NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: 09-002149as df MaxonOpenMs. Sherry Lafferty Manager, Engineering Maxon Lift Corp. 11921 Slauson Avenue Sante Fe Springs, CA 90670-2221 Dear Ms. Lafferty: This responds to your letter asking two questions regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and Standard No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles. Your first question asks whether the area that is used for detecting occupancy while the lift is lower than the vehicle floor bed should include 18 inches of the floor area. As explained below, our answer is yes. Your second question asks about the responsibility of a lift manufacturer to provide instructions in the installation manual to ensure that a vehicle manufacturer installs the lift in such a way as to detect the entire 18-inch area. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (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. 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. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. Extent of Platform Threshold Area Your first question asks whether under the definition of the platform threshold area in FMVSS No. 403, the area that is used for detecting occupancy while the lift is lower than the vehicle floor bed should include 18 inches of the bus floor area. Platform threshold area is defined in the standard (S4) as: The rectangular area of the vehicle floor defined by moving a line that lies on the portion of the edge of the vehicle floor directly adjacent to the platform through a distance of 457 mm (18 inches) across the vehicle floor in a direction perpendicular to the edge. Any portion of a bridging device that lies on this area must be considered part of that area. The platform threshold area is also illustrated graphically as the shaded area in Figure 2 of the standard. As indicated by the above definition of platform threshold area and by Figure 2, the platform threshold area encompasses parts of the vehicles floor. Further, as you indicate in your letter, the platform threshold area is relevant for determining the area in which detection of an occupant must occur when the lift is lower than the vehicle floor bed. S6.1.2 and S6.1.3 require that an alarm activate when a passenger or mobility aid is on the platform threshold area, and the lift is more than 1 inch below it. Thus, the platform threshold area encompasses the 18 inches of bus floor area across the vehicle floor. Installation Instructions Your second question asks whether, if a lift sensing mechanism does not physically cover the platform threshold area, a lift manufacturer must provide instructions that ensure a vehicle manufacturer install the lift in such a way as to detect the entire 18-inch area. Our answer is yes. The responsibilities of the lift manufacturer, with regard to installation instructions, are set forth in S6.13 of FMVSS No. 403. S6.13.2 requires lift manufacturers to provide installation instructions with each lift, including procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational. Such checks include, but are not limited to, the threshold-warning signal. Id. It is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to provide a lift that, when installed according to manufacturer instructions, complies with all the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Furthermore, under S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift Installations in Motor Vehicles, it is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to install an FMVSS No. 403-compliant platform lift according to the instructions provided by the platform lift manufacturer. Under S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404, the platform lift, as installed, must continue to comply with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Therefore, the lift manufacturer would have to provide instructions on how to properly install a lift that meets FMVSS No. 403s threshold warning signal requirement of S6.1. If you have any further questions, please contact my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel 11/19/2010 |
|
ID: nht78-1.43OpenDATE: 06/22/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. Dugoff for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA TO: Illinois Department of Transportation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1979, letter asking questions about the applicability of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, to buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. First you ask whether seat spacing must be maintained at a maximum of 21 inches in these vehicles. The answer to your question is no. As you correctly point out in your letter, section S5.2 of the standard that regulates maximum seat spacing does not apply to buses with GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less. Maximum seat spacing is limited in larger buses as a means of compartmentalizing students to prevent injury in crashes. Compartmentalization, and therefore maximum seat spacing, is not necessary in smaller buses since they are required to be equipped with seat belts which afford significant protection in accidents. Your second question asks whether it is permissible to have one large seat belt in a school bus seat that might wrap around two students or whether each designated seating position must have an individual belt system. The agency concludes that the use of one large belt to cover more than one designated seating position violates section S5 of