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: aiam4692OpenMr. Patrick J. Higgins Andreini & Company 770 The City Drive South, Suite 1300 Orange, CA 92668; Mr. Patrick J. Higgins Andreini & Company 770 The City Drive South Suite 1300 Orange CA 92668; "Dear Mr. Higgins: This responds to your letter on behalf o Skill-Craft Enterprises, which is designing and manufacturing a fiberglass seat to be installed in the bed of a pickup truck. You were interested in learning which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to this product. You indicated that you believed Standards No. 207, 209, 210, and 'possibly 302' would apply to this seat. I am enclosing a December 1, 1986 interpretation letter from this office to Mr. Scott Muirhead, which explains the application of NHTSA's safety standards and regulations to seats in the cargo bed of a pickup. You will see that this letter specifically addresses the applicability of Standards No. 207, 208, 209, and 210 to such seats. I am also enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly describes our laws and regulations, and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. You also asked whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, would apply to your client's product. That standard applies only to new vehicles in areas located in the 'occupant compartment air space,' which the standard defines as 'the space within the occupant compartment that normally contains refreshable air.' I am enclosing a copy of a February 15, 1983 interpretation to Mr. H. Nakaya in which the agency explained that the determination of whether any particular area is within the 'occupant compartment air space' turns on whether people can and do ride in the area in question. Given that your client's product is a seat, it is designed and intended so that people will ride in it. Hence, the area around the seat would be an area where people could and would ride, and would be considered within the 'occupant compartment air space.' Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 expressly lists seat cushions, seat backs, and seat belts as items of equipment that must meet the flammability resistance requirements of section S4.3. Based on the above, we conclude that a seat installed as original equipment in the bed of a pickup would be required to comply with Standard No. 302. If the seat will be sold exclusively as an item of aftermarket equipment, Standard No. 302 would not directly apply to it. Nevertheless, other Federal laws indirectly affect your client's manufacture and sale of such a seat in the aftermarket. Section 108(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 ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) to ensure that any aftermarket installations of additional equipment or vehicle modifications its addition would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of this 'render inoperative' provision. Your client should also be aware of an additional aspect of the Safety Act. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your client is also 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 an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that your client or NHTSA determines that the seats contain a safety related defect, it would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam3157OpenMr. Thomas M. Fristoe, Director, Motor Equipment Division, TPUS, General Services Administration - Region 10, GSA Center, Auburn, WA 98002; Mr. Thomas M. Fristoe Director Motor Equipment Division TPUS General Services Administration - Region 10 GSA Center Auburn WA 98002; Dear Mr. Fristoe: This responds to your September 21, 1979, letter asking about th certification requirements for vehicles that are purchased by the government. In particular, you ask if certification is required for both new and used vehicles that are purchased and subsequently altered by either a contractor or the government.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *e seq*.) requires manufacturers to certify all new vehicles in compliance with Federal safety standards. Accordingly, all new vehicles, whether or not purchased for use by the government, must be certified in compliance with the safety standards. An exception exists for military vehicles. Used vehicles, on the other hand, need not be certified at the time they are altered. However, any repair business, dealer, or manufacturer making such an alteration must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards in effect at the time of its original manufacture. Application of these general rules to your specific questions results in certain instances when certification would be required.; In your first example, the government purchases cab and chassis unit as well as the desired bodies for the units. The bodies are subsequently attached to the chassis by a commercial installer or by the government's own shop. Since the installer or government (depending on who does the attaching) would be the final-stage manufacturer of these vehicles, the rules for the certification of new vehicles apply. Typically, a cab and chassis unit is delivered to a final-stage manufacturer with only an incomplete vehicle certification label and an incomplete vehicle document. If this is the case with your vehicles, they must have a final- stage certification label on them prior to use. That label would be attached by either the commercial business doing the installation or by the government's own shops in those instances where the government is the final-stage manufacturer.; In your second example, vehicles are procured by the government in complete form and subsequently altered by the government or by a commercial business. We assume that the vehicles when purchased were certified by their manufacturers as completed vehicles. In such cases, the government may alter the vehicles and need not attach any additional labels. Any vehicle owner may alter completed vehicles