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: aiam4722OpenMr. J. Douglas Smith Engineering Manager Duralite Truck Body and Container Corp. 1300 Bush Street Baltimore, MD 21230; Mr. J. Douglas Smith Engineering Manager Duralite Truck Body and Container Corp. 1300 Bush Street Baltimore MD 21230; Dear Mr. Smith: This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson o this Office. I regret the delay in responding. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to the location of clearance lamps. You stated your understanding that 'if a chassis cab is equipped with clearance and marker lamps, it is not necessary to add a second set of two lamps to act as clearance lamps to the front wall of the truck body.' This is not correct. A chassis cab is an incomplete motor vehicle, and not required to comply with Standard No. 108. However, when the chassis cab is completed, the completed vehicle must comply, and be certified by its final-stage manufacturer as complying, with Standard No. 108 (and all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards). Standard No. 108, in pertinent part, requires front clearance lamps to be mounted to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and as near the top as practicable. This means that if clearance lamps have been mounted on the chassis cab, and if in that location they do not indicate the overall width of the completed motor vehicle and are not as near the top of the completed motor vehicle as practicable, the final stage manufacturer must add a set of clearance lamps to the front of the truck body to meet that requirement. In this event, the cab-mounted clearance lamps may be disconnected or removed. However, this is not true with respect to the mounting of identification lamps on chassis cabs. Standard No. 108 allows them to be mounted as close as practicable to the top of the cab as an alternative to the top of the vehicle. Further, on truck tractors, clearance lamps mounted on the cab may be located to indicate the width of the cab rather than the overall width of the vehicle. I hope this has answered your question. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /; |
|
ID: aiam1520OpenMr. C. J. Kidwell, American Safety Equipment Corp., 16055 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, CA 91316; Mr. C. J. Kidwell American Safety Equipment Corp. 16055 Ventura Boulevard Encino CA 91316; Dear Mr. Kidwell: This is in reply to your letter of May 29, 1974, concerning th labeling requirements of Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*. You ask for our 'review, comments, interpretation, recommendations, and opinions' on two test reports you had done with respect to the placement of the DOT symbol and its attachment on helmets manufactured to the standard's requirements.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provid approval of any item of motor vehicle equipment as conforming to any motor vehicle safety standard. Each item is required to conform, and each manufacturer must determine, by methods within his discretion, whether his product conforms to a standard. With respect to the method of affixing the DOT label to the helmet, any methods that are reasonably designed to provide a label that is clearly legible for the expected life of the helmet would be satisfactory.; We would like to point out, however, that from the photograph an drawings you enclosed, it appears that the DOT symbol on your helmet is partially obscured by a goggle snap and its related material. We do not consider this obscuring of the DOT symbol to conform to the intent of the standard. Accordingly, we recommend that you either reduce the length of the snap and its related material or raise the symbol to attain complete visibility.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5563OpenK. Olsen 8577 South State Spanish Fork, UT 84660; K. Olsen 8577 South State Spanish Fork UT 84660; "Dear Ms. Olsen: This responds to your letter of March 12, 1995 requesting an opinion as to the liability of the manufacturer, dealer, or customer in an accident involving a trailer originally sold with used tires. I apologize for the delay in our response. By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30112 of Title 49 provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, or import a new motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification of such compliance. Generally speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state regulation. This office cannot give you an opinion as to who may be liable in the accident you described. The question of liability would be a matter of state law. You may wish to consult with a local attorney on the question of liability. I can advise you that FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, generally requires tires installed on new trailers to be new, but includes certain specified exceptions which do not appear to be relevant here. In that connection, please find enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to a gentleman in Odessa, Texas, dated September 4, 1992, which discusses in some detail our requirements for tires installed on new trailers. This agency does not have any standards for trailer brakes other than air brakes. Also, as indicated above, matters relating to the use of a vehicle, such as connection of the electric brake control to the towing vehicle and loading of the trailer, are not under the jurisdiction of this agency. I hope this information is helpful to you. Based on your March 12, 1995 letter and your telephone and facsimile communications with the staff of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, that office has initiated an inquiry to the trailer manufacturer to determine if a noncompliance exists with FMVSS No. 120. If you have further information or data to offer in this regard, please contact Mr. Luke Loy at this address or at (202) 366-5288 or by FAX at (202) 366-3081. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0761OpenMr. J. Donald Waldman, P.E., President, Resources Applications, Designs & Controls, Inc., 7045 Marcelle Street, Paramount, CA, 90723; Mr. J. Donald Waldman P.E. President Resources Applications Designs & Controls Inc. 7045 Marcelle Street Paramount CA 90723; Dear Mr. Waldman: This is in reply to your letter of June 13, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to recreational vehicles. You ask, under paragraph S4.1 of the standard, whether materials not designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants must conform to the standard, and list materials and components which you believe might be within this classification.; Except in the case of the components specifically enumerated in S4.1 components that are designed not to absorb energy on contact by occupants are not subject to the standard. Enumerated components must conform to the standard regardless of whether they are energy-absorbing.; With respect to the materials which you list, whether or not they mus meet the standard depends upon whether they are used in the manufacture of any of the components listed in S4.1, either as surface materials, underlying materials, or padding and cushioning materials. In some cases, consequently, insulating materials such as those you list could fall within the materials that should be tested. In each case the manufacturer must determine whether the material is part of the listed component.; With reference to the components you list, open cabinets and cabine tops would be considered under S4.1 to be compartment shelves and toilets would be considered to be seat backs and seat cushions. Walls would be classified as trim panels. Lavoratories and shower doors are not within the enumerated components.; You also ask, in the case of unitized walls having a depth of 2 inche or more, whether the test should be limited to a section 1/2 inch thick. The thickness of the tested sample depends upon the portion of the component which is tested pursuant to paragraphs S4.2(a), S4.2(b), and S4.2(c). In each case, the portion of the material that is tested is cut to a 1/2 inch thickness when the portion of the material as it appears in the vehicle exceeds that thickness (S5.2.1).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5099OpenHerr O. Schmidt Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany; Herr O. Schmidt Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany; Dear Herr Schmidt: This responds to your letter of November 20, 1992 to Richard L. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Please address your future requests for interpretation to the Chief Counsel. You have asked for confirmation that the requirement that a center highmounted stop lamp 'provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools' does not exclude sealed lamps 'where long life light sources like long life bulbs, LED's and neon tubes are provided.' We are pleased to provide the confirmation you request. Although the agency has used the term 'the bulb', the term is not meant to exclude more than one bulb, or a light source other than a bulb, for the center lamp. Sealed units (entire lamps) are permissible as long as such a lamp is replaceable without the use of special tools. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1873OpenMr. Byron Crampton, Manager of Engineering Services, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron Crampton Manager of Engineering Services Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975 inquiring whethe a State may require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In your phone conversation of March 28 with Mr. Robert Donin of this office you indicated that the vehicle in question was an ambulance outfitted with a raised roof designed to enable medical personnel to stand inside. The raised top increases the height of the vehicle to 9 feet. You stated that although you could not identify the specific State statute involved, it was your understanding that Virginia requires clearance lights near the top of all vehicles over 7 feet in height. The law to which you apparently were referring is Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265. A copy is enclosed. It states in part:; >>>(a) All motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers exceeding seve feet in height or in width or the widest portion of which extends four inches beyond the front fender extremes shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand front top corners of such vehicle, each of which lamps shall be capable of projecting an amber light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front of such vehicle, and shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand rear top corners of such vehicle, each of which lights shall be capable of projecting a red light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle,; (b) In addition to the lamps required herein, each such vehicle shal be equipped with amber reflectors located on the side thereof, at or near the front. Red reflectors shall be used on the rear of each such vehicle. Such reflectors shall be securely fastened to the vehicle not less than twenty-four inches and not more than sixty inches from the ground, provided that in the case of a vehicle which is less than twenty-four inches in height such reflectors shall be securely fastened thereto at the highest point the structure of the vehicle will permit. The reflectors required therein shall be of a type that have been approved by the Superintendent.<<<; It is important to note that the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code als provides in S 46.1-267:; >>>No motor vehicle shall be operated on any highway which is equippe with any lighting device other than lamps required or permitted in this article or required or approved by the Superintendent or required by the Federal Department of Transportation.<<<; As you may know, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392*d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect safety standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical. By virtue of this provision, the Federal government is said to 'preempt' the field of regulation with respect to any aspect of performance for which there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.; The key question, therefore, is whether Federal Standard No. 108 an Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265 regulate the same 'aspect of performance.' If so, Virginia may not apply its requirement unless the Federal and Virginia requirements are identical. From a comparison of the two laws, it is evident that both address the same aspect of performance and that they are not identical:; >>>Both the Federal and Virginia laws apply to ambulances. An ambulanc is a multipurpose passenger vehicle, under Federal Standard No. 108 and a 'motor vehicle' under Virginia Code 46.1- 265.; Both laws require that the vehicle be equipped with lights at certai specified locations to facilitate recognition of its dimensions.; The configuration and color of the lights required by the two law differ.<<<; Consequently, Federal Standard No. 108 is preemptive, and to the exten that they differ from the Federal requirements the State clearance lamp and reflector requirements quoted are void. The language of Virginia Code S 46.1-267, to the effect that lighting devices may conform to Virginia *or* Federal standards, is incorrect.