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: 16-002006 Cybersecurity Act of 2015Open
Mr. R. A. Whitfield Quality Control Systems Corporation 1034 Plum Creek Drive Crownsville, MD 21032-1322
Dear Mr. Whitfield:
This responds to your April 2, 2016 letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is precluded from taking enforcement action regarding a safety defect or noncompliance with a regulation or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) when that defect or noncompliance is a cyber threat indicator provided to the Federal government under the Cybersecurity Act of 2015.
As you know, the agency published a request for comments on NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2016-02: Safety-Related Defects and Emerging Automotive Technologies.[1] We noticed that you submitted identical questions as a comment to the abovementioned docket.[2] The issue you raise will be discussed in the agencys response to comments that is currently being prepared.
Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Sara Bennett of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 6/1/16 Ref: Miscellaneous [1] Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0040 (Apr. 1, 2016), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/04/01/2016-07353/request-for-public-comments-on-nhtsa-enforcement-guidance-bulletin-2016-02-safety-related-defects. [2] Your comment is available at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2016-0040-0013. |
2016 |
ID: nht80-2.14OpenDATE: 04/23/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Douthitt; Mitchell & Paul TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1980, letter asking whether it is legal for a manufacturer to build a chassis that would normally have a high gross axle weight rating (GAWR) while continuing to certify the combined axle and chassis to a lower GAWR and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The answer to your question is yes. The chassis-cab manufacturer and the final stage manufacturer when certifying the proper GVWR and GAWR must consider the entire vehicle and its capacity to sustain the load for which it is designed. Therefore, if a manufacturer installs a heavy axle but does not reinforce the frame to correspond with the heavier axle, it must select a GVWR that reflects the capacity of the weaker frame rather than the stronger axle. The GAWR can be any amount appropriate for a given axle without regard to the vehicle's GVWR, provided the sum total of the Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWR) is not less than the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). Your problem arises because the contract for purchase of the chassis-cab specified only the GAWR without insisting that the GVWR be similarly increased. This is entirely a private contractual matter and no Federal regulation of which we are aware has been violated. |
|
ID: nht88-2.32OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: MAY 24, 1988 FROM: ROBERT G. YORKS -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS GROUP, TRUCK-LITE TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 8-1-88, TO ROBERT G. YORKS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 108, REDBOOK A32; ALSO ATTACHED MEMO UNDATED, TO ROBERT G. YORKS, FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER TEXT: Pursuant to your letter of April 28, 1988 (copy attached), we are rescinding our request for confidential treatment of this interpretation. Please proceed with your analysis, without restriction. Attachment |
|
ID: nht89-1.17OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/09/89 FROM: J. JAMES EXON -- SENATE TO: CONGRESSIONAL LIAISON DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 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 01/26/89 FROM RON MOXHAM TO J. JAMES EXON; LETTER DATED 09/25/88 FROM RON MOXHAM TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TEXT: Dear Sir: I am enclosing a letter from: Ron Moxham Box 65 Chester, Nebraska 68327 whose problem appears to fall within your jurisdiction. I would appreciate any information which will enable me to respond to my constituent's inquiry. Please return the enclosed correspondence with your report to: Senator J. James Exon 287 Federal Building 100 Centennial Mall North Lincoln, NE 68508 Cordially, Enclosure |
|
ID: 86-5.15OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/10/86 EST FROM: JEFFREY S. JENSEN TO: NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/24/86 TO JEFFREY S JENSEN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TEXT: I was referred to your people by the National Transportation Safety Board out of Olympia, Wash. I have come up with a way to inscribe lettering on the inside of car & truck tail light so that when the brakes are applied that the lettering is seen. I had thought about going into this on a production basis and wanted to find out if there is any stipulations, conditions or laws, or regulations that have to be complied with. I realize there could be no $99[Illegible Word] words used, but I am not aware of any other limitations that may be imposed. If you could please get back to me and let me know all the details as soon as possible, so that we could get going on the project right away. |
|
