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: aiam1120OpenMr. W. H. Blaine, Manager, Southern California Edison Company, Automotive; Mr. W. H. Blaine Manager Southern California Edison Company Automotive; Dear Mr. Blaine: This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1973, in which you as whether the installation of a truck body or derrick on a new chassis-cab by your company for its own use makes it a final-stage manufacturer subject to the identification and certification provisions implementing the Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Public Law 89- 563.; The answer to your question is yes. The completion of a motor vehicl by a manufacturer for its own use does not relieve it of responsibility for certification.; As a final-stage manufacturer, you are required to submit th information specified in 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. I am enclosing a copy of Part 566 for your information. No specific format is required, and a letter report will suffice.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5163OpenMr. Jeff Gerner Product Engineering Manager Banner Welder, Inc. N117 W18200 Fulton Drive Germantown, WI 53022; Mr. Jeff Gerner Product Engineering Manager Banner Welder Inc. N117 W18200 Fulton Drive Germantown WI 53022; "Dear Mr. Gerner: This responds to your inquiry about whether th mobile screening and shredding equipment that you manufacture would have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that your equipment is designed to be used primarily in off-road environments such as compost sites similar to landfills, but may be towed over the public roads to multiple sites. You stated that most purchasers of your equipment use it at an off-road site for extended time periods, but occasionally the equipment will be moved from one off-road to another off-road site on a more frequent basis. You stated that it would be inconvenient for your equipment to comply with Standard No. 121's emergency braking requirements because a truck with an air brake system would be needed at all times to move your equipment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, this agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term 'motor vehicle' as follows: '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.' If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority. Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on- highway use is more than 'incidental.' Based on the literature provided in your letter and the subsequent telephone conversation, the agency believes that the on-highway use of your equipment is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Accordingly, it appears that your mobile screener and shredder are not 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, they would not be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This conclusion is based on the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. We note that while your letter stated that your equipment may be moved 'daily or weekly' on the public roads to other sites, you stated in the telephone conversation that such frequent movement is rare and that this equipment is primarily for off-road purposes. The agency would reconsider this determination if it obtained information indicating that the equipment's on-highway use is more than 'incidental.' 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. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1989OpenMr. Manuel M. Ellenbogen, Supervisor, Export Sales & Licensing, International-Automotive, The Budd Company, 2450 Hunting Park Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19132; Mr. Manuel M. Ellenbogen Supervisor Export Sales & Licensing International-Automotive The Budd Company 2450 Hunting Park Avenue Philadelphia PA 19132; Dear Mr. Ellenbogen: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1975, asking whic standards might be affected by the mounting of a tail lamp in the elastic skin of a bumper.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection* prescribes barrier and pendulum impact tests to which vehicles must be subjected without incurring certain types of damage. Included in the list of safety systems that must remain undamaged are lamps and reflective devices. S5.3.1 of Standard 215 states that each lamp or reflective device, except license plate lamps, must remain free of cracks and comply with the applicable visibility requirements of S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; The manufacturer should be aware that placement of a tail lamp in th elastic skin of a bumper might expose it to damage during Standard 215 compliance testing.; For your information, I have enclosed copies of the current Standar No. 215, the proposed Part 580 bumper damageability standard, and Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0361OpenMr. David A. Phelps, Jr., Group Supervisor, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. David A. Phelps Jr. Group Supervisor Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps: This letter is to further clarify an interpretation contained in ou letter of May 6, 1971, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation.; We wish to make it clear that although the final-stage manufacturer ma designate someone to maintain the records required under section 574.10 of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, the legal responsibility for maintaining the records remains with the final-stage manufacturer.; However, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediat manufacturer, may assume 'legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by (the Act) with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured . . .' (49 C.F.R. 568.7). In such a case, the responsibilities for maintaining the records required by the Act and by the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation will be assumed by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediate manufacturer, and the final-stage manufacturer will be relieved of all liability for maintaining the records.; We would also point out that the Tire Identification and Record Keepin Regulation was not meant to preclude the use of