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: 86-3.20OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/08/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Thomas T. Griffing TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Thomas T. Griffing Manager, Technical Services Yokohama Tire Corporation 1530 Church Road Montebello, CA 90640
Dear Mr. Griffing:
This responds to your letter to Mr. Glen Ludwig, of our Enforcement division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that your company would like to label the following information on medium truck tires, in addition to the information specifically required to appear on the tires by Standard No. 119:
1. the load index specified by the International Standards Organization (ISO): and
2. the speed rating specified by the European Tire and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO).
You asked two questions concerning these markings. First, you asked whether Standard No. 119 allows tire manufacturers to place two different load plates on tires, one for Standard No. 119 and one with the ISO load index, even if the maximum load given in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value for the maximum load of the listed ISO load index. The answer to this question depends on whether the ISO load index information is presented in a manner that would obscure or confuse the meaning of the information required to appear on the sidewall of the tire by Standard No. 119, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information.
Paragraph S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to this standard. The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. See, for example, the enclosed April 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Standard No. 119 permits tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. It is not clear from your letter whether you are proposing to add just the ISO load index to the required information on the sidewall of the tires, or that load index and a separate maximum load rating expressed in kilograms. If you are proposing the former course of action, Standard No. 119 does not prohibit tire manufacturers from adding the ISO load index to the information required by Standard No. 119 to appear on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the load index is shown in such a was that it is not confusing to consumers. This agency sent two letters to Michelin Tire Corporation on this subject, dated July 14, 1980 and August 28, 1980. I have enclosed copies of these letters for your information. If, on the other hand, you are proposing the latter course of action, NHTSA has said that the load and inflation pressure information can be expressed in both English units and metric units, provided that the metric units are equivalent to the English units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. However, Standard No. 119 does not permit a tire manufacturer to list two different maximum load values on its tires. See the enclosed August 18, 1983 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Accordingly, if your company's tires were to List one value as the maximum load rating in pounds and a different value as the maximum load rating in kilograms, NHTSA would consider such labeling to be a violation of the requirement in S6.5(d) that tires be labeled with "the maximum load rating". Two different maximum load ratings on the same tire could confuse consumers, and give rise to questions about which of the two loads is really "the maximum load" the tire can carry. Such confusion would frustrate the purpose of the labeling requirement in Standard No. 119. Accordingly, such labeling would violate the requirement of S6.5(d) of the Standard. Your second question was whether this Department put out any special instructions for tire manufacturers regarding the placement on the tire of the ETRTO and ISO information. As explained above, Standard No. 119 prohibits the addition of information to tire sidewalls only if such information confuses or obscures the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeats the purpose of the required information. There are no further "special instructions" concerning this requirement. In past agency interpretations, the agency has made clear that the ETRTO speed ratings and the ISO load indices may be included in a tire's size designation without violating this prohibition. See the enclosed June 25, 1981 letter to Mr. Keigo Ohgiya for the ETRTO speed ratings and the August 28, 1980 letter to Mr. John B. White for the ISO load indices.
This agency position leaves wide latitude for the tire manufacturers to incorporate such additional information onto the tire sidewalls. One of the reasons for allowing this wide latitude is this agency's hope that the tire manufacturers can collectively agree, through the standardization organizations, to a resolution of the potential problems associated with providing additional information. If the tire companies jointly agree on a method of presenting this information that is not confusing to consumers, no "special instructions" or other actions by this agency would be needed. Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
Enclosures
February 5, 1986
U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington D.C. 20590 ATTENTION: Mr. Glen Ludwig
Dear Mr. Ludwig:
Yokohama has been requested by our European Subsidiary Company to install the required load index and speed symbols specified by ETRTO and ISO standards on our medium truck all steel tires for shipment and distribution there. Considering this request, Yokohama recognizes that in addition to the load and inflation markings mandated by FMVSS 119 regulation, a separate plate 'ill have to be installed for the aforementioned ETRTO/ISO markings since carrying capacities and some other information are dissimilar based upon two separate standards. This situation has prompted us to contact you in attempt to clarify the situation and insure we are in compliance with the U.S. Federal regulations.
