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: nht78-3.15OpenDATE: 07/17/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Automobile Importers of America TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether passive safety belts are exempt from the requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The answer to your question is yes, with one exception. Paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies that passive safety belts that are not required for the vehicle to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of the standard must meet the requirements of Standard No. 209. Therefore, only passive belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 209. Sincerely, June 8, 1978 Joseph Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Levin: Subject: Request for an Interpretation FMVSS 208/209 In reviewing the requirements presented in FMVSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies in connection with the design of passive belt systems, there appears to be no distinction between the applicability of the standard as to active and passive belt systems. In reviewing FMVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection however, paragraph 4.5.3.4 appears to exempt passive belt systems from compliance in any manner with the requirements of FMVSS 208. Since such an exemption would provide the design latitude necessary in the development of an optimum passive belt system, I would appreciate your confirmation that this exemption is intended. In view of the extensive development efforts now underway in the engineering departments of many manufacturers, an expeditious response to this request would be appreciated. George C. Nield President |
|
ID: nht88-2.83OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/01/88 FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO: ALICE COLLINS TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/15/88, TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM ALICE COLLINS TEXT: Dear Mrs. Collins: This is a response to your letter of January 15, 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activitie s in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were "unsafe." You go on to say that "the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans," and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I wi ll address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman. Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is "unsafe." Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are "safe" or "unsafe." Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a d efect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager. With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MP V, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle 2 class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria. In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr. Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an Augu st 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information. As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition again st vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our C onstitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr. Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government. In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, "is consistent with our belief t hat school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children." This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school c hildren by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are "compartmentalized" (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs); and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupa nt's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus. 3 I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for veh icles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, "Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles. " I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992. ENCLOSURE Sincerely, |
|
ID: 2792oOpen Mrs. Alice Collins Dear Mrs. Collins: This is a response to your letter of January 15, 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activities in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were "unsafe." You go on to say that "the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans," and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I will address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman. Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is "unsafe." Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are "safe" or "unsafe." Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager. With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MPV, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria. In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr.Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an August 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information. As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition against vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our Constitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr.Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government. In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, "is consistent with our belief that school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children." This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school children by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are "compartmentalized" (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs); and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus. I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for vehicles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, "Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles." I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA#571 d:8/1/88 |
1988 |
ID: nht75-3.50OpenDATE: 06/10/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA TO: Volvo of American Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to Volvo of America Corporation's May 9, 1975, request for reconsideration of the NHTSA's March 31, 1975, determination that a Volvo brake system that employs air pressure modulated by the vehicle operator to provide the energy used to actuate the brake is an air brake system subject to Standard No. 121, Air brake Systems. Having reviewed all of the data submitted with your letter, it is concluded that the Volvo system is an air brake system subject to Standard No. 121. In the development of separate air brake and hydraulic brake system standards, the NHTSA had to make a determination of the status of brake systems which employ both air and hydraulic fluid as a means of transmitting force to the vehicle brakes. The agency decided that use of air as a means of power and transmission of the brake force would quality the system as an air brake system. This decision permits manufacturers to determine with certainty whether a standard applies to their products. Since the withdrawal of applicability