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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam0551OpenMs. Reva B. Fuhrmann, Bookkeeper, Pioneer Machinery, Inc. 1725 Silverton Road, N.E., Salem, OR 97303; Ms. Reva B. Fuhrmann Bookkeeper Pioneer Machinery Inc. 1725 Silverton Road N.E. Salem OR 97303; Dear Ms. Fuhrmann: In your letter of September 15, 1972, you ask for clarification of th records that Pioneer Machinery, Inc., as a manufacturer and installer of truck hoists and racks, is required to keep.; There are several regulations issued by the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration that could apply to Pioneer. The first of these is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. Under this regulation manufacturers of vehicles and equipment to which a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies must file certain information with the NHTSA. Although Pioneer may not manufacture equipment subject to a standard, it could be a final-stage manufacturer, as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, and subject to both these regulations. I enclose a copy of each. If Pioneer determines it is a 'final-stage manufacturer' then it would also be subject to the obligations of Part 568 (S 568.6) and the requirements of Part 567 (S 567.5) *Certification*, copy enclosed.; If Pioneer is a 'final-stage manufacturer,' it must file quarterl reports of production figures pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, (S 573.5 (b)) *Defect Reports*. I have also enclosed a copy of this regulation for your review.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2079OpenMr. Byron Crampton, Truck Body and Equipment Association, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1210, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron Crampton Truck Body and Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1210 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This responds to your September 8, 1975, question whether trucks tha carry specialized equipment (such as emergency medical equipment, fire fighting apparatus, or mobile power generator equipment), would qualify for exclusion from Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, if they are geared down or governed so that their speeds attainable in two miles are not more than 45 mph. You state that each vehicle's empty weight is more than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).; The section of Standard No. 121 that lists the vehicles to which th standard applies reads as follows:; >>>S3. *Applicability*. . . . In addition, the standard does not appl to any trailer whose unloaded vehicle weight is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR, or any vehicle that meets any one of criteria (a) through (d) as follows:; . . .(d)(1) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 45 mph and; (2) An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of th vehicle GVWR, and; (3) No passenger-carrying capacity. << |
|
ID: aiam0044OpenMr. Arnold Hosbach, Ander-BTT Incorporated, East Tawas, MI 48730; Mr. Arnold Hosbach Ander-BTT Incorporated East Tawas MI 48730; Dear Mr. Hosbach: We are in receipt of your letter dated November 30, 1967, forwarded t us through the Michigan Department of State Police.; This letter is in answer to your inquiry as to whether your mobile hom or trailer house is required to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. From the brief description of your product we would state that your vehicle would fall into the category of the multi-purpose passenger vehicle.; Enclosed is a copy of the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standards. Your attention is directed to Subpart B. This section indicates those safety standards which multi-purpose passenger vehicles are required to comply with.; Also enclosed is a notice published in the Federal Register date November 1, 1967, stating the Certification Requirement effective January 1, 1968.; If we can provide additional information, please feel free to contac this office.; Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis; |
|
ID: aiam2583OpenMs. Lea Jenny, Administrator, Senate Transportation Committee, 431 Capitol Building, Salem, OR 97310; Ms. Lea Jenny Administrator Senate Transportation Committee 431 Capitol Building Salem OR 97310; Dear Ms. Jenny: Permit me to comment upon Oregon House Bill 2998 which I understand i to be considered by the Transportation Committee of the Oregon Senate on June 3, 1977.; The Bill would amend ORS 483.404 to require that headlamps on moto vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or; >>>'...the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption of Approva and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts, done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both.'<<<; Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392 (a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for headlamps both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles. Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d); >>>'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, *no State* or political subdivision of a State *shall have any authority* either *to establish*, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment *any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard*.' [Emphasis added.]<<<; The United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by th Canadian Standards Association, permit the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000, and do not require that they be mechanically aimable. Standard 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and requires that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, do not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that if House Bill 2998 is enacted in its present form the language that I quoted from it would, in our opinion, be preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect. This means also that any person in Oregon manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States a headlamp that did not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon House Bill 2998 were it to be enacted, would be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A) in an amount up to $800,000 (15 U.S.C. 1393 (a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)).; Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariabl upheld. (See *e.g. Chrysler Corp v. Malloy*, 294 F. Supp 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), *Chrysler Corp v. Tofany*, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)) We would also observe that the interpretation of the preemption language by this agency, as the administering agency, has been viewed by courts as 'of controlling weight.' (*Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in *Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra*, at 512.); If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad t assist you (202-426-9511).