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: aiam2344OpenMr. Glenn W. Dobrick, Chief Engineer, Kentucky Manufacturing Company, P.O. Box 8186, 2601 South Third Street, Louisville, KY 40208; Mr. Glenn W. Dobrick Chief Engineer Kentucky Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 8186 2601 South Third Street Louisville KY 40208; Dear Mr. Dobrick: This responds to Kentucky Manufacturing Company's June 17, 1976 question whether the replacement of the frame of a converter dolly constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the fifth wheel of the damaged converter dolly are reused. This office received clarification from you by telephone that the fifth wheel would be reused, although this was not stated in your letter.; The replacement of the frame is considered a repair by the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration and not the manufacture of a new vehicle. Thus the operation you describe would not constitute the manufacture of a new trailer that would require certification of compliance with safety standards such as Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; I have enclosed a copy of a recent amendment of NHTSA regulations tha permits the rebuilding of trailers without certification in some cases when it was previously prohibited. The details of the conditions under which such rebuilding is allowed are discussed in the preamble of the document.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0729OpenMemorandum to File: Definitions, 571.3(b), Interpretation; Memorandum to File: Definitions 571.3(b) Interpretation; Memorandum from Attorney-Advisor Subject: Fiat Ambulance Guiseppe Carretto, the Fiat lawyer, telephoned me on June 14 to as whether a Fiat 238 truck chassis to which an ambulance body had been mounted would be considered a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle.'; I replied that it would. Z. Taylor Vinson |
|
ID: aiam2714OpenMr. Robert W. Becker, Reibold Building, Dayton, OH 45402; Mr. Robert W. Becker Reibold Building Dayton OH 45402; Dear Mr. Becker: This is in response to your letter of November 7, 1977, asking whethe a U.S. importer of tires for resale would be considered the 'manufacturer' of those tires for purposes of complying with the identification mark requirements contained in Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*.; Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*.) defines the term 'manufacturer' as; >>>any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of moto vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.<<<; According to this definition, the U.S. firm to which you refer would b considered the 'manufacturer' for purposes of compliance with the Traffic Safety Act and any standards or regulations promulgated thereunder. This would include compliance with the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements in 49 CFR Part 574. As the manufacturer of the tires, the U.S. importer would be permitted to place its own identification mark on the tires, as required under S 574.5, in lieu of the European tire producer as the manufacturer of the tires. By this action, all duties imposed upon tire manufacturers under Part 574 would be the responsibility of the U.S. importer.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3806OpenMr. Robert H. Vernon, Visual Packaging, Inc., 5250 Belfield Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144; Mr. Robert H. Vernon Visual Packaging Inc. 5250 Belfield Avenue Philadelphia PA 19144; Dear Mr. Vernon: This responds to your letter asking about the packaging requirements o Safety Standard No. 116, *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids*. You asked whether the cap and seal on a sample container comply with the standard. The container has a Mylar inner seal, which according to your letter, is applied using heat.; By way of background information, this agency does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is up to the manufacturer to assure that its products comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Standard No. 116 specifies performance and labeling requirements fo motor vehicle brake fluids and their containers. Paragraph S5.2.1 of the standard sets forth specific requirements for container sealing of brake fluid packages:; >>>Each brake fluid or hydraulic system mineral oil container with capacity of 6 fluid ounces or more shall be provided with a resealable closure that has an inner seal impervious to the packaged brake fluid. The container closure shall include a tamper-proof feature that will either be destroyed or substantially altered when the container closure is initially opened.<<<; The tamper-proof feature on your package appears to be the Mylar inne seal. Removal of the seal would ordinarily involve considerable tearing of the seal. Therefore, strictly speaking, this meets the standard's requirements that the temper-proof feature 'either be destroyed or substantially altered when the container closure is initially opened.' There may be some question whether the feature is actually tamper- proof, however, for two reasons. First, the seal might be carefully lifted up, in whole or in part, and then pressed down, with little indication that it had been 'tampered with.' Second, the seal could be totally removed from the container without leaving any indication. However, since the standard does not define the term 'tamper-proof,' we would have to say that your seal complies with the requirements of the standard.; Nevertheless, we suggest that you consider ways of improving the desig of this tamper-proof feature, even though it might meet the 'letter of the law' as far as Standard No. 116 is concerned. Among other things, you may wish to include a statement on the label that the package has been opened if the seal is broken or missing.