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: 10932-2Open Milford R. Bennett, Director Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and the raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted. Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not. You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 percent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached). Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:205 d:9/1995
|
|
ID: 09-001535 206Open
Ms. Valrie Fortin Regulations and Standards Technician Girardin Minibus Inc. 3000 rue Girardin Drummondville, Qubec J2E 0A1 Dear Ms. Fortin: This responds to your letter concerning a February 6, 2007 final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. Among other matters, that rule removed an exclusion of vehicle doors equipped with wheelchair platform lift systems from FMVSS No. 206 requirements. As explained in the enclosed agency response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule, Thomas Built Buses petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to reinstate the exclusion, and we have done so. See the enclosed Federal Register document (75 FR 7370, February 19, 2010) for a detailed explanation as to the agencys rationale. Please note, however, that NHTSA determined that the former exclusion of all doors equipped with a wheelchair lift was too broad, given that some lifts made today do not completely block the doorway. Therefore, in the enclosed document, the agency has amended the February 2007 final rule (the requirements at S4 of FMVSS No. 206) to exclude doors equipped with a permanently attached wheelchair lift system meeting the following criteria: (a) When the lift is in the retracted position, the lift platform retracts to a vertical orientation parallel to and in close proximity with the interior surface of the lift door; (b) in that position, the platform completely covers the doorway opening, has fixed attachments to the vehicle and provides a barricade to the doorway; and (c) the wheelchair lift door is linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visible signal located in the drivers compartment or an alarm audible to the driver that is activated when the door is not fully closed and the vehicle ignition is activated. These requirements appear to not exclude the wheelchair lift system in one of the pictures you enclosed because that platform only halfway covers the door opening. As to the second picture you enclosed with your letter, we cannot determine from that picture whether that door meets all the requirements for the exclusion set forth above. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure Dated: 3/18/2010 |
2010 |
ID: 09-002561drn June 10OpenMr. Jeffrey S. Conway Vice President of Operations Atlantic Design Inc., P.O. Box 938 Abington, MD 21009 Dear Mr. Conway: This responds to your letter asking us to confirm the continued validity of the interpretation this office provided to Mr. Russell Roden of your company by letter dated October 26, 1999. Assuming the facts presented in the previous letter regarding the Atlantic Design Inc., (ADIs) products still apply today, we confirm our interpretation that ADIs products are not motor vehicles. According to information submitted by you and by your predecessor at ADI, ADI designs and manufactures modular process systems for the construction, industrial maintenance, and the quarry and mining industry. The products include grit recycling and dust collection systems, and sand dedusting units. The equipment may stay at a job site (a maintenance or construction site or at a quarry) for years at a time. The equipment rarely stays at a job site for less than six to eight weeks. A review of the products represented on your website: www.calladi.com shows large industrial machinery, some of which are mounted on trailers. Many of the equipment items depicted on the web site are not even mounted on wheels; they look as if they must be loaded on trailers or other motor vehicles to be transported. In your recent letter to us, you state that ADI is essentially building the same type of equipment as we were ten years ago. Based on the 1999 description of ADIs products, your recent letter, and the information at www.calladi.com, we confirm our belief that ADIs equipment are not motor vehicles within the meaning of our statute. ADIs modular process systems stay on job sites for extended periods of time (which could be years) and only use the highway to move from site to site. Since 1999, we have received no additional information indicating that ADIs equipment use the roads more than on an incidental basis. We appreciate your contacting us to confirm the previous interpretation. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:VSA d.7/24/09 |
2009 |
ID: 1985-01.12OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 01/15/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ken Rutland; NHTSA TO: Docket Section Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2 TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Date: Jan. 15, 1985
Subject: INFORMATION: Clarification of Requirements of Final Rule on Harmonization (Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2)
From: Ken Rutland Safety Standards Engineer
To: Docket Section Docket No. 83-12; Notice 2
THRU: Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking
VIA: Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
I received a telephone call from Mr. Kazue Watanabe of the Stanley Electric Company, Tokyo, Japan on December 19, 1984, with a question concerning the November 26, 1984, Final Rule amendment to harmonize FMVSS No. 108 with European standards. With the amendment Published in Notice 2, Mr. Watanabe wanted to know if motorcycle turn signal lamps were supposed to meet the photometric requirements of Table I of SAE J588e or the requirements set forth by Figure 1a and Figure 1b given in Notice 2, after December 26, 1984.
I transmitted the attached message to Mr. Watanabe by telex, on December 27, 1984.
