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 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| search results table | |||||||||||
ID: ConductorsAlliancedrnOpen
Mr. Robert Strassburger Dear Mr. Strassburger: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-9) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002, and July 23, 2003, interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
|
2006 | ||||||||||
ID: ConductorsDaimlerChryslerdrnOpen
Stephan P. Speth, Director Dear Mr. Speth: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-3) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
|
2006 | ||||||||||
ID: ConductorsGeneralMotorsdrnOpen
Lou Carlin, Director Dear Mr. Carlin: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-5) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
|
2006 | ||||||||||
ID: ConductorsPilkingtondrnOpen
Joseph E. Poley, Senior Research Associate Dear Mr. Poley: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-4) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of conductors and terminals and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
|
2006 | ||||||||||
ID: ConductorsPPGdrnOpen
John P. Banks, Director Dear Mr. Banks: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-6) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205."This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
|
2006 | ||||||||||
ID: nht90-1.17OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: JANUARY 16, 1990 FROM: SATOSHI NISHIBORI -- VICE PRESIDENT, INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS TO: ROBERT F. HELLMUTH -- DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE, NHTSA TITLE: NEF-31 GEN/NCI 3092 ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-15-90 TO SATOSHI NISHIBORI FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; [A35 REDBOOK; STD. 120] TEXT: This responds to your October 31, 1989, letter regarding the compliance of 1989 Nissan pickup trucks with FMVSS 120. In my December 19th letter to you, I confirmed an extension until January 16, 1990, to respond to your request. Nissan's responses to your questions regarding the 1989 Nissan truck are set forth in the Attachment. We wish to emphasize, however, that, based on our reading of FMVSS 120, it is not clear that the vehicles in question fail to comply with that stand ard. Nissan has followed a procedure whereby tire inflation pressures specified on FMVSS 120 tire/rim information labels are determined based on the tire's ability to support their share of the vehicle's gross axle weight rating (GAWR). The load carryi ng capacity of the tires at various pressures is determined by reference to data in tire industry standarization manuals; such as the Tire and Rim Association (TRA) Yearbook. Once a minimum pressure that is adequate to carry the GAWR is determined, Nissa n considers other factors, such as vehicle ride characteristics, to select the recommended pressure. This process results in the selection of a recommended pressure that will permit the tires to carry safely GAWR loads and will provide good vehicle ride characteristics. Nissan believes that the procedure it followed resulted in the recommendation of a tire pressure that is consistent with safe vehicle operation and is permitted under FMVSS 120. Based on our reading of the Agency contractor's test report on this matter, it appears that the contractor has interpreted FMVSS 120 in a manner different from Nissan. However, we believe that our own reading of FMVSS 120 is consistent with the langu age used in that standard. In particular, based on our reading, we conclude that: 1. the tire label need not show the tire's maximum inflation pressure; and 2. the 1.1 adjustment factor in section 5.1.2 of the standard applies for tire selection purposes only. Nothing in FMVSS 120 requires that the relationships between tire inflation pressure and load, as specified by tire manufacturers in standardizat ion manuals or otherwise, must be universally adjusted by use of this factor. We read FMVSS 120 to require, in practical terms, that when a passenger car tire is to be used on a truck, a slightly larger capacity tire must be selected than would be the c ase if the tire were to be used on a similar size passenger car. Based on Agency statements in Federal Register notices regarding FMVSS 120, the standard apparently requires this difference in tire selection due to the greater potential for off-road use and heavy load operation (perhaps above the vehicle's rated load capacity) for trucks than for passenger cars, and not due to any inherent difference in load-pressure relationships for the vehicles. It is our understanding that the Agency's test report concludes that the 1989 Nissan truck that was inspected by the Agency's contractor does not conform to S.5.3.5 of FMVSS 120. Section 5.3.5 specifies that the vehicle's tire/rim selection label mus t show the "cold inflation pressure for [the] tires". This provision does not specify how the "cold inflation pressure" is to be determined, or for which driving conditions the pressure must be appropriate. FMVSS 120, as originally proposed, specified t hat the label must show the "maximum cold inflation pressures of the tires with which the vehicle is equipped, as marked on the tires. . ." See 36 Federal Register 14273-4, August 3, 1971, emphasis added. In a subsequent proposal, the requirement was re vised to specify that the label must show the "maximum tire inflation pressure", deleting the reference to the tires actually on the vehicle at the time of sale. See 39 Federal Register 19505, 19507, June 3, 1974. This revision was made to recognize and continue to permit the practice of dealers changing tire sizes prior to delivery of trucks to the purchaser. 39 Federal Register 19505. The final rule establishing FMVSS 120 adopts the current language of section 5.3.5 (as paragraph 5.3(c)), i.e., "cold inflation pressure", but the preamble does not explain the deletion of the term "maximum" with regard to the inflation pressure. See 41 Federal Register 3480, January 23 1976. Nevertheless, the change in wording suggests that the tire label must reflect some pressure other than the maximum pressure. We believe that the context of section 5.3.5 may provide some additional guidance as to which pressure must appear on the label. Section 5.3.1 specifies that the information required under section 5.3.3 through 5.3.5 must appear either "after each GA WR" in the case of a certification label or must be "appropriate for each GVWR-GAWR combination", if a combined certification/120 label format is used. Thus, the "cold inflation pressure" selected should be consistent with the GAWR of the vehicle. This conclusion is supported by a subsequent NHTSA preamble, which states that the section 5.3.5 pressure need not be the maximum pressure, "but, the pressure specified by the tire manufacturer as sufficient to carry the load specified by the vehicle manufac turer as the tire's share of the assigned GAWR". 