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: aiam4864OpenGary P. Toth, Esq. General Motors Corporation Legal Staff New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Blvd. P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232; Gary P. Toth Esq. General Motors Corporation Legal Staff New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Blvd. P.O. Box 33122 Detroit MI 48232; "Dear Mr. Toth: This responds to your request for an interpretation o how the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209) would affect some dual-spring retractor designs GM is considering. Your letter said that these dual-spring retractors are designed so that a spring with a lower retraction force is or can be engaged when the safety belt is being worn by an occupant. When the safety belt is removed, a spring with a higher retraction force is engaged to effectively stow the belt webbing. Your letter also said that the retractor for the shoulder belt portion of the lap/shoulder belts on which these designs would be used is an emergency locking retractor (ELR). The minimum and maximum retractor force requirements for ELRs are set forth in S4.3(j)(5) and (6) of Standard No. 209. Those sections specify minimum and maximum retractor force requirements when the retractors 'are tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j).' S5.2(j) specifies that, for the purposes of measuring the retractor forces, the webbing shall be fully extended from the retractor and then retracting the webbing to 75 percent extension plus or minus 2 inches. Your letter stated that your dual-spring retractor designs will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j). This is because the higher retraction force will always be engaged under those conditions. It appears that, when the higher retraction force is engaged in these dual-spring retractor designs, the retractors will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements. However, when the lower retraction force is engaged, the retractor force is less than the minimum retractor force requirement. Because these dual-spring retractors comply with the retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209, your company is ready to certify these designs as complying with Standard No. 209. You are, however, concerned with the implications of a February 16, 1984 NHTSA interpretation addressed to Mr. Frank Pepe. In that instance, Mr. Pepe stated that the ELR had two tension modes that were activated by the vehicle door. The subject retractor operated in a high tension mode when the vehicle door was open, and in a lower tension mode when the vehicle door was closed. The agency concluded that, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, the subject retractors would have to comply with all the requirements of the standard, including the minimum and maximum retraction force requirements, in both tension modes. Your letter asked us to reevaluate the conclusions reached in our February 16, 1984 letter to Mr. Pepe. We believe that the facts presented in your letter are significantly different than those that were presented in the Pepe letter, so the conclusions reached in the Pepe letter are not the same we would reach for your company's dual-spring retractors. In the case of the Pepe letter, the starting point for our analysis of whether the retractors would comply with the minimum and maximum retractor force requirements was the language of S4.3(j) in Standard No. 209, which directed us to the test conditions set forth in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209. However, the test conditions in S5.2(j) complete extension of the webbing, followed by subsequent retraction to 75 percent extension did not adjust the Pepe retractors to either the high or low tension mode. Some additional action beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) had to be taken to select either the high or low tension mode. Since the selection of the high or low tension mode was not specified in S5.2(j) or elsewhere in Standard No. 209, NHTSA concluded that the retractor would have to be certified as complying with the retractor force requirements when adjusted to either the high or low tension mode. The GM retractors present a significantly different situation. According to your letter, the conditions set forth in S5.2(j) will adjust the GM retractors in a way so that the higher retraction force will always be engaged. Assuming this to be the case, no adjustments beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) would be necessary to select a tension mode for the retractors. In these circumstances, compliance with the minimum retractor force requirements would be determined only under the conditions specified in S5.2(j). Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4264OpenMr. Allen R. Tank, President, Minikin, 606 NE Lincoln Avenue, St. Cloud, MN 56301; Mr. Allen R. Tank President Minikin 606 NE Lincoln Avenue St. Cloud MN 56301; Dear Mr. Tank: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1986, with respect t the definition of 'motorcycle' for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether a vehicle with two wheels at the front, and one at the rear with two tires mounted on it, would still be regarded as a motorcycle.; The definition of a motorcycle is 'a motor vehicle with motive powe having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.' This is techically (sic) inaccurate in part because wheels do not contact the ground. I believe that the drafter of the definition meant to say 'tires' rather than 'wheels.' Thus the configuration about which you have asked is one in which four tires contact the ground, and we therefore conclude that such a vehicle would not be regarded as a motorcycle.