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: aiam2538OpenMr. R.A. Bynum, Supervisor, Pupil Transportation Service, Commonwealth of Virginia, State Department of Education, Richmond, Virginia 23216; Mr. R.A. Bynum Supervisor Pupil Transportation Service Commonwealth of Virginia State Department of Education Richmond Virginia 23216; Dear Mr. Bynum: This responds to your February 18, 1977, letter asking whether Standar No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, permits the use of a two-passenger front-row seat with a corresponding two-passenger front-row restraining barrier. Secondly, you ask whether the State of Virginia can require the use in joints of discrete fasteners and welding, and not adhesives, without conflicting with the requirements of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Joint Strength*. Finally, you ask who must certify that a vehicle complies with Standard no. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*.; The NHTSA has issued an interpretation allowing the use of two-passenger front-row seat with a two-passenger restraining barrier. This can be accomplished by the use of a two-passenger seat cushion and a three-passenger seat back as you suggest. I am enclosing a copy of the NHTSA interpretation for your information.; Regarding your second question concerning the use of adhesives in a bu body joints, the Federal bus body joint standard requires only that joints meet a specified strength requirement. The NHTSA does not require any particular type of joint construction. Therefore, the purchaser and manufacturer can decide upon any method of joint construction as long as the joint meets Federal strength specifications.; Your final question asks who must certify that a small school bu (under 10, 000 pounds_ is in compliance with Standard No.105, *Hydraulic Brake System*. To assign responsibility for the certification of multi-stage vehicles, NHTSA has issued Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages* (enclosed). The manufacturer of an 'incomple- te-vehicle' (such as a cab-chassis) must provide documentation to the intermediate- and final-stage manufacturer of the vehicle on how to complete it so that it complies with all applicable standards. it is the responsibility of the final-stage manufacturer to affix a certification label unless the incomplete- or intermediate-stage manufacturer assumes this responsibility.; On a related matter concerning small school buses, it is ou understanding that school buses weighing under 10, 000 pounds will be available after April 1, 1977.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0505OpenMr. Richard H. Miehe, Vice President, Engineering, Seats, Inc., 350 N. Dewey, Reedsburg, WI 53959; Mr. Richard H. Miehe Vice President Engineering Seats Inc. 350 N. Dewey Reedsburg WI 53959; Dear Mr. Miebe: This is in reply to your letter of October 4, 1971, in which you aske our opinion as to whether Standard No. 207 permits a suspension type truck seat with fore and aft adjustment to be equipped with seat belt type webbing from the seat to the floor. It is our position that such webbing may be used to provide the strength required by Standard No. 207 and that a seat so equipped must conform to S4.2(c) of the standard (unless, as seems unlikely, the occupant's seat belt is anchored to the floor and not to the seat). Instructions for the adjustment of the seat to floor webbing are essential to the safe operation of such a system, however, and should be provided.; I apologize for any inconvenience that our delayed response may hav caused you.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4815OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; "Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your inquiry concerning th applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, to specific joints attaching the floor and stepwell of a school bus. Your letter included a blueprint of the floor and stepwell structure of a large school bus, and asked whether the joints joining the stepwell to the Number 1 and 2 floor sections of the bus are required to comply with the joint strength requirement of Standard No. 221. Based on the information provided in your letter, I conclude that the joints attaching the floor sections to the stepwell are required to comply with the joint strength requirement contained in S5 of Standard 221. I also conclude that the joints in the stepwell are subject to that requirement. As you are aware, S4 of the Standard defines 'body panel' as: '...a body component used on the exterior or interior surface to enclose the bus' occupant space.' S4 also defines 'body panel joint' as: '...the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, excluding spaces designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, and excluding doors, windows, and maintenance access panels.' S5 of the Standard requires that body panel joints must comply with the strength requirement. The floor panels and stepwells of a bus are body components which come within the definition of body panel, as they serve to enclose the occupant space of the bus. The joints attaching the floor panels to the stepwell are body panel joints, since they represent the area of contact between the edges of a body panel (either a floor panel or the stepwell) and another body component (either the stepwell or a floor panel), and do not represent a space designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, or a door, window, or maintenance access panel. I note that the joints attaching the stepwell to the floor sections are identical to, and in the same horizontal plane as, the joints used elsewhere in the floor assembly. I also note that the stepwell assembly described in your letter is also subject to the joint strength requirement. The various portions of the stepwell serve to enclose the occupant space, and are therefore body components which come within the definition of body panel. Therefore, the joints attaching those portions of the stepwell which enclose the occupant space are body panel joints subject to the requirements of the Standard. Your letter argues that the stepwell joints are exempted from the definition of 'body panel joint' by virtue of their being designed for another functional purpose. You do not, however, state the purpose. I disagree with this assertion. As noted above, S4 