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: aiam0840OpenMr. Richard Stevens, Cody Chevrolet, Inc. Barre-Montpelier Road, Montpelier, VT 05602; Mr. Richard Stevens Cody Chevrolet Inc. Barre-Montpelier Road Montpelier VT 05602; Dear Mr. Stevens: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention o Mr. Jerome Palisi of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.; 'School bus' is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean bus 'designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children' (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), there, 'gross vehicle weight rating' should not be computer under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met in inserting, 'BUS.'; This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0640OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1972, concerning th certification of pickup trucks that are modified while still in the hands of a dealer. You describe a situation in which the dealer removes the pickup body and sends the vehicle to a final-stage manufacturer for fitting with a service body.; We would consider modifications of the type you describe to b manufacturing under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). Because a completed vehicle is involved regulations governing Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (Part 568) do not apply.; One who remanufactures a completed vehicle assumes the responsibilit of any manufacturer of completed vehicles. The extent to which he may safely rely on the original GVWR, GAWR, and statement of conformity depends on what he has done to alter the vehicle. He is required to certify the vehicle by affixing his own label, and must take into account the effects of any modification he makes.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1952OpenMr. Walter Potoroka, General Counsel, Holley Carburetor Division, P. O. Box 749, Warren MI 48090; Mr. Walter Potoroka General Counsel Holley Carburetor Division P. O. Box 749 Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Potoroka: This is in reference to your defect notification and remedy campaig involving some chrome reverse wheels which may have insufficient welds between the center disc and the rim. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) identification number *75E-022* has been assigned to this campaign. Please refer to that number in any future correspondence concerning this campaign.; The letter which you have submitted as the letter to be sent to retai purchasers of the subject wheels does not meet the requirement of Part 577(49 CFR) as well as the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. Part 577, the Defect Notification regulation, is presently still in effect except for those sections which conflict with the 1974 amendment. Your notification letter therefore should have had the opening statements specified by Part 577.4(a) and (b).; The letter also does not notify owners that they may inform th Secretary of Transportation if they are unable to receive remedy without charge, as required by Section 153(a)(6) of the 1974 amendment. The fact that your company has set up a procedure intended to insure that all owners will receive remedy without charge does not eliminate that requirement. This office knows of numerous instances where an individual owner of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment was not able to have a defect corrected. This may be due to a parts' supply problem, an uncooperative dealer, or some other problem which may not be known to the manufacturer. In any event, NHTSA does not have the authority to delete a requirement imposed by an act of Congress and must therefore insist that all manufacturers respond to Section 153(a)(6) in their owner notification letters. To comply, owners may be told that they may write to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D. C. 20590.; Although the letter does imply that dealers are prepared to remedy th defect, it does not give the earliest date on which the defect will be remedied without charge, as required by Section 153(a)(5) of the 1974 amendment.; It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notification lette to conform with Part 577, as well as Section 153 of the 1974 amendment. A copy of the revised letter should be sent to all owners who have not yet had their wheels inspected or replaced, and also to this office. If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. James Murray or W. Reinhart of this office at (202) 426-2840. A copy of Part 577 is enclosed.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5012OpenThe Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510-2301; The Honorable Dave Durenberger United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510-2301; "Dear Senator Durenberger: Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1992 concerning a product developed by your constituent, McNaughton Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The product is a device to prevent a child from opening the buckle of a safety belt without adult assistance. You requested information on any regulations that pertain to this product. The agency has received inquiries about similar products in the past. While we understand parents' concerns that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about these types of products because they could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. I am enclosing an August 6, 1986, letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Ms. Ann Boriskie. As this letter explains, your constituent's product could not be installed by a commercial entity without violating Federal law. In addition, installation of your constituent's product by any person would be inconsistent with this agency's policy to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. You also asked for information on how McNaughton Incorporated could become involved in the national safety belt campaign. The Agency is currently working with a variety of public and private sector organizations to increase safety belt use to 70 percent by the end of 1992. The strategy focuses on increased law enforcement efforts coupled with aggressive community-based public information. There are many ways McNaughton can support these efforts. They can consider developing and implementing an in-house safety belt education program targeting their employees or applying for the 70 percent Honor Roll