the regulation. That section states that each seating position must comply with seat belt requirements. To meet this requirement, each seating position in a small bus must be equipped with its own belt system. If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us. SINCERELY, Illinois Department of Transportation May 10, 1979 Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Ms. Claybrook: This letter requests answers to questions concerning federal requirements for seats and seat belts in school buses with a 10,000 pound or less gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The Illinois standards for construction of school buses include the applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) by reference. This establishes a ready means for school districts, transportation contractors, and others to include the FMVSS in bus purchase orders or contracts, thereby making a violation of them a breach of contract. Inclusion also tends to enhance the ability of State safety inspections and enforcement. These latter activities have generated two questions. 1. Does FMVSS 222 prohibit introduction into interstate commerce a new school bus, GVWR 10,000 pounds or less, with seats located so there is more than 21 inches between the rear surface of one or more forward facing passenger seats and the closest seating reference point of the forward facing passenger seat to the rear? This question arises in connection with buses transporting (mostly) the larger sizes of high school age pupils, "activity buses", and "special education buses" (those carrying handicapped pupils). These school buses are purchased by government agencies (such as school districts) and by private parties (such as churches, contractors, etc.). Because S5.2 of FMVSS 222 does not apply to 10,000 pound or lighter buses, we believe the proper answer is "NO". 2. Does FMVSS 222 allow a manufacturer or alterer to install only one lap belt (Type 1 seat belt) on each passenger seat in a new school bus with 10,000 pounds or less GVWR: i.e., one lap belt, with two anchors, to go around 2, or 3, or more passengers properly in a seat? We believe the proper answer is "NO" -- especially so since publication of your notification (43 FR 21893) and discussion (44 FR 23229 et seq) concerning designated seating positions, with your emphasis on the need for a restraint at each position where a passenger is likely to sit. We do not believe that 1 relatively long lap belt with its 2 anchors spaced sufficiently far apart to accommodate 2 or more properly seated passengers will safely restrain one passenger sitting somewhere in a 2-passenger or wider seat -- especially when that passenger is a relatively small pupil. Also, we do not believe that seat belt anchors spaced closely enough for properly restraining one passenger will allow a long lap belt to restrain 2 or more passengers properly, or without generating excessive belt-induced crash injury. As we read FMVSS 222, its only change of the "restraint standards" included by reference (FMVSS 208, 209, & 210) is the use of a 10 inch pelvic body block (depicted in FMVSS 222) in place of a 16 inch pelvic body block (depicted in FMVSS 210). If your answer to either questions is "YES", we probably will need other answers. Therefore, we will appreciate an early response to each question in order that our instructions to field personnel and inspection stations may be firmed up in the near future. If, in the preparation of your response, you feel that more details are needed or that you have questions which need answering, please feel free to contact the following members of my staff: Mr. Larry F. Wort, Chief of the Bureau of Safety Operations, 217/782-4974; or Mr. Madison Post, Standards Engineer, 217/782-2920. Karsten J. Vieg, Director Division of Traffic Safety |
|
ID: nht80-4.16OpenDATE: 10/30/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Mazda TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. M. Ogata Branch Manager Mazda Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075 Dear Mr. Ogata: Thank you for your July 24, 1980, letter concerning your efforts to improve defogging performance. We share your concern about providing optimum driving visibility and are pleased with your efforts to improve this safety feature. Your letter requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 103, asking whether it is permissible to designate an intermediate blower fan speed (instead of the maximum speed) as the speed to be used when defrosting, if some caution or direction about the necessity for using that intermediate speed for defrosting purposes is provided in the Owner's Manual. The purpose of taking that step would be to cause the intermediate speed instead of the maximum blower speed to be used in testing the performance of the defrosting system under the standard. If this was permis- sible, you could increase the speed of the fan at the maximum position, thereby improving performance of the defogging function, while still being able to meet the performance requirements of the defrosting function at the intermediate speed (but not at the new maximum speed). Paragraph S4.3 of the standard states that "the passenger car windshield defrosting and defogginq system shall be tested in accordance with the portions of paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recommended Practice J902, August 1964, or SAE Recommended Practice J902a, March 1967, applicable to that system," with certain exceptions not applicable to your question.
