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: aiam4271OpenDarryl M. Burman, Esq., Messrs. Dotson, Babcock & Scofield, 4200 InterFirst Plaza, Houston, Texas 77002-5219; Darryl M. Burman Esq. Messrs. Dotson Babcock & Scofield 4200 InterFirst Plaza Houston Texas 77002-5219; Dear Mr. Burman: This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1987, asking for a interpretation of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. Your client wishes to import, market, distribute and sell a 'clear, plastic headlamp cover...for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States.' The stated safety purpose of the headlamp cover is 'to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking.'; three methods of distribution are contemplated: direct sale by you client, sale through auto parts distribution centers, and sale as optional but uninstalled equipment at the time of the vehicle's original sale (the cover in its wrapping would be in the vehicle trunk). You state that the headlamp cover is not intended to be installed by your client, or its distributors and dealers, but will be accompanied by instructions so that the vehicle owner may install it. Warnings will be provided 'about minimum Federal photometric requirements'. You wish to know whether the headlamp cover is subject to Standard No. 108 or any other Federal regulation and, if so, the effect and impact of such regulation.; A plastic headlamp cover is 'motor vehicle equipment', defined i pertinent part by Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391(4)) as 'any...accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle....' Its importer is a 'manufacturer', defined in pertinent part by Section 102(5) of the Act as 'any person importing...motor vehicle equipment for resale'. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment your client has the responsibility imposed by Section 151 *et seq* of the Act to notify and remedy in the event that either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product, or that it fails to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have already noted that headlamp covers are not 'a regulated safety device' under Standard No. 108. A 'defect' under Section 102(11) includes ' any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials'. Under the best of circumstances a plastic cover when new will reduce light output of a headlamp beneath its designer's intent, whether or not the output falls below the floor established by Standard No. 108 as a *minimum* for headlamp performance. In service, a plastic headlamp cover may contain condensation under certain climatic conditions, or grow increasingly opaque through exposure to ultraviolet rays or other atmospheric components, either of which would further affect the design performance of the headlamp. A conclusion could be reached that such a cover contained a safety related defect and that its importer should notify all purchasers and remedy according to the Act.; Safety problems associated with headlamp covers led to thei prohibition when the headlamp is in use, initially under SAE J580 for sealed beam headlamps and later by its incorporation into Standard No. 108, for both sealed beam and replaceable bulb headlamps. The specific prohibition of J580 is why passenger cars are not manufactured with original equipment headlamp covers. Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, if a dealer sells a noncomplying motor vehicle, he is in violation of the Act, and may be subject to civil penalties for it. These penalties, under Section 109, range up to $1000 for a single violation, with a cumulative total of $800,000 for a related series of violations. If a dealer at time of sale provides the means through which a new car meeting all Federal safety standards may be rendered noncompliant immediately after its delivery, we would regard that as tantamount to his having sold a noncomplying motor vehicle in violation of the Act.; Although there is no Federal prohibition against a vehicle owne installing and using headlamp covers, there may nonetheless be local laws covering the sale and use of this equipment. We offer no views of your client's potential exposure under common law, in such situations as use of a deteriorated cover, or when used with a substandard replacement headlamp, except to note that photometric 'warnings' may serve no defensive purpose. Photometric values at the individual test points are judged under laboratory conditions. Service facilities do not contain equipment by which on-vehicle compliance of the headlamp can be judged, and the eye is a subjective and unreliable source to discriminate between complying and noncomplying levels of light output.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1589OpenDr. Duncan C. Miller, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., 50 Moulton Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; Dr. Duncan C. Miller Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. 