ID: bright.d3

Mr. C. B. Bright
C.B. Bright Leasing
Route 1, Box 1
Ashland, MS 38603

Dear Mr. Bright:

On August 11, 1997, you requested blanket permission to deactivate the passenger-side air bag on vehicles that you modify for rural postal carriers and driver's education instructors. You currently modify vehicles for your clients by affixing a dual-control steering system to the right dashboard and are concerned that a deploying air bag could cause serious injury by displacing the dual control. This letter responds to your request.

Air bags are installed in cars and light trucks in conformity with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, which requires automatic protection for front seat occupants. Federal law prohibits motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperable components installed to comply with motor vehicle safety standards. 49 U.S.C. section 30122. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defined under the statute as a person holding itself out to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA interprets the term "motor vehicle repair business" to include mechanics, technicians, or any other individuals or commercial entities that add, remove, replace or make modifications to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment for compensation. NHTSA's interpretation is not dependent upon whether the vehicle or component was previously "broken" or needed to be "repaired". Rather, its interpretation is based upon the commercial relationship between the vehicle owner and the individual or company performing the work on the vehicle or component.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently issued a final rule that will allow for the installation of air bag on-off switches under limited circumstances. The on-off switch does not appear to be a reasonable option for your customers since the dual-control steering system is permanently mounted to the dashboard and would always interfere with safe air bag deployment. Accordingly, your clients would need to have the passenger-side air bag permanently deactivated if they are to use a dual control.

We have spoken to the United States Postal Service regarding the use of dual controls in personal vehicles by individuals contracted to serve as rural carriers. The Postal Service agrees that the use of dual controls is preferable, from a safety standpoint, to the most likely alternative, carriers straddling the seat in order to drive while delivering mail from the right side of the vehicle. The Postal Service's preference is that rural carriers purchase vehicles with a right-side steering control directly from vehicle manufacturers, but it acknowledges that cost constraints would often prevent this. Given the Postal Service's position, NHTSA has determined that the need to have dual controls in order to deliver mail as a rural carrier justifies the deactivation of the passenger-side air bag.

In your letter, you indicated that you could add an "approved right side air bag in the right side steering wheel which will add at least $750.00 to the cost of dual controls." NHTSA has expressed concerns in the past about possible safety implications of after-market produced air bags, and cannot comment on the safety of any aftermarket air bag. This is because air bags are specifically designed for a particular vehicle design. Accordingly, the agency will not require you to install an air bag in the right-side steering wheel as a condition for deactivation of the passenger-side air bag.

Driver's education vehicles can be, and often are, only supplied with a brake pedal on the passenger-side of the vehicle. There is no need for a dual control steering system to be installed. Accordingly, deactivation requests will not be granted for this purpose.

Please have your rural carrier clients send a request for passenger-side air bag deactivation to this office. The request should state the need for deactivation. Once we have received the request, we will return an authorization letter to your client, who should bring it to you. This letter will indicate that no Federal enforcement action will be taken against you for making a vehicle safety system inoperable. Please be aware that this letter will not release you from any obligations under state law. Accordingly, you should check with your state department of motor vehicles before commencing work on the air bag system.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.3/23/98

ID: aiam5646

Dear Chief Googins: This responds to your question whether passenge seat belts must be installed on a 1982 school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 20,200 pounds. The answer is no, NHTSA's regulations do not call for the belt systems. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the subject of your letter, a 1982 International - Model; S1700 bus with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds, was manufactured as a schoo bus. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, establishes occupant protection requirements for school bus passenger seating and restraining barriers. Standard No. 222 did not in 1982, and does not now, specify that newly manufactured school buses with a GVWR of 20,200 pounds have passenger seat belt assemblies. Thus, under Standard No. 222, your 1982 school bus need not have seat belt assemblies for passengers. However, please note that the States are free to require seat belts in large school buses used to transport students. Enclosed is a February 14, 1992 letter to Mr. Michael A. Martin of the Maine Bureau of Highway Safety, addressing the relationship between Federal school bus safety standards and state law. Note that on page two, NHTSA explains that a State may require seat belt installation for school buses procured by the State, as long as Federal compartmentalization requirements are not compromised. I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel;

ID: nht88-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88

FROM: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- SPECIFICATIONS MANAGER INDIANA MILLS AND MANUFACTURING INC

TO: ERICA Z. JONES, -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 EST TO WILLIAM E. LAWLER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel:

The publication of the final rule (53FR25337) pertaining to seat belts in trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR (FMVSS 208) on July 5, 1988, has prompted us to write to you.

