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: aiam1162OpenMr. J. T. Monk, Taylor Machine Works, Inc., P.O. Box 150, Louisville, MS 39339; Mr. J. T. Monk Taylor Machine Works Inc. P.O. Box 150 Louisville MS 39339; Dear Mr. Monk: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1973, to Michael Peskoe o this office, requesting clarification of the regulations regarding the certification of motor vehicles. You enclose an incomplete vehicle document concerning a particular tractor, a certification label you would affix to that tractor after its completion, a drawing of a trailer certification label, and a sample quarterly report of production figures for vehicles manufactured by your company.; Mr. Peskoe indicated to you over the phone that in meeting you certification responsibilities for these vehicles, they are certified independently of each other. It appears from your letter that this approach, which is the correct one, is the approach you are using.; With reference to your responsibilities for the certification of th tractor, if the truck does not have a certification label attached to it when you receive it, it is true that when you complete it by mounting a fifth wheel you must then attach a certification label. The label you enclose (exhibit 1) contains the necessary information in the appropriate order. You should obtain the information for the label primarily from the incomplete vehicle document, but may, as you state, rely on your own engineering judgment or contact the truck manufacturer. If, however, in relying on your own judgment you depart from the information contained in the incomplete vehicle document, you may be responsible for failures of the vehicle to conform to applicable standards and regulations.; The sample trailer certification label which you have submitted is no consistent with the certification regulations. We have taken the position that the information must be presented on the label in the form and in the order specified in the regulations. With respect to your sample label, the regulations do not presently call for a kingpin rating. Although we have just proposed to require a weight rating for the trailer coupling, this information should not now be included on the label. The regulations also do not permit ratings for tandem axles to be stated as tandem ratings. Each axle must be independently identified and a separate rating provided for it. Moreover, tire sizes are permitted to be specified only in conjunction with weight ratings. There are no provisions for the listing of plies, apart from their inclusion in a tire size designation, or for the listing of an inflation pressure. Again, information that is not specifically required cannot be inserted between items of required information, and your drawing of a trailer is not permitted unless it is placed after the required information. Finally, the regulations call for gross vehicle weight rating (the phrase 'gross trailer weight rating' is inappropriate) to follow the gross axle weight ratings, and the order in which you present this information must be reversed. I believe you should reexamine the Certification regulations in order to obtain specific guidance on the order and form of the required information.; The sample quarterly production report you submit conforms to th requirements of section 573.5(b) of the Defect Reports regulations. However, that section requires only the reporting of the number of vehicles, identified by make, model, and model year (if appropriate). While we are happy to receive the additional information you provide, you are not required to furnish it to us.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2963OpenMr. Paul Utans, Subaru of America, Inc., 7040 Central Highway, Pennesauken, (sic) NJ 08109; Mr. Paul Utans Subaru of America Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennesauken (sic) NJ 08109; Dear Mr. Utans:#I regret the delay in responding to your September 12 1978, letter requesting interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. The responses to your specific questions regarding the compliance of your prototype monitor of vehicle systems are as follows:#1. When there is no problem with the vehicle systems included in the monitor, only the outline of a car is visible. The displays for items such as oil and electrical charge would not be illuminated. You asked if the monitor in its 'no problem' model would comply with FMVSS 101-80. The answer is yes. There is no requirement that the displays be continuously illuminated.#2. On the monitor, the high beam symbol would be oriented so that it pointed upward. You asked whether this complies with the standard even though the symbol appears in Table 2 of the standard pointing to the left. The answer is yes. The requirement is section 5.2.3 that the display symbol appear preceptually (sic) upright to the driver was not intended to apply to the situation in which the symbol is used in conjunction with a car diagram of the type in your monitor. In such situations, it would be more confusing to place the symbol in the upright position than to orient the symbol so that it bears the same relationship to the diagram as the symbolized equipment does to the actual vehicle.