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: aiam4784OpenMr. William T. Mullen Undersheriff of McHenry County, Illinois 2200 N. Seminary Ave. Woodstock, IL 60098; Mr. William T. Mullen Undersheriff of McHenry County Illinois 2200 N. Seminary Ave. Woodstock IL 60098; "Dear Mr. Mullen: This responds to your letter asking about Federa requirements for safety belts in police cars. Specifically, you asked if your police department could legally remove the automatic belts that are installed and replace them with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. You stated that the reasons for making such a substitution would be to alleviate two problems your police officers have experienced with the automatic belts that were not present in older models that had manual lap/shoulder belts at the front seating positions. First, you said that the automatic belts result in a blind spot on the driver's left side. Second, you said that the automatic belts 'prevent left arm movements' of your taller officers. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns. I have enclosed copies of two previous letters we have written on the subject of removing or replacing occupant protection features from police cars. The first of these is a July 29, 1985 letter to Corporal Frank Browne and the other is a May 25, 1989 letter to Senator Harry Reid. These letters explain that new vehicles purchased by police departments must be certified as complying with the occupant crash protection standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208). All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must provide automatic crash protection for front seat occupants. To date, manufacturers have provided automatic crash protection either by installing air bags or automatic safety belts. General Motors, the manufacturer of the police cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing automatic safety belts in these cars. Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from replacing the automatic belts in these police cars with manual lap/shoulder belts. Thus, none of these commercial entities could make such a replacement on behalf of the County without violating Federal law. However, Federal law does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from removing safety features from their own vehicles. Thus, McHenry County itself can replace the automatic belts in its own cars without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of McHenry County can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating any Federal laws. Such actions may, however, violate the laws of the State of Illinois. I recommend that you carefully consider the effects of replacing the automatic belts in your police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the County itself from making these modifications to its own vehicles. The automatic belts in these cars help to assure safety belt use by police officers on the job. Particularly since the McHenry County police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe it is important that they use safety belts for effective protection in case of a crash. If you decide to replace the automatic belts in these vehicles with manual lap/shoulder belts, we would urge you to take some actions to assure that the police officers will use the manual lap/shoulder belts every time they ride in the police cars. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1586OpenMr. R.W. Cheetham, Director of Quality Assurance, Armstrong Rubber Company, 500 Sargent Drive, New Haven, CT 06507; Mr. R.W. Cheetham Director of Quality Assurance Armstrong Rubber Company 500 Sargent Drive New Haven CT 06507; Dear Mr. Cheetham: This will confirm that the suggested defect notification letter enclosed in your letter of August 14, 1974, meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577.; We appreciate your taking this action with respect to the Steel Belte Surveyor 78 tire.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2200OpenMs. Mary Harding, Director--Outreach Program, 615 Texas Street, Ft. Worth, TX 76102; Ms. Mary Harding Director--Outreach Program 615 Texas Street Ft. Worth TX 76102; Dear Ms. Harding: The Fort Worth Regional Office of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) has forwarded to us your February 2, 1976, letter asking whether 16- passenger van-type school buses that presently serve to transport children to and from a day care center fall within the new definition of 'School bus' recently issued by the NHTSA (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975).; The answer to your question is no. The definition is based on th regulatory authority found in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1381 *et seq*.). This Act authorizes the regulation of motor vehicle construction in accordance with standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture.; In the case of this amendment of the definition, the NHTSA chose t make the new definition effective on October 27, 1976, to correspond with the effective date of the new school bus standards. This means that the existing definition of 'School bus' applied at the time of the construction of the vehicles operated by your library. The existing definition applies only to vehicles designed primarily to carry children to and from school, and would not include van- type vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5195OpenMr. Christopher Banner 618 Osage Street Manhattan, KS 66402; Mr. Christopher Banner 618 Osage Street Manhattan KS 66402; "Dear Mr. Banner: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of how NHTSA's regulations would apply to some manufacturing operations you are contemplating. I apologize for the delay in this response. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you would like to start producing vehicles based on Ford pickup truck chassis. Some of these Ford chassis would come from wrecked vehicles that you would strip down to the frame, and others would be new chassis that you would purchase directly from Ford. You would then install new bodies on top of some of these chassis and offer them for sale as completed vehicles. You also would like to offer some of these bodies and chassis for sale as 'kit cars.' In the 'kit car' version, you would sell the body and chassis to the purchaser of the kit, and the purchaser of the kit would have to furnish some other parts in order to complete the vehicle. This agency's Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law does not require motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment to continue to comply with the safety standards after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment item in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, Federal law does prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' compliance with a safety standard for a vehicle or item of equipment. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A), and (b)(1). 1. New Body on New Chassis. All vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a new chassis would be considered new vehicles. You would have to certify that each of those vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. You would be considered a 'final stage manufacturer' of the vehicles, as that term is used in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. 2. New Body on Used Chassis. We cannot say from the information you have provided whether the vehicles you produce by installing a new body on a stripped, wrecked Ford pickup would be treated as a new vehicle, and have to be certified as complying with the applicable safety standards. The answer depends on how extensively you modify the Ford pickup chassis. To allow vehicle modifiers to determine when the modifications to a used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the Federal safety standards, NHTSA has established specific criteria at 49 CFR 571.7(e), Combining new and used components. That section reads as follows: When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. This provision means that if you leave the frame, engine, transmission, and drive axle in place from the wrecked vehicle, and place a new body on top of it, we would consider that vehicle to be a used vehicle, which would not have to be certified by you as complying with applicable safety standards. On the other hand, if you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the Ford pickup chassis, and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable safety standards. 3. Kit cars. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a 'motor vehicle' is defined, in part, as one that is 'driven by mechanical power.' See 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). We have interpreted this provision to mean that a unit would be considered only an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, and not a motor vehicle, until such time as a power source is added. None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to assemblages of motor vehicle equipment, or to used equipment items in the assemblage (items used on a vehicle previously in service on the public roads). However, certain of the safety standards would apply to new equipment items included in the assemblage. It would be a violation of Federal law if your kit car includes any new brake hoses, brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, or seat belt assemblies that do not comply with the applicable safety standards. If you ship your kit cars with all parts needed to produce a completed motor vehicle, including the power source, this agency will treat the kit car as a motor vehicle, not an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of the state of completion of the kit. You would be required to certify that the kit car conformed to all applicable safety standards if it were treated as a new vehicle under the rules set forth in 1. and 2. above, but not if it were treated as a used vehicle under those rules. I have enclosed for your information a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of them. I have also enclosed a brochure titled 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards' that briefly describes each of the safety standards. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2650OpenMr. David Sapp, Assistant General Counsel, Texas Automobile Dealers Association, 1108 Lavaca, P.O. Box 1028, Austin, TX 78767; Mr. David Sapp Assistant General Counsel Texas Automobile Dealers Association 1108 Lavaca P.O. Box 1028 Austin TX 78767; Dear Mr. Sapp: This responds to your August 4, 1977, letter asking whether a deale who assembles a 'kit-car' on a chassis would be considered a manufacturer of a motor vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal safety standards.; Manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381) as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment....' Therefore, a dealer who assembles 'kit-cars' would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of the Act since he is assembling motor vehicles. However, if the chassis on which the kit-car is assembled is from another used vehicle, the completed kit-car vehicle would be considered used and its assembler would not be considered a manufacturer under the Act.; The Act prohibits the manufacture for sale or introduction int interstate commerce of any new motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, if the vehicle the dealer assembles is going to be used as a means of transportation on the road, it must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. The mere use of a vehicle on public highways constitutes an introduction into interstate commerce and is prohibited unless compliance with the safety standards has been achieved.; Part 567.4(g)(1)(ii) of the certification regulations provides th producer of the kit with an option as to whether or not he certifies that the vehicle will comply with all applicable safety standards if completed according to his instructions. If the producer of the kit takes the responsibility of certifying the completed vehicle, the assembler of the vehicle must exercise reasonable care in following the instructions he provides.; For your information I have enclosed a sheet entitled 'Where to Obtai Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' which will direct you to the proper source for obtaining a copy of the safety standards and regulations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3942OpenJohn D. Dusenbury, Esq., VP/Chief Counsel, United States Fleet Leasing, Inc., P.O. Box 5933, San Mateo, CA 94403; John D. Dusenbury Esq. VP/Chief Counsel United States Fleet Leasing Inc. P.O. Box 5933 San Mateo CA 94403; Dear Mr. Dusenbury: Thank you for your kind words in your letter of April 12, 1985. It i always gratifying to know that our efforts are appreciated.; *The Original Peck's Title Book* was recently revised. I have reviewe these revisions and it has become necessary to supplement the list set forth in my letter of April 9, 1985. The title documents of the following states may also be used in lieu of a separate odometer disclosure form if the purchaser completes all information concerning the application for title:; >>>Delaware, Maryland, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Wyoming<<< Unless the application is completed, the title will not include th buyer's signature.; I remind you that if I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate t contact me.