Attachment (w/6 copies)
Interpretations NOA-30 Std. 108 Interpretations Room 5109 Red Book (3)
To: Mr. Kazue Watanabe Stanley Electric Co. Telex # 246-6623 SEC TOKJ
For motorcycle turn signal lamps, FMVSS No. 108 as amended (FR 46386, November 26, 1984), allows motorcycle turn signal lamps to meet one-half of the minimum photometric values at each test point, as specified in SAE J588e, according to S4.1.1.30 and substituting the values in figure 1a and 1b for table 1 of SAE J588e. This requirement is now located in S4.1.1.11 for the 19 individual test points. The new S4.1.1.12 substitutes Figure 1C for the former Figure 1 and establishes the group totals for 5 zonal groups. It is intended that the individual test points with a value of one-half that of Figure 1b be used in determining the group totals for motorcycle turn signal camps. We hope this answers your question. |
|
ID: nht87-2.94OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/17/87 FROM: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- INDIANA MILLS AND MANUFACTURING INC TO: ERICA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/14/88 TO WILLIAM E. LAWLER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209 TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel: We are writing to you to request an official interpretation of portions of FMVSS 208 and 209 with regard to a Type 2 Seat Belt Assembly designed by a customer and ordered by him for installation at a static (non-suspension) driver's seat in a vehicle wit h a GVWR exceeding 10,000 pounds. The proposed seat belt assembly incorporates an automatic locking retractor to be mounted at the left of the driver's seat and a free-sliding latchplate engineered to remain in view and easy reach when not in use. The webbing is continuous from the retr actor to the anchored end of the upper torso restraint which would be installed above, slightly behind and to the side of the seat occupant. The strengths of all components and the strength of the assembly itself comply with FMVSS 209. The latter half of 49CFR 571.209 S5.2(i) deals with automatic-locking retractors and their tendency to cinch the seat belt assembly webbing against the occupant while riding on rough roads. In addition, 49 CFR 571.208 S4.2.2, S4.1.2.3, and S7.1, though dealing with lighter vehicles, seem to imply the intent of minimal upper torso restriction. These sections of FMVSS 208 and 209 have been discussed with our customer. In our opinion, two modifications to the customer's design will convert the continuous webbing feature into separate lap belt and upper torso restraints which will allow his proposed design to comply with the sections of FMVSS 208 and 209 referenced abov e: 1. sew the latchplate to the webbing at a specified location in order to create a standard lap belt 2. place a manual adjusting device in the upper torso restraint. Our customer has agreed to postpone the order on his original design and use the option we are suggesting until we have received an official opinion from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If you have further questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ATTACHMENT [DRAWING OMITTED] ALR, 3PT. SYSTEM |
|
ID: nht87-1.79OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/25/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; EriKa Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. Thomas L. Long TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. Thomas L. Long Vice-President R & D Think, Inc. P.O. Box 414 Smyrna, TN; 37167 Dear Mr. Long: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1987, to Taylor Vinson of this office. You have enclosed a decal intended to be affixed "on the outside of the rear window of an automobile, directly in front of the high mounted stop light." You have asked about the relationship of the decal to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Center highmounted stoplamps are required to be designed so that light outlet (candela) may be measured at 13 individual test points, at a distance of not less than 10 feet. With the decal applied to the rear window, it is possible that the requisite minimum or maximum candela specified by Standard No. 103 could not be met at all of the test points. Further, the effective luminous area of the lamp must be not less than 4 1/2 square inches, and while the decal would not be applied to the lens, nevertheless, the lens area when viewed from behind could be effectively reduced. Because a vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 at the time of its initial sale, the vehicle could be delivered to its purchase: with the decal attached only if the vehicle continued to meet the light output and effective luminous area requirements. Even if a vehicle could not be delivered with the decal attached, nothing in Standard No. 108 or the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a vehicle owner from applying the decal to his own vehicle, or from taking any other action that might affect the compliance of his vehicle with any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does forbid other persons from such actions, so that after a vehicle is sold, the dealer (or a motor vehicle repair business) could still be prohibited from applying the decal. Regulation of a vehicle in use is a matter of the laws of the States where vehicles are registered and operated. Even though Federal law does not prohibit an owner from applying the decal, a State law might. For advice on State laws, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Council |
|
ID: nht88-4.20OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/29/88 FROM: JAMES A. COWAN -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CROWN COACH INC TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION TITLE: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 11/24/89 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA; RE FMVSS 227, BUS WINDOW RETE NTION AND RELEASE; OCC 2847 TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones: In a telephone conversation this morning with Marty J. Paliokes Safety Compliance Engineer for NHTSA, we were referred to your office for an interpretation regarding FMVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Our question regards figures 1 and 2 (p ages 418 and 419, CFR 49, Parts 400 to 999, October 1, 1985) of the subject regulation. As background information, Crown Coach has developed a new transit style school bus based on our current production body shell. The current bus has been tested and certified for FMVSS 217 compliance as recently as March, 1988; see report no. 217-MSE- 87-10-TR7122-10 prepared under contract no. DTNH22-87-P-01028 for the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Attachment 1 (photograph) shows the relationship of the seat at the emergency exit door to the door opening in this test. In the new bus we have widened the door as shown in attachment 2 (Crown drawing E-504-278). Attachment 3 (photograph) shows the relationship of seats with the new door frame. Our question regards the seat back in front of the seat at the emergency exit. Aforementioned figures 1 and 2 show a two inch (2") dimension between the access regions and the seat back forward of the emergency exit seat. This dimension is noted as "clearance area around seat back, arm rests, and other obstructions". With our wider opening, the entire seat back is in the emergency exit door opening. However, the actual minimum region area between the two seats are unchanged from the previous desi gn. We feel this wider opening is in full compliance with Part S5.2.3 of FMVSS 217. An interpretation on this matter at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Please call the undersigned at (714) 591-0567 if any additional information is required. Very truly yours, PHOTO GRAPHS OMITTED |
