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: aiam5203OpenMr. Bob Davis Quality Control Manager Horton Emergency Vehicles 500 Industrial Mile Road Columbus, OH 43228; Mr. Bob Davis Quality Control Manager Horton Emergency Vehicles 500 Industrial Mile Road Columbus OH 43228; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1993 requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206 as it affects the rear doors of ambulances that your company manufactures. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that your ambulances have two rear doors, and that each has locking mechanisms that can be operated both from the outside and inside of the doors. Your specific question is whether you can eliminate the inside locking mechanism on one of the rear doors without violating Standard No. 206. The language in S4.1.3 of Standard No. 206 that you noted in your letter (i.e., 'Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.') refers to side doors, but not to rear doors. Thus, your company's ambulances need not be equipped with locking mechanisms on each rear door. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5204OpenMr. Bob Davis Quality Control Manager Horton Emergency Vehicles 500 Industrial Mile Road Columbus, OH 43228; Mr. Bob Davis Quality Control Manager Horton Emergency Vehicles 500 Industrial Mile Road Columbus OH 43228; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1993 requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206 as it affects the rear doors of ambulances that your company manufactures. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that your ambulances have two rear doors, and that each has locking mechanisms that can be operated both from the outside and inside of the doors. Your specific question is whether you can eliminate the inside locking mechanism on one of the rear doors without violating Standard No. 206. The language in S4.1.3 of Standard No. 206 that you noted in your letter (i.e., 'Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.') refers to side doors, but not to rear doors. Thus, your company's ambulances need not be equipped with locking mechanisms on each rear door. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: 22250Open Trooper Dene Kay Dear Trooper Kay: This responds to your letter to this agency regarding Federal standards on "altering" motor vehicles, specifically with regard to taillights, door handles, and windshield wipers. I will begin with some background information on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards and then address each of your questions in turn. Background Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code (the Act), authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the U.S. must comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Also enclosed is a brochure entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which includes a listing of FMVSS that apply to different vehicle type classifications. Persons altering a new motor vehicle prior to its first retail sale to a consumer are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation, 49 CFR 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles. A person who alters a previously certified motor vehicle must affix an additional certification label to the vehicle which states that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable FMVSS. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a motor vehicle after its first retail sale are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 from knowingly making 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 FMVSS. However, the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit consumers from modifying their own vehicles, even if such modifications adversely affect the compliance of the vehicle with the FMVSS. Such modifications may, nevertheless, be regulated by State law. I will now address each of your specific questions. Taillights You state that individuals are installing clear taillight lenses with no red reflectors. The Federal requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are established by FMVSS No. 108 (49 C.F.R. 571.108), Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which applies to lighting equipment on new vehicles and replacement equipment for that original lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 requires lighting equipment manufactured to replace original lighting equipment to be designed to conform to FMVSS No. 108. Table I and Table III of FMVSS No. 108 require reflex reflectors (on the rear and the sides of the vehicle at the rear), tail lamps, and stop lamps to be red in color. The color red is defined by Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J578c, Color Specifications for Electric Signaling Devices, February 1977, which S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Thus, the manufacture of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps whose original color of light emitted was red is a violation of S5.8 of FMVSS No. 108, and the manufacture, importation, and sale of clear lenses or lamps for these purposes is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112. You also state that these taillight lenses do not have red reflectors; this too would be a violation. If a noncompliant lamp or lens is installed as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer is in violation of FMVSS No. 108. If a noncompliant lamp or lens is installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as a replacement item, that entity is in violation of 49 U.S.C. 30122. Note, however, that no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the clear lenses, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with an applicable safety standard. You should note that many lamps such as you describe have been recalled. Many were also missing side markers and side reflectors in red. Whether it is legal to drive a vehicle with clear lenses installed by the vehicle's owner is a question to be answered under the laws in effect where the vehicle is driven. While we cannot provide an opinion about Utah law, we note that our search of the Utah administrative code showed Rule R714-200-3, "Standards for Vehicle Lights and Illuminating Devices," incorporates FMVSS No. 108 as the standard governing motor vehicle lighting equipment. Thus, it appears that motor vehicle lighting equipment that does not comply with FMVSS No. 108 may also be illegal for use in your state. Door Handles You state that individuals are removing vehicles' outside door handles and replacing them with hidden switches to open the doors. FMVSS No. 206 (49 C.F.R. 571.206), Door Locks and Door Retention Components, applies to new motor vehicles and includes requirements that may affect this type of modification. The standard does not require that motor vehicle doors have outside door handles. However, the standard does require each motor vehicle door to "be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle." (49 C.F.R. 571.206, S4.1.3). When the locking mechanism on the side front door is engaged, "the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative." (S4.1.3.1, emphasis