NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: 0788Open Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your letter of March 6, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the license plate requirements of Standard No. 108. SAE J587 OCT81 is the SAE standard that has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that "paragraph 6.1 of SAE J587, which relates solely to the mounting angle of the license plate and not to the performance of the license plate lamp, is not included in the requirements of FMVSS 108." This paragraph requires that, when the license plate lamp is mounted on the vehicle, the angle between the plane of the license plate and the plane on which the vehicle stands will be 90 degrees plus or minus 15 degrees. You believe that "license plate mounting for visibility is a matter of concern for State law enforcement agencies and Volkswagen is not aware of any State laws that make reference to SAE J587 or that specify the mounting angle of the license plate." However, you acknowledge "that paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of SAE J587 specifying the angle of incidence of the lamp to the plate at a minimum of 8 degrees is part of FMVSS 108 and is intended to assure that the lamp illuminates the license plate." You believe "that a design which meets the 8 degree requirement and in which the plate is mounted so as to be clearly visible to an observer at the rear of the vehicle meets the intent and requirements of State laws and FMVSS 108, even if the angle of the plate itself is 15 degrees from the vertical." We cannot agree with your interpretation. Tables I and III have incorporated SAE J587 in its entirety, and there is no exclusion of paragraph 6.1 in Standard No. 108. To be sure, a plate may continue to be visible when it is mounted more than 15 degrees from the vertical, but the 15 degree limitation of paragraph 6.1 is necessary to ensure its legibility as well. The fact that the States and the Uniform Vehicle Code are silent on the point is legally irrelevant. If a State has a license plate mounting requirement, 49 U.S.C. 30103 requires it to be identical to the Federal requirement. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0789bOpen Mr. Jeffrey Echt Dear Mr. Echt: We have received your letter of March 10, 1995, asking whether it is permissible under Standard No. 108 to use the hazard warning lamps as a deceleration warning system. Paragraph S5.5.10(a) states that "Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash." With this in mind, "and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or vehicles are moving slowly or stopped", you have asked: "1. Would a device which automatically activated a vehicle's hazard warning system at the onset of high, braking induced deceleration and deactivated the hazard warning system upon release of the brake pedal (following automatic activation) be permissible under FMVSS 108? This assumes that the device will not prevent activation or cause deactivation of the hazard warning system if the mandatory vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit has been activated by the driver." Heretofore, the agency's opinion letters on deceleration warning systems have covered those that operate through lamps that are steady burning in use (to Norman H. Dankert on June 3, 1990, and to Bob Abernethy on September 7, 1990), or through original equipment lamps that are additional to those required by the standard (letter of July 30, 1993, to the Commonwealth of Virginia). In those instances, we have advised that a deceleration warning system must be steady burning in use. Your question raises the issue of whether a flashing deceleration warning system is acceptable if it operates through original equipment lamps that are intended to flash when they are used. Flexible asked a similar question with respect to a supplementary lighting system. We advised it (letter of December 8, 1986) that simultaneous use of flashing and steady-burning lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear and impairing the effectivess of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3 (the provision of Standard No. 108 that governs the permissibility of supplemental original lighting equipment). We believe that the same conclusion also applies to wiring the hazard warning system to operate as a high deceleration warning system as well. Thus, we do not view this system as permissible under Standard No. 108. Obviously, complying vehicles are manufactured so that it is possible for a driver to simultaneously activate the hazard warning system and stop lamp system. However, we believe that this happens infrequently, and when it does, it is a conscious choice of the operator and not of a system. Because of the conclusion we have reached above, your second question is moot. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/24/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0797Open Mr. Bill Lieb Dear Mr. Lieb: This is in reply to your letter of February 27, 1995. You report that "a manufacturer of sealed beam automotive head lamps . . . was told by [an adhesive supplier]. . . that D.O.T. 