multiple designees for the maintenance of the required records. See the enclosed interpretation issued on May 28, 1971 (36 F.C. 9780).; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5499OpenHerr Tilman Spingler Robert Bosch GmbH FAX 49-7121-35-1792; Herr Tilman Spingler Robert Bosch GmbH FAX 49-7121-35-1792; Dear Herr Spingler: We have received your FAX of February 15, 1995 asking whether a proposed design 'for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108.' The agency does not advise manufacturers whether particular designs are regarded as 'conforming.' That determination is to be made by the manufacturer in certifying that its product conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, we can provide you with an interpretive guideline. Section S4 defines a 'replaceable bulb headlamp' as a headlamp 'comprising a bonded lens reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources.' The intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp. This means that, if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced. If your design is such that the lens cannot be removed from the reflector assembly for replacement, it would appear to meet the definition in S4. As you are well aware, NHTSA granted your company's petition for rulemaking, and, in November 1994, proposed an amendment of the definition of 'replaceable bulb headlamp' that would allow a replaceable lens if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2. Comments were due on this proposal February 21, 1995. In due course, after review of the comments, NHTSA will decide whether it will pursue further rulemaking or terminate the rulemaking action. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5533OpenMr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Manager of Government Relations Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana, CA 92718-2016; Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler Manager of Government Relations Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A. P.O. Box 25252 Santa Ana CA 92718-2016; "Dear Mr. Shetler: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995 asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green. You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted that the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators. You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. You also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acceptable. We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard specified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including turn signal pilot indicators and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator. We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light 'with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm.' must be used 'if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle.' Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with 'a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm.' must be used 'if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders.' Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to 'inside' and 'outside' the vehicle are inapposite. Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so. As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard No. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment 'be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions.' If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0731OpenMr. Robert B. Kurre, Wayne Transportation Division, Post Office Box 908, Industries Road, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert B. Kurre Wayne Transportation Division Post Office Box 908 Industries Road Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1972, in which you aske whether a bus passenger seat to which you plan to attach seat belts would be required to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.; The seat would not be required to conform to either standard. Eac expressly exempts bus passenger seats from compliance with its requirements. It is our opinion that if a manufacturer provides a safety device which the applicable standards do not require him to provide, he is not bound to conform to the performance requirements of those standards.; Even though no standard is presently applicable, the agency i considering rulemaking action that will establish a standard for bus seating and we strongly urge you to provide the safest possible installation.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1823OpenMr. Al Zajic, American Trailers, Inc., 1500 Exchange Avenue, Box 26568, Oklahoma City, OK 73126; Mr. Al Zajic American Trailers Inc. 1500 Exchange Avenue Box 26568 Oklahoma City OK 73126; Dear Mr. Zajic: This responds to your February 19, 1975, request for confirmation tha the building of a trailer with some used components constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle for purposes of meeting all applicable safety standards, unless the running gear and bottom rails, at a minimum, are from an existing trailer. You also ask for confirmation that parking brakes are not required on a steerable front axle of a full trailer.; The answer to both of your questions is yes. I enclose a copy of letter interpretation which sets out our position on the extent to which a vehicle can be 'repaired' before it becomes the manufacture of a new vehicle.; In answer to your second question, a full trailer, like all othe air-braked trailers, must meet the requirements of S5.6 *Parking brake system*. Section S5.6 permits the manufacturer the option of meeting the requirements of S5.6.1, *Static retardation force*, or S5.6.2, *Grade holding*.; If you choose to meet S5.6.1, you are not required to equip the fron steerable axle with a parking brake system. If you choose to meet S5.6.2, you may use whatever combination of parking brake systems will meet the grade-holding requirement, and such a combination may or may not include a parking brake system on the front steerable axle.; Because Standard No. 121 does not specify a secondary means of brakin on the steerable axle, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety requirement for automatic application of the brakes upon breakaway remains applicable to the axle (49 CFR S 393.42(d)).