NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: nht90-1.43OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/14/90 FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: PATRICK J. HIGGINS -- ANDREINI & COMPANY TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED AUG. 11, 1989 FROM PATRICK J. HIGGINS, ANDREINI AND COMPANY, TO STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, ATTACHED, OCC3831 TEXT: This responds to your letter on behalf of Skill-Craft Enterprises, which is designing and manufacturing a fiberglass seat to be installed in the bed of a pickup truck. You were interested in learning which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards w ould apply to this product. You indicated that you believed Standards No. 207, 209, 210, and "possibly 302" would apply to this seat. I am enclosing a December 1, 1986 interpretation letter from this office to Mr. Scott Muirhead, which explains the application of NHTSA's safety standards and regulations to seats in the cargo bed of a pickup. You will see that this letter specifically addresses the applicability of Standards No. 207, 208, 209, and 210 to such seats. I am also enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly describes our laws and regulations, and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulatio ns. You also asked whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, would apply to your client's product. That standard applies only to new vehicles in areas located in the "occupant compartment air space," which the standard defines as "the sp ace within the occupant compartment that normally contains refreshable air." I am enclosing a copy of a February 15, 1983 interpretation to Mr. H. Nakaya in which the agency explained that the determination of whether any particular area is within the "o ccupant compartment air space" turns on whether people can and do ride in the area in question. Given that your client's product is a seat, it is designed and intended so that people will ride in it. Hence, the area around the seat would be an area wher e people could and would ride, and would be considered within the "occupant compartment air space." Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 expressly lists seat cushions, seat backs, and seat belts as items of equipment that must meet the flammability resistanc e requirements of section S4.3. Based on the above, we conclude that a seat installed as original equipment in the bed of a pickup would be required to comply with Standard No. 302.
If the seat will be sold exclusively as an item of aftermarket equipment, Standard No. 302 would not directly apply to it. Nevertheless, other Federal laws indirectly affect your client's manufacture and sale of such a seat in the aftermarket. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in comp liance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair business (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as being in the business of repa iring motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) to ensure that any aftermarket installations of additional equipment or vehicle modifications its addition would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicl e with applicable Federal safety standards. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of this "render inoperative" provision. Your client should also be aware of an additional aspect of the Safety Act. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your client is also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that your client or NHTSA determines that the seats contain a safety related defect, it would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. ENCLS. |
|
ID: nht90-1.44OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/14/90 FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: VICTOR CRISCI TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER FROM VICTOR CRISCI TO ERICA Z. JONES DATED JUNE 28, 1989 ATTACHED TEXT: This is in response to the telephone call you made to me after receiving the interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 furnished you on August 7, 1989. To summarize, you wished to know whether a "safety light flasher" to be installed on your motorcycle would conflict with DOT regulations. This device flashes a motorcycle headlamp between upper and lower beam for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light t o the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. We advised you that Standard No. 108 allowed flashing headlamps only on vehicles equipped with turn signals (S5.5.10(c)), and that the provision applicable to motorcycle headlamps (S5.5.10(d)) permitted only headlamp modulators, which must provide varying intensities within a single beam, and not between beams. You have questioned this interpretation because motorcycles are required to be equipped with turn signals. We have reviewed Standard No. 108, and have concluded that your device is prohibited, albeit for reasons other than section S5.5.10(c). Section S 5.5.1 requires that the means for switching between upper and lower beams conform to one of two SAE Recommended Practices, either J564a, or J565b. The first requires that the switch be operated by a simple movement of the driver's hand or foot. We do n ot interpret this as allowing automatic switching between upper and lower beams. Although the second provides for automatic switching, it is in the context of changing the upper beam to the lower one when oncoming traffic is approaching. Your device do es not contain this feature. We must also bring your attention to section S5.1.3. This section prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting devices if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. In our opinion, a device that sw itches between upper and lower beam at times when the headlamp is illuminated would impair the roadway illumination that the headlamp is intended to supply. In addition, if the flasher caused lamps other than the headlamp to flash (such as the taillamp, which must be activated when the headlamp is steady-burning), that are required to be steady-burning in use, a noncompliance with section S5.5.11(e) would result. |
|
