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: aiam3653OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1982, to Mr. Vinson o this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new option for school buses permitted by Wisconsin. This option would allow two additional red lamps, front and rear, as a supplement to the red warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4(a) of the standard.; As a general rule, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No 108 as long as it does not 'impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment' required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). In our opinion, the separate lamps that would be permitted by Wisconsin on the front of the school bus, between the bottom of the windshield and the top of the highest headlamp, would not impair the effectiveness of the front lighting equipment. The lamps on the rear, however, according to Wisconsin, could be incorporated 'in an existing lamp' provided that such incorporation 'shall not interfere with or override the existing unit's function.' We believe that the language both of Standard No. 108 and the Wisconsin specification would effectively prohibit incorporation of the warning lamp into the stop lamp of the school bus. However, we believe that this language would allow its combination with the tail lamp, or its addition as a separate lamp.; We trust that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4839OpenMr. James W. Lawrence Manager, Compliance and Technical Legislation Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation 7825 National Service Road P.O. Box 26115 Greensboro, NC 27402-6115; Mr. James W. Lawrence Manager Compliance and Technical Legislation Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation 7825 National Service Road P.O. Box 26115 Greensboro NC 27402-6115; "Dear Mr. Lawrence: This responds to your letter of June 15, 199 concerning replacement doors. I apologize for the delay in our response. You quote an April 9, l990 interpretation letter to Mr. Rowghani concerning Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength. You note that the letter states that 'there is no requirement that the replacement door restore the vehicle to a condition in which it continues to meet Standard No. 214.' You requested a clarification of this statement as you believe that the 'render inoperative' provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would require 'installation of parts meeting the same performance requirements as OEM parts.' The 'render inoperative' provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) would prohibit any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from removing and replacing an undamaged side door, unless the vehicle continued to comply with Standard No. 214. However, that section does not require a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if it has been 'rendered inoperative' by another agent, such as a crash. The sentence you quote begins, 'if damage to a vehicle is such that its original door must be replaced.' The interpretation was intended to be limited to situations where damage is so extensive that the vehicle would no longer comply with Standard No. 214. I hope you find this clarification helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel "; |
|
ID: aiam0814OpenMr. James W. Callison, 1436 E. Ovid Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50316; Mr. James W. Callison 1436 E. Ovid Avenue Des Moines IA 50316; Dear Mr. Callison: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1972, and your note of Jul 31, asking whether the following statement may be placed on an invoice to relieve a final-stage manufacturer making the statement of his responsibilities under the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567):; >>>'Delivery of this unit was accepted by the undersigned with th understanding that the unit DOES NOT meet all requirements of the Nat'l. Traffic and Motor Vehicle safety Act. The undersigned assumes full responsibility for compliance.'<<<; In a conversation you had with Mike Peskoe of this office on July 31 you elaborated on your question. It appears that such a stamp might be used in either of two situations. First, a final-stage manufacturer might use the statement if he did not wish to certify the vehicle, attempting thereby to pass on the responsibility to the person to whom he delivers it, either a dealer or purchaser. In the second case, an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer has assumed the responsibility for conformity, and certification, pursuant to sections 567.5(c) or (d), and section 568.7, and the final-stage manufacturer is returning the vehicle to the party for whom he completed it, and wishes to make it clear that he is not responsible for certification.; A final-stage manufacturer whose responsibility for certification ha not been assumed by an intermediate or incomplete manufacturer cannot remove himself from this responsibility, or require another to assume it for him. The regulations require such a manufacturer to certify the completed vehicle, and his failure to do so can subject him to civil penalties and other sanctions. The use of a disclaimer such as the stamp you enclose would be of no legal effect, even if signed by the person receiving the vehicle.; In the situation where an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer ha assumed the certification responsibility, the use of such a stamp would be unnecessary. The final-stage manufacturer should obtain written assurance of that fact from the party assuming the responsibility, *before* beginning work on the vehicle. Also, the assumption of responsibility is reflected in special provisions regarding the certification label, in accordance with S 567.5(c) and (d) of the Certification regulations. It would be advisable for any statement concerning this arrangement to make reference to the applicable regulations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0812OpenMr. James W. Callison, 1436 E. Ovid Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50316; Mr. James W. Callison 1436 E. Ovid Avenue Des Moines IA 50316; Dear Mr. Callison: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1972, and your note of Jul 31, asking whether the following statement may be placed on an invoice to relieve a final-stage manufacturer making the statement of his responsibilities under the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567):; >>>'Delivery of this unit was accepted by the undersigned with th understanding that the unit DOES NOT meet all requirements of the Nat'l. Traffic and Motor Vehicle safety Act. The undersigned assumes full responsibility for compliance.'