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: 0976Open Richard Mark Gergel, Esq.
Dear Mr. Gergel: We have received your letter of June 5, 1995, concerning "the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to transactions between a local car dealer and purchasers within the same state." The litigation in which you are involved concerns the sale of a motor vehicle to a school to transport students. This vehicle, which had the capacity to carry more than 10 persons, "did not meet the safety standards for a `school bus' under the Act." The defendant dealer asserts that a transaction between a dealer and purchaser within the same state is beyond the scope of the Act "since such a transaction allegedly is not within interstate commerce." Taylor Vinson of this office talked with you on June 14 for a clarification of the facts. We understand that the vehicle in this case was a cargo van originally manufactured by Ford Motor Company and which, before its first purchase in good faith other than for resale, by a private school, was altered by persons not yet known to carry more than 10 persons. The vehicle does not appear to carry the certification of its alterer. The plaintiff in your case is the estate of a child killed while being transported in the vehicle. Under South Carolina law, failure to comply with a Federal safety statute is negligence per se. As noted above, the defendant dealer asserts that there is no violation of the Act because the sale of the vehicle did not occur in interstate commerce, and, hence, that it was not negligent per se. This is our interpretation of the relevant portions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). Section 30112(a) provides as follows: Except as provided in this section, sections 30113 and 30114 of this title, and subchapter III of this chapter, . . . a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title. The sale or offer for sale of a nonconforming motor vehicle which is not certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), regardless of whether the purchaser and seller reside in the same state. The phrase "introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce" is self-contained and separated by commas from the rest of the prohibited acts. It in no way modifies the words "sell" and "offer for sale," which are violations separate and distinct from those of introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce a noncomplying or uncertified motor vehicle. Thus, the case that you refer to, National Association of Motor Bus Owners v. Brinegar, 483 F.2d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1973), is irrelevant to the issue of whether the dealer violated section 30112(a) by selling the vehicle in question. As noted above, the statute provides certain exemptions and defenses that may be applicable to the question of whether there has been a violation of section 30112(a). The general and special exemptions of sections 30113 and 30114, and the import exemptions of subchapter III are not relevant here. However, if the dealer can establish that any of the following defenses set out in section 30112(b) apply, there would be no violation. C If the vehicle had previously been in use before it was sold to the school (section 30112(b)(1)) C If the dealer had no reason to know at the time it offered for sale and sold the vehicle to the private school, despite exercising reasonable care, that the van did not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. (section 30112(b)(2)(A)) C If the dealer held a certificate by the manufacturer stating that the vehicle complied with applicable Federal school bus safety standards, and did not know about the noncompliance before sale to the school. (section 30112(b)(2)(B)) Further, it appears that the alterer of this vehicle may have violated 49 CFR 568.8, a regulation issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 30115. Under this regulation, one who alters a certified vehicle before its first purchase in good faith for other than resale must affix its certification that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any further questions, please contact Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:VSA d:6/23/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0978Open Mr. David A. Lowell Dear Mr. Lowell: This responds to your letter of June 8, 1995, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, your company manufactures "stinger steered automobile transport trailers" as defined by 23 CFR 658.5, paragraphs (k) Tractor or Truck Tractor, (m) Automobile Transporters, and (n) Single-steered combination. Your company currently mounts taillamps, turn signal lamps, and clearance lamps on the back of the truck tractor. It is your understanding of paragraphs S5.1.1.1 and S5.1.1.2 of Standard No. 108 that "these items do not seem to be necessary." For purposes of Standard No. 108, types of motor vehicles are defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b), a regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, rather than 23 CFR 658.5, a regulation of the Federal Highway Administration. Under 571.3(b), the towing portion of your combination vehicle is a "truck", rather than a "truck tractor." A "truck" is defined, in pertinent part, as a motor vehicle "designed primarily for the transportation of property." A "truck tractor" is a "truck designed primarily for drawing other motor vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn." The photographs you enclosed show that the towing portion of Bankhead's combination vehicle is designed to carry motor vehicles, and may do so without the attachment of the trailer, hence it is a "truck." It is constructed to carry a load other than a part of the trailer, hence it is not a "truck tractor." Accordingly, Bankhead's towing vehicle may not avail itself of the truck tractor lighting options of paragraphs S5.1.1.1 and S5.1.1.2 of Standard No. 108. Your understanding of these sections as they relate to truck tractors meeting the definition of 571.3(b) is generally accurate. However, no provision of Standard No. 108 permits either the elimination or the relocation of taillamps from truck tractors.