added). When the locking mechanism on the side rear door is engaged, "both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative." (S4.1.3.2, emphasis added). We consider the hidden switches you described in your letter to be "other latch release controls." Thus, these hidden switches must be inoperative when the locking mechanism on the doors is engaged. If these hidden switches are installed by an alterer prior to first sale, then the alterer must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the switches are installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business after first sale, the installation must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 206. However, no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the switches, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Such a modification could, however, be regulated by State law. Windshield Wipers You also state that individuals are removing vehicles' windshield wipers and replacing them with "just one large wiper." FMVSS No. 104 (49 C.F.R. 571.104), Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, specifies windshield wiper requirements for new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS No. 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared. All of the aforementioned vehicles must have a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets specific frequency or speed requirements, e.g., cycles per minute, as identified in the standard. FMVSS No. 104 requires that passenger car windshield wiping systems wipe that specified percentages of the critical windshield areas defined in that standard and SAE Recommended Practice 903a, May 1966. As you will see in copies of the enclosed documents, defining these critical windshield areas is a complex process. Additionally, FMVSS No. 104 requires that passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses have windshield washing systems. A passenger car's windshield washing system in conjunction with its associated wiping system shall clear the critical windshield areas identified above. For multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, the standard states that the critical windshield areas may be specified by the vehicle manufacturer. The number of windshield wipers required is not specified by this standard. If the single wiper described in your letter is installed by an alterer prior to first sale, then the alterer must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the wiper is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business after first sale, the installation must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 104. However, no federal laws or safety standards prohibit an owner of a vehicle from installing the wiper, even if the installation renders inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Such a modification could, however, be regulated by State law. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Enclosures |
2001 |
ID: 22282Open Mr. Anthony Breau Dear Mr. Breau: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 2000, asking for this agency's comments on your Mirrorcal Wiper mirror and wiper assembly. I note that your letter does not ask any specific questions as to whether your mirror and wiper assembly complies with Federal standards. Thus, I will give you some general information on the functions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the responsibilities of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The Mirrorcal Wiper assembly may be subject to several NHTSA standards. The first is FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR '571.111). FMVSS No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 111. Please note that since FMVSS No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under NHTSA's enabling statute, the agency considers the mirror to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to our statute's requirements concerning the recall of products with safety-related defects. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Since it operates off the same air compressor as the vehicle's air brakes, the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly also may affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). FMVSS No. 121 specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on trucks, buses, and trailers that are equipped with air brake systems. FMVSS No. 121 does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for wiper assemblies such as the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly, but doing so could affect the vehicle's braking performance and, hence, compliance with the standard. Finally, since the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly operates off the air compressor, any hoses connected to the assembly could be subject to FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), if they transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, i.e., if a failure of a hose attached to the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this is the case, the hoses attached to the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly are "brake hoses" and must comply with FMVSS No. 106. However, if a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the brake air pressure and would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 106. Note that if the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS Nos. 111, 121, and 106. If the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly is added to a previously-certified new vehicle, the person so modifying the vehicle would be required to certify that, as modified, the vehicle continues to comply with all FMVSSs. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. ' 30122, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make 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 . . . ." If the installation of your mirror and wiper assembly resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, 121, or 106, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced the complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have made inoperative a device (the mirror system, air brakes, or brake hoses) installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 111, 121, or 106. The law permits NHTSA to impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation of the make-inoperative provision. Section 30122 does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors and brake systems. In addition, individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of mirrors vehicles must have to be registered in that State. Finally, since the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly is designed for heavy vehicles, it may be subject to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations. The FMCSA is the agency within the Department of Transportation responsible for safety regulations concerning the operation of heavy trucks and buses in interstate commerce. I hope you find this information useful. If you have any specific questions as to whether your mirror and wiper assembly meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, 121, or 106, please feel free to contact Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992, or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at (202) 366-2519. Sincerely, John Womack Ref:111 |