Program. They might be interested in supporting community awareness initiatives that promote the campaign, including the posting of billboards and the inclusion of safety belt messages in their on-going advertising. An expanded list of ideas is attached. If McNaughton Incorporated is interested in additional campaign information, they can contact Susan Gorcowski, Office of Occupant Protection, (202) 366- 2683. I appreciate your interest in the safety of motor vehicles and hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0210OpenMr. Eddie E. Barnes, 7859 Tegner Road, Hilmar, CA 95324; Mr. Eddie E. Barnes 7859 Tegner Road Hilmar CA 95324; Dear Mr. Barnes: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the number of safety belt in your 1969 Chevrolet nine-passenger station wagon.; The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires tha seat belt assemblies be installed in each *forward-facing* designated seating position in passenger cars. The standard does not apply to side-facing or rear-facing seats. The manufacturer is not required to install safety belts for such seats, however, in the interest of safety, most manufacturers usually install lap belts for the seating positions most commonly used.; A Notice of Proposed Rule Making was issued on September 15, 1969 which would extend the applicability of Standard No. 208 to apply also to side-facing and rear-facing seats. The comments of those who responded to the Notice have been analyzed and the final rule is now being developed.; I am enclosing a copy of our present Standard No. 208 and a copy of th Notice of Proposed Rule Making for your reference.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Vehicle Structures Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4253OpenMr. Donald J. Audia, 11843 Braesview No. 2412, San Antonio, TX 78213; Mr. Donald J. Audia 11843 Braesview No. 2412 San Antonio TX 78213; Dear Mr. Audia: This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Taylor Vinso of this Office asking about the permissibility of manufacturing an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp utilizing the colors yellow and orange, in addition to red, to signify 'the varying stages of a stopping car.'; Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflectiv Devices, and Associated Equipment* only the color red is permitted for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps, and for those aftermarket lamps manufactured to replace them. These lamps are generally found on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. Your planned device could not be manufactured and sold for this segment of the aftermarket since it does not conform to Standard No. 108. Further, a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business could not legally remove an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp and install your device. However, there is no Federal restriction on sale and installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. The device would then be subject to the laws of any State where it would be sold or used. We regret that we are unable to advise you on these laws.; If you have any further questions we would be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3596OpenMr. F. E. Bettridge, Board Chairman, Middlekauff, Inc., 1615 Ketcham Avenue, Toledo, OH 43608; Mr. F. E. Bettridge Board Chairman Middlekauff Inc. 1615 Ketcham Avenue Toledo OH 43608; Dear Mr. Bettridge: This is in reply to your petition of July 16, 1982, for a temporar exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*.; You have told us that 'as a seller and installer of truck bodies, w are frequently called upon to install a body on an incomplete vehicle furnished to us by a major manufacturer through his dealer.' Our regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) requires the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle to furnish, with the vehicle, statements with respect to each of the standards which inform the final stage manufacturer of the vehicle's compliance status. With respect to Standard No. 301, each manufacturer should provide you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform or, alternatively, a statement that the vehicle when completed will conform if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle.; These statements afford a basis for your certification of complianc with Standard No. 301 without the necessity of testing. We would like to know which of these statements have been provided and why you may believe your manufacturing operations are such that you could not certify compliance with Standard No. 301.; We would also like to make clear that there is no legal requiremen that you crash test a $10,000 vehicle in order to demonstrate compliance. Certification may be based upon computer simulation, mathematical calculation, or engineering studies. Upon reflection you may decide that you have an adequate basis for certification with Standard No. 301.; Until we hear further from you, we shall hold your petition i abeyance.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1051OpenMr. R. W. Lillie, 3345 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 204, Los Angeles, CA 90010; Mr. R. W. Lillie 3345 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 204 Los Angeles CA 90010; Dear Mr. Lillie: Thank you for your letter of January 30, 1973, and our sincer apologies for the delay in responding to your letter.; There are no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable t plastic fuel tanks. Standard No. 301, which includes the fuel tank in the crash performance requirements of the vehicle, makes no reference to the construction or design details of the fuel tank. A booklet briefly describing the issued standards is enclosed.; The Department of Transportation does not routinely receive and tes fuel tanks of the various manufacturers, however, the Department keeps abreast of technical advancements of these companies through technical society meetings and trade journals. it has been brought to our attention that Dow Chemical Company has done considerable work with high density polyethylene fuel tanks and offers an internal treatment of these tanks which is claimed to reduce considerably the permeation of gasoline through the walls. Further information may be obtained from the following source:; >>>Dow Chemical U.S.A., Plastics Department, Midland, Michigan 48640<<< Standard No. 116 is applicable