|
ID: nht90-3.72OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: August 30, 1990 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Richard E. Portors -- Vice President and General Manager, Royale Limousine Manufacturers TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-5-90 from R.E. Portors to Z.R. Fraser; Also attached to Federal Register, section 571.108, 49 CFR Ch.V (10-1-85 Edition), page 218 (text omitted) TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX of April 5, 1990, to Zachary R. Fraser of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your interpretation of a requirement applicable to center highmounted stop lamps. You attached a copy of the requirements for our convenience. Section S5.1.1.41(a) of Standard No. 108 (S4.1.1.41(a) in your copy) requires the center lamp to have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches. You report that the lamp on the 1990 Cadillac measures 6 square inches in ar ea. When a boomerang TV antenna is installed, the shaft area displaces 1.125 square inches of area which would leave an exposed area of 4 7/8" of light and would exceed the minimum requirements of section (a)." You further state that subsection (b) (re lating to visibility of signal throughout the horizontal angle from 45 degrees right to left of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle) would not be affected. Further, "without window glazing", section (c) relating to compliance with the photometrics of F igure 10, would not be affected either, in your opinion. First, we note that your interpretation of subsection (a) is not correct. The effective projected luminous lens area of the lamp remains at 6 square inches, because no modifications are performed on the lamp that affect the lens itself. The question for compliance is whether the photometric requirements of subsection (c) are met. We do not understand your phrase "without window glazing", as compliance is determined with the back window in place. However, in our experience, a TV boomerang antenna is, like the lamp, mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, usually the rear deck. In this position, even a shaft that displaces 1.125 square inch of area will block the light from the lamp at test point H-V, and the lamp will not comply with the photometric requirements of "Figher 10, as specified by subsection (c). Therefore, we cannot concur in your interpretation that the design you describe "would not affect the requirements of 571.108." |
|
ID: nht88-2.93OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/10/88 EST FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: AMNON SHOMLO -- PRESIDENT, A.A.S. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 3-25-88, TO ERIKA JONES-NHTSA, FROM AMNON SHOMLO, OCC-1783 TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1988, enclosing a "Peace" decal designed to be affixed to the center highmounted stop lamp. The letters and design are in white, printed on transparent plastic, "in an effort to preserve the basic requirement s for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specified candela." You have asked what "Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating that we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product." There are no regulations that apply directly to the decal, nor any Federal restrictions on its sale. Thus you cannot state in any sales materials that the product meets Federal requirements, for there are none. If a center highmounted brake lamp would continue to meet all applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 after installation of your decal, there are no restrictions on its use. Although you intend the product to preserve the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, it is not certain that this will occur. The decal has the potential of obscuring light from some of the 13 test points at distances where cand ela photometrics must be measured and the specified minima met. However, its actual effect can be determined only through laboratory tests on lamps of different sizes and lens and reflector designs. Although you have no liability under Federal law for selling this decal, a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act will result if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer before the first sale of the vehicle. A violation will a lso occur if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied after the vehicle's first sale by any of these persons or by a motor vehicle repair business. There is no violation of Federal law if the decal is applied by a person other than those named above, such as the vehicle owner. In the absence of a violation of Federal law there may nonetheless be State statutes restricting the application of the decal under any circumstances. We are unable to advise you on State laws. I hope that this answers your question. |
|
ID: nht88-2.75OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/18/88 EST FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: GARY EVANS -- PRESIDENT, WESTEX AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-26-88, TO NHTSA, FROM GARY EVANS-WESTEX TEXT: This is a response to your letter of February 26, 1988, where you asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) whether a product you wish to import and sell in the United States "complies with any standards which may affect it.". You describe the product as a warning triangle that is designed to be attached to the side window of a car. You tell us that this side-mounted triangle is about 20% smaller than the warning device specified in this agency's regulations in Standard 125, War ning Devices. The answer to your question is that the device you described would not comply with Standard 125. Standard 125 sets uniform specifications for warning devices. Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approachi ng traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." By its own terms, then, Standard 125 applies to all warning devices that are not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. Y ou are mistaken in suggesting that because the device attaches to the vehicle, Standard 125 is inapplicable. As I understand your description, the device is not "permanently affixed" to the vehicle. Rather, it is carried in the vehicle, and the vehicle operator may attach or remove the device as necessary. Therefore, this device is subject to the requirements of Standard 125. According to your letter, this device fails to comply with the minimum size requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, " No person shall . . . import into the United States any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Standar d 125 took effect on January 1, 1974. Thus, Federal law prohibits you from importing any of the devices described in your letter that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1974. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992. |
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.