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: nht92-4.9Open DATE: September 14, 1992 FROM: Dave Durenberger -- United States Senator TO: Office of the Chief Council -- NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/15/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dave Durenberger (A40; Std. 208) TEXT: Attached is a letter from one of my constituents concerning a matter in which I believe you can be of assistance. In order to respond to Mark Gassert, I would like to have available an interpretation and explanation of any federal standards that would regulate the One-Hand Driving System offered by General Motors. In responding to me, please return the attached correspondence along with your reply in duplicate to the attention of my assistant, Christina Pierson, at 1020 Plymouth Building, 12 S. 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. Attachment
August 20, 1992 116 Douglas Avenue PO Box E Moose Lake, MN 55767
David Durenberger U.S. Senator 1020 Plymouth Building 12 S. 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Mr. Durenberger: I have no use of my legs or left arm, and I use special hand controls to operate my vehicle. When I purchased my vehicle, a 1985 Chevy van, I also purchased a Drivemaster One-Arm-Drive hand control system. I completed drivers training, and passed my drivers license exam, with this vehicle. Recently, I have been thinking about replacing the vehicle. Like most Minnesotan's, I find that winter driving takes it's toll. I want to replace my vehicle with a new van. Even though my hand controls can be placed in a new vehicle; I was told that it was impossible to put my hand controls in a new vehicle, because of 1992 federal safety standards. I would like to know what these safety regulations say, why they exist, why they effect me, and who proposed them. Thank you for the attention you have given my problem. If you need to reach me, I can be reached by mail or leave message with Mrs. Gassert at (218) 485-4085. Sincerely, Mark Gassert |
|
ID: 10647Open J. Gregory Studemeyer, Esq. Dear Mr. Studemeyer: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1995, to this agency and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on June 12, 1995, regarding the school bus standards we administer. You asked whether "your agency or any other federal agency notifies educational institutions of these [school bus] requirements." The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not maintain data on all schools or school districts throughout the nation, and does not routinely communicate with individual schools or school districts. The agency does, however, attend and disseminate information at school bus meetings and conferences nationwide and publishes all changes in school bus requirements in the Federal Register. In addition, NHTSA works closely and frequently with state directors of pupil transportation with regard to school transportation matters. In South Carolina, that official is the Director, Office of Transportation, Department of Education, 1429 Senate Street, Room 512, Columbia, SC 29201. Their telephone number is (803) 734-8244, and their fax number is (803) 734-8624. Also for your information please find enclosed a fact sheet prepared by this office summarizing Federal school bus safety requirements. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d:6/27/95
|
1995 |
ID: nht91-3.20OpenDATE: April 15, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Richard F. Land -- Bureau of Manpower and Facilities, Tennessee Department of Health and Environment TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-12-91 from Richard F. Land to Deidre Fujita (OCC 5745) TEXT: This responds to your February 12, 1991 letter to Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning the ambulance fleet you recently inspected. Each ambulance had a wooden block mounted under the accelerator pedal to limit the driver's ability to accelerate the vehicle. You state that Tennessee law does not prohibit installation of these "makeshift speed governors." However, you would like to know whether NHTSA's requirements would prohibit installation of the blocks. The answer to your question is no. In a March 26 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you said that the blocks were installed by the ambulance owner. Our standards do not regulate in any manner how a vehicle owner can modify his or her vehicle. If the blocks were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, certain requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any person in the aforementioned categories from knowingly "render(ing) inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with an FMVSS. However, there would be no rendering inoperative of compliance with the FMVSS for accelerator control systems (FMVSS 124) in the situation you described, because that FMVSS does not establish requirements for accelerator pedal actuation. Of course, the installation of the block must not have rendered inoperative compliant equipment or designs on the vehicle that were installed pursuant to other safety standards. For example, the block must not interfere with the vehicle's braking ability. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Attachment NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 titled, WHERE TO OBTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. (Text omitted) |
|
ID: 1984-1.34OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 04/03/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Maryland State Police -- Richard W. Janney, Captain Commander TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Richard W. Janney, Captain Commander, A.S.E.D. Maryland State Police 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie, MD 21062 This is to follow-up your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the agency's letter of December 20, 1983, on Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I hope that the following discussion will clarify the relationship between the requirements of Standard No. 205 and the render inoperative provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act). Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements, including requirements for light transmittance and abrasion resistance, for all glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Those performance requirements may vary depending on the vehicle type involved and the place in the vehicle where the glazing is used. For example, the luminous transmittance and abrasion resistance requirements apply to all windows in a passenger car, but only to windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver in a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle. The application of tinting materials to glazing does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the render inoperative provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. To violate section 108(a)(2)(A), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops that install tinting materials must knowingly install materials which render inoperative the glazing material's compliance with Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, a motor vehicle repair shop would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act if it knowingly installed in a passenger car a tinting material which would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. In each case, there will be a factual question of whether the glazing material, as tinted, will continue to meet the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard.
