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: aiam4816OpenAggie Szilagyi, Esquire Senior Counsel New Jersey State Legislature Office of Legislative Services State House Annex CN-068 Trenton, NJ 08625; Aggie Szilagyi Esquire Senior Counsel New Jersey State Legislature Office of Legislative Services State House Annex CN-068 Trenton NJ 08625; "Dear Ms. Szilagyi: Thank you for your letter on behalf of Senato Ronald L. Rice requesting the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on whether the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (Theft Act)(15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.) would preempt provisions of New Jersey Senate Bill (SB) 3434. I apologize for the delay in this response. It is my understanding that SB 3434 has been reintroduced in this session of the legislature as SB 876. For the reasons described below, it is our opinion that the provisions in the bill for the mandatory antitheft devices on certain car lines would be preempted by the Theft Act. We understand that SB 876 would prohibit the sale or lease of a passenger automobile that is at or over the 'estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price for all passenger automobiles' unless it is equipped with a 'passive anti-theft device' that 'automatically activates upon turning off the motor of a vehicle and causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage.' Violation of this provision would be punishable by a fine. Although the Theft Act contains an explicit preemption provision (15 U.S.C. 2031) for parts marking systems which would not be triggered by SB 876, the bill would nonetheless create an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the overall Congressional objectives embodied in the Theft Act and would therefore be preempted. The objective of the Theft Act was to establish a least-cost antitheft system, with a parts-marking system being the system of choice. The Congress specified a $15-per-car limit for the cost of the system (15 U.S.C. 2024(a)), and made it clear that the alternative of installing antitheft devices was to be at the petition of the manufacturer, under procedures designed to ensure the effectiveness of such devices (15 U.S.C. 2025). SB 876 would not only have the effect of requiring the installation of antitheft devices in vehicles that are marked under the Theft Act, thereby imposing a greater cost on the owners, but could require a vehicle with an antitheft device approved under the Theft Act to be equipped with a second antitheft device if the first device did not operate in the manner prescribed by SB 876. These effects would prevent the accomplishment of the Theft Act's objectives, and would thus satisfy the conditions for general preemption found by the Supreme Court in Hines v.Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) and followed in subsequent cases (Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988), Northwest Central Pipeline Corporation v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas, (109 S. Ct. 1262 (1989)). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0156OpenMr. A. J. Hoffman, Engineering Department, Kentucky Manufacturing Company, P.O. Box 8054 - Station E, 2601 South Third Street, Louisville, KY 40208; Mr. A. J. Hoffman Engineering Department Kentucky Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 8054 - Station E 2601 South Third Street Louisville KY 40208; Dear Mr. Hoffman: Thank you for your letter of April 7, 1969, to Mr. Frank Turner Federal Highway Administrator, concerning your request for a clarification of the requirements of rear lights on Drop Frame Trailers.; In determining compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 108, requirements for tail, stop, and turn signal lamps on this type of vehicle will be predicated on the normal driving, or closed tailgate, position. These lamps should therefore meet the requirements of the referenced SAE Standards in Table I and be mounted per the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108, a copy of which is enclosed.; Thank you for your interest in meeting the intent of the requirement of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam2491OpenMr. Tokio Iinuma, Nissan Motor Co., LTD., P.O. Box 1606, 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Tokio Iinuma Nissan Motor Co. LTD. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Iinuma: This will confirm your November 11, 1976, telephone conversation wit Tad Herlihy of this office, concerning the certification label required by 49 CFR Part 567.; On the vehicles in question, the certification labels mistakenl indicated 1977 as the year of manufacture, even though manufacturing was actually completed in 1976. You proposed correcting this error before sale by crossing out the digits '77' and inserting '76' directly below them.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection t certification labels that have been corrected in this manner, provided that all other requirements of the certification regulation are also met.; Sincerely, Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5354OpenMr. Luis Carricaburu South Steering Specialists 18310 S. Dixie Hwy Miami, FL 33157; Mr. Luis Carricaburu South Steering Specialists 18310 S. Dixie Hwy Miami FL 33157; "Dear Mr. Carricaburu: This responds to your letter asking whether i is legal to buy or sell a salvaged air bag which would be used to repair an automobile with a deployed air bag. Your letter explained that the salvaged air bag would be taken from an automobile sent to a recycling yard with its air bag intact. I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so. Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a salvaged air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letters, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been 'rendered inoperative' by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the crash sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system. While great care must be taken in any air bag replacement, the use of a salvaged air bag raises additional safety issues. An air bag may have been rendered inoperable, for example, by damage in a low-speed crash, even if it has not been deployed. We would urge you to contact the vehicle or air bag manufacturer to determine whether and how a salvaged air bag could be inspected and/or tested to ensure that it is fully operable. Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using salvaged air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability. 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 Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1317OpenGreg Beck, 1715 Swarr Run Rd., Lancaster, PA 17601; Greg Beck 1715 Swarr Run Rd. Lancaster PA 17601; Dear Mr. Beck: Your letter of October 18, 1973, asks what violations of the Federa odometer laws may have occurred in your purchase of a 1962 Tempest which was misrepresented as a 1964 model.; Misrepresentation of the model year, which appears to be your principa grievance, is not a violation of Federal law but could be a violation of local laws against fraudulent merchandising.; Bill Tillett's failure to give you a disclosure statement may be violation of the Federal odometer disclosure regulation, a copy of which is enclosed. After March 1, 1973, the regulation requires each seller to make a signed, written disclosure of a vehicle's recorded mileage to his purchaser. If he knows the odometer reading is inaccurate, he must also state that the actual mileage is unknown. This statement must be made before the vehicle is sold.; If your seller violated these regulations with fraudulent intent, civil remedy is available to you under S 409 of the Act for $1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain your remedy, S 409 provides that you may bring a private civil action in State or Federal court. You may wish to consult an attorney about the possibility of bringing an action in your case.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4115OpenMr. Robert P. Horbatt, President, Semperit Tire Company, 156 Ludlow Avenue, Northvale, NJ 07647; Mr. Robert P. Horbatt President Semperit Tire Company 156 Ludlow Avenue Northvale NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Horbatt: This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in whic you stated your interpretation of the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR S575.104, 'UTQGS'). You stated that your company is introducing a new all-season tire to the United States market, and that you would like to import the first six months' production without the UTQGS grades molded onto the sidewall of the tires, but with paper labels showing those grades. This course of action is expressly permitted by the UTQGS.; First, the UTQGS is applicable to all-season tires. Sectio 575.104(c)(1) specifies that the UTQGS does not apply to 'winter-type snow tires.' The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has explained that winter-type snow tires refers only to tires with a deep tread rubber and tread design which are inadvisable for year-round use on passenger automobiles. Since all-season tires are not 'winter-type snow tires,' they are subject to the requirements of the UTQGS. *See* 44 FR 30139, at 30140, May 24, 1979.; The requirement that the grades assigned under the UTQGS be permanentl molded onto one sidewall of each passenger car tire is set forth in 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(i)(A). However, that section reads: *'Except for a tire of a new tire line, manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line*, each tire shall be graded with the words, letters, symbols, and figures ... permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall....' A tire line introduced for the first time into the United States is considered a new tire line for the purposes of this section. Therefore, our UTQGS regulation does *not* require you to mold the assigned grades onto a sidewall of those tires manufactured within the first six months of production. Such tires are subject to the requirement that a paper label, showing the UTQGS grades assigned to the tire, be affixed to its tread surface (49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)), and that the grades assigned to those tires appear in the information furnished to prospective purchasers of the tires (49 CFR S575.6(c)).; If you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2868OpenMr. James Tydings, Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. James Tydings Specifications Engineer Thomas Built Buses Inc. P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your August 25, 1978, letter asking what the ter 'normal nighttime illumination' means in Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; The term 'normal nighttime illumination' is found in paragraph S5.5. of the standard. This section requires that all interior exit instructions be legible when the only source of light is the normal nighttime illumination of the vehicle. The term, as used in this paragraph, means that exit instructions must be visible with the normal interior vehicle lighting that is in use when the bus is moving. Interior vehicle lighting may include, for example, reading lamps and overhead lights.