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: nht95-4.17OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 11, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Michael A. Knappo TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO: 7/01/95 (EST.) LETTER FROM MICHAEL A. NAPPO TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL; 6/8/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SHAWN SHIEH; 5/10/91 AND 3/21/91 LETTERS FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO CHRIS LAWRENCE; 8/17/89 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO ALAN S. ELDAHR; 7/8/85 LETTER FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO DON BENFIELD (STD. 205) TEXT: Dear Mr. Knappo: This is in response to your letter regarding a product that you wish to offer for sale in the near future. You have asked for information on how this product might be affected by local and national laws. According to your letter, "Auto Ad" is a portable advertising unit that is designed with a flexible screen that can be secured to a window with suction cups. The screen is illuminated with LEDs, controlled by a key pad mounted close to the driver. The unit will run off power from the car battery through the cigarette lighter, or "hardwired in." The diagram you enclosed shows "Auto Ad" mounted in the rear side window of a car and a van. While we do not have information about State or local laws, I am enclosing copies of several letters we have issued in recent years concerning the applicability of Federal law to products which appear to be similar to yours (addressed to Mr. Shawn Shieh, dated June 8, 1993; Mr. Chris Lawrence, dated May 10 and March 21, 1991, Mr. Alan Eldahr, dated August 17, 1989, and Mr. Don Benfield, dated July 8, 1985). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Enclosures
|
|
ID: nht95-4.18OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 14, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Charles de Saint Martin -- Project Manager, The Fairchild Corporation TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/10/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES DE SAINT MARTIN TO JOHN WOMACK TEXT: Dear Mr. de Saint Martin: This replies to your letter of August 10, 1995, with reference to "Securiflash". Taylor Vinson of this Office phoned you on August 21 for a clarification. We understand that, in the event of a deceleration of 0.8 g, such as caused by emergency braking, "Securiflash" automatically activates a vehicle's hazard warning system lamps; after 5 seconds, the lamps go off. Enclosed is a copy of a letter that we sent Saline Electronics on April 24, 1995, which provides our views that a decleration system that operates through the hazard warning system is impermissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. However, we are interested in your remark that the product "was developed after different European studies showed that 60 percent of rear end collisions would be avoided if the brakes had been applied one second earlier." We are unaware of such studies, and would like to receive copies of them so that the agency may enhance its knowledge of the conditions under which rear end collisions occur. If you have any further questions, please call Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-5263. |
|
ID: nht95-4.19OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 14, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Colleen Grant TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/17/95 LETTER FROM COLLEEN GRANT TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL TEXT: Dear Ms. Grant: This responds to your letter asking whether your 1974 Chevrolet Blazer is "street-legal." You stated that an official of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles has questioned whether your vehicle is street-legal because it does not have shoulder belts. According to your letter, the vehicle has a fiberglass removable roof, and was originally manufactured with lap belts. You also stated that inquiries at local dealers indicate that General Motors does not make a shoulder belt for this model "because th ere is no place to safely mount it." We assume that you are asking whether your vehicle was originally required to have lap/shoulder belts, because many states require vehicles in use to be equipped with the same kinds of safety belts that were required by the Federal government for the veh icles when new. As discussed below, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts, but was required to have at least lap belts at each seating position. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies, among other things, seat belt requirements for new vehicles. Standard No. 208 generally required, for model year 1974 vehicles such as your Blazer, either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at each seating position, at the manufacturer's option. Therefore, your vehicle was not originally required to have shoulder belts. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht95-4.2OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 29, 1995 FROM: Fred H. Pritzker -- Pritzker and Meyer TO: Kenneth Weinstein -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 1/3/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Fred H. Pritzker (A44; Std. 208; VSA 5108(a)(2)(A) TEXT: I represent a young man who sustained serious brain damage in a motor vehicle collision on July 9, 1994. At the time of the collision, my client was a rear, driver-side passenger in a 1993 GEO Tracker. The driver of that vehicle apparently fell asleep at which time the vehicle left the roadway, rolled over several times during which time my client and the other vehicle occupants were ejected. Approximately one month before the collision, the teenage son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics "super store" to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. The installer suggested that optimal ou tput could be obtained if the rear vehicle's seat bench was removed and replaced by a large speaker box. The teenager whose father owned the vehicle agreed and the rear seat was removed and the entire rear portion of the vehicle was fitted with a large speaker enclosure. In doing so, the "female" portion of the seat belt buckle was removed, therefore rendering inoperative the safety restraint system on the vehicle. The installer who removed the seat and designed the speaker box was not a certified installer and had been on the job for a relatively short period of time. He had never removed automobile safety equipment in previous installations and made no attempt t o find out if this was an acceptable practice. A drawing of the side profile of the speaker enclosure box accompanies this letter. As you can see, there is a ledge on the speaker enclosure not unlike a bench-type seat. Aside from that ledge, there is no other room in the rear portion of the vehicle (with the speaker box in it) to allow passengers to sit. The installer acknowledges that the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on. It was also carpeted. The installer also acknowledges that he anticipated that someone might sit on the speaker box and therefore, felt the need to warn the teenage operator not to let anyone do so. He acknowledges, however, that at the time the vehicle operator picked up the vehicle after the installation, he asked the installer if it were possible to af fix the female seat buckle into the speaker box (which the installer refused to do). It was on this speaker box that my client was sitting at the time of the accident. I have carefully reviewed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The definitions of a dealer, distributor and manufacturer at section 30102 would seem to apply to the electronics company whose employee removed the seat and rendered inoperativ e the safety restraint system, designed and manufactured the speaker enclosure box and installed it into the GEO Tracker. According to the definition, the electronics company is a "dealer" because it sells and distributes motor vehicle equipment. For t hat same reason, it is a "distributor" and "manufacturer." Obviously, the installed items are "motor vehicle equipment" because they were sold for "replacement or improvement of a system, part or component or as an accessory or an addition to a motor veh icle." It would also appear that the electronics company does repair work and, in fact, removed the prior speaker boxes, cannibalized some of the parts from that and then placed those parts in the new enclosure box installed shortly before the collision. Thus, it would appear that the electronics company meets the definition of a motor vehicle repair business as defined at section 30122. Clearly, the electronics company violated the statutory prohibition at section 30122(b). It knowingly made inoperative the rear seat and rear safety restraint system installed in the GEO Tracker by the manufacturer. The speaker box was then placed in a "designated seating position" and obviously, failed to comply with the regulations establishing standards for automobile seats and safety restraint systems. Thus, it would appear that there are two violations of the Act: the removal of the original safety devices and then replacing them with a piece of equipment that was likely to be used as a seat and obviously failed to comply with the regulations for the seat and the safety restraint system. I would appreciate it if you would call me to discuss the facts of this case and my interpretation of the law applicable to those facts. I am specifically not requesting a written opinion from your agency. At this time, I am merely asking to speak with you about it. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Drawing and photo omitted. |
|
ID: nht95-4.20OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 14, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA TO: Mr. Bryan G. Nelson -- Director, Health & Transportation Services, Parents in Community Action Inc. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/15/95 LETTER FROM BRYAN G. NELSON TO WALT MYERS TEXT: Dear Mr. Nelson: Thank you for your letter asking for confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recommends, but does not require, school buses to be yellow. Your understanding is correct. NHTSA's recommendation that school buses be painted yellow is found in Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed). Guideline 17 consists of recommendations for State pupil transport ation safety programs. Guideline 17 will affect the operation of school buses in your area only if it has been adopted by your State or local officials. We wish to note, however, that there are safety reasons behind Guideline 17's recommendation for the uniform school bus color. Motorists associate the yellow color with school buses, and quickly recognize that a