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: 06-007881asOpenJames C. Morton, Jr., Vice Chairman Nissan North America, Inc. Government Affairs Office 196 Van Buren Street, Suite 450 Herndon, VA 20170-5345 Dear Mr. Morton: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of one-piece instrument panels and console assemblies under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Specifically, you asked whether certain indicated seams would determine where the instrument panel ends and the center console begins. Seams do not necessarily denote where the instrument panel begins and the console assembly ends. However, as discussed below, we have interpreted where we believe the rearmost surface of the instrument panel is situated on your vehicle. Your letter describes a one-piece design, where the instrument panel and the console assembly are attached to the floor and form a one-piece, contiguous, T-shaped design, extending rearward between the driver and passenger seats. In the diagrams included with your letter, you indicated two seams (one in Example A and the other in Example B) which you believe constitute the upper edge of the center console and the lower edge of the dashboard. You state that because S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 201 excludes console assemblies from the head impact protection requirements of the standard, you believe that areas below the seam are not subject to the head impact protection requirements. In the past, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has declined to pick the dividing line between the instrument panel and the console[1] in one-piece assemblies. In previous interpretations regarding this issue, we have instead used the language from S5.1.1(e) to analyze which portions of a one-piece assembly are subject to the head impact protection requirements of S5.1. We note that it is difficult to determine the dividing line between a dashboard and an adjoining console where there is no intervening gap, and so we continue to believe that using S5.1.1(e) to determine the areas where the head impact protection requirements apply is more appropriate. S5.1.1(e) exempts areas below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel. NHTSA addressed this issue in a 2006 letter to Robert Babcock, in which we stated that for the vehicle in question the rearmost surface of the instrument panelis the rearmost surface of the dashboard at the right front passenger seating position.[2] Although it is difficult to tell from the oblique diagrams in your letter, a horizontal line drawn at the rearmost surface of the dashboard appears to fall between the seam in example A and the seam in example B. In this instance, a profile view would be helpful for a more precise interpretation. In the absence of an otherwise discernable rearmost surface of the instrument panel, NHTSA would not require areas below the line specified above to meet the head impact protection requirements of S5.1. If you have any additional questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel NCC-112:AScott:mar:5/29/07:62992:OCC-007881 S:\INTERP\201\06-007881as.doc Cc: NCC-112:AS:03/19/07:62992 NVS-100, NVS-200, Docket FMVSS 201 |
|
ID: 06-007883asOpenJeff Vey, President Thoroughbred Motorsports P.O. Box 369 22611 FM 15 Troup, TX 75789 Dear Mr. Vey: This responds to your letter in which you seek clarification as to whether your product called the Thoroughbred Stallion, a three-wheeled vehicle designed for on-road use and weighing 1700 lbs, would be classified as a motorcycle for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). Based on the information provided in your letter and the analysis provided below, the Stallion would be considered a motorcycle for purposes of the FMVSSs. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer must certify compliance of the product with all applicable FMVSSs prior to offering such product for sale. Pursuant to the definition of "motorcycle" set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, all three-wheeled motor vehicles with motive power and a seat or saddle are classified as motorcycles, regardless of their weight. The pertinent portion of that section reads as follows: Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. As the Stallion is a three-wheeled motor vehicle with motive power, and has a seat for the rider, it would be considered a motorcycle under the FMVSS. We note that you asked your question in connection with concerns you have about how your vehicle may be classified under California law, and that you ask for our opinion in order to pursue legislative changes in California. Although we make no comment on California law, we note that if a State law classifies a vehicle differently than Federal law, preemption is an issue under 49 U.S.C. section 30103(b) if the State classification results in: (1) the vehicle being subject to a State standard that regulates the same aspect of performance regulated by an FMVSS, and (2) the State standard is not identical to the FMVSS. In such an instance, the State safety standard would be preempted. We hope this opinion is of assistance to you. If you have any other questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel d.3/5/07 ref:571 |
