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: aiam3819OpenMs. Margaret Moore Oba, Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc., 200 Park Avenue, Suite 4114-12, New York, New York 10166; Ms. Margaret Moore Oba Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc. 200 Park Avenue Suite 4114-12 New York New York 10166; Dear Ms. Oba: This responds to your March 12, 1984 letter regarding the applicabilit of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to motor vehicles imported into Guam.; Under Sections 102(8), 102(9), and 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391(8), 1391(9), and 1397(a)(1)(A), motor vehicles introduced into commerce in Guam are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In general, the standards apply to the same extent to vehicles imported into Guam as to those imported into the continental U.S. However, as you note in you letter, FMVSS 103 (windshield defrosting and defogging systems) does not apply outside the continental U.S., as specified in section 3 of that standard. See 49 CFR 571.103. Other standards, such as FMVSS 124, which do not limit their applicability to specific geographic areas, apply fully in Guam. Therefore, vehicles imported into Guam must have an accelerator control system which returns the throttle to idle over a temperature range of -40 degrees F. to +125 degrees F.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5534Open9; 9; "Mr. Lance Tunick Vehicle Science Corporation P.O. Box 1015 Golden, C 80402-1015 Dear Mr. Tunick: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1995, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, you are concerned with the meaning of the words 'outer lens surface' that appear in SAE Standard J586 Stop Lamps for use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width FEB84, an SAE standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. These words appear as part of the visibility specifications under the installation requirements. You point out that 'outer lens surface' as not been defined either by the SAE or by NHTSA. You believe that the phrase within the context of SAE J586 can mean 'light emitting surface' as defined in SAE J387, and ask for confirmation. According to Standard No. 108 (SAE J586), 'to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface of at least 12.5 square centimeters measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' SAE Information Report J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting OCT88 defines 'light emitting surface' as 'all or part of the exterior surface of the transparent or translucent lens that encloses the lighting or light signalling device and allows conformance with photometric and calorimetric requirements.' We believe that it would be appropriate to substitute the definition of 'light emitting surface' for 'outer lens surface' in SAE J586. The 'outer lens surface' of J586 appears to mean the same as 'the exterior surface of the transparent or translucent lens' of J387. Thus, stop lamp visibility conformance would require an unobstructed view of the light emitting surface of at least 12.5 square centimeters. As always, Taylor will be happy to answer any further questions you may have on this matter (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1577OpenMr. David E. Martin, Manager, Automotive Safety Engineering, E- nvironmental Activities Staff, General Motors Technical Center, War- ren, Michigan 48090; Mr. David E. Martin Manager Automotive Safety Engineering E- nvironmental Activities Staff General Motors Technical Center War- ren Michigan 48090; Dear Mr. Martin: We confirm your interpretation of S5.3.2 of Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 105-75, expressed in your letter of August 2, 1974, to Dr Gregory, that the engine 'start' position may be used as a check position for indicator lamp function.; The phrase in S5.3.2 'when the ignition (start) switch is in a positio between 'on' ('run') and 'start'' is intended to include both 'on' and 'start' as well as any position between.; Application of the parking brake as an indicator check will no longe be permitted for vehicles manufactured after the effective date of Standard 105-75.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4775OpenMr. Jeff Cornell Engineering The Bargman Company 129 Industrial Avenue Coldwater, MI 49036; Mr. Jeff Cornell Engineering The Bargman Company 129 Industrial Avenue Coldwater MI 49036; Dear Mr. Cornell: This is in reply to your letter of July 25, l990, t Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for clarification of the amendments to Standard No. 108 which were published on May l5 of this year. With reference to section S5.1.1.31, requiring photometric measurement of the entire lamp (and not its individual compartments), you have asked whether this includes the maximums because the preamble to the final rule discussed the requirement only in terms of the minimums. Section S5.1.1.31 refers unqualifiedly to 'measurements' of photometrics, and thus includes maximums as well as minimums. The preamble spoke of minimums only as an example, and was not intended to exclude maximums. I am sorry if this caused some confusion. You have also pointed out that the preamble refers to a minimum luminous lens area of 12 square inches for certain lamps, while the applicable SAE standards that Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference state the minimum as 75 square centimeters, which is only 11.625 square inches. You request a clarification of this point. The appropriate value is 75 square centimeters (11.625 square inches). As a general rule of construction, the text of a standard constitutes the legal requirements which apply. When a value