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: aiam1915OpenMs. Karen Holliday, Public Information Officer & Legislative Liaison, Oklahoma Highway Safety Program, 1118 United Founders Tower, Oklahoma City, OK 73112; Ms. Karen Holliday Public Information Officer & Legislative Liaison Oklahoma Highway Safety Program 1118 United Founders Tower Oklahoma City OK 73112; Dear Ms. Holliday: Pursuant to your conversation of May 9, 1975, with John Womack, I a enclosing a list of companies who have registered with us as manufacturers of motorcycle helmets. The list is subject to change as manufacturers enter and leave the business, and does not include manufacturers who have neglected to follow our identification requirements. If your agency intends to follow this list, you should take care to keep it current.; The list is not an 'approved' list, but rather a list of manufacturer who are certifying the compliance of their products to Federal standards. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.*), each person who manufactures a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment to which a Federal safety standard applies must manufacture his product in accordance with the standard. Our motorcycle helmet standard (Standard No. 218) went into effect on March 1, 1974, with respect to the medium-sized helmets that constitute about 50 percent of helmets sold. All manufacturers on the list who make helmets in that size range must therefore meet the standard and affix a label to the helmet certifying its compliance. To regulate these helmets at the State level, it would be easiest to specify that they be certified in accordance with Standard No. 218.; The balance of the helmet population, however, is not presently subjec to Federal Standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is well along in rulemaking to cover all helmets, but it has not yet issued a final standard. Until a Federal standard is issued, all helmets outside the regulated size range may be sold without certification. The reference in Oklahoma's bill to Federal standards would therefore impose requirements on only a portion of the helmets in the State.; Before the issuance of the Federal standard, the dominant industr standard was Standard No. Z-90.1- 1966 *Protective Headgear for Vehicular Users*, adopted by the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York. In addition to the Z-90 standard, the Snell Standard, a more rigorous standard, has been administered by the Snell Memorial Foundation, Inc., 761 Laurel Drive, Sacramento, California. Most helmets made by reputable manufacturers in the years immediately before the effective date of the Federal standard on March 1, 1974, were certified as conforming either to Z-90 or to Snell and labeled to that effect. With respect to the helmet population now in use, it would therefore be possible for the Administrator to specify helmets that are certified as conforming to either ANSI Standard Z-90, the Snell Foundation specifications, or the Federal standard.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0607OpenMr. Clyde D. Parrott, Design Engineer, Cosco Household Products, Inc., 2525 State Street, Columbus, IN 47201; Mr. Clyde D. Parrott Design Engineer Cosco Household Products Inc. 2525 State Street Columbus IN 47201; Dear Mr. Parrott: This is in reply to your letter of January 12, l972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, 'Child Seating Systems.' You ask specific questions, enclosing 3 diagrams, regarding the application of certain provisions of the standard to a child seat you wish to build. You state that this seat in its present form is composed of a tubular steel frame, and has a molded plastic shell to seat the child, to provide head restraint, and to assist in containing the child under lateral decelerations.; You ask whether the shell is a rigid component, stating that it wil most probably be manufactured of polyethylene of about .100 inch thickness, and will be deformable by hand. We believe that such a shell could be considered a non- rigid component. There is not at present a definition of 'rigid' in the standard and manufacturers should rely on generally available definitions of the term in determining whether or not components are rigid.; You state further that in those areas where the shell contacts th tubular frame it is unquestionably rigid, and ask whether energy-absorbing material could be applied between the frame and the shell, rather than between the shell and the child as specified in S4.10 of the standard. In the particular case you present, it is not clear whether the rigidity of the shell is inherent or results because of its attachment to the frame. If by cushioning this attachment the rigidity will be eliminated, we would no longer consider the component to be rigid. However, the amount of cushioning needed would depend upon the amount necessary to eliminate the rigidity, and would not necessarily be the 1/2-inch thickness specified in S4.10 for covering rigid components. This determination would be for the manufacturer to make, based upon his analysis of when the rigidity has been removed from the component.; With reference to the question presented on sketch 1, we believe it i answered in the preceding paragraphs. Concerning sketch 2 you ask what the standard required at point N, where there is 'essentially no energy-absorbing material between the bottom of the groove and the rigid tube.' S4.10 of the standard requires rigid components that may contact the head or torso, with certain exceptions, to be 'covered' with energy-absorbing material having a thickness of at least 1/2 inch. If the point N with which you are concerned can contact the head or torso of the child during impact, taking into account compression of the material adjacent to it, then it must be covered with at least the specified thickness of energy- absorbing material.; Your third sketch asks whether energy- absorbing material