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5133OpenMr. Harry Cameron Safety, Ltd. 31W651 North Ave. Dupage Airport West Chicago, IL 60185; Mr. Harry Cameron Safety Ltd. 31W651 North Ave. Dupage Airport West Chicago IL 60185; "Dear Mr. Cameron: This responds to your letter of November 23, 199 requesting information on 'the procedure to obtain certification for the repair and recertification of motor vehicle passenger restraints to comply with DOT 206-3206.' When you were contacted by Mary Versailles of my staff for clarification on what DOT 206-3206 is, you explained that you are also unfamiliar with this requirement but had been told that you had to comply with it. Based on your request, this letter will explain the laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the responsibilities of your company when you repair motor vehicle safety belts by replacing worn or frayed webbing. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new 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-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 209, Seat belt Assemblies, (49 CFR 571.209) which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new item of motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). If you were manufacturing new seat belt assemblies to replace those with worn or frayed webbing, you would be required to certify that the new assemblies complied with Standard No. 209. If you were installing replacement assemblies, the manufacturer of those assemblies would have certified that the assemblies comply with Standard No. 209. The requirement that an item of motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the item's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the item is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly 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. This section would prohibit you from replacing the worn or frayed webbing in a manner that would negatively affect the seat belt assembly's compliance with Standard No. 209. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. We urge you to exercise care when repairing safety belts. The belts you repair will fail to achieve their intended purpose if the webbing breaks or separates from the hardware or vehicle in a crash. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0331OpenLouis Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineer, General Motors Corp., Staff Technical Center, Warren, MI; Louis Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineer General Motors Corp. Staff Technical Center Warren MI; THIS CONFIRMS THAT FINAL DATE FOR FILING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIO ON MULTISTAGE-CERTIFICATION NOTICE AT 36 FR 7054 CORRECTED 6 FR 7855 IS MAY 27, 1971.; LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER, ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL |
|
ID: aiam2619OpenMr. Jack Gromer, Vice President - Technical Operations, Timpte, Inc., 5990 N. Washington Street, Denver, Colorado 80216; Mr. Jack Gromer Vice President - Technical Operations Timpte Inc. 5990 N. Washington Street Denver Colorado 80216; Dear Mr. Gromer: This responds to your May 6, 1977 letter asking whether your tir information label complies with the requirements of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, and Part 567, *Certification*. Further, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expedite treatment of Docket No. 73-31, Notice 1, which, if implemented would simplify the certification and information labels.; Concerning Docket 73-31, the NHTSA published on June 20, 1977, a notic (42 FR 31161) implementing Notice 1 which proposed the use of the designation 'all axles' rather than listing each axle individually on the certification label. The implementation of this regulation should resolve many of your problems.; Regarding the sample information label you submitted with your letter the NHTSA does not give advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety regulations or standards. We will, however, giver an informal opinion of whether your label appears to comply with the requirements. The label you submitted does not appear to comply with the requirements of Part 567 or Standard No. 120. I have enclosed copies of both these regulations for your information.; Your certification label should use the designation 'all axles' no 'each axle.' The tire and rim information should follow that designation stated in the form presented in the examples in Standard No. 120 and Part 567.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0624OpenStephen F. Hefner, Esq., Nance, Caston, Hefner and Green, Attorneys at Law, 421 North Crockett Street, Sherman, TX 75090; Stephen F. Hefner Esq. Nance Caston Hefner and Green Attorneys at Law 421 North Crockett Street Sherman TX 75090; Dear Mr. Hefner: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1972, concerning th certification of new trailers which your client manufactures. You state that some of these trailers are shipped (to customers) equipped with used tires that are intended primarily to be used to ship the trailers to their destination, and ask whether these tires should be taken into account in the values for GVWR and GAWR on the certification label.; We do not consider that temporary tires attached to a vehicle fo purposes of shipment should be reflected in the GVWR and GAWR on the certification label, if these tires are not intended to be part of the completed vehicle. consequently, we would expect trailers shipped with such tires to be treated similarly for purposes of certification as vehicles for which no tires have been provided. In such a case, the complete vehicle manufacturer, as indicated in the preamble to the Certification regulations (April 14, 1971, 36 F.R. 2054) must still bear responsibility and certify the vehicle, even though he does not install the tires with which the vehicle will ultimately be equipped. We suggest that one manner in which this could be accomplished by the manufacturer is to list GAWR and GVWR for the optional tire sizes which he recommends in accordance with the amendment to the Certification regulations published December 10, 1971 (35 F.R. 23571). The manufacturer should make it clear to the purchaser of the vehicle that the temporary tires should be replaced when the vehicle is put into use.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Francis Armstrong, Director, Office of Standard Enforcement, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
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.