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2219OpenMr. Edward A. Green, President Henke Manufacturing Corp., Box 188, 525 Main, Janesville, IA 50647; Mr. Edward A. Green President Henke Manufacturing Corp. Box 188 525 Main Janesville IA 50647; Dear Mr. Green: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, letter concerning th relationship between snow plows that you manufacture and the front-axle GAWR's of the vehicles on which they are mounted. Your questions and our answers are as follows:; *Question 1*. 'Somewhere I read where fire trucks are not governed b FMVSS121 or axle weight restrictions as an emergency vehicle. Is this true?'; Standard No. 121 does not apply to fire fighting vehicles manufacture before June 1, 1976. In addition, it does not apply to such a vehicle manufactured from June 1, 1976, to August 31, 1977, that either has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more, or has two or more front, steerable axles with a GAWR of 16,000 pounds or more for each axle. Further, the standard does not apply to any vehicle meeting any one of criteria (a) through (d), as follows:; >>>(a) An overall vehicle width of 108 inches or more, (b) An axle that has a GAWR of 29,000 pounds or more, (c) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 33 mph, or (d) (1 A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 45 mph, and (2) An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR, and (3) No passenger-carrying capacity.; *Question 2*. 'Do you consider a snow plow an emergency piece o equipment?'; There are no exemptions in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard or regulations for 'emergency vehicles' or 'emergency equipment'.; *Question 3*. 'Would a D.O.T. compliance officer require a plow to b raised for weighing to check the GAWR?'; In determining whether a vehicle equipped with a snow plow has bee assigned an improper GAWR, the NHTSA will consider the load imposed on the axle system when the plow is in the raised position.; *Question 4*. 'The box or fold down flap I mention in letter - woul this be considered a legal method of meeting GAWR, assuming it was part of a snow plow procedure program?'; Our letter of May 9, 1974, explained that proper weight ratings depen on what you, as a vehicle alterer, know, or can reasonably be expected to know, about how the plow-equipped trucks are likely to be loaded. It stated further:; >>>A warning to the buyer not to exceed the rated cargo load or th weight ratings. . .would not be sufficient if it were reasonable to expect that the vehicles would, in practice, exceed these ratings at normal full load despite the warning.<<<; Similarly, if the volume-reducing purpose of the box or fold down fla described in your letter to county engineers is likely to be defeated (whether intentionally of (sic) accidentally), then neither would be sufficient to validate a GAWR that would otherwise be exceeded by a fully loaded axle. If, on the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that your recommended loading procedure will be followed, then it is permissible to base the GAWR on the correspondingly reduced 'full' load.; *Question 5*. 'When weighing a truck for compliance would a full loa of ballast be required even though the snow plowing procedure of governmental bodies call out a less than full load of ballast?'; The considerations discussed in no. 4 above apply here as well. *Question 6*. 'When we bid to a State where drawings and or detaile specifications of snow removal equipment are called out and no axle sizes or dump box sizes are called out are we responsible for this plow overweighing a front axle? We do not mount any equipment, we furnish equipment as specified.'; The primary responsibility for weight ratings is with the party who, b mounting the snow plow, is the vehicle alterer. If, however, your advertising or bids promote the use of the snow plow in situations where front axles are likely to be overloaded, then the plow may be considered to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, which would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0224OpenMr. Folke Kohler, Scandex Sakerhetsglas Akteibolag, Box 218, S-261 22 Londskrona 1, Sweden; Mr. Folke Kohler Scandex Sakerhetsglas Akteibolag Box 218 S-261 22 Londskrona 1 Sweden; Dear Mr. Kohler: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1970 in which you applie to the National Highway Safety Bureau for registration of glazing materials your company intends exporting to the United States for use in motor vehicles.; It is important that you understand that the National Highway Safet Bureau does not approve or certify that glazing materials meet the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle safety Standard applicable thereto (No. 205, copy enclosed). Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1403 (a copy of the Act is also enclosed) requires the manufacturer to certify that his product complies with all applicable U.S. standards. You may certify that your company's glazing materials meet the standard by following the requirements of Section 114 of the Act or by following the certification alternative provided for in S3.4 of Standard No. 205. If you choose to use the alternative method provided for in the Standard you must apply for an approved manufacturer's code mark.; Although the Bureau does not certify glazing material as complying, i does conduct a compliance program to determine if the manufacturer's product does, in fact, comply with the applicable standards. Persons selling non-complying items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation (see Sections 108 and 109 of the Act).; In addition, your attention is directed to Section 110(e) of the Ac which requires persons exporting motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment into the United States to designate an agent for service of process. See Subpart D-Service of Process: Agents, of the General Procedural Rules (copy enclosed).; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief, Regulations Division |
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.