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: nht71-5.29OpenDATE: 12/22/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Holophane Company, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 13, 1971, in which you made further comments on the requirements of Standard No. 108 with respect to school bus lighting. You expressed concern over the fact that a company holds a patent relating to the wiring for eight-lamp systems that are permitted (though not required) under Standard No. 108. Although the existence of patents is one factor that may be taken into account in setting motor vehicle safety standards, it is not the primary one. This agency is charged by Congress with the responsibility of setting standards that represent the best possible resolution of the problems of safety, cost, and technological feasibility. If two alternative regulatory courses of action are found to be substantially equal in other respects, the agency might prefer the one in which the largest number of companies were free to compete at will. But the granting of patents is a long-established policy of our government, administered by the U.S. Patent Office under the direction of Federal statutes and the Constitution. We do not, therefore, agree with your suggestion that it is "against public interest" to issue regulations that have the incidental effect of favoring or requiring the use of patented products. |
|
ID: 86-6.18OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/22/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA TO: Edward Brosler TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Edward Brosler, Esq. Registered Patent Attorney 3100 Tice Creek Drive - #2 Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Dear Mr. Brosler
This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, to the Department of Transportation. We are sorry that your letter of February 17, 1984, was not answered, but the Department is a large one and letters that are addressed to it, rather than to a specific agency or individual, sometimes do not reach the office appropriate for response.
We understand that your client has a patented device which activates the stop lamp when the accelerator is released and before the brake pedal is applied. It also "causes such lights to light up, in an emergency, even before the driver removes his foot from the gas pedal." You "seek approval of the U.S. Department of Transportation" for the device.
The Department, more specifically this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the authority provided us, we establish the federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer is not required to submit products for "approval" before sale, but instead is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle Safety standards, after satisfying itself that the product complies, Federal Safety standards are generally expressed in performance terms, so that the manufacturer may have freedom to design its product to meet the requirements in the way it deems most suitable. We do not specify the use of proprietary devices, and to the extent that proprietary elements may be involved in complying with a standard manufacturers are expected to make available on a royalty free basis the technology involved.
Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 C.F.R. 571.108) is the standard governing motor vehicle lighting requirements. A stop lamp is defined by the Standard J586c, August 1970 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 100, as a lamp that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to atop or diminish speed by braking." Incorporation of your client's device would send additional messages to a following driver: that the accelerator has been released but that there may be no intention to brake, or that the accelerator has not been released but will be because an emergency has arisen requiring eventual application of the brake pedal. That is to say, the message that the stop lamp is intended to convey should be altered by incorporation of your client's device. Because not all accelerator releases lead to braking, the stop lamp would send a misleading signal. We believe that the device is prohibited as an item of original equipment by paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, because it would impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps, and that its installation as an aftermarket device would render the stop lamp system partially inoperative within the prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)(Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). This prohibition forbids modifications affecting equipment installed in accordance with the safety standards when performed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses but not by vehicle owners. However, even if it is permissible under Federal law for a vehicle owner to install the device, any State in which it is sold or used may regulate it. We note your statement that California permits but you should be aware that other States may not.
In arriving at the conclusion that the center highmounted stop lamp was the most effective way to reduce the incidence and severity of rear end collisions, the agency considered deceleration warning systems involving activation of the stop lamps upon release of the accelerator pedal, and did not find that they offered a discernible advantage over standard stop lamps.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
August 4, 1936
U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20590
Gentlemen:
I enclose a copy of my letter of February 17, 1984. Please inform me when you expect to reach it for consideration, as I have not had a reply as yet.
Respectfully, EDWARD BROSLER
February 17, 1984
U. S. Dept. of Transportation Washington, D.C.
We have recently seen a writeup in which you recommend a brake light viewable through the rear window of a car, in expectation that a driver to the rear alerted sooner ad to an emergency and thereby reduce probability of a rear end collision and cut down on occupant deaths, injuries and vehicle damage.