is clearly stated, as in the SAE materials, it takes precedence over an inconsistent value appearing outside the standard, such as in the preamble to the May l5 amendments. The earlier versions of the SAE standards (which the new SAE materials supersede for new motor vehicle equipment) spoke in terms of 12 square inches, and the agency retained this non-metric terminology for purposes of discussing in the preamble the difference between the old and new requirements. Although the SAE could have adopted a value of 77.42 square centimeters (12 square inches) in its new materials, it chose to round the value off to 75 square centimeters, thereby reducing its previously specified minimum luminous lens area by .375 square inch. With respect to another concern, you have presented the hypothetical of the use 'in a molded bumper or fiberglass cap' of three identical single compartment stop lamps per side, none of whose individual luminous lens areas meets the 75 square centimeter requirement, but which, in combination, would exceed it. You have asked whether this would comply with the new requirements. Our answer is no. On May l5, Standard No. 108 was also amended to add a definition for 'Multiple lamp arrangement.'(S3). This is 'an array of two or more separate lamps on each side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signal.' Paragraph 5.3.2 of the newly-incorporated SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 for stop lamps on wide vehicles states in pertinent part that 'The functional lighted lens area of a single lamp . . . and each lamp of a multiple lamp arrangement shall be at least 75 square centimeters.' The configuration you describe is a 'multiple lamp arrangement' and each lamp in the array is subject to the minimum specified requirement. You further ask, if 'the vendor making these lights mounts the individual lights in a molded housing', whether this would create a 'multiple compartment lamp', and if so, 'then how is it different if it is installed into a molded bumper or fiberglass cap.' The definition of 'Multiple compartment lamp' adopted on May 15 states that it is 'a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens.' Multiple lamps cannot be combined to create a 'multiple compartment lamp'. If the individual lamps are mounted in a molded housing, they remain 'an array of two or more separate lamps on the same side of the vehicle which operate together to give a signal', that is to say, a 'multiple lamp arrangement.' The 'lighted areas' of a 'multiple compartment lamp' are something less than a complete lamp, but, when joined by common parts become a single lamp. The configuration you describe is not a 'multiple compartment lamp.' If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1127OpenMorris Poole Auto Sales, U.S. 90 East, Live Oak, FL; Morris Poole Auto Sales U.S. 90 East Live Oak FL; Gentlemen: This is in response to your request for a statement of your odomete disclosure obligations under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Public Law 92- 513.; Under the Act, all transferors must make a 'mileage statement' to th transferee. 'Transferor' means any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest. This includes a dealer transfering (sic) a new or used vehicle. The only exceptions to the requirement are for vehicles over 16,000 pounds gross weight rating, non-self-propelled vehicles, vehicles 25 years old or older, and new vehicles sold by a dealer to another dealer for resale.; The statement must contain (1) the odometer reading, (2) date o transfer, (3) transferor's name and current address, (4) vehicle identification or serial number, make, model, year, body-type, last plate number, (5) a statement that actual mileage differs from recorded mileage if such is the case and the transferor knows it, and (6) reference to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act with the statement that incorrect information may result in civil liability under it. An example of an adequate statement and format is enclosed for your information.; The federal government does not print these forms but severa commercial printers have prepared Federal disclosure forms for the convenience of dealers. Alternatively, the statement may be included in the bill of sale, or other transfer document. In any case, it must be completed and signed prior to the transfer. Either the original or carbon copy may go to the transferee. It may be advisable to include a second disclosure statement in your form to provide for the odometer disclosure by the buyer on his trade-in vehicle.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4325OpenMr. R. de Langen, P. O. Box 41028, Craighall, 2024, Republic of South Africa; Mr. R. de Langen P. O. Box 41028 Craighall 2024 Republic of South Africa; Dear Mr. de Langen: This replies to your letter to Wayne Vance of this Department. You hav asked for advice 'on how the existing standards and legislation regarding the color of motor vehicle lights can be amended', as you have developed a new accident reduction device. I regret the delay in this response.; In the United States, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, establishes requirements for lighting devices that required as original equipment on motor vehicles, and for those that are intended to replace them. These are basic lighting equipment items such as headlamps, taillamps, and the new center high-mounted stop lamp, to name only a few. The standard does not cover certain types of lamps that are usually provided as optional equipment (e.g., fog lamps) because there is no demonstrated need for them on a universal basis in the United States. If you wish to have your device considered as a mandatory item of motor