to trucks of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, our decision has had the beneficial effect of ensuring that "air over hydraulic" systems are subject to a braking standard. If you are aware of any adverse safety consequences of our decision, I would appreciate hearing from you. Sincerely, May 9, 1975 James Schultz, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Request for interpretation, FMVSS 105-75 - Hydraulic Brake Systems, and FMVSS 121 - Air Brake Systems This correspondence is a follow-up to our request for interpretation dated March 3, 1975, your response dated March 31, 1975, and a subsequent telephone conversation between the undersigned and Mr. Richard Dyson, Esq. of your office. In our March 3rd request we described a somewhat unique truck service brake system employing both air and hydraulic subsystems and asked for your concurrence that the described system was in fact a "hydraulic brake system" with a "brake power unit" as defined in 571.105-75 S4 and, therefore, not subject to the requirements of 571.121. In your March 31st response you disagreed with Volvo's proposed interpretation, stating in part that the system in question appeared to be an "air over hydraulic" system and cited an earlier interpretation contained in the preamble to 571.121 which defines the term "air brake system" as including brake configurations commonly referred to as "air over hydraulic", in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability. Having reviewed your response very carefully, we are presently of the opinion that your classification of the described Volvo brake system as "air over hydraulic" may be somewhat arbitrary and it appears you may have overlooked some important characteristics of the system. This could be in part due to overly simplified technical information supplied with our original request. It is, therefore, our intention to submit more detailed technical information as well as additional arguments to support our position at this time, in hopes that you will review and revise your original interpretation. It is Volvo's contention that the brake system in question is a "Hydraulic brake system" as defined in 571.105-75 S4 in that it uses hydraulic fluid as the primary medium for transmitting force from the service brake control to the service brake and in that it incorporates a "brake power unit" as also defined in S4. The "brake power unit" provides the energy required to actuate the brakes, with operator action consisting of only modulating the energy application level. It is our belief that the subject Volvo system, to be described more fully, is in principal identical to currently used hydraulic brake systems in all major respects, except that it is a power brake and that the energy source which the driver modulates happens to be derived from compressed air rather than vacuum or hydraulic pressure. This single factor is not, in our opinion, decisive for classifying the Volvo system as an "air brake system", inasmuch as failure of a single air or hydraulic subsystem will not result in complete loss of braking ability, as you imply is the case with "air over hydraulic" systems. A complete set of specifications and working description of the Volvo brake system in question, including illustrations and braking performance characteristics, is provided as Attachment No. I. Additionally, we are providing as Attachment No. II a group of pictorials depicting the actual layout of the components on the truck chassis. The subject Volvo brake system has the following major characteristics in common with other truck "hydraulic brake systems": 1. The main chassis plumbing consists of hydraulic lines connecting the master cylinders to the wheel brake cylinders. 2. The medium transmitting force between the master cylinders and the wheel brake cylinders is hydraulic brake fluid. 3. The brake shoes are activated by hydraulic wheel cylinders. In addition to the mentioned similarities, the subject Volvo brake system offers the following features and characteristics which we believe are superior to most current truck hydraulic brake systems: 1. Volvo offers a "split service brake system" with completely independent hydraulic circuits for the front and rear axles. plus split "brake power" (air) circuits which are isolated from each other and other air powered equipment in case of leakage. 2. We are confident that Volvo trucks equipped with the subject system offer stopping performance which is superior to most competitive trucks with hydraulic system in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 393.40. 3. Volvo offers an air controlled parking brake system which can be effectively modulated and used for emergency braking. 4. The Volvo system includes a load sensitive valve which proportions hydraulic pressure to the rear axle. The air portion of the subject Volvo brake system, as described in principal in Attachment No. I, will meet all applicable requirements of 571.121 S5.1. Additionally, the hydraulic fluid used meets the requirements of 571.116, and all brake hoses, both air and hydraulic, meet the requirements of 571.106. We hope that the foregoing information and discussion will enable your office to revise its previous interpretation rendered to us on this topic. Before reaching a final decision, however, we would welcome an opportunity to meet with your technical and legal personnel to discuss the Volvo braking system in detail, and to further clarify our position in this matter. Due to pressing time constraints, we would appreciate your cooperation in arranging such a meeting before the end of May, 1975. We thank you in advance for your cooperation. VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development Donald W. Taylor Manager, Product Safety & Quality cc: B. Klingenberg/Truck Div. |
|
ID: 07-001583asOpenKerry Legg, Safety & Compliance Manager Customer Services Head Office New Flyer, Inc. 25 DeBaets Street Winnipeg, Manitoba R2J 4G5 Canada Dear Mr. Legg: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You ask whether it would be permissible to incorporate flashing applications of otherwise steady-burning lamps, or add additional special functioning lamps, for emergency conditions on a transit bus. According to the information you supplied, these lamps would be part of a silent alarm system, perhaps used in conjunction with a GPS or radio alarm system, which would notify outsiders or law enforcement to the presence of an emergency situation on the bus without alerting the individual(s) who may be causing a threat inside the vehicle. After considering the information you provided and the analysis discussed below, we regret to inform you that the silent alarm system you have described with flashing clearance or other special lamps would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108. 