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: aiam3550OpenMr. John A. Pachuta, Director, Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations, Department of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA 17123; Mr. John A. Pachuta Director Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations Department of Transportation Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg PA 17123; Dear Mr. Pachuta: This is in reply to your letter of March 8, 1982, asking the curren status of three-wheeled motor vehicles under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; As you know from my letter of November 24, 1976, to HM Vehicles, a cop of which you enclosed, three-wheeled motor vehicles are classified as 'motorcycles' under the standards. Obviously the configuration of a three-wheeled enclosed vehicle differs greatly from that of the two-wheeled machine that comes to mind when the word 'motorcycle' is mentioned. As my 1976 letter indicates, the agency was seeking a more realistic regulatory scheme for three- wheeled vehicles, for obviously our motorcycle standards were written with two-wheeled vehicles in mind. But because three- wheeled vehicles did not comprise a significant part of the market, the agency decided that its priorities in motor vehicle safety lay elsewhere, no change in the definition of 'motorcycle' was ever adopted, and it still encompasses three-wheeled vehicles.; You have also asked whether a three-wheeled vehicle can be registere and inspected as a passenger car. Under the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), Pennsylvania is bound to treat three-wheeled vehicles as 'motorcycles' in those areas that are covered by Federal safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Further, it may apply its own motorcycle standards in areas not covered by Federal standards. This means, for example, that Pennsylvania could not require a three-wheeled vehicle to have two headlamps since one is adequate under our Safety Standard 108. On the other hand, Pennsylvania could require a backup lamp device since Standard No. 108 contains no such requirement for motorcycles. Thus, it would seem that Pennsylvania should register and inspect these vehicles as motorcycles to the extent possible.; PAGE 2 WAS INADVERTENTLY MISSING FROM ORIGINAL |
|
ID: aiam4295OpenMr. James E. Campbell, 2719 So. 29th Street, Ft. Pierce, FL 33450; Mr. James E. Campbell 2719 So. 29th Street Ft. Pierce FL 33450; Dear Mr. Campbell: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1986, in which you hav asked the following question:; 'If someone has a patent on an invention, as in the case of the tur signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A. make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to that invention, or does he lose those rights once it becomes mandatory?'; The answer to your question is that rights given under a patent issue by the United States Patent Office cannot be divested by the actions of a governmental agency such as the N.H.T.S.A. Were we to require that a patented item of equipment be standard on all passenger cars, the patent holder would retain all rights. However, it is important that you understand that the agency does not mandate the adoption of equipment of a proprietary nature. By law, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are defined as minimum standards for motor vehicle *performance*, to the extent practicable the standards specify performance requirements to be met (*e.g.*, no more than 5 ounces of fuel spillage in the first 5 minutes following a 30 mph frontal barrier collision), leaving the design solution to the manufacturer who may incorporate proprietary components if he chooses.; The performance requirements of our standards vary in their degree o specificity. In some instances the agency has had to develop fairly specific requirements to ensure uniformity and interchangeability of replacement equipment items such as brake hoses, tires, and lighting equipment. This can increase the likelihood of the incorporation of proprietary elements. Many of the changes which are made to the standard are made in response to petitions from manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. This is especially true in the area of motor vehicle lighting which is covered by Standard No. 108. In some instances, a petitioner may request a change which incorporates specifications which are covered by a patent. In these cases, the agency endeavors to insure that the technology is made available on a non-exclusive royalty-free basis to all who wish to use it before amending the standard.; I hope that this answers you question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1097OpenMr. Louis C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activities Staff, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. Louis C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1972, concerning th effect of Standard 215 on optional bumper guards. You have asked us to interpret the standard as permitting the removal of such guards during the pendulum tests.; We do not consider the standard as it presently stands to permit bumpe guards or other attachments (other than trailer hitches for which direct relief is given in S6.1.5) to be removed for testing. The standard requires the vehicle to meet the standard in its as-delivered condition, without any reference to bumpers or other specific components. Considering your inquiry as a petition for rulemaking to allow bumper guards that do not conform to the standard, we find such rulemaking action inadvisable on the basis of our present information, for the following reasons.; 1. There is no definition of 'bumper guard', and it would be difficul to formulate one with precision, so that the standard would be vague and unobjective as to what is permitted or prohibited.; 2. If the bumper guard were undefined, it could be hostile both t pedestrians and to other vehicles. Yet if it were defined, it is difficult to see how a configuration significantly different from that required by Standard 215 could be justified.; 3. Standard 215 was carefully drafted, with a great deal of usefu exchange of ideas between industry, other members of the public, and the NHTSA, to require a front and rear configuration that would provide a reasonably uniform protective surface, and good inter-vehicle matching, without an unreasonable cost penalty. To allow these surfaces to be covered with an undefined 'bumper guard' would destroy the uniformity that is at the heart of the standard.; 4. We have no concrete evidence at this time that a substantia aftermarket in bumper guards would spring up. With bumpers that are protective and uniform in height, it might well be that the public will resist altering their vehicles at extra expense to degrade the uniformity of the vehicles as manufactured.; On the basis of the information that we presently have, therefore, you request for the exemption of optional bumper guards from the requirements of Standard 215 is denied. You are welcome, however, to submit further detailed information as to the costs and benefits that would be involved in such an action.