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: aiam4396OpenMr. Sidney A. Garrett, President, Brown Cargo Van Inc., 807 East 29th, Lawrence, KS 66046; Mr. Sidney A. Garrett President Brown Cargo Van Inc. 807 East 29th Lawrence KS 66046; Dear Mr. Garrett: This is in reply to your letter of June 29, 1987, to Taylor Vinson o this office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You state that you are a manufacturer of truck van bodies. With respect to intermediate side marker lamps and reflectors, you state that you are currently 'installing lights on our upper rail and reflectors just above the lower rail'. You have asked whether you are installing lights and reflectors on the front of each side that are unnecessary under current Federal regulations.; The requirements of Standard No. 108 come into effect only when a truc chassis is completed with the addition of the van body. Front side markers and reflectors on a truck must be located as far forward as practicable. This is generally in the front fender area, and not on the front edge of the van body. Thus, we think you are correct in concluding that the front lights and reflectors you install are unnecessary.; You have also asked 'whether compliance with Federal regulation constitutes compliance with the various States' regulations....' As a practical matter, the answer is yes. Under the Act, a State may have its own requirements for the number and location of side marker lamps and reflectors but they must be identical to Federal requirements. Once you comply with the Federal requirements for side marker lamps and reflectors you cannot be in noncompliance with any State requirement that may differ, because the Act prohibits States from having requirements that differ from those of Standard No. 108.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3453OpenMr. Mick W. Blakely, C. F. Liebert, Inc., P. O. Box Drawer L, Blaine, WA 98230; Mr. Mick W. Blakely C. F. Liebert Inc. P. O. Box Drawer L Blaine WA 98230; Dear Mr. Blakely: This responds to your letter of April 7, 1981, concerning 'Oil Wel Service Rigs.' Please accept our apologies for the lateness of our reply. You ask whether NHTSA considers oil well service rigs to be off-road vehicles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safet standards for 'motor vehicles'. Therefore, our regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act). Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle as:; >>>Any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<<; Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects wil use public highways as part of its intended function; Tracked and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not moto vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. aircraft runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles are not considered to be motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of his customers actually would use them on the highway.; Just as clearly, vehicles which use the highway on a necessary an recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work- performing nature and as such their manufacturer contemplate a primary use of the highway. Rigs and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers are examples in this area. Even if the equipment uses highways infrequently, it is considered a motor vehicle on the same basis as is a 'mobile structure trailer' which is often towed only once from the factory to the home site. All these motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such, they are subject to several of the motor vehicle safety standards, and the manufacturer must comply with other regulations in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. (However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the District Court's decision that mobile construction equipment does not fall within the definition of 'motor vehicles' found in section 102(3) of the Act. *Koehring Co. v. Adams*, 452 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Wis. 1978), *aff'd*., 605 F.2d 280 (7th Cir. 1979). The agency construes the opinion to apply only to the specific equipment at issue in *Koehring Co*., i.e. mobile excavators, and mobile well drills.); There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicl classification despite their use of the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicle.; In your letter you state that oil well service rigs were designed fo off road use and use the highways infrequently. You also state that oil well service rigs can travel on the highways only when a special permit has been obtained because the vehicles are oversize. We assume that since a special permit is required for the use of such vehicles on the highway, oil well service rigs cannot travel unescorted on public roads. On the basis of the representations contained in your letter, and the assumptions we have made, we have determined that the oil well service rigs manufactured by Mainland Manufacturing are not 'motor vehicles' for purposes of the Act and Form HS-7. This is because an oil well service rig uses the highways infrequently and is distinguished by its escorts from the normal flow of traffic.