Accordingly, would you please respond to our questions below concerning these markings:
1. If Yokohama places 2 different load plates on the tire, one for DOT 119 and a separate load index for ETRTO/ISO, is this compatible with the FMVSS 119 regulations even though the load in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value of the load index?
2. Is there any specific instructions put forth by the Department of Transportation to the placement on the tire of the additional ETRTO/ISO information?
In addition to your specific answers to these questions would you please comment upon any other information which you feel pertinent to these tire markings as it applies to Federal FMVSS 119 compliance.
Thank you for you assistance and cooperation.
Thomas T. Griffing Manager Technical Services
TTG:lea |
|
ID: 24388.drnOpenMr. Brian Barrington Dear Mr. Barrington: This responds to your letter requesting information about sales of your companys vehicles to child care centers. You explain that your company manufactures new vehicles that meet the school bus crashworthiness Federal motor vehicle safety standards, but do not have the school bus flashing lights and stop arms. You wish to know whether child care providers may purchase and use these vehicles. By way of background, it might be helpful to keep in mind that Federal law restricts the types of new buses that may be sold for school transportation purposes but does not restrict the use of vehicles. Your customers State laws regulate how school age children in a State are to be transported. NHTSA has revised its interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start Programs. However, sales of new buses to child care centers that provide transportation to or from school must involve a school bus. Sales of New Buses to Child Care Centers Your question regarding sales of new buses to child care centers has been addressed for the most part in the enclosed interpretation letter of May 9, 2001, to Collins Bus Corporation (Collins letter). In the Collins letter, we explain dealers responsibilities in selling new buses to day care centers that will be using the vehicles to transport children to or from schools. All the enclosures mentioned in the letter are provided. The Collins letter discusses prohibitions on sales of new buses that do not meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) school bus standards. Briefly, any person selling a new 'school bus" must sell a bus that meets our school bus standards. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which NHTSA decides is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons (49 CFR 571.3(b)). NHTSAs longstanding position has been that day care centers in and of themselves are not 'schools" within the meaning of our statute because of their primarily custodial, rather than educational, emphasis. However, when a day care center is providing transportation to or from school or school- related events, then the transportation constitutes the described action-- transporting students to or from school--contemplated by the statute. In a letter of July 23, 1998, to Mr. Don Cote of Northside Ford (copy enclosed), we advised that when a dealership sells or leases a new bus to a child care facility to drop off and pick up school children from school "on regular school days," the dealership must sell or lease only a bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The Collins letter stated that NHTSA currently does not presume that day care centers universally are engaged in the transportation of children to or from school. However, where the purchaser or lessor of a new bus is a day care center, in light of the widespread publicity that has surrounded the issue, we expect a dealer to inquire as to whether the vehicle would also be used to drop off or pick up students from school. If it appears that a vehicle will be used significantly for student transportation, the requirement to sell a certified school bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses would apply. Sales of New Buses to Head Start Programs Your letter also stated: "Head Start and Child Care providers operate vehicles under identical conditions. In other words, children are picked up and released off of thoroughfares and usually in parking lots and drive ways." For these reasons, you ask whether you can sell to child care centers an "allowable alternate vehicle" (AAV) as defined by the Head Start Bureau. The answer is no. Head Start defines an AAV as "a vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more people, including the driver, that meets all the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses, except 49 CFR 571.108 and 571.131." (See 45 CFR Section 1310.3) Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) establishes requirements for lamps and associated equipment, and Standard No. 131 (49 CFR 571.131) establishes requirements for stop arms. Sales of new buses to child care centers that provide to and from school transportation can be distinguished from sales of new buses to Head Start Programs. The latter type of sale has been the focus of recent Congressional and administrative action that have led us to reconsider our previous determinations in this area. In an interpretation letter of August 3, 2000 to Helen H. Taylor, Associate Commissioner of the Head Start Bureau (copy enclosed), NHTSA agreed to Head Starts request to revise our interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start Programs. NHTSA made this revision after being informed that in 1998, Congress amended section 636 of the Head Start Act by employing the term "school readiness," thereby distinguishing Head Start Programs from school programs. In the letter to the Head Start Bureau, NHTSA stated in part: Accordingly, we are revising our interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start. Consistent with the evident intent of section 636, we conclude that a Head Start agency is not operating a "school" for the purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. This means that buses sold to transport children to and from a Head Start site will no longer be required under the Vehicle Safety Act to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. In revising our interpretation, we act with the knowledge that HHS intends to implement a rule requiring that Head Start children be transported in vehicles meeting the Federal school bus safety standards other than those for traffic control devices. This will serve to ensure the childrens safety. As you are aware, in a final rule of January 18, 2001, the Head Start Bureau established 45 CFR Part 1310, Head Start Transportation, which includes the definition of "allowable alternate vehicle." Conclusion Sales of new buses to child care centers that provide to and from school transportation have not been affected by the recent Congressional activity on Head Start buses. Sales of new buses to child care centers to transport students to or from school are still subject to the Vehicle Safety Act mandate to sell complying school buses. However, you may be interested to know that on March 21, 2001, NHTSA granted a petition from the Rabun-Gap Nacoochee School of Rabun-Gap, Georgia, to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to create a new school bus classification known as the "school activity bus." The petitioner asked that this classification "consist of buses which are used for transporting school children to or from school related activities, but are not used to transport children between home and school." Among other issues, the petitioner asked that school buses meeting this new category be exempted from the requirement for school bus warning lights (S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108) and the requirement for school bus pedestrian safety devices (Standard No. 131). The agency is presently in the rulemaking process. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address, or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
2002 |
ID: 22892twobarsfromonerodOpen Mr. Chris Tinto Dear Mr. Tinto: This responds to your March 19, 2001, letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR '571.225). The standard requires the installation of child restraint anchorage systems consisting of two lower anchorages and a top tether anchorage. You ask about the configuration requirements specified in S9.1 for the lower anchorages. Toyota would like to form the two lower anchorages by bending two bar segments from a long, continuous 6 millimeter (mm) diameter rod. According to the diagram you attached to your letter, each bar segment to which a child restraint would latch onto is approximately 35 mm long and parallel to the main portion of the rod. The rod is bent such that the bar segments protrude about 67 mm (about 2.5 inches) from the rest of the rod. You ask if forming the two lower anchorages from one continuous piece of rod would be permitted if the anchorages were so configured. Our answer is yes, the bar segments are permitted to be configured as you described. S9.1.1 of Standard No. 225 specifies that "[t]he lower anchorages shall consist of two bars that . . . [a]re not more than 40 mm in length . . . ." (1) Your question raises the issue of whether your anchorages consist of two bars. The bars are formed from one continuous rod. However, because the bars protrude 67 mm from the main portion of the rod and the part of the rod between the two bars would be in the seat bight and not visible to the consumer, two distinct bars are presented to consumers. A consumer is not likely to be confused about where a child restraint should be attached. We thus conclude that the lower anchorages consist of two bars, each of which is not more than 40 mm in length. We could have concluded otherwise had the bars not protruded 67 mm (or some other substantial distance) from the rest of the rod. For example, if they protruded only 10 mm from the rest of the rod, it would not be apparent that two bars are present. An anchorage system with such a design would not meet S9.1.1 of the standard. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 3366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Ref:225
1. 1 The agency has received petitions for reconsideration asking that the maximum limit ofm 40 mm be deleted or increased to 50 mm. See Docket No. 98-3390, Notice 2. NHTSA will be responding to the petitions in the near future. |
2001 |
ID: nht88-1.30OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/10/88 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Ms. Laura C. Boniske TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Ms. Laura C. Boniske 2928 Coconut Grove Drive Coral Gables, FL 33134 This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, as they apply to "materials used in the manufacture of an aftermarket product which will be utilized in the occupant compartment of a vehicle." In an October 27, 1987 telephone convers ation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you mentioned in particular an item of equipment consisting of a pad for cushioning safety belts. Generally speaking, items of motor vehicle equipment are not covered by Standard No. 302. Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard and as such applies to completed vehicles. No vehicle can be manufactured unless the materials used in it comply with the requirements of the standard. The general rule is that aftermarket products may be added to v ehicles, even if the addition of those products causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, without violating the requirements of Federal law. This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repa ir business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ."NHTSA would consider t he installation of safety belt pads that do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 as "rendering inoperative" an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in accordance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed a safety belt pad which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating sec tion 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. We note also that, since safety belts are safety devices installed in accordance with Safety Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, those commercial businesses would be prohib ited from installing the safety belt pad if its installation would impair the effective operation of the belts. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of S108. The prohibitions of S108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design in his or her vehicle. Therefore, aftermarket safety belt pads may be sold to a vehicle owner for installation in his or her vehicle regardle ss of whether the pad complies with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. There are two factors which ought to be considered by the manufacturers of safety belt pads which do not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. First is the possibilities of liability under State and common law if those pad s were to catch fire in a situation where a pad complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, or if those pads burn much more rapidly than pads that comply with Standard No. 302. Second is the possibility of a finding of a safety-related de fect in your products. Sections 151-154 of the Safety Act require that, when an item or motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser. In any event, we urge you to ensure that your products would not negatively affect the safety provided by the underlying belt assembly. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure LAURA CROVO BONISKE 2928 Coconut Grove Drive Coral Gables, Florida 33134 July 13, 1987 Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel, NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington D.C. 20590 Dear Ms. Jones:
Mr. Robert Williams suggested that I contact you regarding a legal interpretation as to Standard 302. Specifically, I need to know whether or not materials used in the manufacture of an aftermarket product which will be utilized in the occupant compartme nt of a vehicle are required by law to be fire retardant. The product will be detachable from the vehicle and when in use, a portion of the product will touch the body of the passenger or operator of the vehicle. The favor of an early reply will be most appreciated. Yours very truly, Laura Crovo Boniske LCB:jb |
|
ID: 1985-04.41OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/09/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Enere H. Levi, Esq. -- Office of the Attorney General, American Samoa Government TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Enere H. Levi Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General American Samoa Government Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
Thank you for your letter of September 18, 1985, to Mr. Hal Paris of this agency requesting information on the bumper requirements that apply to small trucks. You also asked about the effect of our standards on vehicles sold in your Territory. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.
Under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), we have issued Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581), a copy of which is enclosed. The Part 581 standard applies only to passenger motor vehicles. Section (2)(1) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901(1)) defines a "passenger motor vehicle" as a vehicle designed to carry 12 persons or less, except a motorcycle or a truck not designed primarily as a passenger carrier. We would not consider a small utility truck to be a passenger motor vehicle since it is not designed primarily as a passenger carrier, but is instead designed primarily to carry cargo. Therefore, under Federal law, a small utility truck may be sold without any rear bumper.
Both the Vehicle Safety Act and the Cost Savings Act apply to motor vehicles manufactured in or imported into the United States. Both Acts define the term "State" to include American Samoa (15 U.S.C. 1391(8) and 1901(16)). Therefore, the requirements of the Part 581 standard would apply to vehicles sold in American Samoa. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure
September 18, 1985 Hal Paris U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Paris:
I am writing to request any information that your office has regarding the application of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 USC S1381, et seq., to small utility trucks, such as Toyota, Datsun or similar makes.
In specific, what are the requirements, if any, for such vehicles to have rear bumpers? Here in American Samoa, small trucks are being sold without bumpers. We are concerned about the safety of such vehicles, especially since Samoan families are large and the standard practice is to load the entire family into the back carry area. In the event of a rear end collision, the dangers are obvious. Our legal research has produced conflicting interpretations of federal law and its application to our Territory. Furthermore, we have been lead to believe that small trucks are presently being sold in the mainland without bumpers.
Could you please enlighten us as to your official position on this issue, and provide the relevant legal authority. We thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, ENERE H. LEVI Assistant Attorney General EHL/fst |
|
ID: 1985-02.4OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/25/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Mr. Kent Cox TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
February 26, 1985
Mr. Wm. Smith Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir:
I would like a written confirmation pertaining to the D.O.T. Salt Spray procedure. It is my understanding that this procedure calls out 24 hour salt spray vs. 48 hour (in reference to a meeting with Mr. Frank Pepe, United States Testing Company).
