NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: 08-006947revdrnOpenThomas R. Erickson, Esq. Scott, Hulse, Marshall, Feuille, Finger & Thurmond, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1100 Chase Tower 201 East Main Drive El Paso, TX 79901 Dear Mr. Erickson, This responds to your request for an interpretation on behalf of your client, asking several questions related to platform lifts and/or modifications to buses. We note that some of the questions you ask relate to Mexican law, i.e., whether certain buses would be considered newly manufactured for purposes of importing them into Mexico. While we can provide interpretations concerning the U.S. Federal statutes and regulations that we administer, we cannot provide interpretations or other information about Mexican law. Therefore, we are addressing the questions you ask only in the context of U.S. law. Similarly, while we can address the issue of whether modified used vehicles or vehicles constructed with both new and used parts would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of the laws and regulations administered by this agency, we would suggest that you contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it would be appropriate to advertise such a vehicle as new. In your correspondence, you explained that your client owns a bus transportation company. Your client has designed a platform lift that it wants to manufacture and install on its own buses and on buses owned by other companies. Your client is also considering taking used 40 foot buses and using two such buses to create single 60 foot articulated buses which would be driven in the United States. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) (49 CFR Part 571) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers of new vehicles or new equipment are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. These manufacturers must also ensure that their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects. Question One - Your first question concerned platform lifts, which your client would like to manufacture and install on buses. You note that FMVSS No. 404 requires that platform lifts be installed in accordance with the installation instructions provided by the lift manufacturer. You asked whether there are any regulations that would require that the persons installing the lifts have any particular certification, such as being a certified welder or mechanic. NHTSAs Response - There are no requirements in FMVSS Nos. 403 or 404 that persons installing platform lifts have any particular credentials. We note that State laws or regulations may speak to this issue. Question Two - Your second question addressed taking two used 40 foot buses and joining portions of them to create a single 60 foot articulated bus. You note that there are no FMVSSs specifically addressing articulated buses and ask if the modifier would simply follow FMVSSs applicable to buses. You also ask if the modifiers who convert the two buses into one bus must have any particular type of certifications to do such work. NHTSAs Response - There are no FMVSSs that apply solely to articulated buses. All articulated buses manufactured as new must meet the bus standards specified in the FMVSSs. The certification requirements (at 49 CFR Part 567) apply to manufacturers of new buses and alterers of new buses, before first sale of the new bus to the retail customer. However, we would generally not consider the joining together of portions of two used 40 foot buses to create a single 60 foot bus to constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. (See also the response to the next question relating to this issue.) Since your client plans to modify used buses, there is a statutory provision which I would like to bring to your attention: 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which states: Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. In general, this section prohibits the entities listed in Section 30122(b) from removing, disabling or otherwise making inoperative any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. We do not require manufacturers, alterers, or modifiers of motor vehicles to have any special certifications, although, again, State laws may address this issue. We note that this point also applies to your next question. Question Three - Your third question addressed the circumstances in which modifications to used buses could create new buses, as well as vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements. You stated that a person at NHTSA stated that a used bus could be considered new if the engine, transmission and drive axle were replaced on the used bus and such parts were not from the same vehicle. You requested confirmation as to whether this is correct and, if not, whether there is a way to make used buses qualify as new buses so that a new VIN could be placed on the bus. You also asked, assuming that it is possible to turn a used bus into a new bus, whether it is permissible to take a totaled or burned bus and turn it into a new bus or to use parts from such buses in the manufacture of a new bus. You also asked whether the persons/companies doing the actual manufacturing of the new buses need any special certification. NHTSAs Response - In most cases NHTSA does not regulate the repair or refurbishment of used motor vehicles, except that the make inoperative provision discussed earlier may apply, and some of our safety standards apply to new motor vehicle equipment that may be used during the repair/refurbishment process. However, in some cases, the modifications could be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new motor vehicle rather than a modified vehicle. The replacement of a vehicles engine, transmission and drive axle would not create a new motor vehicle. Therefore, there would be no legal basis for the bus to be assigned a new VIN. We have enclosed two interpretation letters, addressed to Robert R. Keatinge, Esq., and C. N. Littler which address some of the circumstances in which modifications to buses could be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle. If the modifications to a used bus were so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle, the person making the modifications would be considered the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle and would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Other Responsibilities