2001 |
ID: 23299.rbmOpen Ms. Rebecca D. Plank Dear Ms. Plank: This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask about NHTSA's position on vehicle conversions that require a lowered floor. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) most likely to be affected by a modification that lowers the vehicle floor is FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity. Your question is in response to a magazine advertisement that claims NHTSA has recommended dealers purchase completed lowered floor vehicles when such a conversion is needed. By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.). One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must self-certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs. The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act. On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified at 49 CFR Part 595. While portions of several FMVSSs were included in the exemption, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, was not. Additionally, the exception was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle. FMVSS No. 301 is a vehicle standard that addresses a vehicle's fuel system integrity. How and if the standard applies to a particular business is dependent upon the product or services that the business provides. Producers of equipment that is used in a system designed to comply with a particular FMVSS are component suppliers and would not be directly subject to the requirements of the standard, (1) although any manufacturer or alterer using the product would be. Final stage manufacturers or alterers of vehicles that modify a vehicle system that the previous-stage manufacturer had certified as compliant must certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured or altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. Vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to negate the vehicle's compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards. Since NHTSA has not included FMVSS No. 301 as part of the exemption from the make inoperative provision, a business cannot modify a vehicle in a manner that negates compliance with that standard, even if it is a modifier rather than a manufacturer or alterer. Accordingly, vehicle modifiers must take care to ensure that they do not modify the vehicle fuel system in a manner that takes it out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. The surest way to provide such assurances would be to purchase vehicles where the floor has already been lowered by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer, who has certified compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, this is not necessarily the only way to assure a vehicle with a dropped floor still complies with FMVSS No. 301. Another way to provide assurance that compliance has not been compromised is by modifying the vehicle pursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of crash-testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, we believe that your organization, the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA), has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. If the resulting protocol were carefully followed, a modifier may be able to satisfy itself that the vehicle has not been taken out of compliance. Finally, a modifier may be able to use engineering analysis alone to determine whether the vehicle modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. This last option is the most risky since there is no crash-test data to verify the soundness of the modifier's judgment. NHTSA cannot provide information as to whether specific types of modifications would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. This is the responsibility of the modifier. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass a FMVSS No. 301 crash test. Absent such vehicle specific test data, we urge vehicle modifiers to work closely with the vehicle manufacturers to determine whether a potential modification would take a vehicle out of compliance. I hope the addresses your concerns. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202)366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter. Sincerely, John Womack ref:595 1 As a practical matter, component suppliers often assume some responsibility to the vehicle manufacturer for the compliance of their products to applicable FMVSSs. This is done through a contractual relationship between the supplier and the vehicle manufacturer that certifies compliance. |
2002 |
ID: 002661cmcOpenMs. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs: This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply. While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) provides that: 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[.] Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection; FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below. FMVSS No. 207 FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard. FMVSS No. 208 Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position. FMVSS No. 209 FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard. FMVSS No. 210 FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard. FMVSS No. 225 If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle. I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Chief Counsel [1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990. [2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints. |
2003 |
ID: 002661cmc_newOpenMs. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs: This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply. While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) provides that:
Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection; FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below. FMVSS No. 207 FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard. FMVSS No. 208 Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position. FMVSS No. 209 FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard. FMVSS No. 210 FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard. FMVSS No. 225 If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle. I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:207 [1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990. [2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints. |
2003 |