If you are aware of any manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair shops that are in apparent violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), please provide information concerning those apparent violations to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. The information should be sent to:
Mr. Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 6113 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 2059O
I hope this discussion will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht93-5.38OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: July 29, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Charles D. Shipley -- Director, Ohio Department of Public Safety TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Allan Schwartz (Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 7/6/93 from Charles D. Shipley to John Womack (OCC 8866) TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 6, 1993, informing us of the views of your Department with respect to the legality under Ohio law of underbody-mounted neon lighting on motor vehicles. You have asked for information and guidance in addressing the possible hazards and confusion presented by this aftermarket equipment. I am afraid that there is little we can do to help you. The agency has not made a study of possible safety hazards from this relatively new item of motor vehicle equipment, and yours is, perhaps, only the third letter this Office has received on the subject. I enclose a copy of our letter of April 21, 1992, to Allan Schwartz who inquired about such a system. You have also asked for information on applicable Federal regulations. There is no Federal prohibition on the manufacture and sale of underbody neon lights. This appears to be an aftermarket system which is purchased and installed on vehicles in use. We have advised that, under these circumstances and under Federal law, there is no prohibition against owner-installation of underbody neon lights, and that use of such equipment is determinable under the laws of any State where a vehicle so equipped is operated. As we do not interpret State laws, we have referred our correspondents to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for further information. Installation of aftermarket underbody neon lighting by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not prohibited under Federal law as long as it does not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). If it could be demonstrated that use of the neon lighting impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment installed in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 then arguably the lighting equipment has been rendered partially inoperative and a violation of the prohibition may have occurred. Your letter is the first expression we have had of possible conflict of underbody neon lighting with State laws and of potential safety issues related to this equipment. As such, it will assist us in replying to future inquiries on this subject. |
|
ID: nht90-1.20OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 01/22/90 FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- NHTSA Acting Chief Counsel TO: Mark F. Holmes TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 1/1/90 (est.) letter from Mark F. Holmes to Stephen P. Wood (OCC 4210) TEXT: Dear Mr. Holmes: This is in reply to your recent undated letter, responding to our letter of October 31, 1989, with respect to your Strobalarm lighting device. In that letter, we advised you that the clearance avoidance portion of the Strobalarm appeared intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp, and that under Standard No. 108, that lamp could not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Your recent letter and diagrams enclosed with it indicate that the strobe alarm and its LCD display "is wired and housed separately and functions independently from the collision avoidance light." However, your diagrams do not indicate the orientation of the device when installed. Further, your description is unclear. You state that the base will fit in front of the collision avoidance lamp, but you don't state whether the "front" of the lamp is the side nearest the front of the vehicle, or the side emitting light to the rear of the vehicle). Nevertheless, your remarks do clearly respond to our earlier concern about combinations. Further, you have stated that the alarm and LED portion of the lamp will operate only when the vehicle is at rest, and not at times that the collision avoidance lam p is in operation. It therefore appears that installation and use of this device, as you have described it, would not violate any Federal regulation. We note the comment in your enclosure that the device "has been designed to meet the department of transportation (lighting division) standards and regulations". This is somewhat inaccurate as there are no Federal specifications for the device to meet, o nly prohibitions to avoid. Thus, we believe it would be more accurate to say that the device "has been designed not to conflict with standards and regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation." Sincerely, |
|
ID: 2249yOpen Mr. Mark F. Holmes Dear Mr. Holmes: This is in reply to your recent undated letter, responding to our letter of October 31, l989, with respect to your Strobalarm lighting device. In that letter, we advised you that the clearance avoidance portion of the Strobalarm appeared intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp, and that under Standard No. l08, that lamp could not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Your recent letter and diagrams enclosed with it indicate that the strobe alarm and its LCD display "is wired and housed separately and functions independently from the collision avoidance light." However, your diagrams do not indicate the orientation of the device when installed. Further, your description is unclear. You state that the base will fit in front of the collision avoidance lamp, but you don't state whether the "front" of the lamp is the side nearest the front of the vehicle, or the side emitting light to the rear of the vehicle). Nevertheless, your remarks do clearly respond to our earlier concern about combinations. Further, you have stated that the alarm and LED portion of the lamp will operate only when the vehicle is at rest, and not at times that the collision avoidance lamp is in operation. It therefore appears that installation and use of this device, as you have described it, would not violate any Federal regulation. We note the comment in your enclosure that the device "has been designed to meet the department of transportation (lighting division) standards and regulations". This is somewhat inaccurate as there are no Federal specifications for the device to meet, only prohibitions to avoid. Thus, we believe it would be more accurate to say that the device "has been designed not to conflict with standards and regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation." Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:l08 d:l/22/90 |