In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), (which are also part of the U.S. Department of Transportation) may have requirements that apply to your clients proposed changes. For further information about FHWAs requirements, please contact: Mr. Michael P. Onder, Team Leader, Truck Size and Weight, Office of Freight Management and Operations, FHWA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20590. For further information about FMCSAs requirements, please contact: Mr. Mike Huntley, Chief, Vehicle & Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operation, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. bh 20590. We also note that State laws may also apply to the modified used buses. I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing our publication, Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any further questions about NHTSAs platform lift requirements, please feel free to contact Mr. Ari Scott of my staff. All other questions may be directed to Dorothy Nakama of my staff. Both attorneys are at this address and may be reached by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA# 403#404 |
|
ID: Copy of 08-006947revdrnOpenThomas R. Erickson, Esq. Scott, Hulse, Marshall, Feuille, Finger & Thurmond, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1100 Chase Tower 201 East Main Drive El Paso, TX 79901 Dear Mr. Erickson, This responds to your request for an interpretation on behalf of your client, asking several questions related to platform lifts and/or modifications to buses. We note that some of the questions you ask relate to Mexican law, i.e., whether certain buses would be considered newly manufactured for purposes of importing them into Mexico. While we can provide interpretations concerning the U.S. Federal statutes and regulations that we administer, we cannot provide interpretations or other information about Mexican law. Therefore, we are addressing the questions you ask only in the context of U.S. law. Similarly, while we can address the issue of whether modified used vehicles or vehicles constructed with both new and used parts would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of the laws and regulations administered by this agency, we would suggest that you contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it would be appropriate to advertise such a vehicle as new. In your correspondence, you explained that your client owns a bus transportation company. Your client has designed a platform lift that it wants to manufacture and install on its own buses and on buses owned by other companies. Your client is also considering taking used 40 foot buses and using two such buses to create single 60 foot articulated buses which would be driven in the United States. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) (49 CFR Part 571) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers of new vehicles or new equipment are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. These manufacturers must also ensure that their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects. Question One - Your first question concerned platform lifts, which your client would like to manufacture and install on buses. You note that FMVSS No. 404 requires that platform lifts be installed in accordance with the installation instructions provided by the lift manufacturer. You asked whether there are any regulations that would require that the persons installing the lifts have any particular certification, such as being a certified welder or mechanic. NHTSAs Response - There are no requirements in FMVSS Nos. 403 or 404 that persons installing platform lifts have any particular credentials. We note that State laws or regulations may speak to this issue. Question Two - Your second question addressed taking two used 40 foot buses and joining portions of them to create a single 60 foot articulated bus. You note that there are no FMVSSs specifically addressing articulated buses and ask if the modifier would simply follow FMVSSs applicable to buses. You also ask if the modifiers who convert the two buses into one bus must have any particular type of certifications to do such work. NHTSAs Response - There are no FMVSSs that apply solely to articulated buses. All articulated buses manufactured as new must meet the bus standards specified in the FMVSSs. The certification requirements (at 49 CFR Part 567) apply to manufacturers of new buses and alterers of new buses, before first sale of the new bus to the retail customer. However, we would generally not consider the joining together of portions of two used 40 foot buses to create a single 60 foot bus to constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. (See also the response to the next question relating to this issue.) Since your client plans to modify used buses, there is a statutory provision which I would like to bring to your attention: 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which states: Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. In general, this section prohibits the entities listed in Section 30122(b) from removing, disabling or otherwise making inoperative any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. We do not require manufacturers, alterers, or modifiers of motor vehicles to have any special certifications, although, again, State laws may address this issue. We note that this point also applies to your next question. Question Three - Your third question addressed the circumstances in which modifications to used buses could create new buses, as well as vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements. You stated that a person at NHTSA stated that a used bus could be considered new if the engine, transmission and drive axle were replaced on the used bus and such parts were not from the same vehicle. You requested confirmation as to whether this is correct and, if not, whether there is a way to make used buses qualify as new buses so that a new VIN could be placed on the bus. You also asked, assuming that it is possible to turn a used bus into a new bus, whether it is permissible to take a totaled or burned bus and turn it into a new bus or to use parts from such buses in the manufacture of a new bus. You also asked whether the persons/companies doing the actual manufacturing of the new buses need any special certification. NHTSAs Response - In most cases NHTSA does not regulate the repair or refurbishment of used motor vehicles, except that the make inoperative provision discussed earlier may apply, and some of our safety standards apply to new motor vehicle equipment that may be used during the repair/refurbishment process. However, in some cases, the modifications could be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new motor vehicle rather than a modified vehicle. The replacement of a vehicles engine, transmission and drive axle would not create a new motor vehicle. Therefore, there would be no legal basis for the bus to be assigned a new VIN. We have enclosed two interpretation letters, addressed to Robert R. Keatinge, Esq., and C. N. Littler which address some of the circumstances in which modifications to buses could be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle. If the modifications to a used bus were so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle, the person making the modifications would be considered the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle and would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Other Responsibilities
