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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam1979OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, RVIA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20036; Mr. David J. Humphreys RVIA 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1975, in which yo request an interpretation which excludes roof vent covers in recreational vehicles from the coverage of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has receive an identical request from Richards, WAtson, Dreyfuss & Gershon on behalf of Hehr International, Inc. In response to that request, we have determined that roof vent covers should be included within the scope of Standard No. 205, but also concur that roof vent covers manufactured by the injection molding process are not susceptible to testing under the procedures found in USAS Z26.1. Consequently, we intend to issue in the near future proposed rulemaking which would establish surrogate testing procedures for this type of roof vent cover. Until such time as the new procedure is adopted, it is the intention of the NHTSA to take no action against manufacturers who do not certify that their injection molded roof vent covers meet the requirements of Standard No. 205 which incorporate the requirements of USAS Z26.1.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4628OpenMr. Robert W. Kahle 4111 Blood Road Metamora, MI 48455; Mr. Robert W. Kahle 4111 Blood Road Metamora MI 48455; "Dear Mr. Kahle: This responds to your letters to Mr. Jettner of ou Office of Vehicle Safety Standards asking about the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of an 'aftermarket' head restraint for light trucks. Your letters have been referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in responding. You ask whether you need this agency's approval of your product. The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraints sold as an item of 'aftermarket' equipment for pickup trucks. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. A commercial business that installs your head restraint would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle. You ask for a copy of an 'order' requiring head restraints on new pick-up trucks in 1991. Please note that NHTSA has thus far only proposed to require head restraints in new light trucks and vans (10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating), and has proposed a September 1, 1991 effective date for the requirement, if the proposed rule is adopted. I have enclosed a copy of the proposal for your information. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding shortly. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3417OpenMr. M. S. Keshav, Manager (Research & Development), Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Poona - 411 035, India; Mr. M. S. Keshav Manager (Research & Development) Bajaj Auto Limited Akurdi Poona - 411 035 India; Dear Mr. Keshav: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1981 with regard to tur signal pilot indicators on motorcycles.; You noted that the front turn signal lamps are directly in front of th operator and are fully visible. You therefore believe that a separate pilot indicator is unnecessary. You are correct. Pursuant to SAE Standard J588e *Turn Signal Lamps*, September 1970, incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, no separate pilot indicator is required for Turn Signal Lamps that are 'readily visible to the driver.'; You have also pointed out that the motorcycle controls and display standards, No. 123, 'does not indicate the provisions and locations of the Turn Signal Pilot Indicator.' That is correct. Standard No. 108 and J588e establish the requirements for this item of vehicle equipment. I enclose a copy for your information.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1580OpenMr. Raymond E. Jones, Project Engineer, Dura Corporation, Fords Mill Road, Paris, KY 40361; Mr. Raymond E. Jones Project Engineer Dura Corporation Fords Mill Road Paris KY 40361; Dear Mr. Jones: This responds to Dura Corporation's July 24, 1974, questions whethe S5.6 of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, requires parking brakes on air suspension liftable axles, and whether the 'no lockup' requirements of the standard apply to a liftable axle on a 'tandem axle rig'.; The parking brake performance options of S5.6 do not require parkin brakes on an air suspension liftable axle such as you describe. S5.6.2 requires only that the parking brakes installed on a vehicle meet minimum performance levels. S5.6.1 requires parking brake retardation force on 'an axle other than a steerable front axle'. We do not consider this requirement to apply to an axle which is not on the ground when the parking brake system is activated.; The standard's 'no lockup' requirement (S5.3.1) applies to >>>'any wheel at speeds above 10 mph except for . . . (b) Lockup of wheels on nonsteerable axles other than the two rearmos nonliftable, nonsteerable axles on a vehicle with more than two nonsteerable axles.<<<; Under this provision, if a vehicle has two nonliftable, nonsteerabl axles at the rear which do not lock up (such as an antilock-equipped tandem axle rig) it may be equipped with a liftable nonsteerable axle which does not meet the 'no lockup' requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel. |
|
ID: aiam4278OpenMr. David A. White, Senior Safety Engineer, Grumman Olson, Post Office Box 2005, Sturgis, MI 49091; Mr. David A. White Senior Safety Engineer Grumman Olson Post Office Box 2005 Sturgis MI 49091; Dear Mr. White: This letter responds to your inquiry of November 17, 1986, asking thi agency to approve an alternate location for the certification label of a light duty truck your company intends to manufacture for the United States Post Office. Section 567.4 of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places set out in that provision. If none of those locations is practicable, S567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate place to affix the label, and to ask our approval for that alternative.; You explain in your letter that in the circumstances you describe, th S567.4 locations are impractical. First, you explain, the vehicle's sliding doors make the hinge pillar and door latch post and edge too small and irregularly shaped for a label. Second, if your company places the label on the inside