Section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902 specifies as one of the testing conditions that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high." Similarly, section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902a specifies that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high speed." We therefore conclude that it would not be permissible under the standard as currently drafted to install a defrosting system which fails to meet the standard when the blower is set to its highest speed even if the system meets the standard at a lower blower speed and that lower blower speed is labeled as the maximum defrosting position. This conclusion would not be changed by the inclusion of directions in the Owner's Manual or words or symbols on the control panel. If you are unable to resolve the problem in another way, i.e., improving the performance of the heating element, you may wish to petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an amendment to FMVSS 103. It is our inclination, however, that a defrosting system which operated optimally at a lower blower speed would cause considerable consumer confusion. Drivers would normally expect to obtain both optimum defrosting performance and optimum defogging performance at the highest blower speed. Even if the system was clearly labeled to indicate that the blower speed should be set to medium for defrosting and high for defogging, many consumers do not know the difference between defrosting and defogging. We would also have to consider the amendment's effect on Standard 101, since there is only one symbol for the defrosting and defogging system. If you should decide to petition for an amendment to Standard 103, we would like to see these issues addressed. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel July 24, 1980 Our Ref. No.: DS-001 Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Sir, Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 103 After having a meeting with Mr. S. Oesch and Mr. G. Parker, they have requested that I should submit my questions to the chief counsel. These questions pertain to the testing condition of FMVSS 103. Your response would be appreciated before the end of August. QUESTION When we conduct the test to measure the defrosting performance which is required by FMVSS 103, is it permissible to designate the switch position of the blower fan motor to other than the maximum blower speed under the condition that we provide some caution or direction in the Owner's Manual? BACKGROUND 1. Our current defrosting and defogging systems fan switch has four positions shown below. *Insert Diagram Generally speaking, there are relations between the volume of hot air and temperature of the hot air described below. POSITION VOLUME OF AIR TEMP. OF AIR HI Maximum Lowest M less than HI higher than HI position position L Minimum Highest In addition, the defrosting performance depends on the temperature of the air rather than the volume of the air and the defogging performance depends on the volume of the air rather than the temperature of the air. Therefore, we gave the defrosting performance which complies with FMVSS 103 with the fan switch in the HI position for all current vehicles. However, we have customer complaints from the market that the defogging performance is relatively poor in the HI position. So, we are now considering to give more volume in the HI position to resolve this complaint which is very important performance while driving the car to receive the best visibility. However, unfortunately, we can not comply with the requirement if we increase the volume of the air because of the decrease of the air temperature which is mentioned above. Now we are considering to designate the position of the fan switch in the Owner's Manual such as: "Turn the FAN SWITCH on M position to get the maximum defrosting performance" This means that we increase the air volume on both the M and HI positions and we can comply the requirement in the M position instead of the HI position. 2. There are three documents concerning the testing condition for FMVSS 103. They are FMVSS 103, SAE J902 and the Laboratory Test Procedure (TP-103-09). There are some differences between these documents regarding the fan position shown below: FMVSS 103: There is no definition concerning the position SAE J903, Sec.J.4.2.7: On Full. Blower on high speed. TP-103-09, 4(g): ...in the manufacturer's designated positions for optimum defroster performance. So, please interpret this matter on whether our designation of the fan switch position is acceptable. In addition, please give us the information as to what kind of statement is acceptable in the Owner's Manual and whether we have to provide some words or symbols on the control panel from the point of FMVSS 101. Thanking you in advance, Sincerely yours, M. Ogata Branch Manager cc: Mr. G. Parker Office of Vehicle Standards Crash Avoidance Division |
|
ID: 1983-1.42OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 04/18/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Ichikoh Industries Ltd. -- F. Takata, Manager, Technical Research and Homologation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. F. Takata
This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1983, to Marx Elliot of this agency, In that letter, you requested our view as to whether a mirror label printed by a "screen printing process" would comply with section 5.4.2 of FMVSS 111. The screen printing process involves painting the required warning label on the reverse surface of the mirror in such a way that the warning can be read from the front of the mirror.
