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: Copy of Robert BabcockOpenRobert Babcock, Senior Manager Regulation and Certification Division Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc. 6800 Geddes Road Superior Township, MI 48198 Dear Mr. Babcock: This responds to your November 26, 2008 letter, as well as an earlier letter from Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc., concerning a petition you submitted requesting an exemption from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, for the Kia Amanti beginning with the 2009 model year. Under 49 CFR Part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may, for each model year, petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for an exemption of one vehicle line from the requirements of the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Because our agency had already granted a petition submitted by Hyundai-Kia American Technical Center, Inc. (HATCI) for the 2009 Hyundai Genesis, NHTSA staff informally advised HATCI that it appeared to be ineligible for a second exemption for the same model year. You asked us to reconsider this position. This letter provides our response. As discussed below, based on available information, we believe that Hyundai and Kia are eligible as separate manufacturers for parts marking exemptions. We have previously addressed the issue of how related companies are treated for purposes of parts marking exemptions in an interpretation to Patrick M. Raher, Esq., dated July 12, 2007. We explained: The definition of manufacturer for the theft prevention standard program is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 32101(5), and reads as follows: manufacturer means a person (A) manufacturing or assembling passenger motor vehicles or passenger motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. In considering whether related companies are separately eligible for parts marking exemptions, we believe it is appropriate to consider two issues. First, we consider whether the companies are structured such that they can be considered separate persons under the statutory definition. Second, assuming the answer is yes, we look beyond the corporate structure and consider whether the companies are operationally independent from each other. It is necessary to consider this since a manufacturer could be highly integrated in operation but, for variety reasons, use multiple corporations. Also, we separately consider, with respect to the vehicles for which an exemption is sought, whether the vehicles can be considered to have more than one manufacturer and, if so, whether that would affect eligibility for the requested exemption. We note that the statutory provision does not indicate that a person is a manufacturer of a vehicle solely by virtue of ownership or control of another person that is a manufacturer. In your letter arguing that Kia Motors Corporation (KMC) and Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) should be considered separately eligible for parts marking exemptions, you provided the following explanation of the relationship between KMC, HMC, and HATCI: KMC is an independent original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of passenger automobiles and light trucks. HMC is also an independent OEM of passenger automobiles and light trucks. HATCI is a Michigan based corporation headquartered and incorporated in the State of Michigan, USA with additional offices and facilities in the State of California. HATCI is an authorized representative of both HMC and KMC (the Companies), doing business pursuant to independent contracts with both Companies. An analogy of HATCIs relationship with HMC and KMC would be that of a law firm representing two separate clients that produce similar products. HATCI performs engineering and design services for both Companies. Such activities are performed on behalf of, and independently for, the Companies. HATCIs financial structure provides for independent budgeting, billing, and operational financing of the activities performed for each of the Companies. The Companies are separately capitalized and operate independently and autonomously; having separate management, administrative and operational structures, financing, marketing, product planning and human resources organizations. The Companies produce, market, and sell separate vehicles, parts, and services. While some products (individual models) are based on core components including engines, transmissions, body structures, and components, these core products are sourced independently and each product is independently designed, engineered, tested, calibrated, and manufactured. Two exceptions exist regarding these matters. The Hyundai Entourage is produced for HMC under contract by KMC, and is a functional duplicate of the Kia Sedona with the exception of basic calibration and tuning. However, the Entourage is produced for HMC under contract by KMC, and is marketed, sold, and serviced independently by HMC. There are contractual agreements between HMC and KMC making HMC responsible for all aftermarket issues regarding the Entourage including any warranty and recall responsibilities. The other exception to this arrangement relates to the Research and Development (R&D) function of the Companies. While each company maintains separate management, financial, and operational departments, many of the R&D functions are performed by a unified R&D Group with its own