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0397OpenKendall M. Barnes, Esq., General Counsel, Department of the Army, Headquarters United States Army Material Command, Washington, DC 20315; Kendall M. Barnes Esq. General Counsel Department of the Army Headquarters United States Army Material Command Washington DC 20315; Dear Mr. Barnes: This is in reply to your letter of June 29 with its enclosures from th Staff Judge Advocate, Aberdeen Proving Ground. The Judge Advocate requests an 'interpretation of the applicability of the military exception to recent motor vehicle brake fluid legislation,' stating his specific interest in 'the use of MIL-P-46046' brake fluid.; We are unaware of any 'legislation' that affects the manufacture an use of MIL-P- 46046 brake fluid. The NHTSA issued an amended brake fluid standard on June 24 but this does not affect the exception provided in 49 CFR S 571.7(c) that 'No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with the contractual specifications.' Thus continued use of MIL-P-46046 brake fluid by military personnel appears permissible as far as this agency is concerned.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0682OpenMr. Thomas Templin, Truck Cap Division of Temptation Mfg. Co., 290 Cass Avenue, Mount Clemens, MI 48043; Mr. Thomas Templin Truck Cap Division of Temptation Mfg. Co. 290 Cass Avenue Mount Clemens MI 48043; Dear Mr. Templin: This is in response to your undated letter, which we received on Marc 22, 1972, in which you ask what NHTSA requirements are applicable to a truck cover you manufacture, enclosing a picture.; The picture appears to show a cover designed for installation over th back of a pickup truck. If this unit is not designed to carry persons when the truck is in motion, there are no requirements applicable to it. If, however, it is designed to transport persons, the glazing materials (glass and plastics) used in it must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials,' (copy enclosed). In addition, the unit must also be certified as conforming to the standard in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the enclosed NHTSA notice of November 4, 1967.; The ASA Test Z26.1-1966 that is incorporated into Standard No. 205 ca be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1990OpenMr. Manuel M. Ellenbogen, Supervisor, Export Sales & Licensing, International-Automotive, The Budd Company, 2450 Hunting Park Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19132; Mr. Manuel M. Ellenbogen Supervisor Export Sales & Licensing International-Automotive The Budd Company 2450 Hunting Park Avenue Philadelphia PA 19132; Dear Mr. Ellenbogen: This is in response to your letter of July 8, 1975, asking whic standards might be affected by the mounting of a tail lamp in the elastic skin of a bumper.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection* prescribes barrier and pendulum impact tests to which vehicles must be subjected without incurring certain types of damage. Included in the list of safety systems that must remain undamaged are lamps and reflective devices. S5.3.1 of Standard 215 states that each lamp or reflective device, except license plate lamps, must remain free of cracks and comply with the applicable visibility requirements of S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; The manufacturer should be aware that placement of a tail lamp in th elastic skin of a bumper might expose it to damage during Standard 215 compliance testing.; For your information, I have enclosed copies of the current Standar No. 215, the proposed Part 580 bumper damageability standard, and Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2345OpenJames H. Gross, Esq., Messrs. Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, 1701 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006; James H. Gross Esq. Messrs. Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease 1701 K Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Gross: This is in response to your letter of June 15, 1976, concerning 49 CF Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*.; As we understand the situation, Geo. Byers Sons, Inc., ('Byers') ha imported 988 motorcycles whose tires were manufactured by VEB REIFENKONBINAT ('VEB'), a corporation in the German Democratic Republic. VEB has to date failed to apply for a manufacturer's designation and to mark the tires supplied with the motorcycles in accordance with Part 574. Consequently, Byers wishes to apply for an identification mark on behalf of the manufacturer and itself carry out Part 574 marking requirements.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 defines manufacturer to include a person importing motor vehicles for resale. As a statutory manufacturer, the importer of record could become responsible for insuring compliance with Part 574. We understand that the importer of record is East-Europe Export, Inc., but that there is a serious question of East-Europe's continuation as a corporation and, consequently, the ability of the NHTSA to require East-Europe to satisfy the requirements of Part 574. Therefore, although not expressly permitted by the regulation, we would not object in this instance to Byers, as the distributor of the motorcycles, applying in its own name for a manufacturer's tire identification mark (so long as it is willing to accept the responsibility for carrying out the requirements of Part 574). Because of the recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, we would not permit Byers to apply for an identification mark, on behalf of VEB itself, without showing that VEB intended to fulfill the requirements of Part 574.; In any event, VEB must submit a designation of an agent for service o process as required by Section 110(e) of the Act and 49 CFR 551.45.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, 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.