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: nht81-3.3OpenDATE: 07/31/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: C. J. B. Industries, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: NOA-30 Mr. Carol Fitzjohn Quality Control Manager C.J.B. Industries, Inc. P. O. Box 779 Chanute, Kansas 66720 Dear Mr. Fitzjohn: This responds to your June 2, 1981, letter asking about the requirements for reservoir tanks for air brake systems. In particular, you ask whether section S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3 are the only Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture of the reservoirs. The two sections that you referenced in your letter are the only sections specifying requirements for the construction of reservoirs for air brake systems. For additional guidance in the construction of reservoirs, you should refer to SAE Standard J10b titled "Automotive and Off Highway Air Brake Reservoir Performance and Identification Requirements." This standard will provide you with the prevailing industry practice in the construction of reservoirs. You should be aware that you would be responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if there were any defect relating to motor vehicle safety in your product. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel June 2, 1981 NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 400 Seventh St. Southwest Washington, D. C. 20590 Gentlemen: As a manufacturer of pressurized containers, we from time to time are asked to design and or manufacture components for over the road vehicles; and as such have been approached recently by a prospective customer to manufacture a reservoir under the provisions of the "Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121." However, this is where the problem arises. The standard as written does not specify in detail the construction of the reservoir, with respect to materials to be used or the wall thickness of the tank, or list a reference to any other document to which this information is found. It is imparative for us to manufacture components in the least expensive way and still maintiin a high degree of quality. Therefore, to exceed provisions of a standard only enhances the construction costs. We would appreciate an opinion on the clarity of sections S5.1.2 through S5.2.1.5 as to whether the construction of said reservoir meet only the provisions of sections S5.1.2.2 and S5.2.1.3; or are there additional requirements not contained therein. We appreciate any consideration to this matter you can give us in a short amount of time. Respectfully, Carol Fitzjohn Quality Control Manager C.J.B. Industries, Inc. CDF/pac |
|
ID: nht81-3.30OpenDATE: 11/02/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your recent letter regarding the use of flexible nylon tubes in vacuum braking systems. You ask whether such plastic hoses would qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" for purposes of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. We recently received a letter asking this identical question from Tokai Rubber Industries of Japan. I am enclosing a copy of that letter for your information. I believe that it will answer all of your questions. You will see from the letter that these nylon tubes cannot qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" and must comply with the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106. Sincerely, ENC. TOKAI RUBBER INDUSTRIES, LTD. April 20, 1981 Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA Subject: Questionnaire Concerning the Application of All Plastic Vacuum Brake Hoses Dear Sirs, Our company, Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. is supplying vacuum brake hoses to Japanese automotive industries, which have both met the requirements of the standards of FMVSS-106(1974), S9 and been approved by your department. As you know, it has began to make use of the variety of vacuum brake hose instead of conventional rubber vacuum hose in application to brake systems. Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. has been developing and making plans for the supply of several kinds of plastic vacuum brake hoses which are composed of a single material and are molded in an exact, set shape for the specific application. We are intending to utilize two(2) flexible nylon tubes for a vacuum braking system, and our concept of assemblies is the following: (Graphics omitted) We have found, however, that these plastic vacuum brake hose does not meet several requirements of the FMVSS-106, S-9 due to the feat that their characteristics are different from the conventional type vacuum brake hoses, and therefore we would like to clarify the following points: (1) The molded plastic vacuum brake hose apparently does not meet the above mentioned requirements, such as Bend (S9.