<<<; In a conversation you had with Mike Peskoe of this office on July 31 you elaborated on your question. It appears that such a stamp might be used in either of two situations. First, a final-stage manufacturer might use the statement if he did not wish to certify the vehicle, attempting thereby to pass on the responsibility to the person to whom he delivers it, either a dealer or purchaser. In the second case, an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer has assumed the responsibility for conformity, and certification, pursuant to sections 567.5(c) or (d), and section 568.7, and the final-stage manufacturer is returning the vehicle to the party for whom he completed it, and wishes to make it clear that he is not responsible for certification.; A final-stage manufacturer whose responsibility for certification ha not been assumed by an intermediate or incomplete manufacturer cannot remove himself from this responsibility, or require another to assume it for him. The regulations require such a manufacturer to certify the completed vehicle, and his failure to do so can subject him to civil penalties and other sanctions. The use of a disclaimer such as the stamp you enclose would be of no legal effect, even if signed by the person receiving the vehicle.; In the situation where an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer ha assumed the certification responsibility, the use of such a stamp would be unnecessary. The final-stage manufacturer should obtain written assurance of that fact from the party assuming the responsibility, *before* beginning work on the vehicle. Also, the assumption of responsibility is reflected in special provisions regarding the certification label, in accordance with S 567.5(c) and (d) of the Certification regulations. It would be advisable for any statement concerning this arrangement to make reference to the applicable regulations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1881OpenMr. H. P. Montgomery, Jr., Montgomery GMC Trucks, Inc., 836 North Glenstone, Springfield, MO 65801; Mr. H. P. Montgomery Jr. Montgomery GMC Trucks Inc. 836 North Glenstone Springfield MO 65801; Dear Mr. Montgomery: This responds to your March 26, 1975, request for guidance i establishing basis for certification to Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, in the case of a truck to which you add a third axle.; While your letter lists five bases which might be used i certification, it is not necessary to employ all of these approaches. Rather the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that you exercise 'due care' to assure that your products conform to the standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(B)(1)). What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.; As a general response to your questions, if testing facilities are no available to an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, or the cost of his testing a vehicle directly to the requirements of Standard No. 121 is prohibitive, such a company should develop an alternative method of determining that his alternations (sic) do not take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. These methods could include testing of typical installations by independent contractors working with associations of companies such as TBEA or TEBDA, testing of typical installations by suppliers of the axles or other components sought to be installed, engineering calculations by the alterer, the alterer's supplier, or by independent contractors, or copying of installations that have been approved by chassis manufacturers. Component (e.g., axle) suppliers would appear to be a prime source of the type of assistance needed by intermediate and final-stage manufacturers, since they are most familiar with the main components of the installation and have the greatest economic interest in seeing this segment of the industry maintained.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1918OpenMr. A. L. Aslan, Aslan Truck Service, P.O. Box 291, Kingsburg, CA 93631; Mr. A. L. Aslan Aslan Truck Service P.O. Box 291 Kingsburg CA 93631; Dear Mr. Aslan: Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1975, explaining your reason for not purchasing bulk agricultural commodity trailers that conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*. You said that you expect that the new systems will be disabled or destroyed by rough usage in the fields, and that you intend to manufacture trailers that do not conform to the standard.; We have no reason to believe that the new axle systems will be mor susceptible to field hazards than are present systems. Most antilock systems are designed so that the outboard sensor is enclosed in the hub and the wiring harness is routed inside the axle to the antilock module. There are antilock systems that incorporate the antilock module and air valve in the same location as the relay valve found on pre-121 vehicles. We therefore expect little change in the susceptibility of these vehicles to field hazards.; You stated that you intend to manufacture air-braked trailers for you own use which do not comply with Standard No. 121. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq.) prohibits the manufacture of non-complying vehicles after the effective date of an applicable standard as follows:; >>>S 1397(a)(1) No person shall -- (A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or delive for introduction in 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 subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, . . .<<<; From your description, your plans to build vehicles which woul subsequently be introduced in interstate commerce (i.e., driven on the public highway) would appear to be in violation of this section. Civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation can be assessed under S 1398 of the Act.; I am interested in hearing form you on your experience with Standar No. 121 if you choose to purchase any complying vehicles. In any case, I would like to assure you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in the process of monitoring the standard's economic impact. The NHTSA will attempt to identify any modifications that would lower the standard's cost while achieving comparable levels of safety.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