Because Bankhead's product is operated in interstate commerce, it must also conform to the safety regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (49 CFR part 393). This is to advise you that the Office of Motor Carrier Standards has reviewed this letter and concurs in it. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:7/25/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0991Open K. Howard Sharpe, Esq. Dear Mr. Sharpe: This responds to your further letter of June 13, 1995, with reference to your client, NYTAF Industries, Inc. You have informed us that NYTAF will sell in the aftermarket its rear lighting system that displays verbal messages. You ask whether NYTAF must certify compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards as "it is simply a manufacturer of an accessory." The answer is no. The only aftermarket lighting equipment for which certification of compliance is required is equipment that is manufactured to replace any item of required original lighting equipment on a vehicle. The NYTAF system is not intended to replace any item of original equipment, and no certification is required. However, because the NYTAF system is "manufactured or sold . . . as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle", it is "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B). This means that if either NYTAF or NHTSA determines that there is a safety related defect in the system, NYTAF will be required to notify and remedy according to statutory provisions. If you have any further questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d:6/30/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10-000638_Bradley_trailer_tail2OpenMr. David H. Bradley Canadian Trucking Alliance Butterworth House 324 Somerset St. West, Suite 100 Ottawa, ON Canada K2P 0J9 Dear Mr. Bradley: This responds to your letter concerning an aerodynamic device manufactured by Advanced Transit Dynamics, Inc. (ATDynamics) called a boat tail or trailer tail that some of your member motor carriers would like to install on their van trailers to reduce the fuel consumption of their vehicles. (In this letter, we will refer to these aerodynamic devices generally as trailer tails and to the device manufactured by ATDynamics as the ATDynamics TrailerTail.) You state that use of trailer tail technology would help meet a California Air Resources Board regulation that requires all U.S. and Canadian 53-foot van trailers to achieve a 5 percent overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. Background In your letter, you ask for our acceptance of an October 10, 2008 letter from the Director of the Federal Highway Administrations (FHWAs) Office of Freight Management and Operations to ATDynamics, a copy of which you enclosed. (October 10, 2008 letter from Anthony Furst to ATDynamics Andrew Smith.) In the letter, Mr. Furst discusses FHWA regulation 23 CFR 658.16, Exclusions from length and width determinations. Subsection (b) of 658.16 sets forth exclusions from either the measured length or width of commercial motor vehicles, as applicable, and lists aerodynamic devices in subpart (4). Mr. Furst states in the letter that FHWA regulation 23 CFR 658.16(b)(4) excludes an aerodynamic device from the measured length of a commercial motor vehicle provided: (1) the device is not capable of carrying cargo; (2) the device does not extend beyond 5 feet of the rear of the vehicle; (3) the device does not obscure tail lamps, turn signals, marker lamps, identification lamps, or safety devices such as hazardous material placards or conspicuity markings; and, (4) the device has neither the strength, rigidity nor mass to damage a vehicle, or injure a passenger in a vehicle that strikes a vehicle so equipped from the rear. Mr. Furst concludes that FHWA has determined that the ATDynamics TrailerTail meets the conditions of 23 CFR 658.16(b)(4). He states that FHWA-- acknowledges that ATDynamics Trailer Tail was tested by an independent laboratory, KARCO Engineering, and was found to be in compliance with all elements of 23 CFR 658.16(b) (4). Therefore, in accordance with Federal regulations, the ATDynamics Trailer Tail aerodynamic device should be excluded from the length measurements for commercial motor vehicles. KARCO Engineering determined that the ATDynamics Trailer Tail aerodynamic device Passed all of the conditions listed in the regulation, and FHWA accepts those results. Mr. Furst also states that FHWA shared the test results with staff from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for review. Mr. Furst states: NHTSA identified a conspicuity marking issue[and] ATDynamics has taken care of the issue in the manner NHTSA recommended. With that background in mind, in your letter to us you ask for clarification from NHTSA with regard to the process for defining compliance with 23 CFR 658.16(b)(4) on aerodynamic devices. In other words, as we understand your letter, you ask us to confirm that use of the ATDynamics TrailerTail would not violate Federal laws administered by NHTSA. We note that Transport Canada has also contacted us for our views on trailer tails. NHTSAs Framework It would be helpful in answering your question to begin with a discussion of NHTSAs authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Vehicle Safety Act). NHTSA is authorized under the Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applying