-2.7.) and Deformation (S9.2.10) of the FMVSS-106, S9. Is there any alternative standard or requirement? (2) Based on the notice for amendment to the definition in the Standard No.106-74, a definition for 'vacuum tubing connector' is added. is our nylon flexible tube and assembly indicated above in a category of 'vacuum tubing connector'? (3) If so, there is no federal rule concerning vacuum brake hoses to use in a vacuum brake booster system. Can we design a vacuum brake hose and assembly only based on manufacturer's performance standards ? I thank you very much for your help and consideration in this matter and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Very truly yours, John Y. Yonezana -- Engineer - Development cc: Mr. Sugimoto, Tokai AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS April 2, 1981 John Y. Yonezawa -- Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. Dear Mr. Yonezawa: Reference is made to your letter of February 20, 1981 in which you have requested our interpretation of the FMVSS-106 as it addresses brake hose and vacuum tubing connectors. We have reviewed your questions and have tried to interpret the standard as it applies to your application and have contacted Mr. Vern Bloom at NHTSA for his interpretation of the 106 standard. Mr. Bloom (Illegible Words) your questions directly - the Office of Chief Counsel at NHTSA for a formal interpretation of the standard. This would preclude any misinterpretation which could be very costly to your firm. AAMVA, as agent of the states and provinces, must use the FMVSS-106 for the certification of brake hose. If it is determined by NHTSA that the hose or device is not subject to the FMVSS-106, then it is not necessary to have it certified by us. When NHTSA gives Tokai Rubber Industries their interpretation, we would appreciate receiving a copy for our reference. We are sorry that we were not able to answer your questions in this matter. Sincerely yours, George E. Walton -- Associate Director, Safety Equipment Services MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD. September 30, 1981 Our Ref. T-859/TT/tm Messrs. Office of Chief Council Dear sirs RE: Inquiry to your interpretation on our plastic made vacuum brake hose through AAMVA We are one of leading automobile hoses manufacturers in Japan, and developing new material's vacuum brake hose which made from Poly-amide resin to replace from conventional rubber hose. However, you specify that vacuum brake hose must be conformed to all items of requirement in FMVSS 106, our nlyon made vacuum hose (not reinforced with any fiber, so we call it as "tube") don't satisfy S9.2.10 Deformation test and S10.6 Bend test. This is the common problem of plastic made vacuum brake hose which developed by several manufacturers, we've asked the interpretation of yours against the adoption of this new material's hose to AAMVA. Mr. George Walton Associate Director of AAMVA might request your interpretation to our inquiry that whether Nylon vacuum brake hose has a possibility of acceptance as vacuum brake hose which connect between rigid points or not. We are awaiting your interpretation of Nylon vacuum brake hose, please inform us. Enclosed please find the copies of our letter to Mr. Walton. Although we were asking him in our letter, it was also the question to you. We must excuse our sudden request, but if you kindly inform us your interpretation or advise, it would be much appreciated for us. We are looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, we remain, Yours sincerely T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept. Encl: Copies of our inquiry letter addressed to Mr. Walton AAMVA c.c. to Mr. Walton June 3, 1981 Our Ref. T-809/TT/tm George E. Walton -- Assistant Director Safety Equipment Service, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators Dear Mr. Walton Much appreciated for your kind reply in your letter dated April 7 to our question on plastic made Vacuum brake hose. You've kindly enclosed latest FMVSS-106-74 and suggested us to carry the test in compliance with the standard out. As the result, we have found that our plastic vacuum tube (not reinforced with any fiber, so we call this "tube") is conformed to the requirements such as High temperature resistance, Low temperature resistance, Ozone resistance, Burst strength, Vacuum and Swell test, but not conformed to Bend and Deformation tests. Since we use Polyamide 11 material (fewer plasticizer contained), Kink phenomenon was happened when our vacuum tube was bent as way of bend test as specified. It was more than the collapse, completely yielded at the A point. In the Deformation test, our 3/8 inch I.D. tube was only conformed to the specification, but larger I. D. tubes 1/2 inch were not conformed. Our technicals insist that so far as we use polyamide material to make the tube, it is inevitable to ocurr Kink phenomenon and inferior deformation restorative rate compared to rubber tube. Notwithstanding such weak point, plastic tubes (mainly it is consisted with Nylon material) are available to automobile use. We hear Nylon made vacuum tube has been adopted to European vehicles before long and we can find particular specification of plastic tubing for its nominal diameter, end fittings and its assembly way in S9, Requirement-Vacuum brake hose of FMVSS 106. In case of the appearance of developed products made by new material, it is usual to adapt the specification to new material, we believe. Therefore we would like to ask you followings, 1. When your country import the vehicles which are installed Nylon made vacuum brake hose from Europe, you can accept them or not, we wonder. Because, European Nylon tube may also have inferior property against