of the sliding door, opening the door would hide the label. Third, you assert that the instrument panel is too small for a label.; You enclose a drawing to illustrate where your company intends to plac the certification label. According to your description, the certification label will be placed on a fixed panel behind the driver, and between the cab and the load compartment. This panel is one part of a three piece assembly of which the remaining two components are a center sliding door and a second fixed panel. You state that a person can see the certification label from the driver's area without moving any vehicle item.; In directing a manufacture to put its certification label in thos places set out in S567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular design, installing the certification label as your company proposes will facilitate seeing and reading the label, while placing the label as specified in S567.4 may not be practicable or might interfere with those activities. Therefore, on the condition that your company's label complies in all other respects with S567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the forward side of the left hand bulkhead fixed panel.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3047OpenMr. Herman L. Massie, Chief of Pupil Transportation, Department of Education, Columbus, OH 43215; Mr. Herman L. Massie Chief of Pupil Transportation Department of Education Columbus OH 43215; Dear Mr. Massie: This responds to your June 15, 1979, letter asking about the use o standard production vans for the transportation of school children to or from school or related events. In particular, you ask whether a 15-passenger Dodge Maxi-Van can be used for school transportation.; Whether a new vehicle sold for use as a school vehicle must comply wit the Federal school bus safety standards depends on whether the vehicle meets our definition of a bus. Our definition provides that a bus is 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). Thus, a vehicle that transport (sic) 10 or fewer persons may be sold as a school vehicle and need not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, a Dodge Maxi-Van capable of carrying 15 persons is a bus. If such a vehicle is sold new for use as a school vehicle, it must comply with those standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4782OpenMr. Dean A. Palius Program Manager Via Systems 1328 Cimarron Drive Santa Ynez, CA 93460; Mr. Dean A. Palius Program Manager Via Systems 1328 Cimarron Drive Santa Ynez CA 93460; "Dear Mr. Palius: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of m staff, seeking an interpretation of the effects of a procedural provision that appears in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, but not in the standard itself. Specifically, you asked whether crash testing under Standard No. 208 must be conducted only with a tow road 500 feet in length. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you. Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidelines are called compliance test procedures. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities. The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 when they are tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in various sections of the standard, including S5, S8, S10, and S11. These sections specify that the vehicle shall be traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 miles per hour (mph). However, these sections do not specify any particular length for a tow road for crash testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 may be based on tests using a tow road of any length, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 208 are satisfied. You correctly noted that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that the tow road should be at least 500 feet in length. This length was chosen for agency compliance testing to ensure the test dummies' positioning would not be affected by the acceleration of the vehicle and that the test dummies' positioning would be stabilized before impact. Tow roads of this length also allow sufficient room to abort the test if needed. Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to use a 500-foot tow road in its certification testing, a shorter tow road that affected the dummies' positioning might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. Please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4297OpenMr. John K. Liu, President, John K. Liu Enterprises, Inc., Box 544, Valley Forge, PA 19481; Mr. John K. Liu President John K. Liu Enterprises Inc. Box 544 Valley Forge PA 19481; Dear Mr. Liu: This responds to your letter concerning planned modifications to a use Class 8 truck/tractor. I regret the delay in this response. The answers to your questions are provided below.; It should be noted that the National Highway Traffic Safet 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 manufacturer to ensure that it complies with all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; >>>1. If we take a used Class 8 truck/tractor and modify it by addin an axle to increase the GVWR, do we have to make sure that the modified vehicle complies with the braking requirements of FMVSS 121/CFR 49?<<<; By way of background information, new motor vehicles and items of moto vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, which applies to trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that their new vehicles satisfy the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Also, if a vehicle is modified prior to first sale, 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.; A person who modifies a used vehicle is not required to attach certification label. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative 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. Thus, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its GVWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Safety Standard No. 121. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of July 20, 1977, to the Truck Body and Equipment Association in which the agency discusses in more detail how section 108(a)(2)(A) applies to the installation of additional axles in a used vehicle.; >>>2. Do we have to revise the nameplate or install a new nameplat giving the new GVWR and axle ratings?