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1092OpenMs. Lois M. Woocher, Attorney, Boston Regional Office, Federal Trade Commission, Rm. 2200-C, Kennedy Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, MA 02203; Ms. Lois M. Woocher Attorney Boston Regional Office Federal Trade Commission Rm. 2200-C Kennedy Federal Building Government Center Boston MA 02203; Dear Ms. Woocher: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1973, forwarding complaint from Kenneth D. Peaslee. Mr. Peaslee ordered a 1973 Honda motorcycle, and was delivered one manufactured in December 1971. He asks if the dealer should make him a partial refund. The question is one should be answered under Massachusetts laws and we are unable to advise him of his rights. There is no violation of any regulation administered by this agency.; I note that the Massachusetts investigator made the statement in hi letter of March 15, 1973, which you enclosed that the Federal Government 'stopped' a practice of model year misdating 'among foreign auto importers.' That statement is not really accurate. We require (49 CFR Part 567) that each motor vehicle be equipped with a label disclosing among other things, the month and year of manufacture. The main purpose of this is to allow a determination of what Federal motor vehicle safety standards were applicable when the vehicle was manufactured. This dating may make it commercially more difficult for a manufacturer or dealer to represent the vehicle as being of a later model year, but such representations are not prohibited or otherwise regulated under our rules.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3555OpenMr. Gary M. Ceazan, Vice President, Riken America, Inc., P.O. Box 3698 Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, Californian 90051; Mr. Gary M. Ceazan Vice President Riken America Inc. P.O. Box 3698 Terminal Annex Los Angeles Californian 90051; Dear Mr. Ceazan:This responds to your recent letter inquiring whethe it would be permissible for your company to label your tires in both the European metric size and the domestic P-metric size. Dual markings of sizes in the manner you have described are specifically prohibited by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109).; Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall b labeled with '*one* size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used.' A European metric size and its comparable domestic P-metric size are assigned different maximum load carrying capacities and different recommended maximum inflation pressures, because different formulae are used to calculate the load carrying capacities of the tires at the different inflation pressures. Because of the different load carrying capacities and recommended inflation pressures, substituting a European metric tire for a P-metric tire might cause the European metric tire to be unsafely overloaded. Dual markings could lead to such substitutions.; The dual-size markings you have requested were explicitly prohibite when this agency amended the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been expressly repeated in subsequent amendments addressing the question of tire labeling under the standard, *see* FR 10162, March 18, 1974, and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977. The agency s reasoning is that these dual size markings are a representation by the manufacturer that a particular tire meets all requirements of Standard No. 109 for both listed sizes, which is not true. In fact, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars, i.e., by representing that the manufacturer's tire is an appropriate replacement for either European metric or P-metric tires. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The only purpose of that label is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the consumer's automobile.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4290OpenMs. C.D. Black, Jaguar Cars, Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, New Jersey 07605; Ms. C.D. Black Jaguar Cars Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia New Jersey 07605; Dear Ms. Black: This responds to your December 11, 1986 to me concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we interpret Standard No. 206 to permit installation of a particular type of door locking system which you referred to as a 'child safety lock.' The answer to your question is yes.; You explain that a 'child safety lock' is a special locking syste installed in addition to the locking system mandated by Standard No. 206. You state that the required locking system (hereinafter referred to as 'the primary locking system') is operated by a vertical plunger located in the door top trim roll (window sill). The child safety lock (which I will refer to as a 'secondary locking system') consists of a lever that is located in the shut face of the rear door which can only be reached when the door is open. When the lever is set in the 'active' position, it renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door.; The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows: >>>S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a lockin mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism i engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.<<<; >>>S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpos passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.<<<; As you know, the standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include th door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadvertent door openings due to impact upon movement of inside or outside door handles. Other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.; Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1. through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the interior latch release controls (door handles) to operate the door latches when the door locking mechanism is disengaged. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past agency interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems which interfere with the *engagement* of the primary locking system. Since your child locking systems do not interfere with the manner in which the primary locking system engages, their installation on the vehicles you manufacturer is permitted.; The answer to your question about the child locking systems i dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of *Engaging* the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is *engaged*. Since we have determined that S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the required locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.; While the agency stated in its April 1968 notice amending Standard No 206 that one purpose of requiring an interior means of operating door locks was to allow a reasonable means of escape for vehicle occupants, the agency did not go further in facilitating escape by also including a provision to require in all circumstances that door handles be operative when the primary locking system are disengaged. Since the agency could easily have included such a provision to address this reverse situation, but did not do so, the implication is that the agency did not intend to impose requirements regarding that situation. In fact, the notice included a contemporaneous interpretation that the standard permits a secondary locking device which rendered the inside rear door handle inoperative even when the primary locking mechanism was disengaged. This affirms that NHTSA did not even intend to impose a requirement that the handles always be operative when the primary locking mechanism is disengaged.; In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 20 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to 'minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.' Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements of occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside operating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interferer with the engagement of the required door locking system.; Another issue related to your inquiry is whether the location of th operating means for the child locks is regulated by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no. Secondary locking mechanisms discussed in the final rule adopting the door lock requirements and in past agency letters all were designed so that the operating means for the secondary mechanism was inaccessible when the door was closed. In none of those documents did the agency take exception to that location of the operating means, much less suggest that those means, like the means for the primary locking mechanism, must be located in the vehicle's interior.; This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies pas agency statements concerning issues raised by secondary locking systems such as 'child safety locks.' To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations made by NHTSA in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.; Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1568OpenMr. C.J. Baker, Peerless Division, Royal Industries, P.O. Box 447, Tualatin, OR 97062; Mr. C.J. Baker Peerless Division Royal Industries P.O. Box 447 Tualatin OR 97062; Dear Mr. Baker: This responds to your July 23, 1974, question concerning th certification responsibility of a small manufacturer of trailers that must conform to Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*. You ask if road testing of any or all vehicles produced would be necessary to satisfy the requirements.; A manufacturer must 'exercise due care' in certifying that the vehicle manufactured by him comply with the applicable standards (National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, S 108(b)(2), 15 U.S.C. S 1392(b)(2)). What constitutes due care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment to small manufacturers, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.; A small manufacturer of standard and custom trailers might fulfill hi due care responsibility to assure that each of his trailers is capable of meeting the standard in several ways. For example, he could establish categories of models which share a common brake and axle system and certify them all on the basis of tests on the most adverse configuration in the category. Calculations should be written down in such a case to establish that reasonable care was taken in these decisions.; Alternatively, joint testing might be undertaken with a trad association or with a major supplier of brake and axle components. In the case of standard models, you might be able to rely on the supplier's warranty of his products' capacities.; Neither of these methods would require road testing of each vehicl manufactured, nor would every model have to be road tested. A manufacturer must simply satisfy himself that the trailer is capable of meeting the stopping performance requirements if it were tested by the NHTSA.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3105OpenMr. Lourdes M. Delgado, 3000 Kennedy Boulevard, Room 307, Jersey City, NJ 07306; Mr. Lourdes M. Delgado 3000 Kennedy Boulevard Room 307 Jersey City NJ 07306; Dear Mr. Delgado: This responds to your recent letter requesting information concernin Federal and State laws applicable to the manufacture of van seats.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safet standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems* (49 CFR 571.207), specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies and their installation to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats as installed in vehicles, including vans, but is not applicable to seats as individual pieces of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the vehicle manufacturer, not the seat manufacturer, would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 207. However, under section 151, *et seq*., of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer of vehicle seats would be responsible for any safety related defects in his products and would be required to notify owners and remedy the defects.; I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 for your information as well as an information sheet that explains where you can obtain copies of all our standards and regulations. You will have to contact the individual States in which you are interested to find out if there are any State or local laws applicable to your business.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1138OpenMr. Norman E. Salzman, General Manager, The Fairmount Press, 1993 Jerome Avenue, Bronx, NY 10453; Mr. Norman E. Salzman General Manager The Fairmount Press 1993 Jerome Avenue Bronx NY 10453; Dear Mr. Salzman: This is in response to your letter of May 14, 1973, for clarificatio of our comment on the mileage statement appearing in your form MVF.; The language 'at the time of' and 'upon' are equally satisfactory fo use in your proposed statement, as you have pointed out. The difficulty raised in our last letter concerns the tense of the statement, and this problem could be corrected simply by replacing the word 'was' with the word 'is' so that the statement reads; >>>'The mileage appearing on the odometer of the motor vehicl described above at time of transfer to: * * is as follows:'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.