severe bend compared to conventional rubber made hose, we are afraid. If you have special treatment for them, please inform us. 2. As FMVSS specifies particularly for plastic tube or assembly, we expect, you AAMVA or NHTSA might have some adaptation to introduce these new developed plastic vacuum brake tube, or your administrators may be planning to adapt existent specification or requirement to such a plastic made tube. If so, could you please inform us such a tendency? We are sorry to trouble you again, but if you would inform us your situation or tendency, it would be much helpful for us. Yours sincerely T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept., MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD. July 7, 1981 Our Ref. T-826/TT/tm George E. Walton -- Associate Director, Safety Equipment Services, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators Dear Mr. Walton Thank you so much for your kind answer and exertion to our question. At the moment, we don't yet receive any interpretation from NHTSA, unfortunately. One of our manufacturers of these sort of tube interprets that vacuum brake hose is not fixed between swinging part as like as hydraulic brake hose, only for connecting between stationary parts such as engine to cleaner. Therefore vacuum brake hose can be regarded as rigid piping. If so, Nylon vacuum brake hose is not required severe flexibility and severe bending. We are not sure that his interpretation is acceptable with you or not, but we think, there is some truth in what he says as far as Nylon vacuum hose connect between stationary parts. Sorry to trouble you so often, but could you please address his interpretation to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? Enclosed pleased find a piece of V. W. Golf GII Vacuum hose with plastic made check value for your reference. We are looking forward to hearing from you and are always appreciating for your favour. Yours sincerely T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept. MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD. Encl: a piece of sample |
|
ID: flahertyOpenLt. Col. Steve Flaherty, Director Dear Col. Flaherty: This is in reply to your recent e-mail regarding "undercover type warning lights." By this phrase, we understand you to mean the system under discussion in our letter of July 3, 2001, to Col. Massengill of the Virginia State Police (the "Massengill letter."). When activated, that system, would cause the taillamps and side marker lamps of otherwise conventional passenger cars to flash as strobe lights. You have informed us that there is "pre-filed" legislation in the Virginia House of Delegates which would permit the use of undercover type warning lights "on fire fighting apparatus and fire department vehicles." You have further informed us that "these are all classified under state law as emergency vehicles and are entitled to use traditional type warning lights." Present Virginia law "specifically requires conformance to federal requirements." You understood the Massengill letter to restrict undercover type warning lights to law enforcement vehicles, and have asked whether state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles be equipped with these lights and still conform to Standard No. 108. The question is not really whether such vehicles equipped with the strobe light system would still conform to Standard No. 108; clearly they would not because they are causing lamps to flash that Standard No. 108 requires to be steady burning. The real question is whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would provide the same interpretation regarding the use of strobe lights on state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles as it had in the Massengill letter for police vehicles. And our answer is yes. As noted in that letter, our traditional position is that we defer to the judgment of States as to the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on its vehicles. We also noted that, under Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122), the State, as the owner of a vehicle, may itself modify a vehicle after its purchase even if this modification results in a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. With these factors in mind, we believe that a law allowing use of the strobe system on state-regulated fire fighting/department vehicles is acceptable. The emergency vehicles discussed in the Massengill letter were not of a traditional nature. They were unmarked Ford Crown Victoria sedans identical in exterior appearance to Crown Victorias sold to the public and which were intended for sale to the public at the end of their useful life with the State Patrol. For these reasons, we developed the rationale expressed in the Massengill letter under which we could justify deferring to the judgment of the State for the use of these vehicles. Perhaps this led you to conclude that we had advised that the use of strobe lights should be restricted to law enforcement vehicles. We contrast the Crown Victorias with fire fighting apparatus, the former often intended for undercover use, the latter, never. Thus, we surmise that fire fighting apparatus would not use strobe lights for "undercover" purposes, but as an added warning when they are endeavoring to reach a fire or other emergency site through traffic as rapidly as possible. We see no reason to question the judgment of the State in allowing strobe lights on fire vehicles, if such legislation is enacted in Virginia. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref.108 |