2007 |
ID: 06-007886rlsOpenCarl E. Peterson, Assistant Director Public Fire Protection Division National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Dear Mr. Peterson: This responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning requirements for fire apparatus emergency warning lights. You explained that your organization, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), has promulgated a standard for new automotive fire apparatus (NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus). NFPA 1901 includes requirements for emergency warning lights on fire apparatus for use when the apparatus is responding and calling for the right-of-way. You said that the technical committee responsible for NFPA 1901 had received a request to modify that standard to allow the lower-level flashing warning lights in the rear of the fire apparatus to burn steady when the service brakes are applied while the apparatus is responding and calling for the right-of-way. The proponent of this idea believes that such an arrangement would make it easier for the driver following the fire apparatus to realize the apparatus is slowing or stopping. You described the proposed modification as an option, [that] would not replace or change any federally required stop lights, tail lights, turn signals, or marking lights. It would only be permitted if the warning lights are red and only during braking operations while calling for the right-of-way. You requested an interpretation from NHTSA as to whether allowing these emergency warning lights to burn steady (not flash) during braking operations would conflict with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or any other federal regulations for stop lamps on vehicles. We respond to your question below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Under FMVSS No. 108, certain specified lamps and other lighting equipment for motor vehicles are directly required; additional lamps and lighting equipment may be voluntarily provided but are subject to S5.1.3, which prohibits installation of additional equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by [the] standard. We also note that S5.5.10(d) of the standard generally requires that all lamps, including auxiliary lighting, must be steady burning, unless otherwise specifically permitted. In considering how FMVSS No. 108 applies to the lamps at issue, we first examine the current version of the lower-level flashing warning lamps in the rear of the fire apparatus that are activated when the vehicle is responding and calling for the right-of-way. As we understand your letter, these lamps are supplemental lamps provided in addition to the lamps required by FMVSS No. 108. As indicated above, additional lamps are permitted but must not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. We note that FMVSS No. 108 does not specifically list emergency warning lamps for fire and other emergency vehicles as ones that may flash. However, as the agency has explained in previous interpretation letters, we traditionally defer to the judgment of the States as to the installation and use of emergency lighting devices on such state owned or regulated vehicles. Under the possible revision to NFPA 1901 that you are considering, the lower-level flashing warning lamps in the rear of the fire apparatus could be designed to burn steady when the service brakes are applied while the apparatus is responding and calling for the right-of-way. This would only be permitted if the warning lights are red and only during braking operations while calling for the right-of-way. The effect of this design would be to provide an indication in addition to the required stop lamps that the brakes have been applied. Recognizing that we traditionally defer to the judgment of the States as to the installation and use of flashing emergency devices on fire apparatus, we have also considered whether the modified design concept you ask about would impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. It is our opinion that it would not. In providing this interpretation, we considered the fact that stop lamps are required to be red, and the lamps at issue would also be red. Thus, as a practical matter, the lamps would, in situations where the fire apparatus is responding and calling for the right-of-way, operate as supplemental stop lamps with the same color as the required stop lamps. We note that, in providing this interpretation, we are not endorsing NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, or the possible change being evaluated. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.3/29/07 |