42 Federal Register 7143, February 7, 1977. The 1989 Nissan truck inspected by the Agency is equipped with Firestone WR-12, P 195/75R14 M+S tires. The tires have a maximum load rating of 1400 pounds. The certification label on the vehicle specifies a cold inflation pressure of 34 psi for the rear tires and a GAWR of 2544 pounds for the rear axle. The key issue raised by NHTSA is whether the 34 psi pressure on the label is a pressure "specified by the tire manufacturer as sufficient to carry" half the GAWR, or 1272 pounds. The regulations do not specify a procedure by which the tire manufacturer must articulate whether the tire, inflated to 34 psi, will support a 1272 pound load. For example, we believe this information could be obtained from tire industry standardizat ion manuals or from direct discussions between the vehicle and tire manufacturers. Data in the 1989 Tire and Rim Association (TRA) yearbook show that the tires in question will support a load of 1279 pounds at 29 psi, with higher loads supportable at higher pressures. Therefore, the 1989 Nissan truck would appear to comply with sec tion 5.3.5. Moreover, the manufacturer of the tires used as original equipment on the vehicle has confirmed that the tires inflated to 34 psi, will carry 1383 pounds (which is more than half the GAWR) on this vehicle (see Enclosure 1). However, NHTSA has apparently interpreted the required calculation procedure differently. As we understand the procedure used by NHTSA's contractor in its test report, it first calculated a "tire load limit" at 34 psi by interpolating between the loa d limits at 32 psi and at 35 psi, as specified in the TRA tables. Assuming that a linear interpolation is appropriate, the 34 psi maximum load would be 1381.67 pounds. NHTSA's contractor then proceeds to divide the interpolated load by 1.1, yielding 125 6.06 pounds. Since this figure is less than the tire's share of the GAWR (1272 pounds), the contractor concludes that a violation has occurred. Assuming that linear interpolation between the table values is appropriate and the contractor's procedure is correct, a pressure of 34.956 pounds would be required to support 1272 pounds. We believe that the procedure followed by the contractor is not specified in FMVSS 120. In particular, we object to the contractor's application of the 1.1 adjustment factor to intermediate tire loads and for purposes other than tire selection, since the standard does not specify these procedures. The use of a 1.1 factor is specified in section 5.1.2 of the standard for tire selection purposes. That section provides that the sum of the load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle must be not less than the GAWR. Prior to calculating the sum, th e tire's load rating shall be reduced by dividing by 1.1 if the tire is listed in Appendix A of Standard 109 and is installed on a truck, bus, MPV, or trailer. However, no specific tires are listed in Appendix A of Standard 109. It is our understanding that prior to the early 1980s, that Appendix did list certain tire sizes for use on passenger cars. Therefore, section 5.1.2 may suggest that when passenger tires are used on trucks, the tire's load rating must be reduced by the 1.1 factor prior to det ermining whether the tires are adequate to support the GAWR. According to the 1977 preamble, the purpose of applying the 1.1 factor is "to account for the generally harsher treatment (impulse and surge loading in the case of MPV's off-road) to which the tires of a vehicle other than a passenger car are exposed that is not accounted for in passenger car tire rating". Supra. Thus, it appears that the purpose for the 1.1 factor is not to deal with a difference in the ability of a tire to support a given load at a particular pressure when the tire is used on a car as compared to use on a truck. Rather, the stated intent seems to be to deal with the greater off-road use (or possibly more frequent overload situations) to which vehicles other than passeng er cars are subjected. n1 n1 It is important to note that the 1989 Nissan truck meets the tire selection criteria of section 5.1.2. If the tires' maximum load rating (1400#) is divided by 1.1, and the adjusted sum (2545#) of the two tires' load ratings exceeds the GAWR (2544# ). The use of the 1.1 factor for tire selection purposes only is also suggested by the language of section 5.3.3. That provision references section 5.1.2 (and, thereby, the 1.1 factor) in determining whether the tire size is appropriate for the GAWR. H owever, the absence of the parenthetical reference to section 5.1.2 in section 5.3.5 suggests that the application of the 1.1 factor is not required for determining whether the tire pressure on the label is appropriate for the GAWR. To summarize, the language used in FMVSS 120 to describe the process to be used in determining the cold inflation pressure under section 5.3.5 is ambiguous at best, and contrary to the procedure used by NHTSA's contractor at worst. These deficiencies are exhibited with regard to the following determinations: 1. Whether the 1.1 adjustment factor is to be used for purposes other than tire selection; 2. Which tires are subject to the 1.1 factor (Appendix A, standard 109); 3. The source of information on the tire manufacturer's load limit for the tire, at various pressures; and 4. The procedure for interpolating information derived from the TRA tables. Of these factors, we believe the first to be the most significant, but all contribute to the ambiguity of the standard. It is our understanding that at least one other vehicle manufacturer has interpreted section 5.3.5 in a manner inconsistent with NHTSA's contractor. This suggests that a problem may exist with the wording of the standard and that more is involved than a single party's misreading of clear regulatory language. If the contractor's interpretation were the only acceptable interpretation, approximately 700,000 Nissan vehicles produced as far back as 1983 could be implicated (see Attachment). Response 5 in the Attachment lists additional vehicle/tire combinations where Nissan's specified tire pressure differs from that determined under the contractor's procedure. Nissan is now conducting additional tests to verify that these tires will su pport higher test loads. We expect that the results of this testing will demonstrate that the tires used on Nissan's vehicles have sufficient load capacity to support their share of the vehicles' GAWR at the recommended inflation pressures. The procedure being followed involves testing the tires to FMVSS 109 procedures, but