President and Administrative offices. As a practical matter, this group operates as an independent contractor performing functions related to research, development, and testing utilizing highly-capitalized equipment and facilities to ensure appropriate economy. While performed by a unified group, these operations and functions are separately financed and invoiced for each company. Based on this information, you stated that it is HATCIs contention that both HMC and KMC should be considered and treated as separate companies for the purposes of the consideration of the exemption qualifications of 49 CFR Part 541, and that it be understood that HATCI is merely operating as the authorized representative of KMC regarding this matter. As indicated above, in considering whether related companies are separately eligible for parts marking exemptions, we believe it is appropriate to consider two issues. First, we consider whether the companies are structured such that they can be considered separate persons under the statutory definition. In considering this question, we consider the structuring of the companies both in the United States and abroad. In a December 19, 2007 letter on this subject, signed by Jeffrey R. Smith, HATCI provided the following information concerning the corporate structure of Hyundai and Kia in Korea: Hyundai Motor America is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company of the Republic of Korea. Kia Motors America is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kia Motors Corporation of the Republic of Korea. Hyundai Motor Company owns less than forty percent of Kia Motors Corporation stock in the Republic of Korea. Based on the information provided by you and by Jeffrey R. Smith, we believe the companies are structured such that they can be considered separate persons under the statutory definition. As indicated above, in situations where companies can be considered separate persons under the statutory definition, we look beyond the corporate structure and consider whether the companies are operationally independent from each other. We believe it is necessary to consider this since a manufacturer could be highly integrated in operation but, for variety reasons, use multiple corporations. We note that the maintenance of separate brand identities and distribution systems does not by itself indicate operational independence. We believe the issue of whether Hyundai and Kia are operationally independent under this test is a close case. The information provided in your letter indicates that the corporate structure of HMC and KMC have been formed to provide for operational independence in the vast majority of areas. On the other hand, Hyundai and Kia are part of the same automotive group in Korea: the Hyundai-Kia Automotive Group. Moreover, HATCI is also part of the Hyundai-Kia Automotive Group and provides services for both Hyundai and Kia in North America. After considering the available information in the specific context of eligibility for parts marking exemptions, we have concluded that there is sufficient separation between Hyundia and Kia in operations to treat them as two separate manufacturers. Finally, as indicated above, we separately consider, with respect to the vehicles for which an exemption is sought, whether the vehicles can be considered to have more than one manufacturer and, if so, whether that would affect eligibility for the requested exemption. However, based on the information you provided, this does not appear to be a relevant consideration for this requested exemption. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Kia is separately eligible for a theft exemption for the Amanti, without regard to Hyundais petition for an exemption for the Genesis. The agency will therefore process your petition for the Kia Amanti. We note that the analysis presented in this letter is limited to eligibility for theft exemptions. Before deciding whether the analysis would apply in other contexts, we would want to carefully evaluate the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and purposes. If you have questions about this or related issues, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:543 d.7/24/09
|
2009 |
ID: 10466Open Mr. Clay F. West Dear Mr. West: This responds to your letter of November 1, 1994, requesting information on any rules or standards applicable to a "windshield cleaning device." As your letter describes, "(t)he product is a clear strip which is adhered to the windshield of an automobile. The action of the wiper blades passing over the device causes the wiper blades to function more effectively." I am enclosing a copy of a May 29, 1992 letter to Mr. John J. Jacoby concerning a similar device. I believe this letter contains the information you need. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:104 d:11/9/94
|
1994 |