1970 |
ID: nht94-4.38OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 29, 1994 FROM: Samson Helfgott -- Helfgott and Karas TO: John Womak, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Re: Our Ref. No.: 12.065 ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/8/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO SAMSON HELFGOTT (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108) TEXT: I received your letter of July 20, 1994 for which I thank you (a copy of which is enclosed for your reference). At the time we had requested information with respect to the utilization of the red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the sid e of trucks and other vehicles. At the time, you indicated that we did not state the number and candela of the lamps and how they would be arranged along the side of the vehicle. I now enclose an information sheet with respect to the lighting indicating what we have in mind for placement on the sides of the vehicle. The side front of the vehicle will have only yellow lights and the side rear only red. The red and yellow ligh ts will be placed in conjunction along the center of the side of the vehicle. The running lights are to be in keeping with NHTSA and/or EEC specifications. As we previously explained, during normal vehicle operation the amber (yellow) side lamps of the system would be activated. When the brake pedal is applied, the amber (yellow) lights are extinguished and the required stop lamps and red side lamps of the system would be activated. I would appreciate your comments whether you believe this system would be in violation of any of the Standards. I look forward to receiving your reply. ENCLOSURE TANKER TRAILER SIDE SAFETY SIGNALIGHT SYSTEM IN CONJUNCTION WITH NHTSA THREE LIGHT STANDARD 108 RS (RIGHT SIDE) MAJORITY OF IMPACTS LS (LEFT SIDE) BALANCE Auxiliary Lighting System designed for sides of HAZMAT Tankers to comply or accomplish a no objections from NHTSA Standard 108 [TEXT OMITTED - SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE] |
|
ID: nht95-4.59OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 16, 1995 FROM: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. TO: John Womack -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Request for Interpretation ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to William Shapiro (A43; Part 581) TEXT: Volvo Cars of North America, Inc., Rockleigh, New Jersey and Volvo Car Corporation, Gothenburg, Sweden, requests confirmation of our interpretation of CFR 49 Section 581. In Part 581.5 "Requirements" it is stated: "Each vehicle shall meet the damage criteria of S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(9) when impacted by . . ." S581.5(c)(1) through (6) give criteria for components and systems that may not be damaged or shall remain in adjustment in a low speed impact. This covers lamps, hood, trunk, fuel and cooling systems, exhaust systems, propulsion, suspension, steering, b raking systems. S581.5(c)(7) requires that the vehicle shall not touch the test device with a force exceeding 2000 pounds except on the impact ridge. S581.5(c)(8) requires that there shall be no separation of surface materials, paint polymeric coatings or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . ., EXCEPT WHEN SUCH DAMAGE OCCURS TO THE BUMPER'S FACE BAR AND ASSOCIATED FASTENERS THAT DIRECTLY ATTACH THE BUMPER FACE TO THE CHASSIS FRAME. S581.5(C)(9) states that there shall be no breakage or release of fasteners or joints. Volvo is, at the moment, contemplating a device that will be attached to the bumper face bar. This device has no function as to mitigate the effects of a low speed collision but is used for other purposes. In a low speed collision, this device may be damaged or destroyed. Volvo believes that this is in compliance with the requirements in Part 581 for the following reasons: the device is not a component or system described in S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(6) and therefore it being damaged or destroyed will not lead to any change in performance of the above components or system. the device will be touched only by the impact ridge. This complies with S581.5(c)(7). the device is, for this definition, part of the bumper face bar. This means for compliance with S581.5(c)(8) and S581.5(c)(9). If additional information is required on this matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 201-767-4772 or Stephen Kraitz of my staff at 201-768-7300, extension 7249 at your convenience. |
|
ID: nht95-7.24OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 16, 1995 FROM: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. TO: John Womack -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Request for Interpretation ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to William Shapiro (A43; Part 581) TEXT: Volvo Cars of North America, Inc., Rockleigh, New Jersey and Volvo Car Corporation, Gothenburg, Sweden, requests confirmation of our interpretation of CFR 49 Section 581. In Part 581.5 "Requirements" it is stated: "Each vehicle shall meet the damage criteria of S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(9) when impacted by . . ." S581.5(c)(1) through (6) give criteria for components and systems that may not be damaged or shall remain in adjustment in a low speed impact. This covers lamps, hood, trunk, fuel and cooling systems, exhaust systems, propulsion, suspension, steering, braking systems. S581.5(c)(7) requires that the vehicle shall not touch the test device with a force exceeding 2000 pounds except on the impact ridge. S581.5(c)(8) requires that there shall be no separation of surface materials, paint polymeric coatings or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . ., EXCEPT WHEN SUCH DAMAGE OCCURS TO THE BUMPER'S FACE BAR AND ASSOCIATED FASTENERS THAT DIRECTLY ATTACH THE BUMPER FACE TO THE CHASSIS FRAME. S581.5(C)(9) states that there shall be no breakage or release of fasteners or joints. Volvo is, at the moment, contemplating a device that will be attached to the bumper face bar. This device has no function as to mitigate the effects of a low speed collision but is used for other purposes. In a low speed collision, this device may be damaged or destroyed. Volvo believes that this is in compliance with the requirements in Part 581 for the following reasons: the device is not a component or system described in S581.5(c)(1) through 581.5(c)(6) and therefore it being damaged or destroyed will not lead to any change in performance of the above components or system.
the device will be touched only by the impact ridge. This complies with S581.5(c)(7). the device is, for this definition, part of the bumper face bar. This means for compliance with S581.5(c)(8) and S581.5(c)(9). If additional information is required on this matter, do not hesitate to contact me at 201-767-4772 or Stephen Kraitz of my staff at 201-768-7300, extension 7249 at your convenience. |
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.