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0855OpenMr. E. M. Anderson, Vice President, Ingram Manufacturing Co., P.O. Box 2020, San Antonio, TX 78297; Mr. E. M. Anderson Vice President Ingram Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 2020 San Antonio TX 78297; Dear Mr. Anderson: I apologize for the delay in answering your letter regarding Part 566 Manufacturer Identification. You describe the vehicles you manufacture and ask whether you are a manufacturer within the meaning of the regulation and therefore required to submit information regarding your products.; Part 566 applies to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicl equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. 'Motor vehicle' is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highway'. Since the portable tandem rollers you describe appear to be manufactured for construction or farm use you are not considered a manufacturer of motor vehicles and are not covered by Part 566. Therefore you are not required to submit information under that regulation. For similar reasons you are not covered by the certification requirements of Part 567 and 568 which you also mentioned.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1747OpenMr. Ralph Millet, Saab-Scania of America, Inc., P. O. Box 697, Orange, CT 06477; Mr. Ralph Millet Saab-Scania of America Inc. P. O. Box 697 Orange CT 06477; Dear Mr. Millet: This is to confirm the opinion which I gave to you at our January 8 1975, meeting that Saab's defect notification campaign involving 99E, LE, and EMS models with leakage problems in the fuel injection system is subject to the recent amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1470), which became effective December 26, 1974. These amendments require Saab to remedy the defect without charge and do not permit Saab's limiting the remedy without charge to vehicles brought in for repair before July 1, 1975. A revised letter must indicate in accordance with Section 153 of the amendments that Saab will remedy the vehicles without charge. Section 153 also requires certain information not presently required to be included in all notification letters. Section 153(a)(5) requires the notification to state the earliest date on which the defect will be remedied and section 153(a)(6) requires the inclusion of a 'description of the procedure to be followed by the recipient of the notification in informing the Secretary' if Saab fails or is unable to remedy without charge.; We do not believe the notification letter which you mailed on Decembe 26, 1974, conforms to these requirements. With respect to the date of remedy, you state that the parts are 'now available' to dealers. Because remedy without charge is contingent upon actual dates, we believe the inclusion of a specific date is required. Moreover, that date should reflect the fact that dealers have actually received parts, rather than that parts are merely available to them. The reference to availability is ambiguous, in our view, for it does not reveal whether manufacturers in fact are prepared at that time to make necessary repairs. You must also include information that is responsive to section 153(a)(6). As the procedures referred to have not been published, it is sufficient if you advise owners that they can write the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, if they find Saab to have failed or to have been unable to perform the repair satisfactorily.; In other respects, we believe your letter does meet the requirements o section 153. Revised letters should be sent to all owners who have not had their vehicles repaired at the time of mailing, and should be mailed as expeditiously as possible after Saab receives the names of registered owners it has ordered.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4545OpenMr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administrative Department Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-Ken Japan; Mr. M. Iwase Manager Technical Administrative Department Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-shi Shizuoka-Ken Japan; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1988 asking whether location of a stop and taillamp on a deck lid would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In your opinion this is acceptable because the vehicle complies with the trunk lid closed. You have also asked, alternatively, whether the deck lid is an acceptable location for turn signal lamps. Section S4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires lighting devices to be mounted on 'a rigid part of the vehicle...that is not designed to be removed except for repair'. In past interpretations the agency has stated that a deck lid is 'a rigid part of the vehicle', and that compliance with the standard will be determined with the deck lid closed. Thus, it may be used for mounting lamps and reflectors required by Standard No. 108. However, Table IV specifies the location for rear lamps. Stoplamps, taillamps, rear turn signal lamps, and rear reflex reflectors must be mounted 'as far apart as practicable'. Although the determination of practicability is initially made by the vehicle manufacturer, the agency in its enforcement efforts would consider whether lighting equipment mounted on the deck lid meets the requirements of Table IV. On the other hand, the separation requirement is not specified for backup lamps and license plate lamps. I have enclosed for your information a copy of a l980 interpretation that addressed a similar question. As you will note, the agency raised some safety concerns in that letter which could also pertain to your design. Operation of a motor vehicle in the United States is subject to the laws of the individual States, some of which may prohibit operation of a vehicle when its turn signals and stop lamps are not visible. In summary, we urge you to consider the issues described above, including those raised in the l980 letter, in deciding whether to proceed with this design. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
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.