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: aiam3782OpenThe Honorable Tom Ridge, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable Tom Ridge House of Representatives Washington D.C. 20515; Dear Mr. Ridge: This responds to your letter of November 28, 1983, requestin information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. William H. Hull, Sr. Mr. Hull is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. He believes that this is a dangerous practice because it prevents police officers from seeing inside the vehicles. You asked if we were considering the issuance of a regulation outlawing the use of such film and, if so, when such a regulation might be promulgated.; While our authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (the Act) enables us to limit the practice of installing tinted film on vehicle windows, it does not permit us to issue a regulation prohibiting every individual from engaging in that practice. As explained below, while commercial establishments are prohibited from adding the film, we cannot prohibit a vehicle owner from doing so.; Pursuant to the the (sic) Act, we have promulgated Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.; Tinting films such as the type referred to in Mr. Hull's letter are no glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard.; A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.; However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment t have the film installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that 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 in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles b their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mr. Hull may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, IL 6-2-4) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing tinting film on their automobile windows.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed |
|
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 |
|
ID: aiam5127OpenMr. J. C. Townley Jay Townley & Associates N1367 Southern Road Lyndon Station, WI 53944-9708; Mr. J. C. Townley Jay Townley & Associates N1367 Southern Road Lyndon Station WI 53944-9708; "Dear Mr. Townley: This is in further response to your letter o November 24, 1992, asking for 'an advisory opinion that the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle is not a 'motor vehicle' or 'motor driven cycle' within the meaning of the Safety Act and regulations promulgated thereunder.' Previously, we had acknowledged your withdrawal of your request for confidentiality. The Yamaha is 'a bicycle equipped with a battery powered pedal assist system that engages when the system senses 'kicking' torque between 5 Kg and 50 Kg, such as when the bicycle is starting from a stop, or climbing hills.' It is intended to facilitate standing starts in traffic, assist in climbing hills, and to 'keep up the pace when a rider becomes fatigued while commuting, running an errand or exercising. The system is designed to engage when the driver is actively pedaling, and to disengage when the speed is less than 1.24 mph or more than 15 mph, when torque at the pedals is less than 11 lbs or more than 110 lbs, and when the braking system is activated. The photographs you have enclosed show, in all important respects, vehicles configured as conventional bicycles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), defines a 'motor vehicle,' in pertinent part, as 'any vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)). On November 6, 1974, the Consumer Product Safety Commission asked the agency whether a 'motorized bicycle' was a 'motor vehicle' if it utilized mechanical power to propel it 'only some of the time.' NHTSA replied on December 6 of that year that it considered motorized bicycles to be motor vehicles subject to its jurisdiction (specifically classified as motor-driven cycles), and that it did 'not find it relevant to the question of safety standards' applicability that a particular vehicle, fully equipped to operate as a motor vehicle within the meaning of our Act, may also have the capability of operating in some other mode.' Earlier that year, the agency had rejected arguments by Peugeot and Motobecane on behalf of their 'mopeds' that vehicles which produce no more than 1.5 horsepower deserved a categorization other than as motor-driven cycles (motorcycles developing 5 horsepower or less), but it did amend the motorcycle lighting and braking standards to modify performance requirements for motor- driven cycles with a top speed of 30 mph or less, and to allow placement of the rear brake control on the left handlebar. Subsequently, on October 28, 1976, NHTSA informed Ohio Bikes, Inc. that a bicycle, even if used, became a newly manufactured motor vehicle when an engine was attached to it. At first blush, it might appear that this line of interpretations should lead to a conclusion that the Yamaha is a 'motor vehicle.' However, we believe there is a significant difference between the Yamaha pedal assisted bicycle and motorized bicycles and mopeds. The propulsion systems of the latter vehicles enable them to operate on power without pedaling. However, the power assist of the Yamaha disengages when torque at the pedals is less than 11 pounds, which means that the system will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular effort. NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' for purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 mph or less. While the Yamaha has a maximum speed of 20 mph or less, its body configuration does not distinguish it from motorized bicycles and mopeds. However, the vehicles that NHTSA addressed under