ID: 77-1.31OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/23/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Silver Thread Studios TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your February 1, 1977, letter requesting information concerning the Federal regulations that would be applicable to glazing for use in van-type vehicles. Your assumption that the glazing regulation is not applicable to plastic material used for porthole windows and sun-roofs in vans is incorrect. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, 49 CFR 571.205, specifies requirements for all glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard specifies the types of glazing that may be used in various locations in vehicles and, in addition, specifies performance requirements for each type of glazing. Although the standard does permit the use of plastic glazing in side windows and sun-roofs of van-type vehicles, the plastic glazing must meet specified performance requirements. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 (and the ANS Z26 standard that is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) for your information. From the standard you will be able to determine the various types of glazing that may be used for side windows and sun-roofs in vans. SINCERELY SILVER THREAD STUDIOS February 1, 1977 Office of Chief Council National Highway Transportation Safety Mr. Rodness of your White Plains office referred me to you. We are planning to manufacture windows for vans and would like to know which windows are required by law to be made of safety glass. More specifically, we are interested in the laws pertaining to portholes, sun-roofs and rear windows. Portholes are those windows of varied design (such as heart shaped, etc.) currently made of plastic material and positioned on the side of the van to allow light in the rear of the van. Sun-roofs are those windows installed on the roof which can be opened to allow air in the rear of the van. Both of these windows are currently made of plastic material, and I believe that safety glass regulations do not apply to them. Could you please comment on this. Thank you for your cooperation. I remain Steven Katz |
|
ID: 16359.drnOpenMr. Peter K. Welch Dear Mr. Welch: This responds to your October 28, 1997, request for an interpretation about a new vehicle (with a seating capacity of 11 or more, including the driver), sold by a dealer to a private family. You wish to know whether, if the dealer knows the family will use the vehicle to transport school children to and from school, the dealer must sell a vehicle that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to school buses. As explained below, the answer is no. Your letter posed two questions. The first question is : 1. Does a van which has a capacity of carrying 11 persons or more qualify under the federal law as a school bus if purchased by an individual for personal and family purposes and the individual periodically uses the van to transport his or her own children and/or other children to school or school-related activities pursuant to a non-monetary carpooling arrangement? The answer is no, the van would not be considered a "school bus." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has addressed this issue in an interpretation letter of April 25, 1986, to Mr. Arnold Spencer (copy enclosed). In that letter, NHTSA stated that it does not consider privately-owned family vehicles used by parents to carry their children to or from school to be subject to our school bus safety standards. In 1974 Congress amended NHTSA's statutory authority by passing the School Bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments (P.L. 93-492). The school bus amendments directed NHTSA to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. The House Committee Report on the school bus amendments stated that "(p)rivate motor vehicles used to carry members of the owner's household or other students in a carpool arrangement" were among the types of motor vehicles not meant to come within the scope of the amendments. (House Report 93-1191, page 42.) Therefore, persons selling new buses or any other type of vehicle for family use are not required to sell complying school buses. Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State may impose its own standards regarding what requirements must be met for vehicles to be sold, licensed and operated in the state. For information on what requirements, if any, California has regarding the sale of vehicles such as the van you describe, please contact California's State Director of Pupil Transportation at the following address: Mr. Ron Kinney, Supervisor Mr. Kinney's telephone number is: (916) 322-4879. The second question is: 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is yes, what duty does a new car dealer have to question a prospective new van purchaser relative to issues involving carpooling arrangements and what liability does a dealer face if the purchaser advises the dealer that the van will not be used to carpool students but subsequently uses the van for school-related carpooling? For purposes of NHTSA's laws, since the answer to our first question is no, our answer to the second question is moot. California law should be consulted to see whether there are relevant duties or responsibilities under the laws of your state. I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealers' Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack |
1997 |
ID: nht91-7.1OpenDATE: November 7, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: William Engel -- Assistant Chief, Covington (Kentucky) Fire Department TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-13-80 from Frank Berndt to L. Steenbock; Also attached to letter dated 2-11-88 from Erika Z. Jones to Joanne Salvio (Std. 206); Also attached to letter dated 9-16-91 from William Engel to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6504) TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, new fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." (S S4) Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. |
