NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam3821OpenMr. Leslie R. Ablondi, Pleasant Valley Corporate Center, Suite 800, 2024 Arkansas Valley Drive, Little Rock, AR 72212- 4237; Mr. Leslie R. Ablondi Pleasant Valley Corporate Center Suite 800 2024 Arkansas Valley Drive Little Rock AR 72212- 4237; Dear Mr. Ablondi: This responds to your March 16, 1984 letter regarding the applicabilit of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111 to an aftermarket rearview mirror which one of your clients proposes to market. This mirror would be attached to the original equipment inside mirror stalk in such a way that the view through the OEM mirror is unimpaired. Your client's mirror would permit the driver to view children in the rear seat of the vehicle.; FMVSS 111 (see 49 C.F.R. 571.111, copy enclosed) is directly applicabl to new motor vehicles only. However, that standard may apply indirectly to aftermarket mirrors through the operation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). The latter provision prohibits any motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative any 'device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' Thus, the installation of a replacement or even a supplemental rearview mirror in a motor vehicle could be unlawful if that installation resulted in a mirror system which did not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 111.; Based on your description of your client's mirror, it does not appea that the aftermarket installation of that mirror would be prohibited under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), since the operation of the OEM mirror system is unaffected by the addition of the aftermarket mirror.; If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3973OpenMr. Lee Comeau, Associate, Bureau of Educational Management Services, New York State Education Department, Cultural Education Center, Room 3059, Albany, NY 12230; Mr. Lee Comeau Associate Bureau of Educational Management Services New York State Education Department Cultural Education Center Room 3059 Albany NY 12230; Dear Mr. Comeau: This responds to your April 12, 1985 letter concerning the January 198 school bus safety study prepared for the Canadian government (Transport Canada). You were particularly interested in the results of the study relating to safety belts in school buses.; The Transport Canada study found that 'The use of a type I seat bel system in any current design of school bus may result in more severe head and neck injuries for a belted occupant than an unbelted one, in a severe frontal collision.' You asked for our opinion as to the reliability of the findings, and whether they would be admissible in a court of law. You also asked whether a school district or bus manufacturer can be liable for negligency if a seat belt causes injury to a belted occupant.; I must explain that we are unable to issue an opinion regarding eithe the admissibility or effect of the Canadian study's findings in a court of law. This agency is responsible for establishing Federal motor vehicle safety standards and investigating alleged safety-related defects. We are not authorized to participate in or render advisory opinions on private litigation. The issues you raised would depend on the type of legal proceeding and the evidentiary rules of the particular court system, as well as other evidence that might be introduced in a lawsuit. Questions concerning negligence and private liability would also have to be answered according to the law of the particular jurisdiction. Since these matters are usually governed by state law, I suggest that you consult with your attorney to discuss how New York law would apply.; As to whether the Canadian study is reliable, this agency is in th process of reviewing the study's findings. Thus far, we have no reason to dispute its conclusions, given the nature of the test conducted. The results of the study appear to be in agreement with some laboratory tests conducted within the United States, including sled tests conducted by the agency in 1978. Although the Canadian test results appear to be accurate, we would like to emphasize that the study involved only a severe (48 km/h) frontal barrier crash test. Questions concerning how safety belts would provide benefits in other types of crashes, such as side impacts or rollovers, were not addressed. In addition, it must be noted that the study was based on a test, not on real-world statistics. We believe that these factors should be taken into consideration when evaluating the results of the Canadian study and its implications for safety belts on school buses.; As you may know, our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's do not require the installation of safety belts on new large school buses, but any school district that wishes to have such belts installed is free to do so. We do require safety belts on smaller school buses, because we believe belts are particularly effective in protecting occupants in such vehicles. For larger school buses (those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds), we require 'compartmentalization'--i.e., high seat backs with extra padding--to provide occupant protection, and we believe the concept works well.; In that regard, I note the Canadian study found that the requirement for compartmentalization required by Canadian safety Standard 222 (CMVSS No. 222) 'functions as intended during frontal impacts and provides excellent protection for occupants.' FMVSS No. 222, our safety standard mandating compartmentalization in school buses, has requirements similar to CMVSS 222. We believe that the Canadian study further supports the effectiveness of the compartmentalization concept required by FMVSS No. 222.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5372OpenMr. Gilbert Gallahar Kings Environmental Hydrogen Systems P.O. Box 713 Marana, AZ 85653; Mr. Gilbert Gallahar Kings Environmental Hydrogen Systems P.O. Box 713 Marana AZ 85653; Dear Mr. Gallahar: This responds to your letter requesting informatio about Federal requirements applicable to an on-board hydrogen generator used on an internal combustion engine to control exhaust emissions. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including an on-board hydrogen generator. NHTSA has not issued any standards for a device such as yours. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Please note that no FMVSS would preclude the installation of your product as an item of original equipment. Nevertheless, if your device were installed on a new vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer or an alterer before the first consumer purchase, then they would have to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. A commercial business that installs the on-board hydrogen generator would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs. For instance, compliance with FMVSS No. 301 might be degraded if the hydrogen generator affected the integrity of a motor vehicle fuel system. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install an on-board hydrogen generator in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. You may wish to contact the Environmental Protection Agency for any questions concerning emissions and air quality. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. You may also wish to contact the state of Arizona for information on its emissions testing regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam2211OpenEjner J. Johnson, Administrator, Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration, 6601 Ritchie Highway, N.E., Glen Burnie, Maryland 21062; Ejner J. Johnson Administrator Maryland Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Administration 6601 Ritchie Highway N.E. Glen Burnie Maryland 21062; Dear Mr. Johnson: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, to Mr. Fre Vetter, expressing your concern about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs).; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is wel aware of the importance of the VIN and its use in requirements for certification, defect investigation, recall campaigns, inspection and registration. We are also well aware of its importance to other users such as State administrations, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies and vehicle manufacturers. The VIN is crucial to the identification of stolen, junked and recycled vehicles.; It was NHTSA's intention with the initial issuance of FMVSS No. 115, t include within its scope all aspects of vehicle numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applied, and to leave any aspects for which there were no specific requirements to the discretion of the manufacturers until such requirements could be issued. This, of course, is the basis of our position that any state rules in this area must be the same as the Federal standards.; We agree, however, that the VIn may be more effective if it i standardized in structure, format, and information content. The NHTSA, though its personnel who are members of the Society of Automotive Engineers and International Standards Organization Committees, has been participating in the efforts to develop a worldwide VIN system for several years. The NHTSA plans to issue in the next few months an NPRM to amend FMVSS No. 115 that will specify requirements for a standardized, uniform identification numbering system for all motor vehicles on a worldwide basis. We welcome all help and recommendations in this action.; I sincerely hope that VESC will provide comments and recommendations t the docket as we proceed in our rulemaking action.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam5576OpenDirector of Operations Central New York Regional Transport Authority 200 Cortland Avenue Syracuse, NY 13205; Director of Operations Central New York Regional Transport Authority 200 Cortland Avenue Syracuse NY 13205; Dear Mr. Renock: Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for you Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Transit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years. The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With regard to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you. NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: M. Judson Brown; |
|
ID: aiam2536Open*AIR MAIL*#Mr. R. M. Ferrari, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design, Department of Transport, Box 1839Q, G.P.O., Melborne 3001, Australia; *AIR MAIL*#Mr. R. M. Ferrari Chairman Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design Department of Transport Box 1839Q G.P.O. Melborne 3001 Australia; Dear Mr. Ferrari: This is in response to your undated request (Ref. 75/1331) for a interpretation of the brake lining inspection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, *Motorcycle Brake Systems*. You asked whether the brake lining wear indicator system that you described would comply with FMVSS No. 122.; Paragraph S5.1.5 requires that 'The brake system shall be installed s that the lining thickness of drum brake shoes may be visually inspected, either directly or by use of a mirror without removing the crums....' Under the system you described 'the only means of determing the lining thickness of the rear brake shoes, without removing the brake drum, is a warning lamp system which becomes energized with the lining thickness is less than 2mm.' In our opinion, this system does not comply with S5.1.5. Although the warning lamp system alerts the operator when a predetermined limit has been reached, it does not provide the direct visual means of inspection of brake lining thickness that the standard requires. Were the warning lamp system to fail, the operator would be left without a means of determining lining thickness unless he removed the brake drum.; It is anticipated that during the next year a revision of FMVSS 12 will be proposed to modify the test procedure. At that time, consideration will be given to changing the requirements of paragraph S5.1.5. These changes would reflect advances in brake wear sensor technology since the original standard was promulgated. Since the intent of of (sic) paragraph S5.1.5 is to give the driver a simple means to determine the discard limit of the friction materials, we will consider allowing other than direct means to determine this limit, provided a check of the system's function can be performed to prevent the problem mentioned above.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5271OpenMr. Jack McIntyre Vice President Tie Tech Inc. Post Office Box 5226 Lynnwood, WA 98046-5226; Mr. Jack McIntyre Vice President Tie Tech Inc. Post Office Box 5226 Lynnwood WA 98046-5226; "Dear Mr. McIntyre: This responds to your letter in which you withdre your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead. You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair. Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, 'except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . .' That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards. I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5557OpenMr. Douglas Helbig Vice President Spencer Testing Services P.O. Box 429 Spencer, WV 25276; Mr. Douglas Helbig Vice President Spencer Testing Services P.O. Box 429 Spencer WV 25276; Dear Mr. Helbig: This responds to your letter asking me to confirm you belief that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) lacks the authority to require the periodic reinspection of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) containers used as fuel tanks on alternative fuel motor vehicles. You are correct. NHTSA has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment. I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2535OpenMr. R.M. Ferrari, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design, Department of Transport, Box 1839Q, G.P.O., Melbourne 3001, Australia; Mr. R.M. Ferrari Chairman Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design Department of Transport Box 1839Q G.P.O. Melbourne 3001 Australia; Dear Mr. Ferrari: This is in response to your undated request (Ref. 75/1331)for a interpretation of the brake lining inspection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, *Motorcycle Brake Systems*. You asked whether the brake lining wear indicator system that you described would comply with FMVSS No. 122.; Paragraph S5.1.5 requires that 'The brake system shall be installed s that the lining thickness of the drum brake shoes may visually inspected, either directly or by use of a mirror without removing the drums...' Under the system you described 'the only means of determining the lining thickness of the read brake shoes, with out removing the brake drum, is a warning lamp system which becomes energized when the lining thickness is less than 2mm.' In our opinion, this system dies not comply with S5.1.5. Although the warning lamp system alerts the operator when a predetermined limit has been reached, it does not provide the direct visual means of inspection of brake lining thickness that the standard requires. Were the warning lamp system to fail, the operator would be left without a means of determining lining thickness unless he removed the brake drum.; It is anticipated that during the next year a revision of FMVSS 12 will be proposed to modify the test procedure. At that time, consideration will be given to changing the requirements of paragraph S5.1.5. These changes would reflect advanced in brake wear sensor technology since the original standard was promulgated. Since the intent of of(sic) paragraph S5.1.5 is to give the driver a simple means of determine the discard limit of the friction materials, we will consider allowing other than direct means to determine this limit, provided a check of the system's function can be performed to prevent the problem mentioned above.; Sincerely, E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4788OpenSatoshi Nishibori, Vice President Industry-Government Affairs Nissan Research & Development, Inc. 750 17th Street NW Suite 902 Washington, DC 20006; Satoshi Nishibori Vice President Industry-Government Affairs Nissan Research & Development Inc. 750 17th Street NW Suite 902 Washington DC 20006; "Dear Mr. Nishibori: This responds to your letter dated June 28, 199 requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, would apply to two vehicle systems Nissan is considering using. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety 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 motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and during a discussion between Kazuo Iwasaki of your staff and Mary Versailles of my staff in our offices on July 13th. I. Car Phone Nissan is considering introducing a car phone in certain passenger cars which has five illuminated displays. The first display shows the number being dialed. The display is illuminated whether or not the phone is in use, and the number dialed continues to be displayed while the phone is in use. The second display illuminates the push buttons. The display becomes illuminated when the first button is pushed, and remains illuminated for 10 seconds. The remainder of the car phone displays are LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is 'in use'. The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when cellular phone service is not available. The third indicator (RM) is illuminated when outside the system's local operating area if the system is able to lock onto an available phone line. It is our understanding that there will be times when none of these three LED's will be illuminated and times when more than one of the LEDs could be illuminated (for example, both the IU and RM indicators). None of the car phone displays can be turned off while the ignition switch is in the 'ON' position. The illumination is not variable in any display. You asked whether the car phone displays are 'telltales' or other 'sources of illumination,' within the meaning of section S5.3.5, and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101. Based upon our understanding of their functioning, the three LED indicators (IU, NS, and RM) would appear to be telltales. Both the IU and RM displays 'indicate the actuation of a device', while the NS display indicates 'a failure to function'. Because the displays are not listed in the standard, and because they are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5 because they are telltales, they are not subject to any illumination requirements. The other displays are not telltales. The functions of both the first display ('number dialed') and the second display ('push button') are not among those listed in the definition of a telltale. The 'number dialed' display provides information in much the same way as a fuel gauge. The illumination of the push buttons functions to facilitate dialing. Because these displays are not among those listed in Standard No. 101, and because they are not telltales, they are subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. Therefore, these displays must 'have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off.' Based upon your description, none of these requirements are currently met. II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated only if both the air-conditioning operating switch and the ignition switch are in the 'ON' position. You indicate that you believe the indicator is a telltale, and that if it is a telltale 'it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions.' Because the indicator light indicates actuation of a device, i.e., the air conditioner, you are correct that it is a telltale. NHTSA would like to clarify that, with the exception of the requirements of section S5.3.5, FMVSS 101 regulates only controls and displays listed in the standard. Since the air-conditioning indicator light you describe is not listed in the standard, and because telltales are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5, there are no illumination requirements. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. 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.