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: 09-000707asOpenMr. Robert Lane Director of Product Development Heil Trailer International 1125 Congress Pky P.O. Box 160 Athens, TN 37371-0160 Dear Mr. Lane: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact protection. Specifically, you ask whether a pintle hook described in your letter would be considered a nonstructural protrusion for purposes of determining the rearmost point of the vehicle. Based on the information you provided, we would consider the pintle hook a nonstructural protrusion. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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. Paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 224 defines a rear extremity as: [T]he rearmost point on a vehicle that is above a horizontal plane located 560 mm [22 inches] above the ground and below a horizontal plane located 1,900 mm [75 inches] above the ground when the vehicle is configured as specified in S5.1 of this section and when the vehicle's cargo doors, tailgate, or other permanent structures are positioned as they normally are when the vehicle is in motion. Nonstructural protrusions such as taillights, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches are excluded from the determination of the rearmost point. According to the information provided in your letter, the lowest point of the pintle hook is situated 25 inches above the ground, and the hook extends 7.125 inches rearward from the (otherwise) rearmost point of the vehicle. The diagram included with your letter indicated the total area of the pintle hook attachment plate is approximately 50 square inches. We note that, as we have stated in the past, merely because something is attached to the body, as opposed to the chassis, does not mean that an object is nonstructural. The definition of rear extremity refers to the rearmost point on a vehicle, not the rearmost point of the chassis, or the rearmost point of the steel structure. The attributes that the examples of nonstructural protrusions listed in this definition have in common are that they are relatively small and localized and would not have a major impact on a colliding passenger vehicle.[1] We have previously issued several interpretations regarding rear attachments where there was a question as to whether they might be considered nonstructural. In these interpretations, several factors were considered. First, we took into account the width of the protrusion. Second, we took into account how rigid the protrusion was, as it related to the damage it could cause if it struck the occupant compartment of a vehicle in a rear impact. Finally, in two cases, we analyzed the height of the protrusion, also with regard to how likely it was to strike the occupant compartment of a vehicle. Several letters found that the protrusion did not qualify as a nonstructural protrusion. In one letter[2] we determined that a 0.19 inch thick steel deflector plate that extended across the entire width of the trailer was part of the vehicle, and thus not a nonstructural protrusion. Similarly, we found that an 18 inch deep spreader pan, located 52.75 inches above the ground and extending the width of a trailer, was not a nonstructural protrusion,[3] noting that at that height the spreader pan could penetrate the passenger compartment of a colliding passenger vehicle. Finally, NHTSA also found that a plastic rear apron extending 27 inches from the rear of the vehicle and that wraps around the tailgate was not a nonstructural protrusion.[4] In making this determination, we noted that [i]f [the writers] flexible rear apron did not contact any metal structure of the colliding passenger vehicle but instead penetrated the windshield, it could be harmful if its lower edge struck the head or neck of the front seat occupants as they are thrown forward by the force of the crash. Copies of these letters are enclosed for your convenience. The pintle hook you describe appears to be markedly different than the three examples above where NHTSA determined the protrusions to be structural. The three previous analyses all concerned devices that extended across the entire width of the trailer. Unlike them, the pintle hook attachment, according to your letter, only occupies 50 square inches of space on the rear of the trailer, and it appears that the part of the hook that extends outward occupies only a relatively small part of that area. Furthermore, we note that the pintle hook is located only 25 inches above the ground, which means it is unlikely that the hook would impact the occupant compartment of a passenger car directly. However, it is our understanding that a pintle hook is a rigid metal structure. Nonetheless, based on the totality of these facts, we would consider the pintle hook a nonstructural protrusion, similar to the taillights, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches listed in paragraph S4 of the standard. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures Dated: 7/24/09 [1] See October 7, 1999 letter to Mr. Jason Backs, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [2] October 20, 1997 letter to Michael L. Ulsh, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [3] January 25, 2001 letter to Mr. Jeff Shahan, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [4] October 7, 1999 letter to Mr. Jason Backs, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. |
2009 |
ID: 09-000724 fortin.draft.dj.aug20OpenValrie Fortin Regulations and Standards Technician Girardin Minibus Trans-Canada Highway Drummondville, Qubec J2B 6V4 Canada Dear Ms. Fortin: This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR 571.10(b)(1) and (2). Those paragraphs include formulas for determining the required number of designated seating positions (DSPs) in a seating surface area. In your letter, you cite an example of four adjacent seats in a line with a total width of 1778 mm. You observe that, using the calculation procedure set forth in section 571.10(b)(2), the seating surface would have three DSPs. You ask whether the regulations would allow you to designate four DSPs for that seating surface area instead of the result of the calculation. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background, for the purpose of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA has defined a designated seating position as a location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female. On June 22, 2005, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for a revised definition of designated seating position that would be more objective. NHTSA had identified a problem of three people occupying a seat with only two DSPs. It was believed that providing a more objective definition of designated seating position would help alleviate this problem. In the October 2008 final rule, NHTSA amended the definition of designated seating position for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011.