2007 |
ID: 06-4519asOpenMr. Mark Connors U.S. Compliance Specialist / Licensed Customs Broker Buckland Global Trade Services, Inc. Peace Bridge Plaza, Dock Area Buffalo, NY 14213 Dear Mr. Connors: This letter is in response to your request for clarification of 49 CFR 583.6, Procedure for determining U.S./Canadian parts content. This section is used for the determination of the percentage of U.S./Canadian Parts Content for each carline on a model year basis, a determination necessary for automobile parts content labeling. Specifically, you inquired whether the use of value in 49 CFR 583.6(c)(1) and total value of the material in 49 CFR 583.6(c)(4)(ii)(A)(1) for outside suppliers represents the outside suppliers selling prices to the manufacturer (including labor, overhead, and profit), or just the suppliers material costs. As explained below, this office interprets value, as used in these sections, to mean the outside suppliers selling price to the final manufacturer. This would include labor, overhead, and profit. We would use this meaning of value in determining the value added and the total value of the material. By way of background, Congress enacted the American Automobile Labeling Act, Pub.L. 102-388 (Oct. 6, 1992), in part to regulate the labeling of vehicle components sold in the United States. In implementing this Congressional mandate, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule on September 15, 1995 regulating the labeling of certain motor vehicle parts and requiring manufacturers to specify how much domestic value has been added to motor vehicle components. One of Congress goals in enacting the American Automobile Labeling Act was for manufacturers to label the country of origin of vehicle engines and transmissions, so that American consumers would know if the major automobile components had been manufactured domestically. In determining the country of origin, if an assemblage was made in multiple countries, Congress stated that the country of origin means the country in which 50 percent or more of the dollar value added of an engine or transmission originated (106 Stat. 1558). The definition of value added is given in 49 U.S.C. 32304(A)(15), which reads: "value added in the United States and Canada" means a percentage determined by subtracting the total purchase price of foreign content from the total purchase price, and dividing the remainder by the total purchase price, excluding costs incurred or profits made at the final assembly place and beyond (including advertising, assembly, labor, interest payments, and profits)
This definition can be broken down into two relevant parts. The first is the total purchase price of foreign content, which is the price that the parts supplier paid for the materials. The second is the total purchase price, which is the actual price paid by the vehicle manufacturer to the parts supplier. By subtracting the total purchase price of foreign content from the total purchase price, what remains is the cost of labor, overhead, profit, and additional material that the outside supplier has provided. This is the value added in the United States or Canada. To convert that into a percentage, take the value added figure and divide it by the total purchase price, then multiply by 100. The methodology for calculating the value added was further explained in the Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA when it promulgated the final rule. In that notice, NHTSA stated: The final rule (583.6(c)(4)(ii)) therefore specified that, in determining the value added in the United States or Canada of passenger motor vehicle equipment produced or assembled within the territorial boundaries of the United States or Canada, the cost of all foreign materials is subtracted from the total value (e.g., the price paid at the final assembly plant) of the equipment. The procedures specified that material is considered foreign to whatever extent part or all of the cost of the material is not determined to represent value added in the United States or Canada, traced back to raw materials.[1] Note that this text explicitly refers to the total value as the price paid at the final assembly plant, which would include labor, overhead, and profits.
In summation, here is a short recap of the terms you requested clarification of:
Total value of the material, as described in 49 CFR 583.6(c)(4)(ii)(A)(1), is the outside suppliers selling price to the vehicle manufacturer.
Value added, as described in 49 CFR 583.6(c)(1), is the total value of the material minus the outside suppliers material costs. To turn that figure into a percentage, divide the value added by the total value of the material, and multiply by 100.