50 Moulton Street Cambridge MA 02138; Dear Dr. Miller: This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1974, asking whether a ne model Bunny Dear (sic) child seat ('Sweetheart Seat II') must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when the seat is used as an infant carrier. We received from Mr. Samuel Linden of Bunny Bear the tentative instruction sheet which will be furnished with this device. According to these instructions, the device is to be installed laterally across the vehicle seat when used as an infant carrier ('for children weighing 15 lbs. or less and unable to sit up alone') and in the traditional forward-facing mode when used as a child seating system ('by children capable of sitting upright by themselves, and weighing between 15 lbs. and 40 lbs., and whose height is between 24 inches and 40 inches'). The vehicle lap belt is installed differently in each mode, and an adjustment must also be made to the frame when converting from one mode to another.; We would not consider the device, when used as an infant carrier to b a child seating system under Standard No. 213. It would consequently not be required to meet the standard's requirements when installed in that mode. Although S4.11.1 of Standard No. 213 does require that a child seating system in which the attitude of the child is adjustable meet the standard's requirements at each designed adjustment position, we believe the differences in installation for this Bunny Bear device are sufficiently extensive that the modification to an infant carrier is bona fide, and not merely a different adjustment position.; We are concerned, however, about the possibility that users may attemp to recline the device (by loosening and adjusting the wing nuts in the base) when the device is attached to the vehicle in the forward-facing position. Although this adjustment position is not mentioned in the instruction sheet, it seems from the sheet that such an adjustment is possible. The instruction on page 1 of the sheet reading, '[a]lways loosen the lap belt attached to the child seat when changing from one position to another,' adds some further ambiguity on this point. Consequently, we believe that the seat must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when reclined in the forward-facing position unless the instruction sheet is changed to clearly indicate that the device should not be reclined when attached in that position.; In addition, because the device has a dual use, we believe the propose certification statement appearing on the first page of the instruction sheet is misleading. It implies that the device meets applicable Federal standards in all configurations, although no standards exist for infant carriers. Accordingly, the statement should reflect the fact that no Federal standards exist for infant carriers.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1073OpenMr. Abner J. Mikva, D'ANCONA, PFLAUM, WYATT & RISKIND, 33 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602; Mr. Abner J. Mikva D'ANCONA PFLAUM WYATT & RISKIND 33 North LaSalle Street Chicago Illinois 60602; Dear Mr. Mikva: This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1973, in which yo asked that the NHTSA reconsider its decision to disallow the addition of devices such as flags to the warning devices regulated by motor vehicle safety standard No. 125. Your argument was that 'the motion of the flag makes it far more visible as objective test previously submitted to the Department of Transportation have suggested.'; We do not disagree with your assertion that the visibility of th device could be increased by the addition of flags. It is obviously true, and could be said of a variety of devices that could be added to the triangle to increase its size, brightness, or movement. The basic decision involved in the issuance of this standard, however, is that uniformity, and the recognition advantages that are associated with visibility. Although the addition of flags or other devices could increase the visibility of the warning devices, they would decrease their uniformity and recognizability.; For these reasons, your request that the NHTSA reconsider it requirement that warning device consist only of the specified triangle and its supports is denied. I assure you that no 'considerations not of the record' have entered into this decision.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Acting Administrator |
|
ID: aiam4621OpenMr. Wayne Krause Engineering Supervisor Waltco Truck Equipment Company P.O. Box 1186 Gardena, CA 90249-1186; Mr. Wayne Krause Engineering Supervisor Waltco Truck Equipment Company P.O. Box 1186 Gardena CA 90249-1186; "Dear Mr. Krause: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, l989 asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. You have enclosed drawings of a rear lighting configuration (tail, stop, and turn signal lamps) intended for installation of your 'RGL-Series tail gate lift with the platform stored below floor level of a truck or trailer for transit'. You state that the platform in this position would block from view any normal taillamp arrangement, and that in order to comply with the 45 degree visibility requirement of Standard No. l08, you propose to use two sets of lamps. 'Light Set l is installed above floor level (not to exceed 72' for ground) and inside of tail gate rails.' The other, 'Light Set 2 will be installed under the vehicle body....' Light Set l would be visible 'from the rear of the vehicle and would act as the primary tail lights.' The other arrangement, Light Set 2, 'would act as auxiliary tail lights that would be visible from the side of the vehicle....' You believe that such a configuration is acceptable under paragraph S4.3.1.1.1 (now S5.3.1.1.1) of Standard No. l08, and ask for our comments. Paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 states in pertinent part: E ach lamp shall ... shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice..... However, if motor vehicle equipment ... prevents compliance with this paragraph by any required lamp...an auxiliary lamp...meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be provided. While you have developed a novel concept to address the lighting problem posed by the RGL Series, it is not one that is permitted by paragraph S5.3.1.1.1, or by the SAE Standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. l08. The paragraph clearly states that 'each' lamp shall meet the visibility requirements, and if the vehicle configuration prohibits that, then an auxiliary lamp 'meeting the requirements of this paragraph' shall be provided. The basic SAE visibility requirement applicable to lamps in the array is that they be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right. This means that if the primary lamp does not meet the visibility requirements, the auxiliary lamp must, and the requirements cannot be met through partial compliance of each lamp. Neither appears to meet the total visibility requirements of Standard No. l08 applicable to each lamp, and thus such a configuration would not meet Federal lighting requirements. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1423OpenMr. L. A. Volberding, Administrative Manager, Kar-Kraft, Inc., 10611 Haggerty Street, Dearborn, MI 48126; Mr. L. A. Volberding Administrative Manager Kar-Kraft Inc. 10611 Haggerty Street Dearborn MI 48126; Dear Mr. Volberding: This is in further reply to your letter of December 6, 1973, i response to your phone conversation with Mike Peskoe on February 25, 1974. You indicated then that our reply of February 6, 1974, failed to define 'lowest seating position' as that term is used with respect to motorcycles in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2).; We interpret the phrase 'lowest seating position' to mean the lowes point on the uncompressed seating surface of the motorcycle operator's seat.; I regret that our earlier letter omitted this information. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5460OpenThe Honorable Andrea Seastrand California State Assemblywoman 33d District 523 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; The Honorable Andrea Seastrand California State Assemblywoman 33d District 523 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401; Dear Ms. Seastrand: Thank you for your letter forwarding the concern of Mr. Eric Brandt regarding the use of aircraft tires on the dollies that he uses to move houses and other structures on the highway. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond. Your office's description of Mr. Brandt's concerns was as follows: He is upset because the California Highway Patrol has stopped him from his house moving business because he is using aircraft tires on the dollies he uses to move the houses. He thinks that the law is being interpreted incorrectly. He is using low profile tires, and he thinks the law means the high floatation tires. The California Highway Patrol officer told Mr. Brandt to contact the Federal Department of Motor Vehicles and find out. In the meantime, he is out of business. Can we help? In accordance with your request, we have prepared a response directly to Mr. Brandt (copy enclosed). If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam0398OpenMr. M. G. Uttley, Technical Dept. Manager, Norton Villiers Limited, Engine Division, Marston Road, Wolverhampton WV2 4NW, England; Mr. M. G. Uttley Technical Dept. Manager Norton Villiers Limited Engine Division Marston Road Wolverhampton WV2 4NW England; Dear Mr. Uttley: This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 1971, concerning complianc of the Morton Villiers Commando Production Racer with the front side marker requirements of the Federal lighting standard, No. 108.; It is our understanding that the racer fairing is detachable only wit considerable time and effort. For all intents and purposes the fairing can be regarded as a permanent part of the vehicle and thus an appropriate place to mount the side markers.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1970OpenMr. Charles J. Calvin, President, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Charles J. Calvin President Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Calvin: This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 1975, requesting our revie of your Recommended Practice No. 9-75 - Lighting Devices for Trailers and Container Chassis.; With several minor revisions, your recommended practice will accuratel reflect the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. These revisions are as follows:; >>>1. Chart entitled, 'Truck Trailer Lighting Requirements' - a. Under the 'Remarks and Text Reference' column, opposit 'Identification Lamps,' delete 'May be at bottom level provided rear clearance lamps are as high as practicable.' This provision is not specified in Standard No. 108.; b. Under the 'Remarks and Text Reference' column, opposite 'Clearanc Lamps,' change '(S4.3.1.5)' to '(S4.3.1.4).'; c. Under the 'Height' column, opposite 'Reflex Reflectors,' the not 'Both on same level' applies only to rear reflex reflectors. The note 'Between 15 & 60' applies to both rear and side reflex reflectors.; 2. Drawing entitled, 'Required Lamps and Reflectors for Closed and Ope Top Trailers and Platform Vehicles' -; In Note 5, delete 'and rear clearance.' Rear clearance lamps must b mounted as near as practicable to the top of the vehicle, unless the identification lamps are located at the extreme height of the vehicle (paragraph S4.3.1.4 of Standard No. 108).<<<; We note that you provide identified zones of specified dimension within which you recommend that lamps be located. The standard actually requires these lamps to be 'as close to the top or practicable.' 