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: GF007935OpenTerence McBride, Manager Dear Mr. McBride: This responds to your e-mail of November 4, 2003, to George Feygin of my staff. In your e-mail, you inform us that the State of Tennessee has passed a bill (No. HB1819/SB1765) permitting oscillating stop lamps on motorcycles. You ask whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) permit oscillating stop lamps on motorcycles. As discussed below, the answer is no. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements prior to the initial sale of the vehicle. The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment in motorcycles is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. The relevant section of that standard reads as follows:
In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise permitted. In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, motorcycle stop lamps must be steady burning and cannot be oscillating. With respect to Federal preemption of State laws, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) provides in pertinent part:
This means that, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), a State cannot authorize oscillating motorcycle stop lamps since the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard prohibits such lighting devices. We further note that installation of a non-steady burning lamp by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business after the initial sale is subject to the restrictions of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Depending on the circumstances, installation of a non-steady burning lamp after the initial sale of the motorcycle could be viewed as a violation of this "make inoperative" provision. I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2004 |
ID: GF009138OpenMr. Kenneth M. Bush Dear Mr. Bush: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, "Occupant protection in interior impact". Specifically, you ask whether side curtain air bag tethers are considered a part of the "stowed system" that is subject to reduced impact speed upper interior component performance requirements. As discussed below, the answer is yes. By way of background, S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201 sets minimum performance requirements for upper interior components by establishing target areas that must be properly padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to minimize head injury in the event of a crash. Compliance with the upper interior component requirements is determined, in part, by measuring the forces experienced by the Free Motion Headform test device (FMH) when it is propelled into certain targets on the vehicle interior at the speed of 24km/h (15 mph), or in some cases, at the reduced impact speed of 19 km/h (12 mph). Air bag systems are frequently stowed (in their un-deployed state) in the same interior areas where certain test targets are located. Targets located on or near air bag systems are subject to reduced impact speed test requirements because the agency is concerned that requiring areas over the stowed portion of an air bag (or its attachment and other hardware) to meet more stringent 15 mph impact requirement could hinder their development and use. Thus, in order to accommodate the current systems and the development of new or additional air bag systems, we determined that use of a 12 mph impact speed, in conjunction with a full-vehicle dynamic side impact pole test, would best help realize the safety benefits of air bags. In relevant part, S6.2(b)(2) of FMVSS No. 201 reads as follows:
You ask if stowed side curtain tethers are considered part of the "stowed system" under S6.2(b)(2).As used in S6.2(b)(2), "stowed system" refers to a stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system. The language ofS6.2(b)(2) specifies that in determining the area subject to reduced impact speed test requirements, consideration is taken of the stowed system, including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers. Side curtain air bag tethers are a part of the stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system, and they are not "covers". Therefore, they are considered in determining whether the target issubject to reduced impact speed test requirements. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:201 |
2006 |
ID: nht80-2.10OpenDATE: 04/22/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Union Springs Central School District TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: APR 22 1980 Steven J. Kalies, Ed.D Asst. Supt. for Business Union Springs Central School District Union Springs, New York 13160 Dear Dr. Kalies: This is in response to your letter of January 22, 1980, asking whether the Dubl-Life Saver Support restraint vest manufactured by Easy Way Products Co. is in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The advertisement you enclosed with your letter describes the Dubl-Life Saver as a support restraint vest for the safe transportation of all sizes of handicapped children in motor vehicles. The advertisement further claims that the safety belts used with the vest exceed "federal specifications". Based on the information in the advertisement, it appears that the restraint vest does not provide pelvic restraint and thus does not comply with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. I have referred this matter to the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action. The University of Michigan's Highway Safety Research Institute has conducted tests of various devices used to restrain handicapped children. I have enclosed a copy of a Society of Automotive Engineers paper describing the results of the testing. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure January 22, 1980 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590 Gentlemen: As requested in the attached letter from Mr. Irving Rodness, Motor Vehicle Program Specialist, we are enclosing a copy of the brochure concerning the Dubl-Life Saver Support restraint vest from Easy Way Products Co. Please advise as soon as possible if this vest meets federal specifications, as stated in the attached brochure. Sincerely, Steven J. Kalies, Ed.D Asst. Supt. for Business jf Enc. January 18, 1980 Mr. Steven J. Kalies Union Springs Central School District Union Springs, New York 13160 Dear Mr. Kalies: During our telephone conversation, I envisioned the device you described being covered by our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. By the description on the price sheet you enclosed in your letter of 1/8/80, I am now not too sure. This device may not be covered at all or is covered under our FMVSS 213, Child Restraint. After a conversation with the NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, I am taking the liberty of forwarding your letter to them for their review and response. It would be helpful if a brochure or picture of this device could be sent to our Washington Office. If available, mail it to: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel (NOA-30), 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, ATTN: Mr. Stephen L. Oesch. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Irving Rodness Motor Vehice Program Specialist cc: OCC NOA-30 |
|