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1194OpenMr. John R. Hamm, Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co., 111 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53202; Mr. John R. Hamm Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co. 111 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee WI 53202; Dear Mr. Hamm: This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1973, concerning you dealer's refusal to move back the driver's seat in your new car. I apologize for the delay in our reply.; You state in your letter that adjustment of the seat was made pre-condition of the sale. A dealer who adjusts a seat prior to sale in this fashion will have to be able to certify that the seat, as modified, conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard governing passenger car seats (Standard 207) and to other standards that may be affected by the seat position, such as the seat belt anchorage standard (Standard No.210). A dealer is not prohibited from making changes in the seat so long as the modified seats continue to perform in the manner required by the standard. Often, however, dealers decide not to assume the burdens of certifying modified components and therefore decline to modify such components prior to sale.; The Federal Safety Standards do not apply to motor vehicles after the have been purchased by the consumer. After you purchase the car, the standards do not prevent you from modifying it, even if such modifications affect the ability of the car to meet the standards. If you purchased your car with the seat in its modified position, you can modify it or have the dealer modify it without incurring liability under the standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3003OpenMr. Hisakazu Murakami, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 1606, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632; Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 Englewood Cliffs New Jersey 07632; Dear Mr. Murakami: I regret the delay in responding to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. You asked whether the speedometer face you attached meets the requirements of the standard for the highlighting of the 55 mph on the speedometer face. The answer is 'yes.' The agency interprets 'highlight the number 55' to mean that manufacturers must make the number visually prominent relative to other numbers on the speedometer face. Nissan's speedometer face satisfies this interpretation.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0506OpenMr. Larry Fetter, Ernest Holmes Company, 2505 E. 43rd Street, Chattanooga, TN, 37407; Mr. Larry Fetter Ernest Holmes Company 2505 E. 43rd Street Chattanooga TN 37407; Dear Mr. Fetter: This is in reply to your letter of November 2, 1971, to Mr. Georg Shifflett of my staff, in which you ask questions relating to clearance lamp locations on your wrecker bodies.; I am concerned with your statement that 'there is no record of you department's approval on the clearance lamp corner mounting on the 750 and 850 bodies.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not 'approve' vehicles or equipment subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Conformance, and certification of that fact, are the manufacturer's responsibility under section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. We are glad, however, to provide informal interpretations of the standards when requested to do so by manufacturers such as yourself.; Your first question is, 'Does the (low) location of the rear clearanc lamp meet the position requirements?'. Paragraph S4.3.1.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (effective January 1, 1972), permits a deviation in mounting height: 'When the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle.' Thus, if the identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, Standard No. 108 permits a location of clearance lamps at *any* height less than the extreme height of the vehicle. This does not change the requirement currently in effect (Table II).; Your second question is, 'Does the front clearance lamp location (o the body corner radius) on our 750 and 850 model bodies meet position requirements?'. Standard No. 108 currently requires front clearance lamps to be located 'as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle.' The requirement effective January 1, 1972 is that these lamps be located 'to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . as near the top thereof as practicable.' It appears from the photographs you enclosed that the front clearance lamps should be mounted higher on the body front, unless you have a good reason for determining that it is not 'practicable' to do so.; I trust this will answer your questions. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4816OpenAggie Szilagyi, Esquire Senior Counsel New Jersey State Legislature Office of Legislative Services State House Annex CN-068 Trenton, NJ 08625; Aggie Szilagyi Esquire Senior Counsel New Jersey State Legislature Office of Legislative Services State House Annex CN-068 Trenton NJ 08625; "Dear Ms. Szilagyi: Thank you for your letter on behalf of Senato Ronald L. Rice requesting the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on whether the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (Theft Act)(15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.) would preempt provisions of New Jersey Senate Bill (SB) 3434. I apologize for the delay in this response. It is my understanding that SB 3434 has been reintroduced in this session of the legislature as SB 876. For the reasons described below, it is our opinion that the provisions in the bill for the mandatory antitheft devices on certain car lines would be preempted by the Theft Act. We understand that SB 876 would prohibit the sale or lease of a passenger automobile that is at or over the 'estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price for all passenger automobiles' unless it is equipped with a 'passive anti-theft device' that 'automatically activates upon turning off the motor of a vehicle and causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage.' Violation of this provision would be punishable by a fine. Although the Theft Act contains an explicit preemption provision (15 U.S.C. 2031) for parts marking systems which would not be triggered by SB 876, the bill would nonetheless create an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the overall Congressional objectives embodied in the Theft Act and would therefore be preempted. The objective of the Theft Act was to establish a least-cost antitheft system, with a parts-marking system being the system of choice. The Congress specified a $15-per-car limit for the cost of the system (15 U.S.C. 2024(a)), and made it clear that the alternative of installing antitheft devices was to be at the petition of the manufacturer, under procedures designed to ensure the effectiveness of such devices (15 U.S.C. 2025). SB 876 would not only have the effect of requiring the installation of antitheft devices in vehicles that are marked under the Theft Act, thereby imposing a greater cost on the owners, but could require a vehicle with an antitheft device approved under the Theft Act to be equipped with a second antitheft device if the first device did not operate in the manner prescribed by SB 876. These effects would prevent the accomplishment of the Theft Act's objectives, and would thus satisfy the conditions for general preemption found by the Supreme Court in Hines v.Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) and followed in subsequent cases (Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988), Northwest Central Pipeline Corporation v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas, (109 S. Ct. 1262 (1989)). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0156OpenMr. A. J. Hoffman, Engineering Department, Kentucky Manufacturing Company, P.O. Box 8054 - Station E, 2601 South Third Street, Louisville, KY 40208; Mr. A. J. Hoffman Engineering Department Kentucky Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 8054 - Station E 2601 South Third Street Louisville KY 40208; Dear Mr. Hoffman: Thank you for your letter of April 7, 1969, to Mr. Frank Turner Federal Highway Administrator, concerning your request for a clarification of the requirements of rear lights on Drop Frame Trailers.; In determining compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 108, requirements for tail, stop, and turn signal lamps on this type of vehicle will be predicated on the normal driving, or closed tailgate, position. These lamps should therefore meet the requirements of the referenced SAE Standards in Table I and be mounted per the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108, a copy of which is enclosed.; Thank you for your interest in meeting the intent of the requirement of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2491OpenMr. Tokio Iinuma, Nissan Motor Co., LTD., P.O. Box 1606, 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Tokio Iinuma Nissan Motor Co. LTD. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This will confirm your November 11, 1976, telephone conversation wit Tad Herlihy of this office, concerning the certification label required by 49 CFR Part 567.; On the vehicles in question, the certification labels mistakenl indicated 1977 as the year of manufacture, even though manufacturing was actually completed in 1976. You proposed correcting this error before sale by crossing out the digits '77' and inserting '76' directly below them.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection t certification labels that have been corrected in this manner, provided that all other requirements of the certification regulation are also met.; Sincerely, Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5354OpenMr. Luis Carricaburu South Steering Specialists 18310 S. Dixie Hwy Miami, FL 33157; Mr. Luis Carricaburu South Steering Specialists 18310 S. Dixie Hwy Miami FL 33157; "Dear Mr. Carricaburu: This responds to your letter asking whether i is legal to buy or sell a salvaged air bag which would be used to repair an automobile with a deployed air bag. Your letter explained that the salvaged air bag would be taken from an automobile sent to a recycling yard with its air bag intact. I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so. Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a salvaged air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letters, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been 'rendered inoperative' by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the crash sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system. While great care must be taken in any air bag replacement, the use of a salvaged air bag raises additional safety issues. An air bag may have been rendered inoperable, for example, by damage in a low-speed crash, even if it has not been deployed. We would urge you to contact the vehicle or air bag manufacturer to determine whether and how a salvaged air bag could be inspected and/or tested to ensure that it is fully operable. Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using salvaged air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1317OpenGreg Beck, 1715 Swarr Run Rd., Lancaster, PA 17601; Greg Beck 1715 Swarr Run Rd. Lancaster PA 17601; Dear Mr. Beck: Your letter of October 18, 1973, asks what violations of the Federa odometer laws may have occurred in your purchase of a 1962 Tempest which was misrepresented as a 1964 model.; Misrepresentation of the model year, which appears to be your principa grievance, is not a violation of Federal law but could be a violation of local laws against fraudulent merchandising.; Bill Tillett's failure to give you a disclosure statement may be violation of the Federal odometer disclosure regulation, a copy of which is enclosed. After March 1, 1973, the regulation requires each seller to make a signed, written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage to his purchaser. If he knows the odometer reading is inaccurate, he must also state that the actual mileage is unknown. This statement must be made before the vehicle is sold.; If your seller violated these regulations with fraudulent intent, civil remedy is available to you under S 409 of the Act for $1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain your remedy, S 409 provides that you may bring a private civil action in State or Federal court. You may wish to consult an attorney about the possibility of bringing an action in your case.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.