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: aiam0435OpenAlex. Feigelson Company, P. O. Box 432, 500 S. Fourth Street, Beaumont, TX 77704; Alex. Feigelson Company P. O. Box 432 500 S. Fourth Street Beaumont TX 77704; Dear Sir: In response to your letter of August 23, 1971, the NHTSA neithe requires nor provides forms by which manufacturers must submit quarterly reports pursuant to S 573.5 of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573). Manufacturers are free to use any form they wish in submitting the required information. However, a suggested format is enclosed for your guidance.; Please note that the effective date of the regulation has been extende to October 1, 1971. A copy of the *Federal Register* notice extending the date is also enclosed.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4925OpenMr. William J. Lewandoski National Accounts Manager Wheels/RV Products Kelsey Parts Business 38481 Huron River Drive Romulus, MI 48174; Mr. William J. Lewandoski National Accounts Manager Wheels/RV Products Kelsey Parts Business 38481 Huron River Drive Romulus MI 48174; "Dear Mr. Lewandoski: This responds to your letter of July 9, l99l, t Robert Hellmuth of this agency, regarding an apparent conflict between an interpretation furnished you by this Office on May 23 of this year, and a Memorandum of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) dated May 30, 1991. The subject is whether the Tekonsha Voyager and Commander electronic brake controls ('the Brake Control') are permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The Brake Control incorporates a 'manual override' slide bar that activates the trailer brakes without a corresponding activation of the trailer stop lamps. On May 23, we responded to your question whether activation of 'the trailer brakes and non-activation of the tow vehicle/trailer stop lamps comply' with Standard No. 108. We informed you that Standard No. l08 does not so permit, and that, because the Brake Control 'applies the service brakes to diminish vehicle speed,' the stop lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to be activated. However, on May 30, CHP issued Management Memorandum No. 91-80 stating that this agency had issued a ruling that the Brake Control was 'legal' under the preemption authority of l5 U.S.C. 1392(d), and that CHP personnel should consider the device to be in compliance with State requirements. You have asked for a clarification of the apparent conflict between our May 23, 1991 interpretation and the CHP memorandum. The Patrol informs us that its Memorandum was based upon an interpretation that this office furnished on September 10, l990, to Lawrence F. Henneberger. Describing the Tekonsha Commander as a device which would allow the driver of a tractor-trailer combination 'to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to control swaying,' Mr. Henneberger had stated last year that California had taken the position that the vehicle's stop lamps must be activated when the Brake Control is used, 'even though the service brakes are not applied at the time.' It appeared to us from Mr. Henneberger's statements that the purpose of the Brake Control was 'to control trailer sway and not 'to stop or diminish speed by braking.'' The basis for California's position was its interpretation of Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code which states, in pertinent part, that stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the hand control head for electric brakes. We responded to Mr. Henneberger in our September 1990 letter that the California requirement conflicted with the requirement in Standard No. l08 that stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes, and that therefore, under the preemption clause of l5 U.S.C. 1392(d), Section 24603(f) was preempted 'to the extent that it may be read as requiring stop lamps to be activated on motor vehicles equipped with the Commander Electronic Brake Control, when the Control is hand activated in an emergency mode to provide sway control.' We have reviewed the interpretations of September 10, 1990, and May 23, l991, as you have requested, and we have concluded that our interpretation letter to Mr. Henneberger was in error. Although Mr. Henneberger informed us that the Brake Control 'does not involve application of the vehicle's service brakes' (Henneberger letter, June 22, l990, page 2, there are also three similar representations on page 4), the Tekonsha product literature that you supplied us clearly states that 'The Voyager will not apply the trailer brakes unless the manual override slide bar is applied.' (Item 5 under 'Important Facts to Remember'), demonstrating that application of the Brake Control results in application of the trailer's service brakes. We have talked with Sergeant Cox of the California Highway Patrol about the operation of the Brake Control. We understand that operation of the Brake Control sends an electric impulse to the trailer brakes without going through the main tractor/trailer brake actuation system. The activation of the trailer brakes without a simultaneous activation of the tractor brakes allows the tractor to proceed with undiminished speed in order to take the slack out of the connector by increasing the distance between it and the trailer, which has slowed due to the activity of the electronic brake control, and thereby reduce the sway of the trailer. This information about the Brake Control is the basis for our reconsideration of the interpretation of September 10, 1990. Although use of the Brake Control does not involve application of the 'vehicle's service brakes' through the service brake control, it nevertheless does 'apply the trailer brakes' as that phrase is used by Tekonsha in its product literature. Although the immediate intent of the driver may be to control sway, that intent is realized by creating a differential in speeds between towing and towed vehicles. That differential is created, not by increasing the speed of the towing vehicle, but by diminishing the speed of the towed vehicle through braking. As we noted in the September l0 letter, a stop lamp is defined in part as a lamp that indicates the intent of the driver to diminish speed by braking. We therefore find that Standard No. l08 and 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) do not preempt Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code. We confirm our interpretation of May 23, that installation of the Tekonsha systems, under the conditions and by the persons therein described, appear to violate Standard No. 108 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Device. Our letters to both you and Mr. Henneberger may have left the impression that operation of the Brake Control on the brakes of the towed vehicle also requires activation of the stop lamps of the towing vehicle. Sgt. Cox has clarified that the Brake Control activates only the brakes of the towed vehicle, not the towing one. Consequently, Standard No. l08 would not require activation of the towing vehicle's stop lamps when the Brake Control alone is used to apply the brakes of the towed vehicle to diminish sway. A copy of this letter is being provided the Department of California Highway Patrol, and Lawrence Henneberger, attorney for Tekonsha. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Sgt. Larry Cox, CHP"; |