'approval' is required prior to changing the adhesive used on head lamps." Subsequently, you were told by Blane Laubis of this agency "that D.O.T. does not test, approve, or specify any adhesives, but just verifies that the completed unit meets the prescribed standards, and passes the appropriate tests." You ask if this is correct. Mr. Laubis is correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment establishes requirements that must be met by sealed beam headlamps. As you learned in your review, Standard No. 108 contains no specifications for adhesives. This means the manufacturer may choose the adhesive that appears best suited to ensuring that its particular sealed beam headlamp complies with the performance requirements of Standard No. 108. The approval of the agency is not required. The agency frequently buys and tests all types of headlamps as part of its compliance enforcement program. I hope that this letter is sufficient for your purposes. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/10/95
|
1995 |
ID: 08-000151 to Trinity-NobleOpenNovember 10, 2008 Mr. Joseph Brennan President Trinity-Noble LLC 12 Scarlet Oak Drive Doylestown, PA 18901 Dear Mr. Brennan: This responds to your letter asking about the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) in connection with a product you have developed called Celltinel. According to your letter, this device would disrupt cell phone signals while the vehicle engine is running. You stated that it could be used to prevent the use of cell phones during driving by school bus drivers and also by teenage drivers. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that you plan to market the Celltinel both as original equipment for new motor vehicles and as after-market equipment. You also explained that since it would be hard-wired into the motor vehicle, the product is not portable. You asked whether the product would interfere with any motor vehicle safety equipment on board a bus or car. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background information, Congress has authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Your device would be considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. None of our safety standards would apply directly to your product. However, if a device such as the Celltinel was installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSSs. If the device was added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a new or used vehicle are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that your product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. See also 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Non-Compliance Responsibility and Reports. In your letter, you asked whether your product would interfere with any motor vehicle safety equipment on board a bus or car. We are not able to provide analysis in this area, but would encourage you to carefully analyze this issue. We also suggest that you consider the devices effect on the ability to place 911 emergency calls from vehicles, which may be necessary when the engine is running. Finally, I note that because your product would use a weak disruptive signal to jam cell phones, laws enforced by the Federal Communications Commission may apply. I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, [signed by Stephen P. Wood for] Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Matthew Berry, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 ref:VSA d.11/10/08 |
2008 |
ID: 08-000207--04 Jun 08--sa--revisedOpen
Mr. Rolf Bergmann Process Leader Safety Affairs Volkswagen of America, Inc. 3800 Hamlin Road Auburn Hills, MI 48326 Dear Mr. Bergmann: This is in response to your letter, in which you requested an interpretation of the passenger air bag off telltale requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (S19.2.2). Specifically, you seek confirmation of your interpretation that FMVSS No. 208 does not prohibit the addition of a supplementary telltale image adjacent to the automatic suppression system status telltale. As discussed below, we agree with your interpretation that FMVSS No. 208 does not prohibit the symbol #K.05 for passenger air bag off or not available in the International Standard, ISO 2575, Road Vehicles Symbols for Controls, Indicators and Telltales, from being placed adjacent to the textual automatic suppression system telltale required by FMVSS No. 208, S19.2.2. By way of background, on May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule requiring all light passenger vehicles to be equipped with advanced air bag systems. 65 FR 30680. These requirements are codified in FMVSS No. 208. One of the advanced systems contemplated by the passenger side air bag is an automatic suppression system, whereby the air bag is turned off when a small child is present in the front passenger seat. One of the required elements of such a system is a telltale that informs the vehicle occupants that the air bag has been suppressed when the passenger seat is occupied by a person that the suppression system identifies as a child. The requirements for the telltale are specified in paragraph S19.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208. The agencys December 18, 2001 response to various petitions for reconsideration of the final rule made some minor changes to S19.2.2. 