is require where the shell loops over the tubular steel frame, when the side of the shell is greater than 24 square inches. You are apparently assuming that the area in question is contactable as that term is used in S4.10. In our view the answer to this question depends upon whether the part of the seat in question is actually a 'side' and if so if its rigidity is uniform. If the area in question creates a frontal projection we would not consider it to be a 'side' under S4.10. If it does not, but the side is significantly more rigid in the area of the tubular frame, then we would not consider the exemption in S4.10.3 to apply, since the shell would not be one component. The hazard created would be identical if the tubular frame were exposed, and not covered by the shell.; Finally, you ask for any information on the status of Notice 5 published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786). A final rule based on this notice is in preparation, and we expect that it will be issued in the near future. At the same time, we have placed in the docket a report entitled 'Report of Test on Child Vehicles and Their Energy Absorbing Materials.' This report summarizes recent test work done to investigate test procedures for head restraints and energy absorbing materials for child seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5405OpenHerr Hellfried Sandig Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH & Co KG Eckenerstrasse 2 73730 Esslingen Germany; Herr Hellfried Sandig Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH & Co KG Eckenerstrasse 2 73730 Esslingen Germany; Dear Herr Sandig: This responds to your FAX of June 6, 1994, to Mr. Va Iderstine of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You present a drawing of a rear combination lamp incorporating one stop lamp and two taillamps. You have asked whether it is 'necessary that we must have the ratio 5:1/3:1 between the stop and the tail lamp measurements in this arrangement?' If the lamp is intended for use on narrower vehicles, the answer depends upon the distance between the optical axes of the stop and taillamp functions. SAE Standard J586 FEB84 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.3 of J586 is the source of the ratio: ' w hen a tail lamp is combined with the stop lamp, the stop lamp shall not be less than three times the luminous intensity of the tail lamp at any test point, except that at H-V, H- 5L, H-5R, and 5U-V, the stop lamp shall not be less than five times the luminous intensity of the tail lamp.' However, in a multiple compartment lamp such as yours, if 'the distance between optical axes for one of the functions exceeds the dimensions specified in paragraph 5.1.5.2 i.e., 560 mm the ratio shall be computed for only those compartments or lamps where the tail lamp and stop lamp are optically combined.' Although your combination lamp design combines the two functions, your drawing indicates that they are not optically combined, and the ratio will not apply if the optical axes are more than 560 mm apart. The ratio will apply if the distance between the optical axis of the stop lamp and that of either taillamp is 560 mm or less. SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width is the standard incorporated in Standard No. 108 that applies to lamps used on wider vehicles. Its paragraph 5.1.5.2 establishes the same 5:3 ratio (though not including H-5L in the five times ratio), but does not provide an exception based upon spacing of optical axes. Thus, if your lamp is designed for wider vehicles, the ratio applies regardless of the spacing of the optical axes. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0257OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: By letter of October 1, 1970, you asked for the opinion of this offic as to whether the State of California, in specifying approval procedures for seat belts to be sold within the State, must require seat belt manufacturers to produce data showing that they have performed the exact tests specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not instructions for, o descriptions of, manufacturer tests, nor do they specify types and numbers of tests. They are statements of requirements that each vehicle or item of equipment must meet when tested by the Bureau. Manufacturers are required to exercise due care to ensure that their vehicles will meet the standards if tested by the Bureau, and they are at their own discretion in devising an appropriate testing program for that purpose.; If a seat belt manufacturer presents data of tests conducted on webbin taken from rolls, rather than from individual assemblies, and if you are satisfied that such data demonstrates that the webbing would comply with Standard No. 209 when tested according to the procedures of that standard, you may, in our opinion, accept such data for purposes of State approval.; I trust that your question has been adequately answered. If you nee further clarification we will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3882OpenMr. Barry Merten, Senior Product Development Engineer, Fisher-Price Diversified Products, 630 Girard Avenue, Last Aurora, NY 14052-1885; Mr. Barry Merten Senior Product Development Engineer Fisher-Price Diversified Products 630 Girard Avenue Last Aurora NY 14052-1885; Dear Mr. Merten: This responds to your letter to Mr. Oesch of my staff and to Mr Radovich of our Rulemaking division, seeking interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 213, *Child restraint systems* (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that your company plans to produce a new design of child restraint, which incorporates automatic belt retractors for the shoulder belts. These belts are permanently attached to a semi- rigid front restraining shield, which has a buckle built onto the bottom that attaches onto a tongue rigidly fixed within the seating surface. After connecting the buckle on the shield to the