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5246OpenFrau Margret Schmock von Ohr Robert Bosch GmbH FAX 07121/35-1792; Frau Margret Schmock von Ohr Robert Bosch GmbH FAX 07121/35-1792; "Dear Frau Schmock: This responds to your FAX of July 9, 1993, t Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a further interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to reflex reflectors. In your earlier FAX, you asked whether it is permissible to have an amber painted reflex reflector lens, and the conditions under which it is permissible to have it painted. We informed you that the amber painted reflex reflector lens is permissible provided that the front reflex reflector assembly meets all requirements of Standard No. 108 including the referenced SAE J594f. You ask now whether 'the combination plastic + paint' has to meet SAE J576c, pointing out that the outdoor exposure test requires a period of three years. You also ask whether it is sufficient to have only the plastic material (without paint) tested, and if it is not sufficient, the means by which you may get an exemption from the rule. S5.1.2(c) of Standard No. 108 requires that, after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors shall meet the appearance requirements of paragraph 4.2.2 of SAE J576c. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J576c indicates that the plastic materials are to be tested with the colors that will be employed in their end use. We understand that Bosch is not the manufacturer of the plastic materials but is simply the entity that fabricates the reflex reflectors from the plastic materials. Your customer, in turn, will install these reflectors until December 1993 as original equipment on its motor vehicles. We have found, under Standard No. 108, that the manufacturer of the plastic materials advises the lamp manufacturer that, if used in the manner specified by the materials manufacturer, the plastic materials supplied to be incorporated into lamps will perform in accordance with the requirements of SAE J576c for plastic materials. The manufacturer of the materials should provide Bosch with such assurances of compliance with SAE J576c as Bosch deems suitable to support its own assurances in turn to the vehicle manufacturer, enabling the vehicle manufacturer to certify that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is no legal requirement that the plastics manufacturer conduct an actual 3-year test in order to provide Bosch with these assurances. Because our temporary exemption procedures involve a process of three to four months duration, and are not retroactive in applicability, there appears to be no feasible way to consider an exemption. You have asked that this request be treated 'as a confidential business information.' We are unable to do so in this instance because our interpretations are a matter of public record, and the matters discussed herein cannot be separated from our earlier interpretation which has been made available to the public. However, we have removed your name from the copy of this letter that will be publicly available. Furthermore, Taylor Vinson has removed the name of your customer from the publicly available copy of the earlier interpretation, in accordance with the concern you expressed to him in a phone call, and we believe that this meets the intent of your request. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2429OpenMr. Jackson Decker, Chief Product Engineer, E. D. Etnyre & Company, 200 Jefferson Street, Oregon, IL 61061; Mr. Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer E. D. Etnyre & Company 200 Jefferson Street Oregon IL 61061; Dear Mr. Decker: This is in belated response to your letters of June 22, 1976 concerning the availability of NHTSA interpretation letters and the assignment by vehicle manufacturers of Gross Axle Weight Ratings.; Letters written by this agency that interpret the Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standards or accompanying regulations are regularly compiled by standard or regulation number and placed in a public file (the 'redbooks') in the Docket Section at Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. Copies of these letters are distributed informally by various trade associations, as you have noted. However, there is currently no subscription service available directly from the NHTSA. I recommend that you periodically (bimonthly, perhaps) telephone the Docket Section (202 426-2768) to find out whether entries have recently been made in the Redbooks under the standards and regulations that are of particular concern to you.; You have also asked several questions concerning the relationshi between an axle's Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) and the overloading of that axle when the vehicle is in use. GAWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as; >>>the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.<<<; It is thus a rating assigned by the manufacturer at the time o manufacture. A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably forseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect. Such a vehicle would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1392 *et seq*.).; We cannot prescribe specific steps that a vehicle manufacturer mus take to ensure that a GAWR would not be found so low that it would be a safety-related defect. For example, if a warning in the owner's manual against loading in a certain manner is likely to be ignored, then such a warning would not, by itself, be sufficient. The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0414OpenMr. David A. Phelps, Jr., Group Supervisor, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. David A. Phelps Jr. Group Supervisor Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps:#This is in reply to your letter of July 7 askin whether paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 101 requires labeling of 'a heater water valve near the floor in the driver's area.'