of the Standard exempts spaces designed for ventilation or another functional purpose from the definition of body panel joint. The agency's longstanding criterion for determining the applicability of this exemption has been whether the body panel joint in question is considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space. See, March 18, 1977 letter to W.G. Milby (copy attached). In this case, the stepwell clearly has the function of enclosing occupant space. I note that, by enclosing occupant space at a location which provides access to the front door, the stepwell occupies a critical location in relation to an important exit. Because of its location, the integrity of the stepwell in a crash is as important as the integrity of any other component comprising the floor. In addition, you argue that the joints between the floor sections and the stepwell need not comply with S5 because they are below the level of the floor. This argument is based on your interpretation of an April 26, 1976 letter from this office to W.G. Milby at Blue Bird which states that components located entirely below the floor level are not subject to the Standard. That letter did not intend to exclude from the Standard all portions of a bus located below the plane formed by the primary floorline of the bus. The exclusion of those portions below the floor level was instead predicated on the assumption that there is a body panel (i.e., a floor panel) at floor level which encloses the occupant space, and which is located between the occupant space and that portion of the bus excluded from the standard. I note that the floor level of a bus is not a single continuous plane, it is determined at any particular point by the plane of the panel that comprises the floor at that point. Therefore, I do not agree that the stepwell-to-floor panel joints indicated in your letter are below the floor level or are excluded from the standard's joint strength requirements. I hope you have found this information useful. Please do not hesitate to contact J. Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam2168OpenMr. D. L. Haines, Divisional Manager, Quality Assurance, B. F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company, 500 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44318; Mr. D. L. Haines Divisional Manager Quality Assurance B. F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company 500 South Main Street Akron OH 44318; Dear Mr. Haines: This responds to your August 28, 1975, question whether use o compressed air from a trailer air brake system to supply non-brake equipment such as an air suspension would violate the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 121 does not contain prohibition on the use of air pressure from the air brake system for powering auxiliary devices. The vehicle must of course conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of the device, if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. For example, the brake actuation timing would still be required to meet S5.3.3 of the standard.; Although not a requirement of the standard, the NHTSA does consider i appropriate that a pressure protective valve be placed in the line to the auxiliary device so that a rupture of an auxiliary line does not cause depletion of air pressure in the brake system.; With respect to your request for approval of four installations o auxiliary equipment, the NHTSA does not issue approvals of specific designs, and therefore cannot state that vehicles modified in the described fashion would or would not be capable of meeting all requirements of the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0155OpenMr. J. Wuddel, Ing., Westfalische Metall Industrie, Hueck and Company, 4780 Lippstadt, Germany, Federal Republic; Mr. J. Wuddel Ing. Westfalische Metall Industrie Hueck and Company 4780 Lippstadt Germany Federal Republic; Dear Mr. Wuddel: Thank you for your letter of March 22, 1969, requesting a clarificatio of the location requirements for license plate lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; As you indicated, Standard No. 108 currently references SAE Standar J587B and also permits the location of license plate lamps at the top, side or bottom of the license plate. The latest revision of SAE Standard J587 (J587c) is (sic) no way changes the location provision of Standard No. 108. Therefore, a license plate lamp assembly may be tested according to SAE Standard J587b and Standard No. 108 when the license plate is illuminated from the bottom.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 states: 'Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under 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.' Therefore, any State regulations on the location of license plate lamps should be identical to the requirements of Standard No. 108 on and after the effective date of the standard.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2492OpenMr. Robert I. Fleming, President, Fleming Metal Fabricators, 2810 South Tanager Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90040; Mr. Robert I. Fleming President Fleming Metal Fabricators 2810 South Tanager Avenue Los Angeles CA 90040; Dear Mr. Fleming: This is in response to your December 3, 1976, letter concerning th relationship between Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, and the fuel tanks that you manufacture for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.; Standard No. 301- 75 applies to whole vehicles rather than to fue tanks. Therefore, the responsibility under Federal law for compliance with the standard lies with the vehicle manufacturer. He must exercise due care in certifying that the vehicle will, if tested by the NHTSA as specified in S6 and S7 of the standard, meet the fuel spillage requirements set out in S5. What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.; The vehicle manufacturer who installs a fuel tank manufactured by yo may, in order to meet his duty to exercise due care, rely on assurances from you concerning the tank's performance characteristics, to the extent that such reliance is reasonable. Your assurances, in turn, need not necessarily be based on actual crash testing of vehicles equipped with your fuel tanks under the exact conditions prescribed in the standard.; You should both note, of course, that the ability of a vehicle t conform to the standard depends not only on the performance capabilities of the fuel tank itself, but also on other factors including the manner and location in which it is mounted. The fact that your fuel tanks conform with Federal Highway Administration requirements (49 CFR SS393.65 and 393.67), therefore, does not by itself imply that vehicles equipped with such tanks are capable of passing the crash test requirements of Standard No. 301-75.; Similarly, the fact that your company's manufacturing procedures an its mounting and installation instructions conform to established industry practices is not sufficient evidence of due care, unless it is reasonable to conclude from it that the vehicles will conform.