in any manner that he or she chooses. We suggest that the government take steps to ensure that alteration of its vehicles is done in such a manner as not to impair its compliance with the standards. If a commercial enterprise alters the vehicle while it is still new, that business should attach an alterer's label indicating that as altered the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standard. If a commercial business alters a used vehicle, no label is required, because the labeling requirements apply only to new vehicles.; Your third example pertains to a truck that is damaged in an acciden and the body is transferred to another vehicle. If the vehicle to which the body is transferred is new, certification would be required as outlined in the first example. If, on the other hand, the body is added to a used vehicle, no certification is required by either a commercial business or the government.; Finally, you suggest a number of additional circumstances of vehicl modifications and ask whether certification is required. Again, if the modifications pertain to new vehicles, certification labels are necessary in cases similar to those described above. If the vehicles are used, certification labels are not required. If you have further questions concerning this topic, you should contact Roger Tilton of my staff at 202-426-9511.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4738OpenSusan Birenbaum, Esq. Acting General Counsel United States Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, DC 20207; Susan Birenbaum Esq. Acting General Counsel United States Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington DC 20207; "Dear Ms. Birenbaum: This responds to several letters asking whethe various products are items of motor vehicle equipment: (1) 'SNAP fix-a-flat', an aerosol container of liquid latex and a highly flammable propellant of pressurized gas which can be used to temporarily seal and inflate flat tires, (2) an electric windshield de-icer and windshield scraper which can be inserted into the cigarette lighter receptacle in a motor vehicle, and (3) a bicycle rack. In response to your request regarding the de-icer and rack, we will not disclose information regarding those items to the public. As explained in detail below, each of these three items would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). In reaching these conclusions, we were cognizant of that fact that, as you noted, section 3(a)(1)(c) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)(c), excludes items of 'motor vehicle equipment' from the definition of 'consumer product.' Before I respond further to the substantive points in your letters, I would like to express my regret for the delay in this response. While preparing our response to your letters, we conducted an extensive review of our past interpretations regarding whether a product is an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. After that review, and in response to the issues raised in your letters, we have decided to clarify and revise our interpretation of what constitutes 'motor vehicle equipment.' As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added). In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an 'accessory . . . to the motor vehicle,' NHTSA has in the past generally applied not only the relevant statutory language, but also the following two criteria: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle (e.g., a battery charger that could be used for marine batteries as well as motor vehicle batteries would not qualify) and second, whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). In most cases, the agency concluded that a product was an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' only if it met both criteria. However, in several instances, the agency found products to be items of motor vehicle equipment without an explicit finding that they satisfied the first criterion (e.g., a June 11, 1986 letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, concerning a tow strap, and an August 18, 1987 letter to Ziemke, concerning window shades). Your recent requests have led us to review our approach to this issue. We have concluded that the first criterion stated above for determining whether a product should be regarded as an 'accessory . . . to the motor vehicle' has been too restrictive. Neither the Safety Act nor its legislative history limits that category to items used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Moreover, we believe that a broader view of what comes within that term, and therefore what may be properly characterized as an item of motor vehicle equipment, is more consistent with the statutory language and with the Safety Act's purposes of enhancing motor vehicle safety. Therefore, we have decided that a product will be deemed to satisfy the first criterion whenever a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We will determine the expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that products found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not necessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. If the product also satisfies the second criterion (which is directed to the nature of the likely users of the product), the product will be considered an 'accessory' and thus be subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to the three products about which you inquired, NHTSA has come to the following conclusions: SNAP fix-a-flat. You explained that while this product is primarily intended for use with motor vehicles, the product's label suggests it also can be used with tires on bicycles, tractors, and off-road all-terrain-vehicles. According to your letter, all but one of the reported injuries have been sustained by a mechanic rather than the vehicle owner. The agency considers this to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, although the product can be used to repair tires on bicycles and other vehicles not subject to the Safety Act, it is evident that a substantial use of the product is for the purpose of repairing motor vehicle tires. Second, based on the product's purpose as suggested by the statements on the can (e.g., 'Quick and easy to use. No jacks. No tools. No tire changing.' and 'Keep out of reach of children'), it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners. The fact that mechanics have typically been the ones being injured by this product may reflect, not the fact that the primary users are mechanics, but the fact that mechanics are more likely than other users to engage in practices that lead to problems with fix-a-flat. Bicycle rack. NHTSA considers these racks to be items of motor vehicle equipment. First, insofar as this agency is aware, bicycle racks are used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Even if bicycle racks were occasionally used on vehicles other than motor vehicles, use with motor vehicles is the primary use of these racks. Second, based on the product's function, which is to transport bicycles on motor vehicles, and their typically simple method of installation, it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners. De-icer. This agency considers the de-icer to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, several facts indicate that it is primarily intended for use in conjunction with motor vehicles. Its plug fits a type of outlet which we believe is most commonly found in motor vehicles. While that type of outlet may be found in some boats, boats are comparatively unlikely to be used in conditions in which ice may form. Thus, we conclude that use with motor vehicles is the primary use of this product. Second, based on the product's purpose, method of installation and operation, and likely circumstancs of its use, it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3507OpenMr. Katsuhiko Yokoi, Assistant Manager - Tech. Dept., Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd., 1 Nagahata, Ochiai, Haruhi-mura, Nishikasugai-gun, Aichi-pref., 452 JAPAN; Mr. Katsuhiko Yokoi Assistant Manager - Tech. Dept. Toyoda Gosei Co. Ltd. 1 Nagahata Ochiai Haruhi-mura Nishikasugai-gun Aichi-pref. 452 JAPAN; Dear Mr. Yokoi: The answers to the questions in your letter of January 20, 1982, ar 'yes' to both questions.; >>>1. The 'adjacent layers' referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, paragraph S7.3.7, are (a) the inner tube and braided layer and (b) the braided layer and outer tube.<<<; >>>2. The adhesion requirements are met if both the tensile strength measured between (a) the inner tube and braided layer and (b) that between the braided layer and the outer cover are equal to or greater than 8lbs/inch as determined using the FMVSS No. 106 procedure. It should be noted that the 8lbs/inch value is an absolute minimum value as indicated in paragraph S8.6.4(a) of the standard.<<<; A copy of FMVSS No. 106 is included for your information. Sincerely, Vernon G. Bloom, Safety Standards Engineer |
|
ID: aiam5579OpenThe Honorable Paul David Wellstone United States Senator 2550 University Avenue W., #100N St. Paul, MN 55114-1025; The Honorable Paul David Wellstone United States Senator 2550 University Avenue W. #100N St. Paul MN 55114-1025; "Dear Senator Wellstone: Thank you for your letter enclosin correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Kris Solberg, concerning our requirements for school buses. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA administers the Federal regulations for school buses. Ms. Solberg, principal of Grace Christian School, asks that our 'school bus' definition be narrowed so that it only encompasses vehicles carrying more than 15 passengers. Ms. Solberg believes that, at NHTSA's urging, Minnesota recently amended its school bus definition to include vehicles carrying 15 passengers. She states that, as a result of this change, schools cannot use conventional 15-passenger vans to transport students to school events, even though the vans are 'safe enough.' I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. The short answer to Ms. Solberg's question is that NHTSA cannot narrow the 'school bus' definition as she requests because the definition was set by Congress. Further, for safety reasons, we do not agree that the definition should be changed. As Ms. Solberg's letter suggests, school bus regulations exist on the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level are NHTSA's school bus regulations. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that each new vehicle must meet when sold. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Congress also defined a 'school bus' as a passenger motor vehicle 'designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' (Emphasis added.) Since the school bus definition was set by Congress, NHTSA is unable to revise it to exclude 15-passenger vans. Further, we do not agree that the definition should be narrowed to exclude vehicles. School bus-type vans have more safety features providing occupant crash protection than do conventional full-size vans. Narrowing the definition could result in school children being transported in vehicles that are not as safe as the vehicles used today. NHTSA believes that, while school bus vans are slightly more expensive than conventional 15-passenger vans, the increased level of safety justifies the higher costs. Thus, we recommend against changing the Federal definition of a 'school bus.' While the Federal government regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the States regulate the use of vehicles. According to Ms. Solberg's letter, Minnesota has decided to adopt NHTSA's 'school bus' definition into its regulations. In doing so, under Minnesota law, if a school wishes to use a 15- passenger van to carry students, the van must meet school bus safety standards. NHTSA does not require States to adopt our 'school bus' definition. However, we strongly support any decision by a State to do so. This agency attaches the utmost importance to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0281OpenMr. R. C. Lowry, Plant Manager, Honiron, P.O. Box 3140, Honolulu, HI 96802; Mr. R. C. Lowry Plant Manager Honiron P.O. Box 3140 Honolulu HI 96802; Dear Mr. Lowry: This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 1971, concerning the notic published April 14, 1971 (36 F.R. 7054) amending the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) and establishing regulations governing 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages' (49 CFR Part 568). You ask whether as a trailer manufacturer you need comply only with the requirements of S 567.4(g)(1) at present, and need not comply with S 567.4(g)(2) through 567.4(g)(7) until October 1, 1972. The answer to this question is no. The amendment to the regulations on which your question is based merely added the requirements of S 567.4(g)(1)(iii), 567.4(g)(3), and 567.4(g)(4) to existing requirements that have been in effect since September 1, 1969 (copy enclosed). Thus, the requirements of S 567.4(g)(1)(i) and (ii), and 567.4(g)(2), (g)(5), (g)(6) and (g)(7) (as they appear in the notice of April 14, 1971) have been in effect since September 1, 1969. Of the new provisions, S 567.4(g)(1)(iii) did become effective June 1, 1971. The effective date of the other new provisions has been corrected to January 1, 1972, by a notice published April 27, 1971 (36 F.R. 7855), a copy of which is also enclosed.; You are correct in interpreting 'gross vehicle weight rating' as i applies to trailers, to exclude the weight of the tractor or other towing vehicle. It includes, as you state, only the weight of the fully loaded trailer. You are also correct in interpreting 'gross axle weight rating' as it applies to trailers to apply to only the weight applied to the axle of the trailer. It does not include the weight applied to any part of the towing vehicle.; If you have further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1869OpenMr. David A. Tenquist, Marketing Department, Novus, Inc., 5301 B Edina Industrial Blvd., Minneapolis, MN 55435; Mr. David A. Tenquist Marketing Department Novus Inc. 5301 B Edina Industrial Blvd. Minneapolis MN 55435; Dear Mr. Tenquist: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1975, inquiring as t whether any safety regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration applies to the Novus Windshield Repair Kit,' manufactured by your firm.; An advertising brochure for the product states that the material use in the process is a special waterproof epoxy that not only fills the fissure in the glass but also bonds the crack surfaces to prevent formation or extension of radial cracks.'; There is no safety regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration, nor any other Federal law or regulation, which prohibits the use of such a material or process in the repair of windshields which have previously been installed in vehicles and damaged in use. Using such a material or process in a new windshield which may require repair as the result of damage sustained in shipment could cause the windshield to fail to meet the performance requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR S 571.205) and we would therefore discourage use of the Novus kit on new windshields.; Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of furthe assistance.; Yours truly. Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3854OpenMr. J. Kawano, General Manager, U.S. Office, Toyota Motor Corporation, One Harmon Plaza, Secaucus, NJ 07094; Mr. J. Kawano General Manager U.S. Office Toyota Motor Corporation One Harmon Plaza Secaucus NJ 07094; Dear Mr. Kawano: This letter replies to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No 202, *Head Restraints*. Your first question concerns the measurement of the lateral width of a head restraint with a 'Volvo-type configuration.' The drawing attached to your letter appears to depict an adjustable head restraint with a rectangular shape and a hollow center. Paragraph S4(b) of Standard No. 202 requires measurements, according to S4(b)(1) and (2), to be made when the head restraint is 'adjusted to its fully extended design position.' The lateral width of the head restraint of an individual or bucket seat may be measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point. These are the only two locations at which this measurement may be made. The lateral width may not be measured at part B on your drawing, because B is not the correct location at which to make this measurement. A copy of this drawing is enclosed for your convenience.; Your letter and drawing indicate a concern that, if the lateral widt is measured 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint, the hollow space between the two sides of the rectangular head restraint may not be included in measuring the total width. Using the information you have supplied, we believe that the lateral width of this type of head restraint, measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the restaint or 25 inches above the seating reference point, would include the hollow space, if the hollow space occurs at either location. The lateral width would also include, of course, the widths of both sides of this restraint, marked A1 and A2 in your drawing. This lateral width may or may not equal the width, B, located at the top of the restraint in your drawing.; Your second question regarding the correct demonstration procedure t test compliance with Standard No. 202 is answered by the language of paragraph S5.2 of the standard. This paragraph states that, if the head restraint conforms to S4(b), compliance is demonstrated in accordance with S5.2 with the head restraint in its fully extended design position. The dynamic testing procedure would not be required, unless your head restraint conforms to paragraph S4(a). The manufacturer has the option of designing a head restraint which meets the performance requirements of either paragraph S4(a) or paragraph S4(b).