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: aiam3035OpenMr. Graham Budrodeen, President, Pacific & Atlantic Marketing Services, 90 Booralie Road, Terrey Hill, 2084, Australia; Mr. Graham Budrodeen President Pacific & Atlantic Marketing Services 90 Booralie Road Terrey Hill 2084 Australia; Dear Mr. Budrodeen: This responds to your June 21, 1979, request for information on how t obtain the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) approval for a child seating device, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion, you wish to market in the United States.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *e seq*.), a copy of which is enclosed, does not authorize NHTSA to approve products. Section 114 of the Act requires 'self-certification' by manufacturers that their products comply with applicable standards.; According to your letter, the product you wish to market is 'designe primarily to raise children to see out the windows of an automobile' and is meant for children in the 5-10 year old age group. You also state that the device can be used with a lap or lap-shoulder seat belt or a child harness to restrain a child.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Seating Systems* establishes performance requirements for items of equipment used to seat a child being transported in a motor vehicle. Although the G.T.A. Booster Cushion does not have an integral restraint system, it could be covered by Standard No. 213 if it is designed to seat a *child*.; Standard No. 213 does not currently specify the size or age range o children to which the standard is applicable, while NHTSA'S proposed Standard No 213-80, a copy of which is enclosed, does specify a size range. In previously interpreting Standard No.213, however, the agency has stated that the standard is intended to apply only to child restraints or seats for children weighing 50 pounds or under.; If the G.T.A. Booster Cushion will only be used by children larger tha those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the advertisement accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for children using the seat. Further, the agency is concerned that even if the seat and advertisement clearly indicated such limitations, the G.T.S. Booster Cushion will be bought for and used by children smaller and younger than those limits. Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the recall and remedy provisions of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety- related defect in the G.T.A. Booster Cushion.; The agency is interested in learning of any test data that you hav concerning the protection provided by use of the G.T.A. Booster Cushion. In particular, the agency is interested in learning of any tests comparing the protection provided by use of the G.T.A. Booster Cushion in conjunction with a lap or lap-shoulder seat belt, with the protection provided by use of only a lap or a lap-shoulder seat belt. Copies of that information should be sent to:; >>>Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, Chief Crashworthiness Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590<<< If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1008OpenMr. Edward L. Hawes, 1651 E. Nine Mile Road, Hazel Park, Michigan 48030; Mr. Edward L. Hawes 1651 E. Nine Mile Road Hazel Park Michigan 48030; Dear Mr. Hawes: This is in response to your petition for amendment of Standard 125 (4 CFR S571.125), *Warning Devices*, dated January 31, 1973. You requested that the standard be amended to make it mandatory for all warning devices to have the capability of being mounted on a vehicle roof as well as on the ground. At present the standard allows such a capability, but does not require it.; The NHTSA has not found it advisable to amend the standard as you hav requested. The requirements that have been issued are intended to provide for simple, inexpensive devices that have a uniform method of use, namely setting on the roadway in the direction of oncoming traffic. Any requirements that call for multiple uses and capabilities will tend to make the device for more complex and expensive. If persons are willing to pay extra for capabilities such as roof mounting, that is, if there is a market, then you will perform in these ways. There are many vehicles, however, for which roof mounting would not be feasible in any circumstances. The information that we have received to date on this subject does not justify imposing on all manufactures the additional requirements that you suggest.; For these reasons your petition for rulemaking to amend Standard 125 i denied.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3465OpenMs. Fran Anderson, Jellybean Express, 5131 Franklin Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95820; Ms. Fran Anderson Jellybean Express 5131 Franklin Blvd. Sacramento CA 95820; Dear Ms. Anderson: This responds to your letter of September 9, 1981, concerning th Federal flammability requirements applicable to seat covers for child restraints. As explained below, if the seat cover is sold as an item of original equipment on a child restraint system, it must meet the flammability requirements of Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. If the seat cover is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment, it is not covered by the standard. However, we would urge you to consider voluntarily complying with the standard.; Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR 571.213), set performance requirements for child restraints as pieces of motor vehicle equipment. Section 5.7 of the standard system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of Safety Standard No. 302 (S571.302).' Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, provides that when tested under specified conditions, a material may not have a burn rate of more than 4 inches per minute (copy enclosed). Thus, if your seat cover is sold as a component on a new child restraint, that child restraint must comply with the requirements of S5.7 of Standard No. 213. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392 *et seq*., copy enclosed), manufacturers have the responsibility of certifying that they comply with all applicable standards. The agency does not grant prior approval or conduct tests to support a manufacturer's certification. Therefore, I am returning the sample of your seat cover.; Although Standard No. 213 only covers the manufacture of items o original equipment in child restraints, sale of your seat cover as an item of aftermarket equipment is indirectly affected by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....<<<; Thus, none of the persons mentioned could not (sic) knowingly instal your seat cover on a used child restraint if it renders inoperative the restraint system's compliance with Standard No. 213. However, the prohibitions of the Act and the standard do not cover sale of your cover as an aftermarket device nor its installation solely by the vehicle or equipment owner.; Regardless of whether your seat cover must comply with Standard No 213, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment you have defect responsibilities under sections 151 *et seq*. of the Act. Those sections provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of safety-related defects in their products and remedy those defects free of charge. If your covers are highly flammable, this could be regarded as a safety- related defect.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1458OpenMr. Gordon Bradford, Vice President, Corporate Development, American Safety Equipment Corporation, 16055 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, CA 91316; Mr. Gordon Bradford Vice President Corporate Development American Safety Equipment Corporation 16055 Ventura Boulevard Encino CA 91316; Dear Mr. Bradford: This is in reply to your letter of August 3, 1973, petitioning fo amendment to paragraphs S4.9 and S5.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 which would allow the use of a buckle release mechanism design that requires, before release, some foreshortening of the belt system to reduce the load on the release mechanism. This design cannot meet the existing requirements of S4.9 of Standard No. 213 with the device under load. We wrote to you on August 20, 1973, and on December 17, 1973, requesting additional data. We have not received a response from you to either letter.; We have decided that your petition should be denied. Our objection t the design you wish to employ is that it cannot be released when the belt restraint system is under load. The NHTSA believes, and has adopted its position in Standard No. 213, that a fundamental safety requirement for any occupant restraint release mechanism is the ability to release when it is under a load imposed by the weight of the occupant. In many vehicle crashes restraint systems may be loaded in this fashion when occupants must be removed.; We do not disagree with your argument that mechanisms which releas under load may more readily be released by children when release is undesirable. We believe the greater safety problem, however, is presented by designs which are difficult to operate because they require a prior unloading of the release mechanism. These systems may not be able to be released, even by adults, in crash situations. Data we have received indicates substantial difficulty in the ability of adults to release a child from a child seat in situations (total darkness) simulating emergencies. The study in question has been conducted by the National Swedish Road and Traffic Research Institute and is on file in Docket No. 2-15.; Moreover, we believe buckle release mechanisms should be operable b older child occupants, particularly in situations such as in upside-down configurations where a load is imposed on the mechanism. This purpose is met by the existing requirements of the standard but would not be met were we to grant your petition.; In your petition you argue that even a lower release force does no necessarily mean that the occupant will be able to escape easily from the restraint system. While this may be true, as no requirements are specified in Standard No. 213 regarding ease of belt removal, it is not a justification for increasing the difficulty of operating the buckle release mechanism.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam3936OpenThe Honorable Herbert Kramer, Acting Supreme Court Justice, Justices' Chambers, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201; The Honorable Herbert Kramer Acting Supreme Court Justice Justices' Chambers 360 Adams Street Brooklyn NY 11201; Dear Justice Kramer: Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1985, concerning a case pendin before you that involves tinted side windows in a 1980 BMW. You asked us to provide you with information concerning the marking that appeared on the windows. I hope the following discussion of our glazing standard and the significance of the window markings is of assistance to you.; NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act, (15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*.), to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles. We have issued Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which sets performance and other requirements for different items of glazing used in new motor vehicles. (I have enclosed a copy of the standard that was in effect for 1980 model year cars. Also enclosed is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard No. Z-26 