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: aiam3560OpenMr. M. W. Urban, Sure-View, Inc., 1337 N. Meridian Street, Wichita, KS 67203; Mr. M. W. Urban Sure-View Inc. 1337 N. Meridian Street Wichita KS 67203; Dear Mr. Urban: This responds to your letter of April 5, 1982. I believe that the cop which I recently sent you of my May 14, 1980, letter to Mr. Seashores clearly and carefully explains the agency's statutory authority to regulate design elements such as size and dimension. As my letter of March 25, 1982, to you noted, S9.1 of Standard No. 111 is consistent with that statutory authority.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2058OpenMr. Robert G. Brewer, Bendix-Westinghouse, 901 Cleveland Street, Elyria, Ohio 44035; Mr. Robert G. Brewer Bendix-Westinghouse 901 Cleveland Street Elyria Ohio 44035; Dear Mr. Brewer: #I am writing in response to the question you raise in a September 5, 1975, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this agency, concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*. #You asked whether the designation 'AI & AII' is permitted on air brake hose for which the Type I and Type II dimensions listed in the standard are identical. In a letter to the Gates Rubber Company (copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interpreted S7.2 of the standard as not permitting the designation 'AI-II'. For similar reasons, the designation 'AI & II' does not comply with S7.2. The designation 'AI & AII' would comply with the standard. #Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, ACting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0065OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P. O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P. O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Commander Heath: Thank you for your letter of January 16, 1968, your referenc 61.A218.A1115, to the National Highway Safety Bureau concerning applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 108 and 205 to campers.; Your questions along with our corresponding answers are listed below: >>>Question: 1. Do Federal Standards Nos. 108 and 205 apply to campe bodies which are not manufactured as a part of a vehicle but which may be purchased separately and later installed on a pickup truck by its owner?; Answer: The enclosed Notice of Ruling Regarding Campers affirms th applicability of Federal Standard No. 205 to camper bodies. Federal Standard No. 108 is a standard applicable to chassis cabs and to complete motor vehicles.; Question: 2. Do Federal Standards Nos. 108 and 205 apply to camper which are sold by the pickup truck dealer as part of a new vehicle even though the camper body itself is actually a load on the pickup and is designed to be removed from the pickup when the owner decides to transport other types of loads?; Answer: The applicability of Federal Standard No. 205 is covered in th enclosure. Federal Standard No. 108 is a requirement upon the dealer who sells a motor vehicle. If the vehicle is designed for more than one configuration in use, the dealer must provide that both configurations are in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; The enclosed information on the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966 are provided to further assist you.; Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5267OpenRonald L. Signorino, Director Health, Safety & Regulatory Affairs Universal Maritime Service Corp. Suite 1600 10 Exchange Place Jersey City, NJ 07302; Ronald L. Signorino Director Health Safety & Regulatory Affairs Universal Maritime Service Corp. Suite 1600 10 Exchange Place Jersey City NJ 07302; "Dear Mr. Signorino: We have received your FAX of November 3, 1993 with respect to the trailer conspicuity specifications of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. First, we regret the confusion that has been caused by our letter of October 20, 1993, to James Peepas of Selecto-Flash, Inc., which modified our earlier interpretation dated July 26, 1993. Mr. Peepas has made a number of calls to this Office seeking an understanding of the conspicuity requirements on Maersk's behalf, and, in our view, has pursued the matter with diligence. You have presented three 'Facts' and ask whether each is right or wrong. 'Fact: With particular reference to Maersk Line's prospective order for forty-foot gooseneck chassis (drawing accompanies this fax) your October 20 letter makes clear that calculable conspicuity treatments must not be obscured by trailer cargo.' If calculable means 'required', this is a correct statement. Our letter of October 20 refers to the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) that 'at the location chosen, the strip of sheeting shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo.' 'Fact: In calculating the area of conspicuity treatment for such chassis, the gooseneck section, as it is often hidden from view by mounted intermodal containers (trailer cargo), cannot properly be considered an appropriate site, and' The length of the gooseneck is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of calculating the half length that must be covered by the conspicuity treatment (which, of course, would be greater than half the length behind the gooseneck). There is nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes the application of auxiliary retroreflective sheeting to the gooseneck. Indeed, some manufacturers may wish to do so to provide conspicuity of the trailer side when the trailer is traveling without its cargo. However, any conspicuity treatment on a gooseneck is not counted in determining whether at least half the trailer side is covered. 'Fact: In determining the fifty percent of side surface area to receive conspicuity treatment on such chassis, the length of the chassis, from its rear bolster to its point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus, is solely relevant.' This assertion is wrong, and the correct requirement is most clearly illustrated by the following example. Let us say that the overall length of the trailer is 40 feet, including an 8-foot gooseneck. The amount of the side to be covered is not less than 20 feet. The area to be covered is the 32 feet between the rear bolster to the point immediately behind the gooseneck's terminus. Thus, at least 20 feet of this 32-foot length must be covered in order to comply with Standard No. 108. I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: James Z. Peepas"; |
|
ID: aiam2408OpenMr. Katsuhiko Yokoi, Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd., 9, I-chome, Nishiyabushitacho, Nishiku, Nagoya, Japan; Mr. Katsuhiko Yokoi Toyoda Gosei Co. Ltd. 9 I-chome Nishiyabushitacho Nishiku Nagoya Japan; Dear Mr. Yokoi: #This is in belated response to your April 9, 1976 letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to certain combination hydraulic brake hose assemblies. #Figure 3 of your letter depicts two typical brake hose assemblies that are connected end-to-end. Figure 4 depicts the intended installation of such a pair of assemblies, with the joined fittings meeting at a bracket that is attached to a shock absorber. Figure 1 and 2 show two designs to simplify the structure at this juncture. #Treating these figures in reverse order, the 'B type' design shown in Figure 2 is similar to the pair of assemblies shown in Figure 3, except that the pair of joined end fittings is replaced with a single center fitting. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers such a construction to be two distinct brake hose assemblies, which would be tested separately for compliance with Standard No. 106-74. The center fitting would simply be considered an end fitting for each of these assemblies. #the 'A type' design shown on figure 1 would be treated differently, however. In this design, the two separate pieces of hose are replaced by a single piece that runs the full length between the outermost end fittings. in place of joined fittings as in Figure 3 or a center fitting as in Figure 2, this hose would be surrounded by molded rubber and a metal ring. The ring would be mounted in the bracket that is attached to the shock absorber. The NHTSA considers this construction to be a single brake hose assembly, and testing for compliance with Standard No. 106-74 would be conducted accordingly. For example, the tensile strength test would be performed by pulling at the outermost fittings, on the full length of the hose. However, this interpretation would not require the assembly to be capable of meeting the whip resistance requirements of S5.3.3 with the full length subject to flex. The NHTSA considers such a brake hose assembly to have two distinct 'free lengths'--one on either side of the center metal ring. Therefore, the whip resistance test would be performed separately on each of these portions. In other words, the metal ring would be treated as an 'end fitting,' for the purposes of the whip resistance test described in S6.3. #Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
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; |
|
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.