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5311OpenMr. Richard A. Zander AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds 32104 State Road 2 New Carlisle, IN 46552; Mr. Richard A. Zander AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds 32104 State Road 2 New Carlisle IN 46552; "Dear Mr. Zander: This responds to your letter asking about the fad and recovery requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You noted that the standard requires vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be capable of making a specified number of fade stops 'at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop.' You stated that you are aware of a number of different understandings within the industry of the quoted phrase, and requested an interpretation as to whether vehicles must be capable of maintaining an average deceleration of at least 15 fpsps or a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps. As discussed below, vehicles must be capable of maintaining a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Standard No. 105's fade and recovery test requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1. The purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions cause by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Each of the fade and recovery tests consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops, (2) fade stops, and (3) recovery stops. The requirements for the fade stops are set forth in S5.1.4.2(a), which states that: Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less shall be capable of making 5 fade stops (10 fade stops on the second test) from 60 mph at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop, followed by 5 fade stops at the maximum deceleration attainable from 5 to 15 fpsps.' As you noted, S5.1.4.2(a) must be read in conjunction with S7.11.2.1, which sets forth the procedure for conducting the fade stops. It reads, in relevant part, as follows: Make 5 stops from 60 mph at 15 fpsps followed by 5 stops at the maximum attainable deceleration between 5 and 15 fpsps for each stop. ... Attain the required deceleration within 1 second and, as a minimum, maintain it for the remainder of the stopping time. Control force readings may be terminated when the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. (Emphasis added.) The words 'required deceleration' in S7.11.2.1 refer to 15 fpsps. (That value is set forth both in S5.1.4.2(a) and the first sentence of S7.11.2.1.) Thus, in conducting fade stops, within one second of beginning a stop, a deceleration of 15 fpsps must be attained. S7.11.2.1 then specifies that, 'as a minimum,' the required deceleration (15 fpsps) must be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. (The word 'it' in the highlighted sentence refers back to the phrase 'required deceleration.') Thus, after a deceleration of 15 fpsps is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even momentarily. You stated that you are aware of the following three understandings within the industry concerning the meaning of this requirement: 1. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps. The average deceleration is calculated from one second after the stop begins to a vehicle speed of 5 mph. 2. After 1 second the deceleration can not drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. If the deceleration drops below 15 fpsps at any time it is considered a failure even if the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps. 3. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration must be greater than 15 fpsps for at least 75% of the stop excluding the first second of the stop. Of the three understandings, the first and third are inconsistent with the plain wording of S7.11.2.1 which specifies that, after the required 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), it must, as a minimum, be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. The first and third understandings would, among other things, replace S7.11.2.1's specification that the 15 fpsps deceleration be maintained as a 'minimum' with one that it be maintained as an 'average.' The second understanding is largely correct. It is correct to state that, in conducting a fade stop, after a 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. However, if the deceleration did drop below 15 fpsps, that would not necessarily indicate a 'failure' but might simply be an invalid test. As you note in your letter, a deceleration might fall below 15 fpsps because the driver did not compensate for in-stop fade. However, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates. You stated in your letter that the second understanding appears to not consider the intent of the fade procedure, the intent being that a vehicle must be capable of making multiple high deceleration stops in a short period of time without drastic changes in effectiveness. As discussed above, the purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions cause by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. If a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would indicate inadequate stopping capability during conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. You also stated that in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, published by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), the data sheet for the fade stops requests the following information for the deceleration: 'Average Sust Decel.' You stated that it therefore appears that NHTSA's interpretation of the phrase 'at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop' is 'the average sustained deceleration.' It is incorrect to interpret the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures as limiting the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I call your attention to the following note which is set forth at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure: The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures. I am enclosing a copy of the most recent version of the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, in response to your request. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3415OpenMr. Roy Littlefield, Director, Government Relations, National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc., 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Roy Littlefield Director Government Relations National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association Inc. 1343 L Street N.W. Washington DC 20005; Dear Mr. Littlefield: This responds to your March 27, 1981, letter to Mr. Kratzke of m staff. In your letter, you requested a clarification of a statement in my March 11, 1981, letter to Mr. Harry Shirai, concerning the importing of used tires into this country. Specifically, I had indicated that one means by which used tires could legally be imported into the United States would be for the tires to be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, met the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S 571.119). You have asked for more information on what steps would have to be taken to ensure that the imported