If you have any questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel
ref:583 d.1/22/07
|
2007 |
ID: 0636Open Messrs. Jim Cawse and Fred Diehl Gentlemen: We have received your letter of January 2, 1995, asking for a confirmation of the appropriateness of your proposed test procedures for plastic materials, as you wish to "continue to adhere to the SAE testing protocol as delineated in SAE J576C." Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires, with certain exceptions, that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE J576c. It has been the agency's position over the years that 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) does not establish a requirement that a manufacturer actually conduct compliance testing, but requires only that a vehicle or equipment item conform to any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard if tested in the manner set forth in the standard. We have advised that a manufacturer may exercise due care in certifying compliance of its product on bases other than the test procedures that are set forth in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, whether the procedures are incorporated by reference, as with J576c, or directly expressed in the standards themselves, although NHTSA itself will conduct its tests according to the procedures set forth in the standards. For this reason, we have no comment on the merits of your suggested approach. Because the agency has proposed amending Standard No. 108 to substitute SAE J576 JUL91 for J576c, we are filing your letter in Docket No. 94-37 as a comment to be considered in this rulemaking. Enclosed is a copy of the proposal with which you are probably already familiar. Although the comment period closed on January 3, it is the agency's practice to consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d:2/6/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0649Open Mr. Jeffrey Echt Dear Mr. Echt: This replies to your letter of January 12, 1995, with respect to Federal requirements for stop lamps as they affect a stop lamp system developed by Saline Electronics. As you describe the system, "during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration, the system flashes the stop lamps it controls on and off." The stop lamps could either be the original equipment lamps, or one or more supplementary ones. You have asked the following questions, based upon your understanding of the letter sent by this Office to the Virginia Transportation Research Council ("Virginia") on July 30, 1993: "1. May states specifically permit (by statute or regulation) the use of deceleration warning systems which are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment? For example, may states specifically permit the use of an aftermarket deceleration warning system which a) permits all original equipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 to operate in a normal steady burning mode, and b) flashes one aftermarket center-mounted stop lamp or two side-mounted stop lamps, on vehicles not required to be so equipped?" A State may enact a statute or regulation that specifically permits the use of deceleration warning systems that are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment if these systems are permissible as original equipment under FMVSS No. 108. As we informed Virginia, a deceleration warning system that is not permissible as original equipment under FMVSS No. 108 would also not be permissible as an aftermarket system because its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner would be in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2) (now recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)). This section prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device installed on a motor vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. After careful review, it is our opinion that the system you describe is indirectly prohibited by two paragraphs of FMVSS No. 108. Because paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires original equipment stop lamps to be steady burning in use, the addition of flashing aftermarket stop lamps make the original equipment stop lamps inoperative within the meaning of the prohibition because of the potential of a flashing lamp for detracting from the full effectiveness of the steady burning original equipment stop lamp signal by drawing an observer's attention away from it. A flashing aftermarket stop lamp also has the potential for confusion with the hazard warning system, whether the original equipment system operates through red or amber lamps. The second paragraph of FMVSS No. 108 that would prohibit installation of your system as original equipment is S5.1.3. This paragraph prohibits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of original lighting equipment. In summary, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) effectively prohibits a State from enacting a law permitting the use of your system, unless that system is designed to be installed by the vehicle owner. However, a State may permit the use of any aftermarket deceleration warning system that is allowable under FMVSS No. 108. "2. In the absence of state regulation of flashing deceleration warning systems, is it lawful for individuals, states or municipalities to install such systems on their vehicles, provided they do not alter the steady burning operation of the original equipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108? For example, may mass transit districts operate buses with flashing deceleration warning lamps, if the systems are installed by their own mechanics and the steady burning operation of the original equipment stop lamps is not altered? May individuals install such equipment on their own vehicles?" "3. May individuals, states or municipalities, who are not manufacturers, distributors or motor vehicle repairs businesses, lawfully install flashing deceleration warning systems