ID: 7333Open Mr. Joe Wos Dear Mr. Wos: This responds to your May 26, 1992 letter asking whether it is "legal to repair an automobile that has an airbag deployed and not put the air bag back in." I am enclosing a copy of a January 19, 1990 letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad, that explains whether a used car dealer has an obligation to replace a deployed air bag prior to selling the car. The same statutory and regulatory considerations that applied to that situation would apply to the replacement of a damaged air bag steering column (after the air bag has deployed) with a steering column without an air bag. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:208 d:6/24/92 |
1992 |
ID: nht78-2.41OpenDATE: 03/22/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Industrial Airport TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your February 16, 1978, request for confirmation that Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, does not apply to an air-braked trailer that carries no cargo and consists entirely of a mobile auto-crushing device. Section S3 of Standard No. 121 contains an exclusion for any trailer whose unloaded vehicle weight is not less than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). "Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants. Thus, if your mobile auto-crushing trailer carries no cargo or cargo that is less than 5 percent of the vehicles GVWR, it would be excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121. I would note that Standard No. 108, Lamps, Relective Devices and Associated Equipment, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars, may apply to the trailer you describe. I enclose an information sheet that describes where copies of these standards can be obtained. |
|
ID: nht92-5.45OpenDATE: June 24, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Joe Wos -- A & D Lock & Key TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5/26/92 from Joe Wos to NHTSA Office of Chief Council (OCC 7333) TEXT: This responds to your May 26, 1992 letter asking whether it is "legal to repair an automobile that has an airbag deployed and not put the air bag back in." I am enclosing a copy of a January 19, 1990 letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad, that explains whether a used car dealer has an obligation to replace a deployed air bag prior to selling the car. The same statutory and regulatory considerations that applied to that situation would apply to the replacement of a damaged air bag steering column (after the air bag has deployed) with a steering column without an air bag. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht94-8.9OpenDATE: February 17, 1994 FROM: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc. TO: Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from Barry Felrice to Karl-Heinz Ziwica (Part 543) TEXT: Dear Ms. Gray: This letter is to inform the agency that beginning with the 1995 model year, BMW will be utilizing the 7-carline parts marking exemption granted by the NHTSA on October 9, 1986 (51 CFR 3633). As was explained to you by Mr. James C. Patterson of my staff on February 7, 1994, there have been three updates to the anti-theft device previously approved on the 7-carline. Accordingly, BMW requests that the NHTSA determine these updates constitute de minimus changes to the 7-carline's anti-theft device. The following paragraphs describes the updates: 1. The remote device has become an integral component within the vehicle key and is the actuator for the alarm system. This change is identical to the change that BMW made on the 8-carline anti-theft device, which NHTSA has already determined to be de minimus (NHTSA letter from Mr. Barry Felrice to K.-H. Ziwica dated 10/04/93). 2. The monitoring circuits for radio theft and glove box entry, now, monitor glass breakage to further ensure the security of the entire occupant compartment, rather than, the individual components. All other monitoring (e.g. doors, hood, trunk, etc.) has remained as when the device was previously approved. 3. The anti-theft device's siren has been changed to a 112db siren. If further information is needed or you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Patterson on (201) 573-2041. |
|
ID: nht91-7.32OpenDATE: December 5, 1991 FROM: John H. Heinrich -- District Director, U.S. Customs Service, Department of Treasury; Kathleen M. Tobin -- Acting Director, Fines, Penalties & Forfeitures, U.S. Customs Service, DOT; Signature illegible TO: Office of Chief Counsel, DOT TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/9/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to John H. Heinrich (A39; Std. 211) TEXT: Enclosed find a petition for relief from the forfeiture of 200 Spinner Wheel Nuts seized by this service on October 8, 1991 as violative of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.211. While thememorandum of November 13, 1991 from the importer to his broker and the broker's November 18, 1991 petition stress safety considerations and the need to "replace" worn parts, the importer's own parts list (page 26) refers to: "....conversion kits...designed to CONVERT your disc wheeled TD or TF to wire wheels...These kits enhance the appearance of any TD and are identical to the original factory OPTION for the TF" (underlines added). The petitioner expresses the opinion that these "imported spinners" should be exempt from any general DOT safety regulation. Please provide us with your recommendation within 30 days. |
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.