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: aiam4098OpenDawn B. Brown, Esq., Currier, Zall & Shepard, 207 Main Street, P. O. Box L, Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2938; Dawn B. Brown Esq. Currier Zall & Shepard 207 Main Street P. O. Box L Nashua New Hampshire 03061-2938; Dear Ms. Brown: This responds to your January 2, 1987 letter asking a number o questions concerning certain aspects of automatic transmissions. You ask first if there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) relating to the permissibility of a transmissions design which allows a driver to remove the key from the ignition while the transmission is in drive. You state your belief that 'Standard 114, 49 CFR 571.113 is relevant,' and ask whether that standard ever has been interpreted for a purpose other than to prevent unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. (We assume that the citation of 571.113 instead of 571.114 was a typographical error.) You ask further if there are any Federal safety standards that address whether a vehicle should 'jump from park to drive when left in park.' Finally, you ask whether there are standards other than 114 'that govern these problems.'; As it currently is written, Standard 114 requires a manufacturer t install a key-locking system that prevents starting a vehicle engine and also prevents either, steering a vehicle or moving a vehicle forward under its own power whenever the key is removed. Thus, the standard does not directly require that the vehicle be in park before a driver can remove the ignition key.; In 1968, when Standard 114 was adopted, the stated purpose was t 'reduce the incidence of accidents resulting form unauthorized (motor vehicle) use.' 33 *Federal Register* 6471, April 27, 1968. The agency based this goal on evidence showing that: 'Cars operated by unauthorized persons are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury and death than those which are driven by authorized individuals.' (See the preceding citation.) Neither the Standard nor the language in the preamble to it states any other goal.; In 1980, this agency amended Standard 114 to prevent a driver fro inadvertently locking the steering wheel of a moving vehicle by removing the ignition key or shutting off the engine (45 Federal Register 85450, December 29, 1980). However, after receiving petitions for reconsideration and studying the question further, NHTSA decided that while this kind of inadvertent activation might be a safety problem in certain vehicles, the problem did not then warrant requiring additional steps to protect against inadvertent lock-up. Therefore, the agency rescinded the 1980 amendment. The agency stated that it would continue to monitor complaints on the subject, and initiate rulemaking should new data warrant it (46 Federal Register 32251, 32253, June 22, 1981).; Currently, the agency is re-evaluating whether data warrants amendin Standard 114 to improve key-locking systems by reducing the prospect of a driver s inadvertently locking the steering column while a motor vehicle is moving.; As to your question about the existence of a FMVSS which directl addresses the permissibility of a design which allows a car to jump from 'park' to 'drive' when a driver leaves the car in 'park,' the answer is there is no such standard. However, NHTSA has received a number of letters complaining of this phenomenon and, using its authority not only to issue FMVSS but also require the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects, has conducted investigations based on these complaints. A listing of the defects investigations can be obtained from: Technical Reference Division, NHTSA, Room 5108, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5427OpenMr. David Huff Co-Chairperson, Special Transportation Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation Central Missouri State University Warrensburg, MO 64093; Mr. David Huff Co-Chairperson Special Transportation Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation Central Missouri State University Warrensburg MO 64093; "Dear Mr. Huff: This responds to your letter to Mr. Charles Hott o this agency asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222), for wheelchair securement devices. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask about the need to increase Standard 222's strength requirements for wheelchair securement devices that are part of an integrated system. In an integrated system, the occupant restraint system (lap and shoulder belts) is anchored to the wheelchair securement device. You suggest that a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system should be required to withstand twice the load that is required for a securement device that is not integrated with the occupant restraint system. While we share your belief that wheelchair securement devices should be sufficiently strong, we do not believe there is a need to increase Standard 222's present requirements for securement devices that are part of an integrated system. Rather, we believe a securement device that meets the standard's present requirements is capable of withstanding the forces imposed on that device in a crash, even when the device is part of an integrated system such as the one you described. As you point out in your letter, S5.4.1.3 of Standard 222 provides for increasing the load requirement for a wheelchair securement anchorage when that anchorage is used by more than one wheelchair securement device. Moreover, S5.4.3.2(e) of the standard specifies that When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1.3 