tires complied with all of the requirements for this alternative.; Since receiving your letter, this agency has re-examined this subject We recognize the severe supply problems facing the industry at this time and the possibly grave adverse price effects on consumers if such shortages are not eliminated. Bearing in mind the serious safety concerns which are involved, the agency has concluded that precedents exist for another alternative solution that would achieve the desired result without compromise of safety.; Used tires imported for retreading are unquestionably 'pneumati tires,' as that term is defined in Standard 109. They cannot, however, legally be used on the public highways, since the tread on casings is almost always well under 2/32 of an inch. The use of tires with such minimal tread on trucks in interstate commerce is prohibited by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR S 393.75(c)) and would violate this agency's specifications for State vehicle inspection standards (49 CFR S 570.9(a) and 49 CFR S 570.62(a)). Hence, the majority of States would not certify a vehicle as passing inspection with these tires and trucks with these tires cannot be used in interstate commerce.; Further, it is important to examine the intent of the importers o these tires.; According to the representations made by your organization and som individual members, it is our understanding that these tires would be imported solely for retreading purposes. In other words, these casings are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment (retreaded truck tires), rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). Objective proof of this intent can be found in the fact that significant numbers of used foreign truck tires were imported into this country between 1975 and 1980, yet this agency has no information indicating that these tires, which did not meet the requirements of Standard 119, were used or sold without being retreaded.; Based on these considerations, we conclude that truck tire casing which have less than 2/32 inch tread and which are imported, introduced into interstate commerce, offered for sale or sold solely for the purpose of retreading are not 'items of motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of that Act. Precedent for the use of such criteria is found in action by the agency in 1969 when it decided that mini-bikes were not 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That decision was made because mini-bikes were prohibited from highway use in the vast majority of the States, and because the manufacturers' subject intent, proven by several objective factors, was not to build vehicles for use on the public roads (34 FR 15416, October 3, 1969).; As you know, there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truc tires. I urge you to stress to your members the need to assure the soundness of the casings used for retreading, so that no safety problems arise from retreading these tires. Should such a problem arise, this agency would consider rulemaking to establish a safety standard for retreaded truck tires, as well as exercising its authority with regard to items containing a safety-related defect.; Should you have any questions on the actual mechanics of importin these casings, and the duties which would be applicable, I suggest that you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U.S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20229. He can be reached at (202) 566-8651.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0819OpenMr. Gerard Alexander, President, B. F. Goodrich Tire Company, 500 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44318; Mr. Gerard Alexander President B. F. Goodrich Tire Company 500 South Main Street Akron OH 44318; Dear Mr. Alexander: This is in response to your petition for rulemaking, submitted *Jul 39, 1971*, to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109) and the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping Regulations (49 CFR Part 574). Your petition requests that Standard No. 109 be amended to provide for a special tire category for folding sidewall-reduced tread tires, of which the 'Space Saver Spare' tire you manufacture is an example. You request specifically that requirements for these tires differ from conventional tires as follows: lower minimum breaking-energy values in the strength test (S4.2.2.4, Table II), modified minimum size factors for certain tire size designations which you list, elimination of the condition that the tire be mounted without lubricant for the bead unseating test (S4.2.2.3), and allowing the tire identification number to be placed on the lower sidewall (49 CFR 574.5). *For the reasons stated below, your petition is hereby denied insofar as it requests modifications to the strength and bead unseating requirements of Standard No. 109, and the requirements of Part 574. We make certain recommendations herein regarding your request for modification of the minimum size factors of Standard No. 109*.; The basis for your request for lower breaking-energy values in th strength test is that the values you request represent a level of performance equal to that of a conventional tire having the same amount of tread remaining as a new folding sidewall-reduced tread tire. *The NHTSA cannot accept this argument as a valid basis for specifying lower breaking-energy value requirements for folding sidewall-reduced tread tires. The requirements specified for the strength test are considered to be necessary minimum requirements for all new passenger car tires. Consequently, persons who purchase new tires, regardless of their construction, are entitled to at least this level of performance, and not the level of performance represented by a used tire*.; *The NHTSA does not believe, similarly, that you have presented sufficient basis for elimination of the condition,* in the *bead unseating test procedure, that the tire be mounted for the test without the use of lubricant*. While the NHTSA concurs in the benefits of run-flat performance, which the 'Space Saver Spare' appears to provide, *we do not believe that this advantage outweighs the necessity that the tire conform to the bead unseating requirements when mounted without lubrication. The NHTSA believes the possibility that tires will be mounted without lubrication in the field is sufficiently great to warrant the retention of this condition in the standard's test procedure*.; *We also do not consider sufficient the justification you provide fo your request that the identification number required pursuant to Part 574 be allowed to be placed on the lower sidewall of the tire*. Your statement to the effect that no problems are presented if the number 'wears off' ignores the fact that the number must be retained on the tire for purposes of identification should a defect notification or recall campaign be instituted.; With reference to your request for modification of the minimum siz factor for the tire size designations which you list, *we believe B. F. Goodrich should petition, in accordance* with *guidelines published October 5, 1968 (33 F.R. 14964)*, to *amend the Appendices of Standards Nos. 109 and 110 to provide that folding sidewall-reduced tread tires be added as a separate tire type, including new size designations* and *corresponding values for section width and minimum size factor that you consider appropriate*.