Any information pertaining to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Kent R. Cox Compliance Administrator
cc: N. R. Zimmerman
Mr. Kent Cox Allied Automotive Bendix Safety Restraint Division 353 Cass Avenue Mount Clemens, MI 48043
Dear Mr. Cox:
This responds to your letter of February 26, 1985, concerning the corrosion resistance requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies for safety belt attachment hardware. You asked whether the standard uses a 24 hour salt spray test or a 40 hour salt spray test. As explained below, the length of the test depends on what type of safety belt attachment hardware is being tested. Section S5.2(a) of the standard sets out the test procedures for the corrosion resistance requirements for attachment hardware. The test procedure provides that if the attachment hardware is used at or near the floor of a vehicle, it shall be tested for a 50 hour period, consisting of two 24 hour exposures to salt spray followed by a one hour drying period following each exposure. If the hardware is not used at or near the floor of a vehicle, then it is subjected to a 25 hour test, consisting of one period of 24 hours exposure to salt spray followed by a one hour drying period.
If you have further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 19710.nhfOpenMr. Jurgen Babirad Dear Mr. Babirad: This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the modification of a 1994 Ford E-150 full size van with a lowered floor for a driver with quadriplegia. You explain that the driver was evaluated and trained by a driver rehabilitation specialist who prescribed a high-tech steering system that incorporates a reduced diameter steering wheel and reduced effort steering. Specifically, you request permission to remove the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) steering column and steering wheel so that you may install the high tech steering system to accommodate the driver's restricted strength and range of motion. This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described. We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA 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 to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Replacing the vehicle's original steering column and steering wheel and removing the driver's air bag could affect compliance with three standards: Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. For example, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. However, as noted above, in situations such as this one where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering column, steering wheel, and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate. You may be interested to know that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard No. 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 28, 1998, in the Federal Register and are in the process of reviewing public comments. If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: 10-000735drn.docOpenMr. Michael X. Cammisa Director, Safety Global Automakers 1050 K St., N.W., Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20001 Dear Mr. Cammisa: This responds to your predecessor organizations (Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.) request for an interpretation of horn control identification requirements specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays. As you are aware, in a final rule of August 13, 2009 (74 FR 40760), we amended S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 to read as follows: S5.2.1 * * * No identification is required for any horn (i.e., audible warning signal) that is activated by a lanyard or by the driver pressing on the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub; or for a turn signal control that is operated in a plane essentially parallel to the face plane of the steering wheel in its normal driving position and which is located on the left side of the steering column so that it is the control on that side of the column nearest to the steering wheel face plane. However, if identification is provided for a horn control in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub, the identifier must meet Table 2 requirements for the horn. In the preamble to this final rule, NHTSA summarized a question raised by your organization in a comment as follows: if a manufacturer provides a horn control activated by pressing on the center of the steering wheel and provides a second horn control off center, near the edge of the hub, to identify the supplemental horn control that operates by tilting the plane of the hub whether the second control must met the S5.4.3 requirement for color contrast. (See 74 FR at 40762) NHTSA understood the AIAM comment as indicating that there would be two separate horn controls on the steering wheel and provided an answer based on that understanding. Subsequently, at a meeting with NHTSA staff[1], it became apparent that your organization was referring to one horn control on the steering wheel, which could be actuated by pressing anywhere on the steering wheel hub. In your follow-up letter to us of January 29, 2011, you state: In fact, the common designs provide a single control for activation, and that single control allows the horn to be activated by pressing anywhere on the steering wheel hub. The clarification that the horn is actuated by pressing anywhere on the steering wheel hub, including the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub led you to ask the following questions: 1) Do the horn controls commonly in use today, which activate the horn when any portion of the steering wheel hub is pushed (including the center of the hub), require identification? In response to your question, I will assume that the steering wheel hub has only one horn control, and the horn controls location includes the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub. Assuming this is the case, as long as the horn is actuated when the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub is pressed, the horn control need not be identified. However, if the steering wheel hub has more than one horn control, our answer in the preamble to the final rule of August 13, 2009, at 74 FR 40762 would apply: As a result of todays final rule, identification is not required for those horn controls that are placed in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub. All other horn controls must meet all FMVSS No. 101 requirements that apply to horns. 