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: aiam5623OpenMr. John C. Golden Product Manager, Lighting & Electrical Federal Mogul Corporation P.O. Box 1966 Detroit, MI 48235; Mr. John C. Golden Product Manager Lighting & Electrical Federal Mogul Corporation P.O. Box 1966 Detroit MI 48235; "Dear Mr. Golden: This responds to your request for an interpretatio asking if, under NHTSA's requirements, your company may market a lighting device, called a 'Lightman,' for use on warning triangles. I apologize for the delay in responding. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. However, since the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates use of warning triangles carried in commercial vehicles, that agency's regulations could also affect your product. You explain that the Lightman is a battery operated safety strobe device, which is in the shape of an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2 inches on each side. You would like to market the Lightman specifically for use on warning triangles, but are concerned about the minimum area requirements of Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You ask, 'Does the mounting of one of these devices...take away minimum reflective area such that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?' As you note, Standard No. 125 specifies requirements for the configuration of warning devices. Warning devices that are subject to Standard No. 125 must be certified as meeting those configuration requirements. As we understand the Lightman, it will be sold to motorists separately from the Standard No. 125 warning devices. However, we understand that you will market the Lightman as appropriate for use with previously-certified warning devices. There is a provision in our statute that regulates the modifications that motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses may make to certified vehicles and equipment. (See section 30122 of Title 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., copy enclosed.) However, this provision does not regulate the modifications that individuals make to their vehicles or items of equipment, such as warning triangles. Thus, under NHTSA's statute, an individual would not be precluded from placing the light on his or her equilateral triangle. As you note in your letter, the FHWA regulates use of warning devices with regard to commercial trucks, and should be contacted about your question. Responding to your request for a contact in FHWA, we suggest Mr. James Scapellato, Director, FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards, at the following address and telephone number: 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Rm. 3107 Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1790 We will be happy to forward your letter to Mr. Scapellato, if you would like us to do so. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please feel free to call Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure bcc: Mr. Larry Minor Office of Motor Carrier Research & Standards FHWA, Rm. 3107"; |
|
ID: aiam0421OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., Suite 406, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; Mr. David J. Humphreys Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. Suite 406 1140 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1971, in which yo raised a question concerning the application of Standard 206 to doors on recreational vehicles.; Standard 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*, states tha 'Side door components referred to herein shall conform to this standard if any portion of a 90-percentile two-dimensional manikin as described in SAE Practice J826, when positioned at any seating reference point, projects into the door opening area on the side elevation or profile view.' The term 'seating reference point' corresponds to a 'designated seating position,' which is defined as 'any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodations while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.' The question you asked is whether a seating accommodation that the manufacturer labels as 'not for use while the vehicle is in motion' may be disregarded in determining which vehicle doors must comply under the Standard 206 provision quoted above.; The relevant question is whether the seating position in question i 'intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion.' While Standard 207 will require all seats intended by the manufacturer not to be used while the vehicle is in motion to be so labeled, it does not necessarily follow that the label will be accepted in all cases as conclusive evidence of the manufacturer's intent. The design of the seat and its location in the vehicle must also be considered. As an example, if it were found that a manufacturer had previously intended that a particular seat be used while the vehicle is in motion, and that he now attached the label merely to evade the Standard 206 requirement without changing his design, the application of Standard 206 to the vehicle would not be barred. The ultimate question in such cases is whether the label clearly is in accord with the manufacturer's intent, in light of all the facts.; The above statement is our general position on the application o Standard 206, in answer to your question. It is not intended to change the interim agreements that we made with respect to the current Standrad 206 compliance problems of some of your member manufacturers.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5273OpenMr. J. C. DeLaney Manager, Technical Programs Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. 2 Jenner Street, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92718-3812; Mr. J. C. DeLaney Manager Technical Programs Motorcycle Industry Council Inc. 2 Jenner Street Suite 150 Irvine CA 92718-3812; Dear Mr. DeLaney: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. You asked whether a motorcycle side stand complies with Standard No. 123 if the stand passes SAE J1587 Motorcycle Side Stand Retraction Test Procedure. Standard No. 123 specifies at S5.2.4 Stands that: 'A stand shall fold rearward and upward if it contacts the ground when the motorcycle is moving forward.' Neither S5.2.4 nor any other provision of Standard No. 123 incorporates by reference, SAE J1587. Thus, if a motorcycle side stand passes the SAE J1587 test procedure, it does not automatically follow that the side stand complies with Standard No. 123. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0071OpenMr. A. Hammerstein, Robert Bosch GMBH, Gruppe Autoelektrik, Entwicklungsleitung, 7000 Stuttgart 1, Postfach 50, Germany, Federal Republic; Mr. A. Hammerstein Robert Bosch GMBH Gruppe Autoelektrik Entwicklungsleitung 7000 Stuttgart 1 Postfach 50 Germany Federal Republic; Dear Mr. Hammerstein: Thank you for your letters of March 7 and May 15, 1968, to Mr. Georg C. Nield, concerning the requirements for motorcycle headlamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; On motorcycles, Standard No. 108 permits the use of unsealed headlamp conforming to SAE Standard J584. You will note that this SAE standard does not reference bulb sockets conforming to SAE Standard J567, which is intended to insure functional compatibility between bulb sockets and the bulbs listed in SAE Standard J573. Therefore, the bulbs used in motorcycle headlamps conforming to SAE Standard J584 need not conform to SAE Standard J573.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4032OpenMr. Ron Marion, Specification Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., P.O. Box 2450, 1408 Courtesy Road, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. Ron Marion Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses Inc. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your October 1, 1985 letter to this office askin whether each state has the discretion to determine whether vehicles purchased for Head Start programs should be school buses. While the memorandum you intended to enclose from Commission Hodges was excluded from your letter, we are able to answer your questions directly.; Your first question asked, 'Are Head Start Programs considered school or school related events for preprimary students?' This agency has consistently stated that a Head Start facility is considered a preprimary school for the purpose of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; Your second question asked, 'Are Head Start Agencies required t provide school buses when transporting 10 or more students?'; As you know, the requirements under the Vehicle Safety Act apply to th manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and not to motor vehicle use. The Vehicle Safety Act does not require schools to *use* school buses that comply with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Instead, given that Head Start facilities are 'schools' within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act, each person selling a new bus (i.e., a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons) to such a facility is required to sell a bus that complies with NHTSA's school bus safety standards.; Your final question asked about state discretion to determine whethe Head Start centers must provide complying school buses.; The requirements governing the *use* of a motor vehicle after it i sold is a matter of state law. While NHTSA has issued recommendations to the states regarding school bus operation in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed), this agency has no requirement that Head Start centers must use complying school buses. On the other hand, the responsibility of school bus sellers to comply with the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act, and to sell a vehicle that complies with all applicable safety standards, including the school bus safety standards, is a Federal requirement. Accordingly, the states have no discretion to permit persons to sell new buses to Head Start centers if those buses do not comply with the motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.; For your future reference, Mr. Tilton is no longer with this agency. I you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1230OpenMr. Richard Kuskin, Multinational Industries, P.O. Box 2263, South Station, Newark, NJ 07114; Mr. Richard Kuskin Multinational Industries P.O. Box 2263 South Station Newark NJ 07114; Dear Mr. Kuskin: This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1973, concerning gas tan caps. You state that you are considering marketing imported gas tank caps for trucks, and you want to know whether there is a Federal standard to which such caps must conform. The answer is that there is not.; Yours truly., Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4462OpenMr. Allan J. Lameier Quality Assurance Specialist, Defense Logistics Agency Defense Contract Administration Services Management Area, Dayton C/O Defense Electronics Supply Center Dayton OH 45444; Mr. Allan J. Lameier Quality Assurance Specialist Defense Logistics Agency Defense Contract Administration Services Management Area Dayton C/O Defense Electronics Supply Center Dayton OH 45444; "RE: A. Lameier 513-684-3915 Dear Mr. Lameier: This is in response t your letter requesting clarification concerning the classification of a Davey mobile compressor. You state that the manufacturer of the compressor indicates that the wheeled compressor need not comply with Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and related equipment, because the compressor is not a trailer. Based on the information provided with your letter, we believe that the compressor is not a motor vehicle and is therefore not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 108 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards. By way of background, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. 