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: aiam5069OpenMr. James A. Westphal Oshkosh Chassis Division Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2508 Oshkosh, WI 54903; Mr. James A. Westphal Oshkosh Chassis Division Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2508 Oshkosh WI 54903; Dear Mr. Westphal: This letter responds to your inquiry about whic Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would be applicable to certain incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab) that you manufacture for motor homes. You anticipate that the motor homes will have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds but less than 26,000 pounds. Your letter indicated that Oshkosh plans to install brake systems in the two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disc brakes at each wheel. You stated that this system is commonly known as 'air-over-hydraulic.' The following is in response to your four specific questions: 1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121 applicable to trucks? The answer to question number one is yes. The agency classifies air-over- hydraulic brake systems as air brake systems. Accordingly, vehicles equipped with air-over-hydraulic brake systems are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121. I am enclosing a July 20, 1984 interpretation letter to Ms. Margaret Moore Oba which discusses this issue at length. 2. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles? The answer to question number two is no. Standard No. 105 only applies to vehicles with hydraulic brake systems. Since your system is air-over- hydraulic, it is considered to be an air brake system and not a hydraulic brake system. 3. If Standard No. 121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disc brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system-- dynamometer tests? The answer to question number three is yes. The requirements of S5.4 are among the requirements specified in Standard No. 121 for each vehicle equipped with air brakes. 4. If compliance to parts of both Standards 121 and 105 is required, must the system meet the requirements of the following sections in Standard No. 105: S5.1.2 Partial Failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp. As indicated above, air-over hydraulic brake systems are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 105. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam1883OpenMr. K. Nakajima, Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street, West, Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst New Jersey 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: This responds to Toyota's March 25, 1975, request for confirmation tha the top surface of a 'console' (a box-like unit mounted between the front bucket seats of your passenger cars) is not considered to be an armrest for purposes of the requirements of Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*.; Your interpretation is correct. As described in your letter, th console top would not be an 'armrest' to which the requirements of Standard No. 201 apply.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5593OpenThomas A. Placey, Esq. Senior Assistant District Attorney Office of the District Attorney Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013; Thomas A. Placey Esq. Senior Assistant District Attorney Office of the District Attorney Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle PA 17013; "Dear Mr. Placey: This responds to your letter of July 20, 1995. Yo present the fact situation of the theft in Canada of a Canadian-owned GMC Jimmy which was then imported into the United States and delivered to a conspirator in Pennsylvania. The conspirator altered the VIN and sold the Jimmy which was eventually seized by the Pennsylvania State Police. The Jimmy's buyer wants the vehicle back and has filed with the local state court for its return. You write 'The issue, on the federal level, is can this vehicle ever be properly registered in the United States. What are the specific federal laws or regulations that govern such situations.' We cannot answer the question whether this vehicle can be properly registered in the United States, because there are no Federal requirements that apply to the registration of privately owned vehicles. Each State establishes its own requirements. For an overview of State laws on vehicle registration, we suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. There are two Federal laws which we administer that are relevant to the situation you present. Missing from your scenario is the fact whether the Jimmy was manufactured in the United States in compliance with the U. S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the answer is yes, then its importation by any person does not violate the Federal statutes under which we operate. If it was not manufactured to conform, we note that the importation of a nonconforming vehicle is an act forbidden by 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for which a civil penalty may be imposed under 49 U.S.C. 30165. The statute does not provide the right to seize a nonconforming vehicle. Furthermore, the statute does not forbid the sale of a used nonconforming imported vehicle. There may be a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122 because of the defacing of the VIN. Under this section, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The VIN was installed in accordance with 49 CFR 571.115 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 115 Vehicle Identification Number. We view the alteration of the VIN as a violation of this section, if the conspirator who altered it was a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as those terms are described in the statute. Violators of this section are also subject to a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 30165. We are unable to advise you on the laws or regulations administered by other Federal agencies. For example, we cannot advise you whether the U.S. has entered into any treaties or other agreements with Canada concerning the treatment of property that is stolen from that country. You may write for an opinion to the United States Department of State, Office of Foreign Mission, 3507 International Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008. If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will be able to help you with them (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2256OpenHonorable Marvin L. Esch, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Marvin L. Esch House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Esch: The Secretary of Transportation has asked me to respond to your Marc 16, 1976, request for all information submitted to him since December 31, 1975, concerning the safety and economic feasibility of air cushion restraint systems or, in the alternative, the specific basis for withholding particular documents. We interpret your request to include documents submitted to the Office of the Secretary or to the public docket on passive restraints.; All materials concerning the safety and economic feasibility of ai cushion systems that have been placed in the public docket are enclosed. These documents include all material on air cushion systems provided to the Asistant (sic) Secretary for Systems Development and Technology and to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Consumer Affairs during their recent visits to General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation. Films submitted to the docket that support this material are available for viewing at your request.; The NHTSA has provided material to the Office of the Secretary tha discusses the value of requiring passive restraints in motor vehicles. All of this material consists of intro-agency memoranda that contain the opinions of agency staff on the considerations underlying a decision concerning passive restraints. The preparation of this material involved choosing and weighing data and making certain assumptions. I conclude that it is important to have full and free staff input to this decision-making process. Accordingly, I deny your request for this information pursuant to the exemption in the Freedom of Information Act for intra-agency memoranda (5. U.S.C. S 552(b)(5)). I am the person responsible for this decision.; Pursuant to the Regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportatio (49 CFR 7), this decision, to the extent information you seek is not released, may be appealed to John Hart Ely, Esq., General Counsel of the Department, whose decision will be administratively final. Your application for reconsideration must be made in writing within sixty days from the date of receipt of the original denial and must include all information and arguments relied upon in your original request. Such application must indicate that it is an appeal from a denial of a request made under the Freedom of Information Act and the envelope in which the application is sent must be prominently marked with the letters 'FOIA'.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4228OpenMelvin Krewall, Administrator, Transportation Section, Finance Division, Oklahoma State Department of Education, 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599; Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City OK 73105-4599; Dear Mr. Krewall: This responds to your August 22, 1986, letter to former Chief Counse Jeffrey Miller concerning our regulations for school bus manufacturing. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has certified and approved the 'Asia Smith Chassis' for school buses. You stated that you need a copy of the certification because Oklahoma requires chassis to be approved by the state Board of Education before they can be sold in Oklahoma.; I would like to begin by clarifying that the NHTSA does not certify o approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. This agency regulates motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. Manufacturers certify their school buses by attaching a label to their vehicles in accordance with our certification procedures. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with applicable safety standards.; A school bus manufacturer who installs a school bus body on a ne chassis (such as an Asia Smith chassis) is required by our certification regulations (49 CFR 567 and 568) to certify the completed vehicle to Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those regulations require the chassis manufacturer to furnish information which assists the vehicle manufacturer in making that certification. When certifying its school buses, the manufacturer affirms that the vehicle, including the chassis, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including school bus safety standards.; You indicated that Oklahoma requires school bus chassis to be approve by the state before their sale. I am concerned with this requirement because its imposition could be preempted by operation of the Vehicle Safety Act. The first sentence of section 103(d) of the Safety Act states:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item or motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standards. . . .<<<; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Federal Registe notice issued by the agency concerning the issue of preemption and pre-sale state enforcement of safety standards (47 Fed. Reg. 884, January 7, 1982). The notice discusses NHTSA's position that Federal law preempts state requirements which proscribe the sale of equipment certified to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless the equipment is also approved by the State. We believe that Oklahoma's requirement for approval of school bus chassis is analogous.; As I understand Oklahoma's requirement, it imposes requirements whic have the effect of proscribing the sale of certified school buses unless their chassis are also approved by the State. Apparently, school buses manufactured with chassis lacking state approval may not be sold in Oklahoma, even though the vehicle has been certified as meeting all applicable Federal standards. In my opinion, such a requirement is preempted because it imposes burdens differing in a significant respect from the Federal regulatory scheme.; I hope this information is helpful. If you wish to further discuss th preemption issue or have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3017OpenMr. Jim Buck, National Service Manager, Yokohama Tire Corporation, 1530 Church Road, Montebello, CA 90640; Mr. Jim Buck National Service Manager Yokohama Tire Corporation 1530 Church Road Montebello CA 90640; Dear Mr. Buck: This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1979, asking whethe Yokohama Tire Corporation's point-of- sale information leaflet conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not typically issue advance judgments concerning compliance with agency regulations, your proposed point-of-sale leaflet appears to meet the requirements of section 575.104(d)(1)(ii), assuming the listing at the bottom of the page contains each tire manufactured by Yokohama which is offered for sale at the location where the leaflet is distributed.