13,344 Newtons and S5.4.3.2 13,344 Newtons shall be applied simultaneously... Stated differently, the floor anchorage used for an integrated system must withstand a load of 26,688 Newtons, which is the sum of the load specified for the wheelchair securement device and the load specified for the occupant restraint. However, Standard 222 does not require increasing the load for a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system, and there is valid reason for the different approach. Under S5.4.2(a) of Standard 222, wheelchair securement devices that incorporate webbing or a strap must comply with the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Type I systems are lap belts, and are required by S4.2(b) of FMVSS 209 to have a breaking strength of not less than '6,000 pounds or 2,720 kilograms.' The 6,000 pound (2,720 kg.) requirement is equivalent to the 26,688 Newton requirement for an anchorage used for an integrated system. Thus, Standard 222 requires wheelchair securement devices to be as strong as an anchorage that secures both the wheelchair and the occupant restraint. Requiring the wheelchair securement device to be stronger than the anchorage cannot be justified by a safety need. I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5489OpenMr. G. Brandt Taylor President Day-Night Mirrors, Inc. 36 Barnes Hill Road Berlin, MA 01503; Mr. G. Brandt Taylor President Day-Night Mirrors Inc. 36 Barnes Hill Road Berlin MA 01503; Dear Mr. Taylor: This responds to your letter asking about th requirements applicable to multiple reflectance mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rear View Mirrors. You stated that your mirror can change its reflectivity either by mechanically rotating a shaft or by actuating an electrical motor. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. FMVSS No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which specifies requirements for mirror construction, provides in relevant part that All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance automatically in the event of electrical failure. You asked several questions about the requirement for adjusting the mirror in the event of electrical failure. You first asked if a manual override knob could be removable. You then asked whether a removable manual override could be supplied by the car manufacturer along with the car keys or with the owner's manual for insertion into the mirror and use only in the event of an electrical failure. You also asked about whether 'west coast' mirrors and mirrors on trailer trucks could have a removable manual override. The answer to each of your questions is that a removable manual override knob would not be permitted. In the preamble to the final rule amending the mirror construction requirements in FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA stated that the agency's goal is to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. (see 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991) The manual override knob you discuss would serve as the means for the driver to adjust the mirror's reflectance level. However, a removable manual override knob would not always serve this purpose, since it would not necessarily always be with the mirror. We are concerned that a removable override device may become lost or otherwise not available when a mirror's reflectance needs to be adjusted. Accordingly, since the agency's goal of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation would only be achieved by requiring this device to be permanent, a removable override would not be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5470OpenMr. Forbes Howard Goodlife Motors Corporation Route 3, Box 250-5 Boone, North Carolina 28607; Mr. Forbes Howard Goodlife Motors Corporation Route 3 Box 250-5 Boone North Carolina 28607; "Dear Mr. Howard: This responds to your request for an interpretatio whether the 'super golf car' your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusual configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle. In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars 'will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour.' You enclosed three photographs, each of 'one model of our vehicles.' One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of the man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars. The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straight sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mirror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile. Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your 'super golf cars' to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has registered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates. The FMVSS apply to 'motor vehicles,' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). 'Motor vehicle' is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less. Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the 'super golf cars' do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your 'super golf cars' make them resemble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller. Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric 'super golf car' and 950 lbs. for the gas powered 'super golf car') is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehicle from being regarded as a 'motor vehicle.' At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule published May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808)(copy enclosed). Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a 'motor vehicle.' Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection. For these reasons, we conclude that the 'super golf car' as described above is a 'motor vehicle' subject to all applicable FMVSS. As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 finalrule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweight vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam5033OpenMr. William E. Lawler Manager, Specifications Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 18881 U.S. 31 North P.O. Box 408 Westfield, Indiana 46074-0408; Mr. William E. Lawler Manager Specifications Indiana Mills & Manufacturing Inc. 18881 U.S. 31 North P.O. Box 408 Westfield Indiana 46074-0408; Dear Mr. Lawler: This responds to your letter of May 18, 1992 concerning the test requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your questions concern a final rule published on December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63682) clarifying the definition of 'seat belt anchorage.' That final rule had the effect of requiring seat belt attachment hardware, which previously was not included within the definition of 'seat belt anchorage,' to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 210. Your five questions are addressed below. The first three questions refer to a safety belt design which incorporates a retractor. l. If a test harness is used, can one end of the harness be attached to the attachment hardware (retractor frame), or must it be attached to the retractor spool? The use of test harnesses for Standard No. 210 testing was permitted in a final rule published April 30, 1990, and effective September 1, 1992. More specifically, the final rule specified that 'material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment' be used to transfer the test loads from the body block to the anchorages during the Standard No. 210 compliance tests. The amended standard also specifies that the attachment of this material should 'duplicate the geometry' of the original webbing. The amended definition of 'seat belt anchorage' explicitly states that the seat belt anchorage is any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure. If the retractor spool breaks during a crash, the safety belt will not remain attached to the vehicle. Therefore, the retractor spool is a part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, and, under the definition set forth above, is part of the seat belt anchorage. If a test harness is used, it must be attached such that the retractor spool is tested as part of the seat belt anchorage. The harness may not be attached directly to the retractor frame, since the retractor spool would not be tested in that instance. 2. If the harness must be attached to the spool, may it be attached around the spool as opposed to being inserted into the spool? As stated previously, Standard No. 210 specifies use of 'material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the webbing for the seat belt assembly installed as original equipment' for Standard No. 210 tests. For compliance tests, NHTSA's preference is to use the original safety belt webbing whenever possible. When this cannot be done, due to elongation or breakage of the original webbing, NHTSA's first choice is to attach substitute webbing or other material to the original webbing near the anchorage. If the substitute material cannot be attached to the original webbing, NHTSA would attach the substitute webbing directly to the retractor spool. If the substitute webbing cannot be inserted into the spool in the same manner as the original webbing, attaching the substitute webbing around the spool would most closely duplicate the geometry of the original webbing. 3. We assume it is the intent of the agency to test only the strength of the attachment hardware--not the locking mechanism of the retractor built in accordance with FMVSS 209. The strength requirement in S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that anchorages must withstand certain forces when tested under specified conditions. Under S4.2.3, permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. If breakage of the locking mechanism (a part of the anchorage because it is 'involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure') caused separation of the belt from the vehicle structure, such breakage would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test, as the anchorage would not have withstood the test forces. However, if the locking mechanism broke or released during the test without allowing the webbing to separate from the vehicle structure, the agency would not consider it a failure of the strength requirement test, since the belt would still be anchored to the vehicle structure. 4. A commonly used design is the 'cable buckle'. The buckle assembly is positioned in convenient reach of the seat occupant by attaching the buckle to a cable by a method called swaging. The attachment hardware consists of a flat end containing a hole for an attaching bolt and a ferrule which is swaged to the cable. The ferrule and the flat end are made in one piece. Please confirm that the attachment ferrule bolted to the seat/vehicle is what is required to withstand the forces dictated by FMVSS 210, separation of the cable from the ferrule would not constitute malfunction of the test harness and not non-compliance to FMVSS 210. In the December 5, 1991 final rule, the agency stated that 'the definition of seat belt anchorage included only the attachment points of the seat belt, and not the webbing, straps, or similar device, or the buckles which comprise the seat belt itself.' For this design, the cable is a 'similar device' to seat belt webbing, and would be considered part of the seat belt, not the anchorage. If the cable broke, the agency would consider that an incomplete test, just like breakage of webbing. However, it would be a failure of the Standard No. 210 test if the cable pulled out of the ferrule, since such pulling out would result from a failure of the ferrule rather than a broken cable. 