vehicle equipment, or if you which to change the color of a required lighting item, you may petition the agency for rulemaking to change Standard No. 108. I enclose(sic) a copy of our regulation on petition procedures, 49 CFR Part 552.; Since your letter does not describe your device in any detail, I canno say how the current standard would apply to it. If your particular device is not expressly covered by the standard and if you wish to offer your device as an optional item that a manufacturer could install as original equipment, then your device is subject only to the general requirement in paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard that the installation of the device on a new vehicle not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. Regardless of whether your device is subject to any specific requirements in the standard, its installation on a new or used vehicle must not render inoperative in whole or in part any lighting item installed as original equipment under the standard. S108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Further, if you wish to offer the device in the aftermarket and available for both new and used vehicles, it will be subject to the laws of the individual States in which it will be sold and used.; These are the general rule that apply to the situation you outlined i your letter. We would be pleased to answer any further specific questions you may have.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4630OpenMr. Victor Crisci 70 Lenox Road Wayne, NJ 07470; Mr. Victor Crisci 70 Lenox Road Wayne NJ 07470; "Dear Mr. Crisci: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, l989, t the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Erika Jones. You intend to install a 'safety light flasher' on your motorcycle, and would like to know whether it would conflict with DOT regulations. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles in use, such as your motorcycle. Further, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit you, as the motorcycle's owner, from personally modifying your vehicle as you see fit, even if doing so adversely affects equipment or safety features installed pursuant to a Federal safety standard. (The Act does prohibit motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from making such modifications if they render inoperative, wholly or partially, equipment or safety features installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard). However, modifications by an owner to his or her vehicle are subject to regulation under State and local laws applicable to vehicles in use on their roadways. We are unable to advise you whether New Jersey law specifically covers the addition of the safety light flasher. However, under the Vehicle Safety Act, any laws enacted by a state regarding motor vehicle lighting must be identical to Federal standards covering the same aspects of vehicle lighting performance. The applicable Federal regulation, as you realize, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, a copy of which is enclosed as you requested. As you describe the operation of the flasher, if the headlamp is on (in either beam), the flasher will flash the headlamp between upper and lower beams for 2 to 4 seconds, then returns the light to the beam it was in when the flasher was activated. If the headlamp is off, the flasher will turn it on and initiate an identical flash cycle. The sequence is initiated by pushing the horn button. Standard No. 108 would appear to preclude the installation of your device on new motorcycle, i.e., prior to its first sale to a consumer, or on a used motorcycle, if installed by one of the four entities listed above in the second paragraph. Although paragraph S5.5.10(c) of the standard provides that 'headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes', that section does not apply to motorcycles since they are not equipped with side marker lamps. The applicable provision for motorcycles is paragraph S5.5.10(d). This states that ' a motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity'. Your system, on the other hand, flashes between beams, which is not permissible. Moreover, motorcycle headlamp modulating systems must also comply with the requirements of paragraph S5.6, and there is no indication that your system would do so. Thus, the answer to your question is that your system would conflict with the Federal regulation applicable to motorcycle lighting if installed under the circumstances described in the preceding paragraph. However, there is nothing under Federal law that prohibits you personally from installing the device on your motorcycle. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1432OpenMr. Grayson Conway, Maruka Machinery Corp. of America, 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017; Mr. Grayson Conway Maruka Machinery Corp. of America 420 Lexington Avenue New York NY 10017; Dear Mr. Conway: This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1974, requestin information concerning three-wheel and light duty four-wheel vehicles.; As of January 1, 1974, motor vehicles of 1,000 pounds or less cur weight, other than trailers and motorcycles, became subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Currently, motorcycles are motor vehicles with motive power having seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. Any three-wheel vehicles that conform to this definition must meet all standards applicable to motorcycles. Those three-wheel vehicles that differ in some respect from the definition, must satisfy the requirements of either passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle standards, depending upon which are appropriate.; On November 27, 