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: aiam2896OpenMr. S. L. Terry, Chrysler Corporation, P.O. Box 1919, Detroit, MI 48231; Mr. S. L. Terry Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit MI 48231; Dear Mr. Terry:#This in (sic) response to your letter of July 21, 1978 requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Controls and Displays*. Please excuse the delay in responding.#You requested an interpretation that a single telltale which monitors both the oil pressure and coolant temperature gauges could be identified by the word 'Engine'. You indicated that it is industry practice to combine the monitoring of these two functions into a single telltale because the response by the driver to either malfunction is the same. It is the interpretation of the NHTSA that the multipurpose telltale which monitors the two functions specified above may be identified by the word 'Engine.' The standard does not require that any of the displays listed in S5.1 be provided or that two or more displays, if provided, be provided separately.#Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1243OpenMr. David E. Martin, Manager, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activities Staff, General Motors Technical Center, General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. David E. Martin Manager Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Technical Center General Motors Corporation Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Martin: Dr. Gregory has asked me to reply to your letter of August 28, 1973, i which you request our endorsement of new labels General Motors intends to use to fulfill its responsibilities under part 567 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.; The wording on the label meets the requirements of paragraph 567.4(g) The color of the paint under the label 'window' would determine conformity with the contrasting color requirements in paragraph 567.4(f).; It would appear that the material would '. . . be permanently affixed . .' if it '. . . is tightly bonded to the surface of the vehicle panel. . . .' However, it has not been the practice of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to endorse label materials.; Thank you for your continuing cooperation. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter |
|
ID: aiam5200OpenMs. Margaret W. Mouzon Mouzon Information Services 2687 Apple Way Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1801; Ms. Margaret W. Mouzon Mouzon Information Services 2687 Apple Way Ann Arbor MI 48104-1801; "Dear Ms. Mouzon: This responds to your letter of June 4, 1993 requesting information on dealer responsibility for occupant restraint system installation. You asked if a dealer is required to replace a deployed air bag prior to selling a used car. You also asked if the air bag must be operable when a dealer sells a showroom or demonstration model of an 'otherwise new' car. With regard to your first question, I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so. With regard to your second question, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' (Emphasis added) Section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) 'shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Because of these statutory requirements, a dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag installed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, if the air bag is not functional. A showroom or demonstration model would be considered a new car, as it has never been sold for purposes other than resale. I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the two letters discussed above. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0002OpenMs. Jean Moffitt 17311 Equestrian Trail Odessa, FL 33556; Ms. Jean Moffitt 17311 Equestrian Trail Odessa FL 33556; Dear Ms. Moffitt: This responds to your letter to this office in whic you stated that your son, a 9th grade student, rides a 65-passenger school bus in which he must sit on the edge of the seat such that only half his body is on the seat. We recently addressed this issue in an October 26, 1994, letter to Ms. Debra Platt of Stuart, Florida, and have enclosed a copy of our response for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, a copy of a report prepared by this agency entitled School Bus Safety Report, and a copy of a Report Summary prepared by the Transportation Research Board in May, 1989. The latter two reports give a good overview of the issues connected with school bus safety, and they and Guideline 17 contain recommendations to the various states in developing their own pupil transportation safety programs. I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam2195OpenMr. J. C. Eckhold, Director, Automotive Safety Office, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; Dear Mr. Eckhold:#This is in response to your February 3, 1976, lette pointing out an error in the publication of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Control Location, Identification, and Illumination*, in Supplement 109 to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.#While the Federal Register is, of course, the official source of the law, we share your concern for the accuracy of the supplements. The error in Table 1 of Standard No. 101 was discovered immediately upon its publication and steps were taken to correct it. We expect the correction to appear in the supplement to be mailed on February 25, 1976.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5650OpenMr. Richard P. Cuvala Trix Mfg. Co. Inc. 500 W. Irving Pk. Rd. Bensenville, IL 60106; Mr. Richard P. Cuvala Trix Mfg. Co. Inc. 500 W. Irving Pk. Rd. Bensenville IL 60106; "Dear Mr. Cuvala: This responds to your letter of September 10, 1995 concerning 'conference and display vehicles' you have been asked to manufacture for a client. The vehicles used are cargo vans with a gross vehicle weight rating of 9200 pounds. You convert the cargo area of the van to a product display and conference area. Your letter contained an illustration of the vehicle, indicating an L-shaped seating area behind the driver and front passenger seats. Your letter states that this area is not intended for transport of people. You asked whether such a vehicle must comply with 'seating and occupant orientation and restraint directives.' As explained below, the seats in such a vehicle would have to comply with federal standards on seats and seat belts if the modification is done prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards prior to their sale or import. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Conversion Prior to Sale Your letter does not state whether the conversion of the cargo area of these vehicles is done before or after the first retail sale of the vehicles. Prior to the first retail sale of a vehicle, the vehicle is considered to be 'new.' If the conversion is done prior to the first retail sale, your company would be considered an 'alterer' under our regulations. A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards (49 CFR 567.7). The seats in a new vehicle must comply with federal regulations if they are 'designated seating positions.' A 'designated seating position' is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as 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. While you indicate that the vehicles are not intended to transport people except in the front seats, the design of the seating area is similar to other vehicle seats. Therefore, it appears from their design that these seats are likely to be used and are therefore designated seating positions. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be relevant to seats in these vehicles: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain limited exceptions not relevant to your conversion, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Standard No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation to minimize the possibility of their failure in a crash. Standard No. 207 does not require a specific orientation for seats. However, some of the requirements are different for side- and rear-facing seats like those illustrated in your attachment. Standard No. 208 specifies seat belt requirements for seating positions in vehicles. For the seats in the rear of your vehicles, Standard No. 208 would require lap belts at each designated seating position. Standard No. 210 specifies performance requirements for seat belt anchorages. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the interior of motor vehicles. Standard No. 302 would affect not only the seats, but also installation of other materials in these vehicles. Standard No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, the manufacturer is required to certify that the seat belts comply with Standard No. 209. If you do not manufacture the seat belts yourself, you should install only belts certified by their manufacturer. This is true regardless of whether the conversion occurs before or after the first sale of the vehicle. Conversion After Sale If the conversion is done on a used motor vehicle, you do not have to certify that the vehicle complies with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302. However, 49 USC 30122 provides, in pertinent part: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. . . . Thus, you could not convert these vehicles if the conversion affected a device or element of design, installed prior to sale, so as to cause the vehicles to no longer comply with any of the safety standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4942OpenRichard Gray, Secretary Sports Car Club of New Zealand, Inc. P.O. Box 6282 Wellesley St, Auckland 1 New Zealand; Richard Gray Secretary Sports Car Club of New Zealand Inc. P.O. Box 6282 Wellesley St Auckland 1 New Zealand; "Dear Mr. Gray: This responds to your letter asking for informatio about whether certain motor vehicles manufactured in the United States and imported into New Zealand comply with the requirements of the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (MOT) is introducing new vehicle safety standards in an effort to align New Zealand's standards with those of the United States, Europe, Australia, and the United Kingdom. To that end, you stated that the MOT is requiring importers to ensure that the vehicles they import meet the relevant safety standards of these countries. You further indicated that you are responsible for providing proof to the MOT that certain privately imported, 'low volume vehicles' (built in numbers less than 200 per year) comply with the requirements of their country of origin, or that the country has a special exemption for low volume vehicles. Accordingly, you asked for clarification of Standards No. 205 and 208, and other Federal regulations, as they would be applied to these vehicles. I am pleased to be able to provide the following information. In the case of the United States, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue a number of safety standards. The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufactured or sold in, or imported into, the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114... Generally speaking, then, to the extent that the vehicles you import are manufactured and sold in the United States, those vehicles would have to comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 208, regardless of the number of such vehicles produced by the manufacturer. The fact that your letter is seeking proof that a motor vehicle actually complies with applicable safety standards may, however, indicate a misunderstanding of the certification process in the United States. The process of certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, many European nations require manufacturers to deliver motor vehicles to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the vehicle, the government approves the vehicle and assigns an approval code. In countries using such a pre-sale approval certification process, the governmental entity would have specific information about the actual compliance of vehicles with applicable standards. In the United States, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to do any pre-sale testing or approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Consequently, NHTSA does not have any 'proof of actual compliance' of vehicles. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards by permanently affixing a label to the driver's side door hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Among other things, that label must contain the statement: 'This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above.' Under the self-certification process used in the United States, NHTSA does conduct periodic enforcement tests on vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by their manufacturer to ensure that the products do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. In order for this agency to determine whether any of the vehicles imported into New Zealand were subject to an enforcement test or a defects investigation by this agency, you would have to provide us with specific descriptive information about each of the subject vehicles, including the date of manufacture. It should be a simple exercise for you to check the area around the driver's side door of the vehicles in question to see if the manufacturer affixed a U.S. certification label, stating that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the vehicle has such a label, there would not seem to be any reason for questioning the manufacturer's representation. On the other hand, if there is no such label, neither the vehicle's manufacturer nor anyone else has suggested that the vehicle conforms with the safety standards of the United States. Finally, you asked whether the United States has any Federal regulations regarding the installation of registration plates on the front of vehicles. The answer is no, vehicle registration is a matter addressed by each of the individual States, not by the Federal government. Thus, the requirements for display of registration plates on the front of vehicles differ from State to State. If you are interested in further information on the requirements of the individual States, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, U.S.A. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0452OpenMr. K. Nakajima, General Manager, Toyota Motor Company, Ltd., Lyndhurst Office Park, 1099 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ, 07071; Mr. K. Nakajima General Manager Toyota Motor Company Ltd. Lyndhurst Office Park 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima: In response to your letter of September 28, 1971, regarding th application of F.M.V.S.S. No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to items which are not designed to be energy absorbing, such as the defroster nozzle and hose or the transmission shift lever boot, the Administration has found that your interpretation of the standard is correct: the phrase 'any other interior material' in paragraph S4.1 does not cover components of the occupant compartment which are not designed to absorb energy on contact with occupants in crash situations.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4368OpenMr. Robert A. Rogers, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation, General Motors Technical Center, 30400 Mound Road, Warren, MI 48090-9015; Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015; Dear Mr. Rogers: This responds to your letter of April 15, 1987, concerning Genera Motors' (GM's) basis for certification of its electronic displays of shift lever positions, i.e., Park- Reverse-Neutral-Drive-Low (PRNDL), to section S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect*. You requested our concurrence that section S3.2 is satisfied if the PRNDL is displayed whenever the vehicle is capable of mobility and the opportunity exists for shifting the transmission. As discussed below, we disagree that the present wording of the standard would accommodate your suggested interpretation. However, we will consider your letter to be a petition for rulemaking on this point, as you requested, and we will process it accordingly.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) 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 vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; According to your letter, GM's electronic PRNDL display is illuminate whenever the ignition switch is in the 'on' or 'off' position. The display is not illuminated when the ignition is in the 'lock,' accessory' or 'start' position.; Section S3.2 of Standard No. 102 requires that the '(i)dentification o shift lever positions of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions . . . shall be *permanently displayed in view of the driver.' (Emphasis added.); In an interpretation letter to Ford, dated April 17, 1978, NHTS addressed the requirements of section S3.2 with respect to a proposed design for an actively lighted gear position indicator that would not normally be visible to the driver when the ignition switch was in the 'off' or 'lock' position. The indicator in question would become illuminated when the ignition was in the 'on,' 'start,' or 'accessory' position. NHTSA concluded that section S3.2's requirement that the identification of the shift lever positions 'shall be permanently displayed' requires a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, the agency stated that 'a device that would only be seen when the ignition is in the 'on,' 'start,' or 'accessory' position would not comply with the requirements of the standard.'; In an interpretation letter to Mr. David Cima, dated December 24, 1986 NHTSA addressed the issue of whether it is permissible under section S3.2 for an electronic display to become activated when the driver sits down in the driver's seat and, if so, whether it must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in that seat, even if the ignition is not turned on. The agency stated the following:; >>>It is our opinion that it is permissible for an electronic displa to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and need not be activated when there is no person in the driver's seating position. Section S3.2's requirement that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmission be 'permanently displayed' is modified by the phrase 'in view of the driver.' It is our opinion that no such display is required at times when no driver is in the car, i.e., no person in the driver's seating position. We also conclude, however, that such a display must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the driver's seating position even if the ignition is not turned on. If the display only remained activated for a specific period of time, such as five minutes, it would not be 'permanently' displayed.