which would prevent the original equipment stop lamps from steadily burning during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration? For example, may a mass transit district install a deceleration warning system which would flash some or all of the original equipment stop lamps during and after rapid deceleration due to hard braking, if the system were installed by its own mechanics?" The answer to all these questions is yes. As noted under Question 1, Sec. 30122(b)(1) does not prohibit vehicle owners or their employees from installing aftermarket equipment such as flashing lamps that may "make inoperative" (in the sense discussed above) equipment that is required by FMVSS No. 108. In Question 2, the inoperability is created by an indirect effect upon the required lighting equipment, while in Question 3, the required equipment itself as well is made to operate in a manner different than prescribed by FMVSS No. 108. But the answer is the same under Sec. 30122(b)(1) in either case. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:3/2/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0672Open Robert D. Dods, Staff Assistant Dear Mr. Dods: Joseph Cindrich, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regional Administrator, has forwarded for reply your letter to him of January 25, 1995. You asked for verification that the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), and "if the office responsible for enforcement would notify the appropriate CNMI officials of the compliance requirements." The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards clearly apply in the CNMI. In 1994, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., was recodified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety. As part of the recodification, "the Northern Mariana Islands" was added to the definition of a "State" (49 CFR 30102(a)(10)). This means that it is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), (cited in the 1987 letter as 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)), to import a vehicle into the CNMI that does not comply with the Safety Standards. The recodification reflected existing law, and the Safety Standards applied long before it occurred. I enclose a copy of a letter that this Office sent to Ellen A. Lockwood, Assistant United States Attorney, Guam, on December 30, 1987, in which we informed her that the Safety Standards applied in the CNMI at that time, even though the regulations of the U.S. Customs Service did not. I find no record of a response from her. Given the geographical proximity of the United States Attorney's office to the CNMI and the fact that NHTSA has no employees west of California, we recommend that apparent violations be reported to that Office. Between the 1987 letter and the recodification of 1994, Congress enacted the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-562) which revoked the joint NHTSA - U.S. Customs regulatory authority of 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3). Pursuant to the 1988 legislation, NHTSA issued its own import regulation, 49 CFR Part 591, which has superseded the previous joint NHTSA-U.S. Customs regulation, 19 CFR 12.80, with respect to the importation of vehicles and equipment subject to the Safety Standards. As the 1987 letter notes, 12.80 did not apply to the CNMI because the CNMI is outside the Customs Territory of the United States. However, Part 591 clearly applies in the CNMI since it implements Chapter 301. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA d:3/9/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0697Open Mr. Brad Rourke Dear Mr. Rourke: Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1995. I am pleased to answer your questions about the applicability of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to your electric-assisted bicycle. We have reviewed Adam Englund's memorandum of January 26, 1995, which you enclosed. In general, it is a complete and accurate statement of the applicability of our regulations to motor driven cycles. We have the following comments which I hope you will find helpful. Certification label. The appropriate regulation is 49 CFR Part 567. The statutory authority that it implements, 15 U.S.C. 1403, was recodified last summer as 49 U.S.C. 30115 without any substantive change. Vehicle Identification Number. "15 USC 565" should be 49 CFR Part 565. Lighting. While the analysis is correct, we note that Tables III (required equipment) and IV (location of required equipment) give a reader an immediate ready reference to motorcycle lighting equipment. Horn. This section can be included in the one following, on controls and displays. The reference to 49 CFR "571.125 Warning Devices" is incorrect. The warning device covered by that standard is a retroreflective triangle, not a horn. We note also that if a motorcycle is equipped with a windshield, it must comply with Standard No. 205 Glazing Materials, and that motorcycles with hydraulic brake systems are required to be furnished with brake fluid meeting Standard No 116 Brake Fluids. You also have asked three specific questions. The first relates to the requirement of Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays that the rear brake be operable by the left hand (or right foot) control and the front brake operable by the right hand control. This is the opposite of bicycle brake systems. You believe that most riders will expect the electric bicycle to brake like a conventional one and that accidents may occur as a result of confusion. For this reason, you would like to place the rear brake control on the right handlebar, and the front brake control on the left. The purpose of Standard No. 123 is "to minimize accidents caused by operator error . . . by standardizing certain motorcycle controls and displays" so that a motorcycle operator can instinctively respond to threatening situations no matter what the machine. Your question raises the possibility that the purpose of the standard might be defeated with respect to the electric bicycle by strict application of Standard No. 123 when it is operated by those who are familiar with bicycle braking systems (though this would not be the case if the operator is switching from a motorcycle to an electric bicycle). We do have authority to exempt manufacturers for up to two years from a requirement if it would promote the development or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle, or if compliance would prevent the manufacturer from selling a vehicle whose overall level of safety equals or exceeds that of a complying vehicle. The exemption procedures are contained in 49 CFR Part 555. Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer any questions you have (202-366-5263). You also may petition for rulemaking, as provided in 49 CFR Part 552, for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 123. However, in the absence of an exemption or a change in Standard No. 123, the braking system of the electric bicycle must operate as provided in this standard. Your second question relates to headlighting requirements for motor driven cycles. You believe that the headlamp specified by Standard No. 108 will reduce the ability of the electric bicycle to perform at night, and, for this reason, would like to use "a high- power bicycle-type headlamp." SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, permits a motor driven cycle to be equipped with a single beam headlamp. If you wish to use a headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108's requirements for motor driven cycle headlamps, you must petition for an exemption, and/or for rulemaking, as discussed in the prior paragraph. In addition to allowance of a single beam headlamp, paragraphs S5.1.1.21 and S5.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108 recognize the limitations of low- powered motorcycles and permit motor driven cycles whose top speed is 30 mph or less to omit turn signal lamps, and to be equipped with a smaller less powerful stop lamp. Your final question relates to Standard No. 123 and your wish to use a spring-loaded thumb-lever throttle. This is permissible, and no requirements are prescribed for it by Standard No. 123. Your interpretation of Standard No. 123 is correct; a twist- grip throttle is not required, but if it is provided, it must operate in the manner set forth in the standard. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108#123 d:3/30/95
|
1995 |
ID: 07-000135asOpenEric Bentzen, Manager Revenue Compliance Policy California Department of Motor Vehicles Administration Operations Division PO Box 825393, Mail Station D148 EB Sacramento, CA 94232-5393 Dear Mr. Bentzen: This responds to your letter in which you asked whether the State of California is restricted to limiting the safety requirements of three-wheeled motorcycle type vehicles, weighing 1,500 pounds or more, to be no more stringent than those Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to motorcycles. Your question is addressed below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer must certify compliance of the product with all applicable FMVSSs. Because NHTSA has no special knowledge or expertise with respect to individual State laws, this opinion is based upon your representations concerning the nature and scope of the relevant California State statute, on which NHTSA does not state an opinion. Different FMVSSs apply to a vehicle depending on how it is classified, i.e., its vehicle type. Pursuant to the definition of "motorcycle" set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, all three-wheeled motor vehicles with motive power and a seat or saddle are classified as motorcycles, regardless of their weight. The pertinent portion of that section reads as follows: Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. Based on information you provided, it would be possible for certain three-wheeled vehicles to be classified as a motorcycle under the FMVSSs, but not be classified as a motorcycle under the California Vehicle Code; e.g., if they have three wheels and weigh 1,500 pounds or more. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), when an FMVSS is in effect, a State or political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. Preemption is unaffected by whether a State classifies a vehicle in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The relevant issue is what standards apply to the vehicle under Federal and State law. A California safety standard would be preempted by 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) if: (1) it applied to the same aspect of performance of a vehicle as an applicable FMVSS; and (2) it was not identical to the FMVSS. A California safety standard would not be preempted under that section if it applied to an aspect of performance not regulated by an FMVSS. You ask specifically whether California may apply standards which are more stringent than the FMVSSs that apply to motorcycles to certain vehicles that are considered motorcycles under Federal regulations, but which would be categorized as automobiles or commercial vehicles under California law. As stated above, any State standard that applies to an aspect of performance covered by the FMVSSs applicable to motorcycles would be preempted unless it was identical to the FMVSS. We note, however, that many possible aspects of vehicle performance are not covered by the FMVSSs that are applicable to motorcycles. For example, there are no FMVSSs applicable to occupant protection, seat belts, or roof crush that cover motorcycles. Yet some three-wheeled vehicles may have a roof and seating configurations similar to cars. A State may have its own standards applicable to those uncovered aspects of performance of vehicles that are considered motorcycles under the FMVSS. If you have any additional questions, please contact Ari Scott at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:571 d.2/21/08 |
2008 |
ID: 07-000136 two harnessesOpenMs. Desire Kootungal 12405 Alameda Trace Circle 1012 Austin, TX 78727 Dear Ms. Kootungal: This responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking whether it is permissible to provide two harnesses with the child restraint system you wish to produce. As explained below, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, does not prohibit you from providing two harnesses. By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal safety requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.). Under that authority, we issued FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), which sets forth requirements which must be met by any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less. (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds. Notice of proposed rulemaking, August 31, 2005, 70 FR 51720.) Child restraint manufacturers must certify that each of their child restraints satisfy all requirements of FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 213 is frequently amended and manufacturers are responsible for keeping current on its requirements. For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts validation checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with FMVSS No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with FMVSS No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30120). Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Discussion You ask about S5.4.3.1 of FMVSS No. 213, which states: Each belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system shall be adjustable to snugly fit any child whose height and weight are within the ranges recommended in accordance with S5.5.2(f) [which requires the manufacturers recommendations for the maximum mass and height of children who can safety occupy the system] and who is positioned in the system in accordance with the instructions required by S5.6. You explain that you are working with a company that is designing a child restraint system (CRS) for physically handicapped children, for use only in the forward-facing position. The CRS would provide five-point restraint for children ranging in weight from 22 to 130 pounds (lb). You state that, to accommodate the broad range of occupants, the CRS must be sold with two harnesses, which together would encompass the weight and height ranges that the restraint is designed for. You ask: Is it permissible to have two harnesses, with the second (larger) harness designed and specified to be used only by children weighing more than 66 lb (or 81 lb when the new standard becomes effective)? FMVSS No. 213 does not prohibit manufacturers from providing more than one harness with child restraint systems. We interpret the requirement in S5.4.3.1 that each beltshall be adjustable to snugly fit any child of a height and weight recommended for the restraint as not to require that each belt (harness) alone must be adjustable to fit all the children recommended for the restraint. Rather, that section requires each child restraint to be sold with sufficient belts (harnesses) that provide the adjustability needed to snugly fit the child occupants recommended for the restraint. Of course, each belt (harness) sold with the restraint would each have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 for belts, belt buckles and belt webbing (S5.4), flammability resistance (S5.7), and all other applicable requirements.[1] There is an issue in your question as to whether child restraints recommended for children weighing more than the upper weight limit of the standard (65 lb, or in the future 80 lb assuming the standard were amended as currently proposed) may have features not permitted by the standard. For your information, our general view on this issue is that manufacturers are not permitted to avoid complying with FMVSS No. 213 simply by labeling their child restraint as not recommended for children within the weight range of Standard No. 213, if in fact the restraint is marketed toward or otherwise will likely be used by children weighing 65 lb (or in the future, 80 lb) or less. NHTSA would check whether the manufacturers assertion is bona fide. Moreover, restraint systems for children weighing 65 lb (or in the future, 80 lb) or more are motor vehicle equipment under our Safety Act, and as such must be free of safety-related defects. Finally, we note a procedural regulation that would apply to you if you begin manufacturing child restraints. 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires a manufacturer of child restraints to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Please note that our address has changed. Our new address is: Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Mail Code: W41-227, Washington, DC 20590. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref:213 d.6/18/07 [1] Note that NHTSA administers an Ease-of-Use (EOU) consumer information program that rates child restraints on their ease of use (49 CFR 575.201). This program started in 2002, when Congress directed us to establish a child restraint safety rating consumer information program to provide practicable, readily understandable, and timely information to consumers for use in making informed decisions in the purchase of child restraints. The EOU program encourages CRS manufacturers to produce child restraints with features that make it easier for consumers to use and install correctly. See final rule, November 5, 2002, 67 FR 67491, Docket 10052. The EOU program currently does not evaluate restraints targeted to handicapped children. We do not know the details of your design but broadly speaking, a child restraint sold to the general public with a design that required the owner to replace the harness when the child outgrew it would likely receive reduced marks in the EOU program. |
2007 |
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.