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: 10629Open Courtney M. Price, Esq. Dear Ms. Price: This responds to your questions about how this agency's regulations apply to a product known as a Brake Locker that is manufactured by your client, Maatzorit. You requested this agency to confirm your understanding that installation of the Brake Locker is not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, or Section 108(a)(2)(A) of what you refer to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act."). According to your letter, the Brake Locker prevents the theft of a parked vehicle by locking its brakes, without affecting brake usage while the vehicle is driven by an authorized driver. You stated that the Brake Locker is installed in the engine compartment on the brake fluid line between the brakes and the brake pump. An electronic coded transmitter is used to activate a motor which in turn activates a check valve, thereby preventing the release of the brakes by restricting the flow of brake fluid. When the check valve is activated, you state that "every press on the brake pedal causes the brakes to be locked." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the United States Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. Nothing in FMVSS No. 105 nor FMVSS No. 106 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering such a product. Therefore, Maatzorit, as the device's manufacturer, would not have any certification responsibilities. Nevertheless, the requirements of FMVSS No. 105 are relevant to a hydraulic brake lock. That standard specifies a number of brake performance requirements to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify compliance. Since the installation of a hydraulic brake lock requires the installation of a check valve on the brake fluid line between the foundation brakes and the brake pump, it is possible that the installation of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. If the Brake Locker is installed as original equipment on new vehicles prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, then the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that with the Brake Locker installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS No. 106. A vehicle manufacturer's specific certification responsibilities depend on when the brake locker is installed and are set forth in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. For instance, if a vehicle has already been certified by the vehicle manufacturer but has not yet been sold to the consumer, then the person doing the installation after that time would be considered to be an "alterer" who would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the Brake Locker is installed after the first consumer purchase, then 49 U.S.C. 30122 is relevant to your client's product. That section provides that A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Brake Locker, if such installation makes inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, such as FMVSS No. 105. For example, if the Brake Locker, caused the vehicle to no longer comply with the parking brake or service brake requirements in FMVSS No. 105, then installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:567#105 d:3/8/95 In 1994, Congress codified the Safety Act. The new citation for 108(a)(2)(A) is 49 U.S.C. 30122. In addition, please be aware that on February 3, 1994, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 135 Passenger Car Brake Systems that will eventually supersede FMVSS No. 105 with respect to passenger cars. Please note that your client's product will be subject to the same responsibilities, regardless of which FMVSS applies.
|
1995 |
ID: 1063Open Thomas A. Placey, Esq. Dear Mr. Placey: This responds to your letter of July 20, 1995. You present the fact situation of the theft in Canada of a Canadian-owned GMC Jimmy which was then imported into the United States and delivered to a conspirator in Pennsylvania. The conspirator altered the VIN and sold the Jimmy which was eventually seized by the Pennsylvania State Police. The Jimmy's buyer wants the vehicle back and has filed with the local state court for its return. You write "The issue, on the federal level, is can this vehicle ever be properly registered in the United States. What are the specific federal laws or regulations that govern such situations." We cannot answer the question whether this vehicle can be properly registered in the United States, because there are no Federal requirements that apply to the registration of privately owned vehicles. Each State establishes its own requirements. For an overview of State laws on vehicle registration, we suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. There are two Federal laws which we administer that are relevant to the situation you present. Missing from your scenario is the fact whether the Jimmy was manufactured in the United States in compliance with the U. S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the answer is yes, then its importation by any person does not violate the Federal statutes under which we operate. If it was not manufactured to conform, we note that the importation of a nonconforming vehicle is an act forbidden by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for which a civil penalty may be imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165. The statute does not provide the right to seize a nonconforming vehicle. Furthermore, the statute does not forbid the sale of a used nonconforming imported vehicle. There may be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 because of the defacing of the VIN. Under this section, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The VIN was installed in accordance with 49 CFR 571.115 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 115 Vehicle Identification Number. We view the alteration of the VIN as a violation of this section, if the conspirator who altered it was a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as those terms are described in the statute. Violators of this section are also subject to a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 30165. We are unable to advise you on the laws or regulations administered by other Federal agencies. For example, we cannot advise you whether the U.S. has entered into any treaties or other agreements with Canada concerning the treatment of property that is stolen from that country. You may write for an opinion to the United States Department of State, Office of Foreign Mission, 3507 International Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008. If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you with them (202-366- 5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:591 d:8/11/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10644Open Mr. Ralph T. Welch Dear Mr. Welch: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) specify "the type of odometer" placed in a motor vehicle. As explained below, the FMVSS do not so specify. If an odometer is provided, its mileage may be stated in kilometers. Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. Neither Standard No. 101 nor any other FMVSS specifies that an odometer be placed in a motor vehicle or that it register distance in miles, rather than kilometers. However, S5.3.1 (referencing Table 2 "Identification and Illumination of Displays") of Standard No. 101, specifies that if an odometer is provided and the odometer measures mileage in kilometers, the mileage must be stated as "KILOMETERS" or "km." I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:101 d:4/10/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10647Open J. Gregory Studemeyer, Esq. Dear Mr. Studemeyer: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1995, to this agency and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on June 12, 1995, regarding the school bus standards we administer. You asked whether "your agency or any other federal agency notifies educational institutions of these [school bus] requirements." The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not maintain data on all schools or school districts throughout the nation, and does not routinely communicate with individual schools or school districts. The agency does, however, attend and disseminate information at school bus meetings and conferences nationwide and publishes all changes in school bus requirements in the Federal Register. In addition, NHTSA works closely and frequently with state directors of pupil transportation with regard to school transportation matters. In South Carolina, that official is the Director, Office of Transportation, Department of Education, 1429 Senate Street, Room 512, Columbia, SC 29201. Their telephone number is (803) 734-8244, and their fax number is (803) 734-8624. Also for your information please find enclosed a fact sheet prepared by this office summarizing Federal school bus safety requirements. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d:6/27/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10650Open Paul N. Wagner, President Dear Mr. Wagner: This responds to your letter of January 10, 1995, requesting further interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to an integrated seat. Your first question is a follow-up to our December 23, 1994, letter concerning the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 207. Section S4.2.1 states: Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2. You asked for confirmation that a "rachet-style seat recliner mechanism may not have its adjustment teeth shear during the test, ... assuming that the shearing of the recliner's teeth is a change in detent position." This is correct. Your second question concerns "continuous engagement." You described "continuous engagement" as follows: continuous engagement ... simply implies that the seat recliner or slides will always be in a locked position, even during adjustment. Some slides and recliners, for adjustment purposes, must be "unlocked," or released, allowing for the adjustment to be made, but then automatically relock when the desired position is achieved; this adjustment is not considered to be as continuously engaged, since the mechanism is in a released state during adjustment. An apparatus that might be considered to be a continuous engagement device might be a screw- drive mechanism, which can be adjusted by revolution, but would always have a locking feature, even during adjustment (and never be in a released position). You asked whether the recliner on an integrated seat must have "continuous engagement" to comply with the safety standards. In the December 23 letter, I explained that NHTSA may choose to test a seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions. However, this does not require "continuous engagement." If a seat has specific adjustment positions, and is released or unlocked to move between those positions, NHTSA would not test the seat between adjustment positions. I hope this information has been 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,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:207 d:3/21/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10666Open Mr. Stuart Sacks Dear Mr. Sacks: This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You stated that the tires do not display the "molded D.O.T. code numbers," and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), "clearly does not require [DOT code numbers] for non- passenger tires." Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct. I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by "DOT code numbers" you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5. 49 U.S. Code '30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are items of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be "raised above or sunk below the tire surface" a specified distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)). Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. The TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel
Ref:119#574 d:5/25/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10673Open Mr. Paul Pinoski Dear Mr. Pinoski: This responds to your letter to me in which you requested an interpretation of the term "vehicle capacity weight," as defined in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110). I apologize for the delay in our response. FMVSS No. 110 applies to passenger cars. Section S4.3 of the standard requires a placard to be placed on the door of the glove compartment or other accessible place on which shall be displayed, among other things, the "vehicle capacity weight." This term is defined in S3 as meaning "the rated cargo and luggage load plus 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." You asked how to obtain the "rated cargo and luggage load," so that you can calculate vehicle capacity weight. The agency does not define the term "rated cargo and luggage load" or otherwise regulate how that load is determined. The term simply refers to the vehicle manufacturer's determination of the cargo and luggage carrying capacity of the vehicle. The choice of methodology to be used in making that determination is left to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer. From a safety standpoint, the important issue is the overall value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a vehicle. That value is also known as the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The GVWR informs a vehicle owner how heavily he or she can load a vehicle. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." (Emphasis added.) "Rated cargo load" and "rated cargo and luggage load" are interchangeable terms.