ID: nht90-1.45OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/14/90 FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: DIANA L. D. REGAN TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-14-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD, NHTSA, FROM DIANA L. REGAN ATTACHED; OCC 4152 TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of how our laws and regulations would apply to a product you have invented. Your product is designed to alter the alignment of the webbing of a lap/shoulder safety belt to improve the fit of the saf ety belt on children weighing between 40 and 85 pounds. According to your letter, the product is designed to be firmly attached to the webbing of both the lap belt portion and the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt. When the product is attached, it pulls down the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt so that it will pass across the child's chest and shoulder, instead of the neck. You asked whether this product would be considered a safety belt or a child restraint system for the purposes of our safety standards. The answer is that your product would not be considered to be either for the purposes of our standards, as explained below. Section S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209) defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including al l necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added). Your device is not itself designed to secure a child in a motor vehicle. Instead, your device is designed t o alter the alignment of the existing safety belt in the vehicle, so that the existing safety belt system in the vehicle can be adjusted to better fit a child occupant. Therefore, your device would not be a "seat belt assembly" within the meaning of Sta ndard No. 209. Section S4 of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR @ 571.213) defines a "child restraint system" as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (Emphasis added). As explained above, your device is not a Type I or Type II seat belt. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, your device is not itself designed to restrain, seat, or position children. The restraining of the child would be a ccomplished entirely by the safety belt system already installed in the vehicle. Your device would simply alter the alignment of that safety belt system for the child. Therefore, your device would not be a "child restraint system" within the meaning of Standard No. 213. You also asked for information regarding your responsibilities as the manufacturer and seller of this product. I have enclosed an information sheet we have prepared for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed copies of a Febr uary 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick A. Boutin and a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These two letters describe how products intended to enhance the comfort of safety belt wearers could be affected by our laws and regulations. The informa tion sheet explains how to obtain copies of our laws and regulations. I hope this information is helpful. ENCLS. |
|
ID: nht90-1.46OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/15/90 FROM: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- VICE PRESIDENT INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS NISSAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- NISSAN RESEARCH; REDBOOK A35; VSA 102[5]; PART 575.6 TEXT: This letter is to request your interpretation regarding the recent amendment to NHTSA's Consumer Information regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 575. This amendment, published on November 27, 1989, requires that vehicle Owner's Manuals contain specifie d information regarding NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline. Section 575.6(a)(2)(i) of the regulations specifies a statement that must appear in Owner's Manuals effective September 1, 1990. In two locations within the statement, the "name of manufacturer" must be inserted. We request your opinion as to whethe r we may, consistent with the regulations, use the name "Infiniti" in these spaces, for manuals used with our new Infiniti line of vehicles. Infiniti is a Division within Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., the importer of Nissan and Infiniti vehicles. The Infiniti vehicles will be assembled by Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., the parent corporation, in Japan. Vehicles sold through the Infinit i Division will be designated by the Infiniti nameplate, and we expect that consumers will identify the vehicles specifically with that name. The process is similar to that used with the Cadillac or Lincoln Divisions of General Motors Corporation or For d Motor Company, respectively. We would provide an address and telephone number for the Infiniti Division adjacent to the required Hotline information, to facilitate consumers contacting Infiniti. This toll free number would be unique to the Infiniti Division, and calls would be a nswered by a staff separate from that of the Nissan Division. We believe that this approach would not confuse consumers and would, in fact, improve their ability to contact quickly the appropriate officials who are authorized to respond to any questions on defect or compliance matters concerning Infiniti models. We would greatly appreciate your earliest possible response on this matter, so that we can arrange our printing schedules to meet the September 1 effective date. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. |
|
ID: nht90-1.47OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1990 FROM: ANTHONY T. GREENISH -- U.N.D.P. TO: U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-25-90 TO ANTHONY P. GREENISH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; PART 591) TEXT: I am presently contemplating purchasing a car in Europe and importing it when I return to the United States in July 1990. The two models I have in mind are: 1. The BMW model 324 d Diesel 2. The Honda model Accord 1.6 Ix Any information you can provide as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards would be very welcome. |
|
ID: nht90-1.48OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1990 FROM: BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH -- HARTLEY ASSOCIATES INC. TO: HENRY J. NOWAK -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-2-90 TO GEN. JERRY RALPH CURRY, NHTSA, FROM CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. NOWAK; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-22-89 TO DEIRDRE FUJITA, OFC. OF CHIEF COUNSEL FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH, HARTLEY ASSOCS. INC. AND LETTER DA TED 3-16-90 TO BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; STD.213] TEXT: Hartley Associates, Inc. is a woman-owned small business enterprise (WBE), certified by the State of New York, which is located in your Congressional District at 48 Heritage Court, Cheektowaga, NY 14225. The corporation was formed in 1986 for the purpos e of performing research, development, testing and evaluation in the field of automotive transportation safety and to provide consulting services to manufacturers of automotive restraint devices, both for children and adults. In July 1989, Hartley Associates, Inc. was retained by Century Products Co., 9600 Valley View Road, Macedonia, Ohio 44056 for consulting services. Century Products Co. had recently developed an infant automotive restraint system equipped with a canopy s un visor (Model 580) and their concern was whether or not this design would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 (FMVSS 213) - Child Restraints. We were requested to determine the FMVSS 213 requirements relevant to s un visors, perform