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. Analysis of the Silent Alarm Lamps under Paragraph S5.5.10 The question of which lamps are permitted to flash on a vehicle is addressed in paragraph S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108. The relevant provision states: The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are: As you correctly point out in your letter, paragraph S5.5.10(d) of the standard supplies the general rule. All lamps are required to be steady-burning unless specifically excepted by S5.5.10(a)-(c). Therefore, any lamp not covered by these exceptions cannot flash under any circumstances. You specifically ask whether clearance lamps are permitted to flash. Clearance lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, clearance lamps must be steady burning and cannot flash.[1] Paragraph S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps and side marker lamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes. However, we do not believe that the silent alarm system constitutes signaling purposes for the purpose of S5.5.10(b). We do not believe that the phrase signaling purposes should be interpreted in its broadest possible context, which could mean any information communicated to others via visual signals. Instead, we interpret the phrase signaling purposes to be limited to those signals communicating traffic information.[2] The silent alarm, however, does not signal traffic information, but rather information regarding the duress of the driver. We believe that extending our interpretation of signaling purposes could conflict with the intent of S5.5.10(d), which is to limit the use of flashing lamps on vehicles to a limited and easily-understandable set of signals. Therefore, a silent alarm system utilizing flashing headlamps and side marker lamps would not be permitted under FMVSS No. 108. Under S5.5.10(a), turn signal lamps and hazard warning signal lamps must be wired to flash. Therefore, S5.5.10 would not prohibit the use of those lamps as part of a silent alarm system. However, we note that the lamps must still conform to the requirements listed in Table III of FMVSS No. 108. Analysis of Silent Alarm Lamps under Paragraph S5.1.3 While Standard No. 108 mandates the installation and design of required lamps, it does not prohibit the installation of auxiliary lamps. However, the use of auxiliary lamps is subject to the restriction in paragraph S5.1.3 (as well as the general prohibitions on flashing lamps in S5.5.10(d)). Paragraph S5.1.3 reads: S5.1.3 No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. As you have not provided the specific designs and locations of the auxiliary lamps you are considering, we will provide some examples of interference with required lamps. Off-color lamps, such as red lamps in the front of a vehicle, would be considered to interfere with the standardization of highway signals set forth by Standard No. 108.[3],[4] Lamps that distort established patterns, such as the three-lamp identification cluster, would be prohibited by Standard No. 108.[5] Auxiliary lamps that are close to required lamps, and whose glare may obscure the required lamps, would be prohibited under Standard No. 108.[6] In addition, lamps that communicate non-standard signals are generally prohibited under Standard No. 108.[7] Emergency Circumstances You also suggest that silent alarm applications, even if they use non-compliant lamps, may meet the spirit of the regulation because they are only used in emergency circumstances. We cannot concur with this interpretation. Your alarm system must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. While some police and other emergency vehicles have emergency lighting systems involving flashing lamps, we do not permit these systems on other vehicles. NHTSA determined that the drivers that operate police vehicles will be instructed to use the warning system only under certain circumstances, and permitted the system because of the circumstances which are unique to law enforcement.[8] Aftermarket Considerations In your letter, you also requested a waiver, permitting manufacturers to install your system in existing vehicles. The modification of existing vehicles is regulated by Section 30122 of the Safety Act, which states: 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 prescribed under this chapter If one of these entities listed in 30122 were to install lighting equipment that resulted in the vehicle no longer meeting S5.5.10, S5.1.3, or any other portion of FMVSS No. 108, then the entity would be in violation of 30122. We do not issue waivers from the responsibility entities have to meet under FMVSS No. 108. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:108 d.2/21/08 [1] We note that this would not prevent the combination of a clearance lamp with an auxiliary turn signal lamp, as long as the auxiliary turn signal lamp did not impair the effectiveness of the required clearance lamp. [2] We note that this interpretation of signaling purposes is not limited to turn signals, but extends to traffic signals generally. See 1996 letter of interpretation stating that headlamps that flashed when the horn was activated were compliant with paragraph S5.5.10(b). August 30, 1996 letter to Julius Fischer, Esq., available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [3] See, e.g., 11/16/99 letter to Mr. Terry W. Wagar, analyzing various supplementary lamp proposals using amber and red lamps in different locations on a vehicle. It is available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [4] We note that this system would also be subject to State law. Furthermore, with respect to using various colored lamps, States reserve the use of the color blue for emergency vehicles. Increasingly, the color purple is used to designate funeral processions. [5] See 7/28/05 letter to Robert M. Clarke, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [6] See, e.g., 4/8/98 letter to Mr. Michael Krumholz, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [7] See 4/14/97 letter to Mr. Jack Z. Zhang, stating that a lamp has the potential to cause confusion for the very reason that it is unique. This letter also addresses the issue of aftermarket considerations. It is available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [8] See 7/30/2001 letter to Mr. Larry Hughson, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. |
2008 |
ID: 86-5.11OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/04/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. Vincent Foster TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Vincent Foster 146 Argilla Road Ipswich, Massachusetts 01938
Dear Mr. Foster:
This responds to your May 23, 1986, letter to Administrator Steed requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to your dealer to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. You explained that you are mildly hemiplegic and that your physical condition makes it difficult to use a key on the right side of the steering column. You wish to arrange with your dealer to move the ignition to a new position on the steering column which would enable you to engage the key with your left hand. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification by the dealer. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulations will be of assistance to you.