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 |
|
ID: aiam5421OpenJohn E. Gillick, Esq. Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts 1133 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20036; John E. Gillick Esq. Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts 1133 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Gillick: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214, Side impact protection. In the alternative, you also petition NHTSA to grant your client, Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini), a temporary exemption from Standard No. 214 until September 1, 1996, pursuant to 49 CFR part 555, Temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards. By way of background, on October 30, 1990 (55 FR 45722), NHTSA published a final rule establishing new dynamic performance requirements for Standard No. 214, and two alternative phase-in schedules for manufacturers to comply with the new requirements. You write that Lamborghini was owned by Chrysler Corporation at the final rule's publication, and Lamborghini planned to comply with Standard No. 214's phase-in schedule by being counted as part of Chrysler's fleet. You write that on January 31, 1994, Chrysler sold Lamborghini. You state that Lamborghini, on its own, is not able to meet either of the two phase-in schedules established in Standard No. 214. Thus, despite Lamborghini's sale, you are asking NHTSA to permit Chrysler to include Lamborghini's vehicles as part of Chrysler's fleet for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 214's phase-in schedule. We are unable to interpret the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 214 as you suggest. This is because these requirements apply to vehicles 'produced by more than one manufacturer,' and the vehicles in question will not be. Alternatively, we have further determined that your request would be most appropriately resolved by treating it as a petition pursuant to part 555. We are presently reviewing your submission pursuant to part 555, and anticipate issuing a proposed decision shortly. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Z. Taylor Vinson of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3034OpenMr. Howard J. Bogner, Federal Government Relations Manager, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, 1101 Fifteenth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Mr. Howard J. Bogner Federal Government Relations Manager Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company 1101 Fifteenth Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20005; Dear Mr. Bogner: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1979, asking about 'th history of the implementation of FMVSS 108 and the dates as to these proceedings.'; I assume that you are interested in the initial standards and not th many amendments that have occurred at frequent intervals since the first effective dates. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the *Federal Register* on October 8, 1966, inviting suggestions for all the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The initial motor vehicle lighting requirement were proposed on November 30, 1966 (31 FR 15212, corrected at 31 FR 15600). Standard No. 108 published on February 3, 1967, however, (32 FR 2408, establishing 23 CFR 255.21, effective January 1, 1968) applied only to vehicles whose overall width was 80 inches or more. On the same day the agency (then known as the National Traffic Safety Agency, Department of Commerce) proposed 'MVSS No. 112' to become effective January 1, 1968, to cover all vehicles whose width was less than 80 inches (32 FR 2418). The same notice also proposed amendments to the just-issued Standard No. 108 which were adopted on December 16, 1967 (32 FR 18032) with varying effective dates. Instead of adopting 'Standard No. 112', the agency also amended Standard No. 108 on December 16, 1967 (32 FR 18033) to incorporate the proposed '112' requirements, for vehicles under 80 inches in overall width, but with an effective date of January 1, 1969. At least one amendment occurred before January 1, 1969 (See 33 FR 2994, February 15, 1968), and one interpretation (See 32 FR 8808, June 21, 1967), defining 'overall width'. A petition for review of boat trailer lighting requirements was filed in 1968, and the requirements upheld (See *Boating Industry Association* v. *Boyd*, 409 F.2d 408 (7th Cir., 1969, rehearing denied).; This is the history of the early days of Standard No. 108. The onl 'documentation' that might still exist would be microfiche copies of docket comments (Docket No. 9) which are warehoused in Virginia. The head of our technical reference service, Ms. Winifred Desmond (426-2728) may be able to assist you with these.; If you have any further questions you may call me at 426-9511. Sincerely, Z. Taylor Vinson, Senior Staff Attorney |
|
ID: aiam3578OpenRegal Tire Corporation, 4309 County Line Road, Chalfont, PA 18914; Regal Tire Corporation 4309 County Line Road Chalfont PA 18914; Dear Sir: At the request of the office of the Honorable Peter Peyser, M.C., w are writing this letter to you to explain the significance of certain items of information molded on the sidewall of new tires.; Part 574, *Tire identification and recordkeeping* (49 CFR 574) requires that each new tire to be sold in the United States have a serial number molded on one of its sidewalls. That number identifies the tire's manufacturer, date of manufacture, and size. This information is designed to ensure the proper identification of all tires subject to a recall by the manufacturer for correction of a safety-related defect or of a failure to comply with a safety standard. The serial number is not a guarantee of quality or of compliance with any safety standard.; Each new tire is also required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standards Nos. 109, *New pneumatic tires*, and 119, *New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars* (49 CFR 571.109 and 571.119), to have the symbol 'DOT' appear on one of its sidewalls. This symbol is a certification by the tire's manufacturer that the tire fully complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The symbol does not guarantee the quality of a tire in areas of performance unregulated by the safety standards.; Neither the serial number nor the DOT symbol constitute representation that a tire is free from any safety- related defect.; If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me. 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.