Our discussions with engineers in the Crashworthiness Division since August 1985 have centered around our product called the "Komfort-Lok." This patented device has been used in the field for over two years with good customer satisfaction. Unlike the wor ding of the recent final rule, the Komfort-Lok is not a retractor but rather a mechanism external to the retractor itself but integral with the retractor but which eliminates webbing movement and thus eliminates cinching. The Komfort-Lok works in conjunc tion with an automatic locking retractor (ALR) regardless of the amount of webbing retracted between locking points at 75 percent webbing extension.

Because the Komfort-Lok is designed to work effectively with any ALR, we are writing to your office to request an official opinion permitting the use of any FMVSS 209-compliant-ALR in conjunction with the Indiana Mills Komfort-Lok as a complete retractor system to satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 208, Paragraphs S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2 as stated in the 7-5-88 final rule.

We appreciate your attention to our request.

If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht69-1.11

DATE: 01/27/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: THE NEW YORK AIR BRAKE COMPANY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 30, 1968, regarding location of reflex reflectors and side marker income relative to trailer envelope dimensions. From your subsequent phone conversation on October 18, 1968, with Mr. Zolley of our office, I understodd that you are concerned about the possible obstruction of visibility of those devices by the trailer body.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 168 specifies that side marker lamps must be in accordance with SAS Standard(Illegible Words) to end reflect reflectors in accordance with SAS Standard JS94c. These standards specify photo-metric requirements for side marker lamps at angle 45o to the right and left of the lamp vertical axis and for reflex reflectors at angles 20o to the right and left of the reflector vertical axis.

Although Standard No. 108 does not specify that these devices provide the test photometrics when installed on the vehicle, it should be noted that Tables II and IV of the standard do require that the devices be located "on the side" of the car vehicle. Therefore, devices that are recessed to an extent that would impair their effectiveness would not(Illegible Words) the requirements of Standard No.(Illegible Words).

Section S3.1.1.S of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, as amended effective January 1, 1989, specifics that for trailers less than 89 inches overall wide and less than 30 feet overall length, the photometric requirements specified in SAE J502, why be(Illegible Words) or inboard less points at a distance of 15 feet from the vehicle and on a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle and located midway between the front and rear side marker lamps. For vehicles less than 20 feet in overall length, this establishes a point less than 45o on one side of the side marker lamps. This is the only sets of relief from the requirements of SAS J592b.

I trust this information will be helpful to you. If you should have my further questions concerning safety standards, I would be most happy to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

September 30, 1968

Office of Motor Vehicle Performance Service National Highway Safety Bureau

Attention: Bruce A. Kelley --

Room 8213A Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards - May, 1968

Dear Sir

In reply to my letter concerning an interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Mr. John A. Hanson, Regional Federal Highway Administrator suggested that I contact your office.

The point that I would appreciate clarification on is as follows:

1. Table IV, under Columns 2 and 4, for trailers less than 80" overall width clearly defines the location of the Reflex Reflectors and Side Marker Lamps as to vertical height above the road surface and that they appear on a horizontal level plane.

2. The question arises in determining the location of said lights in relation to the trailer envelope dimensions.

Mr. Kelley suggested that SAE Standards J594c and 592b are more specific and may answer my question.

Any comment you may have to clarify this situation would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

KINNEY VACUUM DIVISION,

The New York Air Brake Company --

D. F. Rusconi --

Project Engineer

ID: nht87-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/87

FROM: G T DOE -- LOTUS ENGINEERING

TO: ERIKA Z JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/15/87 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GT DOE; VSA 108, STANDARDS 208, 216 LETTER DATED 09/18/87 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO J. DOUGLAS HAND

TEXT: Dear Madam

Lotus is proposing to introduce a convertible car into the United States. It is planned to develop and certify the car as a two seat convertible. It is recognised, however, that if no other provision is made, accessory manufacturers may offer 'hardtop' conversions to our customers. In anticipation of the latter possibility, a factory manufactured and approved quality hardtop optional conversion would be offered. The hardtop would consist of a composite roof structure, which would replace the convert ible canopy and support frame. The removal of the latter would reveal a trimmed luggage shelf behind the two designated seating positions. It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could trave l in this area. The fitting of the hardtop would in no way degrade the quality, reliability, or safety of the vehicle. The application of the hardtop conversion is depicted in the accompanying illustration.