yellow bus is transporting school childre n. The yellow color is a signal to motorists to be especially alert around the vehicles, particularly when the buses are loading and unloading children. For these reasons, NHTSA believes all school buses should be yellow. We also want to highlight for your information that Guideline 17 is different from NHTSA's school bus safety standards, which by Federal law apply to all new school buses, regardless of State action. The school bus safety standards require new school bu ses to have safety systems such as energy-absorbing seats, school bus lamps, stop arms, and improved emergency exits and rearview mirrors. These requirements apply to all new school buses, no matter what the States have done to adopt them. The safety re cord of school buses has improved in the years since buses began to meet the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht95-4.21OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 18, 1995 FROM: Orlando Ferreira -- Orion Bus Industries Ltd. TO: J. Medlin -- FTA TITLE: Urban Bus, GVWR more than 10,000 LBS For NYCTA ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ORLANDO FERREIRA (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD 101) TEXT: Dear Mr. Medlin, This confirms our phone conversation of this afternoon. The master switch (# 2 on page 12-Drivers side control panel) has 4 positions: Engine stop, Run, Lights and Park. These positions are engraved so that a back light allow liability in might driving conditions. My questions is to comply with FMVSS-101-Controls and Display these positions of the master switch have to be illuminated? If yes, please indicate where this requirement is established? Thank you in advance [Illegible Words] in this matter. (Drawings omitted.) |
|
ID: nht95-4.22OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 18, 1995 FROM: Yoshiaki MATSUI -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Stanley Electric Co. TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Accessory Lamp with LEDs ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/9/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Yoskiaki Matsui (Std. 108) TEXT: We, a Japanese manufacturer of automotive lighting devices, are now developing a new type of combination rear lamp that contains red LEDs as accessory lamps. (Please refer to the attached drawing). Would you please advise us about the categorization of this kind of LED accessory lamps. The operating condition of the LED accessory lamps are as follows, a) Construction of the combination rear lamp Tail & stop lamp and turn signal lamp vertically arranged. Red LEDs are disposed along the outer edge of the combination lamp to be used as accessory lamps. Light source Colour of Colour of the lens light emitted Tail & stop Incandescent bulb Red Red Rear turn Incandescent bulb Amber Amber signal b) Operating condition for the accessory lamps When the tail lamp is switched on, the Accessory Lamp A of red LEDs, which is adjacent to the tail lamp, and the Accessory Lamp B of red LEDs, which is adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp, are lit. Question 1: Red LEDs adjacent to the tail lamp (Accessory Lamp A) The tail lamp is designed to comply with FMVSS No. 108 using incandescent bulb only, therefore red LEDs need not to be lit for the purpose of the regulatory requirements. Moreover, when the tail lamp and the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp A) are lit together, the intensity of the light emitted from them does not exceed the maximum intensity specified for one lighted section tail lamp. In such a condition, we believe the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp a) could be regarded as an accessory. As for the safety, red LEDs (Accessory Lamp A) will contribute to safety by improving the comspicuity of the vehicle, when lit with the tail lamp. If our interpretation is not acceptable, please inform us of the conditions required in order to regard the red LEDs portion (Accessory Lamp A) as an accessory. Question 2: Red LEDs adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp (Accessory Lamp B) Q2-1: As for the red LEDs adjacent to the rear turn signal lamp (Accessory Lamp B), the LEDs emit a red colour light through the amber lens. The lighted section of the red section of the turn signal lamp by a parting rib prepared in the housing, so that the red light from red LEDs will not be emitted through the lens area of the lighted section of the rear turn signal lamp. Therefore, we believe the light from the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) will not adversely affect the rear turn signal function even if the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) continues to operate when the rear turn signal lamp is operated. Please advise us if our interpretation is acceptable. Q2-2: If our interpretation described in the above A2-1 is not acceptable, are the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) regarded as an accessory provided that the red LEDs (Accessory Lamp B) are turned off during the rear turn signal operation? Following table shows the lighting condition of Accessory Lamps and our interpretation. Tail lamp ON Operating Accessory Lamp A ON condition Accessory Lamp B ON OFF Rear turn signal lamp ON OFF ON OFF STANLEY's question Q2-1 Q2-2 Question STANLEY's interpretation OK OK OK OK NHTSA's answer Your answer will be highly appreciated. (Drawing omitted.)
