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: aiam4753OpenMr. Brad G. Magor 6282 Young Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3L-1ZB Canada; Mr. Brad G. Magor 6282 Young Street Halifax Nova Scotia B3L-1ZB Canada; "Dear Mr. Magor: This is in reply to your letter of May 1, l990, to th Department of Transportation with respect to your intended purchase of a Canadian truck or van which you will eventually import into the United States. You asked for information on the features required to meet the U.S. safety standards, and whether Canadian vehicles generally have these items. There is a great similarity, but not identicality, between the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS), and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Manufacturers in both countries are required to affix a label to their vehicles certifying compliance with all applicable safety standards. We understand that some Canadian manufacturers may have certified compliance of their vehicles with both the CMVSS and the FMVSS. If dual certification has occurred, it will be evident from reading the certification label on the vehicle (usually located in the driver door post area). If the vehicle bears a certification of compliance that includes the FMVSS, you should encounter no problems in importing, registering, and selling it in the United States. However, if the vehicle is certified only to the CMVSS, you will encounter some difficulty in importing it, notwithstanding the substantial similarity of the CMVSS and FMVSS. By direction of Congress, a vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the FMVSS may not be admitted into the U.S. unless two things have occurred. The vehicle must be on a list of vehicles that the Department has approved for conversion to the FMVSS. If this has occurred, then the vehicle can only be imported by a 'registered importer' (i.e. converter), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to perform the conversion work. A bond equal to l50% of the entered value of the vehicle must be given to secure performance of the conversion work, which is cancelled upon satisfactory evidence that the work has been performed. The new directives of Congress were only effective on January 31, l990, and we are still working to implement them. We have tentatively proposed an approved general list of vehicles that would include all Canadian trucks and vans manufactured since January 1, l968, that were certified as meeting the CMVSS, and which are of the same make, model, and model year of any truck or van originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, or originally manufactured in the United States, and that were certified as meeting the FMVSS. For example, a l990 Chevrolet truck manufactured in Canada to the CMVSS with a U.S. manufactured and certified counterpart would be covered by this general list. We have received no objections to treating Canadian vehicles in this fashion. A final determination should be published in the near future. We have also accorded registered importer status to a number of applicants. If you choose to buy a vehicle certified to the CMVSS for importation into the United States, we will be pleased to provide the latest list of registered importers as the time draws near for your departure. The minor differences in the standards that may effect you are principally those regarding speedometer/odometers and lighting. The former must indicate miles and miles per hour (and may indicate kilometers and kilometers per hour). Vehicles must be equipped with headlamps that meet the FMVSS and not those of the ECE. Thus, once a CMVSS-certified vehicle is imported, we do not anticipate that the conversion work should be lengthy or costly. Once the work has been satisfactorily performed and the converter's label attached, you should encounter no difficulties in registering the vehicle or in selling it. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1551OpenMr. Jack F. Bryson, Manager, Marketing & Industrial Relations, Elgin Sweeper Company, 1300 West Bartlett Road, Elgin, IL 60120; Mr. Jack F. Bryson Manager Marketing & Industrial Relations Elgin Sweeper Company 1300 West Bartlett Road Elgin IL 60120; Dear Mr. Bryson: This is in reply to your letter of June 7, 1974, asking whether NHTS Certification requirements (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) apply to the mounting of a device called the Elgin Eductor on a used truck.; The NHTSA does not consider the Certification requirements to apply t the mounting of a new truck body (based on the information you provide, this includes the Elgin eductor) on a used truck chassis. We consider additions to used chassis to be used vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and no certification is therefore required.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4303OpenProf. P. Soardo, Istituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale, Galileo Ferraris, Strada delle Cacce, 91, 10135 Torino Italy; Prof. P. Soardo Istituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale Galileo Ferraris Strada delle Cacce 91 10135 Torino Italy; Dear Prof. Soardo: This is in reply to your letter of January 16, 1987, to the agency wit reference to the 'homologation in the U.S.A. of a headlamp - optically combined - capable of performing the function of auxiliary driving lamp or as an alternative to the function of the front fog lamp.' You have told us that the device is intended principally for the aftermarket and will use a two- filament H4 bulb, the main filament providing the 'driving beam,' and the secondary filament performing 'the 'fog' function.' When it is mounted on the vehicle it will 'meet the specific aiming requirements contained in the relevant SAE standard, for both light beams.'; As you may know, there are two types of laws in the United States tha pertain to motor vehicle lighting equipment, the laws of the United States government ('Federal' law), and those of the 50 individual States ('Local' law). One of these laws is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.* Standard No. 108 specifies requirements for original equipment, and, as a general rule, only aftermarket equipment that is intended to replace original equipment. There are no original equipment requirements in Standard No. 108 for a combination driving-fog lamp such as you discuss, and hence there are no Federal aftermarket requirements for it either. Provided that this lamp does not impair the effectiveness of required front lamps, Standard No. 108 allows a vehicle manufacturer to install the driving-fog lamp as original equipment. Because Standard No. 108 does not allow use of the H4 bulb in headlamps for four-wheeled vehicles, it could not serve as a headlamp. There are no Federal restrictions preventing the sale of this device in the aftermarket as a supplementary lamp.; However, the lamp would be subject to local law, and some of the State may require approval of it before it is offered for sale. The approval of one State does not signify approval by another, so there would not be 'homologation' permitting sale in all States based upon approval by only one State. Even if a Local law does not require approval of a driving-fog lamp, it may forbid its use. We are unable to advise you on Local laws but you may wish to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrator for an opinion. The address of this organization is 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1101OpenLouis A. Sisler, Esq., General Counsel, ADC Marketing, Inc., 4410 Executive West, Fort Wayne, IN 46808; Louis A. Sisler Esq. General Counsel ADC Marketing Inc. 4410 Executive West Fort Wayne IN 46808; Dear Mr. Sisler: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1973, to Mr. Schneide asking for a clarification that the Front Brake Light Adapter you describe 'does not fall within the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.' The adapter, as we understand it, connects the stop lamps with the front turn signal lamps so that when the brakes are applied, the front turn signal lamps are activated in a steady-burning state, indicating that the vehicle is decelerating or has come to a halt.; In our opinion, use of the adapter as original equipment on a vehicl might be precluded by paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibiting devices that impair the effectiveness of the equipment required by the standard. The front turn signal lamp is a lamp that flashes in operation to indicate to oncoming drivers, or pedestrians, that the vehicle is preparing to turn, or that a potential hazard exists ahead (when the system is activated as a hazard warning system). Accordingly, when the brake pedal is applied, if the adapter overrides the flashing effect of the front signal lamps it would impair their effectiveness, and be prohibited by Standard No. 108.; The adapter would be permissible as original equipment, however provided that the signals still flash when the brakes are applied, but a State would not be preempted from regulating it. Nothing in the standard precludes aftermarket sale of the adapter, but its use also would be subject to regulation by the individual States.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5142OpenMr. Milford R. Bennett Acting Director Automotive Safety Engineering GM Environmental and Energy Staff Box 9055 Warren, MI 48090-9055; Mr. Milford R. Bennett Acting Director Automotive Safety Engineering GM Environmental and Energy Staff Box 9055 Warren MI 48090-9055; "Dear Mr. Bennett: We have received the petition by General Motors (GM for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures. First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until 'resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . .' We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV. We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be 'slightly below' the minimum requirements 'at a few test points'. Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points? Similarly, GM has argued that 'preliminary testing has indicated that' the GMEV will 'substantially comply' with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide '. . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . .' Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition. Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that 'the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles.' The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above. When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3279OpenMr. Hisakazu Murakami, Technical Representative, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., P.O. Box 57105, Washington, DC 20037; Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 57105 Washington DC 20037; Dear Mr. Murakami: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning folding jump seats you intend to install in some future van models that your company manufactures. You ask whether the seats would qualify as 'designated seating positions', for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term 'designated seating position' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:; >>>any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least a large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, *except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats* . . . . (emphasis added).; << |
|
ID: aiam1244OpenMr. Keitaro Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Toyota Motors Sales U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1973, concerning Toyota' use of a clip to prevent the shoulder belt from rubbing the occupant's neck. Your questions are (1) whether a clip of this type is permitted by Standard No. 208 and (2) whether the clip would be considered a part of the anchorage under Standard No. 210.; Your description of the clip indicates that it does not restrict th free travel of the webbing. The clip would therefore not inhibit the ability of the belt to adjust automatically to fit the occupant, as required by S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. It is our opinion that such a clip is permitted by Standard No. 208.; We have also concluded that a plastic guide clip designed so as not t affect the basic geometry of the belt during a crash is not a seat belt anchorage for purposes of Standard No. 210. The clip you describe would therefore not be required to meet the strength of location requirements of that Standard.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3783OpenMr. William R. Fink, President, Isis Imports, Ltd., P.O. Box 2290, US Custom House, San Francisco, CA 94126; Mr. William R. Fink President Isis Imports Ltd. P.O. Box 2290 US Custom House San Francisco CA 94126; CERTIFIED MAIL--RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dear Mr. Fink: This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1983 requestin confidential treatment for information which was submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with statements of compliance and which pertained to vehicles imported by Isis Imports, Ltd. into the United States. In telephone conversations with Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, you indicated that you had no object to the release of HS Forms 189. You requested, however, that submitted drawings, diagrams, specifications and photographs showing the methods and extent of modifications made to Morgan vehicles be treated confidentially by this agency. After carefully reviewing the submitted materials and your justifications I have decided to grant your request in part and deny it in part.; All submitted materials will be afforded confidential treatment wit the exception of the photographs. NHTSA does not believe that their release will cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. In order to determine whether release of information will cause such harm, courts consider 'how valuable the information will be to the requesting competitors and how much this gain will damage the submitter.' *Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle*, 662 F. 2d 45, 51 (D.C. Cir. 1981).; You indicate that a presumption has been established by 49 CFR Part 51 with respect to blueprints and engineering drawings containing