|
ID: aiam5637Open"Mr. B rje Kukka Humalistonkatu 5 00250 Helsinki FINLAND"; "Mr. B rje Kukka Humalistonkatu 5 00250 Helsinki FINLAND"; "Dear Mr. Kukka: This responds to your request for an interpretatio whether NHTSA's statutes and regulations would apply to a process you intend to market, in which two horizontal parallel grooves are etched into the lower portion of motor vehicle windshields. The groves apparently facilitate windshield cleaning by scraping water and debris off the windshield wipers as the wipers pass over the grooves. You provided a videotape on the process and a portion of a windshield etched with the grooves. I am enclosing two interpretation letters, one dated March 1, 1985 and another dated October 28, 1988, both addressed to Mr. Andrew P. Kallman of Lansing, Michigan. Mr. Kallman asked NHTSA's opinion of a process that is very similar to your process. The letters explain how NHTSA's regulations would apply if your process were used on new vehicles or windshields and on windshields of a used vehicle. Please also note, NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' or certify your process. If you understood any previous correspondence from agency personnnel to mean that NHTSA approves of your product, has endorsed it in any manner, or has made commendations about it (e.g., it 'can improve a driver's ability to drive safely'), that is incorrect, and we apologize for any confusion. State laws may affect operations that you conduct in that State. If you decide to do business in a particular State, you should seek legal advice on requirements for conducting your type of business in that State, including requirements the State may have for persons modifying windshields or for vehicles with modified windshields. I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions concerning NHTSA's legal authority, please write to me at this address or contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820. I am, under separate cover, returning your videotape and windshield portion. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0966OpenMr. Louis C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activities Staff, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. Louis C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in response to your letter of January 10, 1973, in which yo asked whether State 'user laws' that prohibit the sale or operation of a motor vehicle without seat belts would be preempted by Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to the extent that the standard allows vehicles to be manufactured with other types of restraint.; The position of this agency is that section 103(d) of the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), requires State laws or rules that have the effect of regulating vehicle design or equipment to be identical to any Federal motor vehicle safety standards governing the same aspects of performance, whether the State rules are phrased as regulating manufacture, sale or operation.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1674OpenMr. P.K. Kamath,Sr. Safety Engineer,Oshkosh Truck Corporation,P.O. Box 2566,Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901; Mr. P.K. Kamath Sr. Safety Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh Wisconsin 54901; Dear Mr. Kamath:#This is to confirm your telephone conversation o November 13, 1974, with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 106-74, *Brake hoses*.#You explained that Oshkosh Truck Corporation purchases air brake hose and air brake hose end fittings separately from its suppliers, and does not construct assemblies until the hose and fittings are installed in the vehicles which you manufacture. You asked whether these assemblies must be labeled with a band. S5.2.4 of the standard states:#>>>Each hydraulic brake system assembly, except those assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly...<<<#Because S5.2.4 is incorporated in S7.2, the air brake hose assemblies you describe are exempt from the banding requirements.#The matters discussed in your letter of November 1, 1974, have been dealt with in the recent amendment to Standard No. 106-74 which was published november 11, 1974 (39 FR 39725) (Notice 14).#Your truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3649OpenMr. H. Miyazawa, Director, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Department, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 2-19-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. H. Miyazawa Director Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-19-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of November 23, 1982, to Mr. Elliott o this agency asking whether you may distinguish between U.S. and Japanese-manufactured lighting equipment subject to Federal Standard No. 108 by marking the lenses 'U.S.A. DOT' and 'JAPAN DOT', rspectively (sic).; As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no adopted the SAE standard on equipment marking, J759c. This means that the only marking subject to Standard No. 108 is that which certifies compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the DOT symbol. We believe that the intended proximity of the words 'Japan DOT' in your Japanese- manufactured equipment might create the impression that Stanley was certifying compliance to the requirements of the Japanese Ministry of Transport, rather than to those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Therefore, we suggest that you place the word 'Japan' at the end of the line rather than adjacent to the 'DOT' symbol.