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: nht93-9.14OpenDATE: December 15, 1993 FROM: Ramin Bogzaran -- Remedquip International Mfg. Inc., Canadian Division TO: Marvin Shaw -- Office of the Chief Legal Council TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/94 from John Womack to Ramin Bogzaran (A42; VSA 102(3)); Also attached to letter from Ramin Bogzaran to John Womack; Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Amar Chhabra to whom it may concern; Also attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from Lynn White to Jeff Boraston TEXT: I am sending you this fax to follow up on our application for interpretation of section 591.5(a)(1). As stated previously on my package to your offices, the trailers in discussion are not going to be licensed as vehicles and are going to be sitting at a site as part of a soil remediation plant. It is of great importance for us to get a ruling on the above section as soon as possible because certain deadlines which we must meet have come and gone. I apologize for the rush and I realize that your office has many cases to deal with, however, if our situation was not so critical I would not be so persistent. I thank you for your kind attention, and I look forward to your call. |
|
ID: 09-002561drn June 10OpenMr. Jeffrey S. Conway Vice President of Operations Atlantic Design Inc., P.O. Box 938 Abington, MD 21009 Dear Mr. Conway: This responds to your letter asking us to confirm the continued validity of the interpretation this office provided to Mr. Russell Roden of your company by letter dated October 26, 1999. Assuming the facts presented in the previous letter regarding the Atlantic Design Inc., (ADIs) products still apply today, we confirm our interpretation that ADIs products are not motor vehicles. According to information submitted by you and by your predecessor at ADI, ADI designs and manufactures modular process systems for the construction, industrial maintenance, and the quarry and mining industry. The products include grit recycling and dust collection systems, and sand dedusting units. The equipment may stay at a job site (a maintenance or construction site or at a quarry) for years at a time. The equipment rarely stays at a job site for less than six to eight weeks. A review of the products represented on your website: www.calladi.com shows large industrial machinery, some of which are mounted on trailers. Many of the equipment items depicted on the web site are not even mounted on wheels; they look as if they must be loaded on trailers or other motor vehicles to be transported. In your recent letter to us, you state that ADI is essentially building the same type of equipment as we were ten years ago. Based on the 1999 description of ADIs products, your recent letter, and the information at www.calladi.com, we confirm our belief that ADIs equipment are not motor vehicles within the meaning of our statute. ADIs modular process systems stay on job sites for extended periods of time (which could be years) and only use the highway to move from site to site. Since 1999, we have received no additional information indicating that ADIs equipment use the roads more than on an incidental basis. We appreciate your contacting us to confirm the previous interpretation. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:VSA d.7/24/09 |
2009 |
ID: nht81-2.26OpenDATE: May 12, 1981 FROM: Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Doris Perlmutter -- Betty-June School TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-11-90 from Ron Marion to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 4915); Attached to letter dated 11-11-77 from James Tydings to Roger Tilton; Also attached to letter dated 12-21-77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to James Tydings; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ron Marion (A37; VSA 102(14) Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from Frank Berndt (Signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Martin V. Chauvin TEXT: This responds to your March 20, 1981, letter asking that we reconsider our interpretation that the school bus safety standards apply to vehicles that transport 10 or more children to or from nursery schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unable to alter this interpretation. The Congress in Public Law 93-492 stated that school bus safety standards shall apply to vehicles that transport more than 10 persons to or from preprimary, primary or secondary schools. A nursery school is considered a preprimary school and thus falls within the ambit of that law. We cannot alter the requirements of the law. |
|
ID: nht94-1.42OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: February 7, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Don Vierimaa -- Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 1/11/94 from Don Vierimaa to Pat Boyd (OCC-9595) TEXT: This responds to your FAX of January 11, 1994, to Pat Boyd of this agency requesting an interpretation of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108. In the future, please address your requests for interpretations to the Chief Counsel. You have asked "may a manufacturer install a 4 inch (100 mm) wide retroreflective sheeting instead of 2 inch (50 mm) sheeting on the side of new trailers?" Paragraph S5.7.1.3(d) of Standard No. 108 states that retroreflective sheeting shall have a width of 50 mm (Grade DOT-C2), 75 mm (Grade DOT-C3), or 100 mm (Grade DOT-C4). Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a), as amended on October 6, 1993 (58 FR 52021 at 52026), set s forth the requirements for application of retroreflective sheeting to the side of trailers. Without elaboration, it simply identifies it as "a strip of sheeting." This means that the manufacturer of the trailer is permitted his choice of Grade DOT-C2 , -C3, or -C4 material. Therefore, a manufacturer may install sheeting that has a width of 100 mm on the side of a trailer. |