5. Please confirm that the test harness could delete the buckle mechanism and attach directly to the upper end of the cable in the cable/ferrule assembly. The answer to this question is yes. As stated previously, buckles are part of the seat belt, not the anchorage, and therefore, are not subject to the strength requirement of Standard No. 210. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5436OpenMr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York School Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan, NY 14527; Mr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York School Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan NY 14527; Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your facsimile transmittal lette to me of July 19, 1994. Your letter referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), and asked whether emergency exits on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and a passenger capacity of 2 to 16 seated and/or wheelchair positions, are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape as specified in paragraph S5.5.3(c) of the standard. In 49 CFR 571.3, this agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a school bus as A bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. Whether or not a vehicle is a school bus, therefore, depends on its use (transporting the specified students) and seating capacity (more than 10), and not GVWR. Accordingly, if the seating capacity of a vehicle is 10 or less, it is not a bus and likewise not a school bus, regardless of use or GVWR. Such a vehicle would not be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Vehicles meeting the definition of school bus would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Section S5.5 of the standard, Emergency Exit Identification, specifies the marking requirements for emergency exits on all buses. Sections S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 apply to non-school buses, while section S5.5.3 applies to all school buses, without regard to GVWR. Paragraph S5.5.3(c) provides: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1. We would like to emphasize two points with regard to your letter. The first is that only those emergency exits that are required by the standard are subject to this provision. Extra emergency exits added as options are encouraged, but not required, to be outlined with the tape. The other point is one that I made in a May 18, 1994 letter to you. A technical amendment is pending publication which will amend the size requirement for the width of the retroreflective tape, from a minimum of 3 centimeters (cm.) to a minimum of 2.5 cm. That amendment is necessary because retroreflective tape is not commercially available in 3 cm. widths. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape width size against a manufacturer who uses one inch wide (minimum 2.5 cm.) retroreflective tape. In closing, bear in mind that all school buses are required to have a specified number of emergency exits, the number and location of which depend on the seating capacity of the vehicle, regardless of the GVWR, and all required emergency exits must be outlined with the retroreflective tape. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1590OpenWarren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P. O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA, 95804; Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P. O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: Your letter of July 16, 1974, to Mr. Francis Armstrong of the Office o Standards Enforcement has been referred to the Office of Crash Avoidance for reply.; The responses to your 9 questions are as follows:>>> Question 1) When a sidecar is attached to a motorcycle, what referenc point constitutes the vehicle centerline for the mounting location requirements for headlamps in Standard No. 108?; Answer The vertical centerline of the motorcycle alone (not of th combination) is applicable.; Question 2) If the sidecar interferes with the visibility of the sid reflex reflectors on the motorcycle, are additional side reflectors required to be installed on the sidecar under Standard No. 108?; Answer In order to meet the visibility requirements in paragrap S4.3.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, an auxiliary reflector(s) is required.; Question 3) When a sidecar is attached to a motorcycle, is the sideca required to be equipped with a right front and rear turn signal and a stop and taillamp under Standard No. 108?; Answer Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not addres the requirements for motorcycle sidecars. The requirements for such add-on equipment are therefore regulated by the individual states. However, if the sidecar interferes with the visibility of these devices, paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 is applicable.; Question 4) With the sidecar attached, is the wheel on the sideca required to have brakes under Standard No. 122?; Answer Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122 does not addres the requirements for motorcycle sidecars. The requirements for such add-on