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: aiam3197OpenMr. John Lust, Brotherhood Racing, 2500 Knoll Drive, Ventura, CA 933003 (sic); Mr. John Lust Brotherhood Racing 2500 Knoll Drive Ventura CA 933003 (sic); Dear Mr. Lust: This is in response to your conversation with Mr. Hugh Oates of m office concerning the manufacture and installation of replacement fuel tanks.; Enclosed please find (1) a copy of a letter concerning the lega implications of replacing a vehicle's fuel tank with a larger tank, (2) a copy of a letter concerning the legal implications of building and installing auxiliary fuel tanks which discusses issues also relevant to replacement fuel tanks and (3) a notice describing how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.; In addition to the points raised in the enclosed letters, I would lik to point out two additional factors. First, please note that if you go into the business of manufacturing replacement fuel tanks you must submit identifying information and a description of the items you produce to this agency in accord with 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed).; Second, as you will note from the enclosed letters, a manufacturer o other person specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act who installs an auxiliary or replacement fuel tank in a new or used vehicle must not compromise the vehicle's compliance with relevant safety standards. Thus, in installing replacement fuel tanks you should be aware not only of any effect that your installation may have upon the vehicle's fuel system (see Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*), you should also be aware that your installation might affect, among other things, the vehicles braking system (see Safety Standard No. 105-75, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*) or the vehicle's weight as it relates to safety standards concerning tires (see Safety Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims*, applicable to passenger cars, and Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*).; I hope that you will find the enclosed material helpful. If you hav any further questions, please feel free to call Ms. Debra Weiner at my office at 202-426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4652OpenMr. John E. Hammer John E. Hammer & Associates 235 W. Hamilton Lane Battle Creek, MI 49015; Mr. John E. Hammer John E. Hammer & Associates 235 W. Hamilton Lane Battle Creek MI 49015; "Dear Mr. Hammer: This responds to your inquiry about the attachment o a rigid hood ornament onto a motor vehicle. You explained that you were developing an aftermarket kit to help prevent the theft of such hood ornaments. You asked about the legalities of an individual owner using such a kit to attach a hood ornament. As explained below, while the agency does not regulate the actions of an individual vehicle owner, you as the manufacturer will have responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Vehicle Safety Act'). A replacement hood ornament kit would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' under section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). That section defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle.... The Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Although NHTSA has issued motor vehicle safety standards for certain types of motor vehicle equipment, there is no standard directly applicable to hood ornaments. Thus, the manufacture and sale of the aftermarket product to a vehicle owner for use with his or her vehicle would not be affected by the requirements of any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Although no standard directly applies to a hood ornament, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard... If using the hood ornament would adversely affect compliance with a safety standard, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would 'render inoperative' a design element in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated /108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each /108 violation where a design element was 'rendered inoperative.' However, the provisions of 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by using the hood ornament kit even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle or equipment. Second, you will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if you offer this product for sale. As a manufacturer, you will be subject to the requirements of //151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Section 102(11) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines 'defect' as 'any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.' (emphasis added). Section 102(1) defines 'motor vehicle safety' as 'the performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of design, construction or performance of motor vehicles...' (emphasis added). If you or the agency determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either: 1. repair the product so that the defect is removed, or 2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect. The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign. The agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects, except in the context of a defect proceeding. I note that hood ornaments typically are constructed to yield to pressure so as to reduce the risk of injuries to pedestrians. Therefore, it is possible that a rigid, non-yielding ornament might be considered a safety related defect if the rigid design were determined to pose an unreasonable safety risk. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1450OpenMr. David R. Glaessner, Service Manager, Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc., 3700 Juneau Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53201; Mr. David R. Glaessner Service Manager Harley-Davidson Motor Company Inc. 3700 Juneau Avenue Milwaukee WI 53201; Dear Mr. Glaessner: This is in reference to your defect notification campaigns NHTSA No 73-0094, concerning fork lower brackets, and NHTSA No. 73-0215, concerning frame reinforcement and tail lamp wiring.; It has been brought to our attention that some dealers have not bee able to obtain all the parts required for campaign 73-0094, and to a lesser degree, campaign 73-0215. Although it appears that Harley Davidson is attempting to provide parts as rapidly as production permits, this parts shortage has the unfortunate effect of tending to discourage owners from having their vehicles corrected. It is reasonable to assume that some owners may have abandoned their attempts to get their vehicles corrected after having been repeatedly told for several months that parts are not available.; Part 577.4(49 CFR) of the Defect Reports Regulation requires that whe the manufacturer offers to repair the defect through his dealers without charge to the purchaser, the notification letter shall include the manufacturer's estimate of the day by which his dealers will be supplied with parts and instructions for correcting the defect. The letters which you have sent to the first purchasers did not contain a firm date for parts availability as required by Part 577, although they did imply that the necessary parts were available when ordered by a dealer. Since, in actuality, parts were not always available, it becomes necessary to inform owners of the date by which the necessary parts will be available.; It is therefore necessary that you revise the owner notificatio letters for both campaigns and include in each letter your estimate of the day by which dealers will be supplied with the necessary parts, as required by Part 577. Copies of both letters must be sent to this office and a copy of the applicable letter shall be sent to each owner who has not yet had his vehicle corrected.; If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. J Reinhart or James Murray at this office (202) 426- 2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4202OpenMr. Skip Maraney, National Star Route Mail Contractor Association, 324 East Capitol Street, Washington, DC 20003; Mr. Skip Maraney National Star Route Mail Contractor Association 324 East Capitol Street Washington DC 20003; Dear Mr. Maraney: This responds to your telephone inquiry about whether our regulation would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering system in a motor vehicle. We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.; You also asked about the agency's regulations on the importation o motor vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a publication, 'Instructions Handbook for Complying with Regulations on Imported Vehicles,' which will provide you with information about our importation regulations.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1000OpenMr. Joe Motley, 2704 Sparkman Drive, N.W., Huntsville, AL 35810; Mr. Joe Motley 2704 Sparkman Drive N.W. Huntsville AL 35810; Dear Mr. Motley: This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1972, regardin requirements applicable to manufacturers of ambulances. Ambulances are considered by NHTSA to be 'multipurpose passenger vehicles', a vehicle type to which several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations are applicable. Manufacturers of ambulances, including those who convert other vehicle types to ambulances, are required to manufacture each ambulance in accordance with those standards and regulations applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles. The enclosed leaflet contains a short list and description of the standards and regulations, indicating which vehicle types are subject to each standard. The NHTSA is responsible for both the promulgation and the enforcement of these standards.; We rely on persons such as yourself to report possible violations o our requirements, and we appreciate your writing to us. I have referred your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement, which will take steps to see that vehicles are manufactured in accordance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other NHTSA regulations.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1217OpenMr. Brian Gill, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., P. O. Box 50, 100 W. Alondra Blvd., Gardena, CA, 90247; Mr. Brian Gill American Honda Motor Co. Inc. P. O. Box 50 100 W. Alondra Blvd. Gardena CA 90247; Dear Mr. Gill: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1973, regarding th applicability of Standard No. 302 to a label that Honda wants to place on the driver's side sun visor to inform occupants about the seat belt interlock system.; The applicability of the standard depends on whether the label i attached in such a way as to form a permanent part of the sun visor. You state that Honda's label is 'easily removable and obviously not part of the sun visor.' If the label meets these criteria, we would not consider it to be a part of the visor. It would therefore not be subject to Standard No. 302.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4015OpenMr. Roger C. Fairchild, TechLaw, Inc., 12030 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 200, Reston, VA 22093; Mr. Roger C. Fairchild TechLaw Inc. 12030 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 200 Reston VA 22093; Dear Mr. Fairchild: This responds to your letter of June 13, 1985, to Stephen P. Wood o this office, concerning the importation and assembly of chassis-cab units by your client. You asked about the division of certification responsibilities between your client and the manufacturer of the chassis-cab units. In addition, you asked about the accuracy of a summary you have prepared of our safety standards. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; According to the information provided in your letter and in subsequen telephone conversations, the chassis-cab units would be shipped from a British manufacturer to your client with the occupant compartment or cab, and other major parts, such as the engine and transmission, individually assembled. In addition, the British manufacturer would also affix the vehicle identification number (VIN). Your client would then assemble the vehicles by bolting the parts together with ordinary tools, and add a fifth wheel or hydraulic/dump assembly to the back of the completed vehicles. You said that the British manufacturer of these chassis-cab units has agreed to assume legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.).; Under the Vehicle Safety Act, certification of compliance of a moto vehicle must be by the manufacturer or importer of an incomplete or a completed vehicle. Based upon the facts given above, your client would be importing items of motor vehicle equipment and not motor vehicles, since the various parts have not been assembled to form an incomplete or complete motor vehicle. The British manufacturer should certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. Your client would be assembling the various parts and completing the vehicles by adding work-performing components. Therefore, your client would be responsible for certifying the completed vehicles and for assuming the duties and liabilities imposed by the Act. An information sheet briefly describing those duties is enclosed.; If the British manufacturer assembled the chassis-cab unit parts int an incomplete vehicle before exporting them, then the vehicle would be covered by the certification requirements of Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages* (49 CFR Part 568). Section 568.7(a) provides that an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, in this case the British company, can assume responsibility for certifying the vehicle, as long as it accepts all of the legal responsibilities for manufacturers set forth in the Vehicle Safety Act. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer would then be responsible for affixing the certification plate required by Part 567.5(e).; You also ask for our approval of a summary of National Highway Traffi Safety Administration safety standards and regulations applicable to heavy duty trucks. As you correctly stated in your letter, the agency cannot pre- approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Under section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), a manufacturer has the responsibility to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have, however, reviewed your summary and find it to be a reasonable description of the major requirements of the various safety standards applicable to heavy trucks. As you recognize, a manufacturer cannot rely on a summary, but must base its certification on a vehicle's compliance with all of the requirements of the applicable safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0955OpenMr. Gorou Utsunomiya,Branch Manager,Toyo Kogyo USA Rep. Ofc. Det.,23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462,Southfield,Michigan 48075; Mr. Gorou Utsunomiya Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo USA Rep. Ofc. Det. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield Michigan 48075; Dear Mr. Utsunomiya:#This is in reply to your letter of November 28 1972, asking for an interpretation of S5.2 of Safety Standard No. 105a.#The transmission you describe has a separate park position, and this position must be engaged before the ignition key can be removed. We confirm that a vehicle equipped in this manner may meet the parking brake system requirements if S5.2.2 rather than those of S5.2.1.#As for your second question, a vehicle with a manual transmission that must be placed in reverse gear before the ignition key can be removed would also meet the requirements of paragraph S5.2.2#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2968OpenMr. James Tydings, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., 1408 Courtesy Road, P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. James Tydings Thomas Built Buses Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your February 28, 1979, letter asking about th remanufacturing of vehicles using old chassis and new bodies. In particular, you ask whether these vehicles must comply with the new safety standards.; The remanufacturing operation that you mention need not comply with th new safety standards. Such a remanufactured vehicle may need to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis. Otherwise, there might be a rendering inoperative of the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards. I am enclosing a copy of an interpretation that discusses the remanufacturing issue.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1647OpenMr. R. W. Schneider, Director, Contract Administration, AM General Corporation, 701 West Chippewa Avenue, South Bend, IN 46623; Mr. R. W. Schneider Director Contract Administration AM General Corporation 701 West Chippewa Avenue South Bend IN 46623; Dear Mr. Schneider: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No 74-0168) concerning some 1/4-ton Model DJ-5C vehicles which may have insufficient windshield glass retention.; The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject vehicle does not contain the precise language which is required by Part 577 (49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter incorrectly describes the defect as existing in 'the retention of the front windshield on the 1/4-ton Model DJ-5C 'Jeep' Dispatcher. . . .' Part 577.4(b) requires that the defect be described only as existing in the vehicle. The reference to motor vehicle equipment applies only to equipment campaigns where vehicles are not involved. The letter also fails to adequately evaluate the risk to traffic safety as required by Part 577.4(d).; Although mailing of a revised notification letter will not be required it is expected that all future notification letters conform completely with the regulations.; A copy of Part 577 is enclosed. If you desire further information please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Acting Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
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.