In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), (which are also part of the U.S. Department of Transportation) may have requirements that apply to your clients proposed changes. For further information about FHWAs requirements, please contact: Mr. Michael P. Onder, Team Leader, Truck Size and Weight, Office of Freight Management and Operations, FHWA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20590. For further information about FMCSAs requirements, please contact: Mr. Mike Huntley, Chief, Vehicle & Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operation, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. bh 20590. We also note that State laws may also apply to the modified used buses. I hope this information is helpful. I am enclosing our publication, Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any further questions about NHTSAs platform lift requirements, please feel free to contact Mr. Ari Scott of my staff. All other questions may be directed to Dorothy Nakama of my staff. Both attorneys are at this address and may be reached by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA# 403#404 |
|
ID: 86-3.8OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/02/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: E. Brooks Harper -- General Manager, Backstop, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. E. Brooks Harper General Manager Backstop, Inc. 240 Pegasus Avenue Northvale, NJ 07647
This responds to your letter asking whether installation of your touch sensitive reverse braking system called "Backstop" on an air brake vehicle would conflict with any Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. According to your letter, Backstop is plumbed into the vehicle air brake system and wired to the back up light circuit. The system is activated only when reverse gear is engaged and works by instantly applying the vehicle brakes when the rear bumper is touched while reversing. Shifting to neutral or a forward gear returns the system to normal braking.
By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and is limited to the standards and regulations administered by NHTSA. You may wish to contact the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to the installation of Backstop. NHTSA does not have any regulations covering a touch sensitive reverse braking system such as Backstop. However, since installation of Backstop requires plumbing into the vehicle's air brake system and wiring into the vehicle's backup light circuit, it is possible that it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems, and Ko. 108, Lamps( reflective devices, and associated equipment. For example, your letter states that a delay of four milliseconds is introduced to the air brake system response by the insertion of the double check valve in the control line. While this delay is very small, it could conceivably affect a vehicle's compliance with the timing requirements of sections S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 121 if the vehicle otherwise was at the edge of compliance. He suggest that you carefully consider whether installation of Backstop in the variety of current vehicles and vehicle configurations would affect compliance with the requirements or FMVSS No. 121 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards affected by the alteration. The specific certification requirements for alterers are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of Backstop would have no certification responsibilities, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.
If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This in required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect. Sincerely,
Original Signed By
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
December 3, 1985
Ms. Erika Jones/Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Ms. Jones:
The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation as to whether or not the installation of a BACKSTOP system on an air brake vehicle would conflict with any federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations.
BACKSTOP is s touch sensitive reverse braking system for air brake vehicles. It is marketed to truck, bus, and other heavy vehicle operators for the purpose of increasing safety and reducing property damage (see enclosed brochure). BACKSTOP is plumbed into the vehicle air brake system and wired to the back up light circuit according to the enclosed diagram. The BACKSTOP system is activated only when reverse gear is engaged and works by instantly applying the vehicle brakes when the rear bumper is touched while reversing. Shifting to neutral or a forward gear returns the system to normal braking.
Our tests show that an insignificant delay of four (C) milliseconds is introduced to the air brake system response by the insertion of the double check valve in the control line (refer to enclosed test data). Failure of the BACKSTOP system in any way would not compromise the normal performance of the vehicles original air brake system.
Based on the tests we have performed, discussions with vehicle manufacturer brake system engineers, and our known knowledge of air brake systems, we state that installation of the BACKSTOP system on an air brake vehicle does not degrade that vehicles' compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations.
We request that your office acknowledge our position pith respect to installation of the BACKSTOP system on air brake vehicles. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
BACKSTOP INC.
E. Brooks Harper General Manager
EBH/gm Enclosure
cc: Mr. Duane E. Perrin/NHTSA
November 15, 1985
45 BUDD TRAILER
SEALCO VALVES 30" BRAKE CHAMBERS AUTOMATIC SLACK ADJUSTERS
TEMPERATURE 54 SUPPLY PSI 120 SERVICE CHAMBER PSI 60 ----------------------------------------------------------------TO TEST EFFECT OF TWO WAY CHECK VALVE IN SERVICE LINE OF AIR BRAKE SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------------------- TWO 2400 CUBIC INCH TANKS -ONE ON SERVICE, ONE ON SUPPLY. BOTH AT 120 PSI. THREE WAY AIR SOLENOID ON SERVICE WITH AN ON SWITCH TO START CLOCK AND OPEN TANK. A SHUT OFF SWITCH ON SERVICE CHAMBER WHEN 60 PSI IS REACHED TO SHUT OFF CLOCK.
