NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam4789OpenMr. Robert Roden Roden & Hayes 2015 First Avenue No., Suite 400 Birmingham, AL 35203; Mr. Robert Roden Roden & Hayes 2015 First Avenue No. Suite 400 Birmingham AL 35203; "Dear Mr. Roden: This responds to your questions about the requirement for key-locking systems in section S4.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). As explained below, the enclosed copy of the agency's recent final rule amending this provision may be relevant to your inquiry (55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990). By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ('Vehicle Safety Act,' 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000 for a related series of violations. One such Federal safety standard is Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Your first question asked whether section S4.2(b) requires key locking systems to prevent removal of the ignition key except when the transmission is in the 'park' position. Section S4.2(b) currently requires such vehicles to have a 'key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent...(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both.' However, the agency has recently amended section S4.2(b) to read as follows: Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a 'park' position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. You should be aware that this amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) merely requires that when the key is removed, the key-locking system must prevent steering or forward self-mobility, or both. This provision does not address the issue of the transmission's position at the time of key removal. In contrast, under the recent amendment applicable to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) requires automatic transmission vehicles to prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. Your second question asked whether a replacement key-locking system is required to comply with Standard No. 114. Because Standard No. 114 applies to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment, the standard does not in itself require aftermarket replacement systems to comply with its requirements. However, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. Your third question asked how long the key locking system is required to perform under S4.2(b) of the standard. The Vehicle Safety Act only requires manufacturers to assure that vehicles and equipment comply with applicable safety standards at the time of the first consumer purchase. However, please note that if at any time a manufacturer or the agency determines that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, which could result from the failure of a system to operate properly, the manufacturer is required to notify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1414. 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 Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1071OpenMr. R. K. Ferwerda, President, Great Southern Equipment Company of Tampa, 1023 South 50th Street, Tampa, FL 33619; Mr. R. K. Ferwerda President Great Southern Equipment Company of Tampa 1023 South 50th Street Tampa FL 33619; Dear Mr. Ferwerda: This is in reply to your letter of January 31, 1973, requesting 'a application form and requirements for the mounting of hydraulic cranes behind the cab of . . . trucks'.; Under NHTSA regulations, the operations you perform appear to make yo a final-stage manufacturer who is responsible for the conformity of the completed vehicle to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and for certifying conformity in accordance with NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567), and regulations regarding Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (49 CFR Part 568). As a manufacturer you are also required to submit certain information required by Part 566, 'Manufacturer Identification'.; Copies of NHTSA regulations may be obtained as indicated on th enclosed. 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations'. We have no requirements involving application to this agency. If after reviewing the regulations you have specific questions, we will be happy to answer them.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4623OpenMr. Robert V. Potter, Jr. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc. 5750-A North Hoover Blvd. P.O. Box 30101 Tampa, FL 33630; Mr. Robert V. Potter Jr. Spalding & Evenflo Companies Inc. 5750-A North Hoover Blvd. P.O. Box 30101 Tampa FL 33630; Dear Mr. Potter: This responds to your March 17, 1989, letter askin whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires child restraint manufacturers to make spare parts available for their products for a specified amount of time. I regret the delay in responding. NHTSA has addressed the availability issue you raise in a July 31, 1986, letter to Ms. Ziomek of Washington, Michigan, a copy of which is enclosed. As explained in that letter, NHTSA does not specifically require child restraint manufacturers to make replacement parts available for any child restraint. However, manufacturers must be prepared to meet their recall obligations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That law requires that, in the event of a safety-related defect or non-compliance with a safety standard, manufacturers provide a remedy without charge to consumers for eight years after purchase. With regard to your statement about an existing Federal regulation requiring automobile manufacturers to make replacement parts available for 10 years, NHTSA does not have such a requirement. However, automobile manufacturers have the same recall responsibilities described above for safety-related defects and non-compliances. Further, we understand manufacturers commonly follow a voluntary practice of making replacement parts available for vehicle parts likely to become worn or damaged for a 10-year period, which to the best of our knowledge has usually proven adequate to meet general consumer demand. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam1421OpenGorou Utsunomiya,Branch Manager,Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.,U.S.A. Representative Office,Detroit Branch,23777 Greenfield Rd. S462,Southfield, Michigan 48075; Gorou Utsunomiya Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd. U.S.A. Representative Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Rd. S462 Southfield Michigan 48075; Dear Mr Utsunomiya:#This responds to your February 1, 1974, request fo interpretation of Standard No. 106, *Brake hoses*, concerning 'collapse' in S9.2.8, an incorrect value in Table VI, and proper labeling format.#Your confusion about the meaning of 'collapse' in S9.2.8 points out that the requirement was inadvertently changed between notices 7 and 8 and that it should require 'no leakage or separation of the inner tube from the fabric reinforcement of the hose'. The language will be amended in the near future.#In our response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard 106, we corrected the 5/64 value (question 2) and we accommodated labeling of short hose by permitting labeling separated by any amount up to 6 inches (question 4). You must use one line for labeling required by Standard 106, but you may interrupt the stripe on the opposite side of the required labeling with labeling for other countries, in accordance with S5.2.1 (question 5). in answer to question 3, the fractions should read 3/16, as your indicate you wish to do it.#Your associate, Mr Hirai, asked our office for an explanation of the certification requirements of S144 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as they apply to items of motor vehicle equipment to which a standard applies. I have enclosed a notice of clarification. #Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3830OpenMr. Takeshi Tanuma, Chief Operating Office, Nissan Research & Development, Inc., P.O. Box 8650, Ann Arbor, MI 48104; Mr. Takeshi Tanuma Chief Operating Office Nissan Research & Development Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor MI 48104; Dear Mr. Tanuma: This responds to your April 4, 1984 letter regarding the use of tw certification labels on motor vehicles, with each label containing a portion of the information specified in 49 CFR Part 567 and the two labels together providing all the specified information.; While the certification regulations specify that 'a label' shall b used, the agency has permitted the use of a label in two parts in circumstances which will not lead to confusion and which will satisfy the basic intent of Part 567. In particular, the two portions of the label must be placed in close proximity to each other, to permit individuals to readily find all the specified information and to leave no doubt as to the significance of either portion of the label. Further, the two portions must be oriented in such a manner that the information specified in section 567.4(g) of the certification regulations appears in the required order. As a practical matter, these considerations require that the two portions be affixed to the same vehicle part. While we cannot specify a particular distance as a maximum permissible separation of the two portions of the label, the two portions must be located so as to leave the unmistakable impression that they provide related information.; You also raised the possibility of adding language to one portion o the label to indicate the existence of the other portion and to specify the location of the second portion. While such language is not required, it might be a desirable means of promoting compliance with the considerations discussed above.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2722OpenMr. Philip H. Taft, Director, Tire Retreading Institute, National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc., 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Mr. Philip H. Taft Director Tire Retreading Institute National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association Inc. 1343 L Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20005; Dear Mr. Taft: This responds to your October 27, 1977, letter asking whether a tir retreader is permitted to change the designation of a tire from 'tubeless' to 'tubetype'.; Standard No. 117, *Retreaded Pneumatic Tires*, requires that th information appearing on the tire sidewall be the same as that which appeared on the tire as originally manufactured. This is indicated by the language in paragraph S6.3. If a retreader changed the tire designation from 'tubeless' to 'tubetype', he would be altering the information that was associated with the original tire. Thus, a retreader is not permitted to change the tire designation in the manner you describe.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2372OpenMr. Don Dekker, Attwood Corporation, Lowell, MI, 49331; Mr. Don Dekker Attwood Corporation Lowell MI 49331; Dear Mr. Dekker: This is in response to your letter of June 23, 1976, in which you as whether Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, applies to portable toilets.; Standard 302 applies to the motor vehicles listed in Section S3 including the equipment installed in them at the time of sale. Section S4 lists those parts of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements, and a portable toilet is not included. Therefore, it is not subject to the standard. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2688OpenMr. Dudley E. DeWitt, Assistant Director of Engineering, Great Dane Trailers, Inc., Lathrop Avenue, P.O. Box 67, Savannah, GA 31402; Mr. Dudley E. DeWitt Assistant Director of Engineering Great Dane Trailers Inc. Lathrop Avenue P.O. Box 67 Savannah GA 31402; Dear Mr. DeWitt: This responds to your July 8, 1977, letter posing several hypothetica questions concerning the responsibility to attach a new label to a vehicle if altered prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale.; Section 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), states that the prohibition against the delivery of a nonconforming vehicle 'shall not apply to the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle.....after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' You ask at what point in time the 'first purchase' is deemed to have occurred. We have taken the position that the purchase is not complete until the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser.; In general, the issuance of title to which you refer in your letter i irrelevant to a determination of whether there is a need for the manufacturer's representative to attach a new label to an altered vehicle, as required by Part 567.7, *Certification*. Delivery of the vehicle is the point at which the first purchase is complete and the responsibility to attach a new label ceases. We would note that if the issue of vehicle modification is raised and decided upon during the sales conversations we would consider a subsequent modification occurring after the point of delivery to be an event requiring the attachment of a new label.; In particular response to your hypotheticals, paragraphs B and through H represent occasions when vehicle alterations would result in the need to attach a new label in accordance with the requirements of Part 567.7. The reason for this conclusion is that all of the hypotheticals result in the alteration of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), or gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) or the attachment or removal of non-readily attachable components. There would be no need, in paragraphs B and D, to attach a new label if the vehicle manufacturer had availed himself of the option of listing alternative GAWR's, with appropriate tire sizes, as long as the newly installed tires were among those listed on the certification label.; Paragraphs A and C do not represent alteration situations in which th GVWR or the GAWR are affected. Although the tires would have a greater load capacity than that rated on the vehicle label, there is no need to change the rating of the vehicle, as is the case when tires are installed that have lower load capacities. Further, the installation of tires constitutes the installation of readily attachable components. Therefore, there is no need to attach a new label in accordance with Part 567.7 in these situations.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5458OpenMr. Clay F. West Garvey, Schubert & Barer Eighteenth Floor Second & Seneca Building 1191 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-2939; Mr. Clay F. West Garvey Schubert & Barer Eighteenth Floor Second & Seneca Building 1191 Second Avenue Seattle WA 98101-2939; Dear Mr. West: This responds to your letter of November 1, 1994 requesting information on any rules or standards applicable to a 'windshield cleaning device.' As your letter describes, '(t)he product is a clear strip which is adhered to the windshield of an automobile. The action of the wiper blades passing over the device causes the wiper blades to function more effectively.' I am enclosing a copy of a May 29, 1992 letter to Mr. John J. Jacoby concerning a similar device. I believe this letter contains the information you need. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam3975OpenMr. K. Weight, 65 E. 200 N., Provo, UT 84601; Mr. K. Weight 65 E. 200 N. Provo UT 84601; Dear Mr. Weight: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Dole concerning black windows i automobiles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since we are the agency that issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We have issued FMVSS No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance requirements, including light transmittance requirements, for glazing used in motor vehicles. As explained below, FMVSS No. 205 limits the use of darkly tinted windows.; FMVSS No. 205 requires glazing, both tinted and untinted, in a ne passenger car to transmit at least 70 percent of the light that falls on it. To give you an idea of what level of tinting is allowed, please consider the following examples. If a window were completely open, the light transmitted through the opening would be 100 percent, clear windows have about 90 percent light transmittance, while factory-equipped tinted windows in new vehicles have about 80 percent light transmittance.; Minimum visibility levels are necessary to allow the average driver t detect other vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic and road signs under all lighting conditions. Were the light transmittance *less* than 70 percent, such as found in darkly tinted glazing, visibility would be reduced to the extent that it could pose a safety hazard. From your description, I assume that the light transmittance of the 'black window' is less than 70 percent. A situation where the light transmittance is below 70 percent may be in violation of FMVSS No. 205.; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install tinting material i new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the standard. If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs dark tinting material in a used vehicle, then a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of these persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Owners of used vehicles may, themselves, alter their vehicles, so lon as the vehicle adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may in this manner install dark tinting material regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying dark tinting material on their vehicles.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, 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.