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: aiam1779OpenMr. Danny J. Lanzdorf, Supervising Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Danny J. Lanzdorf Supervising Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Lanzdorf: This responds to Oshkosh Truck Company's January 9, 1975, questio whether Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, permits the installation of a hand-operated control lever for use in modulating the air in the service brake system in a vehicle which is equipped with a foot-operated service brake control which meets the requirements of the standard.; Standard No. 121 does not include a requirement for a service brak control, and it does not prohibit installation of more than one service brake control. At the same time, several provisions are based on operation of the service brake control(e.t., S5.3.1, S5.7.2.1) and therefore indirectly require a service brake control with certain characteristics. Recently-issued amendments of the emergency brake provisions (effective September 1, 1976) are intended to combine service and emergency brake control in a single service brake control to simplfy (sic) and standardize braking in all new vehicles.; With this in mind, the NHTSA has determined that installation of hand-operated control lever such as you describe does not violate the standard. It may be advisable however, to label this hand-operated lever with a designation other than 'service brake control.' The NHTSA will review this and the other provisions of Standard No. 121 on a continuing basis to determine the advisability f further specifications in the future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4057OpenMr. Robert Juckett, Transglogal Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 98, Whitehall, NY 12887; Mr. Robert Juckett Transglogal Industries Inc. P.O. Box 98 Whitehall NY 12887; Dear Mr. Juckett: This responds to your letter of September 9, 1985, regarding th applicability of Standard No. 121 to a partially used and partially new trailer. You asked whether your customer, who plans to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from you is responsible for compliance with Safety Standard 121. Your customer plans to mount on his newly purchased frame his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles.; By way of background information, this agency does not give approval of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; If your customer intends to use the trailer which he is assembling fo his own use, then he is not governed by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:; >>>(a) No person shall: (1) Manufacture for sale, sell or deliver for introduction int interstate commerce or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this rule unless it is in conformity with such standard.<<<; Section 102(5) of that Act defines 'manufacturer' as 'any perso engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles...for resale.' Your customer is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless he is assembling the vehicle you mention for sale.; In the event that your customer is a manufacturer within the meaning o the Act, he may still be excepted from the requirements of Standard No. 121. You noted that your customer will mount a new trailer frame, air tank and air valve on his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles. 49 CFR Part 571.7(f) excludes from Standard No. 121 partly new and partly used trailers when the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new and was taken from an existing trailer. In addition, the reassembled vehicle must use the same vehicle identification number as the original trailer and the original trailer must be owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1803OpenMr. J. T. Roberts, Vice President - Sales, Gerard, Inc., 3300 Turman Drive (Atlanta), Norcross, GA 30071; Mr. J. T. Roberts Vice President - Sales Gerard Inc. 3300 Turman Drive (Atlanta) Norcross GA 30071; Dear Mr. Roberts: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1975, requestin information on forms and information to be used in complying with NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567, 568) and Manufacturer Identification regulations (49 CFR Part 566).; There are no special forms which the NHTSA provides for manufacturer for purposes of compliance with these requirements. Part 566 information may be furnished on a business letterhead. Part 567 and 568 information should be furnished in any form which complies with the prescribed requirements. Although the Certification requirements may be modified as the result of litigation, the NHTSA will consider compliance with the published requirements to meet any manufacturer's responsibilities for Certification under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1403).; If you have further questions, please feel free to write again. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4881OpenMr. Stephen Mamakas AIR Inc. 1517 West 9 Street Brooklyn, NY 11204; Mr. Stephen Mamakas AIR Inc. 1517 West 9 Street Brooklyn NY 11204; Dear Mr. Mamakas: In a telephone conversation with Stephen Kratzke o my staff, you asked for a clarification of my May 13, 1991 letter to you. My May 13 letter explained that Federal law would not affect any plans to repair air bags, but that a host of safety concerns and potential product liability issues under State law would arise in connection with any planned operation to repair air bags. You explained in your telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke that the last paragraph of my May 13 letter to you suggests that I did not fully understand your company's plans. In that last paragraph, I referred to repacking a deployed air bag. In your telephone conversation, you explained that your company would not reuse any used equipment. Instead, you plan on installing the new air bags and new sensors recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. After your company completes its work on the vehicle, you are prepared to certify that the air bag will work as intended by the vehicle manufacturer. You asked how this difference would change the answer in my May 13 letter. This new information would not affect my previous advice that Federal law does not affect your planned repair operations. However, the safety concerns I expressed in my previous letter would be addressed if your company's repairs used only the replacement parts for the air bag system recommended by the vehicle manufacturer and installed those parts in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's instructions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3540OpenMr. M. W. Urban, Sure-View, Inc., 1337 N. Meridan Street, Wichita, KA 67203; Mr. M. W. Urban Sure-View Inc. 1337 N. Meridan Street Wichita KA 67203; Dear Mr. Urban: This responds to your letter of February 8, 1982, concerning complianc with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, in particular compliance with Safety Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*.; You are correct that section 102(2) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(2)) defines, in part, a motor vehicle safety standard as 'a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance....' Thus, each of the agency's safety standards sets a minimum level of performance which must be met by every manufacturer. Manufacturers are free to utilize designs that exceeds the minimum level of performance set by a standard as long as their products still comply with the standard. Thus, in the case of schoolbus rearview mirrors, a manufacturer must at least comply with the requirements of section 9.1 of Standard No. 111 regarding mirror size, and may voluntarily provide a mirror of a larger size. As explained in the enclosed letter, the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the agency to regulate aspect of design, such as mirror size.