'as far forward as practicable' etc. In most instances this should fulfill the requirements of the standard. However, we recommend that paragraph 3.1 of your recommended practice be revised to state both the locations actually specified by Standard No. 108 and the fact that your drawings provide your interpretation of these requirements which may not necessarily be that of the NHTSA.; Your efforts in promoting compliance with the requirements of Standar NO. 108 are greatly appreciated.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0662OpenMr. Jimmy W. Gerlack, G. and W. Body Works, Post Office Box 585, Durant, OK 74701; Mr. Jimmy W. Gerlack G. and W. Body Works Post Office Box 585 Durant OK 74701; Dear Mr. Gerlack: Thank you for your 'Manufacturer Identification Registration Report with which you submitted a sample of a certification label that you intend to use to fulfill your obligations under Part 567 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, soliciting our advice.; The nomenclature on the label fulfills the requirements. However, ther is some question as to whether the material would meet the permanency requirements of section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act).; The subject is further addressed in the Preamble to the certificatio requirements that became effective on September 1, 1969, '. . . The intent of the requirement is that the label last for the life of the vehicle . . .' (34 F.R. 7031) copy enclosed.; You should assure yourself that the material used will meet thos requirements.; Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5030OpenMr. Jeffrey Puentes, President Sacramento Registration Service 11684 Ventura Blvd., Suite 271 Studio City, CA 91604; Mr. Jeffrey Puentes President Sacramento Registration Service 11684 Ventura Blvd. Suite 271 Studio City CA 91604; "Dear Mr. Puentes: This responds to your request for information o laws and regulations administered by this agency that would apply to motorcycle frames, a product that your client wishes to manufacture and sell. Since motorcycle frames would constitute 'motor vehicle equipment,' the product would be subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction as follows. Your letter stated that your client intends the frames to be sold to the 'retail public' and to be used to replace frames of damaged Harley Davidson motorcycles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your client is a domestic manufacturer, and the term 'serial number' in your letter meant vehicle identification numbers (VINs), as specified by this agency. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate 'motor vehicles' and items of 'motor vehicle equipment.' Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines 'motor vehicle equipment,' in part, as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component ... In your letter, you stated that your client intends its motorcycle frames to be used to replace frames in damaged motorcycles. Thus, the motorcycle frames would be 'motor vehicle equipment' since they are 'similar parts' that will be 'sold for replacement' of a part. If your client's motorcycle frames should be installed into a motorcycle by a commercial business, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act could affect such installations. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or itemof motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). The above-named businesses could sell the motorcycle frames but could not install them if the installation would adversely affect a motorcycle's compliance with any of the applicable FMVSS's. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect. The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her motorcycle. Thus, a motorcycle owner would not violate the Safety Act by replacing the motorcycle frame, even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her motorcycle. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as motorcycle frames are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your client's company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in the motorcycle frame, that company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either: (1) repair the product so that the defect is removed, or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect. Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. You also asked about vehicle identification numbers (VINs) (referred to in your letter as 'serial numbers') and whether motorcycle frames must be identified with VINs. As you may be aware, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number- basic requirements specifies that vehicles manufactured in one or more stages must have a VIN assigned by the manufacturer. Your client is a motorcycle frame manufacturer, not a motor vehicle manufacturer. Therefore, your client should not assign VINs to the motorcycle frames that it manufactures. Please note, however, that NHTSA regulations would not preclude your client from assigning 'serial numbers' to the frames it manufactures, if the numbers are for its own inventory, recordkeeping, or other internal purposes. You further requested information about laws regulating retail businesses that may affect your client. Other than the matters that have previously been discussed in this letter, NHTSA has no laws or regulations affecting your client as a retail business selling motorcycle frames. Regulation of retail businesses is generally a matter of state law. For more specific information, I would suggest you investigate the requirements for each state in which your client intends to begin a retail establishment. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
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.