|
ID: nht95-4.42OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 1, 1995 EST FROM: Adam Englund -- Electric Bicycle Company, LLC TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Request for Interpretation ATTACHMT: 1/19/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Adam Englund (A44; Std. 108; Std. 116; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 122) TEXT: The Electric Bicycle Company, LLC, 3601 Empire Avenue, Burbank CA, 91505 (hereinafter, "EBC") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. EBC hereby requests an interpretation with respect to certain Federal Motor Veh icle Safety Standards for the EV Warrior, an electric/human-powered bicycle to be manufactured by EBC. Confidentiality Certain portions of this document contain confidential information and trade secrets related to our product and marketing strategy. We have carefully calculated our market position. Based on that market analysis, we spent a great deal of time, money and effort to develop the EV Warrior. As we are about to launch our initial production run, we are aware that other electric bicycles are also entering the market. Our insistence on compliance with FMVSS sets us apart from our competitors. As such, t he very existence, and certainly the content of this Request for Interpretation is confidential and constitutes trade secrets. We seek an interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with respect to the electric bicycle that we are about to manufacture. CONFIDENTIAL [The EV Warrior is essentially a multi-speed bicycle with attached electric motors that drive the rear wheel through a friction drive wheel against the rear tire. The transmissions of each power source - human and electric - are entirely separate. W hereas the bicycle employs six speed derailleur shifting, the electric motor powers the rear wheel through a single drive wheel on a roller clutch against the tire. The EV Warrior employs many standard bicycle components, including wheels, tires, cantil ever or optional hydraulic disc bicycle brakes, "Grip Shift" gear shifters, cranks and pedals The power pack is integrated into the chassis of the cycle and is not intended to be removed, especially by the consumer. However, were the electric assist motor to be removed, the device would still function fully as a bicycle. (Without the assist m otor, the EV Warrior's equipment would be regulated under 16 CFR 512 by the Consumer Products Safety Commission - as a bicycle.) Using the electric motor alone, the EV Warrior is capable of traveling approximately 15 miles at 12 m.p.h. Its maximum speed is under 25 m.p.h. Even with pedaling, it is difficult to push the bike beyond 25 m.p.h. Its total weight is approximately 85 lbs. Separate service brake systems operate the front and rear brakes, respectively.] A. License Plate Attachment CONFIDENTIAL [We would like you to confirm our understanding that marine grade hook-and-loop material is an acceptable method of attaching the license plates. In my conversation with Luke Loy, NHTSA Safety Compliance Engineer, he advised me that since the FMVSS ar e silent on this issue, such attachment is acceptable.] B. Adjustability of Headlight Beam, Standard No. 108 Table III, "Headlamps" This Standard specifies the applicable SAE Recommended Practice for "Headlamp Mountings", SAE J566, Jan. 60. It recommends that: "Headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that: 1. The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment." CONFIDENTIAL One primary rationale for beam adjustability is to compensate for changes in a vehicles suspension system. However, the EV Warrior has no springs or shocks. Rather, it uses a fixed frame and fork. In our experience, bicycle headlamps are continually knocked out of alignment. So, we have designed the headlamp to be secured such that the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service [per SAE J566, Jan. 60, par.] We request an interpretation that the practical operating conditions for a motor driven cycle, whose top speed is under 25 mph and whose operation will correlate to a normal bicycle, dictate that its headlamp (which meets all other headlamp requiremen ts) need not be adjustable. C. Hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil. Standard No. 116, "Motor vehicle brake fluids". CONFIDENTIAL [Our basic model EV Warrior employs mechanically activated wire cable "cantilever" brakes, front and rear. However, we currently offer a "standard option" hydraulic front disc brake. This brake, made by Sachs of Germany, is far superior to virtually any cantilever brake. It offers excellent braking power; simplicity in set-up, maintenance and operation; reliability; and fine modulation. The Sachs hydraulic brake uses a green colored biodegradable synthetic oil, Shell Naturelle HF-E 15, that is not in contact with any elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloropren e (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR)."] Standard No. 116, S4. states that: "Brake fluid means a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system in which it will contact elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inn er tube stock or natural rubber (NR).", and, "Hydraulic system mineral oil means a mineral-oil-based fluid designed for use in motor vehicle hydraulic brake systems in which the fluid is not in contact with components made of SBR, EPR