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5543OpenMs. Teresa Thompson 1686 Desoto Trail Dalton, GA 30721; Ms. Teresa Thompson 1686 Desoto Trail Dalton GA 30721; "Dear Ms. Thompson: We have received your letter of April 6, 1995, wit respect to an automotive deceleration signal. You have asked for information 'on how to have this product tested and approved as well as information on the legal ramifications and liabilities for the product.' The Department of Transportation neither tests nor 'approves' products. What it does do is to advise whether motor vehicle equipment is permitted under the statutes and regulations for whose administration it is responsible. In this instance, the appropriate regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. This standard specifies requirements for only certain items of lighting equipment but it also has an effect on lighting equipment that is not specified in the standard. That is to say, if an item of lighting equipment is not allowable for a manufacturer or dealer to install as original equipment (i.e., equipment on the vehicle at the time of its original sale), in most cases it won't be allowable in the aftermarket for manufacturer or dealer installation on used vehicles as well. As you describe it, the signal is provided by 'a strobe light with an independent power supply, which upon heavy breaking (sic), will activate a strobe for five seconds and on impact for ten minutes.' The prototype 'is approximately 4' by 3' and may be attached to a rear window.' Federal laws cover brake activation of your strobe signal. Standard No. 108 requires turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps to flash. Headlamps and side marker lamps may be flashed for signaling purposes. But all other lamps provided as original equipment must be steady- burning. We regard a strobe lamp as one that flashes. For this reason, the deceleration signal you describe could not be installed as original equipment. Further, its installation on a used vehicle would take the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 108. Notwithstanding the discussion above, there is no Federal prohibition on the sale of the strobe signal device, and Federal law does not prevent the vehicle owner from installing it on a used vehicle (however, manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not do so), no matter what effect the strobe signal may have upon compliance with Standard No. 108. However, the States have the right to decide whether use of the strobe signal is permissible. We aren't able to provide you with information on State laws, and suggest that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22303. We can't advise you on your potential liabilities either, and suggest that you contact your attorney for an opinion on the applicability of local law. In addition, it is important to note that Standard No. 108 prohibits supplementary original lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The proximity of your strobe device in the rear window to the center highmounted stop lamp required by Standard No. 108 raises the possibility of impairment, especially if the strobe is of a color other than red, or so bright as to mask the center stop lamp signal. I am sorry to be unable to offer you more encouragement at present, as we share your concern with the negative effects of fog and rain on drivers and vehicles. It is obvious that you have given much thought to this problem. Noting that you are testing a prototype, this agency would be interested in receiving any data you have or may develop showing a positive effect of the strobe signal upon the frequency and severity of rear end collisions. You may send this to Michael Perel, Office of Research and Development, NHTSA, Room 6206, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is conceivable that at some time in the future we would allow the center stop lamp to flash under conditions of rapid deceleration. This could open the way to permissibility of an additional lamp such as yours. I note that, to the extent that your device were only to activate upon impact and not during conditions of rapid deceleration, it would not be prohibited by Standard No. 108. Such a device would be permissible as a supplement to, or substitute for, a vehicle's hazard warning signal system. We do not know whether it would be permissible under State laws (see discussion above). If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4419OpenMr. Robert K. St. Francis, Director, Office of Fleet Management, Delivery Services Department, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, DC 20260-7200; Mr. Robert K. St. Francis Director Office of Fleet Management Delivery Services Department United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW Washington DC 20260-7200; Dear Mr. St. Francis: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1987, regarding deliver vans constructed to Postal Service specifications. You have asked for relief from the requirement that these vehicles be delivered with a license plate lamp because, except in the District of Columbia (DC), the Postal Service is not required to license its vehicles. According to contract specification with the manufacturer of the vehicles, Grumman Allied Industries, Inc., the license plate bracket and lamp assembly are not required, however, the Postal Service has required the wiring and identification of its location for installations for DC service, and for future use after disposal by the Postal Service.; As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* requires motor vehicles to be manufactured with license plate lamps meeting the requirements of SAE Standard J587 OCT81; License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps)*. Paragraph 2 o SAE J587 defines a license plate lamp as 'a lamp used to illuminate the license plate on the rear of a vehicle.' If a manufacturer knows that the vehicle, as sold it its first purchaser, will not be required to bear a rear registration plate, then it may produce the vehicle without a license plate lamp, and this omission will not constitute a failure to comply with Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0558OpenRoman G. Burnor, Esq., Counsel, Lamp Division, General Electric Company, Nela Park, Cleveland, OH 44112; Roman G. Burnor Esq. Counsel Lamp Division General Electric Company Nela Park Cleveland OH 44112; Dear Mr. Burnor: This is in reply to your letter of December 21 to Mr. Vinson