), VSA 108(A)(2)(A), PART 567.7; LETTER DATED 02/09/89 FROM J. JAMES EXON -- SENATE TO NHTSA; LETTER DATED 01/26/89 FROM RON MOXHAM TO J. JAMES EXON TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones Mr. John Massero of your office referred me to you for a technical question. I am in the process of developing an add-on-trunk for mini vans, etc. This would be a detachable box which could be placed on the vehicle when needed. It would attach either to the liftgate bumper, or frame. It would extend 16"-20" beyond the bumper (when in use). See attached drawing. My question is what highway regulations will I have to comply with? Will the "trunk" have to have a bumper? Will it have to have separate taillights & stoplights? Etc. I would appreciate any information you can provide regarding this project. Please let me know if I can provide any further information. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, (DRAWING OMITTED) |
|
ID: 3142oOpen Robert L. Ripley, President Dear Mr. Ripley: This is a response to your letter asking this agency to review three product catalogs you submitted with your letter, and tell you whether your company is required to furnish information pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Based on the information you supplied with your letter, your company is required to file information under Part 566 for the warning devices shown in one of the catalogs, but not for any of the other items shown in the three catalogs. As specified in the Application section of Part 566 (/566.3), Part 566 applies to (1) all manufacturers of motor vehicles and (2) manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, other than tires, to which a safety standard applies. The only item advertised in the three catalogs that is motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies is the "Safety Reflector Kit" shown on page 6 of the catalog entitled "weather guard For Full-Size and Mini Vans." These devices are subject to Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR /571.125). Accordingly, your company, as the manufacturer of these devices, must furnish the information specified in /566.5 within the time period specified in /566.6. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:VSA#566 d:l0/3l/88 |
1970 |
ID: nht88-4.19OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/28/88 EST FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL TO: ROBERT L. RIPLEY -- PRESIDENT KNAACK MANUFACTURING CO. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/11/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM ROBERT L. RIPLEY OCC -- 2406 TEXT: Dear Mr. Ripley: This is a response to your letter asking this agency to review three product catalogs you submitted with your letter, and tell you whether your company is required to furnish information pursuant to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Based on the information you supplied with your letter, your company is required to file information under Part 566 for the warning devices shown in one of the catalogs, but not for any of the other items shown in the three catalogs. As specified in the Application section of Part 566 (@ 566.3), Part 566 applies to (1) all manufacturers of motor vehicles and (2) manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, other than tires, to which a safety standard applies. The only item advertised i n the three catalogs that is motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies is the "Safety Reflector Kit" shown on page 6 of the catalog entitled "weather guard For Full-Size and Mini Vans." These devices are subject to Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). Accordingly, your company, as the manufacturer of these devices, must furnish the information specified in @ 566.5 within the time period specified in @ 566.6. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
|
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.