NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam0227OpenMr. J. C. Eckhold, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. J. C. Eckhold Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1970 with which yo submitted for our examination a sample format for consumer information produced by a computer.; The sample that you submitted does deviate from the requirements of th consumer information regulations in that the required warnings and explanations are placed on a sheet that is separate from the numerical data. The regulations generally require that the information be presented in the form illustrated by the published figures, with the explanatory matter in proximity to the numerical data. I believe that computer printing is flexible enough to allow you to accomplish this.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Director |
|
ID: aiam0226OpenMr. J. C. Eckhold, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. J. C. Eckhold Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1970 with which yo submitted for our examination a sample format for consumer information produced by a computer.; The sample that you submitted does deviate from the requirements of th consumer information regulations in that the required warnings and explanations are placed on a sheet that is separate from the numerical data. The regulations generally require that the information be presented in the form illustrated by the published figures, with the explanatory matter in proximity to the numerical data. I believe that computer printing is flexible enough to allow you to accomplish this.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Director |
|
ID: aiam0535OpenMr. H. D. Blackburn, Vice President Engineering, Miller Trailers, Inc., 333 Sixth Avenue, West, Bradenton, FL 33505; Mr. H. D. Blackburn Vice President Engineering Miller Trailers Inc. 333 Sixth Avenue West Bradenton FL 33505; Dear Mr. Blackburn: This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1972, enclosing a cop of your drawing SKB-2103B and asking whether the vehicle lighting therein depicted is in compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Generally, the location of the lamps in the drawing appear i accordance with the location requirements of Standard No. 108. Front clearance and identification lamps, however, must be placed 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle' which, in the configuration illustrated is usually the truck body and not the cab.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5237OpenCONFIDENTIAL; CONFIDENTIAL; "Dear CONFIDENTIAL: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). You asked whether 'embossing' is permitted to mark engines and transmissions for original and replacement parts. You also asked whether the symbol 'DOT' and your company's logo may appear in identical locations on original and replacement parts. As explained below, embossing is permitted, but 'DOT' may not appear on original parts. The relevant Part 541 provisions are Sections 541.5 Requirements for passenger cars and 541.6 Requirements for replacement parts. Section 541.5(a) states that each passenger car subject to the theft prevention standard must have an identifying number 'affixed or inscribed' on each of fourteen specified original parts. Section 541.6(a) states that each replacement part must have the trademark of the replacement part manufacturer and the letter 'R' 'affixed or inscribed' on such replacement part. Section 541.6(f) states that each replacement part must bear the symbol 'DOT,' that is 'inscribed or affixed.' In response to your first question about embossing, we note the required information on original and replacement parts must be 'inscribed or affixed.' To determine whether embossing is a means of 'inscribing,' we have reviewed the dictionary's definition. 'Inscribe' means 'to mark or engrave (words, symbols, etc.) on some surface.' (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Since embossing is a means of marking on a surface, embossing would be included within the definition of 'inscribing.' The preamble to the final rule that established Part 541 confirms the above interpretation. NHTSA then stated that it 'has no authority to mandate the use of any particular marking system. NHTSA has authority only to establish performance criteria that will accomplish the purposes of the Theft Act. The manufacturers are free to select any marking system that satisfies those criteria.' (See 50 FR 43166, at 43170, October 24, 1985.) Thus, if your company believes embossing satisfies Part 541 performance criteria, it may emboss. Your second question asked whether 'DOT' may be marked on original parts. The answer is no. Original parts must be marked with the vehicle identification number. If an original part includes 'DOT,' the part would be dual marked. 'Dual marking' was discussed in Part 541's preamble: ... the agency cannot allow such dual markings under the theft prevention standard. Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stolen original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. ... This would not serve the purpose of the Theft Act of 'decreasing the ease with which certain stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced.' (See 50 FR 43166, at 43179). It would also be inappropriate to mark 'DOT' on an original part because 'DOT' is a manufacturer's certification that a replacement part conforms to Part 541. (See 49 CFR 541.6(f)). Since an original part would not conform to Part 541's requirements for replacement parts, it would be inappropriate for a manufacturer to certify compliance by placing 'DOT' on the original part. Finally, it was requested that your company not be identified in public copies of this letter, and that your incoming letter be purged of references to your company. In order to save time, we agree to do this. In the future, however, please note that 49 CFR Part 512 Confidential Business Information sets forth procedures for protecting information that your company believes is confidential. I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If