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5000OpenMr. John Faist DAS Fleet Services Division City of Seattle 8618 2d Avenue, 12th Floor Seattle, WA 98104; Mr. John Faist DAS Fleet Services Division City of Seattle 8618 2d Avenue 12th Floor Seattle WA 98104; "Dear Mr. Faist: This responds to the letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from Chris Kuczynski, Fleet Services Division, City of Seattle Department of Administrative Services, dated February 4, 1992, asking how the provisions of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 pertained to 'a municipal government agency that transfers, modifies and/or fabricates custom vehicle bodies for use by it's own departments.' In a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office on April 3, 1992, you stated that the vehicle modifications referred to in the letter involve only trucks, both light and heavy, that you combine both new and used bodies with both new and used chassis, endeavoring to retain the old engines, power axles, and transmissions to the extent possible, that such modifications include mounting equipment on truck chassis to create such specific-purpose vehicles as dump trucks, cranes, and the like, that some of such modifications and fabrications are done in your own shops while others are contracted out to local body shops, and that passenger cars and buses are not involved. Before addressing the specific issues raised in the letter, some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U. S. Code, 1381 - 1431 (hereinafter 'Safety Act') authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or disapprove motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process which requires each manufacturer, in the exercise of due care, to ensure and certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Thereafter, NHTSA will periodically test vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards and investigate allegations of safety-related defects. Turning now to the modifications to your trucks, we start first with the provisions of 49 CFR, Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, which provides in pertinent part: When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. NHTSA has consistently interpreted that provision to mean that, by its terms, it applies only to new bodies and not to old ones, and that placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axles, as a minimum, are not new and at least two of which were taken from the same vehicle. Conversely, a new vehicle would result by placing a new body on an old chassis utilizing new, a combination of new and used, or used engine, transmission, and drive axles no two of which were taken from the same vehicle. A new vehicle would also result by placing a body, new or used, on a new chassis. In that case the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle which is defined at 49 CFR, Part 568.3 as: A n assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle. By adding a body to the new chassis, you, the City of Seattle, become a final-stage manufacturer, defined in Part 568.3 as '. . . A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.' As such, you are required by Part 568.6(a) to '. . . C omplete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, . . . .' Part 568.6(b) then requires that 'Each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with 567.5 of this chapter.' For your additional information I am enclosing a NHTSA fact sheet entitled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT. To summarize, placing a new body on a used chassis does not make a new vehicle if, as a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axles are not new and if at least two of those components were taken from the same vehicle. A new chassis, however, is an incomplete vehicle and placing a body thereon, whether new or old, results in a new vehicle which must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the new chassis, and the final-stage manufacturer who completes the assembly of the vehicle must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR, Part 567. Accordingly, in response to your question about the applicability of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 to your truck customization program, the answer is that if you create a new vehicle, all those provisions apply. If you do not create a new vehicle, none of them do. This is true whatever procedures/steps you choose to utilize in accomplishing your vehicle customization program. One final matter should be discussed before concluding. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a complying vehicle. That restriction does not apply to private owners, which would include municipalities, who are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the vehicles so modified comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Such restriction would apply, however, to those local body/repair shops to which you contract out some of your customization work. Accordingly, those businesses would have to be very careful to leave intact all the safety devices and features that are on the vehicles that they work on for you. I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry and will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Enclosure Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4209OpenMr. H. Tsujishita, Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept., Head Office, Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., 1, Daihatsu-Cho, Ikeda City, Osaka Prefecture, JAPAN; Mr. H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office Daihatsu Motor Co. Ltd. 1 Daihatsu-Cho Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN; Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1986, asking thre interpretation questions concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, *Controls and Displays*, and 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. The answers to your questions are provided below.