to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. This agency does not provide approvals of new motor vehicles or of modifications of used vehicles. NHTSA has exercised its rulemaking authority to establish a number of standards that apply to new trailers. Those standards include FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108), which requires trailers to have specified systems to provide adequate illumination of the roadway and to improve the conspicuity of the vehicles. Another standard applying to trailers is FMVSS No. 224, Rear impact protection (49 CFR 571.224). Standard No. 224 requires trailers to have rear impact guards to reduce the harm to occupants of light duty vehicles impacting the rear of the trailer. Each new trailer with a trailer tail sold in the U.S. must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS No. 108 and No. 224. After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the Vehicle Safety Act limits modifications that may be made to the vehicle by commercial entities. 49 U.S.C. 30122 states: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter. In the case of the motor carriers mentioned in your letter, this provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing a trailer tail on a motor carriers new or used vehicle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 108 or No. 224 or any other safety standard.[1], [2] Discussion The question posed by your letter is whether installing the ATDynamics TrailerTail on a new or used vehicle would be permitted under NHTSAs regulations. Unfortunately, we cannot provide a sweeping answer that covers all installations of the ATDynamics TrailerTail. NHTSA assesses the compliance of new vehicles and administers the make inoperative provision of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning new or used vehicles independently from other agencies. We do not approve motor vehicles or processes undertaken by manufacturers. A possible violation of the FMVSSs or the make inoperative provision is evaluated by NHTSA according to the facts of each particular case. Thus, NHTSA would evaluate, among other matters, the design and construction of a particular ATDynamics TrailerTail, the manner in which the trailer tail was attached, and whether the trailer tail impaired the effectiveness of the trailers lamps and other devices installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 108. We cannot prospectively and categorically affirm that all future uses of the ATDynamics device would be acceptable to this agency. However, we recognize and appreciate the effort that has been made seeking the agencies input in exploring possible safety issues related to the ATDynamics TrailerTail. In view of those efforts, we make the following observations based on the KARCO Engineering (KE) test. KE conducted a 35 mile per hour rear offsest crash test for ATDynamics. ATDynamics installed a TrailerTail on a 1991 Pine Trailer. The test vehicle and set-up was prepared by KE. The impacting vehicle was a 1994 Ford Econoline 350 Van. Two Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male test dummies equipped with head triaxial accelerometers to measure head injury accelerations were placed in the driver and right-front passenger seating positions. KEs report on the test states (Laboratory Test Report, Rear-Mounted Aerodynamic Device, TrailerTail mounted to a 1991 Pine Trailer, Prepared for Advanced Transit Dynamics, Inc., July 22, 2008, KARCO Engineering): (a) Inspection of pre- and post-test photographic data showed no appreciable deformation of any structural component of the impacting vehicle attributable to the trailer tail (not including glass, plastic lenses, or trim components); (b) The head injury criterion of neither test dummy exceeded a value of 1,000 as a result of direct contact with the trailer tail; and (c) There was no evidence from either post-test inspection of the transfer of chalk applied to the test dummies or from still or high speed photography that the trailer tail or any resilient component of the impacting vehicle made contact with any portion of the test dummies as a result of contact of the impacting vehicle with the trailer tail. In addition, the report indicates that the open geometry of the ATDynamics TrailerTail does not allow it to carry cargo, and that the vehicles lamps and conspicuity markings would meet FMVSS No. 108. The test data from the KE test indicate that the ATDynamics TrailerTail did not negate the vehicles ability to meet FMVSS No. 224[3] and that the rear impact guard on the vehicle was not made inoperative by the ATDynamic TrailerTail. Thus, there is no basis for NHTSA to conclude at this time that installation of the ATDynamics TrailerTail is prohibited. Please note that NHTSA is interested in Transport Canadas on-going work evaluating the safety and performance of trailer tails. NHTSA will evaluate the outcome of Canadas research to see if we should undertake further work on trailer tails. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel 1/24/2011 [1] The make inoperative provision applies to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing a trailer tail, and not to a vehicle owner that modifies its own vehicle. However, States have the authority to regulate the operation of vehicles in their jurisdictions, and may have restrictions on the type of modifications owners may make. [2] The Vehicle Safety Act also requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. A trailer tail would be considered motor vehicle equipment under the Vehicle Safety Act. [3] That is, it appears that the trailer tail would qualify as a nonstructural protrusion under FMVSS No. 224. See S4, definition of rear extremity. |
