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: aiam5099OpenHerr O. Schmidt Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany; Herr O. Schmidt Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany; Dear Herr Schmidt: This responds to your letter of November 20, 1992 to Richard L. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Please address your future requests for interpretation to the Chief Counsel. You have asked for confirmation that the requirement that a center highmounted stop lamp 'provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools' does not exclude sealed lamps 'where long life light sources like long life bulbs, LED's and neon tubes are provided.' We are pleased to provide the confirmation you request. Although the agency has used the term 'the bulb', the term is not meant to exclude more than one bulb, or a light source other than a bulb, for the center lamp. Sealed units (entire lamps) are permissible as long as such a lamp is replaceable without the use of special tools. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1873OpenMr. Byron Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975 inquiring whethe a State may require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In your phone conversation of March 28 with Mr. Robert Donin of this office you indicated that the vehicle in question was an ambulance outfitted with a raised roof designed to enable medical personnel to stand inside. The raised top increases the height of the vehicle to 9 feet. You stated that although you could not identify the specific State statute involved, it was your understanding that Virginia requires clearance lights near the top of all vehicles over 7 feet in height. The law to which you apparently were referring is Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265. A copy is enclosed. It states in part:; >>>(a) All motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers exceeding seve feet in height or in width or the widest portion of which extends four inches beyond the front fender extremes shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand front top corners of such vehicle, each of which lamps shall be capable of projecting an amber light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front of such vehicle, and shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand rear top corners of such vehicle, each of which lights shall be capable of projecting a red light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle,; (b) In addition to the lamps required herein, each such vehicle shal be equipped with amber reflectors located on the side thereof, at or near the front. Red reflectors shall be used on the rear of each such vehicle. Such reflectors shall be securely fastened to the vehicle not less than twenty-four inches and not more than sixty inches from the ground, provided that in the case of a vehicle which is less than twenty-four inches in height such reflectors shall be securely fastened thereto at the highest point the structure of the vehicle will permit. The reflectors required therein shall be of a type that have been approved by the Superintendent.<<<; It is important to note that the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code als provides in S 46.1-267:; >>>No motor vehicle shall be operated on any highway which is equippe with any lighting device other than lamps required or permitted in this article or required or approved by the Superintendent or required by the Federal Department of Transportation.<<<; As you may know, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392*d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect safety standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical. By virtue of this provision, the Federal government is said to 'preempt' the field of regulation with respect to any aspect of performance for which there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.; The key question, therefore, is whether Federal Standard No. 108 an Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265 regulate the same 'aspect of performance.' If so, Virginia may not apply its requirement unless the Federal and Virginia requirements are identical. From a comparison of the two laws, it is evident that both address the same aspect of performance and that they are not identical:; >>>Both the Federal and Virginia laws apply to ambulances. An ambulanc is a multipurpose passenger vehicle, under Federal Standard No. 108 and a 'motor vehicle' under Virginia Code 46.1- 265.; Both laws require that the vehicle be equipped with lights at certai specified locations to facilitate recognition of its dimensions.; The configuration and color of the lights required by the two law differ.<<<; Consequently, Federal Standard No. 108 is preemptive, and to the exten that they differ from the Federal requirements the State clearance lamp and reflector requirements quoted are void. The language of Virginia Code S 46.1-267, to the effect that lighting devices may conform to Virginia *or* Federal standards, is incorrect.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5133OpenMr. Harry Cameron Safety, Ltd. 31W651 North Ave. Dupage Airport West Chicago, IL 60185; Mr. Harry Cameron Safety Ltd. 31W651 North Ave. Dupage Airport West Chicago IL 60185; "Dear Mr. Cameron: This responds to your letter of November 23, 199 requesting information on 'the procedure to obtain certification for the repair and recertification of motor vehicle passenger restraints to comply with DOT 206-3206.' When you were contacted by Mary Versailles of my staff for clarification on what DOT 206-3206 is, you explained that you are also unfamiliar with this requirement but had been told that you had to comply with it. Based on your request, this letter will explain the laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the responsibilities of your company when you repair motor vehicle safety belts by replacing worn or frayed webbing. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 209, Seat belt Assemblies, (49 CFR 571.209) which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new item of motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). If you were manufacturing new seat belt assemblies to replace those with worn or frayed webbing, you would be required to certify that the new assemblies complied with Standard No. 209. If you were installing replacement assemblies, the manufacturer of those assemblies would have certified that the assemblies comply with Standard No. 209. The requirement that an item of motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the item's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the item is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This section would prohibit you from replacing the worn or frayed webbing in a manner that would negatively affect the seat belt assembly's compliance with Standard No. 209. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. We urge you to exercise care when repairing safety belts. The belts you repair will fail to achieve their intended purpose if the webbing breaks or separates from the hardware or vehicle in a crash. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. 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 Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0331OpenLouis Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineer, General Motors Corp., Staff Technical Center, Warren, MI; Louis Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineer General Motors Corp. Staff Technical Center Warren MI; THIS CONFIRMS THAT FINAL DATE FOR FILING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIO ON MULTISTAGE-CERTIFICATION NOTICE AT 36 FR 7054 CORRECTED 6 FR 7855 IS MAY 27, 1971.; LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER, ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL |
|
