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: aiam1255OpenMr. J. T. Monk, Director of Engineering, Taylor Machine Works, Inc. P.O. Box 150, Louisville, MS 39339; Mr. J. T. Monk Director of Engineering Taylor Machine Works Inc. P.O. Box 150 Louisville MS 39339; Dear Mr. Monk: This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1973, in which you as whether a sample certification label you enclosed will conform to NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). We assume from the weight ratings specified in the sample that the trailer is a semitrailer.; As we indicated to you in our letter of June 26, 1973, the regulation do not provide for the listing of inflation pressure with the tire size designation, and the inflation pressure you have included should not appear in its present location on the label. You may, if you wish, include it following all the required information.; Apart from this item, a label similar to that you have submitted affixed in both an appropriate manner and location, will conform to Part 567.; We are happy to have been of assistance. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3268OpenMr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek, Vice President, Continental Product Corporation, 1200 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, new Jersey 07071; Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President Continental Product Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst new Jersey 07071; Dear Mr. Ruitenbeek: This responds to your March 28, 1980, letter to this office in whic you inquired about permissible markings on motorcycle tires. Specifically, you asked whether you could insert language in addition to that specified in Standard No. 119 when labeling the load rating and inflation pressure on certain tire sizes. The answer to your question is no.; Standard No. 119 ( 49 CFR S 571.119) specifies certain requirement which all motorcycle tires offered for sale in this country must meet. One of these provisions is the labeling requirement set fourth in paragraph s6.5 of the standard. Subparagraph (d) of s6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on the tire in the following words: 'Max load * *lbs at * *psi cold.' The language of the subsection is mandatory and does not permit any variation. Therefore, the insertion of the phrase 'in USA and Canada,' as you suggest, would mean the tire would not comply with the labeling requirement of Standard No. 119.; The reason for this strict wording requirement is to ensure that th information labeled on motorcycle tires conveys necessary information to the purchaser of the tire in a clear, straightforward manner that is uniform with all motorcycle tires. Adding language which suggests that the maximum load of a tire depends on the country in which the tire is being used could confuse the user of the tire. Further, it suggests that the printed maximum load is not rally the maximum. Either of the results frustrates the purpose of the labeling requirement in Standard No. 119.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2880OpenMr. James D. Carney, Executive Director, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association, 25900 Greenfield Road, Oak Park, MI 48237; Mr. James D. Carney Executive Director Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 25900 Greenfield Road Oak Park MI 48237; Dear Mr. Carney: This responds to your September 12, 1978, letter asking severa questions about the applicability of the certification regulations to various manufacturers. In particular, you want to know when a manufacturer is considered an intermediate or a final-stage manufacturer for purposes of applying the regulations.; Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, clearl defines incomplete, intermediate, and final-stage manufacturers. Using those definitions, you should be able to determine the certification responsibilities of any manufacturer based upon the manufacturing operation.; From the facts described in your letter, it is not possible for th agency to state with certainty whether a body installer would be an intermediate manufacturer or a final-stage manufacturer. These classifications depend upon the type of manufacturing done by each manufacturer. If the body installer performs such operations on an incomplete vehicle, as defined in Part 568, that the vehicle becomes a completed vehicle, then the body installer would be considered a final-stage manufacturer. A completed vehicle is also defined in Part 568. A manufacturer subsequently installing a refrigeration unit would be an alterer of that vehicle. If, on the other hand, the body installer is not performing final-stage manufacturing operations, then it must certify as an intermediate manufacturer. This would occur when, for example, the vehicle was not completed in a manner enabling it to be used on the highways without some further manufacturing operations.