If such a light, or even the conventional brake lights, could, in an emergency, be made to light up before application of the driver's foot to the brake pedal, how much greater assurance one would have to avoid serious rear end collisions and consequential deaths, injuries and car damage. Is this an impossibility? The answer is no.
A client of ours, an experienced race car driver and designer of his own power system improvements, has researched and developed a simple and effective system for not only lighting up the brake lights before the brake pedal is depressed, but causes such lights to light up, in an emergency, even before the driver removes his foot from the gas pedal. The U.S. Patent Office has issued to him, Patents No. 3639898 and 4219710, copies of which are enclosed and which completely disclose his system.
The system has been operated and its effectiveness demonstrated. As a result, the State of California has given its official approval, following which numerous other States have volunteered their official.
We now seek approval of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, but only upon being convinced of the ability of the system to perform its intended function.
If the foregoing information is not sufficient for your purpose, we submit herewith a commercial embodiment which may be installed in most cars by an automobile mechanic in about half an hour and tested by a driver within minutes, to convince him, the brake lights light up before the brake pedal is depressed.
Please note also, that the improvement is supplemental to the conventional brake system and should it, for some unexpected reason to fail to perform, the conventional brake system will continue to function in its normal manner.
We look forward to hearing from you shortly.
Respectfully,
EDWARD BROSLER EB:pb Encls. |
|
ID: 3235oOpen Mr. M. Iwase Dear Mr. Iwase: This is to provide you with a clarification of my letter to you dated March l6, l988. Your second question was whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamps and tail/stop lamps is required on a rear lighting array for motorcycles. I responded that "The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement." In actuality, the agency has required this separation only where a single motorcycle stoplamp/taillamp is mounted on the vertical centerline, and not when dual lamps are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline, the configuration depicted in your letter of January 25, 1988. Therefore, I am advising you that there is no legal requirement that the 4-inch separation distance be maintained in the configurations you depicted, and that we appreciate your continuing efforts to understand and comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. I enclose a copy of a letter from this Office dated November 2l, l984, which explains our views on motorcycle rear lighting configurations in more detail. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref:l08 d:l2/l/88 |
1970 |
ID: nht80-2.39OpenDATE: 05/29/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: John Evans Mfg. Co. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: MAY 29 1980 Mr. Tom Spencer John Evans Mfg. Co. P.O. Box 669 Sumter, South Carolina 29150 Dear Mr. Spencer: This responds to your May 6, 1980, telephone conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked about the certification responsibilities for an incomplete trailer manufacturer. You indicated in your conversation that you manufacture chassis for trailers and supply them to finalstage manufacturers who complete them by the addition of a body. In particular, you asked whether you are required to comply with the provisions of Part 568.4, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Part 568 places certain certification responsibilities upon incomplete vehicle manufacturers. The term "incomplete vehicle" is defined in section 568.3, as an assemblage including, at a minimum, the frame, chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension and braking system to the extent that these systems are to be part of the completed vehicle. If a chassis that you manufacture is completed to the extent that it has the above-listed components and merely needs the addition of a body by a final-stage manufacturer, it would be considered an incomplete vehicle and would be required to comply with the incomplete vehicle document requirements of Part 568. Please note that your incomplete trailer need not have all of the components listed above to be considered an incomplete vehicle subject to Part 558. It need only have those components in the list that will be found in the completed vehicle. Since your trailer is an incomplete vehicle but not a chassis-cab as that term is defined in Part 567, Certification, it would not be required to have a chassis-cab manufacturer's certification label attached to it. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht70-2.53OpenDATE: 07/10/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA TO: General Motors Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 26, 1970, to Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, concerning plastic materials for reflex reflectors. The contents of your letter, including the technical data and information enclosed therewith, have been carefully reviewed by interested members of this Bureau. As a result of this review and evaluation, and also considering the nature and intent of the requirements in question, we concur, basically, with your interpretation of the requirements of SAE J576b, as subreferenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your interpretation of the requirements of paragraphs 3.4 and 4.2 of SAE J576b, as quoted from your letter, is as follows: "A plastic material used in a lamp or reflector assembly so that it is covered by other material and is not directly exposed to sunlight meets the requirements of SAE J576b if, when so covered, it satisfies the requirements of paragraphs 3.4 and 4.2." We would fully concur with this interpretation if it is rephrased to read as follows: "A plastic material used in a lamp or reflector assembly so that it is covered by other material and is not directly exposed to sunlight meets the requirements of paragraphs 3.4 and 4.2 of SAE J576b if, when so covered, it satisfies the requirements of those paragraphs." To test for compliance, using this interpretation, the test sample discs, as specified in SAE 576b, would be exposed to the outdoor exposure test (paragraph 3.4) while covered with the actual lens material used in production lamp assemblies. In your particular case, the discs would be the polycarbonate ("Loxan") material and the "covering material" would be the red taillamp lens molded for production use. |
|
ID: 10050Open Mr. Thomas D. Turner Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your petition for rulemaking dated May 31, 1994. Your petition concerns the following requirement in S5.3.3.2 of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release: In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two force applications to open. A similar requirement is included in S5.3.3.3 for emergency roof exits. Your petition states: The requirement for two force applications to open a single release mechanism is new and unproven and in our opinion is not in the best interest of safety. NHTSA agrees that the sentence in question is susceptible to the reading you gave it. So read, this sentence imposes a requirement not intended by the agency. To avoid such unintended readings, the agency should have worded the sentence as follows: In the case of windows with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open. The agency will issue a corrective notice in the future to make this change. Until the notice is issued, we will not take enforcement action against a manufacturer so long as a window or roof exit with one release mechanism requires two force applications to open the exit. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:217 d:6/13/94
|
1994 |
ID: nht81-2.9OpenDATE: 03/25/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1981, asking whether the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions) Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of the standard as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Paragraph 5.2 of J580 states that, "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens." The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584a Motorcycle Headlamps. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles. We therefore view the prohibition of J580 as applicable to use of any sealed beam headlamp, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is installed. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of additional equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicity permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age. The agency therefore has concluded that no motorcycle headlamp may have a glass shield in front of it when in use. |
|
ID: Alliance Letter - Sale of Electronic Odometer Resetting DevicesOpenCERTIFIED MAIL Robert Strassburger Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 1401 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005-6562 Re: Legality of electronic devices that change odometer readings on motor vehicles Dear Mr. Strassburger: This letter is in reference to an April 9, 2013 conference call you had with David Sparks of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). During that conference call, you requested NHTSAs view on the legality of devices that have appeared for sale on the internet that purport to change the mileage showing on electronic odometers of motor vehicles. These are essentially hand-held devices that connect directly with a vehicles on-board computer system through the vehicles diagnostic port and provide the user the ability to change the mileage displayed on the vehicles electronic odometer. In the Agencys view, marketing for sale, sale, and/or use of such a device to change an odometer display constitute violations of Federal law. NHTSA would like to initiate a dialogue with the manufacturers concerning the implications of these devices ability to circumvent the algorithms used to secure a vehicles odometer reading. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32703(1), a person may not advertise for sale, sell, use, install, or have installed, a device that makes an odometer of a motor vehicle register a mileage different from the mileage the vehicle was driven, as registered by the odometer within the designed tolerance of the manufacturer of the odometer. It is NHTSAs view that the marketing for sale and sale of hand-held devices that are capable of accessing a motor vehicles computer system to alter the mileage displayed on the vehicles odometer violates 49 U.S.C. 32703(1). These devices make odometers register a mileage different from the mileage the vehicle was driven, whether or not the device is actually used to do so, and thus their marketing and sale violate the statutes prohibition. As a result of the changes made by the MAP 21 statute last year, NHTSA can now impose civil penalties of $10,000 for each violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for a related series of violations under 49 U.S.C. 32709. We have also enclosed a copy of the related interpretation letters to Kenneth Rose and Dwayne Bitz, both dated May 31, 2012 that David Sparks referenced in your conference call. For your information we are posting copies of these interpretation letters to NHTSAs public database at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns. If you need any further assistance in this matter, please contact Marie Choi of my staff at (202) 366-1738 or by email at marie.choi@dot.gov. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure Date: 8/7/13 |