66 FR 65376 (Dec. 18, 2001). S19.2.2 requires that each vehicle equipped with an automatic suppression system have at least one telltale that emits a light when the air bag is deactivated and does not emit light when the air bag is activated, except when the passenger seat is not occupied. The telltale must meet requirements further detailed in paragraph S19.2.2. Specifically, S19.2.2(b) requires the specific identifying words PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF or PASS AIR BAG OFF on the telltale or within 25 mm (1.0 in) of the telltale. However, nothing in FMVSS No. 208 prohibits the use of supplemental identifying symbols. Accordingly, NHTSA takes the position that the automatic suppression system telltale requirements of FMVSS No. 208 S19.2.2 do not prohibit the additional identification by the symbol specified by the ISO standard. We observe that while the agency rejected DaimlerChryslers 2000 request in its petition for reconsideration of the May 2000 advanced air bag final rule, that manufacturers be allowed to use a universal symbol representing the status of the air bag rather than specified words, this was because the agency believed it was premature to allow a universal symbol in lieu of the written warning. The agency did not state its position on the use of a universal symbol indicating that the passenger air bag is off in addition to the written warning required by FMVSS No. 208 S19.2.2. See 66 FR 65376, 65400. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:208 d.11/7/08 |
2008 |
ID: aiam3160OpenMr. Edward F. Tannery, Theodore Bargman Company, 129 Industrial Avenue, Coldwater, MI 49036; Mr. Edward F. Tannery Theodore Bargman Company 129 Industrial Avenue Coldwater MI 49036; Dear Mr. Tannery: This responds to your recent letter asking whether doors on aftermarke top covers for American Motors Jeeps would have to comply with Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*.; Safety Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, trucks an multipurpose passenger vehicles, which would include Jeeps. The standard applies only to completed vehicles, however, and not to aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the doors on aftermarket Jeep top covers would not have to have locks. Further, doors on new Jeep vehicles would also not have to comply with the standard if they are 'designed to be easily attached to or removed from' the vehicle, as provided in section S4 of the standard.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any furthe questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4328OpenMr. T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Control Department, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of March 4, 1987, with reference t aiming adjustment of fog lamps. We understand that Stanley is developing a fog lamp and replaceable bulb headlamp with a common lens and housing. Since the portion of the housing also functions as a reflector, the fog lamp moves simultaneously with the headlamp in aiming adjustment. In your view, it will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, and you ask for confirmation that the lamp 'is acceptable in the U.S.A.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 contains no requirement for a fog lamp, and would prohibit it only if it impaired the effectiveness of any other lamp mounted on the front of a vehicle that is required by the standard. Assuming that the fog lamp does not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp, its installation would not crate a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. However, in the absence of a Federal standard on fog lamps, the individual States may establish their own requirement for fog lamps. We are unable to advise you whether this design would be acceptable in each of the 50 States, and other jurisdictions in which the Federal standards must be met, we can only advise you that it does not appear prohibited by Federal law.; The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). 120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20036 may be able to advise you as to state laws relevant to your design.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3117OpenMr. J. B. H. Knight, Chief, Car Safety and Regulations Engineer, Rolls-Royce Motors Limited Car Division, Crewe Cheshire CW1 3PL, ENGLAND; Mr. J. B. H. Knight Chief Car Safety and Regulations Engineer Rolls-Royce Motors Limited Car Division Crewe Cheshire CW1 3PL ENGLAND; Dear Mr. Knight: This is in response to your letter of August 17, 1979, regarding th requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, pertaining to the emergency release warning system for automatic belts.; Paragraph S4.5.3.3(b)(1) of the standard requires an audible an visible warning if the driver's automatic belt system is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened. On one of your automatic belt designs the latch mechanism consists of a pivoting bar which slips through a small stitched loop on the end of the belt webbing. You note that this latch mechanism can be fastened without the webbing being connected to the pivot bar, and that in such a case the warning system would not operate even though the belt is not in use. Therefore, you ask if you can install a switch in the automatic belt retractor to detect when insufficient webbing is extended from the retractor to engage with the latch on the door frame. You ask if such a system could be used as