2003 |
ID: fordaOpen Mr. Richard J. Kinsey Dear Mr. Kinsey: This responds to your letter requesting our concurrence on a procedure for determining the domestic content and country of origin for foreign-sourced allied and outside supplier components. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you would like to obtain the relevant information from your present purchasing systems rather than by soliciting the information from your foreign suppliers. You stated that both processes will result in the same information, and that you believe requiring your foreign suppliers to respond to requests for information would impose costly and unnecessary burdens on those suppliers. We are now in the process of completing our response to several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule on domestic content labeling. Your question is sufficiently related to some of the issues raised by the petitions that we believe it should be addressed in the context of that response, rather than in a separate letter. We realize, however, that manufacturers and suppliers have an immediate need for guidance regarding the procedures for making content determinations for the 1996 model year. In a recent letter (copy enclosed) to the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, we advised that NHTSA had decided to give manufacturers and suppliers for model year 1996 the same alternative they had last year, i.e., in lieu of following the required procedures, they may use other procedures that are expected to yield similar results. Therefore, your planned approach will not raise any concerns for model year 1996. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:583 d:3/8/95
|
1995 |
ID: FordTHINKNeighbor.CRSOpen Mr. James P. Vondale Director, Automotive Safety Office Dear Mr. Vondale: This responds to your letter of August 17, 2001 to Dr. Jeffrey W. Runge, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on the THINK Neighbor low speed vehicle. NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. As stated in your letter and illustrated in accompanying photographs, the THINK Neighbor is not equipped with doors, and consequently lacks hinge pillars and door-latch posts. You further state that the instrument panel and the seat stanchion cover are plastic components that can be easily removed and would therefore not be permanently affixed to the vehicle. In light of these circumstances, you state that "Ford recommends attaching the label to the inside surface of the roof in the left rear corner." You contend that in this location, "[t]he label will be permanently affixed to an integral component of the structure and is easily readable without moving any part of the vehicle." You further note that "other manufacturers have utilized a similar location" for the certification label. In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for the THINK Neighbor would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request. If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238. Sincerely, John Womack ref:567 |
2001 |
ID: FREIGHTLINER.CRSOpen Mr. Bob Johnson Dear Mr. Johnson: This responds to your letter of April 16, 2001, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on the new Freightliner Sprinter vehicle. NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. Your letter states that DaimlerChrysler engineers in Germany attempted to position the label in one of the locations specified in section 567.4, but were not successful owing to the size of the label, the lack of available space to accommodate the label at some of those locations, and the presence of removable padding on the surface at other of those locations. The alternate location for which you have requested approval is below the driver's seat on an outward facing portion of the mounting pillar. You state that the pillar is a permanent part of the vehicle's floor structure, and that at this location, the label can be easily read and is well protected from weathering and abrasion. In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for the new Freightliner Sprinter would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request. If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238. Sincerely, John Womack ref:567 |
1970 |
ID: Full Display Mirror System 1 GM Feb 11Open
Brian Latouf, Director Global Vehicle Safety General Motors LLC 30001 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090
Dear Mr. Latouf:
Thank you for your letter informing us about the new Full Display Mirror system that your company plans to install inside a passenger car model, the 2016 MY Cadillac CT6. I want to thank you especially for the initiative your company took in engaging with this agencys staff regarding your mirror system. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) seeks to facilitate innovative safety technologies. This type of exchange between your company and NHTSA about new technologies is an example of how we can work toward improving vehicle safety.