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.; Your first question concerns the visibility requirements for the uppe beam telltale (indicator). As noted by your letter, section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101 provides that the light intensity of each telltale shall be such that, when activated, that telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. The upper beam telltale is one of the telltales subject to that requirement. You note, however, that section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108 requires a high beam indicator that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a (except that the signal color need not be red). J564a provides that the upper beam indicator should be 'plainly visible to drivers of all heights under normal driving conditions when headlights are required.' Based on this provision, you suggest that the upper beam telltale is not required to be visible to the driver under the daytime conditions when headlamps are not needed. As discussed below, your understanding is incorrect.; The difference between these two requirements is not so great as yo suggest. The reference to 'normal driving conditions' in J564a includes a variety of non-nighttime conditions (e.g., driving at dusk or dawn, and driving in daytime rainstorms) when headlamp use may be required by the States. To the extent that Standard No. 101 requires the telltale to be visible under daylight driving conditions not covered by Standard No. 108, manufacturers must meet the broader requirement. Manufacturers are required to meet all applicable safety standards. We note that while Standards No. 101 and 108 each cover upper beam telltales and specify different requirements, it is possible to meet the requirements of both standards simultaneously.; You stated that under daylight conditions the upper beam cannot dazzl oncoming drivers and that there is therefore no need to inform the driver that the upper beam is on. While there may be less need for this telltale during daylight than at night, Standard No. 101 reflects our believe that there is still a need and requires that the telltale be visible under all daytime and nighttime conditions (if the upper beams are actually on).; Your second question concerns the upper beam telltale minimum are requirement. SAE Recommended Practice J564a, which, as noted above, is referenced by section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108, provides that the upper beam indicator should consist of a 'light, with a minimum area equivalent to that of a 3/16 in. diameter circle.' You asked how this requirement would apply to two designs.; In the first design, the outline of the telltale symbol would lighte while the area within and around the telltale symbol would not. You suggested that the framed area, i.e., the area within the telltale that is framed by the outline but not lighted itself, can be counted into the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is incorrect. In the second design, the telltale symbol would be superimposed on a rectangle. In this case, the entire area within the rectangle would lighten, except for that covered by the symbol itself. You suggested that the lighted area other than that covered by the symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is correct.; In referencing SAE Recommended Practice J564a, Standard No. 10 requires that the upper beam indicator must consist of a light, and also specifies the minimum area for that light. It does not specify the shape of the light. If the light is a simple circle which is lighted in its entirety (with the identification required by Standard No. 101 placed adjacent to the circle), that lighted circle must be at least 3/16 inch in diameter. If the light is some other shape, such as the shape of the upper beam symbol or a rectangle in which only part of the area is lighted, the total area which is lighted must be at least as large as the area of a 3/16 inch circle. Thus, in the case of the first design discussed above, only the outline area (i.e., the blue lighted area) of the upper beam symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. The unlighted interior part *i.e., the black area) of the symbol cannot be counted toward the minimum area requirement. In the case of the second design discussed above, the entire (blue) area within the rectangle that lightens can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. However, that part of the rectangle which does not lighten, i.e., the (white) part covered by the symbol, cannot be counted.; Your third question concerns Standard No. 101's illuminatio requirements for a side marker lamp control that is incorporated into the master lighting switch. As suggested by your letter and as discussed below, illumination is not required if the identifying symbol for the side marker lamps is marked on the master lighting switch.; While Table I of Standard No. 101 requires that side marker lam controls be identified with the side marker lamp control symbol and that such identification be illuminated, it also provides that separate identification is not required if controlled by the master lighting switch. Thus, for side marker lamp controls that are incorporated into the master lighting switch, use of the side marker lamp control symbol is voluntary. Since such identification is not required by Standard No. 101, it is our opinion that the standard does not require manufacturers to illuminate such identification if they choose to provide it voluntarily.