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: 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: 11763RLXS10Open Lawrence H. Feder, Esq. Dear Mr. Feder: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Pena on behalf of your client, Mr. David Baret of Baby Comfort Inc., concerning the requirements of this agency for child restraint systems. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You explain in your letter that your client would like to sell child restraints manufactured abroad in the United States. However, the seats would apparently not be able to meet the dynamic performance requirements of Standard 213, AChild Restraint Systems,@ when tested according to the procedures of the standard. Those procedures specify that child seats such as those your client wishes to sell are to be secured to the test seat assembly with only a lap belt. You ask that the agency permit your client=s child seats to be tested with a lap and shoulder belt, instead of just the lap belt. Your client wrote to my office in March asking whether the child restraints in question could be tested with a lap and shoulder belt. We explain in our response to Mr. Baret (copy enclosed) that Standard 213 requires his type of child seat to meet Standard 213's dynamic performance requirements when tested with only a lap belt. Certain types of child restraints are excepted from this testing requirement, but Mr. Baret=s restraint is not among these. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have the authority to grant waivers from the testing or performance requirements of our safety standards, and can only change the requirements through a rulemaking proceeding. I should note that we do not agree that testing the seat you describe with only a lap belt is inappropriate. Lap belts are provided in the rear seats of many older model vehicles still on the road, as well as in the rear center seating position of many newer model vehicles, which is generally the safest position for child seats. Because the restraint has its own harness system (unlike a belt-positioning seat), some consumers may not readily distinguish it from a conventional child seat and may mistakenly use it in a position that has a lap belt only. In view of such potential use, it would seem appropriate that the seat provide the minimum level of protection required by Standard 213 when restrained with a just a lap belt. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:213 d:4/29/96
|
1996 |
ID: 0788Open Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your letter of March 6, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the license plate requirements of Standard No. 108. SAE J587 OCT81 is the SAE standard that has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that "paragraph 6.1 of SAE J587, which relates solely to the mounting angle of the license plate and not to the performance of the license plate lamp, is not included in the requirements of FMVSS 108." This paragraph requires that, when the license plate lamp is mounted on the vehicle, the angle between the plane of the license plate and the plane on which the vehicle stands will be 90 degrees plus or minus 15 degrees. You believe that "license plate mounting for visibility is a matter of concern for State law enforcement agencies and Volkswagen is not aware of any State laws that make reference to SAE J587 or that specify the mounting angle of the license plate." However, you acknowledge "that paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of SAE J587 specifying the angle of incidence of the lamp to the plate at a minimum of 8 degrees is part of FMVSS 108 and is intended to assure that the lamp illuminates the license plate." You believe "that a design which meets the 8 degree requirement and in which the plate is mounted so as to be clearly visible to an observer at the rear of the vehicle meets the intent and requirements of State laws and FMVSS 108, even if the angle of the plate itself is 15 degrees from the vertical." We cannot agree with your interpretation. Tables I and III have incorporated SAE J587 in its entirety, and there is no exclusion of paragraph 6.1 in Standard No. 108. To be sure, a plate may continue to be visible when it is mounted more than 15 degrees from the vertical, but the 15 degree limitation of paragraph 6.1 is necessary to ensure its legibility as well. The fact that the States and the Uniform Vehicle Code are silent on the point is legally irrelevant. If a State has a license plate mounting requirement, 49 U.S.C. 30103 requires it to be identical to the Federal requirement. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/95
|
1995 |
ID: 007901.jegOpenChris Tinto, Director Dear Mr. Tinto: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, with regards to adjusting the seat back angle for the low risk deployment tests for the driver. You asked about the order of the seat adjustments for the chin on module test (S26.2) and the chin on rim test (S26.3). As you noted in your letter, the same seat adjustment procedure is specified for both tests. S26.2.3 and S26.3.1 read as follows:
In your letter, you indicated that the seat back angle may vary depending on when it is adjusted during this procedure.You stated your belief that the adjustment of the seat back angle specified in the fourth (underlined) sentence of this paragraph is conducted after the adjustments specified in the previous sentences, and asked us to confirm that view. It is our opinion that the various seat adjustments specified in S26.2.3 and S26.3.1 are to be made in the order specified in those paragraphs.Accordingly, we agree that the adjustment of the seat back angle specified in the fourth (underlined) sentence of this paragraph is conducted after the adjustments specified in the previous sentences. I hope this information is helpful.If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:208 |