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through it certification regulations is simply requiring that each manufacturer certify the compliance of the vehicle to the extent possible given its manufacturing operations. If a manufacturer makes a good faith determination that it is a certain type of manufacturer or alterer, the NHTSA is likely to accept the certification so long as the appropriate label for that type of manufacturer is attached to the vehicle in the manner prescribed by the regulations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4057OpenMr. Robert Juckett, Transglogal Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 98, Whitehall, NY 12887; Mr. Robert Juckett Transglogal Industries Inc. P.O. Box 98 Whitehall NY 12887; Dear Mr. Juckett: This responds to your letter of September 9, 1985, regarding th applicability of Standard No. 121 to a partially used and partially new trailer. You asked whether your customer, who plans to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from you is responsible for compliance with Safety Standard 121. Your customer plans to mount on his newly purchased frame his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles.; By way of background information, this agency does not give approval of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; If your customer intends to use the trailer which he is assembling fo his own use, then he is not governed by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:; >>>(a) No person shall: (1) Manufacture for sale, sell or deliver for introduction int interstate commerce or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this rule unless it is in conformity with such standard.<<<; Section 102(5) of that Act defines 'manufacturer' as 'any perso engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles...for resale.' Your customer is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless he is assembling the vehicle you mention for sale.; In the event that your customer is a manufacturer within the meaning o the Act, he may still be excepted from the requirements of Standard No. 121. You noted that your customer will mount a new trailer frame, air tank and air valve on his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles. 49 CFR Part 571.7(f) excludes from Standard No. 121 partly new and partly used trailers when the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new and was taken from an existing trailer. In addition, the reassembled vehicle must use the same vehicle identification number as the original trailer and the original trailer must be owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3792OpenMr. Bob D. Troxel, Vice President and General Manager, J. F. Enterprises, Inc., Box 583, Wakarusa, IN 46573; Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa IN 46573; Dear Mr. Troxel: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials* (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.; The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include bot a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.; Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standar No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0917OpenMr. Paul M. Fish, Cotter, Atkinson, Campbell & Kelsey, Bank of New Mexico Building, Post Office Drawer 1126, Albuquerque, NM 87103; Mr. Paul M. Fish Cotter Atkinson Campbell & Kelsey Bank of New Mexico Building Post Office Drawer 1126 Albuquerque NM 87103; Dear Mr. Fish: Thank you for your letter of October 27, 1972, inquiring abou information on fuel tanks.; The location of fuel tanks in passenger cars is at the option of th vehicle manufacturer, since there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) concerned with tank location. The FMVSS are essentially performance oriented, and the manufacturer has the freedom for innovation and use of his own expertise in selecting the means for compliance to a specified safety performance requirement. FMVSS No. 301, which has been in effect since January 1, 1968, specifies certain fuel containment requirements as the result of a front-end impact at 30 miles per hour into a fixed barrier. Proposed amendments for FMVSS No. 301 have been issued specifying performance requirements for rear-end impacts, but the final rule has not yet been issued. The effective date for this amendment, when issued, has now been indicated as September 1, 1976. Copies of FMVSS No. 301 and the Notice of Proposed Rule Making are enclosed for your interest. A copy of Public Law 89-563 is also enclosed with a booklet briefly describing the current standards.; A number of research studies have been completed on fuel systems, an some statistical data is provided in these reports which may be of some interest. These reports are available form the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, at a price of three dollars per volume. The NTIS code number must be identified when ordering. >>>1. An Assessment of Automotive Fuel System Hazards, Dynamic Science Final Report on Contract No. FH-11-7579, December 1971, NTIS Codes PB-208240 and PB-208241 (2 volumes); 2. Impact Intrusion Characteristics of Fuel Systems, Contract No FH-11- 7309 (Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc.) April 1970, NTIS Code PB-195347; 3. Fuel Tank Protection: Fairchild-Hiller, Contract No. FH-11-6919 June 1969, NTIS Code PB-191148 (1 volume); 4. Investigation of Motor Vehicle Performance Standards for Fuel Tan Protection: Fairchild-Hiller, Contract No. FH-11- 6608, September 1967, NTIS Code PB-177690 (1 volume).<<<; The correspondence containing comments from manufacturers and othe interested parties, together with other documentation concerning the rule making action to amend FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, is contained in the public record. Docket No. 70-20 identifies this rule making action, and this file is available for examination in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5221, Washington, D.C. 20590.; We trust this information will provide some of the data you ar seeking.