|
ID: 10-000710 A.Killian,Jr. (Standard No. 205)OpenArthur J. Killian, Jr. Hit Concepts Group P.O. Box 998 Sandusky, Ohio 44870 Dear Mr. Killian: This responds to your letter requesting an exemption for your invention, a laminated area embedded into the front driver side and passenger side windows to reduce headlight glare from the outside rearview mirrors. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 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. You describe your invention as a laminated area embedded into the front windows on both the driver and passenger sides. You state that the purpose of this invention is to reduce headlight glare from the outside rearview mirrors and that the driver will view the outside rearview mirrors through the laminated area. Based on your description, we assume that glazing embedded with your product might be installed on a new motor vehicle or installed as an aftermarket item. The following is a description of the relevant portions of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs that might apply to your invention, as well as exemption procedures. NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which establishes performance and location requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles, including glazing intended for aftermarket replacement. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates an industry standard, the American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard (ANSI/SAE Z26.11996). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.11996 include, among other things, specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance and require 70 percent light transmittance in areas of glazing that are requisite for driving visibility. Such areas of glazing include all windows in passenger vehicles. Your invention would be embedded in glazing used in the front side windows on both the driver and passenger sides. Glazing embedded with the laminated area and intended to be installed in those locations must meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement of FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.11996, as well as various other requirements. It appears from your description that the glazing would not meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement. Specifically, you state, 65-35 to 70-30 light transmittance has gotten rave reviews by consumers who have viewed my after market part. We assume that this means that glazing embedded with your invention would have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Section 30112 of the Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States any item of new motor vehicle equipment unless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any glazing material for use in motor vehicles unless the products comply with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 205. Further, it would be a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell a motor vehicle whose glazing does not comply with the performance and location requirements of FMVSS No. 205. The Safety Act permits vehicle manufacturers to petition for a temporary exemption from an FMVSS in specific limited situations. The procedures for applying for such an exemption can be found at 49 CFR Part 555. Accordingly, if eligible, an automobile manufacturer interested in equipping new motor vehicles with glazing embedded with the laminated area could apply for an exemption under this Part. However, this exemption is not available to equipment manufacturers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact William Shakely of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Standard No. 205 Dated: 6/22/12 |
2012 |
ID: 10-000735drn.docOpenMr. Michael X. Cammisa Director, Safety Global Automakers 1050 K St., N.W., Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20001 Dear Mr. Cammisa: This responds to your predecessor organizations (Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.) request for an interpretation of horn control identification requirements specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays. As you are aware, in a final rule of August 13, 2009 (74 FR 40760), we amended S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 to read as follows: S5.2.1 * * * No identification is required for any horn (i.e., audible warning signal) that is activated by a lanyard or by the driver pressing on the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub; or for a turn signal control that is operated in a plane essentially parallel to the face plane of the steering wheel in its normal driving position and which is located on the left side of the steering column so that it is the control on that side of the column nearest to the steering wheel face plane. However, if identification is provided for a horn control in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub, the identifier must meet Table 2 requirements for the horn. In the preamble to this final rule, NHTSA summarized a question raised by your organization in a comment as follows: if a