<<<; Under 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, manufacturers of motor vehicle are required to affix a certification label to their vehicles. The label is required to specify, among other things, the gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) and the gross axle weight ratings for each axle. See S 567.4(g). In addition, Safety Standard No. 120, *Tires Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, requires that specifications concerning tire and rim selection be placed on either the certification label or a separate tire information label. See S S5.3.2.; As indicated above, persons who alter certified vehicles prior to firs sale are required to certify that their vehicles, as altered, conform to all applicable safety standards. Such alterers are required by Part 567 to leave the original certification label on the vehicle and add an additional label. See S 567.7. If the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values must be specified. See 567.7(b).; Persons who modify used vehicles are not required to attach certification label. However, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its GVWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Safety Standard No. 120. We encourage you to supplement the original certification label and/or tire information label by an additional label to reflect changes in gross vehicle weight rating, axle ratings, and tire and rim specifications, to avoid confusion on the part of vehicle users.; >>>3. Do we have to adopt a new VIN (vehicle identification number)?<<< The answer to this question is no. Safety Standard No. 115 Require that manufacturers of new motor vehicles provide vehicle identification numbers. The vehicle identification number is not affected by the subsequent modification of the vehicle.; >>>4. Do we have to tell a buyer that he is buying a modifie vehicle?<<<; NHTSA does not have any regulations requiring seller of used vehicle to inform buyers about axle modifications.; Our answers to your questions cover the Federal regulations and law administered by NHTSA. I have also enclosed a general information sheet which provides additional information concerning our regulations.; You should be aware that by adding an axle you are considered manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act and subject to its provisions concerning safety-related defects. Under the Act, manufacturers must notify purchasers of safety-related defects and remedy such defects without charge. Our engineering staff reviewed your plans and noted that without charge. Our engineering staff reviewed you plans and noted that in some instances that addition of an axle to a vehicle could constitute a safety-related defect, by making the vehicle unsafe for anticipated usage. You should carefully analyze this issue for the vehicle in question. Among other things, you should consider whether, as modified, the overall vehicle structure, including the truck's frame, will be able to adequately accommodate the load distribution resulting from the additional axle and/or the higher GVWR, throughout the truck's anticipate length of service.; You may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration's Office o Motor Carrier Standard Concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to your planned modifications. Also, with respect to Question 4, you may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it has any applicable regulations. Finally, a local attorney can advise you concerning the state law implications of your plans.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3552OpenMr. Dennis L. Robertson, 12071 Lewis Road, Clio, MI 48420; Mr. Dennis L. Robertson 12071 Lewis Road Clio MI 48420; Dear Mr. Robertson: This is in reply to your letter of March 4, 1982, to the Administrato asking several questions about modulating headlamps for motorcycles.; As of now, a decision is still pending on Harley-Davidson's petitio for rulemaking to allow modulating headlamps. At present, three States by statute permit use of such a device (Wisconsin, North Carolina, and California). We are unsure of the position of the remaining States though we do know that our local jurisdictions of Virginia and Maryland prohibit them. We would suggest that you contact a motorcycle trade organization such as the American Motorcyclist' Association with the thought that it may have a definitive list.; If Harley-Davidson's petition is granted, the agency would publicl propose that Standard No. 108 be amended to allow installation of a modulating headlamp. After evaluating comments from interested persons, and if it still appeared appropriate, the agency would then amend the standard. As of the effective date of the amendment, it would then be legal to equip a motorcycle with a modulating headlamp, and to use it in any State. The reason for this is that the amendment to Standard No. 108 would preempt any State regulation that differed from it.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1095OpenMr. R. J. Deller, Vice President of Engineering, Trailmobile, 4453 34th Street, Cincinnati, OH 45209; Mr. R. J. Deller Vice President of Engineering Trailmobile 4453 34th Street Cincinnati OH 45209; Dear Mr. Deller: We have received copies of your letter of March 28, 1973, to the te Regional Administrators of this agency, concerning the compliance of your vehicles with Standard No. 108. You state that law enforcement officials in certain jurisdictions are citing your semitrailers for lack of clearance lamps when, as a matter of fact, the vehicles are equipped with combination turn signal and clearance lamps located near the lower rear corners of the vehicle. You ask the Regional Administrators to advise the local authorities that this lamp configuration conforms to Standard No. 108 and 'that any conflicting state regulation is unenforceable under the provisions of Section 103(d) of the Traffic Safety Act.'; Paragraph S4.3.1.4 of Standard No. 108 states, 'Where the rea identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle.' Since the identification lamps depicted in your drawing are at the extreme height of the vehicle, the location you have chosen for the clearance lamps is allowed by Standard No. 108. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), renders void any State law with differing requirements for this equipment.; I am sending a copy of this letter to the Regional Administrators. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.