Skip to main content

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



Displaying 10061 - 10070 of 16503
Interpretations Date
 

ID: nht94-2.5

Open

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J.L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs Ltd. (England)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 3/9/94 from J.L. Steffy to Dave Elias (OCC 9753)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of model year designations specified in 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements. You asked whether the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a 1994 model year vehicle may use the symbol "P" to designate model year. The answer is no.

You stated that Triumph wishes to use, in its VIN, a letter code designating the year of vehicle manufacture. Triumph marks the letter "P" in the VIN of a vehicle manufactured in November 1993. Triumph considers this a MY 1994 vehicle.

The format for VIN content information is specified in part 565. Table VI of part 565 specifies that MY 1993 is designated by the letter "P" and MY 1994 is designated by the letter "R." Designating a MY 1994 vehicle with the letter "P," as you wish to do, could engender confusion since it would represent that the vehicle is a MY 1993 vehicle. Such confusion could hinder the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.

You also asked if Triumph may be permitted a modification of the part 565 model year designations and designate its MY 1994 vehicles as "P." The answer is no. NHTSA has no procedures to permit manufacturers to modify or waive any of part 565.

We note that Triumph could use the letter "P" to designate the vehicle as a 1993 MY vehicle. Section 565.3(h) defines "model year" as:

the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.

Assuming the actual production period of the vehicle is less than two calendar years, a vehicle manufactured in November 1993 could be a MY 1993 vehicle, identified by the letter "P."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.50

Open

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 20, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Name Not Disclosed

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 29, 1993, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to your lighting device. You have requested confidential treatment of the matter but, in a telephone conversation of M arch 16, 1994, with Taylor Vinson of this office, you agreed to our practice in these matters to delete from the publicly available copy of this letter all information that would identify you, while disclosing the information necessary to render you an o pinion.

You plan to create "signs, logos, emblems, accents, etc." which will be constructed of "sheet metal cut-outs of logos/company names," which "would be applied to large trucks and trailers." The color of the LEDs would "correspond to the safety color assi gned to the panel of attachment (rear/ red, side/amber-yellow)." You note that LEDs provide a low level of illumination, for example, "100 LEDs would produce only 15 candelas of light." You believe the ideal height is 2 feet to 3 feet. You have asked for an interpretation that this would not be prohibited under S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S5.1.3 allows the installation on a new motor vehicle (i.e., one that has not been delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale) of motor vehicle equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting eq uipment required by Standard No. 108. For trailers or trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or more, the required side lighting equipment consists of amber and red side marker lamps; trailers of this width are also required to have conspicuity stripin g of red/white segments (which is not required for narrower trailers) applied near the lower horizontal edge. We interpret impairment as something that interferes with the function of the required equipment. The function of marker lamps and conspicuity taping is to alert drivers of other vehicles to the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. We believe your device would not detract from this function since it also serves to call attention to the presence of a large vehicle.

When equipment of this nature is not prohibited under Federal law, its permissibility must be determined under the laws of the States where the vehicle is operated. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion t he American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht94-2.51

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 20, 1994

FROM: Doug Bereuter -- Member Of Congress, U.S. House Of Representatives

TO: Christopher Hart -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/10/94 From Christopher Hart To Doug Bereuter (A42; Std. 303) And 1/1/94 (EST) Letter From Christopher Hart To Doug Bereuter

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

I recently received your response to my earlier letter regarding the long-delayed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rulemaking concerning compressed natural gas vehicle fuel systems and fuel containers. In your letter, you mention that th e final rule is being prepared and will be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. I want to know as soon as the rule is sent to OMB so that I can impress upon them the importance of this matter. It is also critical that you infor m OMB of the need for a prompt review. This rule cannot be allowed to languish on someone's desk while Brunswick and its employees continue to suffer due to the lack of a final rule.

ID: nht94-2.52

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 20, 1994

FROM: Guy Dorleans -- Valeo Vision

TO: Mike Perel-- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/6/94 From John Womack To Guy Dorleans (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT: inner R or L incorporate HB3 bulbs (High beam) outer R or L incorporate HB4 bulbs (low beam) When the driver switches the Low beam on, outer HB4s only [Illegible Word] energized. When the driver switches the High Beam on, all 4 bulbs are energized together.