WITH VALVE IN SERVICE LINE WITH NO VALVE IN SERVICE LINE 293 288
293 290
293 291
293 292
294 290
294 290
293 288
293 287 ----------------- 2346 2316 Average -293.25 ms. Average 289.5 ms. |
|
ID: nht81-3.40OpenDATE: 11/16/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA TO: Rolls-Royce Motors TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your recent letter to the Administrator, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and its related requirements for the comfort and convenience of safety belts. You stated in reference to paragraph S7.4.4, Latchplate Access, that "the standard as written is design restrictive in not permitting inboard location of the latchplate when stowed by virtue of requiring the latchplate to be located within the outboard reach envelope . . ." You requested that the wording be changed to permit either inboard or outboard reach envelopes. Paragraph S7.4.4 was not intended to limit the location of latchplates to outboard locations. Latchplates located in the outboard reach must be located within the reach envelopes as specified. However, the requirement would not be applicable to latchplates located inboard, since there should be no difficulty in reaching latchplates in this location. It should also be noted that the requirement is not applicable to automatic belts. We believe the Agency's response to the petitions for reconsideration of the comfort and convenience requirements will answer your remaining questions. We expect to issue that notice in the very near future. You requested an early announcement of the final content of FMVSS No. 208 as it would apply to automatic restraints. On October 23, 1981, the Department rescinded that portion of the standard that would require automatic restraints. We have enclosed a copy of the news release pertaining to that action for your information. Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, ATTACH. OCTOBER 9, 1981 R. PECK -- ADMINISTRATOR, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FMVSS 208 - OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION Dear Administrator, As a company producing three models of car of wheelbase in excess of 114 inches Rolls-Royce Motors is closely affected by the continuing uncertainty in implementation of the automatic restraint requirements of standard 208. In addition to the uncertainty of introduction date the content of the rule is also subject to debate. Rolls-Royce is in urgent need of guidance from NHTSA to permit us to use our limited resources in a constructive way to the benefit of our customers. 1. Comfort and Convenience Amendments During 1979 Rolls-Royce commenced development of automatic restraints for production, both belts and ACRS. Following General Motors' decision late in 1979 to delay introduction of ACRS the Rolls-Royce programme was revised to install automatic belts in all models. Production lead times dictated that parts for build in September 1981 should be given engineering release by March 1980. This meant that the proposed addition to standard 208 of comfort and convenience requirements were not accommodated in our initial production designs. When the comfort and convenience amendments were finally adopted in the regulation on the 8th January with an effective date of September 1982 the necessary changes to our installation to ensure compliance were programmed in accordance with that 1982 date. Amid the statements on regulatory reform announced by the Reagan administration early in 1981 was, on the 6th April a notice of intent to the Federal Register to "eliminate all requirements except belt tension and to defer the effective date for one year". (Actions to Help the U.S. Auto Industry, April 6 1981, NHTSA Action 8) Such action was promised for "on or about July 1". In anticipation of the promised action our programme was again revised. Since that time, over three months ago there has been no official action. Some sources of information suggest that when the action on comfort and convenience amendments is announced the final ruling will contain accessibility requirements in addition to those for belt contact load. If this is to be the case we request further consideration of the following points concerning S7.4.4 which were not mentioned in the discussion of comments listed in the final rulemaking Docket 74-14 Notice 19. 1.1 The standard as written is design restrictive in not permitting inboard location of the latchplate when stowed by virtue of requiring the latchplate to "be located within the outboard reach envelope . . ." We request the wording be changed to permit inboard or outboard reach envelopes. 1.2 Some commenters requested clarification of the term "unhindered" referring to transit of the test block. In particular, is compression of soft surfaces permissible? In one of our installations compression by the occupant of the seat cushion will pre-empt compression by the test block, except that there is no occupant (dummy) specified for this test. Could you please clarify? 2. Automatic belt warning system S4.5.3.3.(b)(1)(B) specifies two conditions for determination of the automatic belt being fastened, both requiring switching in the emergency release mechanism. This appears inconsistent with the permissible conditions for determination of a manual belt being fastened, for which S7.3(b) states "either by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened or by the belt not being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed position". In the case of our design of automatic belt which employs a buckle as an emergency release on the door frame the standard as written at present necessitates routing a cable from the buckle and down the frame. An additional option permitting switching with the belt extended from its stowed position would allow a switch to be fitted in the retractor and wiring to be included in existing loops in that area of the car. The additional option would be of considerable benefit to ourselves. We believe the only objection to the belt extension option is the possibility that the belt may be withdrawn and knotted to simulate the belt being fastened. This would be less convenient then obtaining a spare latchplate and inserting it in the buckle to disable the warning mechanism by the existing option. We propose amending the wording of S4.5.3.3.