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. A 'trailer' is defined at 49 CFR /571.3 as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' The mobile compressor shown in the brochure enclosed with your letter appears to be designed for carrying property (the compressor) and for being drawn by a motor vehicle. The answer to your question of whether this compressor is a trailer, then depends on whether the compressor is a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a 'motor vehicle' as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles such as forklifts and mobile construction equipment which are sold primarily for off-road use, but which incidentally use the public roads to travel from one job site to another, are not considered motor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles which regularly use the public roads and stay off-road for only limited periods of time are motor vehicles and are subject to our safety standards. The agency has previously concluded in a July 1, 1980 letter to Mr. E.C. Elliott (copy enclosed) that his company's portable air compressors were not motor vehicles, based on statements that these devices spend the bulk of their useful lives on construction sites and are seldom drawn over public roads by mechanical power. If the Davey portable compressors are used in the same fashion as the compressors discussed in the July 1, 1980 letter, we believe that the Davey compressors were properly classified by the manufacturer as something other than a 'motor vehicle'. This means that the Davey compressors are not subject to any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I hope this information has been useful. My apologies for the delay in responding to your letter. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0972OpenMr. W. S. Magenau, President, Chesapeake Marine Products, Route 256, Deale, MD 20751; Mr. W. S. Magenau President Chesapeake Marine Products Route 256 Deale MD 20751; Dear Mr. Magenau: This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1972, requestin information as to how a distributor who assembles a boat trailer may certify the trailer under NHTSA requirements, when the weight ratings for the trailer when assembled differ from those anticipated by the fabricator, due to the distributor's use of components (tires and springs) of a greater weight-carrying capability than those envisioned by the fabricator.; The certification requirements applicable to the manufacture of boa trailers are found at section 567.4, 'Requirements for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles'. The fabricator may affix the required label to a trailer in certain cases (section 567.4(f)(ii)), but in the case you describe, where the distributor assembles the vehicle in a manner not specifically anticipated by the fabricator, the assembler is the appropriate person, pursuant to S 567.4(g)(1), to certify the vehicle and affix the certification label. The label should state the name of the assembler (the distributor) as the manufacturer and reflect the weight ratings of the vehicle as assembled.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4198OpenMr. John C. Hilliard, Chairman & Techncial (sic) Director, Combustion and Fuel Research, Inc., 847-9 South Wagner Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48103; Mr. John C. Hilliard Chairman & Techncial (sic) Director Combustion and Fuel Research Inc. 847-9 South Wagner Road Ann Arbor MI 48103; Dear Mr. Hilliard: Thank you for your letter of July 1, 1986, asking how our regulation would affect the placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles. You asked whether there are any State or Federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As discussed below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards that would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As to State laws, I suggest you check with the Department of Transportation in the States where your client wants to use the vehicles.; Some background information about our agency and its standards may b of assistance to you. NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain 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 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.; We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right han drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1660OpenMr. Stanley C. Frye, Product Engineer-Advanced Design, The Flxible Company, Loudonville, OH 44842; Mr. Stanley C. Frye Product Engineer-Advanced Design The Flxible Company Loudonville OH 44842; Dear Mr. Frye: This responds to Flxible's October 11, 1974, petition to exempt th 'trackless trolley coach' category of bus from the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*. You describe the vehicle as similar to your diesel bus but without the weight of the diesel engine, and with electrodynamic braking provided by the traction motor to a maximum of 2.0 mph per second in conjunction with brake operation.; I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Flyer Industries Limited on th same subject. The letter describes our position with regard to status of the trackless trolley as a motor vehicle, and also how it must be tested under Standard No. 121.; You have noted several difficulties in testing a vehicle which use overhead electric lines as a source of power. I would like to point out that, as we interpret the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, we have established the policy that a manufacturer may conduct certification testing in any manner it chooses, as long as it is calculated, in the exercise of due care, to demonstrate that the vehicle would pass if tested as specified in the standard. Thus, you would be free to certify the vehicle based on tests without use of overhead lines and the benefit of electrodynamic braking. We understand from your letter that without the weight of the diesel engine the trackless trolley has better braking performance than the equivalent diesel engine.; At this time we have issued a proposal that would establish specia test conditions for certain vehicles and limited exemptions for other vehicles, based on their configuration. We will consider your letter as a petition under this rulemaking action, and we invite you to make further comments to Docket 74-10, Notice 7, within the next 30 days.; We will advise you of our determination by letter or by notice in th *Federal Register*.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, 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.