We consider that outer unit must fulfill table 15a for Low Beam, an also that inner must fulfill with HB3 alone table 15a High beam.

Could you confirm my interpretation?

Best Regards.

Fax 8011 33149426161

ID: nht94-2.53

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frank Williams -- President, Safety Brake Set

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 10/8/93 To NHTSA From Frank Williams (OCC-9219)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Williams:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements related to a product that "sets the brakes on an air brake vehicle when the driver exits the cab." I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that your "device doe s not hook into the brake system but pops the parking button out if the driver is off the seat and the door is open. The brake then must be manually disengaged." You requested confirmation that the agency will neither support nor oppose the aftermarket installation of such a device.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufa cturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations about a product such as your device. However, since this device is related to a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard appli es to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems.

If your system is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 121. ( See 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part

2

567). If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR @ 567.7.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingl y 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. 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A). In parti cular, these entities should ensure that the installation of your device does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the parking brake requirements set forth in S5.6.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin-Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-2.54

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 21, 1994

FROM: Fred Carr -- Engineer, Utilimaster

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/16/94 From John Womack To Fred Carr (A42; Std. 211)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

Please inform us as to whether Standard 571.211 applies to Motor Vehicle equipment relating to light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty trucks or truck manufacturers.

Respectfully yours,

ID: nht94-2.55

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary Klingaman -- Engineer, Inter Pipe, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 3/16/94 From Gary Klingaman To NHTSA Office Of Chief Counsel (OCC - 9833)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Klingaman:

This responds to your March 16, 1994, letter inquiring about the applicability of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to the alteration of used motor vehicles. You stated that your company manufactures water trucks and lub e/fuel service trucks by adding water tanks and various other apparatus to incomplete vehicles. Your question is whether you are required to add a certification label (as required in 49 C.F.R. @ 571.115) even if you use a "pre-owned" (I assume you mean "used") truck chassis.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seg.; Safety Act), to issue safety s tandards 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 Safety Act establishes a "self-cer tification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Whether Inter Pipe, Inc. would have to apply a certification label depends upon whether the vehicles your company modifies are new (that is, the vehicles have not yet been sold to the first retail purchaser) or used (vehicles that have already been sold to and used by the first retail purchaser). With respect to your company's modifications of new vehicles, your company would be a "final stage manufacturer" for the purposes of NHTSA's laws and regulations. 49 C.F.R. @ 568.6 requires a final stage manu facturer of a new vehicle to affix a certification label in accordance with 49 C.F.R. @ 567.5.

The requirements of 49 C.F.R. Parts 567-568 do not apply if you modify used vehicles. Hence, your company is not

2

required to affix a manufacturer's label to those used vehicles you convert into water trucks or fuel/lube trucks. However, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowing ly "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. Therefore, you must be careful wh en adding your equipment not to degrade the truck's ability to meet the safety standards.

For your information, I have enclosed a general information sheet for manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact our office at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-2.56

Open

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributors Ass'n.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/13/94 from Richard Kreutziger to John Womack (OCC-9865)

TEXT:

This responds to your request of April 13, 1994, for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You reference paragraphs S5.5.7(a) and (b) which apply to vehicles of less than 80 inches overall width and ask whether there are similar requirements for wider vehicles.

Paragraph S5.5.7(a) requires that "(w)hen the parking lamps are activated, the tail lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated." There is no similar requirement for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more because these vehicles are not required to have parking lamps (see Table I of Standard No. 108).

Paragraph S5.5.7(b) requires that "(w)hen the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the tail lamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps and side marker lamps shall also be activated." Paragraph S5.5.3 requires tail lamps on all vehicles, reg ardless of width, to be activated when the headlamps are activated in a steady burning state. As noted in the preceding paragraph, wide vehicles are not required to have parking lamps.

This leaves the question of license plate lamps and side marker lamps. As you have surmised, there is no specific requirement in Standard No. 108 that these lamps be simultaneously activated with the headlamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inche s or greater. However, we understand that it is industry practice to wire its large vehicles in this manner. We also believe that those who do not wire the side marker lamps to operate with the headlamps include them in the separate switch that activat es the clearance and identification lamps.