It is possible that, whilst vehicles would be imported as convertibles, individual dealers might elect to fit hardtops to new vehicles and display them in their showrooms in this condition.

Could you please give interpretations with respect to the following:-

1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of FMVSS 216. Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?

2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion?

Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned for any further information, or discussion regarding the above.

ID: Interpretation-ElectraMeccanica-May 22 2024

May 22, 2024

Mr. Isaac Moss
Chief Administration Officer
ElectraMeccanica
EMV Automotive USA, Inc.
11647 Ventura Blvd.
Studio City, CA 91604 

Dear Mr. Moss: 

This letter responds to your request, on behalf of the ElectraMeccanica Automotive USA, Inc., for guidance as to whether passenger car tires certified to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139 may be installed on new motorcycles. 

Your letter references a December 30, 1982 interpretation letter confirming that paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 120 permitted a motorcycle to be equipped with passenger tires certified as complying with FMVSS No. 109, as long as the tires were fitted to rims listed as suitable for use with the equipped tires, and as long as those rims met the marking requirements of FMVSS No. 120.1 You note that since this 1982 interpretation letter, FMVSS No. 120 has been revised. Although you do not note this in your letter, since 1982, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has substantially updated tire requirements and new passenger car tires are now required to meet FMVSS No. 139. You ask three questions in your letter, and I will address each in turn. 

First, you ask whether NHTSA can expand its December 30, 1982 interpretation letter to include passenger cars meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 139. I can confirm for you that FMVSS No. 120 allows new motorcycles to be equipped with tires certified to meet FMVSS No. 139. This is explicitly stated in paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 120. 

Second, you ask whether NHTSA can confirm that NHTSA would reference S4 of FMVSS No. 139, in lieu of the references to S4.4 of FMVSS No. 109 and S5.1 of FMVSS No. 119 

1 Letter to Anonymous (Confidential) (Dec. 30, 1982), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/1982-337  

Page 2
Mr. Isaac Moss 

contained in S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 120. The answer to this question is yes. If tires certified to meet FMVSS No. 139 are installed on a new motorcycle, the tire manufacturer must list the rims as suitable for use with those tires in accordance with S4 of FMVSS No. 139. This requirement is consistent with the tire and rim matching information for tires certified with FMVSS Nos. 109 or 119. S4 of FMVSS No. 139, like S4.4 of FMVSS No. 109 and S5.1 of FMVSS No. 119, provides for disclosure of the rims that may be used with each tire a manufacturer produces. The tire’s manufacturer may make this disclosure either in a specific document provided to dealers of the manufacturers’ tires and to NHTSA, or in a yearbook published by one of several tire and rim standards organizations. 

Third, you ask whether NHTSA can provide guidance on whether compliance with FMVSS No. 110 is required in addition to FMVSS No. 120 when tires certified to meet FMVSS No. 139 are used on motorcycles. The answer to this question is no. FMVSS No. 110 is not applicable to motorcycles, even if tires meeting FMVSS No. 139 are installed on motorcycles. S2 of FMVSS No. 110 explicitly excludes motorcycles from the applicability of FMVSS No. 110. The only tire selection and rim standard applicable to motorcycles is in FMVSS No. 120. 

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,
Adam Raviv
Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/22/24
Ref: Standard No. 139

ID: aiam4126

Dear Mr. Utans: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the Par 581, Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle with an adjustable suspension height control system is tested at the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position. You stated that the very reason that adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) would be defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings.; As discussed below, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must b capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted.; As noted by your letter, section 581.6 of the Bumper Standard set forth conditions applicable to bumper testing. For example, the vehicle is at unloaded vehicle weight, the front wheels are in the straight ahead position, etc. The standard does not, however, include a test condition specifically addressing suspension height.; Given the absence of the specific test condition concerning suspensio height, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted. There is no language in the test requirements of the standard limiting their applicability to 'the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position.'; This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Bumpe Standard, set forth in section 581.2, to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed collisions. If a vehicle's suspension could be adjusted so that its bumper height resulted in bumper mismatch with other vehicles in the event of low speed collisions, the reduction in physical damage attributable to the Bumper Standard would be defeated in whole or part.; We appreciate your concern that the very reason that the adjustabl height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cited reasons along those lines in a notice published in the *Federal Register* (49 FR 34049) denying petitions for rulemaking to establish safety requirements for bumpers on vehicles *other* than those covered by Part 581. If the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4163