of thi office asking for confirmation of your understanding that manufacturers of bulbs for 'automotive replacement lamps and devices' are not required to certify compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Standard No. 108 establishes performance requirements for items o motor vehicle lighting equipment, and incorporates by reference certain SAE standards that specify requirements lamps must meet in laboratory tests when assembled. The SAE standard that applies to bulbs, J573d, *Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units*, is not incorporated by reference, and Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the output of bulbs furnished with a lamp assembly. When a lamp is tested for conformity, the production bulb is removed and a calibrated bulb substituted, in accordance with Paragraph C of SAE Standard J575d, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components, the test bulb is to be 'representative of standard bulbs in regular production' and must be 'selected for accuracy in accordance with specifications listed in . . . SAE J573.'; In summary, Standard No. 108 does not specify performance requirement for lamp bulbs, and production bulbs are not used in lamp testing. Therefore, Standard No. 108 does not apply to bulbs and bulb manufacturers are not required to certify conformance to Federal standards, or to submit information pursuant to the *Manufacturer Identification* regulations.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3609OpenMr. Jerome N. Sonosky, Mr. Mark S. McConnell, Hogan & Hartson, 815 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Jerome N. Sonosky Mr. Mark S. McConnell Hogan & Hartson 815 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Messrs. Sonosky and McConnell: This is in further response to your letter concerning the applicatio of several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to mopeds. You asked whether Standard No. 108 and Standard No. 127 would preempt States statutes or regulations on the same subjects.; Your specific question on Standard No. 127 was whether section 3 of th standard, which excluded mopeds from the coverage of the standard, would preempt State laws that require all motor vehicles operated on the highways to be equipped with a speedometer. Subsequent to your letter, the agency rescinded Standard No. 127 (47 FR 7250). In rescinding the standard, the agency stated that it recognized that there is a nexus between having a speedometer and motor vehicle safety. Based on available information, however, the agency concluded that the specific requirements of the standard concerning the markings on a speedometer, such as the highlighting of the numeral '55', were not yielding and could not be expected to yield significant safety benefits. Because the marking requirements were not yielding safety benefits, the agency stated that it intended that other levels of government be preempted from establishing similar requirements. In preempting States from establishing marking requirements, the agency did not intend to preempt States from enforcing laws or regulations which only require the presence of a speedometer and do not set marking requirements for the speedometer.; Your final question concerned section 4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108 which exempts motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less from the requirement that motor vehicles be equipped with turn signal lamps. You asked if that provision preempts State laws to the extent they require all motor vehicles to be equipped with turn signal lamps. The answer is yes.; In adopting section 4.1.1.26, the agency specifically addressed th issue of what turn signal requirements are necessary and appropriate for mopeds. The agency determined that the speed and weight characteristics of mopeds made the problems associated with hand signaling less significant than they are for larger motorcycles. The agency concluded that exempting mopeds from the turn signal requirement would ease the burden of compliance for moped manufacturers without jeopardizing safety. Since Standard No. 108 specifically addresses the issue of what turn signal requirements are applicable to mopeds, States are preempted from establishing or enforcing a safety standard on that aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3608OpenMr. Jerome N. Sonosky, Mr. Mark S. McConnell, Hogan & Hartson, 815 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. Jerome N. Sonosky Mr. Mark S. McConnell Hogan & Hartson 815 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Messrs. Sonosky and McConnell: This is in further response to your letter concerning the applicatio of several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to mopeds. You asked whether Standard No. 108 and Standard No. 127 would preempt States statutes or regulations on the same subjects.; Your specific question on Standard No. 127 was whether section 3 of th standard, which excluded mopeds from the coverage of the standard, would preempt State laws that require all motor vehicles operated on the highways to be equipped with a speedometer. Subsequent to your letter, the agency rescinded Standard No. 127 (47 FR 7250). In rescinding the standard, the agency stated that it recognized that there is a nexus between having a speedometer and motor vehicle safety. Based on available information, however, the agency concluded that the specific requirements of the standard concerning the markings on a speedometer, such as the highlighting of the numeral '55', were not yielding and could not be expected to yield significant safety benefits. Because the marking requirements were not yielding safety benefits, the agency stated that it intended that other levels of government be preempted from establishing similar requirements. In preempting States from establishing marking requirements, the agency did not intend to preempt States from enforcing laws or regulations which only require the presence of a speedometer and do not set marking requirements for the speedometer.; Your final question concerned section 4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108 which exempts motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less from the requirement that motor vehicles be equipped with turn signal lamps. You asked if that provision preempts State laws to the extent they require all motor vehicles to be equipped with turn signal lamps. The answer is yes.; In adopting section 4.1.1.26, the agency specifically addressed th issue of what turn signal requirements are necessary and appropriate for mopeds. The agency determined that the speed and weight characteristics of mopeds made the problems associated with hand signaling less significant than they are for larger motorcycles. The agency concluded that exempting mopeds from the turn signal requirement would ease the burden of compliance for moped manufacturers without jeopardizing safety. Since Standard No. 108 specifically addresses the issue of what turn signal requirements are applicable to mopeds, States are preempted from establishing or enforcing a safety standard on that aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.