|
ID: nht73-6.4OpenDATE: 11/12/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA TO: Honorable John B. Conlan, U.S. House of Representatives COPYEE: SEC. REP. DUNN; DR. KAYE; J. L. LEYSATH; MR. VINSON TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This will supplement the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety's reply of October 30, 1973, to your letter of September 21, 1973, to the Interstate Commerce Commission, concerning Mr. William H. Arendell's automatic light-blinking device for truck signaling. The Bureau has referred your letter to us for further reply. Enclosed for your constituent's information is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, entitled, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment." The effect of paragraph S4.6 of the standard is to prohibit the use of automatic flashing clearance lamps for signaling purposes on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. The term "flash" is defined (paragraph S3) as "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means continuing until stopped either automatically or manually." It appears that the device described in your constituent's letter falls within the prohibition of Standard No. 108, and could not be used as original equipment on vehicles. Its use as an aftermarket device would be subject to regulation by the individual States. I trust the above information will be of interest to Mr. Arendell. 2 ENCLS. CONSTITUENT'S LETTER STD. NO. 108 |
|
ID: nht74-5.29OpenDATE: 03/14/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: L and R Enterprises TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your February 15, 1974, letter asking whether your installation of spotlights through the left A-pillar of passenger cars is subject to Standards 201 and 216. Standard 201 does not apply to the instrument panel area on the driver's side from the left door to a longitudinal plane 3-1/4 inches to the right of the steering wheel. The left A pillar is within this excluded area. Your drilling operation may affect roof strength and I have enclosed a copy of Standard 216, our standard on roof crush resistance. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, it is the responsibility of the person who manufacturers or alters a vehicle to determine whether his vehicle meets the requirements. Your business is subject to these requirements, however, only if you qualify as an alterer of motor vehicles under 49 CFR 567.7, which is enclosed. The mounting of a spotlight by drilling the A-pillar is a "non-readily attachable" alteration. Such an alteration would be subject to the @ 567.7 requirement only if you mount it "before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale." 2 ENCLS. CC: HONORABLE JOHN TOWER HONORABLE LLOYD BENTSEN |
|
ID: 17442.wkmOpenMr. Gerard Koudijs Dear Mr. Koudijs: Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter faxed to Walter Myers of my staff. You ask three questions which are discussed below. You state that P. T. Elangperdana Tyre Industry (PTE) will produce tires under the trade name Epco and will apply for a DOT identification. Your first question asks whether that company would be required to apply again for a DOT identification if it produced tires for a private brand that it does not own. The answer is no. I assume that your mention of a "DOT identification" refers to the manufacturer identification mark (MIM) issued by this agency as required by 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 574.6. Subsection 574.5 requires each new tire sold in the United States to have a tire identification number (TIN) labeled by the tire manufacturer on one sidewall of the tire. The MIM is the first grouping of the TIN (see subsection 574.5(a)). This TIN is intended to assist the agency in identifying the production source of a tire in the event of a noncompliance or defect. This agency issues a separate MIM for each plant that currently produces tires, but a plant can only have one MIM, whether or not the plant produces other tire brands. Further, the MIM remains in effect as long as the plant to which it applies remains in production. Therefore, once a MIM is assigned to the PTE plant, the plant may not be issued another MIM even if PTE produces tires for a different brand name owner. A different brand name owner, however, would be required to have its own TIN. Finally, the MIM assigned to the PTE plant cannot be reassigned to another plant, even if a second plant replaces the first. With reference to designation of a resident agent, your second question asks if we could provide you copies of "section 110a and 1399a (west 1982)" that was referred to in some material Mr. Myers sent you in October 1997. Those two sections are the same, and refer to section 110(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, which was originally codified in Title 15, U.S. Code, section 1399(a). That provision has been recodified and is now found in Title 49, U.S. Code, section 30164, a copy of which is enclosed. Your third question asks whether the designated agent could be a lawyer and the commercial affairs of the company handled through a trading company. Title 49, CFR, subsection 551.45 (copy enclosed), provides that a manufacturer offering to import a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment into the United States must designate "a permanent resident of the United States" as the importer's agent:
We read your question as asking whether PTE can have more than one resident agent, one to receive service of legal process and the other to conduct PTE's commercial business. The agent can be a lawyer (many are), but subsection 551.45 does not require that the agent be a lawyer. As quoted above, the agent can be an individual, firm, or domestic corporation. Thus, a U.S. trading company or any other U.S. firm or corporation can act as the resident agent. Although Part 551.45 does not prohibit designation of more than one agent or the designation of different agents for specific purposes, that is not recommended since it could cause confusion and cause your representatives to miss notifications or response dates. On the other hand, one agent can have many duties, including receiving service of legal process, marketing, distribution, and all other company activities in the United States. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
|
ID: Part 574- TIN font - Weinstein-ContinentalOpenKenneth N. Weinstein Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Dear Mr. Weinstein: This letter responds to your request on behalf of Continental AG and its affiliate companies (Continental) for approval of the use of the G006 print type in tire identification numbers, pursuant to Note 3 of Figure 1 in 49 CFR 574.5. NHTSA is granting your request. Note 1 of Figure 1 of 49 CFR 574.5 states that the tire identification number, which must appear on every new and retreaded tire, will be in the following fonts: Futura Bold, Modified Condensed or Gothic. However, Note 3 states that other print types will be permitted if approved by NHTSA. On behalf of Continental, you seek approval of a print type known as G006, which you state is very close to Futura Condensed. You have provided examples of both the G006 print type and Futura Condensed for our review. In the final rule establishing Part 574 (35 FR 17257, November 10, 1970), NHTSA explained that the reason for specifying only four print types which would be acceptable without advance agency approval was to ensure that the information would be easily readable by all people. The G006 print type that you have submitted is easily readable and thus satisfies our concerns. Accordingly, NHTSA approves use of the G006 print type. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Dated: 12/19/14 Ref: Part 574 |
2014 |
ID: nht95-3.62OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 28, 1995 FROM: T. J. Sommer -- President, White Bear Sales TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO T. J. SOMMER (SEC. 30162(a)(6); A43; REDBOOK 2) TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson, I was directed to you for information regarding the legality of licensing four wheel all-terrain vehicles. White Bear Sales Inc. is the U.S. distributor of a three wheel police vehicle classified as a "motorcycle" by the DOT, CARB and EPA. Our vehicle is street legal and licensable and has been emission certified. The City of Chicago Police Dept. is using a number of four wheel all terrain vehicles for patrol work within the downtown area. These vehicles have been issued Illinois State license plates and the officers are using them on public roadways. We believe that these vehicles are illegal to use on the streets. The City of Chicago is placing their employees at high risk by allowing officers to operate this unit on their routes. The director of Chicago's fleet asked me to compile all federal def initions and statutes which apply to the quad runners, regarding classification, certification, and compliance for street use. Would you direct me to this information or send me a copy of the statute(s) that apply to licensing (or proof that it is not licensable) for this type of vehicle? We would appreciate any pertinent information regarding this topic. Phone: 414-466-6868 Fax: 414-466-6936 Thank you in advance for your help. |
|
ID: nht95-5.41OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 28, 1995 FROM: T. J. Sommer -- President, White Bear Sales TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO T. J. SOMMER (SEC. 30162(a)(6); A43; REDBOOK 2) TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson, I was directed to you for information regarding the legality of licensing four wheel all-terrain vehicles. White Bear Sales Inc. is the U.S. distributor of a three wheel police vehicle classified as a "motorcycle" by the DOT, CARB and EPA. Our vehicle is street legal and licensable and has been emission certified. The City of Chicago Police Dept. is using a number of four wheel all terrain vehicles for patrol work within the downtown area. These vehicles have been issued Illinois State license plates and the officers are using them on public roadways. We believe that these vehicles are illegal to use on the streets. The City of Chicago is placing their employees at high risk by allowing officers to operate this unit on their routes. The director of Chicago's fleet asked me to compile all federal definitions and statutes which apply to the quad runners, regarding classification, certification, and compliance for street use. Would you direct me to this information or send me a copy of the statute(s) that apply to licensing (or proof that it is not licensable) for this type of vehicle? We would appreciate any pertinent information regarding this topic. Phone: 414-466-6868 Fax: 414-466-6936 Thank you in advance for your help. |
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.