or NR." The synthetic oil employed by the Sachs system is neither a "Brake fluid" because it is not in contact with any components made of SBR, EPR, CR or NR, nor is it an "Hydraulic system mineral oil" as it is not petroleum based. "S5. Requirements This section specifies performance requirements for DOT 3, DOT 4 and DOT 5 brake fluids; requirements for brake fluid certification; and requirements for container sealing, labeling and color coding for brake fluids and hydraulic sys tem mineral oils . . ." CONFIDENTIAL [The standard sets out the requirements for "brake fluid" and other requirements for "hydraulic system mineral oil. However, there are no requirements under S5. for fluids that do not fall within either of these definitions. EBC seeks an interpretat ion that, by omission, there are no requirements under FMVSS 116 for the hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil as used in the Sachs hydraulic brake system.] D. Hydraulic Service Brake System Standard No. 122, "Motorcycle brake systems", S5.1.2 CONFIDENTIAL [The Sachs brake differs from traditional hydraulic systems in that it is a closed system that employs a simple actuator instead of a master cylinder with a reservoir. In open systems, to compensate for brake pad wear, the master cylinder system requ ires a reservoir. However, the Sachs brake compensates for brake pad wear through a simple screw adjustment in the brake lever. This is an excellent system that is commensurate with the weight and simplicity of our electric bicycle. It is, in fact, mu ch easier to adjust than any cable type bicycle brake.] Standard No. 122, S5.1.2 Hydraulic service brake systems, requires that: "Each motorcycle equipped with a hydraulic brake system shall have the equipment specified in S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2." S5.1.2.1 States that: "Each master cylinder shall have a separate reservoir for each brake circuit, with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal and cover retention device . . ." (emphasis added) CONFIDENTIAL [Since the Sachs hydraulic system employs no master cylinders, a simple calculation bears out the premise that when there is no master cylinder, the number of master cylinder reservoirs required is zero. Alternatively, this standard seems to assume that an hydraulic brake system requires a master cylinder reservoir for its proper operation and does not contemplate an actuator system. We request an alternate interpretation that this standard applies t o an open system that requires a reservoir, but not to a closed, actuator system as employed by the EV Warrior. The reservoir serves no purpose in a closed system. If your interpretation agrees with ours, that a reservoir is not required, then we hope you will also agree that, a fortiori, labeling requirements of S5.1.2.2, for a non-existent reservoir would also not be required.] E. Tire requirements, Standard No. 119, "Pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars", S6. Requirements. CONFIDENTIAL [The EV Warrior's electric motor will propel the vehicle at no more than 25 m.p.h. (40 k.p.h.). Consequently, the maximum speed of the EV Warrior is about the same as a regular bicycle - and considerably slower than racing cyclists. Even when the mot or is operating at near peak efficiency (and hence reduced speed), the batteries will last no more than 15 miles (24 kilometers) or 1.5 hours. Unlike an internal combustion engine whose fuel tank can be filled in seconds, the EV Warrior generally takes over-night, or at best, a couple of hours to re-charge. Thus there is necessarily a period between each 1-1/2 hour trip when the tires will cool down. It is literally impossible for the EV Warrior to obtain the speeds, or travel anywhere near the non-s top distances contemplated by Standard No. 119] Standard No. 119, S7.2 Endurance test procedures, require the test for motorcycle tires to be performed at a speed of 55 m.p.h. (90 k.p.h.) for 47 hours. Standard No. 119, S7.4 High speed performance test procedures, requires testing at speeds of 50 m.p.h. (80 k.p.h.) for two hours, 75 m.p.h. (121 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h. (129 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes and 85 m.p.h. (137 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes. CONFIDENTIAL Clearly, these standards are inappropriate for a low-speed, short range electric bicycle such as the EV Warrior. It is not germane whether the EV Warrior's tire/rim combination remains undamaged at 55 mph, because the vehicle can never attain that sp eed. Similarly, the performance characteristics of the tires and rims after 47 hours is not apropos because the, vehicle cannot be operated continuously for that duration. Because it must be recharged after 1.5 hours for 30 minutes to 8 hours (thereby allowing the tires to cool), such a continuous-use endurance test is meaningless. As such, we request an interpretation that, Standard No. 119 cannot reasonably be applied to such a low speed, short range vehicle as the EV Warrior. We at EBC have joined together to produce an entirely new form of transportation. Children are first introduced to transportation with bicycles. Electric bicycles will allow the smoothest and most natural transition from bikes to electric vehicles. As the first mass marketed electric vehicle, the EV Warrior vehicle will introduce an entire generation to electric vehicles and hasten the electric transportation revolution. |