Although your letter did not expressly request our views about the status of your mirror system under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs), subsequent discussions with your company indicate that it does, in fact, desire our views. Based on the information in your letter and on our observation of the system during a demonstration has your company conducted near our headquarters, our understanding is that the Full Display Mirror system has two modes: (1) In one mode, it acts as a conventional mirror and shows a reflected image of the rear of the vehicle interior and of objects behind the vehicle at unit magnification; and (2) In the other mode, which the driver can activate, it provides an unobstructed, video-generated image provided by a camera located at the rear of the vehicle. When the driver activates the second mode and looks at the mirror system, he or she sees the video-generated image, instead of the reflected image, in that location. The field of view angle (measured from the focal point of the camera) in the video-generated image is considerably larger than that in the reflected image (measured from the projected eye point).
S5.1-S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility, require each passenger car to have an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification meeting certain field of view and mounting requirements:
S5.1 Inside rearview mirror. Each passenger car shall have an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification.
S5.1.1 Field of view. Except as provided in S5.3, the mirror shall provide a field of view with an included horizontal angle measured from the projected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and a sufficient vertical angle to provide a view of a level road surface extending to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 61 m to the rear of the vehicle when the vehicle is occupied by the driver and four passengers or the designated occupant capacity, if less, based on an average occupant weight of 68 kg.
S5.1.2 Mounting. The mirror mounting shall provide a stable support for the mirror, and shall provide for mirror adjustment by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions. If the mirror is in the head impact area, the mounting shall deflect, collapse or break away without leaving sharp edges when the reflective surface of the mirror is subjected to a force of 400 N in any forward direction that is not more than 45 from the forward longitudinal direction.
However, as you point out in your letter, the inside rearview mirror of a passenger car need not meet any field of view requirements in S5.1.1 if the car also has a passenger side outside rearview mirror meeting the requirements in paragraph S5.3 regarding magnification, stability, absence of sharp points and edges and adjustability. We assume that you pointed this out because the 2016 MY Cadillac CT6 will have such a passenger side outside rearview mirror. S5.3 provides in full:
S5.3 Outside rearview mirrorpassenger's side. Each passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of S5.1.1 shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror installed on the passenger's side. The mirror mounting shall provide a stable support and be free of sharp points or edges that could contribute to pedestrian injury. The mirror need not be adjustable from the driver's seat but shall be capable of adjustment by tilting in both horizontal and vertical directions.
While your Full Display Mirror system incorporates a variety of innovations, we believe that the narrow question you have effectively raised in your letter is whether the Full Display Mirror system can be regarded as an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification within the meaning of S5.1.[1] We have carefully considered that narrow question and provide the following opinion, which is limited to the applicability of Standard No. 111 to your mirror system and to the unique facts set forth in your letter.
While the Full Display Mirror is an item of motor vehicle equipment that performs additional driver activated functions, we do not believe that the fact that it performs such functions alters its basic identity as an item that includes an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification.[2] Given that an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification is not (in the case of the CT6) required to meet any field of view requirements in S5.1.1 (although it might meet them), and given our assumption that the interior mirror meets the mounting requirements in S5.1.2, we believe that your Full Display Mirror system includes an inside rearview mirror of unit magnification within the meaning of paragraph S5.1 and that it meets the only applicable requirements of paragraph S5.1. This conclusion holds regardless of which mode or test condition your Full Display Mirror is in, i.e., in the Full Display Mirror on condition or in the Full Display Mirror off condition. [3]
Separately, given that the apparent sharpness of the video image provided by the video mode of your Full Display Mirror system, as observed during the NHTSA demonstration, we do not currently have safety concerns about your system. We note, however, if a manufacturer were to offer a system whose design, performance or usage was found to create an unreasonable risk to safety, that system would be subject to a recall.
We thank you for taking the time to consult with NHTSA regarding this new technology. As we stated above, NHTSA encourages technological innovations that have the potential to provide additional safety benefits to the American public. We look forward to working further with you and other automotive industry stakeholders on such matters.
