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: aiam0003OpenStephen E. Selander, Esq. Legal Staff General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232; Stephen E. Selander Esq. Legal Staff General Motors Corporation New Center One Building 3031 West Grand Boulevard P.O. Box 33122 Detroit MI 48232; "Dear Mr. Selander: This responds to your February 17, 1992 request fo interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, Controls and Displays and No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, as those standards would apply to an electric vehicle (GMEV) that General Motors (GM) is preparing to sell in the future. You requested the agency's concurrence with, or guidance regarding, nine proposed interpretations. Your questions are addressed below. Before discussing the substantive issues that you raised, I note that you requested confidential treatment for portions of certain materials that you provided relating to the brake system planned for the electric vehicle. These materials were previously submitted to NHTSA, and the agency granted confidentiality for portions of the materials in letters dated July 18, 1991 and August 12, 1991. In a letter accompanying your request for interpretation, GM released from its request for confidential treatment portions of the materials for which confidentiality had previously been granted. NHTSA's earlier grants of confidentiality remain in effect for the remaining portions for which GM continues to seek confidential treatment. Accordingly, this letter does not cite any of the confidential information. I also note that, in one of the attachments to your letter, you suggested several amendments to Standard No. 105 that you believe would facilitate the introduction of electric vehicles. As you know, NHTSA recently issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit comments to help the agency determine what existing standards may need modification to meet the needs associated with the introduction of electric vehicles and what new standards may have to be written specifically for electric vehicles. See 56 FR 67038, December 27, 1991. We will consider your recommendations concerning Standard No. 105 as we evaluate the comments on the ANPRM. The scope of this letter is limited to addressing how the current requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 105 would apply to your planned vehicle. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays GM Proposed Interpretation 1: Permit electrically powered vehicles to use symbols that are appropriate for indicating electric power reserve. You asked two questions regarding how Standard No. 101 would apply to the GM electric vehicle. The first question concerned the identification for a gauge that would monitor battery charge as a percent of full charge. This gauge would serve as the functional equivalent of a fuel gauge in traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. You stated, however that it would be inappropriate and potentially misleading to use Standard No. 101's fuel symbol (a picture of a gasoline pump) for a gauge indicating electric power reserve. You stated that you planned to identify the gauge with the ISO battery symbol (a picture of a battery), which you indicated is substantially similar to that found in Standard No. 101 for electrical charge. You requested NHTSA's concurrence that electric vehicles are permitted to use symbols that are appropriate for identifying electric power reserve and not the Standard No. 101 fuel symbol. Standard No. 101 requires that new vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. See S5(a). Thus, the primary issue raised by your question is whether a gauge indicating electric power reserve is among the displays listed in the standard, and if so, what identification requirements apply. As you noted in your letter, one of the displays listed in Standard No. 101 is a fuel gauge. See S5.1 and Table 2. The dictionary defines 'fuel' as combustible matter used to maintain fire, as coal, wood, oil, etc. See Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). Electrical power provided by a battery does not come within the meaning of 'fuel.' Therefore, a gauge indicating electric power reserve for an electric vehicle is not a fuel gauge. Another display listed in Standard No. 101 is an electrical charge gauge. This term refers to gauges that indicate whether, and the extent to which, a vehicle's battery is charging. Therefore, a gauge indicating electric power reserve for an electric vehicle is not an electric charge gauge within the meaning of Standard No. 101. Since a gauge indicating electric power reserve is not otherwise covered by Standard No. 101 or any other standard, its identification is at the option of the manufacturer. GM Proposed Interpretation 2: Allow the 'Service Soon' telltale to indicate loss of powertrain oil pressure for the GMEV. Your second question concerned whether low oil pressure may be indicated by activation of a 'Service Soon' telltale instead of one identified by Standard No. 101's oil pressure symbol (a picture of an oil can) or the word 'oil.' You stated that a 'Service Soon' telltale would be more appropriate for an electric vehicle, since it (unlike ICE vehicles) can continue to be driven without oil pressure. One of the displays listed in Standard No. 101 is an oil pressure telltale. While the seriousness of low oil pressure may be different for electric vehicles than ICE vehicles, the condition for activation of an oil pressure telltale (low oil pressure) would be the same. It is our opinion that Standard No. 101's identification requirements would apply to an oil pressure telltale for an electric vehicle. If a manufacturer is concerned that the oil pressure symbol or the word 'oil' might be misleading to drivers familiar