2) May manufacturers voluntarily affix a horn symbol that is embossed, but not color contrasting, to the hubs center or toward the edge of the hub, for horns that are activated by pressing the center of the steering wheel hub? In the final rule of August 13, 2009, we amended S5.4.3 to read as follows: S5.4.3 Each identifier used for the identification of a telltale, control or indicator must be in a color that stands out clearly against the background. However, this requirement does not apply to an identifier for a horn control in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub. Thus, the color contrast requirement does not apply to an identifier for a horn control in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub. This would be true whether the identifier was placed in the hubs center or toward the edge of the hub. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel ref: Std. No. 101 8/17/2011 [1] The PowerPoint presentation prepared by the AIAM for the meeting, which took place on December 16, 2009, may be reviewed at www.regulations.gov, at Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0145. |
|
ID: 07-005545asOpenLawrence J. Oswald CEO, Global Electric Motorcars LLC Director, GEM and EV Product Team Chrysler LLC CIMS 483-00-02 800 Chrysler Drive Auburn Hill, MI 48326 Dear Mr. Oswald: This responds to your letter concerning new State laws on medium speed electric vehicles (MSEVs). You noted that Montana and Washington have enacted legislation that purports to allow motor vehicles called MSEVs to operate on certain public roads. The statutes define MSEVs as electric-powered vehicles with a maximum speed of 35 mph that meet certain limited safety requirements similar to those established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for low speed vehicles (LSVs). You requested that NHTSA advise State officials on inconsistencies between these new State laws and Federal law, and potential significant safety problems that such State laws may create. As discussed below, the responsibilities of manufacturers and dealers to comply with Federal law, including not manufacturing or selling vehicles unless they comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), are not limited by State laws on MSEVs. 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 (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Chapter 301 provides that a person may not "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. 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 has used its authority to, among other things, establish special category of motor vehicles called low speed vehicles (LSVs). This was done in part to accommodate the use of small golf cars as personal transportation vehicles in controlled, low-speed environments, such as retirement communities. In order to qualify as an LSV under the agencys definition,[1] a vehicle must, among other things, have a speed capability no higher than 25 mph and a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 3,000 pounds. As defined, LSVs are subject to the limited set of safety measures in Standard No. 500, including requirements regarding the installation of lamps, mirrors, seat belts, and a windshield. However, LSVs are not subject to the rigorous crashworthiness standards to which other vehicles are required to comply. We note that vehicles with a speed capability above 25 mph are more likely to be driven outside controlled, low speed environments, and the limited LSV safety requirements are not appropriate for such vehicles. A motor vehicle that has a speed capability above 25 mph, such as an MSEV with a top speed of 35 mph, would not be classified as an LSV under Federal law. Instead, the vehicles with a speed capability above 25 mph that would be considered MSEVs under the State laws at issue are classified as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks under Federal law. These vehicles are subject to the full range of FMVSSs that apply to those classes of vehicles, including, as you noted in your letter, crashworthiness requirements in frontal, side, and rear crashes, braking requirements, lighting requirements, etc. As noted above, under Federal law, no person may manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and is certified as such. In conclusion, regardless of State laws, the classification of a vehicle under Federal law remains unchanged. Therefore, the manufacturer of an MSEV with a speed capability above 25 mph (or which otherwise does not meet the Federal definition of LSV) must certify it as complying with all applicable FMVSSs specified for passenger cars, multipurpose passengers, or trucks, as applicable. I hope this information is helpful. A copy of this letter will be placed in the docket. We will consider whether specific steps are needed to advise State officials about relevant requirements of Federal law. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:500 d.4/29/08 |
2008 |
ID: 19782.nhfOpenMr. Jurgen Babirad Dear Mr. Babirad: This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the modification of a 1997 Ford E-150 full size van for a driver with quadriplegia as a result of a spinal chord injury. You explain that the driver was evaluated and trained by a driver rehabilitation specialist who prescribed a high-tech steering system that incorporates a reduced diameter steering wheel and reduced effort steering. Specifically, you request permission to remove the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) steering column and steering wheel so that you may install the high tech steering system to accommodate the driver's restricted strength and range of motion. This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described. We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA 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 to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Replacing the vehicle's original steering column and steering wheel and removing the driver's air bag could affect compliance with three standards: Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. For example, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. However, as noted above, in situations such as this one where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering column, steering wheel, and air bag to accommodate the condition you describe. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate. You may be interested to know that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard No. 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 28, 1998, in the Federal Register and are in the process of reviewing public comments. If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
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.