manufacturer provides a horn control activated by pressing on the center of the steering wheel and provides a second horn control off center, near the edge of the hub, to identify the supplemental horn control that operates by tilting the plane of the hub whether the second control must met the S5.4.3 requirement for color contrast. (See 74 FR at 40762) NHTSA understood the AIAM comment as indicating that there would be two separate horn controls on the steering wheel and provided an answer based on that understanding. Subsequently, at a meeting with NHTSA staff[1], it became apparent that your organization was referring to one horn control on the steering wheel, which could be actuated by pressing anywhere on the steering wheel hub. In your follow-up letter to us of January 29, 2011, you state: In fact, the common designs provide a single control for activation, and that single control allows the horn to be activated by pressing anywhere on the steering wheel hub. The clarification that the horn is actuated by pressing anywhere on the steering wheel hub, including the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub led you to ask the following questions: 1) Do the horn controls commonly in use today, which activate the horn when any portion of the steering wheel hub is pushed (including the center of the hub), require identification? In response to your question, I will assume that the steering wheel hub has only one horn control, and the horn controls location includes the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub. Assuming this is the case, as long as the horn is actuated when the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub is pressed, the horn control need not be identified. However, if the steering wheel hub has more than one horn control, our answer in the preamble to the final rule of August 13, 2009, at 74 FR 40762 would apply: As a result of todays final rule, identification is not required for those horn controls that are placed in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub. All other horn controls must meet all FMVSS No. 101 requirements that apply to horns. 2) May manufacturers voluntarily affix a horn symbol that is embossed, but not color contrasting, to the hubs center or toward the edge of the hub, for horns that are activated by pressing the center of the steering wheel hub? In the final rule of August 13, 2009, we amended S5.4.3 to read as follows: S5.4.3 Each identifier used for the identification of a telltale, control or indicator must be in a color that stands out clearly against the background. However, this requirement does not apply to an identifier for a horn control in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub. Thus, the color contrast requirement does not apply to an identifier for a horn control in the center of the face plane of the steering wheel hub. This would be true whether the identifier was placed in the hubs center or toward the edge of the hub. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel ref: Std. No. 101 8/17/2011 [1] The PowerPoint presentation prepared by the AIAM for the meeting, which took place on December 16, 2009, may be reviewed at www.regulations.gov, at Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0145. |
|
ID: 10-001391 217OpenMs. Fiona Murphy New Product Development Manager L.M. INNOV8s 4-7 Steeple Industrial Estate Antrim, County Antrim N. Ireland, BT41 1AB Dear Ms. Murphy: This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, to your product, the Firefly, which you describe as an emergency window breaker device for buses and coaches. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States of America. Unlike the case in many countries, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Thus, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers also must ensure that their products are free from safety-related defects. Your letter asks whether your emergency window breaker device meets FMVSS No. 217. Information attached to your letter describes the Firefly, as the only product in the world specifically designed to work on double glazing and it also breaks single glazing and as an alternative to emergency hammers. The Firefly can be retrofitted to windows by permanently fixing into position with an industrial strength adhesive. Graphics you provide show the Firefly placed on the upper left hand corner of a window. The Firefly is operated by pulling down on a cover, exposing a red button. Pushing the exposed red button breaks the glass. Your letter does not explain how the glass is broken. With this background, I will now address your questions. I am enclosing a copy of FMVSS No. 217 so that you can better understand our answers. Question One: You ask whether FMVSS No. 217s window retention requirements restrict the types of glass that can be fitted in buses and coaches. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing material used in all motor vehicles (including buses). The regulation allows laminated, tempered, multiple glazed and rigid plastic materials to be used in bus passenger side windows. The window retention test requirement of FMVSS No. 217 ensures that the glazing and bonding material used in the exit have minimum retention capabilities. Question Two: Your second question asks whether the emergency exit window must be an open able window, or whether an emergency hammer can be fitted in the vehicle to be used to break the designated emergency exit window on the bus/coach. The exit must be capable of being opened without an emergency hammer. FMVSS No. 217 establishes operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for bus emergency exits, (including emergency exit windows) to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. The standard specifies how many and what type of emergency exits must be provided at a minimum, where the exits must be located, and how they must be configured, opened, and identified to occupants. For buses other than school buses, S5.3.1 states that each emergency exit shall be releasable by operating one or two mechanisms located within certain regions specified in the standard. S5.3.2 requires that each emergency exit shall allow manual release of the exit using certain force applications. S5.3.2 further states Each exit shall have not more than two release mechanisms. In the case of exits with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two force applications to release the exit. In the case of exits with two release mechanisms, each mechanism shall require one force application to release the exit. At least one of the force applications for each exit shall differ from the direction of the initial motion to open the exit by not less than 90 degrees and no more than 180 degrees. As you can see from these requirements, FMVSS No. 217 requires emergency exit windows to be releasable by release mechanisms. An emergency hammer is not considered a release mechanism of the exit. Among other concerns, the hammer might not be present when the occupant has to release the emergency exit, and the force needed to hammer open an exit might be excessive for some occupants. With regard to the Firefly, it does not appear that a bus with the Firefly would meet FMVSS No. 217 requirements. Even if we were to consider the Fireflys breaking of the glass as releasing the exit and the red button as the release mechanism, it appears that the number and type of force applications needed to release the emergency exit do not meet the standards requirements. Your website www.fireflysafety.com (Frequently Asked Questions) indicates that a pin must be removed from the red button to trigger the Firefly. FMVSS No. 217 does not permit complex motions to activate a release mechanism, such as those involved in removing a pin. We also note that a companion requirement in FMVSS No. 217 that applies to school buses
(see S5.3.3.2) states: Each release mechanism shall operate without the use of remote controls or tools. We would consider a pin to be a tool, and a release mechanism that is dependent on the removal of the pin would not meet S5.3.3.2. Even if a pin were not part of the design, the mechanism must have two force applications to release the exit. The Firefly does not appear to meet this requirement. In addition, an emergency exit must be operable for the life of a vehicle. Your website indicates that the Firefly breaks the window glazing by way of an armed firing mechanism that has a life of about ten years. Our understanding is that buses in the U.S. can have a service life of 20 years or longer. An emergency exit that was only operable for some portion of the on-the-road life of the vehicle would raise safety concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure Dated: 7/19/2010 |
2010 |
ID: 10-001392 K.Harris (Stds. 108 and 218)OpenKerry Harris, Director Angel 7 Industries, LLC 8111 Mainland Dr., Ste 104-422 San Antonio, TX 78240 Dear Mr. Harris: This responds to your February 12, 2010 letter asking whether producing motorcycle helmets with built-in rear lighting in colors other than red (e.g., green, blue) violates DOT policy. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 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. The following is our interpretation of the Safety Act and relevant FMVSSs based on the description of your helmets and the built-in lighting system. You indicate that the motorcycle helmets you produce are currently equipped with built-in front and rear lighting to increase rider visibility. You state that the rear lighting is currently red, but you indicate that you would like to offer lighting in other colors, such as blue or green. Motorcycle helmets are regulated items of motor vehicle equipment and are required to comply with FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. Your motorcycle helmets must meet all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 218, including, but not limited to, the impact attenuation, penetration, and retention system requirements. Additionally, paragraph S5.5 of FMVSS No. 218 prohibits rigid projections inside the motorcycle helmet shell and also prohibits rigid projections on the outside of the helmet shell, except for those required for operation of essential accessories. A helmet lighting system is not an essential accessory within the meaning of this phrase. Accordingly, if a helmet lighting system creates a rigid projection as described above, the motorcycle helmet would not be in compliance with FMVSS No. 218. There are no FMVSSs that address a self-contained lighting system that is part of a motorcycle helmet. However, if the helmet lighting system is wirelessly or otherwise connected to the motorcycle, e.g., powered by the motorcycle electrical system or connected to its lighting circuits, it would be considered to be part of the overall motorcycle lighting and conspicuity package. It is unclear from your letter whether your helmet lighting system is designed to be connected in any way to the motorcycle. As explained below, we believe that the system, if it incorporated blue or green lamps, would impair the effectiveness of the required motorcycle lighting equipment, and, accordingly, commercial entities would be prohibited from connecting the device to a motor vehicle. Under FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the only permissible colors of light that may be emitted by original required lighting on new vehicles are red, amber, or white. Accessory lighting equipment (i.e., equipment not required under the standard) is permissible on new vehicles, provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108 (see S5.1.3). We interpret this as a general prohibition on lamps of colors other than red, amber, or white because of the possibility that non-standard colors could cause confusion in other drivers, thereby diverting their attention from lamps that signal driver intention, such as stop lamps or turn signal lamps. Regarding the alternative colors mentioned in your letter, the color green could cause confusion with the red or yellow lamps that seek to warn or caution. Blue is a color that some States reserve for use on emergency vehicles, so drivers unexpectedly encountering blue lamps on other types of vehicles could take potentially inappropriate actions. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30122, if equipment is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that equipment, as installed, must not make inoperative any of the required safety equipment. If an item of equipment impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, we consider the installation of such equipment to have rendered the required lighting systems partially inoperative. Accordingly, because a helmet equipped with a lighting system consisting of blue or green lights would impair the effectiveness of required motorcycle lighting systems, Section 30122 would prohibit a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from connecting the device to a new or used motor vehicle. Another potential impairment issue would be if the connection to the motorcycle adversely affected the performance of the lamps on the motorcycle, e.g., by reducing the candela of required lamps so that they did not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. If a helmet lighting system is not connected to the vehicle, the make inoperative prohibition in Section 30122 would not apply. However, the safety concerns about different colored lights would still be relevant. Moreover, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. In addition to the Federal provisions outlined above, individual States may regulate your product. We suggest that you contact State agencies to ascertain the legal status of your motorcycle helmets with regard to State regulation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact William Shakely of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Standard Nos. 108 and 218 Dated: 6/22/12 |
2012 |
ID: 10-001612_Hansen_motorcycle_crsOpenMs. Sara Hansen RS Hansen Enterprises N5804 Albany N Mondovi, WI 54755-9608 Dear Ms. Hansen: This responds to your letter asking whether a German motorcycle child seat for scooters or motorcycles is regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). You ask about the laws and regulations that would apply to this product. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States of America. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers also must ensure that their products are free from safety-related defects. The term manufacturer includes not only persons who manufacture or assemble vehicles and equipment, but also persons who import them for sale in the U.S. In your brief letter, you state that you would like to import the child seat. You attached a two-page instruction pamphlet produced by the child seat manufacturer. The instructions indicate that the child seat is fitted over the scooter or motorcycle seats back or sides, or is placed on top of the seat. It has a retaining strap that attaches the child seat to the vehicle seat. One strap attaches to the seat cushion, another strap attaches forward of the child seat to prevent the child seat from slipping backwards, and other straps loop around the scooters or motorcycles rack or bar behind the child seat. The child seat has no safety belts for the child. The instructions state: 1. Place the child in the child seat so that his/her back is flat against the backrest. 2. Place the feet in the footrests. 