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205).; The standard requires that glazing used in locations requisite fo driving visibility have a luminous transmittance of 70 percent. The agency has considered all windows in a passenger car requisite for driving visibility. Thus, the side windows of a new 1980 BMW imported into the U.S. would have had to comply with the 70 percent luminous transmittance requirement.; Section S6 of Standard No. 205 requires glazing to have four items o identifying information on it. The four items are: a manufacturer's identification code assigned by our agency, the model number of the glazing assigned by the glazing manufacturer, the manufacturer's trademark or distinctive designation and an 'AS' number indicating that it meets all of the performance requirements set for that glazing item number.; The markings you provided us from the side windows of a 1980 BM indicate the following. The marking 'DOT 25' and 'DOT 28' are code numbers assigned by this agency to prime glazing manufacturers. DOT 25 is the code number assigned to Flachglas AG of Bayern, Federal Republic of Germany. DOT 28 is the code number assigned to Vereinigte Glaswerke of Porz, Federal Republic of Germany. The markings 'M202' and 'MIOZ' (based on our experience with manufacturer's model number, we believe that 'MIOZ' is a transcription error and should read 'M102') are model numbers assigned by the glazing manufacturers. The markings 'AS 2' signify that the glazing meets the requirement set in ANSI Z-26 for AS 2 glazing materials. The requirements for AS 2 glazing materials include a requirement in section 4.2 of ANSI Z-26 that AS 2 glazing meet the 70 percent luminous transmittance test of section 5.2. We believe the marking 'Delodur - 1F Liz Sekurit' and 'Duro-Glas - 1F Liz Sekurit' are the trademarks or other distinctive designations assigned by the manufacturers. We do not know what the markings 'BS 5282T', D-295' and (sic)MD-291' represent, but we believe the latter two represent European manufacturer identification codes.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0619OpenMr. C. W. Rose, Chairman of the Board, Rose Manufacturing Co., 2700 West Barberry Place, Denver, CO 80204; Mr. C. W. Rose Chairman of the Board Rose Manufacturing Co. 2700 West Barberry Place Denver CO 80204; Dear Mr. Rose: Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1972, concerning the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pamphlet, 'What to Buy in Child Restraint Systems.'; While you approve generally of the pamphlet, you state that yo consider certain statements in it to be incorrect. Particularly, you disagree with two statements appearing on the page of the pamphlet discussing child harnesses. Those statements were: 'Give preference to those which attach under the seat back, not over it.', and, 'Give preference to those which either attach directly to the vehicle floor, or to the vehicle seat belt, not to the seat back.' We do not agree that either of these statements is incorrect.; The NHTSA position is that child harnesses that attach over or directl to the vehicle seat back increase the chance of seat back failure, a hazard which you recognize in your letter. Our dynamic test data have shown that affixing a child harness in either of these ways can cause the inertial load of the child to be applied to the seat back excessively deforming or failing the seat back, thereby allowing excessive occupant excursion and increasing the chance of injury to the child. In short, these configurations increase rather than, as you seem to argue, decrease the chance of seat back failure.; With regard to the statements concerning compressive forces bein applied to the child during a crash, while we agree in principle that such forces are undesirable, it is not clear from your letter how their application is prevented by having the child harness attach over the top of the vehicle seat. In any event, it is preferable, in our view, for some force to be applied to the child's torso, as long as it is evenly distributed, than to have the child flung into hostile surfaces within the vehicle.; We also do not agree with the statement on page 2 of your letter tha harnesses can safely be attached to a vehicle seat back, as the seat back is '...in turn securely attached to the car floor.' Our experience has been quite the opposite, vehicle seat backs are merely attached to the seat frame and are quite susceptible to collapse in crash situations.; Finally, we do believe the pamphlet, in its recommendation that a chil should not stand on the front seat of the vehicle when the harness is attached, is consistent with the design of your harness in that both seek to reduce the danger of whiplash injury.; I hope this clarifies our position for you. Sincerely, Charles H. Hartman, Deputy Administrator |
|
ID: aiam2624OpenMr. Jerry W. McNeil, Director of Engineering, American Trailers, Inc., Box 26568, Oklahoma City, OK 73126; Mr. Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering American Trailers Inc. Box 26568 Oklahoma City OK 73126; Dear Mr. McNeil: This responds to your May 25, 1977, letter asking whether two sampl certification labels you submitted comply with the requirements of Part 567, *Certification*, and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The two labels you submitted do not follow the format required by Part 567 for certification labels. Therefore, they do not appear to comply with the requirements. Your method of stating tire and rim sizes differs from that required in Part 567 and Standard No. 120. For example, you state your tire and rim information as follows: '10-20-F-Tires-7.5 Rims at 75 PSI Cold Dual.' By the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 as they apply to certification labels, this information should read: '10.00-20(F) tires, 20x7.5 rims, at 75 psi cold dual.' Further, the statement after GAWR 'maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below' should be deleted from the certification label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 for your information.