|
|
ID: nht95-4.23OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 18, 1995 FROM: Ben Ray TO: John Womack TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/28/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Ben Ray (A43; Std. 121; Part 571.7) TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack, This letter is in regards to brake adjusters for log trailers. I am currently building log trailers for resale. These trailers are used mostly in the woods transporting logs from the woods to the mills. I am using used axles under them. These used ax les already have regular brake adjusters on there when I buy them. What I would like is some paperwork saying if this is alright to use these regular brake adjusters instead of automatic adjusters. I was referred to you by Richard Carter, (202-366-5274 ). Mr. Carter said there was a fine line in regards to which one to use because of the fact that the axles that I use are used. He also said being that the trailer is not considered new, that I could use a regular brake adjuster. I would really apprec iate it if you could send me some paperwork stating that it is alright to use these regular brake adjusters. If you should have any questions, please call me at home, 901-925-2727 or work, 901-925-1893. Sincerely, |
|
ID: nht95-4.24OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 18, 1995 FROM: Alison Vredenburgh -- Vice-president, Research and Development, Error Analysis, Inc. TO: Kenneth Hardie -- NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Alison Vredenburgh (A43; Std. 108) TEXT: I am currently directing a research project pertaining to motorcycle conspicuity. We have developed, and are testing a Motorcycle Conspicuity Enhancement System (MCES). A copy of the paper, which I will present at the Annual Human Factors and Ergonomic s Society (HFES) meeting next month, is enclosed. As a human factors and safety consultants we have been asked to investigate several cases where a lack of motorcycle conspicuity has been a factor in accident causation. The development of the MCES was inspired by these cases. It is designed to attach t o the front of motorcycles to enhance visibility using a series of small lights (xenon strobes) that are supplemental to the headlight. The MCES was built by Dr. Brian Andresen, Director of the Forensic Science Center of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. We are are in the early stages of considering patenting the MCES and hope to make it available to motorcycle riders. In reviewing the laws pertaining to motorcycle lighting, we understand that this system may only be used during daylight hours and may not affect the headlight. If there are any additional regulations pertaining to this system of which we should be aware , please contact me directly at (619) 434-4741. Enclosure ENHANCED MOTORCYCLE VISIBILITY THROUGH USE OF MOTORCYCLE CONSPICUITY ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM (Report omitted) |
|
ID: nht95-4.25OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 19, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: T. J. Sommer -- President, White Bear Sales, Inc. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/28/95 LETTER FROM T. J. SOMMER TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 11121) TEXT: Dear Mr. Sommer: This is in reply to your FAX of July 28, 1995, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You report that Chicago's police department is using four-wheeled all terrain vehicles (ATVs) for patrol work in the downtown area, and that they have been licensed by Illinois for on-road use. You believe that the vehicles are illegal to use on the str eets and that city employees are at risk. You have been asked by the director of Chicago's fleet "to compile all federal definitions and statutes which apply to the quad runners, regarding classification, certification, and compliance for street use." Y ou have asked for our assistance. I note first that while Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the individual States establish their own requirements for the licensing of motor vehicles. Therefore, the question of whether the ATVs may legally be used on the road is a matter of Illinois law rather than Federal law. Your letter does, however, raise the issue of whether the manufacture and/or sale of the ATVs was consistent with Federal law. We do not have specific information about the ATVs at issue; however, I can provide general information about how Federal law applies in this area. By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale i n the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. The issue of whether the ATVs were required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is dependent on whether they are considered "motor vehicles." I have enclosed several interpretation letters which address the criteria which NHTSA appl ies in determining whether a vehicle with on and off-road capability is a motor vehicle (addressed to Mr. Matthew Plache, dated December 3, 1991; Mr. Hiroshi Kato, dated October 31, 1988; Mr. Wayne Kirby, dated February 8, 1983; and Mr. Leonard Fink, dat ed March 25, 1982). If an ATV is a motor vehicle, it must be certified to comply with all applicable safety standards. If, after reviewing this information, you believe that a violation of Federal law may have occurred, you may wish to contact Mr. Luke Loy of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-5288. If you have further questions about the applicabi lity of our standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff (202-366-5263). |
|
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.