increasing test loads by multiplying them by an overload f actor. The overload factor is calculated by multiplying the GAWR by 0.5 and dividing the product obtained by the tires' load rating at the pressure shown on the vehicle's tire label (calculated according to NHTSA's contractor's procedure, i.e., using th e 1.1 factor). The results of this testing should be available by January 31st. However, one of the affected tires (7.00 x 14) is no longer in production; therefore, a special batch of those tires is being produced. The test results for this one tire size should b e available by mid-February. Nissan wishes to work cooperatively with NHTSA to resolve this matter. However, we believe that the language of section 5.3.5 does not clearly provide a basis for finding the 1989 Nissan truck to be in noncompliance, or for conducting a notification a nd remedy campaign under the the Safety Act. We request that NHTSA consider the issues raised above and the results of our ongoing testing, and that the Agency concur that the Nissan vehicles comply with FMVSS 120. We request the opportunity to meet with you after you have considered the matter s raised in this letter, so that we can answer any questions you may have and discuss a resolution of the matter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Kazuo Iwasaki of my staff, at 202/466-5284. Sincerely, ENC. |
|||||||||||
ID: 571.205 Plexiglass Barriers (002)OpenMr. Mike Collingwood Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway, Room 305 Springfield, IL 62764 August 11, 2020
Dear Mr. Collingwood: This responds to your two inquiries to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about the installation of barriers in school buses to minimize the spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In your June 16, 2020 email, you ask about the installation of “plexiglass barriers” installed to the right of, and behind, the driver’s seating position. In a later email, you ask about the installation of clear plastic “soft shields” that would be installed to the immediate right of and behind the driver, and/or installed throughout the passenger compartment by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. As explained below, NHTSA’s regulations would permit the installation of the barriers, subject to the requirements discussed in this letter. Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email. This interpretation letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law, and represents the opinion of the agency on the questions addressed in your email at the time of signature. Background NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects. Based on your description of the barriers and the photos you provided, the plexiglass material of the barrier and transparent flexible material of the shield would be motor vehicle “glazing” that must comply with FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing materials.” FMVSS No. 205 applies to glazing installed in motor vehicles prior to first purchase and to aftermarket glazing for use in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference an industry standard, the “American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard” (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing, called “Items,” and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. As motor vehicle glazing, the transparent material of the barrier or shield must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and be certified as meeting that standard by the prime glazing manufacturer, and, if applicable, the manufacturer or distributor who cuts the glazing into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. If an entity, in assembling the barrier or shield, cuts the glazing, it must ensure the glazing meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, and must certify its compliance pursuant to S6.3 of FMVSS No. 205.1 Anyone who assembles and markets an aftermarket barrier or shield would be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and be responsible for ensuring the product is free from safety-related defects. If the assembler or NHTSA finds the product to contain a safety-related defect, the assembler would be responsible for conducting a recall campaign as required under 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118-30120. Discussion Plexiglass Barriers. You ask about plexiglass barriers installed in school buses to the right of and just behind the driver. Assuming the barriers are comprised of plexiglass (or similarly rigid transparent material), NHTSA would consider them to be “interior partitions.”2 This classification is important as it, along with the location of the glazing in the vehicle, determines which types of glazing may be used. Depending upon where the glazing is placed, it may be considered “requisite for driving visibility” and subject to heightened requirements. On buses, the windows deemed requisite for driving visibility are windows to the immediate right or left of the driver and the front windshield.3 (Any portion of glazing that the driver would have to see through to view the windows requisite for driving visibility would also be considered requisite for driving visibility.) You describe the barriers as being located to the right of the driver and immediately behind the driver. Of these locations, only the first would be considered requisite for driving visibility on buses. Glazing for interior partitions on buses in areas requisite for driving visibility must be of one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 10, 11A, 11C, 14, 15A, or 15B. This means the part of the barrier to the right of the driver must be of the items listed above. Interior partitions in areas not requisite for driving visibility have additional compliance options, and may also be made of one of following types of glazing: Items 3, 5, 11B, 12, 13, 16A, or 16B. This means the part of the partition immediately behind the driver may be any of the above items.
1On the other hand, if the entity only assembles the barrier using pre-cut glazing that has been certified by a glazing manufacturer, it is not required to certify the glazing. 2 See letter to Ms. Lee Ann Sparks, (June 4, 2020) available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571-205- Driver%20Shield%20for%20Buses%20and%20Vans_final%20signed%20(002).htm. 3 In a letter to Cris Morgan (January 14, 2009), NHTSA concluded that low-level glazing on doors to the right or left of the driver are considered windows that are requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, glazing through which the driver would view these windows would be considered requisite for driving visibility. https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/08-004149--19%20Nov%2008--sa.htm.