to Hydraulic Brake Fluids and i included in the consolidated edition of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, as per the enclosed order form.; The physical characteristics and labeling requirements of brake fluids including silicones, are included in this standard, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Your inquiry concerning the use of silicones in automobiles can best be answered by the Original Equipment Manufacturers or the automotive companies. The interest of the Department in materials is primarily performance rather than design considerations, for example, an elastomeric material could be silicone, neoprene, or other elastomer, as long as the standards are complied with.; The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has issued standards that ar applicable to commercial vehicles engaged in interstate commerce, and some of those standards apply to fuel tanks. A portion of these regulations that pertains to fuel tanks is also enclosed for your information, along with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making that concerns plastic fuel tanks (F.R., Vol. 36, No. 178, September 14, 1971). Additional information is available from the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4603OpenMr. David Blumberg Structofab, Inc. 915 Clifton Avenue Clifton, NJ 07013; Mr. David Blumberg Structofab Inc. 915 Clifton Avenue Clifton NJ 07013; "Dear Mr. Blumberg: This responds to your letter asking whether you company qualifies as a 'remanufacturer.' You explained that your company acquires the chassis (without the body) of right hand drive jeep-type vehicles that have been used by the United States Postal Service. You further explained that your company undertakes extensive operations to repair, restore, and replace parts of the used chassis and to add to the chassis a new body, hood, seats, and interior. There is no 'remanufacturer' category in any of this agency's laws or regulations. However, based on the facts presented in your letter, your company would appear to be a 'manufacturer.' Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines a 'manufacturer' as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' (emphasis supplied) Since your company plans to assemble vehicles, it would appear to be a 'manufacturer' under this definition and subject to the responsibilities imposed on a manufacturer by the Safety Act and our regulations issued thereunder. Among these responsibilities are: 1. Registration. 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires a 'manufacturer' of motor vehicles to submit identifying information and a description of items produced. 2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Certification: Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each 'manufacturer' to certify that every one of its new vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. The agency's longstanding position with respect to vehicles assembled by adding new bodies to the chassis of vehicles previously registered for use on the public roads is that such vehicles are themselves considered used motor vehicles. This agency position means that manufacturers such as your company would not be required to certify that such vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards as of the date the vehicle is assembled. The only exception to this general rule arises under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. We have interpreted this provision of the law as requiring any person (other than the vehicle owner) that has removed an old body in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly assembled vehicle meets the standard that the vehicle originally did (e.g., a vehicle comprised of a body manufactured in 1989 mounted on a used 1976 chassis must meet all standards that applied to vehicles manufactured in 1976). Your company would be responsible for any violations of this requirement for all of its vehicles from which your company itself has removed the old body from the used chassis and for all vehicles from which the old body was removed from the used chassis at the behest of your company. 3. Notification and Remedy. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to notify owners and remedy without charge to the owners any safety-related defect discovered in the assembled vehicle. For your information, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that summarizes the provisions of our law and regulations and tells how to get copies of our regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1401OpenHonorable Leonor K. Sullivan, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Leonor K. Sullivan House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Sullivan: In response to your February 11, 1974, request in behalf of constituent, Mr. Frank Mills of Saint Louis, I would like to discuss the legal implications of modifications to the ignition interlock system on 1974 model passenger cars. I am not familiar with the booklet to which Mr. Mills refers.; The interlock is one part of Standard 208, which like any other safet standard issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to new vehicles only. Once a vehicle is sold for purposes other than resale and the buyer takes delivery, he may modify the system or legally have the system modified by an automobile repair service to accommodate circumstances, such as physical incapacity, which make use of the belts unwise or inconvenient.; Whether or not a dealer's disconnection of an interlock system unde any given specified set of circumstances would be legally permitted is a conclusion which the courts would determine if called upon to decide such an issue. The position of this agency is that any act by a dealer to disconnect an interlock system which could be related to a sales transaction or the introduction into interstate commerce of a motor vehicle is prohibited. In this respect, we support H.R. 5529 which would prohibit any motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing or rendering inoperative any Federally-required safety equipment, including interlocks, from new or used vehicles. The prohibition would not apply to vehicle owners.; I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr Mills at his St. Louis address to assure receipt of the information by February 21, 1974.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, 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.