this line of interpretations operated solely on power. The Yamaha does not easily fit into our previous analyses concerning whether particular vehicles are considered 'motor vehicles.' After carefully considering the question, we have concluded that, in light of the combination of a low maximum speed while operating on power (the power of the Yamaha disengages when speed is more than 15 mph) and the fact that power is only provided if the operator is providing muscular effort (by continuously pedalling), the Yamaha is not a 'motor vehicle' under the Safety Act. We note that, even with power assist, the operation of the Yamaha is essentially the same as that of a bicycle, i.e., the operator must pedal under the same circumstances as a traditional bicylist and the speed of the Yamaha does not differ from the speed of traditional bicycles. Since the Yamaha is not a 'motor vehicle,' it is not subject to the jurisdiction of this agency. Vehicles that are not motor vehicles are subject to the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and you should consult the Commission for further information as to whether there are regulations that the Yamaha must meet. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3537OpenMr. John B. White, Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept., Michelin Tire Corporation, One Marcus Avenue, Lake Success, NY 11042; Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept. Michelin Tire Corporation One Marcus Avenue Lake Success NY 11042; Dear Mr. White: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*. Specifically, you asked whether Michelin could use two different size codes in the tire identification number to identify tires of the same size. You asserted that this assignment of differing size codes would not impair Michelin's ability to conduct a recall of tires of that size, should such a recall be necessary. As long as Michelin maintains accurate records of the size codes assigned to the various tire sizes, it would be permissible to assign more than one size code to each tire size.; At the outset, it is important to note that the size code in the tir identification number is not the means used by the consumer to determine the size of the tires on his or her car. Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 and section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specify that the tire size designation must be labeled on both sidewalls. The size designation is the exact size and is not the same as the size code. To satisfy this requirement, Michelin should label all tires of the same size with just one size designation.; For purposes of record keeping, paragraph S574.5 requires that eac tire be labeled with a tire identification number, and that this identification number contain four groupings of information. The first grouping is a symbol identifying the manufacturer (the symbol is assigned by this agency), the second grouping is a symbol identifying the tire size, the third grouping is an optional symbol containing further information on the specific characteristics of the tire, and the fourth grouping is a symbol identifying the week the tire was manufactured.; There is no requirement in Part 574 which prohibits more than one tir size code from being assigned to each tire size. Additionally, the purpose of tire identification number requirements in Part 574 is to facilitate effective recalls of the tires from the public if those tires are found not to comply with an applicable safety standard or if the tires contain a safety-related defect. For tire manufacturers such as Michelin, this purpose is served by the requirement that the manufacturer keep records of the names and addresses of the initial purchaser of each of its tires for at least three years, as specified in paragraph S574.7. As you noted in your letter, this purpose would not be defeated if a manufacturer assigns more than one size code to a given tire size. Accordingly, a manufacturer may assign more than one size code in the tire identification number for a given tire size, since this is not specifically prohibited by Part 574 and does not conflict with the purpose of that Part.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5402OpenMr. Blair Abraham Biomedical Manager Mersco Medical P.O. Box 5061 Sioux Falls, SD 57117; Mr. Blair Abraham Biomedical Manager Mersco Medical P.O. Box 5061 Sioux Falls SD 57117; "Dear Mr. Abraham: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about 'the steps to take to certify a vehicle for a higher weight rating than what is issued by the manufacturer.' I apologize for the delay in our response. As discussed in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, your company owns a 1989 or 1990 Chevy van which it uses to deliver products. You indicate that the GVWR assigned to the vehicle is 5,600 pounds. You modified the suspension to enable the vehicle to handle an additional 1,000 pounds and 'would like to certify the vehicle for 6,600 pounds.' You asked us to send the information required for increasing the GVWR and also ask, if you cannot increase the GVWR, whether you are liable for noncompliance of a DOT regulation. By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. Under NHTSA's certification regulations, manufacturers must assign a GVWR to new vehicles. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as 'the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.' The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good- faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, load carrying capacity, and intended use. NHTSA's regulation on GVWR only addresses the GVWR of new vehicles. This is because the agency's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. There is a provision, 108(a)(2)(A), in the Vehicle Safety Act that prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. These parties would be subject to this provision if they were to modify your vehicle's suspension. However, the provision does not apply to individual owners modifying their own vehicles. Because we do not regulate how individuals modify their own vehicles (and thus do not prohibit you from modifying your vehicle's suspension), we are unable to advise you about the specific modifications that must be made to a vehicle for it to safely carry an additional 1,000 pounds. Among other things, however, you should carefully evaluate whether the vehicle's axles, brakes, tires, and frame can adequately handle the additional load. We suggest that you consult with the original vehicle manufacturer about this question. You may also wish to consult a local attorney concerning possible liability in the event your vehicle is involved in an accident. Also, the individual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles, and changes in the GVWR of used vehicles may be addressed by state law. State law may also address the operation of a vehicle loaded above GVWR. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Mr. Glancy at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3393OpenMr. Leonard A. Fink, Attorney at Law, Friedman and Medalie, 1899 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036; Mr. Leonard A. Fink Attorney at Law Friedman and Medalie 1899 L Street NW Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Fink: This is in reply to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicl identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 - Vehicle identification number.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2354OpenMr. Roland E. Moser, Road America Tire, 13230 NE Bellevue-Redmond Rd., Bellevue, Washington 98005; Mr. Roland E. Moser Road America Tire 13230 NE Bellevue-Redmond Rd. Bellevue Washington 98005; Dear Mr. Moser: This is in response to your May 19, 1976, letter concerning th responsibilities that you would have as an importer and distributer of Dunlop passenger car tires. I understand that the tires would, before importation, be certified by Dunlop as conforming to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars*, and labeled with a tire identification number as required by 40 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*. This particular line of tires would at first be imported by Road America Tire but not by Dunlop Rubber and Tire Co. of Buffalo, New York (Dunlop New York), the usual importer of Dunlop tires.; You have inquired about your responsibilities concerning 'recor keeping, recall, and testing', with respect to the tires that you would import. The term 'manufacturer' is defined in Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.) (the Act), to be; >>>any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of moto vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, *including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.*(emphasis added)<<<; In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer me an obligation imposed on a 'manufacturer' by the Act or regulations issued thereunder, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party. Please note that S574.8 of Part 574 also establishes requirements applicable to Road America Tire as a distributor of the tires in question.; The above discussion applies to manufacturers' notification and remed obligations set out in Section 151 through 160 of the Act and to the tire identification and recordkeeping requirements of Part 574, among others. The Act does not specifically require any person to conduct tests of his products. Standard No. 109 establishes the performance tests which the NHTSA will conduct to determine conformity. A determination of nonconformity triggers the notification and remedy obligations regardless of the amount of testing the manufacturer has performed.; In conclusion, tires imported by Road America Tire would not be th responsibility of Dunlop New York. Conversely, tires imported by Dunlop New York would not be the responsibility of Road America Tire. While a factual issue might arise concerning which party actually imported a particular tire, such an issue would be resolved on the basis of information available in that particular case. You should note that, were the NHTSA to choose to proceed against Dunlop with respect to a tire imported by Road America Tire, the agency might serve administrative processes, notices, or orders on Dunlop New York. However, Dunlop New York would be served only in its capacity as the foreign Dunlop's designated agent for service of process pursuant to Section 110(e) of the Act, and not in its capacity as an importer.; Copies of the Act and Part 574 are enclosed for your convenience. Yo may rely on this letter in resolving any conflict that you might have with Dunlop New York.; Yours truly, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2788OpenMr. James N. Miller, Hess and Eisenhardt, Co., Blue Ash Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45242; Mr. James N. Miller Hess and Eisenhardt Co. Blue Ash Avenue Cincinnati OH 45242; Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the vehicle classification of a proposed new station wagon having a Cadillac commercial chassis. Specifically, you ask whether the vehicle can be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle on the basis that it has the same chassis that is used on hearses and ambulances, which are multipurpose passenger vehicles.; Based on your description, it is the agency's opinion that the propose new station wagon would be classified as a passenger car. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is described in 49 CFR S 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.' The vehicle you described does not meet either of the criteria of that definition. The fact that your vehicle would be built on the same chassis as hearses and ambulances does not affect its classification as a passenger car.; The classification of hearses and ambulances as multipurpose passenge vehicles was based upon specific policy considerations. The unique functions of these vehicles are accommodated by a strengthening of their chassis. Because of the special uses to which they are put, other aspects of the vehicles are designed in a manner which inhibits compliance with several passenger car standards. Given the chassis modifications and the special uses of these vehicles, the NHTSA determined that the policy considerations that led to the placing of vehicles with truck chassis into a category separate from passenger cars apply equally to ambulances and hearses, and that the chassis used for these vehicles may reasonably be considered truck chassis for purposes of classification. These policy considerations are not relevant to the vehicle you describe since it is apparently designed to function primarily as a passenger-carrying vehicle.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3519OpenMs. Kathy G. Phillips, Manager, Vehicle Safety Division, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA 17123; Ms. Kathy G. Phillips Manager Vehicle Safety Division Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Harrisburg PA 17123; Dear Ms. Phillips: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1981, concernin differences between the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) Regulation on sun screening devices and applicable Federal standards. In addition, you asked about the requirements of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and how they affect Pennsylvania vehicle inspection standards.; Your first question concerns any differences in light transmittanc requirements between the Federal standard and the 70 percent light transmittance requirement set by VESC in its Regulation No. 20, *Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Sun Screening Devices*. We have issued a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The standard sets a minimum light transmittance level of 70 percent for glazing materials used in areas requisite for driving visibility, such as the windshield and front side windows.; As explained in the enclosed letter, the agency does not consider su screening solar films to be glazing materials themselves and thus they would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, as the enclosed letter explains, use of such devices on motor vehicles would be prohibited in certain cases if the vehicle glazing no longer complies with the light transmittance or other requirements of the standard.; You also asked if bumper height is regulated by a Federal standard. Th agency has issued, under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 *et seq*.) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*.), a Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581, copy enclosed) that specifies performance requirements for bumper systems. One aspect of performance regulated by the standard is the impact protection provided by the bumper at certain heights.; Section 110 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1920) provides, i applicable part, that:; >>>No State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authorit to establish or enforce with respect to any passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment offered for sale any bumper standard which is not identical to a Federal bumper standard.<<<; Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides in applicable part, that:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.<<<; Therefore, unless the Pennsylvania regulation is identical to the Par 581 Bumper Standard, it is preempted.; Finally, you asked about Federal safety standards regulating the heigh of the windshield. The agency has not issued any safety standard specifying requirements for the vertical height of the windshield. Therefore, Pennsylvania's inspection standard on vertical windshield height is not preempted.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3370OpenJ. P. Koziatek, P.E., Director, Technical Services, Questor Juvenile Products Company, 771 N. Freedom Street, Ravenna, OH 44266; J. P. Koziatek P.E. Director Technical Services Questor Juvenile Products Company 771 N. Freedom Street Ravenna OH 44266; Dear Mr. Koziatek: This responds to your letter of September 4, 1980, concerning Standar NO. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. You asked whether instruction booklets provided with child restraints must meet the flammability requirement of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. The answer is no. They do not have to comply with Standard No. 302.; Section 5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires each material used in a chil restraint to conform to performance requirements of Standard No. 302. You asked whether the installation instructions, which are required by section 5.6 to accompany the child restraint, must comply with the flammability requirements of section 5.7. Since the installation instructions, unlike an affixed label, are not a physical part of the child restraint system, they do not have to comply with section 5.7.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. 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.