(b)(1)(B) by adding the following wording between ". . mechanism not being fastened" and "or, if the automatic belt is non-separable . .":- "or by the belt not being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed position". 3. On the 9th April 1981 NHTSA issued an NPRM (49 CFR Part 571 Docket No. 74-14 Notice 22) proposing further amendment to the implementation of automatic restraint requirements in Standard 208. The comment date was 26th May. In comment on that proposal Rolls-Royce Motors requested "an early announcement of a decision" (BGR/JO DT 19th May 1981, filed in the Docket). Since that comment date over five months ago Rolls-Royce have been unable to commit long term resources to automatic restraints for fear of further change in requirements resulting in wasted money. For manufacturers such as Rolls-Royce who must meet the September 1982 introduction date the long delay in announcing the uncertain outcome of the comments and public hearings mean that production lead times are being eroded. We urgently request an announcement of the final content of Standard 208. We would be grateful for a quick response to these points. For and on behalf of Rolls-Royce Motors Limited; John OSBORNE -- Project Manager - Passive Restraints |
|
ID: aiam3117OpenMr. J. B. H. Knight, Chief, Car Safety and Regulations Engineer, Rolls-Royce Motors Limited Car Division, Crewe Cheshire CW1 3PL, ENGLAND; Mr. J. B. H. Knight Chief Car Safety and Regulations Engineer Rolls-Royce Motors Limited Car Division Crewe Cheshire CW1 3PL ENGLAND; Dear Mr. Knight: This is in response to your letter of August 17, 1979, regarding th requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, pertaining to the emergency release warning system for automatic belts.; Paragraph S4.5.3.3(b)(1) of the standard requires an audible an visible warning if the driver's automatic belt system is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened. On one of your automatic belt designs the latch mechanism consists of a pivoting bar which slips through a small stitched loop on the end of the belt webbing. You note that this latch mechanism can be fastened without the webbing being connected to the pivot bar, and that in such a case the warning system would not operate even though the belt is not in use. Therefore, you ask if you can install a switch in the automatic belt retractor to detect when insufficient webbing is extended from the retractor to engage with the latch on the door frame. You ask if such a system could be used as an alternative to the existing requirement or, if the standard could be amended to allow the alternative.; In answer to your question, a switch in the retractor of an automati belt system would not satisfy the current warning system requirement if the system did not also include a switch in the emergency release latch mechanism. Further, the Agency does not believe that it is necessary to amend the standard to allow such an alternative. Although it may be true that the existing warning system could be defeated in a belt system such as you describe, the same is true with most warning system requirements. For example, if the standard provided the alternative you suggest, the automatic belt could be 'tied-off' after sufficient webbing was withdrawn from the retractor and the warning system would be defeated. As you know, this method has been used to defeat the warning systems of many manual belts in the past. Therefore, we believe the existing requirement is sufficient to warn vehicle occupants that their automatic belt has been released and should be reconnected.; The 'pivot-bar' release mechanism described in you letter appears t comply with the requirements of the standard. However, we believe that the bar should remain in the released position after the belt webbing has been removed so that the warning system will activate. In other words, we assume that the pivot bar does not re-latch automatically after being released but, rather, requires manual re-latching by the occupant.; Regarding your third question we have enclosed, for your information Notice 14, Docket No. 1- 18, which establishes the new requirements related to controls and displays.; Sincerely, Ralph J. Hitchcock, Chief, Crashworthiness Division, Offic of Vehicle Safety Standards; |
|
ID: 10824Open K. Olsen Dear Ms. Olsen: This responds to your letter of March 12, 1995, requesting an opinion as to the liability of the manufacturer, dealer, or customer in an accident involving a trailer originally sold with used tires. I apologize for the delay in our response. By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30112 of Title 49 provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, or import a new motor vehicle or a new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification of such compliance. Generally speaking, upon the sale of that vehicle or item of equipment to the first retail purchaser, the use of that vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state regulation. This office cannot give you an opinion as to who may be liable in the accident you described. The question of liability would be a matter of state law. You may wish to consult with a local attorney on the question of liability. I can advise you that FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, generally requires tires installed on new trailers to be new, but includes certain specified exceptions which do not appear to be relevant here. In that connection, please find enclosed a copy of a letter we wrote to a gentleman in Odessa, Texas, dated September 4, 1992, which discusses in some detail our requirements for tires installed on new trailers. This agency does not have any standards for trailer brakes other than air brakes. Also, as indicated above, matters relating to the use of a vehicle, such as connection of the electric brake control to the towing vehicle and loading of the trailer, are not under the jurisdiction of this agency. I hope this information is helpful to you. Based on your March 12, 1995 letter and your telephone and facsimile communications with the staff of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, that office has initiated an inquiry to the trailer manufacturer to determine if a noncompliance exists with FMVSS No. 120. If you have further information or data to offer in this regard, please contact Mr. Luke Loy at this address or at (202) 366-5288 or by FAX at (202) 366-3081. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:120 d:6/14/95