2013 |
ID: 17341.wkmOpenMr. Richard H. Allen Dear Mr. Allen: Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you asked whether the processing equipment that your company produces for the aggregate industry is excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer is yes. You stated that some of the equipment that you manufacture is wheel-mounted for ease of transport from the factory to the customer and by the customer between job sites as required. You explained that the equipment is not load-carrying since the equipment is the load. You stated that the equipment was designed to spend its entire life at mining or quarry sites and would probably spend less than one percent of its life on the road. You enclosed brochures depicting and describing the various lines of equipment that you manufacture, specifically alluding to your wheel-mounted portable Sand Washing-Classifying machine, wheel-mounted portable Sand Washer-Classifier-Dehydrator, and your portable wheel-mounted Log Washers. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:
49 U.S.Code 30102(a)(6). In reviewing the information you provided, including your brochures, it is our opinion that the aggregate equipment that you described and as depicted in your brochures are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. They are obviously designed to be used primarily off-road and although they are portable and therefore capable of being transported on-road from the factory to the customer and by the customer from one job site to another, their on-road use is only incidental and not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. Not being motor vehicles, therefore, your wheel-mounted items of equipment, such as your Sand Washing-Classifying machines, Sand Washer-Classifier-Dehydrators, and Log Washers are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121. Standard No. 121 (copy enclosed), requires trailers, among other vehicles, equipped with air brake systems to be equipped with ABS. Excluded from that requirement, however, is
49 CFR 571.121, paragraph S3(f). Your information would indicate that the equipment in question would also meet this exclusion since, as mentioned above, the equipment is the load. Accordingly, even if your equipment were considered motor vehicles, they would still be excluded from the ABS requirement under this provision. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 11-001987 nelson.may18OpenMr. Brian Nelson Michigan Association of Timbermen 7350 M 123 Newberry, MI 49868 Dear Mr. Nelson: This letter responds to your letter asking whether a product commonly known in the logging industry as a slasher saw table would be considered a motor vehicle within the laws and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, our answer is no. You explain that a slasher saw table is a large saw permanently mounted to a bundling carriage that has two wheels and is pulled behind another trailer or truck. It is used for cutting logs to a uniform length for loading onto a logging truck. Although a slasher saw table is equipped with wheels, you state that it is intended to remain in extreme off-road conditions for months at a time, as a logging site is harvested. You also state that, when transferred between sites, a slasher saw table is pulled behind a mobile log loader, which is equipped with brakes. By way of background, NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The FMVSSs are applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. That is, NHTSA regulates the manufacture of new motor vehicles. You state that an issue has arisen whether the slasher saw table is subject to regulations administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). We note that questions about the applicability of FMCSAs regulations should be directed to that agency. We do not consider the slasher saw table to be a motor vehicle. The term motor vehicle is defined in section 30102(a)(6) of the Safety Act as a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles. For example, vehicles that frequently travel between job sites using highways are considered motor vehicles because the on-highway use is more than incidental. In a November 5, 2004 letter to Ms. Robin C. DesCamp of Blount International, Inc., we opined on whether certain types of logging equipment would be considered a motor vehicle. Among the logging equipment discussed in that letter were logging cranes. We stated that, because logging cranes were intended to remain at a single location for long periods of time and are moved only infrequently between logging sites, we concluded that the logging cranes are not motor vehicles. A slasher saw table, as you have described it, appears to be akin to items of mobile construction equipment and logging cranes that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the slasher saw table described in your letter is not a motor vehicle. Because a slasher saw table is not a motor vehicle, it is not subject to the FMVSSs. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: VSA 571.3 7/25/11 |
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.