there are further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4099OpenMr. Koji Tokunaga, Manager, Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc., 21415 Civic Center Drive, Southfield, MI 48076- 3969; Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager Engineering Isuzu Motors America Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield MI 48076- 3969; Dear Mr. Tokunaga: This letter responds to your inquiry of June 25, 1986, requesting a interpretation of S4.5 of Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements*, regarding the 'part of the vehicle' on which the vehicle identification number (VIN) should appear. I regret the delay in replying to your letter.; You ask whether either of two specific locations within the passenge compartment of a vehicle would meet the VIN location requirement, and submit diagrams of these locations. Paragraph S4.5 of Standard No. 115 reads:; >>>'The VIN of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upo either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part.'<<<; You state in you letter that your concern is whether a VIN or a plat or label with the VIN affixed to it, may be 'fitted to a part that is not designed to be removed except for repair but that can be replaced by a new part as a result of the repair.'; We interpret S4.5 to require that the VIN be placed on a part that i designed to be removed only for the purpose of repairing (or replacing) that part. Thus, the VIN may not be placed on a part which is designed to be removed to allow the maintenance or repair of other parts.; The first location you describe is the instrument panel front cover That cover is a plastic strip immediately behind and below the inner surface of the front windshield, and it appears from your diagram that the part is designed to be removed only for its repair or replacement. If that is correct, placing the VIN at this location would meet the requirement of S4.5.; The second location is the top of the meter upper hood. On you diagram, this location seems to be on the plastic cover for the speedometer and tachometer. It appears from the diagram that the meter upper hood is designed to be removed to permit the repair or maintenance of those meters or other parts of the dash board. If this is the case, then this location would not comply.; As a separate matter, we note from your diagram that the meter hoo location may be in a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or light truck. If that is so, you must meet both the S4.5 requirement with respect to placement of the VIN, and the readability requirement of S4.6.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0987OpenMr. Ross M. Smith, Midwest Business Forms, Inc., 4900 North River Road, Schiller Park, IL 60176; Mr. Ross M. Smith Midwest Business Forms Inc. 4900 North River Road Schiller Park IL 60176; Dear Mr. Smith: This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1973, concerning th odometer disclosure form that you propose to print in accordance with the Federal odometer Disclosure Requirements, 49 CFR 580.; As you indicate, the proposed form conforms in all respects to the for specified in S 580.6, except that it provides additional space for the State and year of the last plate. We find that these items will help identify a vehicle, and that their inclusion is consistent with the purpose of the form. We therefore do not object to their inclusion on the form.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0706OpenJoseph C. Good, Esquire, South Carolina Attorney General's Office, P. O. Box 11549, Wade Hampton Office Building, Columbia, SC 29201; Joseph C. Good Esquire South Carolina Attorney General's Office P. O. Box 11549 Wade Hampton Office Building Columbia SC 29201; Dear Mr. Good: This is in response to your telephone inquiry of May 17, 1972 concerning the preemptive effect of section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1392) on the authority of States to adopt laws regarding bumpers on passenger cars and other vehicle types.; You stated that you interpreted this section as preventing the adoptio by a State of a passenger car bumper law that was not identical to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS 215) on that subject. You stated further that this result (sic) obtained regardless of whether the State law were cast in terms of safety or property damage reduction.; We agree with both statements. This result is required by both sectio 103(d) and the Federal 'common law' of premption (sic), based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Were the result otherwise, States could adopt laws which frustrated not only the clear Congressional intent of establishing a uniform set of national regulations, but also the specific objectives of many of our safety standards.; You also asked whether, in view of FMVSS 215's application to passenge cars only, section 103(d) prevented the adoption of State laws regarding bumpers on multipurpose passenger vehicles. You indicated that you thought the answer to be 'no'.; Again, we agree. Section 103(d) provides that whenever there is Federal safety standard applicable to an aspect of performance of any motor vehicle, a State may not 'establish . . . any safety standard applicable to the *same aspect of performance* of *such vehicle* . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard. (Emphasis added.) The application of this section turns upon both of the underlined factors. Consequently, the existence of a Federal safety standard applicable to an aspect of performance of a particular vehicle type does not preclude the establishment of a State law regarding the same aspect of performance of another vehicle type unregulated by the Federal standard. Since FMVSS 215 does not apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, a State may regulate the bumpers of such vehicles without regard to the Federal standard. Of course, if FMVSS 215 is subsequently extended to multipurpose passenger vehicles, State laws regulating the bumpers on those vehicles would have to be made to conform with the Federal standard or they would be preempted.