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5041OpenMs. R. Marie McFadden Cable Car Concepts Inc. P.O. Box 6500 Deltona, FL 32728; Ms. R. Marie McFadden Cable Car Concepts Inc. P.O. Box 6500 Deltona FL 32728; "Dear Ms. McFadden: This responds to your June 23, 1992 lette requesting information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and seating in vehicles manufactured by your company. These vehicles are the 'Mini Trolley,' the 'Road Train,' and the 'Trolley Tram.' You indicated that these vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to answer your specific questions, it is necessary to determine how each of your vehicles is classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a 'bus' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' Your literature indicates that the 'Mini Trolley' has a passenger capacity of 18, and that the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram' has a passenger capacity of 22. Therefore, both of these vehicles would be considered a 'bus' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA defines a 'truck' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' The power unit of the 'Road Train' has seating capacity for only one passenger, and the primary use appears to be to draw the coaches. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a 'truck' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA defines a 'trailer' as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' The coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations. Your specific questions and the answers to each follow. You asked us to answer these questions for vehicles manufactured both before and after September 1, 1991. 1. Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs. The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, buses such as the 'Mini Trolley' and the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram' are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at the driver's position, trucks such as the power unit of the 'Road Train' are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position, and trailers such as the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position. The requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR). The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. Trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR. Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not required to have safety belts. 2. As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all. The seating requirements are contained in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. This standard includes strength requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side- facing seats. Therefore, the driver's seat in the 'Mini Trolley' and the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram,' and all 'occupant seats' in the power unit of the 'Road Train' must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. The standard does not specify that seats must be made of a particular material, therefore, oak seats are permitted if they comply with the standard. As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207. We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats. As stated above, Standard No. 207 applies only to the driver's seat in buses such as the 'Mini Trolley' or the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram.' If the jump seat is in the power unit of the 'Road Train,' and if it is not a side- facing seat, it must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 if it is an 'occupant seat' as defined in that standard. Section S3 of Standard No. 207 defines an 'occupant seat' as 'a seat that provides at least one designated seating position.' A 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Your letter does not contain enough information to determine whether your seat would be considered an auxiliary seating position. If it is, it is not subject to Standard No. 207. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3401OpenMr. John G. Frail, P.O. Box 581, Bronxville, NY 10708; Mr. John G. Frail P.O. Box 581 Bronxville NY 10708; Dear Mr. Frail: This is in reply to your letter of April 9, 1981, to this agenc asking, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail or stop lamp of 4 inches is measured *outside* of the lamp or *inside of the lamp*.' You have asked this question in behalf of an 'OEM supplier' in Germany.; The requirement in Table IV of Standard No. 108 is that the minimu edge to edge separation distance between a turn signal lamp and a tail or stop lamp be 4 inches while the turn signal lamps themselves must have a minimum separation distance of 9 inches between their centerlines. (Your design is somewhat confusing as it depicts centerlines of stop lamps and turn signal lamps at 9 inches.) We interpret this as meaning the minimum separation distance between the edge of lighted area to be 4 inches, as depicted in 'B' in your design. Of course, final responsibility for compliance with this requirement rests on the vehicle manufacturer rather than the equipment manufacturer.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2652OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your June 29, 1977, letter asking whether states ar preempted from regulating minimum seat spacing in school buses by Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, which regulates maximum seat spacing.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in Sectio 103(d):; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Section 103(d) has the effect of preempting safety standards of th states and their political subdivisions unless they are identical to applicable Federal safety standards that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance. The second sentence of the section clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards.; The state regulations to which you refer in your letter would mandat minimum seat spacing in school buses. Although the requirement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates maximum seat spacing and the state requirements regulate minimum spacing, the regulated aspect of performance is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that state standards applicable to all school buses concerning minimum seat spacing regulate the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard and would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Section 103(d) would not prevent a state from requiring minimum seat spacing in buses procured for its own use as long as the maximum seat spacing of 20 inches is not violated.; The agency will try to disseminate this opinion to the states a broadly as possible. If you receive further state inquiries on this subject, you should refer them to this office.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.