|
ID: nht95-7.9OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 1, 1995 EST FROM: Adam Englund -- Electric Bicycle Company, LLC TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Request for Interpretation ATTACHMT: 1/19/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Adam Englund (A44; Std. 108; Std. 116; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 122) TEXT: The Electric Bicycle Company, LLC, 3601 Empire Avenue, Burbank CA, 91505 (hereinafter, "EBC") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. EBC hereby requests an interpretation with respect to certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the EV Warrior, an electric/human-powered bicycle to be manufactured by EBC. Confidentiality Certain portions of this document contain confidential information and trade secrets related to our product and marketing strategy. We have carefully calculated our market position. Based on that market analysis, we spent a great deal of time, money and effort to develop the EV Warrior. As we are about to launch our initial production run, we are aware that other electric bicycles are also entering the market. Our insistence on compliance with FMVSS sets us apart from our competitors. As such, the very existence, and certainly the content of this Request for Interpretation is confidential and constitutes trade secrets. We seek an interpretation of certain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with respect to the electric bicycle that we are about to manufacture. CONFIDENTIAL [The EV Warrior is essentially a multi-speed bicycle with attached electric motors that drive the rear wheel through a friction drive wheel against the rear tire. The transmissions of each power source - human and electric - are entirely separate. Whereas the bicycle employs six speed derailleur shifting, the electric motor powers the rear wheel through a single drive wheel on a roller clutch against the tire. The EV Warrior employs many standard bicycle components, including wheels, tires, cantilever or optional hydraulic disc bicycle brakes, "Grip Shift" gear shifters, cranks and pedals The power pack is integrated into the chassis of the cycle and is not intended to be removed, especially by the consumer. However, were the electric assist motor to be removed, the device would still function fully as a bicycle. (Without the assist motor, the EV Warrior's equipment would be regulated under 16 CFR 512 by the Consumer Products Safety Commission - as a bicycle.) Using the electric motor alone, the EV Warrior is capable of traveling approximately 15 miles at 12 m.p.h. Its maximum speed is under 25 m.p.h. Even with pedaling, it is difficult to push the bike beyond 25 m.p.h. Its total weight is approximately 85 lbs. Separate service brake systems operate the front and rear brakes, respectively.] A. License Plate Attachment CONFIDENTIAL [We would like you to confirm our understanding that marine grade hook-and-loop material is an acceptable method of attaching the license plates. In my conversation with Luke Loy, NHTSA Safety Compliance Engineer, he advised me that since the FMVSS are silent on this issue, such attachment is acceptable.] B. Adjustability of Headlight Beam, Standard No. 108 Table III, "Headlamps" This Standard specifies the applicable SAE Recommended Practice for "Headlamp Mountings", SAE J566, Jan. 60. It recommends that: "Headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that: 1. The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment." CONFIDENTIAL One primary rationale for beam adjustability is to compensate for changes in a vehicles suspension system. However, the EV Warrior has no springs or shocks. Rather, it uses a fixed frame and fork. In our experience, bicycle headlamps are continually knocked out of alignment. So, we have designed the headlamp to be secured such that the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service [per SAE J566, Jan. 60, par.] We request an interpretation that the practical operating conditions for a motor driven cycle, whose top speed is under 25 mph and whose operation will correlate to a normal bicycle, dictate that its headlamp (which meets all other headlamp requirements) need not be adjustable. C. Hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil. Standard No. 116, "Motor vehicle brake fluids". CONFIDENTIAL [Our basic model EV Warrior employs mechanically activated wire cable "cantilever" brakes, front and rear. However, we currently offer a "standard option" hydraulic front disc brake. This brake, made by Sachs of Germany, is far superior to virtually any cantilever brake. It offers excellent braking power; simplicity in set-up, maintenance and operation; reliability; and fine modulation. The Sachs hydraulic brake uses a green colored biodegradable synthetic oil, Shell Naturelle HF-E 15, that is not in contact with any elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR)."] Standard No. 116, S4. states that: "Brake fluid means a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system in which it will contact elastomeric components made of styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR), ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR), polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock or natural rubber (NR).", and, "Hydraulic system mineral oil means a mineral-oil-based fluid designed for use in motor vehicle hydraulic brake systems in which the fluid is not in