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1180OpenMr. Gil W. Bellamy, Administrator, Oregon Traffic Safety Commission, Room 313, Highway Building, Salem, OR 97310; Mr. Gil W. Bellamy Administrator Oregon Traffic Safety Commission Room 313 Highway Building Salem OR 97310; Dear Mr. Bellamy: Thank you for the copy of Oregon House Bill 2721 that you enclosed i your letter of June 25, 1973. We have reviewed it carefully, and have concluded that virtually all of Section 2 is preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) (copy enclosed).; As you may know, this section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act prohibits a State from having a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. In this instance, the relevant Federal standard is 49 CFR S571.108 Standard No. 108, *Lamps*, *reflective devices*, *and associated equipment*.; Section 2 of HB 2721 requires motor vehicles manufactured after Octobe 1, 1975, to be equipped with a green-yellow-red rear mounted lighting system. The NHTSA considers Standard No. 108 to include within its scope all lighting equipment required to be used on the rear of motor vehicles to which it applies. Any State requirements that have the effect of regulating such equipment must therefore be identical to the relevant provision of Standard No. 108. Section 2 of HB 2721 is not identical to the Federal standard relating to that aspect of performance, and must therefore be considered as invalidated as that category of vehicle is expressly excluded from Standard No. 108. Portions of Section 3 (ORS 483.412(3) (a) and (b)) are invalidated for the same reason. The remainder of Section 3 and Section 4 does not conflict with the relevant provisions of Standard No. 108.; The guiding principle that we have applied to this situation is tha the State requirements that regulate the design of motor vehicles must be identical to the Federal standards. It was clearly the intent of Congress to provide for uniformity of regulation of the manufacturer in areas where the Federal agency has acted, and they did so by the identity requirements of section 1392(d).; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4678OpenMr. Allen R. Andrlik Australian Trade Commission Australian Consulate General Suite 2930 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60610; Mr. Allen R. Andrlik Australian Trade Commission Australian Consulate General Suite 2930 321 N. Clark Street Chicago IL 60610; "Dear Mr. Andrlik: This responds to your letter asking about Federa regulations that would apply to the 'Milford Cargo Barrier' that Milford Industries, an Australian company, manufactures. Your enclosure indicates that the barrier is a type of wire screen that is generally anchored to the sides and floor of a vehicle directly behind the front seat(s). The barrier is intended to protect occupants in a crash from impact with objects carried in the rear of cars, trucks and vans. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you describe. Our standard for glazing materials (Standard No. 205) applies only to interior barriers or partitions that contain glazing, and not to wire screens. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of Milford's barriers. If the barrier were installed as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Installation of the barrier could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, installation of the barrier could affect compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, which sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat, to protect occupants in the rear seat who may be thrown forward in a crash. The barrier could also affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (safety belts and other restraint systems), and Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (driver field of view). Copies of each of these standards are enclosed. If the barrier were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle (e.g., a completed van) prior to the vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an 'alterer' under 49 CFR /567.7. This would occur if the installation of the barrier constituted something other than a 'readily attachable' component (such as tires or rim assemblies). To determine whether installation of the barrier involves a readily attachable component, the agency considers factors such as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise in installing the barrier. The advertising brochure you enclosed states: 'Expert installation available Australia wide.' It also indicates that the barriers are 'designed...to the individual dimensions' of the consumer's motor vehicle and are 'load rated' (which we understand to mean that the barrier and its attachment are capable of withstanding a rated load). These factors appear to indicate that a degree of special expertise and analysis are needed to install the barrier so that it will perform in the manner intended. In light of these considerations, the barrier appears to be something other than a readily attachable component under /567.7. (If Milford would like to send us information indicating otherwise, we would be happy to review it.) If the cargo barrier were installed in a new or used vehicle by a commercial business such as a motor vehicle dealer or repair shop, the installer would be subject to Safety Act considerations affecting the installation. Section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard....' Thus, the commercial installer would have to make sure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards (such as Standards 111, 201 and 208). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108. In addition to the FMVSS considerations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment should also be aware that they are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed a copy of our regulation for defect responsibility of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers (49 CFR Part 579) for your information. Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. In addition to the regulations described above, we also bring to your attention a procedural rule which applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. Subpart D of 49 CFR Part 55l, Procedural Rules, requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information: l. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made, 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer, 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name, 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer, 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation, and, 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3447OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner, Blue Bird Body Company, Manager, Engineering Services, P. O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Blue Bird Body Company Manager Engineering Services P. O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your July 13, 1981, letter asking whether the joint in your school buses that fall within the rear cargo compartment or rear engine compartment must comply with Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*.; Standard No. 221 applies to joints that connect body panels to bod components. Body panels are defined to include those components that enclose the bus' occupant space. The agency has stated in the past that those portions of a bus falling below the floor level would not be considered as having a function in enclosing occupant space, and accordingly, joints in those area would not be required to comply with the standard's requirements.; Applying the standard to the joints that you question, it appears tha they would not be required to comply with the standard. The agency would consider the walls separating the cargo area or the engine from the remainder of the occupant compartment to be a continuation of the bus floor. Accordingly, joints falling behind and below those walls would not be required to comply with the standard. We do note, however, that the joints along the walls themselves must comply with the standard, since the wall panels enclose the occupant space and provide the separation of the engine or cargo area from the occupant space.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4382OpenMr. K. Shimamura, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc., Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Mr. K. Shimamura Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor MI 48105; Dear Mr. Shimamura: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standar No. 101, *Controls and Displays*. You described a proposed integrated steering column/dashboard display and asked whether controls mounted on such a unit must be illuminated. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states that '(e)xcept fo foot-operated controls or hand-operated controls mounted upon the floor, floor console, or steering column, or in the windshield area, the identification required by S5.2.1 or S5.2.2 of any control . . . shall be illuminated . . . .'; The primary issue raised by your letter is whether the controls mounte on your proposed steering column/dashboard display come within section S5.3.1's exception for controls mounted upon the steering column and therefore need not be illuminated. You described your proposed design as follows:; >>>'. . . In addition to the usual plastic trim molding that currentl enclosed the steering column between the instrument panel and the actual steering wheel, the new design adds an integrated upper section accommodating the vehicle's gauges and displays (such as speedometer and tachometer). The upper section is completely integrated into the lower, usual column trim molding and the unit is a single molded part.; 'Several controls are to be placed on the upper section. The tur signal and automatic speed control are to be mounted on the front face. The master lighting switch and wiping system controls will be positioned on either side of the upper section. The hazard warning control will be at the base on the upper section and on top of the lower column. . . .'<<<; A drawing enclosed with a subsequent letter indicates that the uppe section described above is mounted by brackets onto the energy absorbing shaft, below the steering wheel and above the pivot used to adjust the steering wheel. Thus, as the steering wheel is adjusted, the upper section is also adjusted, maintaining the same relative position to the steering wheel.; You suggest that the proposed integrated unit can be considered to be 'steering column,' citing the definition of that term used in Standard No. 204. We note that Standard No. 204's definition of 'steering column' does not apply to Standard No. 101. Moreover, the upper section itself need not be considered a steering column in order to come within Standard No. 101's exception. IN a Federal Register notice published on May 4, 1971, NHTSA stated the following about similar language in an earlier version of Standard No. 101:; >>>Ford has asked whether steering-wheel- mounted controls are exemp from illumination requirements. Since the steering wheel itself is mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls extends to those mounted on the steering wheel as well. 36 FR 8297, Mary 4, 1971.<<<; Since the upper section in your proposed design is, at the least mounted on the steering column, the exemption from the illumination requirements for steering column-mounted controls extends to those mounted on the upper section as well. Therefore, controls mounted on the upper section need not be illuminated. We note that it is unnecessary for us to reach a determination of whether the upper section can be considered to be a steering column for purposes of Standard No. 101.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.