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: 86-5.20OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/16/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. Skip Maraney TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Skip Maraney National Star Route Mail Contractor Association 324 East Capitol Street Washington, DC 20003
Dear Mr. Maraney:
This responds to your telephone inquiry about whether our regulations would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering system in a motor vehicle. We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.
You also asked about the agency's regulations on the importation of motor vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a publication, "Instructions Handbook for Complying with Regulations on Imported Vehicles," which will provide you with information about our importation regulations.
If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
Enclosures |
|
ID: nht93-2.45OpenDATE: April 6, 1993 FROM: Dale Moore -- CIC, Hagan Hamilton Insurance & Financial Services TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/2/93 from John Womack to Dale Moore (A41; VSA 103(14); Part 571.3) TEXT: I am an insurance broker representing a local college. We presently provide insurance coverage for their automobiles which are used for transportation of students. One such program involves transportation of high school age students from their homes to the campus and on field trips. This is done with 15 passenger vans which we are told may have to meet federal requirements in order to be leased or purchased from an automobile dealer. We are of the opinion that since this program is not affiliated with the local high school, nor is it strictly academic, that the "school bus" 10 passenger rule does not apply. I should add that the college is privately owned. We will appreciate a ruling as soon as possible because of the financial commitment which has to be made to continue this program. I have enclosed course information to assist you in making your decision.
Attachment Course information on Linfield College and Upward Bound (text omitted). |
|
ID: nht95-2.54OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: April 26, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: James M. Hanson -- Chairman Engineering Committee, Transportation Safety Equipment Institute TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/7/95 LETTER FROM JAMES M. HANSON TO PHILLIP RECHT TEXT: Dear Mr. Hanson: This replies to your letter of April 7, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the applicability requirements of paragraph S5.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The conspicuity requirements of S5.7 apply to "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs." You state that the word "and" in this paragraph "could cause some trailer manufacturers to think that both conditions must be present before tape is applied on the trailer", and that some manufacturers could interpret this to avoid applying tape to trailers of the specified width but less than the specified GVWR and vice versa. We have no objection to a manufacturer's applying conspicuity treatment to trailers of any width or GVWR. However, as S5.7 clearly states, a manufacturer is not required to comply with the conspicuity requirements unless its trailer is at least 80 inche s in overall width and has a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. If you desire further clarification on this matter, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). |
|
ID: 07-002929drn-2OpenMr. Michael D. Payne One Thorton Court Potomac Falls, VA 20165 Dear Mr. Payne: This responds to your letter concerning the speedometer marking requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls, telltales and indicators. You ask whether vehicles can have km/h primary and mph secondary. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. See 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. FMVSS No. 101 is one of the standards we have issued. FMVSS No. 101 requires speedometers to be labeled with MPH, or MPH and km/h. See Table 1. The intent of the standard is to require speedometer display in miles per hour (MPH), and to allow the addition of kilometers per hour (km/h) to MPH at the option of the manufacturer. The standard does not permit speedometers to be graduated in km/h only, since speed limits in the United State s are communicated on highway signs in MPH alone.
The standard specifies that if the speedometer is graduated in both miles per hour and in kilometers per hour, the scales must be identified MPH and km/h, respectively. The standard does not specify, in this situation, that MPH must be primary. However we would not provide a specific interpretation in this area outside the context of a specific design.
You state that this provision of FMVSS No. 101 appears to be in violation of Federal law since it was the intent of Congress to designate the metric system as the preferred system for the United States. Moreover, your letter states that you petition NHTSA to change the wording to comply with Federal law. We believe that FMVSS No. 101 is a legally valid exercise of NHTSAs regulatory authority and is not contrary to any Federal law. We note that NHTSA ordinarily uses the metric system in its FMVSSs. However, the agency is not required to specify the FMVSSs in metric units only. In this particular instance, for reasons explained above, there is a safety reason why the agency does not permit speedometers graduated in km/h only. Your letter does not meet minimum requirements for NHTSA to consider it a petition under 49 CFR Part 552 Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders. Thus, your letter has not been treated as a petition. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:101 d.3/18/08 |
2008 |
ID: 0841Open Mr. James M. Hanson Dear Mr. Hanson: This replies to your letter of April 7, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the applicability requirements of paragraph S5.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The conspicuity requirements of S5.7 apply to "each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs." You state that the word "and" in this paragraph "could cause some trailer manufacturers to think that both conditions must be present before tape is applied on the trailer", and that some manufacturers could interpret this to avoid applying tape to trailers of the specified width but less than the specified GVWR and vice versa. We have no objection to a manufacturer's applying conspicuity treatment to trailers of any width or GVWR. However, as S5.7 clearly states, a manufacturer is not required to comply with the conspicuity requirements unless its trailer is at least 80 inches in overall width and has a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. If you desire further clarification on this matter, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/26/95