equipment are therefore regulated by the individual states.; Question 5) If the wheel on the sidecar is required to have brakes should it be included as a part of the split service brake system in Standard No. 122 or should it be considered a part of an independent system?; Answer Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122 does not addres the requirements for motorcycle sidecars. The requirements for such add-on equipment are therefore regulated by the individual states.; Question 6) With the sidecar attached, is a parking brake required a specified for three-wheeled motorcycles in Standard No. 122?; Answer Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122 does not addres the requirements for motorcycle sidecars. The requirements for such add-on equipment are therefore regulated by the individual states.; Question 7) Is Standard No. 119 applicable to the tire and rim of sidecar?; Answer Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 is applicable t the tire, and FMVSS No. 120, when issued, will be applicable to the rim and installation on the vehicle.; Question 8) Is non-flexible glazing material permitted on the sideca under Standard No. 205?; Answer Yes. Paragraph S5.1.2.1 of FMVSS No. 205 allows the use o 'Rigid Plastics' in motorcycle windscreens at levels not requisite for driving visibility.; Question 9) Is glazing material designated as AS-7 or AS-13 permitte in glazed areas of a sidecar under Standard No. 205?; Answer Both AS-7 and AS-13 are permitted.<<< If safety data does become available which indicates that a potentia safety problem exists, Federal standards will be amended to include those areas not now covered.; We trust that the above will be helpful in your states enforcemen program. If we can be of further service please let us know.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4117OpenMr. E. Brooks Harper, General Manager, Backstop, Inc., 240 Pegasus Avenue, Northvale, NJ 07647; Mr. E. Brooks Harper General Manager Backstop Inc. 240 Pegasus Avenue Northvale NJ 07647; Dear Mr. Harper: This responds to your letter asking whether installation of your touc 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 Safet 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 revers 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 No. 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. We suggest that you carefully consider whether installation of Backstop in the variety of current vehicles and vehicle configurations would affect compliance with the requirements of 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 modifies 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 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 is 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, whethe 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, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3819OpenMs. Margaret Moore Oba, Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc., 200 Park Avenue, Suite 4114-12, New York, New York 10166; Ms. Margaret Moore Oba Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc. 200 Park Avenue Suite 4114-12 New York New York 10166; Dear Ms. Oba: This responds to your March 12, 1984 letter regarding the applicabilit of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to motor vehicles imported into Guam.; Under Sections 102(8), 102(9), and 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391(8), 1391(9), and 1397(a)(1)(A), motor vehicles introduced into commerce in Guam are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In general, the standards apply to the same extent to vehicles imported into Guam as to those imported into the continental U.S. However, as you note in you letter, FMVSS 103 (windshield defrosting and defogging systems) does not apply outside the continental U.S., as specified in section 3 of that standard. See 49 CFR 571.103. Other standards, such as FMVSS 124, which do not limit their applicability to specific geographic areas, apply fully in Guam. Therefore, vehicles imported into Guam must have an accelerator control system which returns the throttle to idle over a temperature range of -40 degrees F. to +125 degrees F.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3822OpenMs. Margaret Moore Oba, Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc., 200 Park Avenue, Suite 4114-12, New York, NY 10166; Ms. Margaret Moore Oba Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc. 200 Park Avenue Suite 4114-12 New York NY 10166; Dear Ms. Oba: This responds to your March 12, 1984 letter regarding the applicabilit of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to motor vehicles imported into Guam.; Under sections 102(8), 102(9), and 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391(8), 1391(9), and 1397(a)(1)(A), motor vehicles introduced into commerce in Guam are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In general, the standards apply to the same extent to vehicles imported into Guam as to those imported into the continental U.S. However, as you note in your letter, FMVSS 103 (windshield defrosting and defogging systems) does not apply outside the continental U.S., as specified in section 3 of that standard. See 49 CFR 571.103. Other standards, such as FMVSS 124, which do not limit their applicabilty to specific geographic areas, apply fully in Guam. Therefore, vehicles imported into Guam must have an accelerator control system which returns the throttle to idle over a temperature range of -40 degrees F. to +125 degrees F.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.