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 2/22/16 Ref: Standard No. 111 [1] As stated above, we assume that your vehicle will have an passenger side outside rearview mirror meeting the requirements of S5.3 (and therefore is not subject to any field of view requirements in S5.1). We further assume that your Full Display Mirror system meets the mounting requirements in S5.1. [2] Fundamentally, the Full Display Mirror is an item of motor vehicle equipment that has a reflective surface showing an image of objects towards the rear of the vehicle at unit magnification. [3] See, for example, our October 2, 1990 letter to Mazda (Kadoya) regarding test conditions. See also the discussion in our October 7, 1994 proposal on manual air bag cutoff devices (59 FR 51158, 51160) of multiple test conditions in the section of the preamble entitled III. Legality of Air Bag Cutoff Devices. |
2016 |
ID: GAO telematics Sept 13OpenAshley G. Alley, Esq. Office of General Counsel Government Accountability Office (GAO) 441 G St., NW Washington, DC 20548 Dear Ms. Alley: This responds to your e-mail asking about the extent to which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) can regulate wireless communication technologies in motor vehicles that might be sources of driver distraction. You asked us to address: 1) Integrated, in-vehicle technologies (e.g., OnStar); 2) Nomadic technologies (e.g., handheld cell phones); and 3) After-market technologies that are integrated after the vehicle is manufactured (e.g., a satellite TV). As you know, NHTSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. As discussed below, the answer to the issue of whether that authority permits the agency to regulate the technologies you listed is dependent, first, on whether the items and systems are considered motor vehicle equipment under Chapter 301 and, second, if they are so considered, whether issuing a standard for the items and systems would meet the statutory requirements for a standard, especially the requirement of meeting the need for motor vehicle safety. NHTSAs Authority to Regulate Wireless Communication Technologies that might be Sources of Driver Distraction Background Based on the definitions of motor vehicle safety and motor vehicle safety standard in subsection 30102(a)(8) and (9),[1] the agency has authority to issue standards for motor vehicle equipment as well as motor vehicles. The question of whether something qualifies as motor vehicle equipment is addressed by the definition of that term in subsection 30102(a)(7): "(M)otor vehicle equipment" means-- (A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as any accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or (C) any device or an article or apparel ... that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury, or death. (Emphasis added.) In order to issue a standard for motor vehicle equipment, the agency must show that the standard meets the requirements in subsection 30111(a). It states that (e)ach standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. Discussion Integrated, in-vehicle technologies (e.g., OnStar) You first asked about integrated, in-vehicle technologies, e.g., OnStar. Given that you separately ask about after-market technologies, we assume that this question is limited to items and systems that are integrated into the vehicle prior to first retail sale. The initial issue for these items and systems is whether they are considered motor vehicle equipment under the definition quoted above. Under 30102(a)(7), all items and systems that are integrated into a vehicle prior to its first retail sale are within the definition of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, the agency has authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for integrated, in-vehicle technologies. However, given the requirement in subsection 30111(a) that each standard meet the need for motor vehicle safety, we can establish standards for these technologies only to the extent that we can show a safety benefit for those standards. A challenge in using our authority is that while research suggests that use of personal communication devices by drivers can adversely affect driving performance, it is difficult to find confirmation that these findings represent actual real-world crash risks. It would also be difficult to develop effective countermeasures for any risks whose existence we could demonstrate. Nomadic technologies (e.g., handheld cell phones) Next, you asked about nomadic technologies, e.g., handheld cell phones. Given your other questions, we assume that this question is limited to items and systems that are not integrated into the vehicle. Since these items and systems would not be integrated into the vehicle, they would be motor vehicle equipment under subsection 30102(a)(7) only if they were considered accessories under (a)(7)(B). NHTSA uses two criteria in determining whether a device is an "accessory." The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, then the product would be an "accessory." Applying these criteria to cell phones, it is our opinion that a substantial portion of the expected uses of a cell phone would not be related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. While a cell phone can be used in a motor vehicle, there is no particular nexus between the function of a cell phone and either the operation or the maintenance of motor vehicles. The cell phone performs the same function wherever it is taken by the user, e.g., on public sidewalks, in buildings, and so forth. Because the first prong of the two-part test for an accessory is not met, a cell phone is not an item of motor vehicle equipment. The same criteria would be applied in determining whether