ID: nht95-6.16OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 21, 1995 FROM: Hugh J. Bode -- Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A. TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124 ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO HUGH J. BODE (REDBOOK 4; STD. 124; VSA 30118) TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack: The purpose of this letter is to request that NHTSA confirm that the former National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require a motor vehicle to continue to comply with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard after it is sold to its first retail purchaser. Specifically, we ask that NHTSA confirm that a vehicle in use is not required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124; Accelerator Control Systems, 49 CFR 571.124 (hereinafter "FMVSS 124"), after the first retail sale of the vehicle. The vehicle at issue is a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup which was manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation in Japan and distributed by Chrysler Corporation in the United States. The pickup was equipped with a Mikuni Model 32-35-DIDEF-328 carburetor. When it was first sold, the 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck was certified by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation as being in compliance with all then applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including FMVSS 124. As we understand it, former @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former @ 108(b)(1), 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(b)(1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former @ 108(a)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. We ask that you confirm the accuracy of the foregoing general statement of the applicability of the FMVSS under the Safety Act. In addition, we ask that you address the following specific questions concerning the application of FMVSS 124 to the 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup: 1. We ask NHTSA to confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle. 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124. 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5. 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance. We thank you in advance for your assistance in confirming these points. |
|
ID: nht95-3.93OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 21, 1995 FROM: Hugh J. Bode -- Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A. TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124 ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO HUGH J. BODE (REDBOOK 4; STD. 124; VSA 30118) TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack: The purpose of this letter is to request that NHTSA confirm that the former National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require a motor vehicle to continue to comply with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard after it is sold to its first retail purchaser. Specifically, we ask that NHTSA confirm that a vehicle in use is not required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124; Accelerator Control Systems, 49 CFR 571.124 (hereinafter "FMVSS 124"), after the first retail sale of the vehicle. The vehicle at issue is a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup which was manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation in Japan and distributed by Chrysler Corporation in the United States. The pickup was equipped with a Mikuni Model 32-35-DIDEF-328 carburetor. When it was first sold, the 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck was certified by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation as being in compliance with all then applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including FMVSS 124. As we understand it, former @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conform ity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehic le. Safety Act former @ 108(b)(1), 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(b)(1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former @ 108(a)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. @ 301 22(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. We ask that you confirm the accuracy of the foregoing general statement of the applicability of the FMVSS under the Safety Act. In addition, we ask that you address the following specific questions concerning the application of FMVSS 124 to the 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup: 1. We ask NHTSA to confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle. 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion developed insi de the carburetor so that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124. 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5. 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance. We thank you in advance for your assistance in confirming these points. |
|
ID: 07-003933asOpenLars E. Gulbrandsen, Esq. Quarles & Brady LLP 411 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497 Dear Mr. Gulbrandsen: This responds to your letter regarding the regulation of your clients (Eatons) product called the Hydraulic Launch Assist (HLA) system. You stated that the product is new regenerative braking system, and asked how it would be regulated under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You stated that the HLA system is similar in purpose to the regenerative braking systems incorporated into hybrid-electric vehicles. According to your letter, the HLA system captures energy generated during braking in a large compressed gas accumulator containing nitrogen, and then releases that energy upon acceleration to produce better fuel economy. We are happy to provide answers to your questions below. We note that in your letter, you requested that information regarding the HLA system be kept confidential. However, in a subsequent conversation with Ari Scott of my staff regarding the requirements for confidential submissions under 49 CFR 512, you agreed that it would be acceptable for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to make your letter public in its current form, as is standard agency practice when issuing letters of interpretation. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Question 1: Do the FMVSS standards applicable to Regenerative Braking Systems apply to the HLA system?
In the paragraph explaining this question, you noted that FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, defines a regenerative braking system (RBS) as an electrical energy system that is installed in an EV [electric vehicle] for recovering or dissipating kinetic energy, and which uses the propulsion motor(s) as a retarder for partial braking of the EV while returning electrical energy to the propulsion battery(s) or dissipating electrical energy. The same definition is included in FMVSS No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems. You noted that the HLA does not use batteries nor is it designed to work with an electric vehicle. You stated that, accordingly, you do not read this definition to include the HLA system. We agree with this conclusion. The HLA would not be considered an RBS for purposes of these standards, and the RBS requirements specified in the standards would not apply to the HLA. We note that a vehicle subject to FMVSS No. 105 or 135 would, of course, be required to meet the other requirements of the applicable standard with the HLA as installed.
Question 2: What indicators must Eaton include on a vehicle incorporating the HLA system?