I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:110#567#571 d:4/24/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10694Open Mr. Randal K. Busick Dear Mr. Busick: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking three questions regarding the anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your first question concerns S4.3 of Standard No. 210 which states, "(a)nchorages for seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 ... are exempt from the location requirements of this section." You asked whether a manual 3-point belt installed at a seating position with an air bag is considered a seat belt assembly that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1. Assuming that the vehicle is certified to the requirements of Standard No. 208 using the air bag, the answer is yes. Your second question asks what is meant by the phrases "belt bears upon the seat frame" and "does not bear upon the seat frame" in S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 of Standard No. 210. You stated that examples would be useful. NHTSA has previously said that the phrase "bears upon the seat frame" "refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat." If a more specific answer is needed in the context of a specific design, please send us information on the design in question. Your third question asked whether the anchorage in a drawing which accompanied your letter complies with the location requirements in S4.3.1.1(a) of Standard No. 210. Section S4.3.1.1(a) states: If the seat is a nonadjustable seat, then a line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the anchorage shall extend forward from the anchorage at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 30 degrees and not more than 75 degrees. As your letter correctly explains, prior to a recent amendment, this section in referring to "anchorage," referred to the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage." That amendment was a result of an amendment of the definition of "seat belt anchorage" to include hardware in the definition. Thus, the amendment was not intended to change the location of the "nearest contact point." In reviewing your drawing, the part labeled "belt and buckle assy." appears to be the belt for purposes of S4.3.1.1(a). While it is somewhat unclear in your drawing, it appears that the "nearest contact point" is either the part labeled "belt and buckle pivot/fixing" or the oval part around that part and adjacent to the part labeled "belt and buckle assy." In either case, the "line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point" would be within the permissible range of angles. 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,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:210 d:4/3/95 August 25, 1981, letter to Mr. Roger E. Maugh, Ford Motor Company. This letter, a copy of which is enclosed, discusses one example of a design which did not bear upon the seat frame.
|
1995 |
ID: 10695Open Mr. Randal Busick Dear Mr. Busick: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, providing further information in response to concerns raised in a January 5, 1995, letter from our office. Our January 5 letter raised concerns about a device labeled "Slider Bar" in the drawing enclosed with a previous letter from your company. As described in your letter, the "Slider Bar" is a bar near the floor of the vehicle that allows the seat belt to be moved to facilitate ingress and egress from the rear seats. "The forward (hooked) end of the slider bar is the point at which the belt always comes to rest when in use (buckled)." Your February 2 letter provides further information about and pictures depicting the "Slider Bar." You asked if this information resolved the concerns raised by agency staff. The drawing provided with your original letter shows the "Slider Bar" adjacent to the seat. Agency staff were concerned that this design would result in the pelvic portion of the belt lying across a person's thighs, rather than on the pelvis. The pictures accompanying your February 2 letter show that the "Slider Bar" is actually rearward of the seat and that this concern is not warranted. Therefore, we agree that, if all requirements of Standards Nos. 208, 209, and 210 are met, this design would not be a problem. I hope this information has been 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,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:208 d:3/22/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10706Open Mr. Takashi Tohse Dear Mr. Tohse: This responds to your inquiry about whether various ways of marking your automotive glazing comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Specifically, you ask the agency to assess the merits of what you refer to as "plural company Ids" in your logo mark. By "plural company Ids," we assume you mean more than one distinctive designation or trademark. We also assume that you are a "prime glazing material manufacturer" which the Standard defines as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." Under Standard No. 205, a replacement windshield is required to be marked with information that includes the prime glazing manufacturer's "distinctive designation or trademark" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. See, S6.1 and S6.2. You first ask, "Can a manufacturer use different kinds of Ids for different grades of products?" The answer to this question is yes. We understand that what you refer to as "Ids" is the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. As long as an item of glazing has a manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark, a manufacturer would comply with this requirement. The Standard does not prohibit a manufacturer from varying this distinctive designation or trademark among its different grades. (We note that each of your products would be marked with the same manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by NHTSA. This code mark will help NHTSA identify the manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns.) Your second question asks "Can a manufacturer used the same distinctive designation or trademark for two different companies?" The answer is yes. The requirements do not prohibit two companies from sharing a distinctive designation or trademark. As mentioned above, the glazing must be marked with the manufacturer's code mark that identifies the glazing's actual manufacturer. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:205 d:4/10/95
|
1995 |
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.