ID: aiam2619OpenMr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Technical Operations, Timpte, Inc., 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, Colorado 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Technical Operations Timpte Inc. 5990 N. Washington Street Denver Colorado 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to your May 6, 1977 letter asking whether your tir information label complies with the requirements of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, and Part 567, *Certification*. Further, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expedite treatment of Docket No. 73-31, Notice 1, which, if implemented would simplify the certification and information labels.; Concerning Docket 73-31, the NHTSA published on June 20, 1977, a notic (42 FR 31161) implementing Notice 1 which proposed the use of the designation 'all axles' rather than listing each axle individually on the certification label. The implementation of this regulation should resolve many of your problems.; Regarding the sample information label you submitted with your letter the NHTSA does not give advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety regulations or standards. We will, however, giver an informal opinion of whether your label appears to comply with the requirements. The label you submitted does not appear to comply with the requirements of Part 567 or Standard No. 120. I have enclosed copies of both these regulations for your information.; Your certification label should use the designation 'all axles' no 'each axle.' The tire and rim information should follow that designation stated in the form presented in the examples in Standard No. 120 and Part 567.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0624OpenStephen F. Hefner, Esq., Nance, Caston, Hefner and Green, Attorneys at Law, 421 North Crockett Street, Sherman, TX 75090; Stephen F. Hefner Esq. Nance Caston Hefner and Green Attorneys at Law 421 North Crockett Street Sherman TX 75090; Dear Mr. Hefner: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1972, concerning th certification of new trailers which your client manufactures. You state that some of these trailers are shipped (to customers) equipped with used tires that are intended primarily to be used to ship the trailers to their destination, and ask whether these tires should be taken into account in the values for GVWR and GAWR on the certification label.; We do not consider that temporary tires attached to a vehicle fo purposes of shipment should be reflected in the GVWR and GAWR on the certification label, if these tires are not intended to be part of the completed vehicle. consequently, we would expect trailers shipped with such tires to be treated similarly for purposes of certification as vehicles for which no tires have been provided. In such a case, the complete vehicle manufacturer, as indicated in the preamble to the Certification regulations (April 14, 1971, 36 F.R. 2054) must still bear responsibility and certify the vehicle, even though he does not install the tires with which the vehicle will ultimately be equipped. We suggest that one manner in which this could be accomplished by the manufacturer is to list GAWR and GVWR for the optional tire sizes which he recommends in accordance with the amendment to the Certification regulations published December 10, 1971 (35 F.R. 23571). The manufacturer should make it clear to the purchaser of the vehicle that the temporary tires should be replaced when the vehicle is put into use.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1936OpenMr. Don W. Wieriman, TTMA, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Don W. Wieriman TTMA 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Wieriman: This responds to the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association's May 1 1975, request for a determination of what speed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers as 'highway speeds' in establishing gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) under the requirements of 49 CFR S 567.4(g)(3) and (4).; For purposes of GVWR-GAWR calculations, NHTSA will consider 'highwa speeds' to be the 60 mph value used by the United States Tire and Rim Association in assigning unqualified ratings to their tires. Therefore, trailers which are capable of speeds of 60 mph or more should be assigned ratings which reflect vehicle capabilities at 60 mph.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5426OpenMr. John G. Klinge Executive Vice President Visibility Lighting Systems P.O. Box 494 Southport, CT 06490; Mr. John G. Klinge Executive Vice President Visibility Lighting Systems P.O. Box 494 Southport CT 06490; "Dear Mr. Klinge: This responds to your inquiry about whether a warnin light device you manufacture would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR 571.125). Promotional literature accompanying your letter indicates that the 'Lightman' is a flashing, battery operated device that is 3 1/2 inches wide by 1 1/2 inches high. You stated that you plan to market this product as a warning light source for use by truck fleets and commercial auto fleets. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, Congress has authorized this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. NHTSA has no authority to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, Congress has established a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Please note that Standard No. 125 applies to 'devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle.' (Emphasis added, see section S3 of the standard.) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that the phrase 'self-contained energy sources' includes such things as battery powered lights. Accordingly, a warning device which consists of a battery operated flashing light would not be subject to Standard No. 125. In a July 20, 1994 conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you asked about the use of your product by commercial vehicle operators. Please be aware that NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture but not the use of warning devices. As Mr. Shaw explained, you may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate some motor vehicle operators and vehicle operations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2249OpenMr. Dudley E. DeWitt, Manager R&D, Great Dane Trailers, Inc., Lathrop Avenue, P.O. Box 67, Savannah, GA 31402; Mr. Dudley E. DeWitt Manager R&D Great Dane Trailers Inc. Lathrop Avenue P.O. Box 67 Savannah GA 31402; Dear Mr. DeWitt: This responds to Great Dane Trailers' February 23, 1976, letter askin if a trailer equipped with one or more axles that have a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; Section S3. of Standard No. 121 provides in part that any vehicl manufactured before September 1, 1977, that has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the standard. The determination of GAWR is made by the vehicle manufacturer (49 CFR 571.3) and must be based on the capabilities of the axle system at 60 mph. Because the determination is made by the vehicle manufacturer, the NHTSA is unable to say that the components you mention in your letter would necessarily constitute an axle system with a GAWR of 24,000 pounds.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0274OpenMr. Angelo J. Introvigne, Chief Engineer, Cole-Hersee Company, 20 Old Colony Avenue, South Boston, MA 02127; Mr. Angelo J. Introvigne Chief Engineer Cole-Hersee Company 20 Old Colony Avenue South Boston MA 02127; Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location Identification, and *Illumination*#Dear Mr. Introvigne:#This is in reply to your letter of September 2 asking whether a contradiction exists in paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 101. You ask, in essence, whether the requirement in paragraph S4.3 that an illumination adjustment control be provided with an 'off' position contradicts the requirement in the same paragraph that control identification 'shall be illuminated . . . whenever the headlamps are activated.'#It is true that activation of the headlamps will not simultaneously activate control identification illumination if the illumination switch is in the 'off' position. The intent of S4.3 is that control identification shall be illuminated whenever the headlamps are activated and the illumination adjustment control is in a position other than 'off.'#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.