2005 |
ID: 1983-1.10OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 01/28/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Mazda (North America) Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your November 15, 1982 letter regarding the applicability of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, to two proposed cowl designs. FMVSS 219 provides that no part of a vehicle outside the occupant compartment, "except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield," may penetrate a specified protected zone template on the windshield during a vehicle test crash. In your letter, you present two possible vehicle designs in which the cowl would directly contact the windshield. In one design, the contact would occur across most of the width of the windshield, while in the other, the contact occurs only at the outside edges of the cowl. Both designs appear to fall within the exception in the standard for components "designed to be normally in contact with the windshield," and therefore the cowl would be permitted to penetrate the protected zone template. Nevertheless, I should mention that your second design does raise some concerns. It is difficult to determine from the drawings enclosed with your letter the extent of the windshield-cowl contact in your second design. If this contact were for such a short distance that it would be apparent that the design was intended to circumvent FMVSS 219 by establishing only minimal contact, the agency would consider taking appropriate action to assure that the intent of the standard is carried out. SINCERELY, MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC. Detroit Office November 15, 1982 Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion Dear Mr. Berndt: Mazda respectfully submits this letter to request an interpretation of the requirements (S5.) of FMVSS 219, Winshield Zone Intrusion. The requirement states, ". . . . .No part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, . . . . . . . . . . ." Mazda is developing a new model in which the cowl, by design, contacts the lower portion of the windshield. There are two designs being considered, as shown in the attached sketches. According to our interpretation of the standard, the cowl would be part of "other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield". We would appreciate your interpretation with regard to this matter at your earliest convenience. Thank you. H. Nakaya Manager CASE I - Complete contact with windshield Windshield CASE II - Partial contact with windshield (contact at left and right side) (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: 1985-04.48OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/22/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Susan B. House -- House Enterprises TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Ms. Susan B. House House Enterprises 1450 Woodscliff Drive Anderson, IN 46011
Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1985, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to two solar glare shading products you have developed. You described the first product as an 8" diameter acrylic dish which is of optical quality and tinted. The second products is a 4" x 4" sheet of opaque plastic. You explained that both products are designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.
Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor 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% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).
No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.
After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected ny section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.
Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.
If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 1983-2.45OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/17/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Mazda (North America) Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr H. Nakaya Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road - Suite 462 Southfield, MI 48075
Dear Mr. Nakaya:
This is in response to your letter of July 8 1983 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Section S4.2 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps establishes a minimum distance of 4 inches from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp providing the lower beam. You believe that it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp and you have asked whether you may substitute the edge of the reflector (as shown on your drawing) to measure the dimension covered by S4.2 of J588e.
The point depicted on your drawing appears to be the inner edge of the reflector, rather than the extreme edge; nevertheless, the "reflector edge" you have indicated is the approximate location of a retaining ring on a fully sealed headlamp, and is therefore acceptable as a measuring point under Standard No. 108. Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
July 8, 1983
Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington; D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Berndt:
Mazda requests interpretation regarding the amendment to FMVSS No.108 which allows the use of semi-sealed headlamps (Docket No. 81-11; Notice 3, 48 F.R. 24690).
Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e states that, "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." However, it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp. We, therefore, believe that it is appropriate to use the edge of the reflector, instead of the inside diameter of the retaining ring, to measure the dimension described in Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e (See attached sketch).
We would appreciate your interpretation of this matter as soon as possible.
Very truly yours, H. Nakaya Manager
HN/ab
cc: Att.