Soft Shields. You ask about “soft shields” installed in school buses that would be installed to the right of and behind the driver or installed in the passenger compartment by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. Based on photos of the soft shields, and assuming they are comprised of flexible transparent material, NHTSA would consider them to be “flexible curtains.” Again, this classification is important for FMVSS No. 205, as it, along with the location of the glazing in the vehicle, determines which types of glazing may be used. The photos you provide show that the shields would be installed to the right of the driver or immediately behind the driver, and/or installed between each row of seats by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. Of these locations, only the location to the right of the driver would be considered requisite for driving visibility. Glazing for flexible curtains on buses in areas requisite for driving visibility must be of one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 6, 10, 11A, 11C, 14, 15A, or 15B. This means the soft shield to the right of the driver must be of the items listed above. However, although these Items of glazing are permitted for use as flexible curtains, the only appropriate Item for the pliable plastic shown in the photos may be Item 6. Some of the requirements for certain Items may necessitate a level of rigidity that a soft plastic cannot provide. Some Items of glazing, such as Item 6, have requirements that were designed specifically for flexible plastics. Glazing for flexible curtains in buses in areas not requisite for driving visibility must be one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11A, 11B, 11C, 12, 13, 14, 15A, 15B, 16A, or 16B. Accordingly, the part of the flexible curtain for any location behind the driver and in the passenger compartment must be of these items. Of these permissible Items of glazing, Items 6, 7, and 13 may be the only appropriate ones for the soft, pliable plastic shown in the photos you provide. Soft, pliable glazing may not be able to meet the requirements for certain Items of glazing because they do not provide a level of rigidity that is necessary for meeting some of the requirements. However, Items 6, 7, and 13, have requirements that were designed specifically for flexible plastics. Other requirements. There may be additional requirements applying to the installation of the partition or curtain (“glazing”) depending on the entity installing it. If the glazing is installed on a new bus prior to first vehicle sale for purposes other than resale, the installer must ensure that, with the glazing installed, the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 205 and all other applicable FMVSS, and must certify the vehicle as complying with all FMVSS affected by the installation. If the glazing is installed as aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business, that entity would be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits the entity from knowingly making 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 FMVSS. In both cases, the entity installing the glazing must ensure that installation of the partition does not: (1) take the vehicle out of compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 222, “School bus passenger seating and crash protection;” (2) impact the vehicle’s compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 302, “Flammability of interior materials;” (3) prevent the driver and passengers from readily accessing emergency exits installed in compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 217, “Bus emergency exits and window retention and release;” (4) obstruct the driver’s view of the mirrors and/or rearview image required under FMVSS No. 111, “Rear visibility;” or (5) impede the driver’s ability to see through the windows needed for driving visibility. Visibility is particularly important for school buses, as not only are school buses engaged in the transportation of children, they also make frequent stops. Installers should ensure that installation of a partition or curtain, particularly one situated in an area requisite for driving visibility, does not create glare or otherwise reduce the driver’s ability to see embarking and disembarking students and other road users. Regarding how the installation of the glazing affects compliance with FMVSS No. 222’s head protection requirements, S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 222 establishes head protection requirements for “contactable surfaces” within the head protection zone defined by S5.3.1.1. The head protection zone is determined based on seating references points. This means that each seat in a school bus has its own head impact protection zone. As an example, a partition that is installed directly behind the driver is likely to fall within the head protection zone for the seat directly behind the driver. Partitions installed to the right of the driver may also partially fall within the head protection zones for the seat directly behind the driver. If the partition is installed prior to first purchase, the installer must ensure that the vehicle will meet FMVSS No. 222 with the glazing installed. If the head impact protection requirements cannot be met for that first row of seats with the partition installed, the installer might have to remove the first row and move the FMVSS No. 222 restraining barrier rearward such that the bus provides proper compartmentalization for what would be the new (reconfigured) first row. This modification would ensure that the partition is no longer within the head protection zone of any of the school bus seats. If the partition is installed after first purchase by an entity subject to the make inoperative provision in 49 U.S.C. 30122, the installer may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in the school bus pursuant to FMVSS No. 222. School buses are required to have passenger seating systems designed to afford impact protection to occupants. Installation of the partition may affect this element of design (compartmentalization) for the front row of seats by impairing the seat’s head impact protection. To avoid this result, the installer may need to remove the first row of seats and move the FMVSS No. 222 restraining barrier rearward such that the bus provides proper compartmentalization for what would be the new (reconfigured) first row. Entities modifying their own school buses are not subject to Federal restrictions on “making inoperative” the safety systems on their vehicles. However, NHTSA recommends that owners not degrade the safety systems provided on their vehicles. Thus, we recommend that schools take measures to ensure that students will not occupy seats that have compromised head protection zones. For example, if a school installs a partition that will be in the head impact zone, the school can mitigate risk by not allowing students to sit in those first-row seats. It appears from the photos you sent that the flexible curtain is a “soft shield” made from pliable plastic. Even though the curtains would likely fall within the head protection zones when installed forward of each passenger seat, it does not appear to have an adverse effect on school bus compliance with FMVSS No. 222’s head protection requirements. In addition to the above, please note that the installation of the barrier may be subject to State laws or regulations. School bus operators should contact their local highway safety office for information governing how school children should be transported. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely, JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON Date: 2020.08.11 15:21:29 -04'00' Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel
Dated: 8/11/20 Ref: FMVSS No.205 |
2020 | ||||||||||
ID: 30102 - What is a motor vehicle - Mac Yousry - 14-000891 5.1.14Open
Mr. Mac Yousry Global Vehicle Services Corporation 1892 N. Main St. Orange, CA 92865
Dear Mr. Yousry:
This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation as to whether a crane that manufacturer XCMG plans to import into the United States is considered a motor vehicle. Based on the information you have provided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider this mobile construction crane to be a motor vehicle.
