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: aiam1202OpenMr. Stan Haransky, Associate Director, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Stan Haransky Associate Director Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Haransky: This is in reply to your letter of July 6, 1973, forwarding to us letter from Mr. Jim Finley of the Hughes Tool Company. Mr. Finley describes two situations, requesting an opinion on the applicability of NHTSA requirements to each of them.; The first question is whether an earth auger body that is mounted o crane carrier will conform to the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) if the vehicle exceeds its stated weight ratings when a derrick is mounted on the vehicle but a permanent metal plate is also affixed to the vehicle which states: 'The GVWR and GAWR require that the derrick be removed before operating this vehicle upon a public highway.'; We do not believe such a label may be used to bring a vehicle int conformity with the Certification regulations. Both 'gross vehicle weight rating' and 'gross axle weight rating' call for a rating set by the manufacturer, but each is intended to reflect a fully-loaded vehicle or axle condition as vehicle is likely to be used. Although your letter is not explicit in this regard, if it is a reasonable expectation that the vehicle will be operated on the public highways with the derrick mounted on it (but for the label), even though the derrick is 'removable', we would not consider the weight ratings to be consistent with the regulations if they do not take into account the weight of the derrick.; Similarly, the components used in the manufacture of the vehicle shoul be of sufficient strength to carry the derrick when the vehicle is in motion. On the other hand, if it is unreasonable to expect the derrick to be attached to the crane carrier when the carrier is operated on the highway, the weight ratings need not take into account the weight of the derrick. In neither case, however, would the label you illustrate affect the conformity of the vehicle to the regulations, in the former case the label does not correct the incorrect weight ratings, and in the latter case, the label is unnecessary,; Your second question is whether Federal regulations regarding lightin may be met if the rear lights of a truck-mounted earth auger utilize hinged covers that are intended to protect the lights during boring operations. You state that when the vehicle is operated, the cover is secured to expose the lights. You ask if we recommend the use of a warning sticker in the cab to remind the driver to open the covers.; The use of these covers is not prohibited by the Federal lightin standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lights, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment' (49 CFR 571.108). We thInk the idea of a warning sticker in the cab is nonetheless a good one.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5241OpenMr. Joey Ferrari Director Technical Sales Grant Products 700 Allen Avenue Glendale, CA 91201; Mr. Joey Ferrari Director Technical Sales Grant Products 700 Allen Avenue Glendale CA 91201; "Dear Mr. Ferrari: This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993 concerning aftermarket steering wheels. Your questions concerned replacement of the steering wheel in a vehicle equipped with an air bag with an aftermarket steering wheel manufactured by your company. The steering wheel you manufacture is not equipped with an air bag. Before answering your questions, some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that passenger cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. Your specific questions are addressed below. Where more than one question concerns a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. The responses to your questions explain: (1) Federal law does prevent a repair shop from removing an operating air bag, (2) Federal law does not require a vehicle to have a usable air bag for its life, prevent a private individual from removing the air bag in the vehicle, require a usable air bag before a used vehicle can be sold, or require replacement of an air bag deployed in an accident, (3) State law may address these issues, and (4) our agency strongly discourages owners from removing or modifying the safety systems in their vehicles, and urges the replacement of these systems when they are not functional, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. 1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life? 2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable? 3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable? 6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped? The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. However, the Safety Act also provides that once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the safety standards. However, States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning for the vehicles to be registered or sold. After the first retail purchase of a vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is the 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act which provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In the case of a vehicle equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' the air bags. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their vehicles. I would like to caution anyone considering removal of an air bag to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Improper removal of an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the person. 