[1] The new definition states that a seat location that has a seating surface width of at least 330 mm is a designated seating position. The final rule also established a procedure, codified in section 571.10, for measuring seating surface width and calculating the number of DSPs at a seat location. For seat locations with a seating surface width of less than 1400 mm, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 350, rounded down to the nearest whole number. For seat locations with a seating surface width of 1400 mm or greater, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 450, rounded down to the nearest whole number. In your letter, you put forth a scenario where four seats are placed adjacent to each other, each one having a width of 444.5 mm, such that the total width of the seating surface area, as calculated under section 571.10(c)(2), is 1778 mm. You observe that, under the formula used to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating surface width of at least 1400 mm, there would be three DSPs at the seating area. You ask whether you may, under the new DSP definition set forth in the October 2008 final rule, consider the actual designated capacity (represented by the defined seating positions) instead of the result of the calculation in section 571.10(c)(2). You stated that you believe the goal of the new regulation is to prevent the possibility of having more occupants on a seat than the allowed capacity of the vehicle without reducing the actual capacity of the vehicle. As indicated above, we changed the definition of designated seating position because of a concern that, in certain situations, more people were occupying a seating surface area than the number of DSPs. You put forward a scenario in the opposite direction, where a manufacturer wants to designate more DSPs than the number required by the formulas in section 571.10(b), and also where the seating area is specifically designed for that greater number of occupants. However, the definition of designated seating position was also revised to be more objective. NHTSA developed a procedure, set forth in section 571.10(b)(1) and (b)(2) to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating location. Our rulemaking was not intended to limit manufacturers from designating more DSPs than specified by the formulas or to permit manufacturers to designate a smaller number of designated seating positions than the number they actually intend to be used by occupants. In light of the issue you have raised, we will consider clarifying the language of section 571.10(b) in a future rulemaking or in the responses to petitions for reconsideration of the new DSP definition. Nothing in this letter should be construed as a response to any of the petitions for reconsideration.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Std. 571 8/5/2011
[1] On December 23, 2009, NHTSA issued a partial response to petitions for reconsideration of the new DSP definition in which we allowed one year of additional lead time before the new DSP definition is applicable. See 74 FR 68185. |
|
ID: 09-000883drn sanford mar 25 09OpenLisa M. Sanford, Esq. Hunton & Williams, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0005 Dear Ms. Sanford: This responds to your letter asking whether a non-profit organization may hire drivers and purchase 15-passenger vans to transport students from school to an after school activity, then home. Our answers are provided below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable FMVSSs. In the school bus context, the statute requires any person selling a new school bus[1] to sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applying to school buses. A multi-function school activity bus (MFSAB) may be sold if the to-or-from-school transportation does not involve school bus route transportation (i.e., that does not involve transporting students between home and school). An MFSAB is a school bus that meets all the school bus FMVSSs except those requiring the installation of traffic control devices (flashing lights and stop arms). You first ask if your client may purchase 15-passenger vans to transport the children from school to the after-school activities and then home. The enclosed letter of July 17, 1998 to Greg Balmer addresses this issue. In the letter to Mr. Balmer, we state that-- The pertinent issue is not whether the YMCA [i.e., the entity providing the transportation in the Balmer letter] is a school, but whether the bus will be significantly used to transport school children to or from school (as described in Section 30125). If the bus will be used for such a purpose, a school bus must be sold, regardless of whether such transportation is provided by a school, a day care facility, or any other entity. In the situation presented by your client, it is anticipated that the buses will be used regularly to take students from school to their after-school activities. In such a situation, dealers selling a new bus[2] must sell a new bus that meets all applicable school bus or MFSAB standards. In addition, we have had numerous safety campaigns to warn people of the risk of rollover in conventional 15-passenger vans. There are some actions that consumers can take to mitigate this risk. Information can be found at www.safercar.gov and clicking on the van safety link. We encourage purchasers to consider purchasing a school bus or MFSAB to transport school-age children. While NHTSA regulates the first sale of new vehicles, NHTSA does not regulate how the vehicles are to be used. Questions about what vehicles may be used to transport children are addressed by State law, since the State has the authority to determine how the children must be transported to and from school or school-related activities, including the transportation of children by day care centers and non-profit organizations. Your client should contact the State officials in the State in which the non-profit organization is providing the transportation to determine if there are any State requirements that pertain to the transportation of the school children. You also ask whether such vehicles would be commercial motor vehicles, and whether the drivers would be considered drivers-for-hire. Programs regulating commercial motor vehicles and commercial driver licensing are administered by the U.S. Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). You can contact FMCSAs Chief Counsels office by calling (202) 493-0349. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff by mail or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA d.7/24/09 [1] The statute defined school bus as a vehicle that is designed to carry 11 or more persons and which is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary students to or from school or related events (49 U.S.C. 30125). [2] Bus is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 of our regulations as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. |
2009 |
ID: 09-000984drn saitoOpen
Frank K. Saito, President K&S Technologies, Inc. Centre West Plaza, Suite 150 9710 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121
Dear Mr. Saito:
This responds to your question about how NHTSAs standards would apply to a motorcycle replacement turn signal lamp that would rely on wireless signals for actuation. Our response is provided below.
In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the replacement turn signal lamp at issue would rely not on the use of physical wires between the actuation switch and the lamp for actuation, but on the use of radio frequencies or other wireless means. You further explained that the lamp is not depicted on your companys website: www.kandstech.com because this lamp is still under development.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.
As you are aware, requirements for replacement turn signal lamps are specified at Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. In developing the replacement lamp, your company must ensure that it can certify that the lamp meets all applicable FMVSS No. 108 requirements for replacement turn signal lamps.[1]
For your information, I am enclosing a copy of an October 8, 2004 (69 FR 60464) Federal Register notice in which we provide an interpretation of how FMVSS No. 108 applies to replacement equipment. As a general matter, replacement lamps must not take a vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 108. In this regard, we note that the design of replacement turn signal lamps could potentially affect the compliance of a vehicle with the turn signal failure indication requirements specified in paragraph S5.5.6 and hazard warning signal operating unit requirements in paragraph S5.5.5. We also note that one of the subjects discussed in the notice is possible compatibility issues between a vehicles electrical system and replacement lamps that impose larger or smaller electrical loads than the original equipment light sources.
We note that since your proposed lamp would function by using radio signals or other wireless transmissions, laws enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may also apply. The FCCs Office of the General Counsels address is: Office of the General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.
Finally, I note that on your stationerys letterhead and at your companys website, the term D.O.T. approved lights is used. Please do not continue to use this term, as it is misleading. As earlier explained, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles, or motor vehicle equipment, including replacement turn signal lamps.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff by mail or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely yours,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
cc: Office of the General Counsel Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554
Enclosure Dated: 9/14/09 [1] Please note that on December 4, 2007, NHTSA published a final rule that administratively rewrote FMVSS No. 108 (72 FR 68234). This final rule was intended to present the existing regulatory requirements in a simpler, more straightforward manner, and to reduce the need to consult outside documentation. No new substantive requirements were imposed on manufacturers. The final rule takes effect on December 1, 2009. |
2009 |
ID: 09-001076asOpenMr. Scott Ault President/Dealer Developer Deceleration Technologies, LLC 5515 University Drive Grand Forks, ND 58203 Dear Mr. Ault: This responds to your letter, in which you ask about the permissible activation of stop lamps under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible to activate the stop lamps when the vehicle reaches a certain rate of deceleration, regardless of whether the driver intended to activate a braking or engine retardation system. Our answer is that this would not be permissible under the standard. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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. With regard to the specific technology, called Slow-N-Tell, you are inquiring about, you state: My technology specifically reads vehicle speed and calculates rate of deceleration, when deceleration is detected. Based on the rate of deceleration, expressed as negative mph per second, stop lamps are activated when braking threshold is reached. As you note in your letter, deceleration can occur in a variety of situations, including upon application of the service brake, activation of an engine retarder, or simply by force of gravity if the vehicle is traveling up an incline. In the latter situation, because Slow-N-Tell works by sensing deceleration, it would activate the stop lamps even though the driver may not have intended the vehicle to decelerate. You state that it is your opinion that this does not violate paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 (which states that no motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard), because it signals to following drivers that the vehicle is slowing. We disagree with your suggested interpretation of the standard. 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. [emphasis added] As we have stated in several letters, including the April 10, 1992 letter to Mr. Lance Watt[1] that you cite: Activation of the stop lamps initiated by release of the accelerator pedal is permissible only when the intent of the driver is to reduce the speed of the vehicle by an immediate subsequent act of braking, whether that is achieved through his use of the service brake system, use of retarders, or a combination of the two. However, a configuration where the stop lamps operate in the absence of service brake application or activation of a retarder system (as appears to occur when a retarder cut off switch has been activated) would be subject to S5.1.3 of the standard. The situation you describe is analogous to the situation proscribed in the letter to Mr. Watt. If the vehicle experienced deceleration due to reasons other than the application of a braking or engine retardation system (e.g., the vehicle was traveling up an incline), it would be a violation of paragraph S5.1.3 for the stop lamps to activate. Finally, we do not agree with your assertion that activating the stop lamps in such a situation would actually enhance the effectiveness of the lighting equipment. The signal emitted by stop lamps is to alert other drivers of the vehicle operators intent to slow down or stop. If the vehicle is decelerating due to an incline, activation of the stop lamps would send an improper signal that could be confusing to other drivers. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d.7/24/09 |
2009 |
ID: 09-001270asOpenThe Honorable Mitch McConnell United States Senate Washington, DC 20510-1702 Dear Senator McConnell: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Charles Gatten, Jr., concerning the licensing of mini-trucks imported into the United States. Your constituent specifically asked how to get a copy of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and emissions standards. Mr. Gatten indicated that a vehicle at issue is a 2000 mini-truck, with a speed capability of 70 mph. He also identified certain safety equipment that is included on the vehicle. While Mr. Gatten did not identify a specific model name, the vehicles generally referred to as mini-trucks are typically smaller than conventional small trucks manufactured for sale in the United States and are manufactured in Japan, China and other countries. These vehicles are not manufactured to meet U.S. safety standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation that is responsible for improving safety on our Nations highways. To achieve this goal, NHTSA develops and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), which require minimum levels of safety performance for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal statute generally prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States any motor vehicle unless the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the manufacturer has certified that the vehicle meets those standards. As to the importation of motor vehicles, to be imported free of restriction, a motor vehicle less than 25 years old must be originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS and bear a label certifying such compliance that is permanently affixed by the original manufacturer. A motor vehicle that is not so manufactured and/or certified can be lawfully imported on a permanent basis only if NHTSA decides that the vehicle is eligible for importation based on its capability of being modified to conform to Page 2 The Honorable Mitch McConnell all applicable FMVSS. NHTSA makes these decisions in response to petitions that are filed by importers specially registered with the agency (referred to as registered importers) to import nonconforming motor vehicles and to perform the necessary modifications on those vehicles so that they conform to all applicable FMVSS. In the past, NHTSA has issued interpretations of the statutory term motor vehicle, concluding that a number of non-certified mini-trucks are not motor vehicles and therefore need not comply with any of the Federal safety standards. The conclusions in these interpretations were generally premised on several important facts including: the vehicles (1) were intended solely for off-road use, e.g., on farms and closed locations like college campuses and industrial plants, and would in fact be so used, and (2) had a top speed of 25 mph. Because these vehicles are not manufactured to meet U.S. safety standards, NHTSA cannot endorse their use on public highways. In your letter, you asked about licensing requirements. We note that registration and licensing are generally matters of State law. Mr. Gatten asked how to get a copy of the Federal standards. Like other Federal regulations, the FMVSS are located in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Specifically, the FMVSS are located in Title 49, Part 571. Mr. Gatten can access the CFR through the website of the Government Printing Office (http://www.gpoaccess.gov). Emissions standards are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Gatten may wish to contact the EPA Imports Team at (734) 214-4100 for information regarding the applicability of its regulations to the mini-trucks at issue. He can also use their website (http://www.epa.gov) to find information on this issue. If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Stephen P. Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref: 571 d.7/7/09 |
2009 |
ID: 09-001535 206Open
Ms. Valrie Fortin Regulations and Standards Technician Girardin Minibus Inc. 3000 rue Girardin Drummondville, Qubec J2E 0A1 Dear Ms. Fortin: This responds to your letter concerning a February 6, 2007 final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. Among other matters, that rule removed an exclusion of vehicle doors equipped with wheelchair platform lift systems from FMVSS No. 206 requirements. As explained in the enclosed agency response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule, Thomas Built Buses petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to reinstate the exclusion, and we have done so. See the enclosed Federal Register document (75 FR 7370, February 19, 2010) for a detailed explanation as to the agencys rationale. Please note, however, that NHTSA determined that the former exclusion of all doors equipped with a wheelchair lift was too broad, given that some lifts made today do not completely block the doorway. Therefore, in the enclosed document, the agency has amended the February 2007 final rule (the requirements at S4 of FMVSS No. 206) to exclude doors equipped with a permanently attached wheelchair lift system meeting the following criteria: (a) When the lift is in the retracted position, the lift platform retracts to a vertical orientation parallel to and in close proximity with the interior surface of the lift door; (b) in that position, the platform completely covers the doorway opening, has fixed attachments to the vehicle and provides a barricade to the doorway; and (c) the wheelchair lift door is linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visible signal located in the drivers compartment or an alarm audible to the driver that is activated when the door is not fully closed and the vehicle ignition is activated. These requirements appear to not exclude the wheelchair lift system in one of the pictures you enclosed because that platform only halfway covers the door opening. As to the second picture you enclosed with your letter, we cannot determine from that picture whether that door meets all the requirements for the exclusion set forth above. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure Dated: 3/18/2010 |
2010 |
ID: 09-002149as df MaxonOpenMs. Sherry Lafferty Manager, Engineering Maxon Lift Corp. 11921 Slauson Avenue Sante Fe Springs, CA 90670-2221 Dear Ms. Lafferty: This responds to your letter asking two questions regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and Standard No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles. Your first question asks whether the area that is used for detecting occupancy while the lift is lower than the vehicle floor bed should include 18 inches of the floor area. As explained below, our answer is yes. Your second question asks about the responsibility of a lift manufacturer to provide instructions in the installation manual to ensure that a vehicle manufacturer installs the lift in such a way as to detect the entire 18-inch area. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (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. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. Extent of Platform Threshold Area Your first question asks whether under the definition of the platform threshold area in FMVSS No. 403, the area that is used for detecting occupancy while the lift is lower than the vehicle floor bed should include 18 inches of the bus floor area. Platform threshold area is defined in the standard (S4) as: The rectangular area of the vehicle floor defined by moving a line that lies on the portion of the edge of the vehicle floor directly adjacent to the platform through a distance of 457 mm (18 inches) across the vehicle floor in a direction perpendicular to the edge. Any portion of a bridging device that lies on this area must be considered part of that area. The platform threshold area is also illustrated graphically as the shaded area in Figure 2 of the standard. As indicated by the above definition of platform threshold area and by Figure 2, the platform threshold area encompasses parts of the vehicles floor. Further, as you indicate in your letter, the platform threshold area is relevant for determining the area in which detection of an occupant must occur when the lift is lower than the vehicle floor bed. S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 require that an alarm activate when a passenger or mobility aid is on the platform threshold area, and the lift is more than 1 inch below it. Thus, the platform threshold area encompasses the 18 inches of bus floor area across the vehicle floor. Installation Instructions Your second question asks whether, if a lift sensing mechanism does not physically cover the platform threshold area, a lift manufacturer must provide instructions that ensure a vehicle manufacturer install the lift in such a way as to detect the entire 18-inch area. Our answer is yes. The responsibilities of the lift manufacturer, with regard to installation instructions, are set forth in S6.13 of FMVSS No. 403. S6.13.2 requires lift manufacturers to provide installation instructions with each lift, including procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational. Such checks include, but are not limited to, the threshold-warning signal. Id. It is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to provide a lift that, when installed according to manufacturer instructions, complies with all the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Furthermore, under S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift Installations in Motor Vehicles, it is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to install an FMVSS No. 403-compliant platform lift according to the instructions provided by the platform lift manufacturer. Under S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404, the platform lift, as installed, must continue to comply with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Therefore, the lift manufacturer would have to provide instructions on how to properly install a lift that meets FMVSS No. 403s threshold warning signal requirement of S6.1. If you have any further questions, please contact my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel 11/19/2010 |
|
ID: 09-002367 111OpenWilliam E. Otto, Esq. Sebring & Associates 2735 Mosside Boulevard Monroeville, PA 15146 Dear Mr. Otto: This responds to your inquiry dated April 15, 2009 following up on a previous letter to you from this office, concerning the outside rearview mirror requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. In your first letter to this office, you asked about an outside drivers side rearview mirror for passenger cars. The mirror contained two parts. On the right portion of the mirror, a section of the mirror contained an FMVSS No. 111-compliant flat mirror, while the left portion of the mirror contained a curved or aspheric component. You asked whether S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 permits a single drivers side mirror containing both a flat portion and a curved or aspheric portion located to the left of the flat portion. In our January 16, 2009 letter to you, we said the answer is yes. S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 applies to the drivers side mirrors on passenger cars. It states: [e]ach passenger car shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification. That section does not prohibit an additional curved or aspheric portion to expand the field of view beyond the required viewable area. We also referred to two previous legal interpretations reiterating this point.[1] In your current letter, you ask if a single drivers side mirror containing both a flat and curved portion would be permitted for other vehicle types under paragraphs S6, S7, S8, and S10 of FMVSS No. 111, if the flat portion alone otherwise is compliant with the applicable requirements. Our answer is that such mirrors would be permitted under the standard. Paragraph S6 applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses, other than school buses, with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less. The section does not contain any language that would prohibit a supplementary curved mirror portion. S6.1(b) states that the vehicle shall have either mirrors that comply with S5, or outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 126 cm2 of reflective surface, located to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. If this requirement is met, there is no specific prohibition on additional mirrored surfaces, which can be convex or aspheric or flat.[2] S7 applies to MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg and less than 11,340 kg and buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg. S8 applies to MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg or more. A similar analysis indicates that paragraphs S7 and S8 do not prohibit the types of mirrors at issue. These sections of FMVSS No. 111 require that the vehicles have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 323 cm2 of reflective surface, located to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. If this requirement is met, there is no specific prohibition on additional mirrored surfaces, which can be convex or aspheric or flat. Paragraph S10 applies to motorcycles. S10.1 specifies motorcycles to have either a mirror of unit magnification with not less than 8065 mm2 of reflective surface, or a convex mirror with not less than 6450 mm2 of reflective surface and an average radius of curvature not less than 508 mm and not greater than 1524 mm . The portion of the mirror required by FMVSS No. 111 must be contiguous. A convex or aspheric or flat mirror may supplement the mirror required by S10. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is the agency in the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible for safety regulations concerning motor carrier operations. Among other things, FMCSAs regulations include certain requirements for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) equipment necessary for safe operations, including rear-vision mirrors. For information on FMCSAs requirements for CMV equipment, please contact FMCSA at 1-800-832-5660. I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 6/1/2010 [1] In a January 15, 1995 letter to Mr. Amin Ahmadi, we stated that [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed. Similarly, in a June 22, 1998 letter to Mr. Bobby Kim, we stated that [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself meets FMVSS No. 111 requirements applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed. Both letters are available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [2] We note that although mixing of convex or aspheric and flat mirrors is not prohibited, mixing the mirrors could present visual confusion to the vehicle operator. |
2010 |
ID: 09-002561drn June 10OpenMr. Jeffrey S. Conway Vice President of Operations Atlantic Design Inc., P.O. Box 938 Abington, MD 21009 Dear Mr. Conway: This responds to your letter asking us to confirm the continued validity of the interpretation this office provided to Mr. Russell Roden of your company by letter dated October 26, 1999. Assuming the facts presented in the previous letter regarding the Atlantic Design Inc., (ADIs) products still apply today, we confirm our interpretation that ADIs products are not motor vehicles. According to information submitted by you and by your predecessor at ADI, ADI designs and manufactures modular process systems for the construction, industrial maintenance, and the quarry and mining industry. The products include grit recycling and dust collection systems, and sand dedusting units. The equipment may stay at a job site (a maintenance or construction site or at a quarry) for years at a time. The equipment rarely stays at a job site for less than six to eight weeks. A review of the products represented on your website: www.calladi.com shows large industrial machinery, some of which are mounted on trailers. Many of the equipment items depicted on the web site are not even mounted on wheels; they look as if they must be loaded on trailers or other motor vehicles to be transported. In your recent letter to us, you state that ADI is essentially building the same type of equipment as we were ten years ago. Based on the 1999 description of ADIs products, your recent letter, and the information at www.calladi.com, we confirm our belief that ADIs equipment are not motor vehicles within the meaning of our statute. ADIs modular process systems stay on job sites for extended periods of time (which could be years) and only use the highway to move from site to site. Since 1999, we have received no additional information indicating that ADIs equipment use the roads more than on an incidental basis. We appreciate your contacting us to confirm the previous interpretation. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:VSA d.7/24/09 |
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.