I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle dealer modify their used motor vehicle. Dealers are permitted to modify used vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a dealer who cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with handicaps. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers and dealers modifying certified vehicles are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. In general Section 108(a)(2)(A) would require dealers who modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular handicap, we have been willing to consider any violation of S108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a motor vehicle dealer that modifies the steering column on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the steering column to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle.
I suggest you show this letter to your dealer. If you have any further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
January 27, 1986
Ms. Diane Steed Administrator Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Washington, D. C. 20590
RE: Mr. Vincent Foster 1985 Volvo 146 Argilla Road Vin # YVIFX884GG1013278 Ipswich, Mass. 01938
Dear Ms. Steed:
With reference to USA regulation #114 covering the ignition locking system.
Please consider this a request to waive the above regulation and for permission to modify the ignition locking system.
The reason for this is that it would be in the public interest since Mr. Foster's right hand is totally disabled. He has great difficulty starting the car.
We are planning to install an additional keyed ignition switch in the let side of the steering column.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Mr. Fred Pomeroy or Ms. Karen Gardella at Congressman's Mavarolis Office.
Sincerely,
Mr. Fred Pomeroy Sales Department
FP/jw
Diane Steed Department of Transportation Office of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Room 5220 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Ms. Steed:
I am writing you to request permission to have the ignition of my and newly-purchased Volvo Sedan (1986 model year) changed from its present position additional/ on the right side of the steering column. I bought the car on January 13, 1986, from Sales, Incorporated, of 230 John Street, Reading , Mass. 01867. A mechanic employed by 128 Sales, Incorporated, will make this alteration if and when permission is granted.
I make this request because my right side is mildly hemiplegic as a result of cerebral palsy, due to a birth injury, a circumstance which makes possible turning the key in the ignition of any automobile with my right hand. Since January I have been driving the Volvo, but in order to start it, I must lean far enough over to reach the ignition with my left hand, which is affected by the cerebral palsy. Thus, I can drive with the ignition on the right, but its relocation to the left side of the steering column would be of great assistance.
As a resident of and a voter in the Massachusetts 6th Congressional District, I turned for help---as soon as I was informed that permission would be required---to the office of my Congressman, Mr. Nicholas Mavarolis, one of his aides, Ms. Karen Gardella, has given me all possible help with this matter. She had believed, until today, that the proper procedure for petitioning. Today, both Ms. Gardella and, through her, I learned that, according to Betsy Harrison, Chief Counsel of the Department of Transportation, petitions by the individuals in question. Hence this letter. My car is an "86 Volvo, Model 744GEO Sedan. Its Vehicle Identification Number is YV1FX8846G1013278. The salesman with whom I dealt with is Fred Pomeroy. I have a Massachusetts Driver's License.