4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, must a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped? 5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag? The 'render inoperative' provision does not impose an affirmative duty on repair shops to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, a repair shop could replace the steering wheel after an accident that deployed the air bag with a steering wheel that was not equipped with an air bag. However, despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, repair shops may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so. 7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone using our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure? We suggest that you consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for an answer to this question. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work. As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy that air bags not be removed, and that air bags always be replaced following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. While air bags are in some respects 'supplemental' to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Air bags provide some protection, even if the safety belt is not worn, and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to a subsequent purchaser of the vehicle would identify it as one equipped with air bags. The purchaser may well expect a used car to include the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2584OpenMr. William Shapiro, Volvo of America Corporation, Rockleigh, NJ 07647; Mr. William Shapiro Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your March 24, 1977, request for an interpretatio concerning the requirements for attachment hardware specified in Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You ask about the force requirements that would be applicable to attachment hardware that is common to the left and right front safety belts and also common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints.; You are correct in your assumption that the subject attachment hardwar (designated part '14' in your diagram) would be required to withstand a force of at least 6,000 pounds or 2720 kilograms without fracture of any section. However, the pertinent section is paragraph S4.3(c) (2) of the standard rather than paragraph S4.4(b) (3), as you stated. Paragraph S4.3(c) (2) specifies that attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 6,000 pounds. The agency concludes that the Volvo Attachment part '14' is hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies.; The attachment bolt, part '17,' for part '14' would be required t withstand a force of 9,000 pounds or 4080 kilograms under paragraph S4.3(c) (1) of the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0043OpenMr. R.L. Donnelly, Corporate Secretary, The Armstrong Rubber Company, 475 Elm Street, West Haven Connecticut 06516; Mr. R.L. Donnelly Corporate Secretary The Armstrong Rubber Company 475 Elm Street West Haven Connecticut 06516; Dear Mr. Donnelly: Mr.Bridwell has asked me to reply to your letter of December 1, 1967 In your letter you raise three questions. The first is:; >>>'(1) We find that in smaller rim diameter molds that it i impossible to place all the branding in the white sidewall side as shown in Figure 1, Page 14 - MVSS No. 109.; In complying with a state requirement, namely V-1, it was necessary t place the stamping above the buffing rib. Permission is requested to place the stamping above the rib in a protected area where it will not be scuffed and destroyed.'<<<; The labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 make it mandatory tha the approved symbol (DOT) and the code mark be between the maximum section width and the bead, other information need only be conspicuously labeled. Additionally, there is no requirement that the information be in one section of the area specified, but rather the entire circumferential area can be used for labeling.; Your second question is: >>>'(2) *Reprocessed Tires* In tire manufacturing sometimes a mold fold will occur in the area o the branding. The area is buffed. If such stamping is removed, will it be necessary to rebrand the tire, or will the use of a label be sufficient? This usually occurs on one side of the tire only.'<<<; Your question concerns new tires that have had the labeling informatio removed by some subsequent manufacturing process. In order to comply with S4.3 of Standard No. 109, the tire will have to be labeled on both sidewalls. Please note however, that S4.3.1 states that 'until August 1, 1968, the labeling requirements of S4.3 may be met by affixing to each tire a label or tag that incorporates all specified information not molded into or onto the tire'.; Your third question is: >>>'(3) *Removal of 'V-1' From Molds* It is our understanding that MVSS Standard No. 109 and 110 prompt th 'VESC' regulation 'V-1' revised. We are also aware that states can impose safety regulations for tires and motor vehicles provided they are higher than the Federal Standard and are for use on the state owned equipment.; We request a statement from the Department of Transportation statin the position the Department will take regarding the 'V-1' requirements.'<<<; Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not require that tires b manufactured without the 'V-1' symbol. Presently, a manufacturer may, at his option, continue the practice of molding tires with the 'V-1' symbol.