In your letter, you state that you believe Eaton is permitted to include an HLA system indicator on vehicles equipped with the HLA system under FMVSS No. 101, Controls, Telltales, and Indicators, provided this indicator does not interfere with required indicators. We note that, based on the information provided in your letter, the devices you are asking about are considered telltales under that standard, and we will refer to them as such. According to the information you provided, the telltale will read HLA. A yellow HLA telltale would indicate that the HLA system is not functioning but that the vehicle can still be operated, while a red HLA telltale would indicate that the HLA system is not working and the vehicle should not be driven. Based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that the telltales you describe would be permitted under FMVSS No. 101. We note that, for reasons stated above, the HLA system would not be considered an RBS under our standards. Therefore, it does not need to use the symbol RBS or ABS/RBS (the identification specified by FMVSS No. 101 for regenerative brake system malfunction telltales). Since a telltale indicating a malfunction in a supplemental hydraulic/pneumatic braking system is not otherwise covered by Standard No. 101 or any other standard, its identification is at the option of the manufacturer. We also note that you are using a red color to indicate a severe failure, and a yellow color to indicate a less severe failure. This scheme uses those colors in a manner similar to how they are used for other telltales in FMVSS No. 101. Therefore, we consider this consistent with the requirements of S5.4.2, which states that [a]ny indicator or telltale not listed in Table 1 and identification of that indicator or telltale must not be a color that masks the drivers ability to recognize any telltale, control, or indicator listed in Table 1.
Question 3: Should the brake lights come on when the HLA system is retarding the speed of the vehicle?
In your letter, you asked if active slowing of the vehicle by the HLA system alone necessitates the activation of the brake lights. FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, S5.5.4, states that [t]he stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. Because the HLA system is a supplemental brake system (i.e., not the service brakes), the standard does not require the stop lamps to be activated upon activation of the HLA system. We note, consistent with past interpretations, that FMVSS No. 108 does not prohibit the activation of the stop lamps when the HLA system is retarding the speed of the vehicle after the accelerator has been released. The SAE Recommended Practices on stop lamps that are incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, SAE J586 (May 1984) and SAE J1398 (May 1985), define stop lamps as [l]amps which indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking. If the vehicle is designed so that release of the accelerator results in braking action from the HLA, we believe this condition can be viewed as an intention by the operator to diminish speed by braking. However, if the HLA system is deactivated, then FMVSS No. 108 would prohibit the brake lights from being activated when the accelerator is released.[1] Question 4: Does the HLA system implicate FMVSS No. 105 [121]?
In your letter, you ask if the HLA system implicates paragraph S5.3.4.1 of FMVSS No. 105. We presume this is actually a reference to paragraph S5.3.4.1 of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and that you are asking about a situation where the HLA system may be installed on air-braked vehicles. That paragraph establishes certain requirements for service brake release times. The definition of service brake is given in 49 CFR 571.3, and states that [s]ervice brake means the primary mechanism designed to stop a motor vehicle. Despite the fact that the HLA system is a brake system and does change the braking torque to the wheels, it is not the primary mechanism designed to stop the motor vehicle, and therefore not a service brake. Therefore, the HLA system is not subject to this requirement. However, we note that an air-braked vehicle would have to meet all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 with the HLA system installed.
Question 5: As a manufacturer of the HLA system, must Eaton register under 49 CFR 566? You ask whether Eaton is required to register with NHTSA under 49 CFR 566. The answer is it is likely Eaton is not required to register by virtue of manufacturing the HLA system, although it depends on what, specifically, has been incorporated into the HLA system. 49 CFR 566.4, Application, states, [t]his part applies to all manufacturers of motor vehicles, and to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. As you stated in your letter, Eaton plans to manufacture and sell the HLA system to vehicle manufacturers, which will install the HLA systems themselves. Therefore, under 49 CFR 566.4, Eaton is not subject to the requirements of Part 566 with regard to those standards that apply only to motor vehicles, because Eaton is not the manufacturer of the motor vehicle that the HLA system will ultimately become a part of. We note that Standards No. 101, 105, 121, and 135 are only applicable to vehicles.[2] However, certain FMVSSs apply not only to motor vehicles, but also to items of motor vehicle equipment. If the HLA system encompasses some item of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS directly applies, then Eaton would be subject to the requirements of Part 566. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:105 d.1/16/09 |
2009 |
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.