You have enclosed technical specifications with photographs and detailed descriptions that discuss the crane at issuethe XCMG XCT90U. You provided supplementary information during phone conversations with Ryan Hagen of my office.
By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is a manufacturers responsibility to determine whether a motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. The Vehicle Safety Act considers importers to be manufacturers. Manufacturers (importers) must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.
If a vehicle is a motor vehicle, it must comply with all applicable FMVSSs to be imported into the United States (Vehicle Safety Act, 30112(a)). The question presented is whether the XCMG XCT90U is a motor vehicle.
Section 30102(a)(6) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as follows:
a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.
We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle." Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles because the highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, and not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.
From your letter, specification sheet, and phone conversations, we understand the following about the XCT90U: It has a curb weight of 112,169 pounds and a top speed of 62.5 miles per hour. The crane is manufactured primarily for use on fixed job sites and only sees incidental road use for travel from one job site to another. The manufacturer estimates that a typical crane will travel 1,000 miles and service 15 job sites per year. The technical specifications state that the XCT90Us [m]ulti-axle plate spring balance suspension contributes to better passing ability
Some of the information about the XCT90U, such as the better passing ability and top speed, seem to indicate the vehicles use on the highway would be beyond incidental. However, given that the XCT90U would spend almost a month at a job site as well as other factors, we believe the on-road use of this equipment is not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Further, the XCT90Us boom specifications, lifting capacity, and overall appearance are similar to the crane evaluated in our letter to Mr. Michael E. Ogle, which we determined was not a motor vehicle.[1] Therefore, we do not consider the XCT90U to be a motor vehicle.
Please note that the views expressed in this letter are limited to the XCMG model XCT90U. This letter is not generally applicable to all XCMG vehicles. Our interpretation is based on the information you have provided us. In the event contrary information emerges, the agencys opinion is subject to change.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ryan Hagen of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Dated: 6/10/15 49 U.S.C 30102
[1] See letter to Michael E. Ogle, Schiller International Corp. (October 20, 2003) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/004597drn.html). |
2015 | ||||||||||
ID: 21124.drnOpen
John A. Green, Supervisor Dear Mr. Green: This responds to your letter asking about an Oceanside (California) Unified School District school bus modified with a product manufactured by Majestic Transportation Products, Ltd. , (Majestic) called the Safe-T-Bar passenger restraint system. You explain that the Safe-T-Bar is a "heavily padded U-shaped bar similar to the type of restraint systems most commonly found on amusement park rides." Majestic asserts that "during a sudden stop, collision, or bus rollover - etc., a small weighted pendulum swings and engages a latch, locking the 'Safe-T-Bar' in the down position, thereby controlling and restraining the passenger within the padded seating area." You further inform us that Majestic and the Oceanside Unified School District are "cooperating" in testing the system on an Oceanside school bus. You do not describe how or what type of testing is being conducted, or whether school children are involved in the testing. You asked that we respond to six questions. The questions address the safety of the Safe-T-Bar system and whether a school bus that has its passenger seats retrofitted with Safe-T-Bars would continue to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), including Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Our answers are provided below. In addressing your questions, it might be helpful to have some background information on school bus crash protection. In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued a number of safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to improve protection of school bus passengers during crashes. One of these standards was Standard No. 222, which provides for passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Prior to issuance of Standard No. 222, we found that the school bus seat was a significant factor contributing to injury. We found that seats failed the passengers in three principal respects: by being too weak; too low; and too hostile. In response, we developed requirements to improve the performance of school bus seats and the overall crash protection of school buses. Those requirements comprise the "compartmentalization" approach we adopted for providing high levels of crash protection to school bus passengers. Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. If a seat is not compartmentalized by a seat back in front of it, compartmentalization must be provided by a restraining barrier. The seats and restraining barriers must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant.They must meet specified height requirements and be constructed, by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger. It is helpful to bear in mind the following highlights about compartmentalization:
With this background in mind, we now turn to your questions.
The answer is no. The manufacturer of a motor vehicle must certify that the vehicle meets applicable FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, the motor vehicle manufacturer must "affix to each vehicle a label" that among other information, states: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above." This statement is the certification. Most items of the motor vehicle equipment that have applicable FMVSS are marked "DOT" to indicate that they meet the standards' requirements. Regarding certification to FMVSS requirements, independent testing laboratories sometimes provide services to vehicle and equipment manufacturers, including information and test data that support the manufacturers' certifications. However, testing by itself is neither a certification nor a substitute for certification.
The answer is no. Any representation that NHTSA "certifies" or "approves" test laboratories or facilities to conduct compliance testing, or for any other purpose, would be misleading. I note that in its information to you, Majestic describes a testing facility that produced a "comprehensive seventy two page report" as a "federally approved collision testing facility." NHTSA has not approved the facility, or any other facility, to conduct compliance testing or for any other purpose.