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5357OpenMr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Manager of Government Relations Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A. P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana, CA 92799-5252; Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Manager of Government Relations Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A. P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana CA 92799-5252; "Dear Mr. Shetler: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1994 to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. So that we may serve you better in the future, please note that the Office of Chief Counsel is the one to which requests for interpretations should be addressed. You have asked whether the 'proposed application of a projector beam headlamp to a motorcycle' will meet the requirements of Standard No. 108. In this headlamp 'the projector beam (lower beam) is located on the left side and the high beam is on the right side.' You continue by saying that 'the outer lens of the headlamp assembly is symmetrically positioned about the vertical centerline,' and you ask whether the headlamp complies with the requirements of Table IV of Standard No. 108. Table III of Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to have at least one headlamp. Table IV requires the headlamp to be located 'on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline.' The device you describe contains the upper and lower beams in one housing and hence is a single headlamp. Although your projector beam headlamp would be mounted literally on the vertical centerline, the beams provided by the headlamp are located on either side of the centerline and are therefore asymmetrical in relation to the centerline of the motorcycle when either beam is activated. A redesign of the lamp so that its vertical centerline becomes its horizontal centerline and Line A becomes the vertical centerline would be a configuration that meets Table IV since both beams of the single headlamp would then be located on the vertical centerline. SAE J584 does not specify the location of one beam in relation to the other for dual beam motorcycle headlamps, i.e. whether one beam is to be mounted above or below the other. Your second question concerns an interpretation of S5.1.1.23. This paragraph provides an alternative for motorcycles to the headlamps specified by Table III, and allows a motorcycle to be equipped with 'one half of any headlighting system specified in S7 which provides both a full upper beam and full lower beam, and where more than one lamp must be used, the lamps shall be mounted vertically, with the lower beam as high as practicable.' You have asked whether this means that your proposed headlamp 'shall be mounted on the upper half and the high beam shall be on the lower half when using one half of any headlighting system specified in S7,' or 'is our proposed layout in the attachment acceptable?' As I have explained, your proposed layout in the attachment is not acceptable under Table IV without reorientation. The headlighting systems specified in S7 are those intended for four-wheeled motor vehicles (other than trailers). As we understand it, your proposed headlamp has been developed as a headlamp system for motorcycles and not as half of a headlamp system for vehicles other than motorcycles. Because motorcycle photometrics differ from those for vehicle other than motorcycles, your proposed headlamp could not be half of a system specified in S7 which may be used on motorcycles as an alternative to the headlamps specified by Table III. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5438OpenMr. Paul Frink Engineering Manager Avionic Structures, Inc. 1429 North State College Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92806; Mr. Paul Frink Engineering Manager Avionic Structures Inc. 1429 North State College Boulevard Anaheim CA 92806; "Dear Mr. Frink: This responds to your letter and telephone call askin several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (49 CFR 571.206). Your letter stated that your company manufactures a door and frame system designed for installation on a 'recreational motor home,' which you described as a self-propelled, self-contained recreational vehicle seating six and with a gross vehicle weight rating of under 10,000 pounds. The door system is installed on the right front side of the vehicle and is the primary means of ingress/egress. You stated that the door's latch/striker assembly is purchased from Tri-Mark Corporation, and that Tri-Mark assures you that the latch/striker assembly conforms to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. You ask what the classification of the vehicle would be and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply to the door in question. By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The statute establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency ensures compliance by purchasing vehicles and/or equipment in the retail market and testing them as set forth in the applicable standards. If the vehicle or equipment is found to meet the requirements of the standards, no further action is taken. If the vehicle or equipment fails to meet the standards, the manufacturer is responsible for correcting the noncompliance(s) at no cost to the purchaser. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the defect free of charge. For the purposes of the FMVSSs, NHTSA classifies motor vehicles as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers. From your description, the vehicle concerned would be classified as an MPV, which is defined in the definitions section of our FMVSSs (49 CFR 571.3, see enclosed) as a motor vehicle 'designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' You first ask about the classification of the vehicle and whether FMVSS No. 206 would apply. FMVSS No. 206 (copy enclosed) applies to passenger cars, MPVs and trucks. Since the vehicle on which your door and frame system will be installed is an MPV, the standard would apply to the vehicle. The standard requires that, with certain exceptions not applicable here, components on any side door leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating accommodations must comply with the requirements of the standard (see S4 of FMVSS No. 206). The door in question meets this description of S4. According to your letter, there is a step area extending from the door opening into the coach and the passenger seat closest to the door is behind this step area. The presence of the step area does not negate the fact that the door in question leads directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Thus, the components of the door must comply with the requirements of FMVSS 206. To clarify your understanding of the applicability of FMVSS No. 206, the standard applies to new completed vehicles. Therefore, it would be the vehicle manufacturer who would 'certify' compliance with the standard, not the various manufacturers of the components of the door lock system. Sometimes the vehicle manufacturer will rely on the assurances of the suppliers, such as Avionic and Tri-Mark, that the components conform to the requirements of the applicable standards, in making the certification to FMVSS No. 206. However, the vehicle manufacturer is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 206, and therefore must determine whether those assurances are bona fide. Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets issued by this agency entitled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment' and 'Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations,' respectively. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need any additional information or have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam2607OpenMr. T. V. Barlow, BSG International, Britax (Wingard) Limited, Chichester West Sussex PO19 2UG, England; Mr. T. V. Barlow BSG International Britax (Wingard) Limited Chichester West Sussex PO19 2UG England; Dear Mr. Barlow: This responds to your letter of May 5, 1977, requesting clarificatio of the relationship between paragraph S5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*. It is your understanding that Standard No. 216 becomes 'obsolete and ineffective' after August 15, 1977.; Your interpretation is incorrect. Standard No. 216 is a separate independent standard from Standard No. 208 and remains effective in its present form regardless of the amendment of Standard No. 208 according to any of the three alternative proposals issued by Secretary Adams (42 FR 15935, March 24, 1977). Standard No. 216 is applicable to all passenger cars except those that conform to the rollover test requirements of paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by totally passive means.; Under existing Standard No. 208, a manufacturer must meet the rollove requirements of paragraph S5.3 only if he chooses to use option S4.1.2.1 (total passive protection). If the manufacturer chooses this option he can meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 instead of the rollover requirements of S5.3 until August 15, 1977, but not after that date since the alternative then expires. A manufacturer choosing to use either option S4.1.2.2 or option S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208 does not have to meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3, at all. As a manufacturer of seat belts, you are undoubtedly aware that a majority of vehicle manufacturers choose to comply with Standard No. 208 by means of option S4.1.2.3.; If Secretary Adams' Alternative proposal I or Alternative proposal II becomes a final rule, Standard No. 208 will remain in the form just described above. The Secretary's Alternative II (mandatory passive restraints) proposes to make the lateral (S5.2) and rollover (S5.3) requirements of Standard No. 208 optional. A manufacturer would be permitted to use a totally passive system (meeting S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3) or to install lap belts and only meet the requirements of S5.1. If Alternative II were made final, most vehicle manufacturers would probably choose to install lap belts rather than to provide passive protection that would satisfy S5.3. As you noted, Alternative II also proposes to extend the option in paragraph S5.3 (Complying with Standard No. 216 instead) from August 15, 1977, to August 31, 1980.; You are correct in your statement that the Secretary does not expect t reach a final decision on his alternative proposals until July.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1928OpenMr. Harold D. Jones, Bock & Jones, 435 Main Street, New Madrid, MO 63869; Mr. Harold D. Jones Bock & Jones 435 Main Street New Madrid MO 63869; Dear Mr. Jones: This is in response to your letter of May 2, 1975, inquiring about th existence of regulations governing the manufacture, design, and on-the-road operation of trailers used to transport fertilizer while hitched to a pickup truck.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has th responsibility of promulgating safety standards that set minimum performance requirements for vehicles manufactured and/or sold in the United States. There are five motor vehicle safety standards that apply to trailers. These standards relate to trailer lighting, tires, and braking systems (Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses* (49 CFR Part 571.106), Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment* (49 CFR Part 571.108), Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids* (49 CFR Part 571.116), Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR Part 571.119), Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems* (49 CFR Part 571.121)).; There is no safety standard that applies to the towing of a trailer The use of a safety chain to guard against release of the trailer may, however, be mandated by state law.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.