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. As requested, have enclosed a copy of the notice issuing FMVSS 215 (36 F.R. 7218) and related notices. Among the other notices is the notice of proposed rulemaking (35 F.R. 17999) which preceded issuance of the standard. The preamble of that notice contains a passage regarding the preemptive effect of the standard.; Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3148OpenMr. William Shapiro, Volvo of America, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. William Shapiro Volvo of America Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Shapiro: This is in response to the questions that you addressed to Mr. Hug Oates over the telephone with regard to auxiliary fuel tanks. I have enclosed a copy of a letter which was sent to a company that planned to manufacture auxiliary fuel tanks for passenger cars and to do some installation. The principles enunciated in that letter are applicable to auxiliary fuel tanks intended for use in all types of motor vehicles except motor carriers in interstate commerce. If you have any further questions after reading the enclosed letter please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my office who is familiar with the issues arising from the manufacture and use of auxiliary fuel tanks.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1028OpenMrs. Gussie Peer, 149 Willow Avenue, Staten Island, NY 10305; Mrs. Gussie Peer 149 Willow Avenue Staten Island NY 10305; Dear Mrs. Peer: Your recent letter to the National Transportation Safety Boar concerning bus window glass has been referred to me for reply.; Safety glazing in buses is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 205. In general, the windows in the vicinity of passengers may be either laminated safety glass or tempered safety glass, or rigid plastics, if the windows are readily removable. Hence, the Federal standard does not prohibit manufacturers from using glazing materials that perform as you suggest.; In the past few years, manufacturers have expressed interest i providing passengers with protection from missiles thrown at buses. I expect to see an increase in the use of materials that conform with your suggestion.; I am enclosing a summary of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for your information.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2353OpenMr. George E. Brown, Executive Director - Vehicle Emissions & Safety, Jeep Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. George E. Brown Executive Director - Vehicle Emissions & Safety Jeep Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Brown: This is in response to Jeep Corporation's March 9, 1976, petition fo rulemaking as supplemented by its letter of April 1, 1976. The petition requested an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, that would add the following sentence at the end of S7.1.6(b):; >>>For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does no include the weight of work-performing accessories.<<<; The supplement to the petition included a list of 15 examples of suc work-performing accessories. The amendment would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove these accessories before performing compliance testing pursuant to the standard.; In Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments o 1974, (15 U.S.C. 1392 note), Congress directed that the fuel system integrity standard take effect in the form in which it had been most recently published. Conditions for amending the standard were specified in Section 108(b) as follows:; >>>*Amendment or Repeal of Standard*.--The Secretary may amend th standard described in subsection (a) in order to correct technical errors in the standard, and may amend or repeal such standard if he determines such amendment or repeal will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.<<<; The practical result of the amendment requested by Jeep would be tha certain vehicles would not, as is presently specified, be required to conform to the standard in the form in which they are actually delivered to purchasers and used on the highways. In fact, the presence of work-performing accessories could seriously degrade a vehicle's performance in the standard's barrier crash tests. We therefore cannot conclude that the requested amendment 'will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.' Furthermore, the amendment goes beyond the mere correction of technical errors in the standard. Consequently, Jeep's petition must be and is hereby denied.; Despite this denial, however, the NHTSA interprets the term 'unloade vehicle weight' in a manner that provides some of the relief that Jeep has requested. The term is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as follows:; >>>'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximu capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.<<<; The 'weight of a vehicle' includes the weight of those accessories tha are installed on a vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily removed. Among such accessories are the following:; >>>air bag suspension systems, draw bars, headlamp and radiato protectors, helper-springs, hitches, pintle hooks, power take-offs, push bumpers, step bumpers and side steps, tire carriers, wreckers<<<; The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the 'weight of a vehicle'. Consequently, accessories in this latter group would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301- 75. Among these are the following:; >>>snow plows, spreaders, tow bars<<< Categorization of winches, the remaining accessory that you hav listed, depends on the nature of the particular winch. One that is generally removed only when its presence interferes with other vehicle functions would be included in the evaluation of 'unloaded vehicle weight'. A portable winch that is ordinarily removed after use, however, would not be included in that evaluation.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl 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.