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0249OpenMr. James S. Campbell, Engineer, International Manufacturing Company, Building 165 Industrial Park, P. O. Box 347, Benicia, California 94510; Mr. James S. Campbell Engineer International Manufacturing Company Building 165 Industrial Park P. O. Box 347 Benicia California 94510; Dear Mr. Campbell: This is in reply to your letter of August 12 to Mr. Toms requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211 (Wheel Discs, Wheel Nuts, and Hub Caps).; This standard does not prohibit projections per se on wheel equipmen items, it prohibits winged projections. Thus there is no limitation on how far a cylindrical projection, for example, may extend beyond the outer edge of the tire. On the other hand, any winged projection is prohibited, even if recessed.; I hope this answers you question. Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director |
|
ID: aiam2274OpenMr. Brian Gill, Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., P.O. Box 50, 100 W. Alondra Blvd., Gardena, CA 90247; Mr. Brian Gill Assistant Manager Safety & Environmental Activities American Honda Motor Co. Inc. P.O. Box 50 100 W. Alondra Blvd. Gardena CA 90247; Dear Mr. Gill: This is in response to your letter of March 1, 1976, requesting a interpretation of whether the Honda 'MPV' would be classified as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' as that term is defined for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; 'Multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3(b) as: >>>'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed t carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.'<<<; Your letter states that the Honda 'MPV' is derived from the Honda T 500 light truck, which we assume means that the 'MPV' is constructed on a truck chassis. Further, your drawings indicate that the 'MPV' is of the forward control configuration. Based upon this understanding of your letter and attached drawings, it appears that the Honda 'MPV' qualifies as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3873OpenMr. M. Leon Hart, State Supervisor of School Transportation, State of Delaware, The Townsend Building, P.O. Box 1402, Dover, DE 19903; Mr. M. Leon Hart State Supervisor of School Transportation State of Delaware The Townsend Building P.O. Box 1402 Dover DE 19903; Dear Mr. Hart: This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) which concerned the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school bus safety. You asked whether a public or nonpublic school can purchase and use a bus to transport school children to or from school related events if that vehicle does not meet the requirements for school buses established by NHTSA.; There are two Federal laws that have a bearing on your situation. Th first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563, hereinafter 'the Vehicle Safety Act'), under which our agency issues safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. The second law is the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-564), under which we have issued highway safety program standards applicable to State highway safety grant programs.; Under the definitions sections of our motor vehicle safety standards 'school bus' is defined as a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (buses used as common carriers in urban transportation excluded). A 'bus' is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons.; The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits dealers or distributors from sellin new school buses to schools or school districts if those buses do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. Any new van which carries 11 persons or more that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events is a school bus, and must comply with the standards for school buses issued by this agency. A dealer or distributor who sells a new non-complying bus to a school or school district is subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.; You indicated in your letter that the color of the school bus i question is white. The Highway Safety Act, which deals with the safety of vehicle operation through a grant program to the States, specifies requirements for the color, lighting, and other operational criteria for school buses in Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety*, (23 CFR 1204.4). Among the criteria in this standard are that a school bus should be painted yellow, equipped with special mirrors and lights, and marked 'School Bus.' In the case of a 15-passenger van, classified under the standard as a 'Type II school vehicle,' the identification criteria would have to be met if the van were equipped with school bus lights. If the State law conformed exactly to the standard, and if the bus in question were equipped as a school bus, then it would have to be painted yellow and signed as a school bus.; We wish to stress that HSPS No. 17 would affect the operation of you school buses only to the extent that Delaware has incorporated it into State law. Unlike the Vehicle Safety Act, which gives NHTSA direct regulatory authority over the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, the Highway Safety Act gives us authority only over the content of the States' highway safety grant programs. Whether the 15-passenger school bus would have to be painted yellow is therefore determined by State law.; Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.