3. The driver then sits back on the vehicle seat until his/her behind is touching the child. This will prevent the child from sliding forwards. The following is our interpretation based on the information you provided. While the device you ask about is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, it is not subject to any FMVSS. NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which applies to the manufacture and sale of new child restraint systems. Child restraint system is defined in S4 of the standard to mean any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 30 kilograms (kg) or less. FMVSS No. 213 was not intended to apply to seats for motorcycles. Its requirements were developed and drafted with the intention that they apply to restraint devices used in the interiors of vehicle types like passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Further, the device you describe is designed to seat children who weigh 30 kg (65 pounds) or less, but the seat is not designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft. (Emphasis added.) Since the item of equipment is not a child restraint system regulated by FMVSS No. 213, the manufacturer would be prohibited from making any statements stating or implying that the seat is certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213. Under the Safety Act, an importer is a manufacturer. Accordingly, you would be prohibited from stating that the device meets FMVSS No. 213 or labeling the device as meeting the standard. You should also be aware of several other matters. As noted above, the Safety Act imposes responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety-related defects. Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is obligated under the Safety Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. Note that individual States are responsible for setting requirements for the operation of vehicles in their jurisdictions, including requirements for restraining and otherwise transporting children. We suggest you check State law as to whether the equipment item you described would be permitted to be used in the various States. Finally, in addition to the provisions discussed above, there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort. We would like to take this opportunity to highlight the following about transporting children on motorcycles. There is a significantly greater risk of death and injury to motorcycle riders and passengers than that to occupants of passenger cars. The fatality rate per vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in a motorcycle is 39 times greater than that in a passenger car, and the injury rate per VMT in a motorcycle is 8 times greater than that in a passenger car. In 2008, the fatality rate per 100 million VMT was 36.52 in a motorcycle, compared to 0.92 in a passenger car. Similarly, the injury rate per 100 million VMT was 663 in a motorcycle, compared to 83 in a passenger car. These data show that children are much safer transported in cars than on motorcycles. We are interested in reviewing any data you have on how the motorcycle child seat has performed in the field, such as data showing whether the device has had a bearing on the incidents, extent or nature of injuries and fatalities to child passengers on motorcycles. Please send the information to NHTSAs Office of Crashworthiness Standards, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20590. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel 11/19/2010 |
|
ID: 10-001800drn_risnerOpenMr. Tracy Risner The C. E. White Co. 7272 Boundary Road P.O. Box 308 New Washington, OH 44854-0308 Dear Mr. Risner: This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether C.E. Whites proposed seat back and seat back barrier configurations would meet minimum area requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. The answer is yes. As you know, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. This opinion is based on our understanding of the facts presented in your letter. Description of C.E. Whites Seat Back and Barrier You ask about a school bus barrier (shown as B1 in the sketch you enclosed) that has an inward taper as it extends vertically. You state that the barrier meets the area requirement of S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 222. The school bus seat immediately rearward of the barrier (S1 in your sketch) has no inward taper as it extends vertically. You state that the height of both the seat back and the barrier are 610 millimeters (24 inches) above the seating reference point, as required by FMVSS No. 222. However, with the tapered edges, the barrier does not coincide 100 percent with the seat back in the front projected view. Discussion The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found in S5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 222. That section states: S5.2.2 Barrier height, position, and rear surface area. The position and rear surface area of the restraining barrier shall be such that, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barriers perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the minimum seat back area required by S5.1.2 for the seat immediately rearward of the restraining barrier. (Emphasis added.) NHTSA answered your question in an August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Larry Wort (copy enclosed). In that letter, we explained that a restraining barrier must only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 222. If a seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide. Similarly, in the situation you present, the seat back for the seat immediately rearward of the restraining barrier exceeds the minimum dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 222. It is acceptable to us that barrier B1 does not coincide with the perimeter of seat back S1 in this situation, as long as B1 provides rear surface area equal to the minimum area specified for seat back S1 in S5.1.2. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure 11/19/2010 |
|
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.