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Acting Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3100OpenMr. Daniel I. Borovik, Director of Development and Planning, Essex Group, Wire Assembly Division, 6233 Concord Avenue, Detroit, MI 48211; Mr. Daniel I. Borovik Director of Development and Planning Essex Group Wire Assembly Division 6233 Concord Avenue Detroit MI 48211; Dear Mr. Borovik: This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1979, asking whethe 'trailer warning lamps [should] flash or be steady-burning' when the towing vehicle's hazard warning system is actuated and the service brakes are applied.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require trailer to be equipped with hazard warning signal lamps, and you may design your trailer tow electrical package without reference to it. Lack of Federal regulation in this area, however, means that each State may set its own requirements, and you should ascertain whether such exist before finalizing your design.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1428OpenMr. David E. Martin, Manager, Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. David E. Martin Manager Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Martin: This is in further reply to your letter of November 19, 1974 petitioning the NHTSA to amend Part 567, Certification (S 567.4(f)), to allow the use of certification labels on which the lettering is embossed or engraved without regard to whether it contrasts with its background.; The NHTSA has decided that your petition should be denied. Ou experience has been that certain types of engraving, those that are stencil- types or stamped, are difficult to read without color contrast. The NHTSA considers it essential that certification labels be readable under all lighting conditions, and has not found embossing or engraving to product by themselves sufficiently readable lettering for these labels. Of course, there is no prohibition against embossing or engraving if the finished lettering contrasts with its background.; We appreciate your point that Standard No. 105a accepts embossed o engraved lettering on the master cylinder reservoir label without requiring a color contrast. We are presently considering amending Standard No. 105a to eliminate this discrepancy.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3415OpenMr. Roy Littlefield, Director, Government Relations, National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc., 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Roy Littlefield Director Government Relations National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association Inc. 1343 L Street N.W. Washington DC 20005; Dear Mr. Littlefield: This responds to your March 27, 1981, letter to Mr. Kratzke of m staff. In your letter, you requested a clarification of a statement in my March 11, 1981, letter to Mr. Harry Shirai, concerning the importing of used tires into this country. Specifically, I had indicated that one means by which used tires could legally be imported into the United States would be for the tires to be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, met the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119). You have asked for more information on what steps would have to be taken to ensure that the imported tires complied with all of the requirements for this alternative.; Since receiving your letter, this agency has re-examined this subject We recognize the severe supply problems facing the industry at this time and the possibly grave adverse price effects on consumers if such shortages are not eliminated. Bearing in mind the serious safety concerns which are involved, the agency has concluded that precedents exist for another alternative solution that would achieve the desired result without compromise of safety.; Used tires imported for retreading are unquestionably 'pneumati tires,' as that term is defined in Standard 109. They cannot, however, legally be used on the public highways, since the tread on casings is almost always well under 2/32 of an inch. The use of tires with such minimal tread on trucks in interstate commerce is prohibited by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR S 393.75(c)) and would violate this agency's specifications for State vehicle inspection standards (49 CFR S 570.9(a) and 49 CFR S 570.62(a)). Hence, the majority of States would not certify a vehicle as passing inspection with these tires and trucks with these tires cannot be used in interstate commerce.; Further, it is important to examine the intent of the importers o these tires.; According to the representations made by your organization and som individual members, it is our understanding that these tires would be imported solely for retreading purposes. In other words, these casings are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment (retreaded truck tires), rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). Objective proof of this intent can be found in the fact that significant numbers of used foreign truck tires were imported into this country between 1975 and 1980, yet this agency has no information indicating that these tires, which did not meet the requirements of Standard 119, were used or sold without being retreaded.; Based on these considerations, we conclude that truck tire casing which have less than 2/32 inch tread and which are imported, introduced into interstate commerce, offered for sale or sold solely for the purpose of retreading are not 'items of motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of that Act. Precedent for the use of such criteria is found in action by the agency in 1969 when it decided that mini-bikes were not 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That decision was made because mini-bikes were prohibited from highway use in the vast majority of the States, and because the manufacturers' subject intent, proven by several objective factors, was not to build vehicles for use on the public roads (34 FR 15416, October 3, 1969).; As you know, there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truc tires. I urge you to stress to your members the need to assure the soundness of the casings used for retreading, so that no safety problems arise from retreading these tires. Should such a problem arise, this agency would consider rulemaking to establish a safety standard for retreaded truck tires, as well as exercising its authority with regard to items containing a safety-related defect.; Should you have any questions on the actual mechanics of importin these casings, and the duties which would be applicable, I suggest that you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U.S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20229. He can be reached at (202) 566-8651.