|
1995 |
ID: nht95-4.63OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 20, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Attorney at Law TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/28/95 LETTER FROM LAWRENCE A. BEYER TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR (OCC 11160) TEXT: Dear Mr. Beyer: This responds to your August 28, 1995, "Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance". You state that "the noncompliance relates to" 49 CFR Part 592. The effect of an inconsequentiality determination is to relieve a manufacturer of its obligation to notify and remedy when a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or a safety related defect is determined to exist. The failures you a ttributed to your client as a registered importer under part 592 do not encompass a failure to bring vehicles into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the existence of a safety related defect in vehicles that it has imported. Therefore, there is no legal basis for your "petition". Please read 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and 49 CFR Part 556. The proper forum for your arguments is in response to any penalty the agency may propose to impose on your client for its failure to meet the requirements of Part 592. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263). |
|
ID: nht91-1.39OpenDATE: February 12, 1991 FROM: Richard F. Land -- Director of Licensure, State of Tennessee, Bureau Of Manpower and Facilities, Division of Emergency Medical Services TO: Deidre Fujita -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-15-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard F. Land (A37; Std. 124; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)) TEXT: The NHTSA office of Enforcement has referred me to your office in a matter regarding the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to ambulance design and maintenance. Upon recent inspection of a fleet of ambulances operated by a private provider near Chattanooga, Tennessee, our inspectors discovered that wooden blocks had been mounted beneath the accelerator pedals as a makeshift speed governor. While such action seems to violate common sense, in that there are times when acceleration is critical, such as merging with interstate highway traffic, we find Tennessee list no Statutory offense that our office or highway patrol may cite. We would appreciate any guidance or assistance with enforcement that may be appropriate to this matter. Should you wish to discuss the situation or acquire further information, please call me at the Division of Emergency Medical Services, 615-367-6278. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. |
|
ID: nht91-2.23OpenDATE: March 8, 1991 FROM: John E. Calow -- Sr. Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Chassis Division, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Chassis Division TO: Dorothy Nacoma -- Chief Council, NHTSA TITLE: Subject: Supplying additional VIN tag to Final Stage Manufacturer ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-20-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to John E. Calow (A37; Std. 115; Part 568) TEXT: Oshkosh Chassis Division "OCD" provides chassis to final stage manufacturers. The final stage manufacturers are requesting OCD to supply a duplicate VIN tag with each vehicle. The additional VIN tag would be supplied in the "chassis document packet." The additional VIN tag would be affixed by the final stage manufacturer, so that it is readable through the vehicle glazing. There is a possibility of the final stage manufacturer misrepresenting the vehicle by placing the incorrect VIN tag under the vehicle glazing. OCD would have no control of the final stage manufacturer correctly identifying the vehicle. I would appreciate an answer in writing to the following questions: -Is it legal for an Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer to supply the Final Stage Manufacturer with an additional "loose VIN tag"? -What are the legal responsibilities of the Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer if the incorrect VIN tag is affixed to the vehicle by the Final Stage Manufacturer? Thank you for your time and cooperation. |
|
ID: nht95-7.28OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 20, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Attorney at Law TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/28/95 LETTER FROM LAWRENCE A. BEYER TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR (OCC 11160) TEXT: Dear Mr. Beyer: This responds to your August 28, 1995, "Petition for Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance". You state that "the noncompliance relates to" 49 CFR Part 592. The effect of an inconsequentiality determination is to relieve a manufacturer of its obligation to notify and remedy when a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or a safety related defect is determined to exist. The failures you attributed to your client as a registered importer under part 592 do not encompass a failure to bring vehicles into compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or the existence of a safety related defect in vehicles that it has imported. Therefore, there is no legal basis for your "petition". Please read 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, and 49 CFR Part 556. The proper forum for your arguments is in response to any penalty the agency may propose to impose on your client for its failure to meet the requirements of Part 592. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263). |
|
ID: nht92-4.24OpenDATE: August 25, 1992 FROM: Jerry Beck TO: Mr. Rice TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jerry Beck (A40; VSA 102(4) TEXT: I have a product I would like to market at the consumer level. My product is reflective decals that would be placed on vehicles. I would like to know of any regulatory considerations before beginning to market the product. To give you a better understanding about my product here is the basic idea. One decal will be placed on the back side of the rear view mirror and the other will be placed on the rear bumper. Sizes are approximately 2 x 8 inches for the front and 3 x 7 inches for the rear sign. Words and a symbol will only be reflective. My concern is I do not want to market any product that would be either illegal or create a driving hazard. I have spoken with an accredited product testing company and they did not know what specification or if any apply to reflective decals. I would appreciate you providing me with any requirements so I can ensure my product will be both legal and safe for consumer use. Since I have not started marketing yet please keep the information in this letter confidential. Thank you for your help in this matter. |
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.