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4903OpenMr. Mickey Hale General Sales Manager Jackie Cooper Olds-GMC 900 E. Main, P.O. Box 850239 Yukon, OK 73085; Mr. Mickey Hale General Sales Manager Jackie Cooper Olds-GMC 900 E. Main P.O. Box 850239 Yukon OK 73085; "Dear Mr. Hale: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, ou Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, asking what type of safety belt must be installed at rear seating positions in conversion vans. You indicated that these conversions would be made to used 1990 Chevrolet full-sized vans. You intend to install lap/shoulder belts at the front two seating positions and lap-only belts at each of the middle and rear seating positions, and asked if this planned installation would conflict with the safety belt installation requirements set forth in NHTSA's safety standards. The answer is that this planned installation would not conflict with Federal requirements, as explained below. To begin, NHTSA does not classify vehicles as 'vans.' Instead, cargo vans are generally classified as 'trucks,' and passenger vans are generally classified as 'multipurpose passenger vehicles.' S4.2.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard and rear forward-facing outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Any of these vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1991 are required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Thus, if your van conversions were new vehicles, your planned safety belt installations would be permissible for van conversions manufactured before September 1, 1991, but impermissible for conversions manufactured after that date. You stated, however, that the van conversions in question would not be new vehicles, but would instead be used 1990 model year vehicles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, the Safety Act includes a provision that prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This prohibition applies to both new and used vehicles and means that the named commercial entities may not remove safety equipment required by the safety standards, such as seat belts, unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle will not be used during the time its compliance with the safety standards has been 'rendered inoperative.' In the case of safety belts, this means that your dealership could remove belts to make repairs or modifications, but must reinstall or replace the belts before returning the vehicle to a customer. NHTSA does not consider it to be a violation of the 'render inoperative' prohibition when a dealer modifies a used vehicle in such a way that the vehicle is equipped with safety belts at every designated seating position and those safety belts are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted to be installed at that seating position in the vehicle when it was new. In this case, your letter states that you would equip the used 1990 conversion vans with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and lap-only belts at all other seating positions. This belt installation was permitted by Standard No. 208 for new 1990 multipurpose passenger vehicles. Therefore, your planned installation would not violate the 'render inoperative' prohibition of the Safety Act with respect to the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5611OpenMs. Colleen Grant 6335 W. Newville Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89103; Ms. Colleen Grant 6335 W. Newville Avenue Las Vegas NV 89103; "Dear Ms. Grant: This responds to your letter asking whether your 197 Chevrolet Blazer is 'street-legal.' You stated that an official of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles has questioned whether your vehicle is street-legal because it does not have shoulder belts. According to your letter, the vehicle has a fiberglass removable roof, and was originally manufactured with lap belts. You also stated that inquiries at local dealers indicate that General Motors does not make a shoulder belt for this model 'because there is no place to safely mount it.' We assume that you are asking whether your vehicle was originally required to have lap/shoulder belts, because many states require vehicles in use to be equipped with the same kinds of safety belts that were required by the Federal government for the vehicles when new. As discussed below, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts, but was required to have at least lap belts at each seating position. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies, among other things, seat belt requirements for new vehicles. Standard No. 208 generally required, for model year 1974 vehicles such as your Blazer, either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at each seating position, at the manufacturer's option. Therefore, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0413OpenMr. T. Nakajima, Senior Engineer, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, Suite 410 Trowell Building, 24681 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. T. Nakajima Senior Engineer Mitsubishi Motors Corporation Suite 410 Trowell Building 24681 Northwestern Highway Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Nakajima:#This is in reply to your letter of July 12 inquirin whether the proposed identification of the windshield washing system and hazard warning system controls, depicted on the photographs and overlays you enclosed, would conform with the requirements of Standard No. 101.#Standard No. 101 requires use of the word 'WASH' to identify the washing system control, and the word 'HAZARD' to identify the vehicular hazard warning system control, when these controls are manually operated. Your photographs and overlays indicate that you will use the required words to identify the appropriate controls. In our view, you have understood the requirements correctly.#Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4329OpenMr. Farrel L. Krall, Manager, Technical Legislation, Navistar International, 2911 Meyer Road, P. O. Box 1109, Fort Wayne, IN 46801; Mr. Farrel L. Krall Manager Technical Legislation Navistar International 2911 Meyer Road P. O. Box 1109 Fort Wayne IN 46801; Dear Mr. Krall: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 113, *Hood Latch Systems.* You asked whether a design for a front-opening hood you are considering for production would comply with section S4.2 of the standard. According to your letter, the front-opening hood would be a service access feature integrated into the overall design of a rear opening hood system. The latch system would consist of two separate latches, on each side at the front corner of the access hood. As discussed below, a front-opening hood with two separate latch systems would meet the requirements of section S4.2.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) 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 S4.2 states: >>>A front opening hood which, in any open position, partially o completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system.<<<; You cited an interpretation letter issued in 1972, which stated tha while the agency favors a system in which two completed operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard. You stated that since your design incorporates two separate latches and requires two complete operations to latch the hood, you believe the system meets both the intent and the legal requirements of the standard.; As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, section S4.2 permit the following types of installations: a single latch system with two positions, two separate primary latch systems, or separate primary and secondary latches. 33 FR 6470-71, April 27, 1968 (copy enclosed). Thus, designs for front-opening hoods with two separate latch systems were specifically contemplated by the agency in establishing section S4.2 and would comply with that requirement.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3116OpenMr. Frank Pepe, Assistant Vice President, Engineering Division, United States Testing Company, Inc., 1415 Park Avenue, Hoboken, NJ 07030; Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division United States Testing Company Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken NJ 07030; Dear Mr. Pepe: This responds to your recent letter concerning the testing procedure specified in Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. Specifically, you ask about the proper sequence of requirements and testing procedures provided in paragraphs S4.3(j), S4.3(k), S5.2(j) and S5.2(k).; Paragraph S4.3(j) provides that a retractor must meet certai requirements when tested in accordance with S5.2(j). Compliance with this paragraph should be determined initially. Then, paragraph S4.3(k) provides that the same retractor must be able to comply with S4.3(j) after being tested in accordance with S5.2(k), except that the retraction force is only required to be 50 percent of its original value. This original value was determined, of course, during the compliance procedure of S5.2(j). Therefore, the first interpretation included in your letter is correct.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4779OpenMr. Heracilio R. Prieto President Easton Inc. Road 870, KM 2.6, Palo Seco Levittown, Puerto Rico 00949; Mr. Heracilio R. Prieto President Easton Inc. Road 870 KM 2.6 Palo Seco Levittown Puerto Rico 00949; "Dear Mr. Prieto: This responds to your letter asking about the markin and labeling requirements in Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids (49 CFR 571.116). You asked whether you could comply with the requirement in Standard No. 116 that each brake fluid container be labeled with a 'serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging' by means of a 'label notch coding system,' which you described as a mechanical device which permanently notches a label. Standard No. 116 does not prohibit the use of a label notch coding system provided that it is not susceptible to being torn. However, any label notch coding system must be permanent and unambiguous, and satisfy all other relevant provisions of the standard. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 116 sets forth packaging and labeling requirements for brake fluid containers. Section S5.2.2.2 requires each packager of a brake fluid to include information that is either 'marked' directly on the container or marked on a label that is 'permanently affixed to the container.' Section S5.2.2.2(a)-(g) sets forth the specific information that must appear directly on or be labeled on every brake fluid container. Section S5.2.2.2(d) requires that the container be marked with 'a serial number identifying the packaged lot and date of packaging.' Information about the label notch coding system enclosed with your letter and samples of your notched labels show that you use the system known as 'code-dating,' which uses uniquely spaced notches to represent a code that can be translated into a packaging date by means of a 'Codedge decoder card.' With this number or date represented by notches, the number could be traced by the packager to the packaging date and lot number through its production quality control records. While the 'Codedge' system only identifies the year of manufacturing by means of a single digit, your recent letter indicates that an additional notch will be added to identify the decade.With respect to the label notch coding system, if the notches clearly identified the packaged lot and date of packaging, the combination would be a 'serial number' and would appear to comply with the requirement of S5.2.2.2(d). I would also like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1407) requires every manufacturer to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. For this reason, this agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance with respect to any system of labeling brake fluid containers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.