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2746OpenMr. James Tydings, Thomas Built Buses, 1408 Courtesy Road, P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. James Tydings Thomas Built Buses 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your December 8, 1977, letter asking for a interpretation of the term 'passenger compartment' as used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*.; Standard No. 217 requires that a school bus side emergency door b located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. The NHTSA interprets the term 'passenger compartment' to mean the area from the windshield to the back of the bus.; In a companion question, you ask whether it would be permissible for small portion of a side emergency door, installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b), to fall within the front half of a bus as long as most of the door is within the required rear half of the passenger compartment. The answer to your question is no. The emergency door must be totally located within the rear half of the passenger compartment.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5083OpenDonald G. McGuigan, Esq. Ford Motor Company Office of the General Counsel Suite 728 - Parklane Towers East One Parklane Boulevard Dearborn, MI 48126-2493; Donald G. McGuigan Esq. Ford Motor Company Office of the General Counsel Suite 728 - Parklane Towers East One Parklane Boulevard Dearborn MI 48126-2493; "Dear Mr. McGuigan: This responds to your letter of September 29, 199 concerning certain new requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which became effective on September 1, 1992. Your questions relate to S4.2.1 of the standard, which states: S4.2.1 Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a 'park' position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. You argued that this provision should be interpreted to prevent key removal only when the transmission shift lever is in one of the available gear selector positioning detents other than 'park,' i.e., reverse, neutral, drive, first, second, and not when the lever is at various points between those detents. You stated that a compliance test involving positioning of the shift lever between gear positions would be 'inappropriate,' because you believe that it would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the amendment is to prevent shifting errors. You therefore argue that vehicles in which the key can be removed while the shift lever is between gear positions would not fail to comply with the amended standard. We cannot agree with your suggested interpretation, as it is inconsistent with the express language of S4.2.1. That section states that, with certain exceptions not at issue, the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. Stated more simply, key removal must be prevented in all circumstances save those specified in S4.2.1. Neither the transmission nor the transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' when the lever is between the gear selector positioning detents. Therefore, under section S4.2.1, key removal must be prevented in that situation, unless the transmission/ transmission shift lever becomes locked in 'park' as a direct result of removing the key. Our interpretation is consistent with the agency's intent in promulgating S4.2.1. As discussed in several rulemaking notices, NHTSA amended Standard No. 114 to prevent vehicle rollaway caused by unattended children shifting the transmission lever in automatic transmission vehicles. If a driver were able to remove the key while the transmission or transmission shift lever was not locked in park, and if the transmission or transmission shift lever did not become locked in 'park' as a result of removing the key, a child might later shift the transmission lever, thereby causing a vehicle rollaway. For this reason, we continue to believe that this amendment to Standard No. 114 meets the need for motor vehicle safety. I note that while it may be true that NHTSA would not commence a rulemaking proceeding focused solely on preventing inadvertent vehicle movement arising out of transmission shift lever mispositioning, as reflected in the agency's June 1990 denial of the Barr petition, this does not mean that Standard No. 114, as construed above, does not achieve a valid and appropriate safety benefit. You asked about Standard No. 114 in connection with the key-locking systems of 1993 Escorts and Tracers. You stated that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents, the key-locking systems of these vehicles prevent removal of the key except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the 'park' detent. You also stated, however, that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever at various points between reverse and park, the key can be removed, for at least a large proportion of these vehicles, at certain points where the selector lever is 'held short of engaging the Park positioning detent.' We recognize that you believe that the chances of a vehicle rollaway occurring with your system would be very small. While you have made a number of arguments to support your contention, we note that we cannot consider that type of argument in interpreting Standard No. 114. As you know, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is required to issue safety standards that provide objective criteria. In interpreting a standard, we must follow those objective requirements, notwithstanding arguments regarding the safety significance of a particular vehicle design. If you believe that those arguments have merit, you may present them to the agency in other contexts, such as in a petition for determination of inconsequential noncompliance. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.