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3671OpenMr. David E. Williams, Marketing Manager, Smithers Scientific Services, Inc., 1150 N. Freedom Street, P.O. Box 351, Ravenna, OH 44266; Mr. David E. Williams Marketing Manager Smithers Scientific Services Inc. 1150 N. Freedom Street P.O. Box 351 Ravenna OH 44266; Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking abou the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR 571.119) (copy enclosed). Specifically, you are representing a towing trailer manufacturer which would like to mount aircraft tires on its trailers as original equipment.; Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims fo Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, 49 CFR 571.120) specifies that new trailers shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of either Safety Standard No. 109, which applies to passenger car tires, or Safety Standard No. 119. Your client intends to meet this requirement by equipping the trailers with tires which comply with Standard No. 119. However, your tests showed that the aircraft tires which the trailer manufacturer wants to use on the trailers could not pass the high speed test in Standard No. 119. You asked if the high speed test requirement could be avoided if those tires were speed-restricted to 55 miles per hour (mph) or less.; The answer is yes. Speed restrictions may only be placed on a tire b the tire manufacturer, and may only be specified at 35, 50, or 55 mph. To create a speed-restriction, paragraph S6.5(e) of Standard No. 119 requires the tire manufacturer to mark the notation 'max speed 55 mph' on both sidewalls. When a tire is so marked, it is speed-restricted for purposes of Standard No. 119. Paragraph S6.3 of Standard No. 119 states that the high speed test requirement 'applies only to motorcycle tires and non- speed-restricted tires.' Accordingly, no high speed tests are conducted on tires which are speed-restricted.; You should, however, be aware of the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567 *Certification* (copy enclosed). Specifically, section 567.4(g)(3) and (4) requires a vehicle manufacturer to show a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on the certification label required to appear on all new vehicles. The NHTSA requires that the GVWR and GAWR placed on the certification label be unqualified by any speed restrictions and be based on the 60 mph capabilities assigned to the tires and rims by the Tire & Rim Association. Other GVWR and GAWR values may be assigned by the manufacturer, but they must be listed after the information required on the certification label, and they do not form the basis for testing a vehicle's compliance with safety standards, such as Standard No. 120.; Finally, I wish to emphasize that if these towing trailers are likel to be used at speeds in excess of 55 mph, the use of tires which are speed-restricted to 55 mph might well be determined to constitute a safety-related defect in the vehicle, under the terms of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). When a determination is made that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, section 154 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414) requires the manufacturer to repair or replace the defective vehicle or item without charge to the purchaser.; Should you need any further information on this matter, please contac Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3221OpenMr. J. Leftrook, Jr., President, G. Mack Industries, Ltd., Suite No. 3, 933 McLeod Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R2G OY4; Mr. J. Leftrook Jr. President G. Mack Industries Ltd. Suite No. 3 933 McLeod Avenue Winnipeg Manitoba Canada R2G OY4; Dear Mr. Leftrook: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1980, asking about th legality in the United States of a lamp with the words 'DON'T PASS' which you are presently manufacturing for school buses in Canada. The lamp is intended for mounting on both the front and rear of the bus.; Such a lamp is not required in this country under Federal law. Its us as original equipment on U.S. school buses would not be prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*, since its installation would not appear to impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Its legality would be determined by that of the State in which the bus is registered and operated, and therefore, you should contact the individual State for their opinion in this matter.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3703OpenMr. Chuck Howard, President, Safety Alert Co., Inc., 1667 9th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404; Mr. Chuck Howard President Safety Alert Co. Inc. 1667 9th Street Santa Monica CA 90404; Dear Mr. Howard: We have received your petition for rulemaking of April 25, 1983, you letter of May 6 withdrawing it, and your letter of May 5 to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking for an interpretation. All this concerns the applicability of Standard No. 108 to your 'Vehicle Deceleration Warning System.'; As we understand it, this system was originally designed to provide flashing light through the back-up lamp system, in which yellow bulbs were used as substitutes for the white ones required by Standard No. 108. You were informally advised by agency staff that such a system would render the vehicle noncompliant with the requirement that a back-up lamp be white, and that it be steady burning in use.; You asked Mr. Vinson if there were another alternative for flashing re lights that would comply with Standard No. 108, and in your letter of the 6th, whether use of the hazard warning system was acceptable. You also inquired about retrofitting vehicles manufactured before hazard warning signals were required, so that your system would work through the rear turn signals.; In the context of Federal regulations an optional system such as your is acceptable as original equipment, or equipment added before initial sale of the vehicle, if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In our view, it is permissible to use any rear lighting system Standard No. 108 allows to flash for signalling purposes. Thus, your system could operate through the rear hazard warning system, or the rear turn signal system (red or amber) as long as the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed.; As an aftermarket device intended for installation on vehicles in use it must not render inoperative in whole or in part Federally- mandated lighting equipment. Subject to the restrictions noted above, your system would