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4476OpenMr. Richard W. Ward Vice President K-D Lamp Company 1910 Elm Street Cincinnati, OH 45210; Mr. Richard W. Ward Vice President K-D Lamp Company 1910 Elm Street Cincinnati OH 45210; "Dear Mr. Ward: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, l988 asking for a clarification of Federal requirements for the minimum lens area for turn signal lamps and stop lamps. The understanding expressed in your letter is correct. The SAE materials for turn signal lamps and stop lamps for wide vehicles incorporated by reference in Table I apply to original equipment on vehicles currently being manufactured, and to equipment intended to replace such original equipment. These standards were expressly incorporated to supersede earlier versions of SAE standards for turn signal lamps and stop lamps. However, in recognition that original equipment lamps made to earlier SAE specifications might not be compatible with the electrical systems of vehicles designed to conform to later SAE specifications, the agency adopted paragraphs S4.l.l.6 and 4.l.l.7, allowing the continued manufacture for replacement purposes only, of turn signal lamps and stop lamps designed to conform to earlier specifications. Both sections incorporate in their text portions of the earlier SAE standards. Because the earlier specification for turn signal lamps, J588d, required an effective projected luminous area not less than 12 square inches for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles, this requirement is also specified in S4.1.1.7 for replacement lamps manufactured in conformance with J588d. In short, your interpretation is correct with respect to turn signal lamps manufactured for installation on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Single compartment turn signal lamps designed to conform to SAE J588e need meet only a minimum luminous lens area of 8 square inches. But if a turn signal lamp is manufactured to replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to conform to SAE J588d, its minimum luminous lens area is 12 square inches. I hope this clarifies the matter for your customer. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1224OpenMr. Jim Peters, Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL 32304; Mr. Jim Peters Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services Tallahassee FL 32304; Dear Mr. Peters: This is in response to your request of July 18, 1973, that the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration undertake an investigation of possible odometer tampering on a vehicle purchased by Mr. Fulton Y. Roberts of Tallahassee.; There are no criminal penalties for violation of the odomete requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. Remedies for violation of the odometer requirements are of two types. In the case of repeated violations, the United States Attorney may seek injunctive relief against further violations. In the case of a violation which has already occurred, the remedy is a private civil action by the defrauded party. For this reason, the NHTSA does not normally investigate incidents such as this.; Mr. Roberts should be advised that he may be able to sue for $1,50 without proof of damages, or possibly more if he can prove damages.; Mr. Roberts may wish to consult an attorney in this matter. Th applicable provisions of the Act are enclosed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3219OpenMr. David Williams, Box 4091, Wilmington, DE 19807; Mr. David Williams Box 4091 Wilmington DE 19807; Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your February 12, 1980, letter asking severa questions about the applicability of Federal safety standards to an imported motor vehicle. In general, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires all imported motor vehicles to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of their importation.; In response to your first question, Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection*, requires each seating position in a passenger car to be equipped with a seat belt assembly as of January 1, 1968. Therefore, the rear bench seat of a 1972 passenger car was required by Federal regulations to have seat belts. If the vehicle to which you refer was imported without seat belts, the importer would have violated the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; In your second question, you ask what standards apply to a vehicle tha was used by its manufacturer as a company vehicle and then sold as a used vehicle to an individual. The vehicle would be required to comply with the standards in effect on the date of its manufacture or, in the case of an import, on the date on which it was imported. In a related question, you ask whether some of the safety systems installed in a vehicle can be disconnected. An individual is permitted to disconnect safety systems on his or her own vehicle. However, no repair business, manufacturer, dealer, or distributor may render inoperative any safety device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with the safety standards.; Finally, you ask whether a manufacturer may import into the country vehicle that does not comply with the safety standards. The answer to this question is no. An imported vehicle must comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of its importation into this country.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4026OpenMs. Janet L. Nedoba, Attorney at Law, 111 Addison, Elmhurst, IL 60126; Ms. Janet L. Nedoba Attorney at Law 111 Addison Elmhurst IL 60126; Dear Ms. Nedoba: Your letter of September 4, 1985, to the Consumer Product Safet Commission was forwarded to our agency for reply, since we issue safety standards for motor vehicles under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). You asked if there are regulations that would apply to a safety belt used in a race car.; Our agency has issued Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies* which sets performance requirements for safety belts used in motor vehicles. A copy of the standard is enclosed. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(B)) defines a motor vehicle as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for the public streets, roads, and highways,....' Whether a race car would be considered a motor vehicle covered by our standard would be determined by whether it was used on the street or whether it was intended and sold solely for off-road use. If the race car was manufactured for off-road (or non-public road) use, the standard would not apply.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.