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam1605OpenMr. John J. Relihan, Solomon, Relihan & Blake, Law Offices, Suite A, 1819 West Osborn Road, Phoenix, AZ 85015; Mr. John J. Relihan Solomon Relihan & Blake Law Offices Suite A 1819 West Osborn Road Phoenix AZ 85015; Dear Mr. Relihan: This is in response to your letter of September 9, 1974, inquiring a to the compliance of the AADA-65 odometer disclosure form with the Federal odometer requirements.; Your letter suggests that this agency has 'approved' the Form AADA-6 as complying with the provisions of the odometer regulation. We are, however, unaware of any past correspondence between this office and either the Arizona Automobile Dealers Association or Norwick Printers of Oklahoma concerning the validity of a disclosure statement.; The Form AADA- 65 enclosed in your letter fails to comply with ou regulation in several respects. The statement referring to the mileage indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer must be phrased to indicate that the disclosure document was executed at the time of the vehicle's transfer, not at some later time. In addition, the statement must be written in such a manner that it is clear it is to be completed by the transferor alone. To satisfy these criteria the statement should read; >>>'I, * *, state that the odometer mileage indicated on the vehicl described above, at the time of transfer to * * is as follows:'<<<; The portion of the document provided for disclosure of the odomete mileage and a statement as to its accuracy is also deficient. Instructions are necessary on this part of the form to ensure that it is completed in a consistent manner by all persons. The number of miles indicated on the odometer at the time of the vehicle's transfer need not appear a second time if the form includes the statement recommended above. If the seller wishes, he may indicate on the form that the actual mileage is over 100,000 miles. In addition, the statement concerning the accuracy of the vehicle's reflected mileage must be more complete than the one included in form 'B'. Completion of the disclosure document in accordance with these directions may be accomplished as follows:>>>; '(Complete line 1, and where applicable, complete line 2 and check lin 3:); 1. * * miles 2. * * total cumulative miles (if over 100,000). 3. [ ] I further state that the actual mileage differs from th odometer reading for reasons other than odometer calibration error and that the actual mileage is unknown.'<<<; You expressed some confusion concerning the circumstances under which statement should be made that the actual odometer mileage is unknown. The intended purpose of the disclosure statement is to inform the purchaser of a vehicle as to the accuracy of the mileage registered on the odometer. In order to accomplish this purpose it has been determined that where the seller of a vehicle has good reason to believe that the mileage registered on the odometer differs from the vehicle's true mileage he must so inform the buyer in positive terms. In the situation where the transferor is uncertain whether the mileage is accurate, he must determine whether there is a credible basis for an assumption that the mileage is either correct or incorrect. If he has good reason to believe that the mileage is inaccurate, even though he is not positive, he should check the statement saying that the mileage indicated on the odometer is incorrect. A statement from a prior transferor that the odometer mileage is incorrect constitutes sufficient basis for a like statement upon subsequent transfer of the vehicle.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3638OpenMr. T. Asai, Manager, Tokai Rika Co., Ltd., New York Office, One Harmon Plaza, Secaucus, NJ 07094; Mr. T. Asai Manager Tokai Rika Co. Ltd. New York Office One Harmon Plaza Secaucus NJ 07094; Dear Mr. Asai: THis responds to your letter of October 15, 1982, asking about Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Controls and Displays*. Your letter concerned the symbols specified by that standard for the windshield defrosting and defogging system control and the rear window defrosting and defogging system control. You asked whether it is permissible to use the symbols specified by EEC Directive 78/316/EEC for those controls, stating that there are only slight differences between the symbols specified by Standard No. 101 and the EEC directive. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes.; The preamble to the final rule establishing current Standard No. 10 explained that minor deviations are allowed from the symbols designated by the standard, as long as the symbol used substantially resembles that specified in the standard. 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978. (This statement was noted in your letter.); For the windshield defrosting and defogging system control, both ou standard and the EEC directive specify three curving arrows (representing rising air) superimposed on a form representing a windshield. For the rear window defrosting and defogging system control, both documents specify three curving arrows superimposed on a form representing a rear window. The forms representing the windshield and the rear window are the same for both Standard No. 101 and the EEC directive. Further, the three curving arrows are superimposed over the windshield or rear window by both documents in the same manner. The only apparent difference between the symbols specified by the two documents is the number of curves in each of the three arrows. The arrows specified by the EEC directive have two curves each, while the arrows specified by Standard No. 101 have three curves.; In our opinion, the deviation you described falls within the intent o the June 1978 statement to permit symbols that are identical to the pictured ones except in some minor respect. The deviation is indeed minor since one must closely examine the two EEC symbols in question and those specified by Standard No. 101 to determine if there is any difference at all.