|
1995 |
ID: Higuchi.1OpenMr. Kazuo Higuchi Dear Mr. Higuchi: This responds to your October 24, 2005, letter in which you seek clarification regarding the requirements for emergency-locking retractors (ELRs) under paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(i)(E) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Specifically, you asked whether, for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 209, a vehicle acceleration-sensitive ELR, after being rotated to the locking point (i.e. , some angle more than 15 degrees), must then be rotated back to determine whether the ELR unlocks at an angle greater than 15 degrees from its initial orientation in the vehicle?The answer to your question is no. 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. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. As your letter points out, the agency published a final rule on August 22, 2005, which amended FMVSS No. 209 by redefining the requirements and establishing a new test methodology for ELRs (70 FR 48883). Under paragraph S4.3, Requirements for hardware, FMVSS No. 209 sets performance requirements for seat belt assemblies manufactured on or after February 22, 2007 (and ones produced by manufacturers opting for early compliance). Among those requirements, the standard states that for an ELR sensitive to vehicle acceleration installed as part of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)(2) under zero acceleration loading, such ELR shall "not lock when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15 degrees or less from its orientation in the vehicle" (see S4.3(j)(2)(i)(E)). The purpose of the requirement in S4.3(j)(2)(i)(E) is to prevent "nuisance locking" in situations where the vehicle experiences a minor change in orientation from its normal orientation on a flat roadway (e.g. , traveling on a moderate incline, hitting a pothole). However, once the ELR experiences a sufficient change in orientation, as specified in Standard No. 209, the retractor must lock. The standard contains no corollary provision for unlocking of the vehicle acceleration-sensitive ELR, either in the standards performance requirements or test procedures. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:209 |
2006 |
ID: HollidayOpenW. David Holliday, Esq. Attorney At Law 8330 Meadow Road, Suite 122 Dallas, TX 75231 Dear Mr. Holliday: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for air bags. According to your letter, you are representing an individual who sustained a serious neck injury in a crash where the air bag in his 2000 Dodge Caravan which he was driving did not deploy. In your letter you asked questions related to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they existed at the time the vehicle was manufactured, January 2000. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) covering new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we issued, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires passenger cars and other light vehicles to be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at both the driver and right front passenger seating positions. While these requirements were phased in over time, the phase-in had been completed by January 2000, the time period you ask about. I note that the Caravan was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, and was among the light vehicles to which the standards air bag requirements applied. In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my office, you clarified that while your letter includes various statements concerning your understanding of the FMVSSs, your primary question is whether FMVSS No. 208 established a frontal impact speed or crash severity threshold above which the air bag must be activated or below which it may not be activated. Among other things, Standard No. 208 specifies that vehicles meet certain performance requirements in crash tests. These tests are conducted with instrumented test dummies placed in the front outboard seating positions of the vehicle. During the tests, the forces measured on the dummies may not exceed specified limits. However, the standard does not specify any crash severity threshold or frontal impact speed where the air bag must, or must not, deploy. This was true in January 2000 and it remains true today, although we note that additional crash test and other requirements have been added since January 2000. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref: 208 d.11.20/08 |
|
ID: kim.ztvOpenMr. Song M. Kim