FIGURE 1: SEMI-SEALED HEADLAMP (PLAN VIEW SECTION) GRAPH INSERTED HERE REFLECTOR EDGE |
|
ID: nht76-2.8OpenDATE: 10/07/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1976, in which you ask whether emergency exits required by a State beyond those required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, are subject to the performance requirements outlined in S4(b) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection. Standard No. 220 requires that all emergency exits provided in accordance with Standard No. 217 must meet certain minimum performance levels during and after the simulated rollover test. Additional emergency exits mandated by State law are not exits "provided in accordance with Standard No. 217" and, therefore, would not be subject to the requirements of S4(b) of Standard No. 220. You should note that Standard No. 217, in addition to mandating the provision of certain school bus doors and exits under S5.2, also regulates certain aspects of all emergency exits under other provisions of the regulation. SINCERELY, TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. August 24, 1976 Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FMVSS 220 "School Bus Rollover Protection" scheduled to become effective on April 1, 1977 will require the operation of each emergency exit during and after the simulated rollover test. This requirement is cited in FMVSS 220, S4 Requirements (b) and reads as follows: "(b) Each emergency exit of the vehicle provided in accordance with Standard No. 217 (@ 571.217) shall be capable of opening as specified in that standard during the full application of the force, and after release of the force. A particular vehicle (i.e., test specimen) need not meet the emergency exit opening requirement after release of force if it is subjected to the emergency exit opening requirements during the full application of the force." The State of New York has also issued regulations governing school buses bought in for use in that state (see NY 721.36 K and Z enclosed). In order for a school bus manufacturer to comply with New York's specifications the bus must be built with roof hatches in addition to standard emergency exits as provided in FMVSS 217. Our question is as follows: Will additional emergency exits specified by a state over and above those required in FMVSS 217 be subjected to the performance requirements found in FMVSS 220 S4 (b)? THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE. Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services ENC. [New York Regulations Omitted.] |
|
ID: nht88-2.74OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/18/88 EST FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: FRANK V. TANZELLA -- TEK TRON, INC. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-5-88, FROM FRANK V. TANZELLA, TO NHTSA, OCC-1857 TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 5, 1988, concerning the installation of credit card mobile telephones into taxi cabs that already have been sold to the first purchaser. You noted that you may have to cut into the back of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. You asked what safety regulations would apply to this situation and whether any additional testing would be necessary. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or el ement of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the p ublic as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation." Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR @ 571.207; copy enclosed) sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as the taxi cabs you plan to modify. Assuming that your company would be a "mot or vehicle repair business" for the purposes of this contract, this statutory provision prohibits you from knowingly making any modifications that would render inoperative the taxis' compliance with any safety standards. You should be aware that by addi ng the telephone you will be adding weight to the seat. This change in weight may effect the general performance requirements in S4.2. Nevertheless, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act does not require your company to test vehicles aft er installing the mobile telephone, to ensure that the vehicles continue to comply with Standard No. 207. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act requires your company to carefully compare your planned installation instructions wit h the requirements of Standard No. 207, to determine if installing the mobile telephones in accordance with your planned installation procedures would result in the vehicles no longer complying with Standard No. 207. If it would, you will have to devise some alternative means of installing the mobile telephones in the taxis. If your planned installation procedures do not render inoperative the taxis' compliance with Standard No. 207, you may follow those procedures without violating any provisions of the Safety Act. Enclosures |
|
ID: 86-2.25OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 04/21/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Dave Trowbridge TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sale Creation Windows of Indiana, Inc. P.O. Box 1046 Elkhart, Indiana 46515
Dear Mr. Trowbridge:
This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1986, with reference to a design for a center high-mounted stop lamp intended for pickup covers or shells. You have asked for our advice regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars, and its specifications apply only to original or replacement equipment on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. There are no requirements for aftermarket applications such as you envision. The legality of your device would be determined under the laws of a State where the lamp is installed or used. We would recommend, however, that you attempt to conform your device as closely as possible to Federal requirements, such as an illuminated lens area of not less than 4 square inches, and mounted in such a manner as to minimize reflections in the rear glass. A copy of the Federal standard is enclosed.
I hope that this answers your questions. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
Enclosure
February 25, 1986 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Assn. 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, DC 20590
Gentlemen:
We are manufacturers of custom windows and doors for the recreational vehicle market, automotive aftermarket and second party vehicle manufacturers. Of particular concern is our production and design of the "3rd stop light" to our door assemblies for pickup cover doors (see attached).
Our doors are supplied to manufacturers of these covers or shells and will be supplied with this added safety feature. Your assistance, at your earliest possible convenience, is appreciated in advance regarding those pertinent and applicable NHTSA, FMVSS or other specifications that may apply to the mounting of this light assembly to the inside of the door assemblies we manufacture for our customers. The light assembly itself will be either sourced or manufactured with concern for those specifications that may apply to the light and its visibility, wiring, etc. Cordially, Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sales
DT/jb
Attachment |
|
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.