My legal address is 146 Argilla Road, Ipswich, Mass. 01938, and as I stated earlier, I am a registered voter in the Massachusetts Sixth Congressional District. However, for the next few months I will be in Jackson, Florida., where my telephone number, should you for any reason wish to contact me, (606) 356-5916. Your early attention to this question would be greatly appreciated. Thank You very much. Sincerely,
Vincent Foster |
|
ID: aiam3908OpenMs. Mildred Roger, Ms. Estelle Friedman, Uncanny Products, 5904 Edinger Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA 92649; Ms. Mildred Roger Ms. Estelle Friedman Uncanny Products 5904 Edinger Avenue Huntington Beach CA 92649; Dear Ms. Roger: This responds to your letter of January 21, 1985, concerning a aftermarket product you manufacture. The product, which you call the 'Uncanny Seat Belt Comfort Control Belt,' consists of a strap which can be fastened around the shoulder and lap webbing of a lap- shoulder safety belt near the buckle. A belt user can then slide the strap along the webbing, thus causing the shoulder portion of the belt to move away from the person's neck and make the belt more comfortable to wear. You asked for the agency to approve, disapprove, or endorse your product so that it can be advertised in certain magazines.; No such agency action is necessary before you advertise your product Further, the agency does not have the authority to approve or endorse items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your device. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards.; Your particular aftermarket product is not covered by any of our safet belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your products. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 1411-1420 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a copy of which is enclosed.; The agency is concerned that a belted occupant could use your produc to reduce the effectiveness of the upper torso belt by moving the belt so close to the edge of the shoulder that the occupant could rotate out of the upper torso belt in a crash. Likewise, your product could be used to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt, which would also reduce its effectiveness. We urge you to include a warning in your instructions to advise belt users about the proper use of your product.; I am returning the sample of your product that you enclosed with you letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht94-5.49OpenDATE: May 6, 1994 FROM: David L. Ori -- Manager Vehicle Control Division, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation TO: Jim Gilkey -- NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to David Ori (A42; STD. 205; Part 567 TEXT: I would like to thank you for the assistance you gave to one of my staff members, Kris Singer, when she recently telephoned you regarding Federal glazing standards relating to limousines. Since the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is addressing this issue at the present time, I would appreciate your assistance in confirming the information which Mrs. Singer received. You explained that limousines which seat less than ten persons are categorized as passenger cars for the purpose of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 (FMVSS 205). As such, these vehicles may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product which does not meet FMVSS 205. This prohibition also applies to vehicle modifications completed during the second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process. Further, the company which alters the original vehicle is required to certify that the finished product is still in compliance with FMVSS 205. Limousines which seat ten or more persons are categorized as buses and, therefore, would not be restricted regarding the use of sun screening products on windows located behind the driver's area of the vehicle. These vehicles would also require certification from the second stage manufacturer of continued compliance with FMVSS 205. I would appreciate receiving your confirmation of the above information, at your earliest convenience, at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Room 104, T & S Building, Harrisburg, PA 17120. If there is any additional information which you feel may be pertinent to Pennsylvania's efforts to address this issue, please include it with your response, or contact me at (717) 787-3184. |
|
ID: nht71-2.18OpenDATE: 03/23/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Hankscraft Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which you asked for an opinion as to whether the Hankscraft Child's Auto Safety Harness, Style 705, is a Type 3 seat belt assembly within the scope of Standard No. 209.(Illegible Word) harness sold for automobile use that is advertised as a safety harness(Illegible Words)(Illegible Word) not carefully state that it is not intended to project a child from the efforts of the(Illegible Word) is considered a Type 3 seat belt assembly that must conform to Standard No. 209. Since Hankscraft identifies its product as an "Auto Safety Harness" and states that it will provide "effective restraint . . . with increased safety in all but the most(Illegible Words) us would require the harness in question to conform to Standard No. 209. |
|
ID: 17491.ztvOpenRobert B. Nicholas, Esq. Dear Mr. Nicholas: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1998, asking for confirmation of your interpretation that an electric-powered scooter, manufactured by your client EMPower Corporation, is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). You have described the scooter as a three-wheeled vehicle with a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour. It has "a platform, no seat and is designed to be driven standing up. The scooter's steering mechanism, composed of handlebars, steering column, fork and wheel, is collapsible and folds toward the platform for easy storage and portability." You have cited interpretations of the agency in which other, similar vehicles were held not to be "motor vehicles." These exempted vehicles feature lack of a seat and the ability to be folded to be portable (see letters of June 12, 1995, to Andrew Grubb, re "California Go-Ped," letter of October 5, 1993, to Bernhard Peer, re "TWIP" electric scooter; and letter of April 1, 1991, to Mark. A Pacheco re "Walk Machine"). We concur with your conclusion that these interpretations are relevant to the EMPower electric scooter, as you have described it, and that, accordingly, the EMPower electric scooter is not a "motor vehicle" under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
1998 |
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.