Dear Mr. Kim: This is in reply to your letter of August 18, 2003, regarding High Intensity Discharge (HID) conversion kits. You informed us that you have been selling such kits to local distributors and dealer shops. Your first question is whether the use of aftermarket HID conversion kits is "going to be illegal," and, if so, the reason for it. I enclose a copy of our letter of November 18, 2002, to Jeff Deetz, who had supplied an HID conversion kit for our examination.We informed Mr. Deetz that his kit was "not a design that conforms to the Standard [No. 108] and could not be certified as conforming with [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard] (FMVSS) No. 108, nor imported into or sold in the United States." HID conversion kits are illegal if any item in the kit does not comply with Federal requirements for vehicle lighting equipment.Please read the letter carefully and apply our analysis to the components of the kits you are selling. If one or more of these components does not comply with FMVSS No. 108, then you should cease the sale and distribution of this equipment. Your failure to do so could make your company liable for civil penalties for violations of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).If your company manufactured or imported noncompliant HID conversion kits for resale, your company is required to notify this agency, dealers, purchasers, and owners of the kits and to remedy the noncompliance in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120 and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. I should advise you that we know of no HID conversion kit that can be certified by its manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 108. You expressed your understanding that "D.O.T. is an approvable organization," and asked "if we would like to get your approval for HID conversion system, what will be the necessary procedures?"We have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicle equipment.We have authority, however, to order the recall of noncompliant motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The symbol "DOT" on an item of equipment is sometimes misconstrued as approval by the Department of Transportation.In fact, the symbol is the manufacturers certification that the item complies with all applicable FMVSS, as required by 49 USC 30115. If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. J. Edward Glancy of this office at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2003 |
ID: nht87-1.42OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/02/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Douglas C. Fairhurst -- Townley and Update TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Douglas C. Fairhurst, Esq. Townley & Update 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Thank you for your letter concerning how the requirements of Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to an arrangement Jaguar has made for having its XJS hard-top model imported into the United States altered to become a convertible. You hav e raised a number of issues in your letter, which are addressed below. You explained that "Jaguar has entered into a contractual arrangement with a company that specializes in converting hard-top vehicles into convertible models, the essential provisions of which obligate Jaguar to cooperate with and assist the converter in the latter's effort to secure orders from Jaguar's retail dealers for converting Jaguar XJS models imported into the United States into convertibles." You further explained that "The retail dealers to whom Jaguar sells the XJS will be encouraged to have any conversion work they desire to have done on the vehicles performed by this particular converter, although of course, they remain free to have conversion work done by anyone else if they so wish. Essentially Jaguar will facilitate the arrangement wit h its converter by making shipments of vehicles designated for conversion work by dealers directly to the converter's facilities. Under the contract, the converter has the responsibility of certifying that the vehicles on which it performs this work rema in in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety and emissions standards . . . ." The first issue you raised is the application of S4.1.3.1.1 of the standard to this arrangement. That section requires each vehicle manufacturer to install automatic restraints in at least 10 percent of the passenger cars it produces during the time peri od, September 1, 1986 to August 31, 1987. You stated that Jaguar intends to meet the 10 percent requirement by installing automatic safety belts in its XJS models. You asked whether, assuming all the XJS models imported into the United States have automa tic safety belts and the total number of XJS models far exceeds the number of vehicles jaguar must equip with automatic restraints to meet the 10 percent requirement, it would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehic le Safety Act for Jaguar's dealers and Jaguar's authorized converter to remove the automatic safety belt in the "excess" vehicles and install manual Safety belts that comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and 209 in those vehicles. It would not be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(n) for Jaguar's dealers and the converter to alter the "excess" XJS hard-top models into convertibles and reinstall manual rather than automatic safety belts into the altered vehicle. Under our certificati on regulation, a person that alters a certified vehicle must certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable safety standards. The agency has previously said, such as in a January 11, 1979 letter to James Brown, that when a vehicle is altered from one vehicle type to another, the alterer must certify that the vehicle conforms to the safety standards that apply to the new vehicle type, in this case a convertible. Convertibles are temporarily exempt from the automatic restraint requirem ents of Standard No. 208 during the phase-in period, and may instead have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt. Please note that the agency's final decision in the ongoing rulemaking on applying the automatic restraint requirement to convertibles may affect the conversion of hard-top cars into convertibles. If the agency does not exempt convertibles permanently fr om the automatic restraint requirement, then a vehicle alterer would have to ensure that the altered cars still complied with the automatic restraint requirement. Likewise, if the agency applied a dynamic test requirement to the manual safety belts used in convertibles, a vehicle alterer would have to equip an altered vehicle with either manual safety belts meeting the dynamic test requirements or with an automatic restraint system. Having