ID: nht94-3.100OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 16, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: David Huff -- Co-Chairperson, Special Transportation, Central Missouri State University TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 4/11/94: Letter from David Huff to Charles Holt (OCC-9936) TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Charles Hott of this agency asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222), for wheelchair securement devices. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask about the need to increase Standard 222's strength requirements for wheelchair securement devices that are part of an integrated system. In an integrated system, the occupant restraint system (lap and shoulder belts) is anchored to the wheelchai r securement device. You suggest that a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system should be required to withstand twice the load that is required for a securement device that is not integrated with the occupant restraint system. While we share your belief that wheelchair securement devices should be sufficiently strong, we do not believe there is a need to increase Standard 222's present requirements for securement devices that are part of an integrated system. Rather, we belie ve a securement device that meets the standard's present requirements is capable of withstanding the forces imposed on that device in a crash, even when the device is part of an integrated system such as the one you described. As you point out in your letter, S5.4.1.3 of Standard 222 provides for increasing the load requirement for a wheelchair securement anchorage when that anchorage is used by more than one wheelchair securement device. Moreover, S5.4.3.2(e) of the standard specifies that When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1.3 [13,344 Newtons] a nd S5.4.3.2 [13,344 Newtons] shall be applied simultaneously . . . Stated differently, the floor anchorage used for an integrated system must withstand a load of 26,688 Newtons, which is the sum of the load specified for the wheelchair securement device and the load specified for the occupant restraint. However, Standard 222 does not require increasing the load for a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system, and there is valid reason for the different approach. Under S5.4.2(a) of Standard 222, wheelchair securement devices that incorporate webbing or a strap must comply with the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Type I systems are lap belts, and are required by S4.2(b) of FMVSS 209 to have a breaking strength of not l ess than "6,000 pounds or 2,720 kilograms." The 6,000 pound (2,720 kg.) requirement is equivalent to the 26,688 Newton requirement for an anchorage used for an integrated system. Thus, Standard 222 requires wheelchair securement devices to be as strong as an anchorage that secures both the wheelchair and the occupant restraint. Requiring the wheelchair securement device to be stronger than the anchorage cannot be justified by a safety need. I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: Mr_ Richard HardestyOpen1000 West Main Street P.O. Box 158 Sargent, Nebraska 68874 Dear Mr. Hardesty: This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expressing concern about the Sargent Volunteer Fire Departments transporting minor children in cargo areas in vehicles during what appears to be an annual Fire Prevention Week event. You enclose copies of newspaper photographs of preschool and elementary school students riding on a firetruck. The captions on the photographs indicate that the children were given rides on the vehicles as part of a Fire Prevention Week parade or other community outreach event. You are concerned that the firetrucks are not equipped to provide occupant protection systems for children. You believe that Nebraska State law requires children to be in child safety seats that meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You believe that if the law prohibits carrying the children as described above, then the practice should be discontinued, or the law changed to permit the practice. I appreciate your interest in child passenger safety. However, we regret to inform you that your question cannot be answered by NHTSA. Your letter relates to Nebraska State law and so must be answered by Nebraska State officials. By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. Under that authority, we issued FMVSS No. 213, which sets forth requirements which must be met by any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less. We require that persons manufacturing child restraint systems (including child safety seats) must certify that their products meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213, and must ensure that their products meet all other requirements of the Safety Act. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects, undertakes automotive research initiatives, and administers grant programs for State highway safety projects. NHTSA does not set requirements for how children are to be transported in vehicles, such as whether child restraints must be used in parade vehicles. Matters relating to the use of child restraints, including child safety seats, are decided by individual States. Thus, your question asking whether there is an exemption under the law that permits children to ride in parades without a child restraint system is most appropriately answered by Nebraska officials. For information about Nebraskas law, we suggest you contact: Mr. Fred E. Zwonechek, Administrator, Department of Roads, Office of Highway Safety, 5001 S. 14th St., Lincoln, Nebraska, 68512-1248, telephone: (402) 471-2515. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Signed 5/26/10 ref:213 |
|
ID: nht90-1.9OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: January 8, 1990 FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA; Signature by Jeffrey R. Miller TO: Robert J. Lagomarsino -- U.S. House of Representatives TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/31/91 from Paul J. Rice to Scott K. Hiler (Std. 222); Also attached to letter from Erika Z. Jones (signed by Stephen P. Wood) to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 4/2/92 from Michael F. Hecker to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7174); Also attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 3/10/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222) TEXT: Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner on behalf of your constituent, Mike Dunn. You inquired about a school bus passenger restraining device marketed by Mr. Dunn. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received an inquiry concernin g a similar device in 1988. A copy of our responses, which detail the requirements applicable to such a device, are enclosed. I will summarize those requirements below. The device being marketed by your constituent, "a safety bar" for school bus passengers, consists of a padded metal bar which is attached to the seat back of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the safety bar. The bar is hinged to swing up to allow entry and exit of the occupants. The hinge mechanism also allows the bar to drop slightly from its lowered position upon impact in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of abdominal injury. The device operates much like the p assenger restraint bars found on certain amusement park rides. As explained by the enclosed letters, federal law does not prohibit the installation of your constituent's product on school buses as long its installation and use would not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the safety bars are to be installed in any new school bus, the manufacturer of the bus would have to certify that the bus with the safety bars installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5. 3 of FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.222). As the enclosed letters explain, the use of the safety bar would not obviate the need for a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). That standard requires that such v ehicles be equipped with either safety belts or automatic restraints at all passenger seating positions.