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4407OpenMr. D. Burkard, Mr. H. T. Ebner, Alfred Teves GMBH, Postfach 900120, 6000 Frankfurt 90, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY; Mr. D. Burkard Mr. H. T. Ebner Alfred Teves GMBH Postfach 900120 6000 Frankfurt 90 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY; Dear Mr. Burkard and Mr. Ebner: This responds to your letter concerning the brake fluid reservoi labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. You enclosed a sample and drawing of a new labeling design and asked whether it complies with the standard, even if there is no warning on the filler cap. Your labeling consists of a white plastic sleeve which is inserted over the mouth of the reservoir, such that the following letters, in red, surrounds the filler cap: WARNING--CLEAN FILLER CAP BEFORE REMOVING. USE ONLY DOT 4 BRAKE FLUID FROM A SEALED CONTAINER. The plastic sleeve can be removed undamaged by lifting it over the mouth of the reservoir. You stated that the material is resistant to DOT brake fluid. Your question is addressed below.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105 reads as follows: >>>S5.4.3 *Reservoir labeling*--Each vehicle shall have a brake flui warning statement that reads as follows, in letters at least on-eighth of an inch high: 'WARNING, Clean filler cap before removing, Use only * * fluid from a sealed container'. (Inserting the recommended type of brake fluid as specified in 49 CFR 571.116, e.g., 'DOT 3'). The lettering shall be--; (a) Permanently affixed, engraved, or embossed, (b) Located so as to be visible by direct view, either on or within inches of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or cap, and; (c) Of a color that contrasts with its background, if it is no engraved or embossed.<<<; It is our opinion that your new design would not comply with th requirement in section S5.4.3 that the lettering be permanently affixed, engraved, or embossed. Since the lettering is obviously not engraved or embossed, I will discuss the only remaining option, that the lettering be 'permanently affixed.' The dictionary defines 'affix' as follows: to attach physically ( as by nails or glue) . . . .' The word 'permanent' is defined as 'continuing or enduring (as in the same state, status, place without fundamental or marked change: not subject to fluctuation or alteration: fixed or intended to be fixed . . . .' (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged edition.) In light of these definitions, we do not believe that your brake fluid warning lettering would be 'permanently affixed.' Since your design permits the lettering to easily be removed and replaced, its physical attachment cannot be considered to be continuing or enduring and not subject to fluctuation or alteration. However, it may be possible for your to attach the lettering to the reservoir in a manner that it would be permanently affixed. One such method would appear to be bonding, although there may be other methods as well.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2300OpenMr. A. Mita, Chief, Engineering Department, NSK Warner Kabushiki Kaisha, 12, Kirihara-cho, Fujisawa, Japan; Mr. A. Mita Chief Engineering Department NSK Warner Kabushiki Kaisha 12 Kirihara-cho Fujisawa Japan; Dear Mr. Mita: This responds to NSK Warner's April 12, 1976, question whether th release and buckle requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, permit the use of a latch mechanism that consists of a fixed hook over which belt webbing (presumably from the upper torso and pelvic portions of a continuous loop system) is slipped by the occupant, causing a rotating catch to close the open end of the hook and secure the webbing. Release is accomplished by depression of a push button that rotates the catch away from the open end of the hook, followed by occupant action to slip the belt webbing off the hook.; Standard No. 208 specifies that a seat belt assembly installed in motor vehicle shall have a latch mechanism '[t]hat releases at a single point by a push-button action' (S7.2(c)). 'Release' in this context means that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. From your description of the hook mechanism, it would not disengage the two portions of belt assembly by a push-button action, because an additional action by the occupant is required. It therefore appears that such a mechanism would not conform to S7.2(c) of Standard No. 208.; Standard No. 209 specifies that 'A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembl shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant to permit his easy and rapid removal from the assembly' (S4.1(e)). 'Buckle' is defined in S4. as 'a quick release connector which fastens a person in a seat belt assembly.' Section S4.3 further specifies that 'The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall release when a force of not more than 30 pounds or 14 kilograms is applied' (S4.3(d)(1)). 'Release' in this standard is also interpreted to mean that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. For this reason, it appears that the described device would not comply with the listed requirements of Standard No. 209.; I trust that this answer is responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, 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.