addressed the issue of the alterer's responsibility, I would like to explain how these conversions affect Jaguar. It is Jaguar's responsibility under section 4.1.3.1.1 to produce 10 percent of its passenger cars equipped with automatic restraints during the first stage of the phase-in period. In the factual situation you have described, jaguar has entered into a contract to facilitate the conversion of some of its automatic restraint-equipped hard-top models into manual belt-equipped convertibles before the cars are first sold to a consumer. Since Jaguar has consented to the conversion, and in fact will be encouraging its dealers to use a particular "authorized" converter, jaguar cannot count a vehicle that has undergone an authorized conversion in determining whether it has produced sufficient vehicles equipped with automatic restraints. These conversions would reduce both the number of cars that would have to be equipped with automatic restraints, and the number that are equipped with such re straints. Thus, Jaguar should carefully monitor the number of conversions to ensure that there will still be a sufficient number of automatic restraint-equipped vehicles to still be a sufficient number of automatic restraint-equipped vehicles to meet S4. 1.3.1.1. I also want to address one further issue concerning the altered vehicles. S4.1.3.1 of the standard provides a carryforward credit to manufacturers for the automatic restraint equipped vehicles they produce in excess of the required phase-in percentages. Since, as explained above, Jaguar cannot count vehicles that have undergone an authorized conversion in determining whether Jaguar has met the phase-in requirements, Jaguar also cannot use those vehicles for the purpose of the carryforward credit. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel July 2, 1986 Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Ms. Jones: This follows up our discussion last Thursday regarding the post-September 1, 1986 passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 as they would apply to the arrangement jaguar has made in the United States for having XJS hard-top models made into convertible s. At the conclusion of our meeting, I said I would frame the specific question on which Jaguar sought an advisory opinion from NHTSA and relate to you the material facts. The salient facts are these. Jaguar has entered into a contractual arrangement with a company that specializes in converting hard-top vehicles into convertible models, the essential provisions of which obligate Jaguar to cooperate with and assist the con verter in the latter's efforts to secure orders from Jaguar's retail dealers for converting Jaguar XJS models imported into the United States into convertibles. The XJS, as I explained, is the 12 cylinder, two-door sports model which Jaguar offers to its dealers in two versions, the XJS-HE, which is the, hard-top coupe and the XJ-SC Cabriolet, the latter having the open-top feature of a convertible, but with the "B post" intact and a removable top consisting of interlocking targa panels. The retail deal ers to whom Jaguar sells the XJS will be encouraged to have any conversion work they desire to have done on the vehicles performed by this particular converter, although, of course, they remain free to have conversion work done by anyone else if they so wish. Essentially Jaguar will facilitate the arrangement with this converter by making shipments of vehicles designated for conversion work by dealers directly to the converter's facilities. Under the contract, the converter has the responsibility of cer tifying that the vehicles on which it performs this work remain in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety and emissions standards, and, as I explained, there are provisions under which Jaguar will be providing the converter with financial as sistance. The issue I raised respecting the applicability or Regulation S4.1.3.1.1 (49 C.F.R. 571.208, S4.1.1.3.2) to this project arises by virtue of the intention of Jaguar to meet its obligation to fit passive restraint systems in no less than 108 of the vehicl es Imported into the country between September 1, 1986 and September 1, 1987 by installing automatic seat belts in the XJS models I have just described. The specific question Jaguar poses to NHTSA is whether, if all of the aforementioned XJS models impor ted into the United States were equipped with automatic seat belts (this being a number far exceeding the actual number of vehicles that need be fitted with such belts in order for Jaguar to meet the 108 requirement), it would be lawful under the Safety Act for Jaguar's dealers and the converter with which Jaguar has made this contract to remove the automatic belts in the "excess" vehicles and refit these vehicles with manual seat belts that comply with the requirements of FMVSS 208 and 209 as these app ly to convertibles? This removal and refitment operation is necessary because the process of converting the vehicle entails removal of the "B post" to which part of the assembly mechanism used in the automatic seat belt is affixed. As I say, the converte r will be recertifying that each converted vehicle conforms to all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards and Jaguar will be selling to its dealers sufficient numbers of XJS models equipped with automatic seat belts to meet its 108 obligation. Since the converted vehicles would continue to meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 and 209, it was and remains my view that under these circumstances the removal of automatic belts installed by the factory on an "optional" basis would not "impair" or rend er inoperative any device installed to meet a safety standard and hence would not constitute a violation of 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(a). We would appreciate confirmation of this view and any other comments you feel are appropriate. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS C. FAIRHURST
|
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.