<<<; Your letter indicates that the GM electronic PRNDL display is no illuminated, i.e., activated, when the ignition switch is in the 'lock,' 'accessory' or 'start' positions. This is true regardless of whether there is a driver in the car, i.e., a person in the driver's seating position. Thus, the PRNDL display appears not to comply with section S3.2, since it is not permanently displayed in view of the driver.; According to your letter, GM carefully considered both the section S3. wording and the 1978 NHTSA interpretation letter in developing its electronic PRNDL display. You stated that you believe, for purposes of Standard No. 102, that 'a driver is a vehicle operator who is capable of using and has a need for the PRNDL information.'; The term 'driver' is specifically defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as 'th occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system.' The definition is not limited to situations where the car is somehow capable of mobility.; In a May 21, 1977 meeting, you suggested that the Part 571.3 definitio of 'driver' is necessary but not sufficient to determine the meaning of driver in the context of particular safety standards. You stated that in applying the definition to Standard No. 101, for example, some assumptions must be made about the 'occupant . . . seated immediately behind the steering control system.' That standard requires that certain controls be located so as to be operable by the driver and that certain displays be located so as to be visible to the driver. For the requirement that controls be operable, you stated that an assumption must be made that the occupant is not a six-month year (sic) old child. For the requirement that displays be visible, you stated that an assumption must be made that the occupant is not visually impaired. You suggested that this same line of reasoning would support an interpretation that a driver is a vehicle operator who is capable of using and has a need for the PRNDL information.; We believe, however, that your examples relating to Standard No. 10 are fundamentally different from your suggested interpretation. First, an interpretation that the term 'driver' is not meant to refer to a six-month year old child or to a person who has a serious visual impairment would simply be filling in an obvious detail, since such persons could not be licensed to drive by any state. However, a determination as to when a vehicle operator has a 'need' for PRNDL information is the type of issue that needs to be addressed in rulemaking and, in fact, was addressed by the agency in proposing and then adopting the requirement that the information be 'permanently displayed in view of the driver.' Also, while your Standard No. 101 examples relate solely to the nature of the occupant, your suggested interpretation requires consideration of the nature of the vehicle. Finally, your suggested approach would result in different interpretations of 'driver' for different standards, while Part 571.3 sets forth one definition that applies to all standards.; With response to the 1978 interpretation letter, you stated that it i your understanding 'that the agency was attempting to address the possibility of driving the vehicle 'regardless of the operating mode of the engine,' and that PRNDL visibility is therefore required independent of engine operating mode.' You also stated that the 1978 interpretation is accommodated in GM designs by virtue of PRNDL illumination in both the 'on' and 'off' ignition switch positions. However, the 1978 interpretation letter nowhere suggests that the interpretation is limited to situations where the vehicle may be driven or otherwise supports such a reading. To the contrary, we believe the 1978 letter is on point with respect to whether the GM electronic PRNDL display complies with section S3.2, i.e., the letter makes it clear that the reach of the visibility requirement is not limited to any particular combination of ignition positions.; Your letter suggests that a feature of GM vehicle designs which yo believe has an important bearing on the interpretation issue is the shift interlock system. While this feature is relevant to the mobility argument you have advanced, we disagree that this feature is relevant to the interpretation issue. The shift interlock system has no bearing on whether or not the PRNDL display is permanently displayed in view of the driver. However, the feature may be relevant in other contexts.; For example, you stated that if NHTSA does not provide th interpretation suggested by your letter, the letter should be considered a petition for rulemaking. As noted above, the agency will process the letter as a petition for rulemaking, and consider the shift interlock system in that context.; You also requested that NHTSA not take any enforcement action agains existing designs 'until the ambiguity of the section 3.2 requirement is resolved through the appropriate administrative procedures.' Since we do not agree that section S3.2 is ambiguous and, in fact, believe that our 1978 interpretation letter was precisely on point, we decline to adopt any type of general nonenforcement policy with respect to that requirement. If you have additional questions about the enforcement issues raised by your letter, you should direct them to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1490OpenMr. Francois Louis, Manager, Technical Standards Department, Renault, Inc., 100 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Francois Louis Manager Technical Standards Department Renault Inc. 100 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Louis: This is in response to your letter of May 3, 1974, requesting a interpretation of the test procedure specified in Standard No. 301 (Docket No. 73-20, Notice 2) concerning the operation of the vehicle's fuel pump during testing.; Paragraph S7.1.3 of the standard requires that electrically driven fue pumps be in operation during the barrier crash tests if they normally operate with the activation of the vehicle's electrical system. If the pump is incapable of functioning with the independent activation of the electrical system and requires the operation of the vehicle's engine, then the pump should not be running during the barrier crash tests.; Thus, the interpretation of the requirement expressed in your letter i correct.; 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.