Because the Safe-T-Bar system is an item of equipment that is sold separately from a school bus, there are no safety standards that directly apply to it. Our safety standards for school buses apply to new, completed vehicles, not to separate components or systems. As such, Standard No. 222 does not apply to the Safe-T-Bar system, assuming the system is sold in the aftermarket and is not sold as part of a new school bus. A representation that a product meets crash protection standards that do not apply is misleading. (1) If the Safe-T-Bar system were installed on new school buses, the vehicle would have to meet Standard No. 222 and the other school bus standards with the product installed. Without testing a vehicle, we cannot make a positive determination of whether the standard could be met with the product installed. However, as explained below, we believe that a new school bus may not be able to meet the standard with the Safe-T-Bar system. We have other safety concerns as well, apart from whether the requirements of Standard No. 222 could be met.
Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from installing any modification that "make[s] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on the vehicle would be subject to fines of up to $1,100 per violation and to injunctive relief. The compartmentalization requirements of Standard No. 222 include requirements that a protective seat back must be provided to protect an unrestrained passenger. We are concerned about the continued compliance of a bus with a Safe-T-Bar installed with Standard No. 222's seat deflection and head and leg protection requirements.
We believe it is possible that the incorporation of the Safe-T-Bar system into existing school bus seats would reduce the benefits of compartmentalization, and otherwise adversely affect safety. NHTSA has previously discussed compliance and other safety concerns applicable to similar devices, including the R-Bar, a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses that folds down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seat. In a letter of October 15, 1993 (copy enclosed), NHTSA summarized how it has addressed various compliance and safety issues applicable to devices similar to R-Bars and the Safe-T-Bar: Standard No. 222 specifies a forward and a rearward push test on the seat back of a school bus seat. These tests are designed to require seat backs to deform in a controlled manner. For example, in a frontal crash, occupants will impact the seat back in front of their seating position. That seat back must deflect forward to absorb energy from the occupants, but not collapse so far as to cause injuries to passengers seated in front of it. Our crash statistics show that the compartmentalization concept supported by Standard No. 222 has been successful in protecting the students who ride on the nation's school buses. The agency is concerned that the introduction of Safe-T-Bar type devices will adversely affect the protection provided by Standard No. 222. Using the same frontal crash example, these devices will likely place loads on the student's abdomen and force the upper torso to rotate around the bar, place strains on the student's spine, and allow the heads of larger students to strike the top of the seat back in front of them. In contrast, unrestrained passengers will translate forward into the seat back in front of them and distribute the load across their entire upper torso. Standard No. 222 requirements for head and leg protection, where compliance is demonstrated by impacting the seat back, result in seat designs that accommodate this type of loading. In addition, Safe-T-Bar type devices can reduce and otherwise limit the living space between seats. In the event a seat back is loaded and deformed by the students in the rear seat, the students in the forward seat may be sandwiched between their seat back and the restraining device attached to the seat in front of them. Similar arguments may be made for rear end impacts.
Compartmentalization is intended to restrain passengers in a crash without seat belt assemblies or devices such as the Safe-T-Bar. As previously explained, we have concerns about a product that might interfere with the capability of a school bus to protect occupants. For the above reasons, we believe that a school bus seating system with a bar system might reduce the crash protection provided in vehicles which meet the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is limited information on how bar systems would perform in a crash or affect the current safety of school buses. We are undertaking a comprehensive school bus safety research program to evaluate better ways of retaining occupants in the seating compartment. As part of that program, we will be looking into possible ways of redesigning the school bus seat, as well as integrating a lap and shoulder belt into the seat that is compatible with compartmentalization. Also, we plan to conduct research on extra padding, not only for the seat itself but also for the bus side wall. On a final note, we would like to point out that many of Oceanside's newer school buses may still be under the school bus manufacturer's warranty. Before Oceanside decides to retrofit any school bus with the Safe-T-Bar or a similar system, it may be prudent for the school district to share Majestic's information with the school bus manufacturer, and request a determination whether the school bus manufacturer will continue to honor applicable warranties if the Safe-T-Bar system were placed on school buses. I hope this information is helpful. 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, Frank Seales, Jr. Enclosures ref:222
1. Regardless of whether a safety standard applies to the product, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30120 requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment to notify owners and to provide remedies if it is determined their products have safety-related defects. If it were determined that the Safe-T-Bar systems had a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers and repair or replace the defective item without charge. |
2000 | ||||||||||