other items or systems incorporating nomadic technologies are accessories. We cannot provide a broad opinion covering all nomadic technologies, since specific information about the item or system and its expected uses is needed to apply these criteria. After-market technologies that are integrated after the vehicle is manufactured (e.g.., a satellite TV) You also asked us to address after-market technologies that are integrated after the vehicle is manufactured (e.g., a satellite TV). Given your other questions, we assume that this question is limited to items and systems that are integrated into the vehicle after first retail sale. Some items and systems incorporating these technologies would come within the subsection 30102(a)(7) definition of motor vehicle equipment. This would likely be the case for satellite TV systems marketed for use in motor vehicles. However, in order to provide a specific opinion, we would need detailed information about the specific product at issue. For those technologies that are items of motor vehicle equipment, the agency would face the same challenges described above in discussing integrated, in-vehicle technologies. Other Considerations We note that our safety standards generally apply to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment up to the time of first retail sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a new or used vehicle are prohibited by section 30122 from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. For example, installation of after-market technologies reduce the effectiveness of devices or elements of design installed pursuant to our crashworthiness standards would be prohibited. The make inoperative provision does not, however, apply to modifications made by vehicle owners themselves to their own vehicles. Thus, while we recommend that owners maintain the safety of their vehicles, Federal law does not prevent them from making modifications that take their vehicle out of compliance with a safety standard. The States, however, can regulate the changes that vehicle owners make to their vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSAs authority to regulate motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992. She may be reached at this address. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel NCC-20:DNakama:62992:mar:jul/19/07:OCC#07-003616 [S:\NCC20\INTERP\VSA\07-003616 GAO drn.doc] cc:NCC-20, subj/chron, DN, NVS-100, NVS-200, NPO-100 Interps, VSA 102(4), Docket [1] (8) "motor vehicle safety" means the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.
(9) "motor vehicle safety standard" means a minimum standard for motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. |
|
ID: garbage.crsOpen Mr. Richard G. Parks Dear Mr. Parks: This is in response to your letter of April 18, 1997, requesting confirmation of an interpretation that you state I gave you over the telephone on March 5, 1997 regarding the required contents of an incomplete vehicle document specified at 49 CFR 568.4, and one of the requirements for seating systems specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, 49 CFR 571.207. Because your letter assumed knowledge of matters that we discussed on March 5 and because I did not recall that conversation in all particulars, I asked Coleman Sachs of my staff to contact you so that we could gain a better understanding of your request. You informed Mr. Sachs on June 3, 1997 that your company is providing consulting services for a party litigating an action involving a garbage truck rollover incident. You stated that the garbage truck was completed by a final stage manufacturer from a chassis cab furnished as an incomplete vehicle by a major truck manufacturer. You further stated that the final stage manufacturer removed the bench-style seat that was furnished with the chassis-cab and replaced it with a bucket-type seat at the driver's position. Additionally, you stated that the final stage manufacturer equipped the vehicle with a steering wheel and a complete second set of controls on the right side of the vehicle so that it could be operated from that side while picking up trash. You noted, however, that the vehicle was not equipped with a driver's seat where the auxiliary controls were located. You have raised two questions with regard to these modifications. The first concerns the contents of the incomplete vehicle document that the chassis-cab manufacturer was required to furnish under NHTSA's certification regulations for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages at 49 CFR Part 568. Section 568.4(a)(7) of those regulations requires this document to list each standard in effect at the time of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle that applies to any of the vehicle types into which the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured. As your letter notes, section 568.4(a)(7) further requires the incomplete vehicle document to state, alternatively, after each standard listed, either (i) that the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, (ii) the specific conditions of final manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard, or (iii) that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. You have asked whether the incomplete vehicle document must contain the statement specified in subparagraph (i) of section 568.4(a)(7) if a foreseeable modification of the incomplete vehicle involves moving the driver's seat. If the incomplete vehicle is equipped with a driver's seat, its manufacturer would ordinarily ensure that the driver's seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207, and that the seat was installed in compliance with the standard. Assuming the manufacturer has taken these