tongue, the parent must then push the shield toward the child so that it fits snugly. This automatically takes in the slack in the belts.; You asked two questions about the application of Standard No. 213 t this design of child restraint. The first concerned section S6.1.2.4, which specifies that, prior to testing, the belts on a child restraint shall be adjusted so that there is 1/4 inch of slack. The automatic belt retractors in your design may leave up to 3/4 inch of slack in the belts. You asked if the 1/4 inch slack requirement effectively prohibits the use of belts with an automatic retractor. It does not.; At the time Standard No. 213 took effect, all belts on child restrain systems then on the market were manually adjustable. Hence, they could be adjusted to introduce any amount of slack desired. To ensure that all child restraints would be tested under identical conditions, a provision was added to Standard No. 213 specifying the precise amount of slack which should be present. This specification of test conditions was not intended to establish a requirement that all belt systems on child restraints be manually adjustable, so that the specified amount of slack could be introduced. Instead, it was intended to function as an impartial specification for all belt systems, whether or not they were manually adjustable.; Section S6.1.2.4 sets forth the amount of slack to which all bel systems on child restraints should be adjusted before running the sled test. However, systems which are not manually adjustable may be tested with more slack present, since the greater slack would make the test more severe. No belt system, whether or not manually adjustable, can be tested with less than the specified 1/4 inch of slack, since that would make the test less severe for child restraints equipped with such a belt system. Section S6.1.2.4 is not intended to favor any particular type of belt system. Accordingly, you may test your child restraint with more than 1/4 inch of slack present in the belts.; The second question you asked was whether the language specified i section S5.5.2.(h) could be slightly modified for use on the labels to be affixed to your child restraints. That section requires that the following language appear on the label: 'Snugly adjust the belts provided with this child restraint against your child.' Since the belts on your child restraint will not be manually adjustable, you would like to modify the language to read: 'Snugly adjust the shield provided with this restraint against your child and test that the belts are locked.'; Your proposed modification would ensure that the directions, whic again were written with manually adjustable belts in mind, contained the appropriate modifications for belts with automatic retractors. Your proposed modification does not make any substantive change in the meaning of the directions specified for the label. Since the proposed change is a minor variation intended to clarify the language of the instructions for child restraints where the belts themselves are not manually adjustable, it is permitted.; Should you have any further questions or need further information o this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5055OpenMr. William G. Rosoff Chief, Entry Rulings Branch Department of the Treasury U.S. Customs Service Washington, D.C. 20229; Mr. William G. Rosoff Chief Entry Rulings Branch Department of the Treasury U.S. Customs Service Washington D.C. 20229; "Dear Mr. Rosoff: This responds to your letter of September 18, 1992 forwarding a letter and documentation from Dr. Irina Elovaara. Dr. Elovaara imported a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States around October 9, 1991, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(d), and is requesting permission to keep it here longer than the one year that the regulation permits. You inform us that Customs does not have the authority to grant an extension or exception. Paragraph 591.5(d) permits nonresidents of the United States to temporarily import a nonconforming motor vehicle into the United States for a period not to exceed one year, provided that the importer will export it not later than the end of one year after entry. Dr. Elovaara, who holds a visiting fellow appointment at the National Institutes of Health, apparently must export her vehicle not later than October 9, 1992. However, her one-year appointment has been extended for three months, through December 31, 1992, and she wishes to keep her car here until that time. In the meantime, according to Dr. Elovaara, her car has been insured, inspected, and titled in Maryland, as well as passing an emission test. Paragraph 591.5(d) reflects this agency's attempt to accommodate the terms of the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles, to which the United States has subscribed. Under the Convention, a contracting state shall allow nonresidents to import a motor vehicle for their private use on the occasion of a temporary visit without payment of import duties and import taxes and free of import prohibitions and restrictions, and the importation shall be covered by temporary importation papers. However, the period of validity of the temporary importation papers shall not exceed a year from the date of issue. Thus, under the Convention, a 'temporary' importation would appear to be one that does not exceed a year. This is the genesis of our regulatory requirement that a nonresident, upon importing a nonconforming vehicle for private use, declare that the vehicle will be exported not later than a year after its entry, and the reason why the regulation contains no provisions for extension of a period beyond one year. Given the existence of the Convention, we believe you are correct in your conclusion that Customs has no authority to provide an extension or exception, and we have drawn the same conclusion as to the authority of this agency. The question becomes whether, in the absence of timely export of the vehicle, either agency effect to implement the remedies available to it. This is a matter within the general discretionary authority of each agency. The primary concern of this agency, as you know, is motor vehicle safety. Given the fact that Dr. Elovaara's vehicle has already been subjected to local registration, inspection, emissions and insurance laws, we do not believe that there would be any adverse impact upon safety if her vehicle remains in the United States for three additional months, even if that would constitute a technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We hope that this resolves Dr. Elovaara's concerns. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2790OpenMr. Moe Pare, Jr., Director of Design, Cars & Concepts, Inc., 12500 E. Grand River, Brighton, MI 48116; Mr. Moe Pare Jr. Director of Design Cars & Concepts Inc. 12500 E. Grand River Brighton MI 48116; Dear Mr. Pare: This responds to your letter of February 16, 1978, asking whether th certification markings required on glazing materials by Safety Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation.; The answer to your question is no. There is nothing in th certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked his glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as these markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer there is no prohibition against covering the markings.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0083OpenMr. Ernest Farmer, Director, Pupil Transportation, Department of Education, 111-C Cordell Hull Building, Nashville, TN 37219; Mr. Ernest Farmer Director Pupil Transportation Department of Education 111-C Cordell Hull Building Nashville TN 37219; Dear Mr. Farmer: Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield concerning the State Board of Education's requirement for school bus warning signal lamps.; The warning signal system as described in your letter does not meet th requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, effective January 1, 1969. A copy of this Standard is enclosed for your reference. A minimum of four red signal lamps is required and they shall be designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July, 1964, a copy of which is also enclosed. Four additional amber lamps are permitted. The red and amber system and the red only system shall be installed in accordance with paragraph S3.1.3.2 and S3.1.3.3, respectively, of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam4869OpenMr. David A. White Manager, Reliability Grumman Olson P.O. Box 2005 Sturgis, MI 49091; Mr. David A. White Manager Reliability Grumman Olson P.O. Box 2005 Sturgis MI 49091; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your 'notification of noncompliance with 49 CFR Part 567 dated March 12, l99l, and addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Grumman has omitted to provide a VIN on the vehicle certification label, as required by section 567.4(g)(6). You have petitioned 'to have the noncompliance deemed inconsequential', and are 'seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires notification and remedy for noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for defects that relate to motor vehicle safety. The requirement that Grumman fails to meet is not contained in Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, but in a regulation that is not part of the Safety Standards (Part 571). Thus, a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not occurred. Furthermore, failure to provide information on the certification label in accordance with Part 567 is not a 'defect'. The Act defines a defect as a 'defect in performance, construction, components or materials.' Clearly this does not exist. In sum, there is no legal obligation upon Grumman Olson to notify and remedy under these circumstances, and the company is free to take whatever action it deems desirable in this case. Failure to comply with Part 567 is a violation of the Safety Act for which a civil penalty may be imposed, but the agency does not intend to seek a penalty in this matter. Nonetheless, we encourage Grumman Olson to take steps necessary to ensure that further violations do not occur. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2544OpenMr. Jeffrey L. Link, Supervisor, Product Safety, Safety and Legislation Department, U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation, 13767 Freeway Drive, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670; Mr. Jeffrey L. Link Supervisor Product Safety Safety and Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation 13767 Freeway Drive Santa Fe Springs CA 90670; Dear Mr. Link: This responds to your February 23, 1977, letter asking whether thre proposed labels satisfy the requirements for label identification found in 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 approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120. A review of the labels you supplied indicates that you have used a different format than illustrated in our notice of February 7, 1977 (42 Federal Register 7140). For example, the amended Standard No. 120 does not require the words 'with the tires listed below' or even the word 'with' before the tire size. The deletion of such superfluous words from the label requirements of Standard No. 120 resulted from comments by manufacturers, particularly motorcycle manufacturers, that unnecessary words needlessly increase the size of the label.; The example of label information shown in S5.3 of the standard i intended only as a guide to manufacturers. A manufacturer can vary the illustrated format somewhat as long as the requirements of S5.3 are satisfied. Since the additional words on your labels do not obfuscate the certification statement, the labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 and Part 567.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting 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.