ID: nht94-2.57

Open

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Christopher S. Spencer -- Engineering

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/8/93 from Christopher S. Spencer to R. C. Carter (OCC-9128)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the brake reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.121). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are developing a new reservoir des ign to improve reservoir volume without increasing the need for space. You asked how to test your reservoirs since you believe that "(t)he safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufa cturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The Standard's reservoir requirements for trucks and buses are set forth in section S5.1.2. That section requires these vehicle s to be equipped with one or more service reservoir systems that meet specified performance requirements. Section S5.1.2.2 specifies the following:

Each reservoir shall be capable of withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500 psi, whichever is greater, for 10 minutes.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an air brake system reservoir has a minimum level of structural integrity. NHTSA has long interpreted the term "withstand" to require that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceeding one percent. At one point, the agency issued an interpretation concluding that the term "withstand" meant that a reservoir can deform only slightly and must contain the applied pressure with only a limited pressure drop at any ti me during the test. However, NHTSA later withdrew that interpretation because it inadvertently increased the severity of the requirement. See 42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977, and 43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978.

You asked about this requirement in connection with a reservoir design that includes a bushing on the inside of an endcap. A weld is placed around the bushing.

You describe two different procedures you have used to seal the reservoir. In what you describe as "Test Criteria 1," a socket head plug is put into

the bushing with 3 full wraps of tape. With this first method, you state that as the pressure is applied to the reservoir, the endcap starts to expand out. The bushing stretches with the endcap, and as the bushing stretches the threads are pulled away from the plug. The plug must therefore be retightened several times before the required pressure is reached. In your "Test Criteria 2," you state that a rubber grommet or washer is placed on the inside of the bushing and forced to expand to seal the bu shings from the inside. You stated that this method checks the weld but removes the threads from the test. With the second method, you state that there was no failure at over five times the working pressure.

While Standard No. 121 does not specify a particular test procedure for this requirement, the language of S5.1.2.2 makes it clear that a reservoir must "withstand" for 10 minutes a condition where the reservoir is pressurized at the specified level. The refore, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would pressurize a reservoir to the specified level. This would necessitate sealing the reservoir.

In considering how a particular reservoir would be sealed, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to evaluate the reservoir's structural integrity and ability to withstand pressurization. I can offer you the following comments o n the two alternative test methods you described. The first method (Test Criteria 1) would appear to evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization. The threaded plug would appear to reasonably approximate how the reservoir would be sealed i n an actual use situation. I note that the mere fact that the plug needs to be tightened during the test to achieve the specified level of pressure would not indicate a failure but would simply reflect minor air leakage around the plug.

The second method (Test Criteria 2) would not fully evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization, since it would, as you recognized, remove the threads from the test, thereby creating an artificial seal. It is our opinion that a reservoir would not be capable of "withstanding" the specified hydrostatic internal pressure if the threads failed under such pressurization. This would represent a structural failure equivalent to a rupture.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.58

Open

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Simons -- Esq.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/93 from Kenneth P. Simons to Department of Transportation, Trucking Division (OCC-8877)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about brake requirements for trailers used in tractor trailer combinations. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked whether all such trailers are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles. You state that a "maxi" brake is found on all road tractors and "sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level." Please note that the term "maxi" brakes ordinarily refers to spring brakes used in parking and e mergency brake applications. I further note that most, but not all, trailers are equipped with spring brakes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. S1392), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards.

Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.121, copy enclosed), specifies performance requirements for trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to insure safe braking performance of vehicle under n ormal and emergency conditions.

While Standard No. 121 does not require manufacturers to use spring brakes or any other particular type of brake system, many manufacturers use spring brakes to comply with the standard's requirements concerning parking brake performance (truck, buses an d trailers; see S5.6), emergency brake performance (trucks and buses only; see S5.7), and trailer pneumatic system failure performance (see S5.8). I note that while the requirements of S5.65 and S5.8 apply to most air-braked trailers, S3 of Standard No. 121 excludes some trailers from all of the standard's requirements. In addition, S5.6 and S5.8 specify alternative requirements for some trailers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

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.