ID: nht87-3.37OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/04/87 FROM: PAUL L. PETERSCHMIDT -- DIRECTOR, BIOMASS RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF IOWA TO: GEORGE PARKER -- ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KEITH E. MADDEN, REDBOOK A33(2), CUSTOM REGULATIONS; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM KENNETH E. MADDEN TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 3106 TEXT: Dear Mr. Parker: This letter is in regard to importation of "Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" (P.L. 89-563 Sects. 108 and 114, 19 C.F.R. 12.80) and related to DOT Form HS 7, Item 7. The vehicles involved in this request for importation would be classified (under Item 7) as being imported solely for the purpose of test and experiment. The purpose of this letter is to explain the objectives of our research program and the need for th is undertaking. BACKGROUND Brazil has in the order of 1.3 million vehicles on the road which are fueled by "neat" ethanol, which is also referred to as hydrous ethanol. The hydrous azeotropic product of ethanol distillation has to be dehydrated to the anhydrous form to be involve d in blending operations with gasoline in this country. The hydrous ethanol fuel for the Brazilian vehicles has a typical analysis of 95% ethanol and 5% water. Today the vast majority of the new over the road passenger vehicles and light trucks in Braz il are ethanol dedicated designs. The use of ethanol as the only fuel was inaugerated about ten years ago, and prompted by the lack of natural petroleum reserves in Brazil. The production of significant numbers of over the road passenger vehicles was in augerated in the early part of this decade, and the production rate has been increasing ever since. About 90% of Ford Brazil's over the road passenger car production models are ethanol fueled vehicles. During this period (the decade of the 1980's) little, if anything has been done to evaluate these vehicles in the U.S. in terms of performance, economics, exhaust gas composition, emission controls, fuel economy-ambient problems, durability, the material s of construction to accomodate the ethanol fuel, maintenance, power trained design, fuel composition (there are no denaturants used in Brazil), cold weather starting, hot weather Reed vapor pressure problems, etc. To our knowledge there has been practically no importation of these over the road ethanol vehicles primarily because of a lack of any comprehensive testing programs, and the lack of import approval by the EPA and the DOT. Also the provisions for either re-exporting the vehicles or destroying the vehicles after one year was an obvious deterrent. It is also significant that in the recent "Fuel Ethanol Cost-Effective Study" which was prepared by the National Advisory Panel on Cost Effectiveness of Fuel E thanol Production, published in November of 1987, the accompanying bibliography cited ten pages of references (125) and only one reference was a reference to Brazilian technology in ethanol vehicles. This one reference had to do with "Automotive Use of Alcohol in Brazil and Air Pollution Related Aspects. SAE Technical Paper 850390, February 1985." This University has been involved in research on the production economics of ethanol and utilization throughout this decade. In 1983 we were provided with a Ford-Brazilian designed prototype tractor (which was a modified 4600 design), one of seven in the world, which was ethanol fueled. We tested the unit under field operating conditions for approximately 20 months. The unit was considered a "dedicated" ethanol design and brought into this country by Ford Tractor operations at Troy, Michigan. The unit was equipped with a number of design features which enabled it to perform effectively in cold weather conditions. The tractor was placed on a research f arm operated by Pioneer Hi-Bred International near Iowa City and was used for farm tasks ranging from a feedlot operation through forage operation and silo filling. The unit was heavily instrumented and a large body of information collected involving cold and hot weather operating characteristics, and its general economy of operation was compared to conventional diesel fueled units that were performing similar tasks . Because of the prototype nature of the test unit, data was not published as Ford Tractor Operations was considering the potential sale of the design in this country. The unit did go into production in Brazil and eight production prototypes are in an evaluation program by the Illinois DOT. CURRENT SITUATION The units we wish to import will be either the F-100 Ford pickup (upon which you already have specifications) or the F-1000, which is about 3.6 liters and somewhat comparable to the Ford "Ranger" produced in this country. It should be pointed out tha t Ford Brazil has, as of the first of July merged with Volkswagen in Brazil. They have formed a company named "Auto-Latino". The company does produce some gasoline fueled vehicles that are imported into this country under the name of the Volkswagon Fox . The manager of Volkswagen altered the executive responsibilities of several of the people with whom we had maintained liaison at Ford Brazil. It should also be pointed out that we made our original inquiries to Ford Brazil over two years ago regardin g the importation of their over the road vehicles and obtained the necessary clearances that we needed from that end but we did not follow through on our programming of a test project because of lack of funds. The following is the program that we will m anage in the testing of the three vehicles we request approval to import. OBJECTIVES The overall efficiency of the dedicated ethanol fueled vehicles has been continually improving -- to a point where a 3 to 4% increase in efficiency would balance out the difference in BTU values of gasoline versus ethanol. (Gasoline being approximately 110,000 BTU and ethanol being approximately 85,000 BTU). * The dedicated ethanol spark injection engine had traditionally been more fuel efficient than its gasoline counterpart. * per U.S. Gallon The objective of this test is three-fold: 1. To determine the efficiency of the Brazilian units and what improvements might be made by the use of fuel injection, and alternate fuel composition. 2. To determine the operational economics of the Brazilian vehicles as compared to similar gasoline fueled vehicles, using current gasoline prices and current ethanol production costs. 3. Evaluate the ambient effects (particularly cold weather) on vehicle operation (particularly engine starting) and classify them as to degrees of difficulty and outline corrective measures. 4. Evaluate alternate fuel compositions (i.e. use of detergents as a denaturant). 5. Evaluate emissions and determine the need (if any) for control procedures. 6. Evaluate the procedures for fuel handling and establishing compliance with BATF. 7. Evaluate potential customer acceptance. 