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: aiam0367OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, General Manager, Toyota Motor Co., Ltd., Factory Representative Office, Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ, 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima General Manager Toyota Motor Co. Ltd. Factory Representative Office Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W Tome, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning an interpretation relative to the determination of visibility of lamps.; Both of your interpretations are correct. The location of lamps an reflective devices is determined with the vehicle at its curb weight, which is the weight of a motor vehicle with standard equipment, maximum capacity of engine, fuel, oil, and coolant, and, if so equipped, air conditioning and additional weight optional engine.; The overall width is determined with 'doors and windows closed' per th interpretation of 32 F.R. 8088, June 21, 1967.; The visibility requirements for lamps and reflective devices wil therefore be determined with trunk lids, tail gates, hoods, and rear gates in the normal driving, or closed, position.; Sincerely,E. T. Driver, Director, Offices of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5165OpenMr. Arvind V. Rajan Vice President, Marketing and Planning Solectria Corporation 27 Jason Street Arlington, MA 02174; Mr. Arvind V. Rajan Vice President Marketing and Planning Solectria Corporation 27 Jason Street Arlington MA 02174; "Dear Mr. Rajan: We have received your letter of March 30, 1993, askin for confirmation that Solectria Corporation is permitted to import nonconforming motor vehicles for conversion to electric power, provided that the vehicles will be exported immediately following conversion. The vehicle you wish to import is the Suzuki Swift, similar to the Suzuki Swift that has been certified by its manufacturer for sale in the United States, except that the steering column is on the right hand side, and that it has not been certified. There is no section of the importation provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) that directly permit the importation of nonconforming vehicles for purposes of repair or alteration. Obviously, the failure of such vehicles to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards poses no risk of traffic accidents, or deaths and injuries resulting from such accidents if these vehicles are never driven on the public roads. In these instances, the agency tries to provide an interpretation of the Act that is consistent with both the purpose of the Act and the facts at hand. Section 108(b)(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3)), in effect, allows importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle 'intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle . . . and on the outside of the container, if any which is exported.' As the legislative history of this section makes clear, ' t his legislation does not purport to establish standards for motor vehicles . . . to be used entirely outside the United States.' (House Report 1776, page 24). Section 108(b)(3) has been implemented by 49 CFR 591.5(c). We believe that, under the facts as described in your letter, it would be appropriate for Solectria to import nonconforming Suzuki Swifts for conversion to electric power pursuant to paragraph 591.5(c). The vehicles have not been imported for use on the American roads, but solely for export following their conversion. We assume that Solectria will label the converted vehicles and their containers, if applicable, in accordance with the regulatory requirement. If we may help you in any other way, please let us know. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0737OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Assn., 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Assn. 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of June 9 asking whether pole trailer must be certified.; The answer is no. According to 49 CFR S 567.2(a), only motor vehicle to which one or more Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable must be certified. The only Federal standard currently in effect that applies to 'trailers', Standard No. 108, specifically exempts 'pole trailers' from its applicability and therefore pole trailers need not be certified.; Your letter of February 23 regarding clearance lamps and identificatio lamps is still under consideration and we hope to provide a response in the near future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3818OpenMr. Jacob Sheeskin, Sheeskin, Hillman & Lazar, P.C., 6110 Executive Boulevard, P.O. Box 2186, Rockville, MD 20852; Mr. Jacob Sheeskin Sheeskin Hillman & Lazar P.C. 6110 Executive Boulevard P.O. Box 2186 Rockville MD 20852; RE: your file 3189/001:11 Dear Mr. Sheeskin: This responds to your letter of March 7, 1984, concerning discussion between your client and the Maryland State Police about the application of tinting or sun screening materials to vehicle glazing materials. This office has sent two letters of interpretation concerning the application of glazing materials to the Maryland State Police. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's letters of December 20, 1983 and April 3, 1984 and the Maryland States Police's original request for an interpretation.; As stated in our letter of April 3, 1984, the application of tintin materials to glazing does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the render inoperative provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. To violate section 108(a)(2)(A), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops that install tinting materials must knowingly install materials which render inoperative the glazing material's compliance with Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, a motor vehicle repair shop would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) if it knowingly installed on a passenger car's window a tinting material which would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance or luminous transmittance requirements of the standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1825OpenTo: Docket 74-10, Notice 10; To: Docket 74-10 Notice 10; Memorandum Subject: Meeting with TEBDA re Standard 121 From: Assistant Chief Counsel On March 18, 1975, representatives of the Department met with officer of the Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Association (TEBDA) and other industry representatives, concerning problems with compliance with Standard 121, Air Brake Systems, by companies in the business of adding axles to chassis-cabs. Present for DOT: Messrs. Stoney, Constantino, Schultz, Dyson, Herlihy. Present for TEBDA and industry: Messrs. Wendelberger, Bosbyshell, Myers, Gibson, McCullough, and Pieratt.; The basic problem presented by TEBDA was that the companies that ad 'tag' or 'pusher' axles to chassis- cabs do not have the facilities to test the vehicles for conformity to the performance requirements of Standard 121, and therefore feel they have no way to certify conformity to the standard. Representatives of a manufacturer of the axles, who were present, stated that they were prepared to make calculations concerning their axles that would indicate that when used properly, they would not take vehicles out of conformity to the standard. TEBDA requested a forgiveness period during which actual road tests would not be required.; Departmental representatives said that under NHTSA interpretations an opinions of long standing, actual road tests are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard 121 or other standards, where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. The agency has recognized that small companies such as many of the final-stage and intermediate manufacturers represented by the TEBDA, cannot be expected to test on the same scale or by the same methods as large integrated automotive manufacturers. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assembliers are expected to use statutory 'due care' to see that their products conform. Therefore, the DOT representatives stated, it does not appear at this point that any changes in the standard's application were necessary to achieve what the industry representatives wanted, and the NHTSA would reiterate this position in response to requests for interpretation.; Richard B. Dyson |
|
ID: aiam5535OpenMr. Valter Sforca 84 Thomas Street Newark, NJ 07114; Mr. Valter Sforca 84 Thomas Street Newark NJ 07114; Dear Mr. Sforca: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1995 asking if there is a regulation that applies to the importation of an 'air equalizer for tire pressure.' Although you have not described your device, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to equipment installed in motor vehicles that regulate the air pressure of tires. If you are asked by the U.S. Customs Service to execute an HS-7 Declaration Form at the port of entry, you may check Box 1, declaring that the equipment was manufactured on a date when no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard was in effect. Because this device is motor vehicle equipment, and because you apparently would be its importer, you would be responsible for notifying buyers and recalling it if either you or we decided that it contained a safety related defect. We don't understand your phrase 'the system have a safety valve for the air brakes the truck, for a properly stop'. However, if the 'air equalizer' is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that person must not knowingly make inoperative any part of a truck's air brake system by installing the air equalizer. I am enclosing a copy of a letter concerning what appears to be a similar device, which will explain this more fully. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with whom you spoke previously (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam1576OpenMr. William E. Linch, President, Linch-Jones, Incorporated, 131 Honeysuckle Lane, Smyrna, GA 30080; Mr. William E. Linch President Linch-Jones Incorporated 131 Honeysuckle Lane Smyrna GA 30080; Dear Mr. Linch: This is in response to your August 9, 1974, telephone request for clarification of a transferor's duties under the disclosure requirements of the Federal odometer law.; The odometer requirements of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cos Savings Act specify that the transferor of a vehicle provide written disclosure to the transferee of the mileage registered on the odometer at the time of the transaction. If the transferor *knows* that the odometer reading is incorrect for reasons other than calibration error, a statement to that effect must also be executed at the time ownership of the vehicle is transferred.; In the situation where the accuracy of the odometer is in question, th transferor is required to state that the mileage indicated on the odometer is incorrect in accordance with the form specified in S 580 of 49 CFR Part 580, *Odometer Disclosure Requirements*, if there is credible evidence indicating the inaccuracy. If the transferor has no firm basis for a conclusion that the odometer reading is incorrect but feels that it may be wrong, he does not violate the Act by indicating that the true mileage may differ from that shown. In so doing, he provides more information than required, and is not guilty of any violation.; A statement that the mileage *may* differ from that indicated on th odometer would only be a violation where positive evidence exists suggesting that the odometer reading is incorrect. In such a situation the transferor must inform the buyer of the inaccuracy in the manner prescribed in the odometer disclosure requirements.; If you are in need of any further information, please let us know. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4774OpenMr. Jack Rademacher Chief Engineer Polar Tank Trailer, Inc. 12810 County Road 17 Holdingford, MN 56340; Mr. Jack Rademacher Chief Engineer Polar Tank Trailer Inc. 12810 County Road 17 Holdingford MN 56340; Dear Mr. Rademacher: This is in reply to your letter of May 8, l990, t Stephen P. Wood of this Office, asking for reconsideration of a recent interpretation of Standard No. 108. We assume you mean our letter of January 9, 1990, to Howard Kossover of Oklahoma City. That interpretation stated that if rear lamps on a semi-trailer were mounted 27 inches forward of the rear edge of the vehicle, they were not mounted 'on the rear', the location specified by Standard No. 108. We also observed that compliance with the 45-degree visibility requirements in that location appeared questionable. You say that it has long been the practice of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) and its members that 'if the 45 degree visibility requirement of these lights were met 'on the rear' of the trailer both inboard and outboard, the manufacturer met the intent of the standard.' You inform us that the liquid bulk transport industry is especially affected by this interpretation because of reasons of practicality unique to tank transports. On these vehicles, you state that the rear lamps have been 'mounted as far as 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper', but that, in this location, they 'still maintain the 45 degree visibility requirements.' You therefore ask for reconsideration of the interpretation if the 45 degree visibility requirements are met. The lamps in your letter (and Mr. Kossover's) are stop, turn signal, and taillamps. Only the taillamps are presence lamps. The stop lamps and turn signal lamps operate independently of the headlamps. That is to say, they are intended for use at all times and not just at night or under other conditions of reduced visibility. They indicate actions taken by the vehicle operator to signal his operational intentions to other drivers and pedestrians. Problems with depth perception of following drivers could result if the lamps are not mounted 'on the rear' as the standard requires. We are willing to interpret 'on the rear' as meaning the trailing edge of the rear fender, which may not extend as far rearward as the bulk tank container, provided the visibility requirements are met, but we conclude that a mounting location for stop and turn signal lamps that is 36 inches forward from the rear of the bumper is not 'on the rear' as the standard requires. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1126OpenMr. Richard T. Ford, Hayden, Smith, Ford & Hays, 1215 Security Bank Building, Fresno, CA 93721; Mr. Richard T. Ford Hayden Smith Ford & Hays 1215 Security Bank Building Fresno CA 93721; Dear Mr. Ford: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1973, requesting ou opinion as to the conformity with 49 CFR Part 577, 'Defect Notification', of a defect notification letter to be mailed by your client, V/M Custom Boat Trailers. The notification fails to conform with Part 577 in the following ways:; >>>1. In the second paragraph, the phrase 'trailer vehicle safety' mus be changed to 'motor vehicle safety'. A trailer is a motor vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; 2. The letter is silent as to precautions the owner should take t reduce the chance that the malfunction will occur before the vehicle is repaired (S 577.4(c)(4)). One obvious precaution where vehicle lighting is defective is to refrain from night operation.; 3. The letter is silent as to an evaluation of the risk to traffi safety reasonably related to the defect (S 577.4(d)).; 4. We would consider the last paragraph on page 1 of your letter reading, 'The defect on those trailers . . .does not affect the mechanical operation of said trailer except insofar as the lighting is inefficient as installed according to the U.S. Department of Transportation,' to be a disclaimer and prohibited by section 577.6.; 5. The letter does not specify the manufacturer's estimate of the dat by which his dealers or his other service facilities will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect (S 577.4(e)(1)(ii)).; 6. We consider the last paragraph of your letter, beginning, 'If th owner chooses . . .' to be optional, and therefore permissible, as you have apparently decided to conform to section 577.4(e)(1), under which the manufacturer offers to repair the defect through his dealers or his other service facilities without charge. We wish to point out, for your information, that this paragraph, together with the other information contained in your letter, would not meet the requirements of section 577.4(e)(3) (under which the manufacturer does not bear the cost of repair) were that the applicable provision.<<<; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4324OpenMr. Andrew G. Baird, II, Executive Director, North Platte Development Corporation, P. O. Box 968, North Platte, NE 69101; Mr. Andrew G. Baird II Executive Director North Platte Development Corporation P. O. Box 968 North Platte NE 69101; Dear Mr. Baird: This responds to your letter concerning a design for a remote automati starting system for motor vehicles. Enclosed is a copy of a September 15, 1986 letter, addressed to C&A Control System, Inc., which discusses the general issues raised by your letter. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet which we prepared for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.; While remote automatic starting systems can be designed so that they d not conflict with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, you should be aware that this agency strongly advises that cars should never be left unattended with the engine running. Remote automatic starting systems create that vehicle condition. I am enclosing a copy of a recent press release which cautions motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period of time could lead to a fire. The agency has previously warned of the danger of inadvertent movement by unattended cars which are left running.; I urge you to consider these and other safety issues as you evaluat the safety of your device.; 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.