measures, the statement in subparagraph (i) of section 568.4(a)(7) would be the most appropriate of the three statements in that section to cover the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 207. That answer would not change even if the incomplete vehicle manufacturer could reasonably anticipate that the driver's seat would be replaced or that other modifications would be made to the driver's seat at a subsequent manufacturing stage, since the incomplete vehicle document should properly reflect the compliance status of the incomplete vehicle at that stage of manufacture. If the final stage manufacturer replaces the driver's seat or makes other modifications to it, before that manufacturer certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, as required under 49 CFR 567.4, it must ensure that the new or modified seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207 and that the seat is installed in compliance with the standard. Your second question is whether the final stage manufacturer was required to equip the garbage truck that is the subject of your inquiry with a driver's seat at the right-side location where auxiliary controls were installed. You note that paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 207 provides that "[e]ach vehicle shall have an occupant seat for the driver." You interpret this language as requiring a seat for the driver "wherever the driver may be located," including two driver's seats if the vehicle may be operated from two separate locations. In the one previous opportunity that we have had to address this issue, we did not interpret the requirements of paragraph S4.1 in this way. In a letter dated July 30, 1975 to Mr. Byron A. Crampton (copy enclosed), we stated that "a garbage truck that contained an auxiliary driver's position on the right side of the vehicle, with a separate set of controls" did not require a seat at the auxiliary location. The letter explains that this conclusion was reached because this office considers "the standards relating to the driver's position as relating to the normal position, and not to an auxiliary driving position." Lending suport to this interpretation is a letter to Mr. Glenn S. Park (copy enclosed), in which we stated that a "stand-up, right-hand drive position in a truck with a mounted side loader" would not be considered a designated seating position under Federal safety standards. Consistent with our past interpretation, we must disagree with your conclusion that two separate driver's seats must be installed in the vehicle you have described. If you have any further questions about vehicle certification requirements, please call Coleman Sachs of this office at 202-366-5238. Any further questions that you may have regarding the seating system requirements of FMVSS No. 207 should be directed to Otto Matheke of this office at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: garymillerOpen The Honorable Gary Miller Fax: (909) 612-1087 Dear Congressman Miller: Thank you for your telephone inquiry seeking information for a constituent about the Federal requirements applicable to the marking of automotive wheel rims. Mr. Jonny Vong of your staff has advised us that the constituent is a rim manufacturer who believes that other rim manufacturers may not be marking their rims as required by law. There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that apply to wheel rims, one for passenger cars and the other for rims for all other types of motor vehicles. Markings are only required to appear on rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, to be certain that I answer your question fully, I will explain our requirements for both passenger car rims and rims for use on other motor vehicles. The two applicable standards are FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims - Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.110), and FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120). I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. For passenger cars, section S4.4 of FMVSS No. 110 specifies two requirements. First the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in FMVSS No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional requirements shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, including the Tire and Rim Association, The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, or the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application. No markings are required on passenger car rims. For rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, FMVSS No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either FMVSS No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not the rim manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will actually be mounted on the rim. The second requirement, set forth in S5.2, is that rims be marked with five specified items of information. These are: (1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions; (2) The rim size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation; (3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards; (4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and (5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured. If, after reviewing this information, your constituent continues to believe that other rim manufacturers are not complying with any applicable standard or standards, he or she may wish to contact John Finneran in NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-0645. For your constituent's information, I am enclosing fact sheets we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Frank Seales, Jr. cc: Washington Office Enclosures |
2000 |
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.