8. Set a time frame (if possible) for on going research or commercial development. TEST PROCEDURES The units would be tested in an agricultural environment for a number of reasons, among which is to minimize the problems of fuel handling. Typical farmers today will have at least two or possibly three fuels in storage (gasoline, diesel and LPG). The arrangement would eliminate the need for service station type distribution in the area. 1. Data Loging. Each research vehicle would be equipped with a Omnidata data loger which would have a 16 channel input with a 64,000 character storage and would be capable of monotoring the performance of the vehicle for a 20 hour period which would no rmally encompass two weeks of anticipated activity. Although not all of the specific inputs have been defined those that would be monitoroed include: RPM of the crank shaft (tachometer), RPM of the output shaft from the transmission, ground speed of the vehicle, fuel consumption rate, coolant temperature, outdoor ambient, exhaust manifold temperature, intake manifold temperature, fuel temperature, real time and combustion air intake temperature (for carbonated units). These readings would be sampled an d loged every 10 - 20 seconds. The data loger and the associated sensory equipment would be installed by the Automotive Technology Section of the Carroll branch of the Des Moines Area Community College (DEMAC). Every one or two weeks (depending on usage patterns) the data logers woul d be off loaded into a 1500 Zenith portable computer which is compatible to the data loger. This would be done at the Automotive and Agricultural Engineering Vocational Center at the Audubon Community High School in Audubon. The data from the Zenith un it would then be transfered to an IBM PC/AT at the Audubon Industrial Development Corporation for evaluation. 2. Fuel Analysis and Formulations. Preliminary arrangements have been made with a fuel alcohol plant, ADCII * at Hamburg, Iowa. This arrangement has been tentatively sanctioned by the BATF's regional office in Chicago. The hydrous ethanol fuel from t he ADCII would be sold to an ethonal fuels research company in the Audubon area which would have a permit from the BATF to do experimental research and evaluations of ethanol fuels. This would include analysis of denaturants that are inherent in the fue l prior to the cyclohexane or molecular sieve dehydration of the ethanol to the anhydrous form (which is the normal product sold by the Hamburg facility), detergents and other additives that would be incorporated in the fuel, which would then be evaluate d by the BATF to determine if these components would constitute a legal denaturant. * or ADC-II An analysis of performance of the U.S. fuel would be compared against the performances of the Brazilian fuel composition. To the extent possible an attempt would be made to emulate the conditions and analysis of the Brazilian produced hydrous ethanol fu el. 3. Maintenance Analysis. Periodically the units would be returned to the Automotive Technology Section of the Carroll Branch of DEMAC. Specialized personnel teaching courses in automotive technology will compare maintenance requirements with those tha t have been experienced by the Brazilian producers of the units. Particular attention would be given to the cold weather operating conditions to determine if the lower temperatures being experienced in Iowa would have any unusual effect upon normal engine performance. At the time the vehicles are acquired the Brazilian Manufacturer will recommend a package of spare parts that will be imported with the vehicles. 4. Emissions Testing. Equipment is being secured to enable emissions testing. This equipment was designed for conventional gasoline fueled vehicles. It is not known if this will be adequate to provide the necessary data for the EPA. It may be necessar y to ship emission samples to the University for a more detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis, particularly in regard to aldehydes. To our knowledge there is no testing equipment currently available that is designed specifically for ethanol fue led vehicles. DESIGN MODIFICATIONS It is anticipated that some modification for cold weather starting of these vehicles may be necessary. This is in an area in which the University of Iowa has gained considerable experience in its research work with Ford Tractor Operations, which include d a combination of block heaters, preheated intake air (which is passed over the exhaust manifold), fueled heaters, propane starting fuel plus a number of other design alternatives with which we are aware. In addition one of the units should possibly be factory equipped with a fuel injection system. It is anticipated, however, that the fuel injection may have to be a retrofit, and this eventuality has already inaugerated a search for appropriate hardware. We also have the advantage of using the Centr al Scientific Research Laboratory on alternative fuels in Ford-Dearborn for design-engineer counsel. SELECTION OF SPECIFIC SITES FOR VEHICLE TESTING It has been understood by all concerned that this test program is not being inaugerated for publicity purposes or to sell some sort of public relations image. The units will be tested in an environment that is strictly rural. Although it will be known i n the small community of Audubon that these tests are taking place, there is no intention to encourage public demonstration of these vehicles during the test period, other than what is unavoidable. The location of the units will be selected by a three m an committee that are all Audubon area locals who are either farmers, or have local business interests. The units are to be used in the same pattern and to perform the same tasks as would be typical for a light weight pickup employed on the farm -- which would include hauling small loads, and farm to city to school travel. It is anticipated that the vehic les would be housed each night on the farmstead. The vehicle operators would carry their own insurance on the vehicle, although the licensing and ownership would be considered as part of the state vehicle fleet titled to the University of Iowa and would carry a state licensing, the latter to be sanctioned through the Vehicle Registration of the Motor Vehicles Division of the Iowa DOT. TAXES. There would be no state tax on the ethanol fuel used in the vehicles as this activity would be considered as "in the public service". As mentioned, the vehicles would be owned by the University of Iowa as test and research vehicles. SUMMARY. There is a large body of knowledge on the operation and economics of dedicated, ethanol fuel over the road vehicles that has never been scientifically evaluated. There are over a million of these vehicles on the road in Brazil. This University has, for most of the decade, been involved in evaluating the technical and economic aspects of ethanol produced from corn and ethanol utilization. This University has also done much work in corn utilization in general. The principle objectives of this project is to establish, using state-of-the-art production -- engineering design, where ethanol fueled vehicles are -- in terms of economic and technical viability. And do these vehicles represent an alternate transporta tion concept, that this country should consider as a partial solution to our over production of corn, as a means of providing some improvement in our balance of payments, and improve our national security by reducing our dependence on imported oil. We respectfully request your approval of our undertaking. Sincerely, |
|||||||||||
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.