whatever tests were deemed necessary and provide documentation ensuring that the Model 580 infant restraint complied with FMVSS 213. Subsequently, we received two interpretations of FMVSS 213 regarding the use of sun visors which had been issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Chief Counsel (Mr. Dan Wilinsky, 12-31-86 and Mr. Bruce Smith, 6/4/8 7). Both of these interpretations stated that a sun visor attached to an infant restraint system must comply with FMVSS 213, Section 5.2.3.2. Two dynamic sled tests were performed according to the requirements of FMVSS 213 in August of 1989. The resul ts of these tests showed that the Model 580 infant restraint complied with FMVSS 213, Section 5.2.3.2. On August 22, 1989, Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel was requested to issue an interpretation of S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS 213 with regard to the Century 580 infant restraint system with sun visor. A informed me that a meeting between NHTSA and Hartl ey Associates, Inc. was not necessary and that she would issue a letter of interpretation based on the information and test results provided by Hartley Associates, Inc.. During this seven month period, I have contacted Ms. Fujita five times by phone and once in person. She has informed me that the letter of interpretation was issued shortly after receipt of our letter but has been 'held up' by the approval process and she cannot anticipate a date for issuance. I would sincerely appreciate any assistance you can provide in expediting this letter of interpretation. The lack of timeliness of the receipt of this interpretation is having a negative impact on the reputation of Hartley Associates, Inc. to provide a timely response to the requests of a customer. If you have any questions I can be reached by telephone at (716) 892-6313 of by telefax at (716) 897-0515. |
|
ID: nht90-1.49OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: February 20, 1990 FROM: H. Reese Chappell -- Engineer, Auto Ventshade Company TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rule Making, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 to R. Chappell from P. J. Rice; (A35; Std. 205 VSA S108(a)(1)(A); and photos (text omitted) TEXT: Auto Ventshade Company is a manufacturer in the automotive aftermarket business. As per my telephone conversation with your secretary, I am sending you a brochure which shows the application of our product, the Ventvisor. We would like to know if there are any federal regulations on light transmission or otherwise which govern our product. The smoke-grey tinted Ventvisor has 47.5% light transmission which, as far as we have been able to determine, complies with state-to- state laws. We also manufacture a clear non-tinted part which we sell in California, New Jersey and West Virginia. These states do not allow any tinted products on automobiles at all. Please send me written notice of any regulations that may exist so that we can be sure that our product complies completely with federal laws. Thank you very much for your time. Your reply will be greatly appreciated. |
|
ID: nht90-1.5OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: 01/01/90 EST FROM: Cal Karl -- District 4700, State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, State Patrol TO: All School Bus LCR II's TITLE: Re School Bus Vandal Locks ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-27-90 from P.J. Rice to C. Karl (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 12-7-82 from F. Berndt to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 from C. Karl to M. Shaw (OCC 4403); Also attached to lett er dated 1-18-90 from R.E. Meadows; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl TEXT: Please be aware that some buses are appearing in the inspection process with vandal locks that do not comply with regulations. 49 CFR 571.217 provides for a lock on emergency exits. Effective 7/1/89, State Rule 3520.5010 subp 2 provides for locks on emergency doors and service door if they comply with 217. 571.217 requires the lock to disable the engine starting system if any emergency exit is locked. It further requires the presence of a person with a key or combination to activate such a mechanism. Do not accept a bus that has a vandal lock that does not comply with this regulation. If there are buses in your area that have such locks, please make every effort to contact the operator and require that the lock be brought into compliance or removed. Please review the language in 571.217. (Attached) |
|
ID: nht90-1.50OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: February 20, 1990 FROM: David G. Dick -- Technician, Toy Laboratory, ACTS Testing Labs, Inc. TO: NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to D.G. Dick (A36; Std. 213) TEXT: This letter is to request an interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 571.213, S5.2.3 Head Impact Protection requirements. Section 5.2.3.2(a) of the Standard requires a 25% compression-deflection resistance of not less than 0.5 and not more than 10 pounds per square inch (psi) when tested in accordance with Section 6.3 for the energy absorbing material. The requirements of not less than 0.5 and no greater than 10 psi are listed in the standard to one significant figure, however, when specimens are tested in accordance with the specified methodology, the results are calculated to more than one significan t figure. Is it acceptable to round off the result to one significant figure as stated in the standard as seen in the below example? i.e.: 0.47 would be rounded up to O.5 and reported as a Pass. Additionally, how was the lower limit of 0.5 psi decided upon? Is there any situation in which an energy absorbing material with a 25% compressiondeflection resistance of less than 0.5 psi acceptable? Your quick response to these questions would be greatly appreciated. |
|
ID: nht90-1.51OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: February 20, 1990 FROM: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights TO: NHTSA, Department of Transportation TITLE: Re Letter dated September 1, 1989. ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-1-89 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Louis F. Wilson (A37; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA (OCC 5747) TEXT: We sent you a letter concerning the legality of our product, Instant Traffic Lights on September 1, 1989 and as of this date, there has been no reply. With the date of the availability approaching rapidly, we are left pondering about the situation. We would appreciated it if you would take a few moment of your time to review our product. Along with this letter, we will send you a copy of the letter we mailed to you on September 1, 1989. On the attached letter, there are few questions which we would like to know. We would be grateful if you could send us a reply in the near future. Thank you very much. |
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.