contact with components made of SBR, EPR or NR." The synthetic oil employed by the Sachs system is neither a "Brake fluid" because it is not in contact with any components made of SBR, EPR, CR or NR, nor is it an "Hydraulic system mineral oil" as it is not petroleum based. "S5. Requirements This section specifies performance requirements for DOT 3, DOT 4 and DOT 5 brake fluids; requirements for brake fluid certification; and requirements for container sealing, labeling and color coding for brake fluids and hydraulic system mineral oils . . ." CONFIDENTIAL [The standard sets out the requirements for "brake fluid" and other requirements for "hydraulic system mineral oil. However, there are no requirements under S5. for fluids that do not fall within either of these definitions. EBC seeks an interpretation that, by omission, there are no requirements under FMVSS 116 for the hydraulic system biodegradable synthetic oil as used in the Sachs hydraulic brake system.] D. Hydraulic Service Brake System Standard No. 122, "Motorcycle brake systems", S5.1.2 CONFIDENTIAL [The Sachs brake differs from traditional hydraulic systems in that it is a closed system that employs a simple actuator instead of a master cylinder with a reservoir. In open systems, to compensate for brake pad wear, the master cylinder system requires a reservoir. However, the Sachs brake compensates for brake pad wear through a simple screw adjustment in the brake lever. This is an excellent system that is commensurate with the weight and simplicity of our electric bicycle. It is, in fact, much easier to adjust than any cable type bicycle brake.] Standard No. 122, S5.1.2 Hydraulic service brake systems, requires that: "Each motorcycle equipped with a hydraulic brake system shall have the equipment specified in S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2." S5.1.2.1 States that: "Each master cylinder shall have a separate reservoir for each brake circuit, with each reservoir filler opening having its own cover, seal and cover retention device . . ." (emphasis added) CONFIDENTIAL [Since the Sachs hydraulic system employs no master cylinders, a simple calculation bears out the premise that when there is no master cylinder, the number of master cylinder reservoirs required is zero. Alternatively, this standard seems to assume that an hydraulic brake system requires a master cylinder reservoir for its proper operation and does not contemplate an actuator system. We request an alternate interpretation that this standard applies to an open system that requires a reservoir, but not to a closed, actuator system as employed by the EV Warrior. The reservoir serves no purpose in a closed system. If your interpretation agrees with ours, that a reservoir is not required, then we hope you will also agree that, a fortiori, labeling requirements of S5.1.2.2, for a non-existent reservoir would also not be required.] E. Tire requirements, Standard No. 119, "Pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars", S6. Requirements. CONFIDENTIAL [The EV Warrior's electric motor will propel the vehicle at no more than 25 m.p.h. (40 k.p.h.). Consequently, the maximum speed of the EV Warrior is about the same as a regular bicycle - and considerably slower than racing cyclists. Even when the motor is operating at near peak efficiency (and hence reduced speed), the batteries will last no more than 15 miles (24 kilometers) or 1.5 hours. Unlike an internal combustion engine whose fuel tank can be filled in seconds, the EV Warrior generally takes over-night, or at best, a couple of hours to re-charge. Thus there is necessarily a period between each 1-1/2 hour trip when the tires will cool down. It is literally impossible for the EV Warrior to obtain the speeds, or travel anywhere near the non-stop distances contemplated by Standard No. 119] Standard No. 119, S7.2 Endurance test procedures, require the test for motorcycle tires to be performed at a speed of 55 m.p.h. (90 k.p.h.) for 47 hours. Standard No. 119, S7.4 High speed performance test procedures, requires testing at speeds of 50 m.p.h. (80 k.p.h.) for two hours, 75 m.p.h. (121 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes, 80 m.p.h. (129 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes and 85 m.p.h. (137 k.p.h.) for 30 minutes. CONFIDENTIAL Clearly, these standards are inappropriate for a low-speed, short range electric bicycle such as the EV Warrior. It is not germane whether the EV Warrior's tire/rim combination remains undamaged at 55 mph, because the vehicle can never attain that speed. Similarly, the performance characteristics of the tires and rims after 47 hours is not apropos because the, vehicle cannot be operated continuously for that duration. Because it must be recharged after 1.5 hours for 30 minutes to 8 hours (thereby allowing the tires to cool), such a continuous-use endurance test is meaningless. As such, we request an interpretation that, Standard No. 119 cannot reasonably be applied to such a low speed, short range vehicle as the EV Warrior. We at EBC have joined together to produce an entirely new form of transportation. Children are first introduced to transportation with bicycles. Electric bicycles will allow the smoothest and most natural transition from bikes to electric vehicles. As the first mass marketed electric vehicle, the EV Warrior vehicle will introduce an entire generation to electric vehicles and hasten the electric transportation revolution. |