In addition, as explained in the enclosed letters and information sheet, the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et sec.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable s afety standard. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. |
|
ID: Toyota_knee_bolsterOpenChris Tinto, Director, Technical & Regulatory Affairs Dear Mr. Tinto: This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the definition of "air bag system" as it pertains to test procedures specified in our occupant crash protection standard. Your letter asked if an inflatable knee bolster would be considered part of the "driver frontal air bag system" under the procedure for low risk deployment (LRD) tests of the driver air bag. As explained below, for purposes of LRD tests, the driver frontal air bag system refers to the steering wheel hub-mounted inflatable restraint and does not include an inflatable knee bolster. On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 to minimize the risk of injury from deploying air bags for small adults and children (65 Federal Register 30680; Advanced air bag rule). The Advanced Air Bag Rule adopted a LRD test to address the risk air bags pose to out-of-position occupants, particularly those of small stature. The test is performed by activating a frontal air bag system with a test dummy in "worst case" positions: placing the dummys chin on the module and for the 5th percentile adult female test dummy, also placing the dummy's chin on the steering wheel. In your letter you stated that Toyota has equipped some of its vehicles with a knee air bag (knee bolster), which deploys in a frontal crash along with the driver air bag located in the steering wheel hub. You further stated that Toyota considers a knee bolster part of the frontal air bag system and therefore, it should be deployed during a LRD test. Your letter also noted that both the knee bolster and the air bag located in the steering wheel hub deploy in the rigid barrier test described in S22.5 of FMVSS No. 208, which determines the deployment stage for the LRD procedure in S26. In a November 19, 2003, final rule, the agency specifically addressed which air bag system components are fired in a LRD test. The agency stated that:
We further stated that the agency has no data on the effect deploying devices other than the frontal air bag will have on the LRD test procedure. We also do not have any data on the performance of any of these other pyrotechnic devices for out-of-position occupants in the field. Specifically, we are concerned that inflatable knee bolsters could negatively impact the repeatability of the LRD tests, even though they would inflate in a real crash. Therefore, when the agency performs a LRD test on a vehicle equipped with inflatable knee bolsters, the knee bolsters are not inflated. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:208 |
2004 |
ID: overbayOpen Mr. Larry W. Overbay Dear Mr. Overbay: This letter follows up a telephone conversation between Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff and Mr. John Hretz of the U.S. Department of the Army in which Mr. Hretz requested a clarification of a February 17, 1995, letter that we sent to you. In that letter, we discussed the testing of air braked vehicles under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. We explained that, as a result of a court decision, the emergency stopping test requirements, set forth in S5.7.1 of the standard, are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers. As Mr. Glancy explained, subsequent to that letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule reinstating emergency stopping tests in FMVSS No. 121. The amendments reinstating these tests take effect on March 1, 1997, for truck tractors and March 1, 1998, for other medium and heavy vehicles that are equipped with air brakes. Once these amendments take effect, the provisions in S5.7.1 will again be applicable to air braked vehicles. Mr. Hretz asked whether, in conducting the emergency stopping distance tests, removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test. Your question is addressed below. Section S5.7.1 states that When stopped six times for each combination of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1, except for a loaded truck tractor with an unbraked control trailer, on a road surface having a PFC of 0.9, with a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake chamber housing), the vehicle shall stop at least once in not more than the distance specified in Column 5 of Table II. In describing the failure conditions for which stopping distance requirements must be met, S5.7.1 broadly specifies "a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid," except for certain listed parts. It is our opinion that the failure mode Mr. Hretz described in which one disconnects the service air signal line at the rear service air relay comes within this language. Therefore, a vehicle would not comply with FMVSS No. 121 if it did not meet the specified stopping distance requirements after disconnection of the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Project Manager Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) Attn: SFAE-TWV-FMTV (Hretz) Warren, Michigan 48397-5000 ref:121 d:7/25/95
|
1995 |
ID: nht92-8.3OpenDATE: April 3, 1992 FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108 ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated April 27, 1992 from Paul J. Rice to Michael Love (A39; Std. 108) TEXT: On behalf of Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. ("Porsche") hereby submits the attached request for interpretation of FMVSS 108. Please contact me at 702/348-3198 if you should have any questions. |
|
ID: nht95-1.69OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: February 15, 1995 FROM: Tilman Spingler -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA TITLE: FMVSS 108, S.4 Definitions, bonded [Illegible Words] ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO TILMAN SPINGLER (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108) TEXT: Request for interpretation: Dear Chief Counsel, We ask you kindly to check if this proposal for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108. Thanks in advance for your efforts Best regards |
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.