not violate this prohibition were it installed to work through the hazard warning or turn signal systems. However, since your system involves an aspect of performance not covered by Standard No. 108, each State may regulate its use as it sees fit.; Passenger cars built since January 1, 1969, have been required to hav hazard warning signal systems. Use of the turn signal system of a vehicle built before that date is not prohibited under Federal regulations but is also a matter to be determined by local law.; I hope that this is responsive to your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2811OpenMr. Doug Mills, Rt. 1 Box 149, Tellico Plains, TN 37385; Mr. Doug Mills Rt. 1 Box 149 Tellico Plains TN 37385; Dear Mr. Mills: This responds to your recent letter asking additional question concerning the responsibilities of a person converting a pick-up truck into a dump truck, under Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. This office explained the general responsibilities of a person who alters a certified vehicle in a letter to your associate, Mr. Henry Brown, dated February 1, 1978. You now ask questions regarding specific aspects of the conversion operating and whether they can be accomplished without destroying a vehicle's compliance with safety regulations.; Unfortunately, it is impossible for the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) to answer your specific questions. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer or vehicle alterer to determine whether his vehicle is in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that vehicle. The NHTSA cannot review an alteration procedure such as the one with which you are concerned and state that it can or cannot be done in compliance with Federal regulations. There are no safety regulations which require a specific number of bolts or specific bolt locations, for instance. Likewise, Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, is specified only in terms of performance requirements, so the NHTSA cannot tell you whether a modified fuel filler neck will destroy a vehicle's compliance with the standard.; As stated in our previous letter, a person who alters a pick-up truc to convert it to a dump truck must certify that the truck remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Further, the person who makes the conversion must assure that the alterations do not result in any 'safety related defects' whether or not there is a specific safety standard that is applicable. Therefore, you must determine for yourself whether the number of bolts you use, the bolt strengths and the bolt locations will result in safety hazards.; I can answer your question number 8 regarding possible liability fo removal and alteration of the truck bumper. The Federal safety standard for bumpers is only applicable to passenger cars, so you may alter a truck bumper with impunity provided the action does not result in a safety related defect.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2542OpenMr. Robert N. Townsend, Townsend & Townsend Attorneys at Law, P.O. Box 366, 111 W. Second Street, Parsons, TN 38363; Mr. Robert N. Townsend Townsend & Townsend Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 366 111 W. Second Street Parsons TN 38363; Dear Mr. Townsend: This responds to your February 9, 1977, letter in which you ask how th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determines whether a school bus must comply with the new school bus safety standards.; On April 1, 1977, several new standards will become effective relatin to the construction of school buses: Standard No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*, and Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Further, several old standards have been amended to provide special requirements for school buses. These amendments also become effective on April 1.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (Pub. L. 89-563), as amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect that does not conform to the standard. This means that any school bus manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, must comply with the school bus safety standards, regardless of the date on which the bus is actually sold or introduced into interstate commerce.; For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a new chassis, yo are permitted to choose as the date of manufacture either the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (as defined in Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*), the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. Only those standards in effect on the date chosen to represent the date of manufacture would be applicable to the vehicle, irrespective of the date upon which the vehicle is sold to the ultimate consumer.; I am enclosing copies of the new school bus safety standards and Par 568 for your information.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5287OpenMr. Richard J. Dessert Proprietor, Sun Cycle Company 1550 Armacost Avenue #201 West Los Angeles, CA 90025; Mr. Richard J. Dessert Proprietor Sun Cycle Company 1550 Armacost Avenue #201 West Los Angeles CA 90025; "Dear Mr. Dessert: This responds to your petition of May 28, 1993, t the Administrator for a temporary exemption for low emission motor vehicles that you would like to produce. These vehicles would be purchased by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The response deadline for LADWP's Request for Proposal (RFP) was June 1, 1993. You have informed us that 'As part of LADWP requirements for successful bidders, evidence of progress towards obtaining Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards certification may be provided through demonstration that an application was made with NHTSA for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.' Because this matter affects LADWP as well as Sun Cycle Company, we are sending a copy of this response to the designated LADWP contact, Jeffrey S. Silverstone. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did not receive your petition until June 8, and therefore had no chance to advise you with respect to it before the RFP deadline of June 1. We must inform you that the petition does not meet our procedural requirements and is not accepted for processing and action. There are several areas in which the petition is deficient. Most importantly, it appears to be a request for a blanket exemption from compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While the applicable law and regulation do not forbid this, you should know that the Administrator has never entertained a petition of this breadth and in all probability would never grant one. An applicant for a low-emission vehicle exemption must provide sufficient information upon which the Administrator may find that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the motor vehicle, and that the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We do not believe that the Administrator could make the requisite findings to support a blanket exemption. It is NHTSA's policy to encourage manufacturers to manufacture conforming vehicles to the extent possible, and to narrow the scope of their requests for exemption. Low- emission vehicle petitions generally cover four to 14 standards. As part of your argument, you must set forth each individual standard from which you request exemption, and provide a detailed description of how your vehicle differs from a conforming one. You must also provide reasons why an exemption from each standard for which request is made would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle, something more than the general statement you have made that the first prototypes will 'substantially comply with all the safety standards.' Finally, you must present your views why an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act. When we have received a petition from you that fulfills these requirements, we shall be pleased to accept it for consideration and public comment. As the vehicle you intend to manufacture is completely unknown to NHTSA, your new petition should also contain photographs or descriptive literature illustrating it. Our closing comment is that you or the LADWP may be unclear about vehicle certification. A manufacturer does not 'obtain' certification from NHTSA. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification scheme under which the manufacturer certifies its vehicles after satisfying itself that it conforms to the standards, aside from those from which it may have been exempted. It does not have to have permission from NHTSA to do so. You intend to test the vehicles, and such testing could provide substantiation for your certification of compliance, or, alternatively, substantiation to NHTSA that an exemption would not unduly degrade the vehicle's safety. If you have any questions about this matter, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Jeffrey S. Silverstone Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Attn: Electric Vehicle RFP P.O. Box 111 Los Angeles, CA 90051-0100"; |
|
ID: aiam0085OpenMr. Ferris M. Smith, Jr., President, Horseless Carriage Corp., 1227 N.E. 9th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304; Mr. Ferris M. Smith Jr. President Horseless Carriage Corp. 1227 N.E. 9th Avenue Fort Lauderdale FL 33304; Dear Mr. Smith: This is in response to your letter of June 11, 1968, concerning th applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to motor vehicles which have a curb weight of 1000 pounds or less.; Your reference to section 255.7 of the Federal motor vehicle safet standards and the present applicability of the standards to motor vehicles 1000 pounds or less curb weight is correct. However, we are enclosing a copy of Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Docket No. 5-1, which was published in the *Federal Register* on October 14, 1967. As you can see from the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the Administrator is considering adding new standards applicable to motor vehicles of 1000 pounds or less curb weight.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2112OpenMr. Jack A. Johnson, Chief Engineer, MOTAC, Inc (sic), 8400 East Slauson Avenue, Pico Rivera, CA 90660; Mr. Jack A. Johnson Chief Engineer MOTAC Inc (sic) 8400 East Slauson Avenue Pico Rivera CA 90660; Dear Mr. Johnson: This responds to MOTAC's September 18, 1975, question whethe rebuilding a platform trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the platform of a wrecked trailer is used (1) in combination with entirely new frame members, (2) in combination with one main frame member of the wrecked vehicle and one new frame member, and (3) in combination with part of one or both main frame members. You also ask whether the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the deletion of one axle on a tandem axle trailer, qualifies as the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards.; In response to your first question, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) has determined (in the Stainless Tank and Equipment letter to which you refer) that, as a minimum, the running gear and main frame of the existing trailer must be used to qualify the rebuilding operation as a repair where all other materials are new. This position does not apply to the three situations you describe in which only the main frame members, and perhaps several cross members, are replaced. Therefore a repair of this type is not considered the manufacture of a new trailer.; In response to your second question, the NHTSA would not consider th addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the removal of one axle from a tandem axle vehicle, to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting 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.