with ICE vehicles, the manufacturer is free to provide additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity. See S5.2.3. It is not clear, however, that the telltale you plan would be considered a low oil pressure telltale within the meaning of Standard No. 101. You state that, as currently planned, the electric vehicle will be equipped with a 'Service Soon' telltale which will light in the event of a malfunction that could eventually cause damage to the vehicle powertrain, but does not require immediate attention. It thus appears that the telltale might monitor several possible vehicle conditions, one of which is low oil pressure. Standard No. 101 does not require that any of the displays listed in the standard be provided or that two or more displays, if provided, be provided separately. NHTSA has previously concluded that a multipurpose telltale which monitors two functions, oil pressure and coolant temperature, may be identified by the word 'Engine.' See December 29, 1978 letter to Ford Motor Company. The basis for this interpretation was that while Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for oil pressure and coolant temperature telltales, it does not specify any requirements for a single telltale which covers both conditions. For the same reason, if GM provided a single telltale monitoring several vehicle conditions, one of which was low oil pressure, the standard's requirements for an oil pressure telltale would not apply and the identification for that telltale would be at the discretion of the manufacturer. Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems You asked seven questions regarding how Standard No. 105 would apply to the GM electric vehicle. You provided the following general description of the brake system planned for the vehicle: The brake system consists of front hydraulic disc (service) brakes, rear electric drum (service and parking) brakes, four-wheel ABS, and regenerative braking. Brake pedal forces and travel are comparable to conventional power assisted hydraulic brake systems, and are independent of the state-of-charge of the vehicle's battery pack. The design features a manual hydraulic 'push through' to apply the front brakes in the event of any electrical failure. Standard No. 105 applies to passenger cars and various other vehicle types with 'hydraulic service brake systems.' See S3. Since the service brakes of the GM electric vehicle would be partly hydraulic brakes and partly electric brakes, a preliminary issue is whether the standard would apply to the vehicle. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the standard would apply to the vehicle. The term 'hydraulic brake system' is defined in S4 as 'a system that uses hydraulic fluid as a medium for transmitting force from a service brake control to the service brake, and that may incorporate a brake power assist unit, or a brake power unit.' The term 'service brake' is defined at Part 571.3 as 'the primary mechanism designed to stop a motor vehicle.' The planned braking system would use hydraulic fluid as a medium for transmitting force from the service brake control to the front brake portion of the service brake. It is our interpretation that this is sufficient, under the definition of 'hydraulic brake system,' for the braking system to be considered a 'hydraulic brake system,' even though hydraulic fluid is not used for the rear brake portion of the service brake. Therefore, Standard No. 105 would apply to the vehicle. GM Proposed Interpretation 3: The GMEV parking brake is mechanically retained in accordance with the requirements of S5.2. Your first question on Standard No. 105 concerned S5.2's requirement that vehicles be manufactured 'with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement.' You stated that the parking brake on the GMEV would be applied and released by electrical means, but would be retained by a mechanical latching device. You requested NHTSA's concurrence that the planned parking brake would satisfy the requirement for mechanically retained engagement. We agree that S5.2 permits the parking brake to be applied and released by electrical or other non-mechanical means, so long as engagement is held by solely mechanical means. Your next several questions concern Standard No. 105's brake failure requirements. As noted by your letter, these requirements are set forth in S5.1.2 (partial failure), S5.1.3 (inoperative brake power assist unit or brake power unit), and S5.5 (failure in antilock or variable proportioning brake system), and the test procedures for these requirements are set forth in S7.9 and S7.10. GM Proposed Interpretation 4: The subject brake system is a 'split service brake system' consisting of four subsystems--one at each wheel. Standard No. 105 specifies different partial failure requirements depending on whether a vehicle is manufactured with a split service brake system. The term 'split service brake system' is defined in S4 as 'a brake system consisting of two or more subsystems actuated by a single control designed so that a leakage- type failure of a pressure component in a single subsystem (except structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems) shall not impair the operation of any other subsystem.' We agree that your planned vehicle can be viewed as having four subsystems, one at each wheel. In only two of the subsystems, however, can leakage-type failures occur (the two hydraulic subsystems). Thus, in determining whether the vehicle has a split service brake system within the meaning of Standard No. 105, the key is whether a leakage-type failure of a pressure component in either of those two subsystems (except structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems) impairs the operation of any other subsystem (i.e., the other hydraulic subsystem or either of the two other subsystems). After reviewing the information provided with your letter, we have no reason to doubt that your planned system qualifies as a split service brake system. GM Proposed Interpretation 5: The four service brake subsystems may be certified to the requirements of S5.1.2 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.9.1 through S7.9.3 by disabling each subsystem in a way that does not affect the other three subsystems. Standard No. 105's requirements for partial failure are set forth in S5.1.2. For vehicles with a split service brake system, 5.1.2.1 provides that, in the event of a rupture or leakage type of failure in a single subsystem, other than a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems, the remaining portion(s) of the service brake system shall continue to operate and shall be capable of stopping a vehicle from 60 mph within specified stopping distances. You suggested that certification of the requirements of S5.1.2.1, consistent with the procedure of S7.9.1 through S7.9.3, should be established by disabling each of the four subsystems in turn. You also stated that, for purposes of compliance testing, the subsystems would be disabled in such a way that the functioning of only one subsystem would be affected. It is our opinion that, in testing under S5.1.2.1, only the two hydraulic subsystems of your planned brake system would be disabled, as S5.1.2.1 only addresses rupture/leakage types of failures. It does not address any type of failure of a subsystem for which a rupture or leakage type failure cannot occur. We would not consider a break in an electrical system to be a 'rupture' within the meaning of Standard No. 105. We are uncertain as to the meaning of your statement that, for purposes of compliance testing, the subsystems would be disabled in such a way that the functioning of only one subsystem would be affected. This could be read as meaning that the agency must induce a rupture or leakage type failure in a place that doesn't affect other subsystems. However, under S7.9.1, any one rupture or leakage type of failure is introduced, other than a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems. If any such leakage type failure impaired another subsystem, the brake system would not, of course, be considered a split service brake system within the meaning of Standard No. 105. GM Proposed Interpretation 6: The GMEV brake system may be certified to the requirements of S5.1.3 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.10 by functionally disabling the BCU. Such a procedure will completely disable the brake power assist, and since the electric motors within the hydraulic unit and the rear brake drums are separately disabled during S5.1.2 testing, there is no need to separately consider these electric motors when certifying to the requirements of S5.1.3. Standard No. 105's requirements for inoperative brake power assist unit or brake power unit are set forth in S5.1.3. You stated that your planned brake system would not utilize conventional power assist, but brake power assist would be provided by the combination of the BCU and four electric motors. You stated that this design does not lend itself to an obvious way of distinguishing brake power assist from other service brake subsystem components, and suggested that the brake system be certified to the requirements of S5.1.3 by disabling the BCU (which would disable all four electric motors and completely eliminate functional brake power assist) and then satisfying the provisions of either S5.1.3.1, S5.1.3.2, or S5.1.3.4. You also sought the agency's concurrence that there is no need to otherwise take the four electric motors into account when certifying to the requirements of S5.1.3. S4 of Standard No. 105 defines the term 'brake power assist unit' as a device installed in a hydraulic brake system that reduces the operator effort to actuate the system, and that if inoperative does not prevent the operator from braking the vehicle by a continued application of muscular force on the service brake control. Under the options of S5.1.3.1, S5.1.3.2, and S5.1.3.4, stopping distance requirements must be met with one brake power assist unit inoperative. We believe that each electric motor comes within the definition of 'brake power assist unit.' In addition, given the integrated nature of the BCU and the four electric motors, we believe that the combination of the BCU/four electric motors also comes within the definition of 'brake power assist unit.' It is therefore our opinion that the requirements of S5.1.3 must be met both when the BCU is disabled (which would disable all four electric motors and completely eliminate functional brake power assist) and also when each of the four electric motors is disabled individually. We note that, under our interpretation of S5.1.2 discussed above, not all of the four electric motors are separately disabled during S5.1.2 testing. GM Proposed Interpretation 7: The GMEV brake system may be certified to the requirements of S5.5 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.9.4 by functionally disabling the BCU. Since such a procedure will completely disable ABS and the variable proportioning function, no other testing is required in connection with S5.5. Standard No.105's requirements for failed antilock and variable proportioning brake systems are set forth in S5.5. You stated that the BCU is the functional power source for the GMEV's ABS, and that the BCU also regulates the proportion of front to rear braking. You sought the agency's concurrence that disabling the BCU is the appropriate means of complying with S5.5, and is consistent with the procedure of S7.9.4. S5.5 provides that a vehicle shall meet certain stopping distance requirements in the event of failure (structural or functional) in an antilock or variable proportioning brake system. S7.9.4 provides the following test procedure: With vehicle at GVWR, disconnect functional power source, or otherwise render antilock system inoperative. Disconnect variable proportioning brake system. Make four stops, each from 60 mph. If more than one antilock or variable proportioning brake subsystem is provided, disconnect or render one subsystem inoperative and run as above. Restore system to normal at completion of this test. Repeat for each subsystem provided. We concur that your planned brake system should be tested to the requirements of S5.5 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.9.4 by functionally disabling the BCU, and that no other testing is required. Under S7.9.4, the antilock system is to be rendered inoperative and the variable proportioning system is to be disconnected. Both of these procedures are accomplished by functionally disabling the BCU. Further, it is our opinion that the planned brake system would not have antilock or variable proportioning subsystems, since antilock at all four wheels and variable proportioning are all controlled by the BCU. GM Proposed Interpretation 8: Assuming the conditions established in proposed S6.2, regenerative braking is permitted to function normally when conducting the test procedures of S7. In particular, the phrase 'service brakes shall be capable of stopping' (found in S5.1.4 and S5.1.5, for example) is not to be construed as prohibiting the normal operation for regenerative braking. In addressing how the current requirements of Standard No. 105 would apply to your vehicle, we cannot assume the conditions you recommend establishing in a new S6.2. The agency would need to add those conditions to the standard in rulemaking. I will therefore address how regenerative braking would be treated under the current requirements. As discussed in your letter, regenerative braking assists in decelerating the vehicle by converting the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle into stored electrical energy within the vehicle's battery pack. Regenerative braking on the planned GM electric vehicle will supplement, under certain conditions, the friction braking provided by the service brakes. You stated that regenerative braking will only be available when the vehicle is 'in gear.' Since the large majority of Standard No. 105 tests are conducted with the vehicle in 'neutral,' regenerative braking will have no influence on the outcome of those tests. You indicated that since some Standard No. 105 tests, notably fade and recovery and the water test, are conducted with the the vehicle 'in gear,' regenerative braking could occur during these tests. You stated that you believe that regenerative braking should generally be allowed to function normally during Standard No. 105 testing. You argued that the regenerative braking which may occur during 'in gear' Standard No. 105 tests is little different from the engine braking which occurs in conventional ICE vehicles. We agree that regenerative braking should function normally during Standard No. 105 testing, just as engine braking occurs normally during Standard No. 105's 'in gear' tests. Another issue that you raised in connection with regenerative braking is the state of battery charge during testing, which can affect the amount of regenerative braking. You proposed (for your recommended new S6.2) that tests be initiated with a full charge of the vehicle's battery pack, so that the amount of regenerative braking that would occur during the tests would be minimized to the least amount that could occur in real world driving, i.e., the tests would be conducted under 'worst case' conditions. While Standard No. 105 specifies many test conditions, it does not specify state-of-battery charge. In an interpretation letter to Mazda dated October 2, 1990, we provided general guidance concerning how NHTSA interprets a standard where it does not specify a particular test condition. First, we stated that, in the absence of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. We also indicated, however, that before reaching such a conclusion, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. It is our opinion that the braking requirements of Standard No. 105 must be met regardless of the state of battery charge. The purpose of Standard No. 105 is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. Since an electric vehicle will be driven with the battery at various states of charge, safe braking performance can only be ensured if the standard's requirements can be met in all such conditions. This would generally be consistent with GM's suggestion that compliance testing be conducted under 'worst case' conditions. GM Proposed Interpretation 9: In addition to the explicit conditions for activation of the brake telltale set forth in S5.3 of the standard, permit illumination of the service brake telltale when an impending or latent brake system malfunction is detected during electrical diagnosis. As noted by your letter, S5.3.1 of Standard No. 105 requires a brake telltale to illuminate when there is a gross loss of hydraulic pressure (or, alternatively, a drop in fluid level), a total functional electrical failure in the antilock or variable proportioning brake system, and when the parking brake is applied. You stated that a brake telltale on the planned GMEV would illuminate under these prescribed conditions. You indicated, however, that a diagnostic capability will also exist to detect other faults in the brake system, and requested the agency's concurrence that S5.3.1 permits illumination of the brake telltale when other faults are detected which increase the likelihood of a substantial degradation in brake system performance. While Standard No. 105 requires that a brake telltale be provided which activates under certain specified conditions, it does not expressly state whether the required telltale may also be activated under other conditions. It is our opinion that the telltale may also activate under other conditions so long as such activation does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required telltale or otherwise defeat its purpose. I note that this test is similar to one the agency has long used in addressing the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on certain products in the context of our safety standards. See, for example, NHTSA's December 20, 1991 interpretation letter to GM concerning Standard No. 209. The purpose of the brake telltale is to warn the driver of one of two conditions: (1) the parking brake is applied (and hence should be released before driving), or (2) the brake system has a significant fault which should be corrected. Since the additional conditions for activation which GM contemplates would represent significant brake system faults which should be corrected, it is our opinion that activation of the brake telltale under such conditions would not in any way defeat the purpose of the brake telltale. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5651OpenDorothy Jean Arnold, M.D. 15 Fairview Knoll N.E. Iowa City, Iowa 52240-9147; Dorothy Jean Arnold M.D. 15 Fairview Knoll N.E. Iowa City Iowa 52240-9147; "Dear Dr. Arnold: This responds to your letter asking whether the ai bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones, cannot use a seatbelt with comfort, and were granted dispensation from such usage several years ago. In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old, 5 feet, three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition. As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30122. The section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the 'make inoperative' prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupant restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of crashes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives. NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation. While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency s actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the agency. Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconnecting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decision. If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the 'make inoperative' prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so. I want to add a caution. The purpose of the 'make inoperative' prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver. I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2194OpenKenneth R. Arnold, Esq., Secretary and General Counsel, WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION, 100 Misty Lane, Parsippany, NJ, 07054; Kenneth R. Arnold Esq. Secretary and General Counsel WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION 100 Misty Lane Parsippany NJ 07054; Dear Mr. Arnold: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1975, referring to ou letter to Ideal Corporation of September 17, 1975. You commented that 'customers believe that the NHTSA approves the unqualified use of variable-load flashers for replacement turn-signal applications.' You have requested 'confirmation that the intent of Standard 108, S4.5.6 is to only permit a variable-load flasher to be used only on an Excepted Vehicle.' Your interpretation is incorrect.; Although the NHTSA does not approve of the use of variable-load tur signal flashers as replacement for fixed-load flashers, the choice of replacement equipment for a vehicle in use is that of the consumer, and is not subject to Federal control. We have no authority to require that the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher replace it with a fixed load flasher. This may be the reason for your confusion with respect to the NHTSA's reaction to Ideal Corporation's petition for rulemaking. It was not necessary to amend the standard as requested by Ideal, since it already allowed the type of replacement suggested, and this agency generally does not regulate modifications by consumers. Such an amendment would have been superfluous.; As indicated in our letter to Ideal, we continue to believe i preferable that consumers be informed that a variable load flasher will not provide an outage indication. To this end the NHTSA is considering rulemaking that would require labeling on containers of variable-load flashers.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4943OpenMr. Terry Semprini Executive Director Cycle Country Accessories Corp. Rt. 3, Box 125 Hwy 71 North Milford, Iowa 51351; Mr. Terry Semprini Executive Director Cycle Country Accessories Corp. Rt. 3 Box 125 Hwy 71 North Milford Iowa 51351; Dear Mr. Semprini: This responds to your letter of December 10, 1991 to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking whether a lighting device developed by your company 'is legal to run in all of the United States.' From the pictures you enclosed, we note that your device is a diamond-shape lamp, incorporating six amber lamps which form right and left turn signals. In addition, four red lamps are used for stop and hazard warning lamp purposes. These lamps are arranged in a V shape at the top of the device, and an inverted V at the bottom. In the photos you enclosed, the device appears installed near the top of the truck, to the left of the vertical centerline, midway between the centerline and the left edge of the vehicle. It appears that the intent of this device is, in the position depicted, to serve as the vehicle's turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and stop lamps in the event that the original equipment lamps were obscured by one or more intervening vehicles. This would occur were the stop lamps and turn signal lamps mounted at the bottom of the vehicle body, as depicted in your photographs. By way of background information, Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR ?571.108). Standard No. 108 applies to new motor vehicles and to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of original equipment lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. As noted above, it appears that your company's lighting device would be offered as an aftermarket item to supplement, not replace, the original equipment lamps. Assuming this is the case, Standard No. 108 would not directly apply to your company's lighting device and your company would not be required to certify that the lighting device conforms with Standard No. 108. Even though Standard No. 108 does not appear to directly apply to this lighting device, there is a provision of the Safety Act that applies to the installation of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The effect of this provision is to make it unlawful for any of the named commercial establishments to add or replace any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment on a motor vehicle if the commercial establishment knows or should know that the addition of the aftermarket lighting equipment results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108. It appears that your company's lighting device would 'render inoperative' the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. First, we note that the device as positioned fails to fulfill basic locational requirements of Standard No. 108 that rear lamps be installed one on each side of the vertical centerline and as far apart as practicable. The signal sent by these lamps could therefore be perceived as conflicting or unclear when viewed simultaneously with the original equipment lamps. Second, we note that the hazard warning system of the device operates through the stop lamps rather than through the turn signal system as is the case with original equipment. This means that a viewer could be faced with the necessity of interpreting the meaning of simultaneously flashing red and amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle, as well as the meaning of the original stop lamps should the brakes also be applied. Finally, we note that the stop lamp portion of the device, two lamps forming a V and two more an inverted V, form a lighting array that the public does not associate as a traditional stop lamp system, usually circular or rectangular lamps. Thus, a viewer to the rear could be faced with a momentary delay in interpreting the meaning of the simultaneous appearance of light from the stop lamps, and from the auxiliary device mounted to the left of center on the rear of the vehicle. For the above reasons, we view your device as having the potential to render inoperative certain rear lamps required on trailers by Standard No. 108. Accordingly, it would be a violation of Federal law for any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop to install your company's lighting device on a customer's trailer. This 'render inoperative' prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may add lighting devices or make other modifications to their own vehicles without violating any provision of Federal law, even if the owner's modifications result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108. However, the individual States are free to establish whatever restrictions, if any, they deem appropriate on individual owner modifications. Thus, a State or States might choose to prohibit individual owners from equipping their trailers with your company's lighting device. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States. You can obtain further information on State laws by writing to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0453OpenMr. David A. Phelps, Jr., Group Supervisor, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. David A. Phelps Jr. Group Supervisor Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps: In your letter of October 4, 1971, you asked whether under ou Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) tandem axles should be considered as a unit in listing the gross axle weight rating, or should be listed separately with separate ratings.; We intend that each axle, including those part of a tandem arrangement should be listed separately with a GAWR for each.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2340OpenHonorable Mark O. Hatfield, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510; Honorable Mark O. Hatfield United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510; Dear Senator Hatfield: This is in response to your March 10, 1976, letter concerning th application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*, to the paver manufactured by Layton Manufacturing Company. The standard requires that the paver be equipped with ties of sufficient load rating and that these tires be certified by their manufacturer as complying with Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*. Your constituent, Mr. Earl Sievers, has met with representatives of this agency to discuss the need for his company's paver to comply with Standard No. 120 and his difficulties in procuring the proper tires.; Your letter suggests that, generally, the paver is moved simply withi the confines of a construction site rather than in traffic. Nevertheless, the paver is designed and expected to be towed on the public highways. Indeed, Layton's own promotional materials stress this point:; >>>For municipalities who do not own their dump trucks or need extrem mobility without sacrificing hauling weight! ... Any truck can tow paver safely at highway speeds. ('exhibit 'C'' accompanying Mr. Sievers' letter of January 14, 1976.)<<<; This usage of the paver leads to the conclusion that the paver is 'motor vehicle' subject to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 120. The conclusion is compelled by the definition of 'motor vehicle' in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.). As a manufacturer of fewer than 10,000 motor vehicles in its most recent year of production, Layton is eligible to petition for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 120 on the basis of substantial economic hardship. For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 555, *Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards*, which sets out procedures for filling and processing such petitions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5485OpenMr. Gary Shultz Vice President, General Counsel and General Manager--Public Relations Diamond Star Motors 100 North Diamond Star Parkway Normal, Illinois 61791; Mr. Gary Shultz Vice President General Counsel and General Manager--Public Relations Diamond Star Motors 100 North Diamond Star Parkway Normal Illinois 61791; "Dear Mr. Shultz: This responds to your letter asking about Part 583 Automobile Parts Content Labeling. You noted that section 583.6 specifies that manufacturers are to determine the percentage U.S./Canadian Parts Content for each carline on a model year basis, before the beginning of each model year. You stated, however, that the regulation does not indicate what should be done when there is a change of plans in the source of production for a particular carline in the middle of the model year. According to your letter, one of your carlines currently in production will now be manufactured in both the U.S. and Japan, which may significantly affect the carline's current calculation for content as well as the final assembly point. You requested confirmation whether the label should be changed to reflect the change in domestic/foreign content in the middle of the model year or whether section 583.6 should be relied on as the authority for determining a carline's content only on a one-time model year basis. You also requested confirmation as to whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, section 583.5(a) requires manufacturers to provide five basic items of information on the label: (1) U.S./Canadian parts content, (2) Major sources of foreign parts content, (3) Final assembly point, (4) Country of origin for the engine, and (5) Country of origin for the transmission. The first two items are determined on a 'carline' basis, the last three items are determined with respect to individual vehicles. Both Part 583 and the American Automobile Labeling Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32304) contemplate that U.S./Canadian parts content and Major sources of foreign parts content are determined on a once-a-model-year basis for a particular carline. In particular, section 32304(b)(2) reads as follows: At the beginning of each model year, each manufacturer shall establish the percentages required for each carline to be indicated on the label . . . . Those percentages are applicable to that carline for the entire model year. . . . We believe that Congress included this provision to reduce unnecessary manufacturer costs, and was seeking to make it clear that the manufacturers could not be required to revise their calculations during the model year. The specified percentages are estimates by nature, and the assumptions underlying them are subject to change during the model year. It would be very burdensome to manufacturers to be required to constantly recalculate the estimated percentages throughout the model year. Your letter raises the issue, however, of whether a manufacturer is permitted to revise the carline percentages in the event of a major change in source of production during a model year. It is our opinion that a manufacturer may revise the percentages in such circumstances, at its option. Such revision would be analogous to correcting an error and would prevent the possibility of misleading consumers. If you do make such a revision, however, the revised estimates should reflect the model year as a whole and not just the balance of the model year. In addition, the label should include a note indicating that the carline percentages have been revised during the model year. This is necessary to prevent confusion when consumers compare the labels of vehicles within the same carline manufactured at different times. You also asked whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Since final assembly point is determined for individual vehicles rather than carlines, the label must be changed to indicate the actual final assembly point of the vehicle. See section 583.5(a)(3). The section which you cited, i.e., section 583.5(e), permits manufacturers to provide additional information for carlines assembled in the U.S./Canada and in one or more other countries. Since your carline would now be assembled in the U.S./Canada and Japan, your company may avail itself of this option. I note that section 583.5(e)(3) provides that a manufacturer selecting this option for a particular carline must provide the specified additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline. In your situation, you would need to provide the additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline, beginning from the time the vehicles were manufactured in both places. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1995OpenMr. James E. Johnson, Chief Engineer, Construction Machinery Company, P.O. Box 120, Waterloo, IA 50704; Mr. James E. Johnson Chief Engineer Construction Machinery Company P.O. Box 120 Waterloo IA 50704; Dear Mr Johnson: This responds to your June 18, 1975, question whether a system whic pressurizes a water tank on a concrete mixer by means of air from the truck's air brake system would violate the requirements of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*.; The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 121 does not contain prohibition on the use of air pressure from the air brake system for powering auxiliary devices. The vehicle must of course conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of the device if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.; Although not a requirement of the standard, the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration does consider it appropriate that a pressure protection valve be placed in the line to the auxiliary device so that a rupture of an auxiliary line does not cause depletion of air pressure in the brake system.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0687OpenMr. Frank J. Fefferman, Vice President, Sales and Product Development, Stylar Industries Inc., 2979 Ontario Street, Burbank, CA 91503; Mr. Frank J. Fefferman Vice President Sales and Product Development Stylar Industries Inc. 2979 Ontario Street Burbank CA 91503; Dear Mr. Fefferman: This is in reply to your letter of March 22, 1972, on the subject o the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 to the type of swivelling seat manufactured by your company.; We understand from your letter that you are concerned about the type o swivelling seat that is not continuously fastened to its base and that can therefore come loose in a rollover accident. To avoid this problem, you have designed your seat with a stud bolt that links the seat to its base regardless of the amount of rotation. Your question to us is whether removal of the stud bolt would cause the seat not to conform to Standard 207.; The answer to your question depends in part on whether the seat withou the bolt would be able to meet the applicable strength requirements of the standard. Removal of the stud bolt would not, in itself, cause the seat not to conform to the standard. The seat would conform to S4.3 if the seat were to lock itself by means other than the bolt when returned to the forward facing position.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3802OpenMr. Barry M. Davis, Vice President, Proto-Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 871, Pembroke, Massachusetts 02359; Mr. Barry M. Davis Vice President Proto-Systems Inc. P.O. Box 871 Pembroke Massachusetts 02359; Dear Mr. Davis: This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1983, with respect t the 'Headlight Kit' which you manufacture as ' an aftermarket add-on headlamp concealment device for the Camaro.' You have stated that it will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by Chevrolet dealers as a new car option. You have asked whether the product requires certification under Safety Standard No. 112 and, if so how may it be included in your packaging and promotional material. If you are not required to certify, you would like to know if you may use the DOT symbol and the phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' on your packaging.; We have two types of safety standards: those that vehicles must meet and those that individual equipment items must meet. Safety Standard No. 112, *Headlamp Concealment Devices*, is an example of the former, when equipped with a headlamp concealment device, a vehicle must meet certain performance requirements. The vehicle must meet these requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and be certified as meeting the requirements. Certification of compliance with the vehicle safety standards is provided by the vehicle manufacturer, however, if the vehicle is altered before its sale, in more than a minor way, the alterer must provide an additional certification identifying himself as a modifier and that the vehicle as modified continues to meet the standards. Assuming that Chevrolet dealers perform the modification, it is they, not you who must apply the alterer's label. The alterer's certification requirements are contained in 49 CFR Section 567.7.; Once a vehicle has been sold, no alterer's certification is required but the party performing the alterations is required to insure that he is not rendering inoperative in whole or in part' the headlight system. We would interpret this to mean that if the concealment system's performance were not the equivalent of that obtainable under Standard No. 112 a violation might exist. This prohibition is established by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the prohibition does not preclude the vehicle owner from himself making any modification he chooses (subject, of course, to local law).; This means that regardless of whether your system is sold to new ca dealers or to retail stores in the aftermarket your company has no certification responsibility. Thus, the use of a DOT symbol would be improper and could even be viewed a technically false and misleading under Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, for which a civil penalty might be imposed. The phrase 'meets Federal safety standards' is also inaccurate. However, if your tests and other data clearly indicate that a Camaro would meet Standard No. 112 with the system in place, we would not object to your including a qualifying phrase such as 'Vehicle can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 if system is installed in accordance with instructions.' That would afford a basis upon which the new car dealer could rely in affixing his alterer's label, and would reassure an after-sale modifier that he was not violating the Act.; I hope that this has been helpful to you. For your information, enclose copies of Standard No. 112, 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, and the Act.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.