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1582OpenMr. Zenjiro Hase,Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.,9, I-chome, Nishiyabushitacho,Nishiku, Nagoya, Japan; Mr. Zenjiro Hase Toyoda Gosei Co. Ltd. 9 I-chome Nishiyabushitacho Nishiku Nagoya Japan; Dear Mr. Hase:#This responds to your August 8, 1974, question whethe the effective date of Standard No. 106-74, *Brake hoses*, is September 1, 1974, for hose (and fittings) and March 1, 1975, for hose assemblies.#Your interpretation is correct. The standard requires conforming hose (and fittings) as of September 1, 1974. It requires conforming assemblies (including the label band) only on March 1, 1975, and thereafter.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1078OpenMr. Arthur H. Davis, RFD 2, Box 174A, Bangor, ME 04401; Mr. Arthur H. Davis RFD 2 Box 174A Bangor ME 04401; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in reply to your letter which we received April 5, 1973, whic asks if you, as a dealer of tires, may register all new and retreaded tires sold to first purchasers on a single form and send that form to a tire registry service.; Under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CF Part 574) dealers selling cars to first purchasers must record the sale and forward the required information to the manufacturer or his designee. Therefore, you can only record all the tire sales from various manufacturers and retreaders on a registry service form if that registry service is the designee of all of the manufacturers and retreaders whose tires you sell.; For your information we have enclosed a copy of the Tire Identificatio and Record Keeping regulation (Notice No. 5) and a copy of an interpretation of the regulation dealing with the question of manufacturers' designees (Notice No. 10).; Thank you for your interest in auto safety. Sincerely, David Schmeltzer, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4780OpenMr. Roman L. Cepeda P.O. Box 3571 Agana, Guam 96910; Mr. Roman L. Cepeda P.O. Box 3571 Agana Guam 96910; Dear Mr. Cepeda: This is in reply to your letter of July 24, l990, t Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency. You wish to import 8 to 12 stainless steel parts. After importation, the parts would be put together to form a Jeep body. Ultimately, an engine, chassis, and all other parts, which are from Guam, would be added to form a completed motor vehicle. You have asked for confirmation that 'the stainless steel jeep body is not a motor vehicle and is not required to meet any provision of the U.S. 49 CFR Part 400 to 999.' Apparently, you are having a misunderstanding with Guam Customs on this point. We are pleased to provide confirmation of your interpretation. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the stainless steel body parts that you describe. This means that you may import them, as individual body parts, into Guam without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Under 49 CFR 591.5(i)(2), the appropriate declaration for entry is that they were manufactured on a date when no Federal motor vehicle safety standards were in effect that applied to them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3045OpenMr. R. G. Clifton, Manager, Tyre Legislation, Dunlop Limited, Tyre Technical Division, Fort Dunlop, Birmingham, England B24 9QT; Mr. R. G. Clifton Manager Tyre Legislation Dunlop Limited Tyre Technical Division Fort Dunlop Birmingham England B24 9QT; Dear Mr. Clifton: This is in response to your letter of May 8, 1979, requesting a exemption from the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), Federal motor vehicle safety standard 109 (49 CFR 571.109), and the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Part 574 (49 CFR Part 574) for several lines of 'antique' tires.; Dunlop's petition for exemption does not qualify as a petition fo temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards under Part 555 (49 CFR Part 555), since that part applies only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. However, the regulations you refer to apply only to tires for use on vehicles manufactured after 1948 (49 CFR 575.104(c)), (sic)49 CFR 571.109, S2, 49 CFR 574.4), and therefore, many of the tires listed in your letter are not within the scope of these regulations. Also, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration plans to issue in the near future a notice of proposed rulemaking to exclude limited production tires from the application of the UTQG Standards, regardless of the tire's intended use.; You also asked that some form of labeling system be adopted for tire which are not required to be graded under the UTQG regulation, to facilitate processing of such tires by United States customs authorities. Regulations governing importation of motor vehicle equipment (19 CFR 12.80) only require compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Any tire marked with the DOT symbol as required by Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109, S4.3.1) or Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119, S6.5(a)), as applicable, or which is not required to comply with such standards, will be processed expeditiously by customs authorities, and the question of compliance with the UTQG regulation should not arise. While NHTSA does not consider it necessary to impose a labeling system for tires excluded from the UTQG Standard, the agency has no objection to voluntary labeling by manufacturers or importers.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
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.