#As you know, Standard No. 101 requires identification of heating and air conditioning controls that are manually operable and mounted in a location other than on the floor. Your heater water valve is manually operable and not floor mounted, and it is our opinion that Standard No. 101 requires its identification. This agency published an interpretation on May 4, 1971, copy enclosed (see p. 8297), in response to a query from Ford 'whether controls visible to the driver but not in the normal forward line of sight must be identified.' We replied in the affirmative that although controls may be 'designed to be operable by touch, their function is not clear to an operator unfamiliar with the vehicle in which they are installed, and their identification is necessary.' For the same reason paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 101 requires identification of your heater water valve control.#Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4904OpenMr. Jt Covelli President Jt Covelli Marketing & Media 5501 Tolman Terrace Madison, WI 53711; Mr. Jt Covelli President Jt Covelli Marketing & Media 5501 Tolman Terrace Madison WI 53711; "Dear Mr. Covelli: This responds to your recent undated letter t Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to whether Federal law allows the use of decals on center highmounted stop lamps. You report that Wisconsin has no law governing the use of a decal on the brake light. THe subject is a complicated one under Federal law, but I shall try to explain it as simply as possible. There is no restriction under Federal law on the application of a decal to the center stop lamp, if the decal is placed there by the vehicle owner. Center stop lamps were not required on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, and there are no Federal restrictions upon application of decals to lamps on pre-l986 model cars that may have been retrofitted with them. With respect to application of the decal on the center lamp of a passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985, Federal law prohibits the application a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop, either before or after its sale to the first owner, if the application of the decal creates a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting. Conversely, such application is permitted if the lamp remains in compliance with all applicable Federal requirements with the decal installed. For example, the Federal standard calls for a minimum 'effective projected luminous area' of 4 l/2 square inches. Application of a decal to a lamp meeting the minimum area requirement would reduce the effective projected luminous area below 4 1/2 square inches, creating a noncompliance. On the other hand, if that area were large enough, and more than 4 1/2 square inches of it remained after the application of a decal, application of the decal would not create a noncompliance with the luminous area specification. The standard also calls for measurement of photometric performance at certain specified test points on the lamp. Obviously, the lamp must continue to provide the minimum photometric performance specified by the standard for those test points with the decal applied. Thus, whether application of a decal by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop creates a noncompliance is dependent upon the size of the lamp and the size, lettering, and transparency of the decal. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5616OpenMr. Charles Holmes 198 Holly Circle Gulfport, MS 39501; Mr. Charles Holmes 198 Holly Circle Gulfport MS 39501; "Dear Mr. Holmes: This responds to your letter asking about Federa requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company. In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your son in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand 'over the door handle... and was tring sic to hold on and the door came open.' You ask several questions relating to requirements for 'a safety lock' for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have 'safety locks.' Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 establishes certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold 'new' to the rental company. Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a 'safety lock.' Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to disable the outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install 'child safety locks' on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the 'unlocked' position. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA. Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a 'rental vehicle.' The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a 'truck' under our regulations, regardless of whether it is a rental vehicle. Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action. Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accident and where there were no fatalities or injuries. I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0947OpenMr. F. S. Murley, Administrative Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Post Office Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. F. S. Murley Administrative Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation Post Office Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Murley: This is in reply to your letter of January 4, 1973, in which you as for our confirmation of your interpretation of Part 567 and Part 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations that would place the responsibility for certification on the user in those instances where he is the final-stage manufacturer.; Paragraph 567.5 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifies that '. . . each final-stage manufacturer, . . . of a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages shall affix to each vehicle a label . . . .' Therefore, end users who are also manufacturers would be required to affix the label.; If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle 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.