1973, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration amended 49 CFR 571.3(b), Definitions, of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, by revising the definition of 'motorcycle' (Notice enclosed). Petitions have been received in response to the final rule and are receiving careful consideration as the agency contemplates a possible further revision of the definition.; With regard to lightweight four-wheel vehicles, as of January 1, 1974 they must comply with all standards applicable to their vehicle type. There is no special category for lightweight four-wheel vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4260OpenWanda Wahus, Oregon Independent Auto Dealers Association, 2542 19th Street, S.E., Salem, OR 97302; Wanda Wahus Oregon Independent Auto Dealers Association 2542 19th Street S.E. Salem OR 97302; Dear Ms. Wahus: This is in response to your letter of September 16, 1986, to Laurett Carlson in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regional office in Seattle, Washington. You asked for the Agency's position concerning automobile dealers who, when issuing an odometer disclosure statement, certify that the mileage is unknown in order to protect themselves against the possibility of future evidence of rollbacks.; Congress found that purchasers rely on mileage as an indicator of th value and condition of vehicles and enacted Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S1981 *et seq*. Section 1988(a) of the Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules requiring any transferor to give a written disclosure (1) of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer or (2) that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is know to the transferor to be different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled. To carry out this mandate, Federal regulation 49 C.F.R. Part 580 was promulgated. Furthermore, Section 1988(a) states that no transferor shall violate any rule prescribed under the section or give a false statement to a transferee in making any disclosure required by such rule.; A Senate report interprets Section 1988 as placing duty on auto dealer to alert purchasers of irregularities in odometers when, in the exercise of reasonable care, they would have reason to know the odometer reading is inaccurate. S. Rep. No. 92-413, (92nd Cong., 2nd Sess.), 1972 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3971- 3972. If a purchaser receives an odometer statement in which his transferor certified that the odometer reading does not reflect the actual mileage and should not be relied upon, that purchaser, when selling the vehicle, should certify the same. However, if a purchaser receives an odometer statement in which his transferor certified that to the best of his knowledge the odometer reading reflects the actual mileage the vehicle has been driven, and he has no reasonable suspicion that the reading is inaccurate, when selling the vehicle, he should not certify that the reading is inaccurate. If transferors certify the reading as inaccurate in the latter situation, it is the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that they violate the regulations prescribed under Section 1988, 49 C.F.R. S580.4.; The Federal regulations provide for the inclusion of two sets o certifications on odometer disclosure statements. If the dealers truly wish to insulate themselves from liability when they have a reasonable suspicion that the mileage on the odometer has been altered, they *should* certify that the reading is not accurate, and check the third statement in the first set of certifications. However, none of the three statements in the second set covers a situation where a transferor suspects that an odometer reading is inaccurate, but the odometer was not altered, set back or disconnected in his possession. The Agency allows a transferor to check the first statement and cross out the lines which read, 'and I have no knowledge of anyone else doing so' provided that though crossed out it can still be read. Alternatively, we have no objection to a transferor writing and checking a fourth statement which would read:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer of said vehicle was not altered set back, or disconnected while in my possession.; << |
|
ID: aiam1598OpenMr. J. A. Brown, Manager - Engineering Res. & Dev., Dexter Axle Company, Inc., P. O. Box 250, 2030 South Main St., Elkhart, Indiana 46514; Mr. J. A. Brown Manager - Engineering Res. & Dev. Dexter Axle Company Inc. P. O. Box 250 2030 South Main St. Elkhart Indiana 46514; Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your August 19, 1974, request to be advised of th steps necessary to acquire a manufacturer code number as required by Standards No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars*, and No. 120, *Tire selection ad rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars*.; Standard No. 119 applies to tires only and its is the responsibility o the tire manufacturer to obtain a code number and label it on his products. As a user of tires, you do not have obligations under this standard.; Standard No. 120 is a proposal which applies to rim construction an the selection of the correct rim for the vehicle it equips. As a manufacturer of rims you would have a responsibility to label your products if this proposal becomes an effective regulation. However, we noted in the preamble to that proposal (copy enclosed) that we will not require manufacturer codes until a separate manufacturer code system has been established.; I am also enclosing a copy of the most recent proposal on manufacture codes.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting 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.