process of production data where the subject could not be manufactured without the blueprints or engineering drawings except after significant reverse engineering. This case determination, however, pertains only to blueprints and engineering drawings, it cannot be interpreted to apply to photographs. Additionally, release of the photographs will not be very valuable to the requesting competitor, and will therefore not cause substantial harm to Isis Imports. Since accompanying diagrams, text and other information will remain confidential, significant reverse engineering will still be required to determine the methods and extent of modifications necessary to bring Morgan vehicles into compliance with Federal standards.; If you wish to submit additional justification explaining why Isis i entitled to confidential treatment for the photographs you must do so within 10 days of your receipt of this letter. At the end of that period, they will be made publicly available. I will notify appropriate agency personnel of this decision, and they will treat your submissions accordingly.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4046OpenMr. Rolf Seiferheld, Service & Technical, Bitter Automobile of America, Inc., 401 Willowbrook Lane, West Chester, PA 19380; Mr. Rolf Seiferheld Service & Technical Bitter Automobile of America Inc. 401 Willowbrook Lane West Chester PA 19380; Dear Mr. Seiferheld: This responds to your letter asking about 49 CFR Part 581, *Bumpe Standard*. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are considering integrating fog-taillight assemblies in the rear bumper of a car and asked about relevant requirements. You noted in your letter that section S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) states that '(n)o additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.' You stated that this paragraph seems to be relevant but that it is unclear to you.; Both Part 581, *Bumper Standard*, and Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamp Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, are relevant to the location of fog-taillamp assemblies in the rear bumper. Fog lamps are lighting devices that are not covered by Standard No. 108. Therefore two questions must be asked: are they permissible, and if so, may they be combined with items of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Under section S4.1.3, quoted above, fog lamps are permissible provided that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. In this instance, the question cannot be answered without reference to whether its combination with the taillamp is permitted, for from the photo and drawing submitted, both appear combined in a single housing incorporating, we assume, one filament for each function. Both lamps are 'position lamps', indicating the present of the vehicle in the roadway ahead to a driver who is following behind. The fog lamp is intended to be activated under extreme conditions of reduced visibility, and hence, would appear to increase the effectiveness of the taillamp rather than impair it. Section S4.4 of Standard No. 108 prohibits combining taillamps only with clearance lamps (not required lighting equipment for passenger cars), and thus combining the taillamp and fog lamp functions are permissible. Section S4.3.1.1 of the standard specifies, among other things, that no part of the vehicle may prevent a taillamp from meeting its photometric output at specified test points. Further, a taillamp located in the bumper must also meet the visibility requirements of SAE Standard J585e *Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps)*, September 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of J585e taillamps must be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right, to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface (excluding reflex), not less than 2 square inches measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.; Finally, Part 581 *Bumper Standard* specifies requirements for th impact resistance of vehicles in low speed front and rear collisions. Vehicles must be capable of meeting certain damage criteria, following specified test impacts. Among other things, lamps must be free of cracks and comply with applicable visibility requirements of section S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 following the impacts.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2891OpenMr. John B. Van de North, Jr., Briggs and Morgan, 2200 First National Bank Building, Saint Paul, MN 55101; Mr. John B. Van de North Jr. Briggs and Morgan 2200 First National Bank Building Saint Paul MN 55101; Dear Mr. Van de North: This responds to your October 9, 1978, letter asking several question concerning the modification and use of vans as school buses.; First, you ask whether your client may purchase a van that transport fewer than 10 passengers, and add passenger seating to it without complying with the school bus safety standards. The answer to your question is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates the manufacture of motor vehicles. Further, the agency prohibits manufacturers, dealers, repair businesses or distributors from subsequently rendering inoperative compliance of a motor vehicle with the safety standards. However, the agency does not regulate modifications made by vehicle owners on their own vehicles.; Second, you ask whether buses manufactured after April 1, 1977, whic were purchased to transport handicapped adults or other adults can subsequently be used to transport children to and from school even though the buses do not comply with the requirements. The answer to this question is the same as the answer to your first question. The agency regulates only the manufacture and initial sale of these vehicles and does not control the use of used vehicles.; Finally, you ask whether your client may purchase a 15 passenge vehicle and subsequently modify it in such a manner that it carries fewer than 10 passengers without complying with the school bus safety standards. Since the school bus safety standards apply only to vehicles carrying 10 or more passengers, a vehicle carrying fewer than 10 passengers is not required to comply with the requirements.; Although the Federal government's regulations do not prohibit th modifications that you propose in your letter, there are several other considerations of which your client should be made aware.; First, although your modifications do not fall within our authority, i the case of your first and second questions the vehicles may fall within a State's definition of school bus and should comply with the school bus safety standards. Some States will not permit the registration of vehicles for school bus use if those vehicles should comply with the safety standards and do not.; Therefore, you should check the appropriate State office to ensure tha the vehicles you intend to modify can be used under existing State law. Second, there is a potential for increased private tort liability for accidents occurring in vehicles that should comply with safety standards but do not.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.