|
ID: nht88-2.41OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: JUNE 2, 1988 FROM: C. W. PIERSON -- LORD AND PIERSON TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, DOT TITLE: DOT REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING OF SEATS (AUTOMOTIVE, TRACK, BUS, MASS TRANSIT). ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10-17-88 TO CHARLES W. PIERSON FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TEXT: Lately the government has been requiring more "dynamic" testing over "static" testing. This leads to broad interpretation (or mis-interpretation) by engineers like myself, and I think the loopholes should be closed. For example, if you say a headrest shall be pull-tested at a load of 200 pounds (49USC-202-S4-b4ii) it leaves very little to the imagination. But if you say ". . . during the 10 g deceleration the H.I.C. number shall not exceed 400 for passengers ran ging in size from a six year old through a 95 percentile male" (49USC-1601-2.3.2.4-1), you set up a number of variables. 1. Are you using Dreyfus' (M.I.T.) standard man, or NASA's standard man? (Personally J use Barnes standard man-he is between the two). Have you visited a 6th grade class lately to see the size spread? I chaperoned a recent Chicago trip and the age r ange was 10 through 14! 2. The University of Michigan crash tests, but will NOT certify the results. 3. Laws requiring certification usually do not require the actual crash test to be performed. 4. Where do I get SAE Recommended Practice J833? It is NOT readily available! 5. The Formula: (SEE ILLUSTRATION ON ORIGINAL) . . . really can be mis-calculated and the results mis-interpreted, because you are putting variables in. As you can see, a fixed number eliminates guesswork. Anyone can understand it, and over the years I've reached the conclusion that only about half of the engineers have a real live college degree, (I'm a Western grad!) |
|
ID: 7449Open Mr. Kenneth Lenz Dear Mr. Lenz: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." [ S4] Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206. You also asked about the possibility of obtaining an exemption from Standard No. 206 for fire trucks. The only provisions for exemptions from safety standards are those set forth in 49 CFR 555, a copy of which is enclosed. As you will note, the circumstances under which exemptions may be granted and the scope of such exemptions are very limited. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:206 d:7/22/92 |
1992 |
ID: nht76-3.42OpenDATE: 03/23/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Titan Trailer Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to Titan Trailer Corporation's March 2, 1976, question whether certain bulk grain and feed meal trailers manufactured by Titan qualify as bulk agricultural commodity trailers that are permitted until June 30, 1976, to meet emergency and parking brake requirements other than those specified in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Sections S5.6 and S5.8 provide that a trailer manufactured before June 30, 1976, that is designed to transport bulk agricultural commodities in off-road harvesting sites and to a processing plant or storage location, as evidenced by skeletal construction that accommodates harvest containers, a maximum length of 28 feet, and an arrangement of air control lines and reservoirs that minimizes damage in field operations, is entitled to a specified option. From the descriptive material enclosed, it appears that the Titan models 92 and 24 are designed for field use and conform to the criteria of skeletal construction that accomodates a harvest container, despite the fact that the container is permanently attached to the frame that surrounds it. It is not clear that the trailers are not more than 28 feet in length, or that the design positions air lines and reservoirs to minimize field-related damage. Assuming that the length, air lines, and reservoirs do meet these criteria, it appears that the trailers would qualify for the manufacturer option under S5.6 and S5.8. YOURS TRULY, Titan Trailer corp. March 2, 1976 Frank Burndt Acting Chief Counsel On December 5, 1975, the NHTSA published an amendment to FMVSS 121 on page 235 of volume 40 of the Federal Register. This amendment exempted certain bulk agricultural commodity trailers from the parking brake requirements which had heretofore necessitated the use of spring brakes. We manufacture a hopper trailer designed exclusively to haul bulk agricultural products. These trailers are frequently drawn through fields at harvest time by farm tractors - the conditions upon which the spring brake exemption was granted. Several of our competitors, manufacturing similar hopper trailers, have told potential customers that these trailers are included under the spring brake exemption. We would like to receive an official communication from your office as to whether or not these hopper trailers are covered under the spring brake exemption granted to agricultural commodities. To assist you in making this decision, we have enclosed photographs and a sales brochure pertaining to our hopper trailers. Since our material orders and our sales will be strongly influenced by your response, we would greatly appreciate a prompt reply to this letter. Please feel free to contact me at (916) 662-3941 should you have any questions. Thomas M. Tucker Assistant Manager |
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.