an alternative to the existing requirement or, if the standard could be amended to allow the alternative.; In answer to your question, a switch in the retractor of an automati belt system would not satisfy the current warning system requirement if the system did not also include a switch in the emergency release latch mechanism. Further, the Agency does not believe that it is necessary to amend the standard to allow such an alternative. Although it may be true that the existing warning system could be defeated in a belt system such as you describe, the same is true with most warning system requirements. For example, if the standard provided the alternative you suggest, the automatic belt could be 'tied-off' after sufficient webbing was withdrawn from the retractor and the warning system would be defeated. As you know, this method has been used to defeat the warning systems of many manual belts in the past. Therefore, we believe the existing requirement is sufficient to warn vehicle occupants that their automatic belt has been released and should be reconnected.; The 'pivot-bar' release mechanism described in you letter appears t comply with the requirements of the standard. However, we believe that the bar should remain in the released position after the belt webbing has been removed so that the warning system will activate. In other words, we assume that the pivot bar does not re-latch automatically after being released but, rather, requires manual re-latching by the occupant.; Regarding your third question we have enclosed, for your information Notice 14, Docket No. 1- 18, which establishes the new requirements related to controls and displays.; Sincerely, Ralph J. Hitchcock, Chief, Crashworthiness Division, Offic of Vehicle Safety Standards; |
|
ID: aiam4778OpenMs. Carol Zeitlow Manager, Engineering Services Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566; Ms. Carol Zeitlow Manager Engineering Services Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh WI 54903-2566; Dear Ms. Zeitlow: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1990, t Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You ask for confirmation that 'the hazard warning light should always over-ride the stop lamp' when they are 'together on a vehicle.' I am pleased to provide that confirmation. Under the relevant SAE materials on stop lamps that are incorporated by rference in Standard No. 108, when a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing. Because the hazard warning system operates through the turn signal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use. You have also noted that in your version of Standard No. 108, no reference is made to SAE Standard J1395. It was not until May 15 of this year that Standard No. 108 was amended to incorporate SAE J1395 (with an effective date of December 1, 1990). I enclose a copy of that amendment for your information. If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1080OpenMr. T. Hiramine, Director, Takata Kojyo Co., Ltd., No. 10 Mori Building, 28 Sakuragawa-Cho, Nishikubo, Shiba, Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan; Mr. T. Hiramine Director Takata Kojyo Co. Ltd. No. 10 Mori Building 28 Sakuragawa-Cho Nishikubo Shiba Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan; Dear Mr. Hiramine: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1973, to Mr. Franci Armstrong, requesting various interpretations of Standards No. 208 and No. 209, with respect to safety belt systems.; Your first question, referenced to Figure No. 1 of the enclosure wit your letter, relates to the required strength of the webbing in the case where two widths are connected together in an upper torso assembly. Under the webbing strength requirements of S4.2(b) of Standard No. 209, both pieces of webbing in the upper torso restraint must, individually, meet a 4,000 pound strength test. Under the assembly performance requirements of S5.3(b) of Standard NO. 209, a common pelvic and upper torso restraint must meet a 3,000 pound strength test. The latter would be true regardless of whether sewing or other means is used to make the belt assembly.; Your second question, referenced to Figure 2 of the enclosure, relate to the bolt strength required in the belt assembly anchorage. Under the provisions of S4.1(f), 'equivalent hardware' is permissible in lieu of the 7/16 inch bolts. In such a case, the tests required under S4.3(c), as prescribed under S5.2(c), would be performed on the entire equivalent hardware, rather than on the individual components (bolts).; With respect to your third question, concerning the acceptability o belts that do not conform to the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209, our reply is that under the present circumstances such webbing would not conform to either Standard No. 208 or Standard No. 209. As a result of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in *Ford* v. *NHTSA*, belts installed under Standard No. 208's third option in 1973 (S4.1.2.3) will have to conform to Standard No. 209. Unless Standard No. 209 is amended with respect to its elongation requirements, therefore, energy absorbing webbing of the type you describe will not be permitted in 1974 cars,; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
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.