Dear Mr. Mileham: Thank you for your letter of September 18, 1985, regarding th trailer-mounted aerial personnel left or 'cherry picker' which your company manufactures. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; You ask whether a vehicle identification number (VIN) is required o these trailers. You state that the sole purpose of the trailer is to take the aerial lift to and from a job site and estimate that the trailer will not spend more than 10% to 15% of its time traveling on the highway.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides tha vehicles which fall within the statutory definition of the term 'motor vehicle' must comply with applicable safety standards. That definition includes vehicles 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)). The agency has taken the position that this definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment which uses the highways only to move between job sites, whose job sites are normally located off the public roads, and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle is manufactured.; The information in the brochure enclosed with your letter indicate that the job site of your cherry picker is typically in the streets, not off the road. Based on that information, it appears that your cherry picker may spend virtually its entire operating life on public roads. When a vehicle frequently uses the highway going to and from job sites, and its job site is frequently on the road, the agency's position is that the vehicle is a 'motor vehicle.' Therefore, these trailers are required to comply with Standard No. 115, *Vehicle Identification Number-- Basic Requirements*, and other standards applicable to trailers.; You also ask in your letter if these trailers could be considered th same as mobile air compressors, mobile cement mixers, or mobile generators, which the state of Iowa apparently licenses as 'Special Mobile Equipment,' not requiring a VIN. Whether a state requires a VIN on your trailer lifts, for purposes of licensing or registration, is not determinative of Federal regulatory questions. This agency has taken the position that mobile cement mixers, for example, are motor vehicles because of their use of the public roadways in traveling from job site to job site and their typically short time at any particular site. Therefore, they must comply with Standard No. 115 as well as other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/89

FROM: JAMES L. OBERSTAR -- CONGRESS

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/05/89, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JAMES L. OBERSTAR, REDBOOK A33(2), VSA SECTION 123

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing on behalf of Mr. Joseph Mikoll of Transportation Equipment Corporation (TEC) of Hopkins, Minnesota, with whom you have previously corresponded regarding passive restraints for school buses of 10,000 GVWR or less.

I have read your opinion that installation of TEC's "safety bar devices could not be in place of seat belts and still meet crash protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 222.

I am writing to request answers to two additional points.

1.) Is there a procedure that TEC could follow to request a waiver of the provisions of Standard No. 222 which would allow its safety bar devices to be the sole passive restraint on small buses?

2.) Are there DOT funds available to firms such as TEC to do rigorous testing and R&D on passive restraint devices?

Any light you can shed on this situation would be greatly appreciated. Please respond to my Duluth District Office.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam1552

Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1974, asking whether final-stage manufacturer or vehicle alterer may use the incomplete vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating on the certification label when he adds a third axle. You point out that the manufacturer thereby increases the vehicle's actual capacity and could increase the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating if he so desired, but he does not do so because the vehicle may not conform to applicable standards (mentioning specifically Standard No. 121) at the higher weight rating. It does conform, however, at the weight rating of the incomplete vehicle.; Although, as you point out, gross vehicle weight rating is establishe by the manufacturer, it must be based on a good faith attempt on the part of the manufacturer to conform to its definition. Gross vehicle weight rating is defined as '. . . the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.' A manufacturer is generally free to rate his vehicle at less than full loaded weight, and we would support such a policy where the purpose is to provide a reasonable safety margin. However, we would not consider as made in good faith a gross vehicle or axle weight rating that is so unrelated to vehicle capacity that it suggests a motive such as avoidance of an applicable standard. If it could be shown that this was the manufacturer's intent, he could be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions provided in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for the issuance of a false and misleading certification, and to the responsibilities incident to a finding of a safety-related defect.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel