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: aiam4250OpenMr. G.T. Doe General Manager - Product Design Lotus Engineering, Ltd. Norwich, Norfolk NR14 8EZ England GREAT BRITAIN; Mr. G.T. Doe General Manager - Product Design Lotus Engineering Ltd. Norwich Norfolk NR14 8EZ England GREAT BRITAIN; "Dear Mr. Doe: This responds to your letter in which you asked how th conversion of a convertible to a hardtop would affect the applicability of two of our safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. You explained that Lotus proposes to introduce a new two seat convertible into the United States. These cars will be imported into the United States and delivered to dealers and distributors as convertibles. However, you stated that Lotus intends to offer a 'factory manufactured and approved' hardtop conversion for these convertibles. Dealers would remove the convertible canopy and support frame and permanently attach a hard roof to the vehicle. The converted cars would be sold to the public as hardtops. You then asked whether the convertible cars would be treated as hardtops or convertibles for the purposes of Standards No. 208 and No. 216. I would like to set the foundation for answering your specific questions by first addressing a few basic points. The agency has defined a convertible as 'a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.' In this case, your kit will join the A-pillar and B-pillar of the convertible by a fixed rigid structural member. After this conversion, the car would no longer be a convertible, as that term is used by NHTSA. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle ... manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.' This provision makes clear that a dealer would be prohibited from selling a hardtop passenger car that did not comply with all safety standards applicable to hardtops, even though the passenger car conformed to all standards applicable to convertibles when it was imported and delivered to the dealer. The exceptions set forth in section 108(b) of the Safety Act would not permit a dealer to sell a car that had been converted from a complying convertible into a hardtop without being modified to comply with all safety standard requirements applicable to hardtops. Section 108(b)(1) specifies that the prohibition on selling or offering to sell passenger cars that do not conform with all safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the car in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, a dealer that converts a car into a different type before the first purchase could not rely on this exception. Section 108(b)(2) specifies that the prohibition on selling nonconforming cars shall not apply to any person who establishes that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the car did not conform to the safety standards, or to a person who holds a certification of conformity from the manufacturer or importer of the car, unless that person knows that the car does not conform. In the case of this proposed conversion, the dealers would hold a certificate of conformity from Lotus or the importer for the convertible version of this car. However, the dealers would also know that they had converted the car into a hardtop, and that they had no certificate of conformity for the car as a hardtop. Further, such dealers would have reason to know that the requirements in the safety standards for hardtops are different from those for convertibles. Finally, the dealers would know that the hardtop version of the car had not been certified as conforming to all applicable standard requirements. Indeed, as alterers of completed vehicles, the dealers would be required to recertify the cars under 49 CFR /567.7. The exceptions to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition set forth in sections 108(b)(3)-(5) are not applicable in this situation. Hence, dealers could not legally sell these converted cars to the public for the first time, unless the cars conform with all safety standards applicable to hardtop passenger cars. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. They were: 1. Convertibles are not required to conform to the roof crush requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.216). Would the designation of the vehicle as a convertible remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: As explained above, the answer to this question is no. Any car that is converted to a hardtop before its first sale for purposes other than resale must comply with all standards applicable to hardtops. Assuming such cars do not conform to the rollover test requirements in section S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, these cars would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 216. 2. Would the requirement for seating and restraint system provision remain unaffected by the hardtop conversion? ANSWER: No. It is not clear to which seating requirements you are referring. However, you stated in your letter, 'It is conceivable that, although the shelf would not be recognised as a seating area, small occupants could travel in this area.' The requirements for seating systems are dependent upon the existence of a 'designated seating position.' This term is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as follows: 'Designated seating position' means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. We cannot determine from your letter if the shelf area is capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female, nor can we determine whether the area's configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. It appears from the enclosed drawings that any person riding in the shelf area would have to sit on the floor or prop themselves on the wheel wells. If this is true, the shelf area would not be considered to have any designated seating positions. The required occupant restraint system would also be affected by converting the convertibles into hardtops. As explained above, cars that are converted to hardtops by dealers before sale to the public would not be treated as convertibles for the purposes of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Since the cars would no longer be considered convertibles, they would have to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at both designated seating positions, pursuant to section S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208. Additionally, these cars would not be eligible for the exemption for convertibles during the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirements in Standard No. 208. I sent a letter to General Motors (GM) on September 18, 1987, stating that GM may be considered the manufacturer of Lotus cars that are imported into the United States (copy enclosed). Therefore, any Lotus cars that are converted into hardtops would have to be included in GM's annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirement, pursuant to sections S4.1.3.1.2, S4.1.3.2.2, and S4.1.3.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I have also sent a copy of this letter to General Motors. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: J. Douglas Hand, Esq. Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation P.O. Box 33122 Detroit, MI 48232 /"; |
|
ID: aiam3595OpenMr. David N. Cumming, Mazda (North America), Inc., 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. David N. Cumming Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Cumming: This responds to your recent letter requesting clarification concernin the position of vehicles for testing under Safety Standards Nos. 212, 219, and 301. Specifically, you are concerned with a vehicle which is capable of height adjustment by manufacturer design, i.e., a 4-wheel drive vehicle which has one height position for normal highway driving and another for off-road driving.; The safety standards to which you refer do not specify a heigh adjustment because almost all vehicles have a single, set height. In fact, we have checked the agency's past interpretations for all three standards and determined that this question has never arisen. After careful consideration, it is the agency's position that such a vehicle capable of variable height adjustment would have to comply with the vehicle adjusted to any position that is possible. This is true because the vehicle could be driven on the highway, for example, even if it were adjusted to the off-road position. Consequently, it is important that the vehicle comply with the standards in all positions. To save on testing costs, you should be able to determine the worst case position, particularly with regard to Standard No. 301, and test only in that position. Your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, *et seq*.) is to exercise due care to determine that your vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards.; I hope this has been fully responsive to your inquiry. Please contac Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1052OpenCaptain W. F. Richardson, Adjutant, Georgia State Patrol, Post Office Box 1456, Atlanta, GA 30301; Captain W. F. Richardson Adjutant Georgia State Patrol Post Office Box 1456 Atlanta GA 30301; Dear Captain Richardson: The Department of Transportation appreciates your conscientiou response to the federal odometer disclosure regulations. The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires disclosure of odometer readings, but the regulations issued to implement the Act do not require you to use a federally-printed form to make the disclosure and the government therefore does not provide such forms. The regulation specifies the information which must appear on the form executed by the transferor and is enclosed to offer an illustrative example.; Several methods would satisfy the regulation, assuming they al included the required information:; >>>(1) Stationary supply companies are printing forms and use of such separate unofficial form is satisfactory.; (2) State disclosure requirements and forms may fulfull (sic) th federal requirements or be modified to do so.; (3) Title states are encouraged to include the federal disclosur statement on title forms to cover the majority of transactions where the title accompanies the transfer.; (4) A transferor can make his own form by writing or typing th required information on a sheet of paper, signing it, and giving it to the transferee.<<<; It should be noted in conclusion that the federal government does no require a copy of this document.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4600OpenThe Honorable Harry Reid United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510; The Honorable Harry Reid United States Senate Washington D.C. 20510; "Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for your letter to the Department o Transportation, on behalf of the City of Sparks, Nevada. That city's police department has received six new patrol cars equipped with airbags. According to the City Attorney for Sparks, the city police cars are often required to push disabled vehicles out of travel lanes of highways and the police officers are afraid that the airbags will be activated during these pushing operations. You asked if the Department of Transportation would authorize the Sparks police department to disconnect the air bags on its patrol cars. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection, and specified percentages of each manufacturer's 1987, 1988, and 1989 model year cars to be so equipped. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the patrol cars in question, has chosen to comply with the new requirement for automatic crash protection by installing air bags in these police cars. When a safety standard like Standard No. 208 is in effect and applicable to new passenger cars, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, importing, or introducing in interstate commerce any new car that does not comply with the safety standard. However, the Safety Act provides that these prohibitions do not apply after the first purchase of the car 'in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Hence, the Federal requirement that the cars comply with all applicable safety standards ceased to apply when the Sparks city police department purchased these cars, since the police department bought these cars in good faith to use them as police patrol cars, not to resell them. After the first purchase of a car in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in the car in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Obviously, disconnecting air bag systems would have that effect. Accordingly, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disconnecting the air bag systems on the Sparks police department cars. Please not that the Safety Act does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from rendering inoperative safety features on their own vehicles. Hence, the City of Sparks does not need any sort of 'authorization' from this agency to disconnect the airbag systems on the city's police cars. The City of Sparks is permitted to disconnect the air bags on its own vehicles without violating any Federal law. Such removals may, however, violate the laws of the State of Nevada. I recommend that the city carefully consider the effects of disconnecting the air bag systems in its policy cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the city from doing so. The airbags in those cars are an effective means of protecting vehicle occupants in frontal crashes. As to the possibility of inadvertent deployment of air bags in police cars, I note that the agency has entered into a contract under which police cars have been retrofitted with air bag systems, without a single reported instance of an air bag detonation while pushing a disabled vehicle. Enclosed is a report with some additional information on this contract. Particularly since the City of Sparks police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe those police officers deserve the benefits of automatic crash protection in their police cars. I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam1402OpenDouglas F. Welebir, Esq., Attorney at Law, Suite 410 - Santa Fe Federal Plaza, 333 North D Street, San Bernardino, CA 92401; Douglas F. Welebir Esq. Attorney at Law Suite 410 - Santa Fe Federal Plaza 333 North D Street San Bernardino CA 92401; Dear Mr. Welebir: Thank you for your letter of December 28, 1973, File No. 1041 requesting information on the Federal installation requirements for safety belts in a 1971 Toyota Land Cruiser.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection* (formerly titled 'Seat belt installation'), required safety belts in all designated seating positions of all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Similar requirements were instituted for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured after July 1, 1971. The Toyota Land Cruiser is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If it were manufactured before July 1, 1971, no installation requirement would have applied. It should be noted that seat belts were not factory-installed in some Land Cruisers, and we know of one Arizona dealer who failed to install seatbelts in a Land Cruiser built after that date.; In answer to your second question, the Land Cruiser did not have an exemption under 15 U.S.C. S1410 or any other section of the Act.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel. |
|
ID: aiam2384OpenMr. Robert J. Hurlbutt, 106 North 12th Street, Marshalltown, IA 50158; Mr. Robert J. Hurlbutt 106 North 12th Street Marshalltown IA 50158; Dear Mr. Hurlbutt: This is in response to your letter of August 13, 1976, asking whethe Federal regulations prohibit the installation, by a dealer, of a rear seat in a 1976 Chevrolet Blazer.; Federal regulations do not prohibit such installation by a dealer. If dealer installs a seat prior to first purchase of the vehicle, the seat must comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, 49 CFR 571.207.; In this case, you have already taken possession of your vehicle an desire that the dealer now install the seat. Section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1381, et seq.) provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This does not prohibit a dealer from installing seats in a vehicle that has already been purchased. It simply means that such installation cannot destroy the vehicle's compliance with any motor vehicle safety standard.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5441OpenMr. David Ori, Manager Bureau of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Control Division, Room 104 T&S Building Harrisburg, PA 17120; Mr. David Ori Manager Bureau of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Control Division Room 104 T&S Building Harrisburg PA 17120; "Dear Mr. Ori: This responds to your letter to Mr. James Gilkey of thi agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 to certain limousines. You were concerned about the permissibility of applying sun screening or window tinting to such vehicles during the original manufacturing process, and during the 'second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under this authority, NHTSA issued Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials,' to specify performance requirements for various types of glazing and to specify the location in the vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. One provision in Standard No. 205 requires a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance in any glazing area requisite for driving visibility. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the vehicle's windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 205. As you correctly state, second stage manufacturers and alterers also have certification responsibilities. Specifically, a final stage manufacturer is responsible for certifying a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR 567.5. Accordingly, you are correct that a final stage manufacturer is required to certify that its finished product, including the glazing materials, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards. 49 CFR 567.7. However, this provision does not apply to the 'addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations, such as painting.' NHTSA views the addition of window tint film as a 'minor finishing operation.' Accordingly, a person adding such tint film would not be considered an alterer and therefore would not be subject to certification responsibilities. However, aside from certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112a, 'a person may not...sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce...any motor vehicle...unless the vehicle...complies with all applicable standards .' Thus, it would be a violation of the statute to sell a new vehicle whose windows which are requisite for driving visibility had been tinted to allow less than 70 percent light transmittance. Moreover, with respect to vehicles that are no longer new, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or 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.' Thus, a person in any of these categories may not apply tint film that would cause the light transmittance of the glazing requisite for driving visibility to be under 70 percent. You stated your belief that limousines that seat less than 10 persons may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product, since such products would violate Standard No. 205. We wish to clarify one aspect of your statement. Limousines that seat less than 10 persons are considered 'passenger cars' under NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA considers all windows in a passenger car to be requisite for driving visibility, accordingly, all windows in a passenger car/limousine must have a minimum 70 percent light transmittance. However, please note that tinting may be used in these vehicles, provided the tinted windows meet the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. You further asked whether a limousine that seats 10 or more persons is subject to the Federal window tinting requirements. A limousine with a capacity of more than 10 persons is considered a 'bus' under our regulations. There are specific requirements in Standard No. 205 that apply to buses (or bus/limousines). Under these requirements, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered to be requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying section S6.1(b) of Standard No. 111), and thus subject to the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in a bus/limousine, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Accordingly, Standard No. 205 does not prohibit the use of tinted glazing materials for bus/limousine windows to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1951OpenMr. Carl H. Johnson, The General Tire & Rubber Company, One General Street, Akron, OH 44309; Mr. Carl H. Johnson The General Tire & Rubber Company One General Street Akron OH 44309; Dear Mr. Johnson: Please refer to Mr. Ronald W. Mohler's letter of September 6, 1974 (copy enclosed) and Mr. Snyder's telephone conversation with you on January 23, 1975, regarding the transfer of tread code mark 'BFK' from the 'Griffin General Tire Service, Inc.' retread company operated by Mr. James W. Griffin to the 'Griffin General Tire Service' company operated by The General Tire and Rubber Company.; The enclosed copy of the May 17, 1973, letter to Mr. Daniels of th Daniels Tire Service, Inc. company outlines the conditions which must prevail for this company and the 'Griffin General Tire Service, Inc.' company to use the same code mark BFK. With respect to the 'Griffin General Tire Service, Inc.' the various limiting conditions prevailing at that time and which we understand will continued by your acquired company are:; >>>1. Recordkeeping procedures must be internal, i.e., within th specific company.; 2. Production is limited. Mr. Griffin advised us that production i 1973 was approximately five truck tires per day.; 3. The plant serves only local trade in the vicinity of Hornell, Ne York.<<<; Please advise us whether our understanding is correct that thes conditions will be met by the 'Griffin General Tire Service' company operating under the control of The General Tire and Rubber Company. If not, a new code number must be assigned to this plant.; We further wish to advise you that the conditional usage of code mar BFK will not be extended to any future disposition of the 'Griffin General Tire Service' company. To perpetuate the abnormal condition where two retread plants use the same code mark is highly undesirable due to the potential confusion, the extra necessary control effort, as well as the personal supervision required at our computer operation.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Crash Avoidance, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0643OpenMr. Louise C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI, 48090; Mr. Louise C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1971, requestin elaboration of several statements made in the denial of General Motors' petition for reconsideration of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 of December 2, 1971. You cite four statements in our letter to you and request that we furnish supporting material regarding them. You further request that we specifically identify all material relied on by the NHTSA in reaching the quoted 'determinations' and 'findings.'; A large amount of material has been placed in this public docket a background for the rulemaking action. All of this material has been carefully studied by the NHTSA, and together with the expertise and judgment of NHTSA personnel, 'relied on' in reaching the decisions involved in issuing Standard 302. In informal rulemaking proceedings, the decisions are based on the total weight of the agency's knowledge, not on particular items of information. For these reasons, the NHTSA does not consider it appropriate, nor required by law, to sift through the background materials and identify particular items as the 'supporting material' for statements or decisions concerning the rulemaking.; I will, however, make the following comments in elaboration of th statements you have quoted:>>>1. 'The 4-inch-per-minute burn rate was incorporated into the standard as a result of the agency's determination that it provided a flammability rate sufficiently low to provide adequate escape time from a vehicle in the event fire should occur.'; The 4-inch-per-minute rate is intended to meet three safety problem created during vehicle fires. The first is that of burns to occupants resulting from contact with the flames themselves. The second is that of noxious effects resulting from the inhalation of fumes released during combustion of the vehicle interior materials. The third is the danger of crashes caused when the driver or passengers are alarmed or panic as a result of a rapidly spreading interior fire, especially from critical concentrations of combustion by- products.; The NHTSA realizes that the danger from flame and combustion by products in a burning vehicle, and the ability of occupants to leave a vehicle, will vary from situation to situation. Any flammability level set in a standard, short of inert and incombustible materials having a zero burn rate, must represent a compromise seeking reasonable cost and adequate protection. Data compiled by NHTSA and now summarized in Docket 3-3 (Docket No. N4-3-3-26) indicate that some typical interior materials burning at more than 4 inches per minute can release critical concentrations of noxious substances, particularly hydrogen chloride. This would necessitate a fast stop and exit before a panic occurs.; 2. '. . . the Administration believes there is sufficient data on th number or degree of non-fuel fires in motor vehicles to justify the 4-inch-per- minute rate.'; Data placed in the docket discuss various studies showing a larg number of these fires are of interior origin and are not fuel fires. A study made by the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute (IITRI) estimated that as many as 120,000 vehicle fires occur during the course of a year which originate in the vehicle compartment. The National Fire Protection Association estimated that the total number of vehicle fires for the year 1970 was 461,000. The University of Oklahoma Research Institute, using a different means for sampling, estimated the total number of motor vehicle fires to be 800,000 annually. Other figures obtained from many sources by the Oklahoma group attribute an estimated 25 percent of vehicle fires to smoking materials. Thus, the estimated number of yearly interior vehicle fires, not related to fuel, varies from 115,000 to 200,000. The NHTSA regards even the smaller figure as a significant number of potentially injurious situations.; 3. 'The evidence available to the NHTSA does not, however, indicat that it is necessary to use flame retardant treatments that display these undesirable characteristics (aging effects) in order to comply with the standard.'; Evidence that has been placed in the docket indicates that man materials exist that can meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 without undergoing flame-proofing treatments. Test results submitted by the motor vehicle industry indicate that materials that pass the flammability requirements are presently being used in the same applications as other materials that do not pass the flammability requirements. IITRI also describes various complying vinyl and cloth materials.; 4. 'Based on the Administration's findings, such a 12-per-minute rat will not provide the necessary escape time.'; The amount of noxious substances released by certain materials used i vehicle interiors that have a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate can quickly produce panic in vehicle occupants, and inhibit the safe evacuation of the vehicle. A 12-inch-per-minute burn rate for certain materials could produce in approximately 5 seconds from 50 to 100 parts per million of hydrogen chloride, a concentration generally considered subjectively intolerable. In shortly more than 20 seconds a critical concentration that is dangerous to life would be reached. This burn rate does not provide sufficient time, in our judgment, to allow for safe exit from a moving vehicle.<<<; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5011OpenThe Honorable Phil Gramm United States Senator 2323 Bryan Street, #1500 Dallas, TX 75201; The Honorable Phil Gramm United States Senator 2323 Bryan Street #1500 Dallas TX 75201; Dear Senator Gramm: This responds to your Memorandum attachin correspondence from your constituent Stephen Newmark of Tarrant County. Mr. Newmark, Vice-President of Lonestar Classics, Inc., states that his company 'has requested an exemption' from this agency 'for the purposes of manufacturing kit cars,' and asks your help 'in determining whether our exemption will be granted or whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires further information.' He also states that 'the timing of NHTSA's response is critical to our moving ahead.' Mr. Newmark FAXED the Administrator on May 5, 1992, about the possibility of obtaining an exemption, and followed up with a telephone call to the Office of Chief Counsel on May 15. As we understand it from that conversation, the business plan intended by Lonestar is to sell and deliver a certain number of unassembled components to purchasers who will complete the assembly of the vehicle by providing the engine, drive train, and suspension. We informed Mr. Newmark orally that, given these facts, Lonestar is not considered to be a 'manufacturer' of motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Because of this, Lonestar is not required to ensure the compliance of the completed vehicle with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and, hence, no exemption is required for it to implement its business plan. We informed Mr. Newmark of your interest in his behalf, and that our response to you would also serve as a reply to his FAX of the 5th to the Administrator. For this reason we are providing him a copy of this letter. Sincerely, Frederick H. Grubbe Enclosure: Constituent's Correspondence cc: Washington Office; |
|
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.