Section 5.4.2 of FMVSS 111 provides that certain convex mirrors must have "indelibly etched" on the lower edge of the mirror's reflective surface the warning "Objects in Mirror Are Closer than They Appear." Your screen printing process uses a painting process to place the required lettering on a mirror. Since the process does not involve etching, mirrors having a warning placed on them by that process would not now comply with FMVSS 111.
You should be aware, however, that Toyota Motor Corporation has petitioned this agency to permit processes other than etching to be used to place the FMVSS 111 warning on mirrors. We expect to respond to the Toyota petition in the very near future. Should the agency grant the Toyota petition, it could result in an amendment to the Standard permitting the process described in your letter. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
Mr. W. Mark Elliot Rulemaking Program Manager Lighting & Visibility. NHTSA
Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 111
Dear Mr. Mark Elliot,
First of all, we thank you very much for your kindly reply on headlamp regulation addressed to our Mr. Aihara. Your informations are very useful for us, thank you again.
We also produce the rear view mirrors for motor vehicle. We would like to ask you the interpretation of FMVSS no. 111, Section 5.4.2.. Section 5.4.2. is defined as follows:
S5.4.2 Each convex mirror shall have indelibly etched on the lower edge of the mirror's reflective surface in letters not less than 3/16 inch or no more than 1/4 inch high, the words "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear".
The words "OBJECTS IN MIRROR CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR" on the sample mirror enclosed this letter was printed by screen printing process as shown in the attached sheets.
Questions: May we understand that marking method of enclosed sample complies with requirements of FMVSS No. 111, Section 5.4.2? And if your have any comments on enclosed sample, please inform us. We await your early reply.
Very Truly yours.
F. Takata, Manager Technical Research & Homologation Enclosures |
|
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: 1984-4.12OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/21/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Rivkin Sherman and Levy -- Donald M. Schwentker TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Donald M. Schwentker, Esq. Rivkin Sherman and Levy 900 17th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses, to what you referred to as "semi-rigid" brake tubing. In your letter, you stated your belief that the term "flexible conduit" in FMVSS No. 106 excludes semi-rigid tubing of metal or plastic. You requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to concur in your interpretation that the word " flexible" designates a conduit that is "flexible in operation rather than flexible to facilitate installation on the vehicle." You also asked whether a coupler designed for attachment to the end of such a semi-rigid tube is included in the standard's definition of a brake hose end fitting. By way of background information, you should be aware that NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as:
a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. Your first question asked whether the concept of flexibility is limited solely to conduits designed to flex in operation. The answer is no. The agency has included semi-rigid tubing in the definition of brake hose even if such tubing does not bend or flex during normal vehicle operation. In a November 28, 1975 preamble on Standard No. 106 (40 FR 55f65), the agency stated that: (The functional definition of "brake hose" would be retained. There would thus be no exception for flexible chassis plumbing, even though such tubing is also outside the scope of the traditional conception of brake hose. The NHTSA remains convinced that such tubing, because it invites bending during repairs, should remain within the coverage of the standard. The agency also explained in a February 26, 1974 preamble (39 FR 7425) that a safety need exists to include flexible chassis plumbing in Standard No. 106, because it is used in the same environment as hose located at articulating points and is subject to the same types of stress. That notice denied petitions requesting that tubing be excluded from the standard.
Under Standard No. 106, therefore, flexible chassis-mounted vacuum brake tubing which transmit or contain the vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes are included in the definition of brake hose.
Your second question asked whether a coupler designed for attachment to the end of a semi-rigid tube is a "brake hose end fitting." Standard No. 106 defines a brake hose end fitting as "a coupler, other than a clamp, designed for attachment to the end of a brake hose." The answer to your question, therefore, depends on whether a particular conduit is a brake hose. If a coupler attaches to a brake hose, then the coupler is a brake hose end fitting subject to FMVSS No. 106.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
February 15, 1984
Frank A. Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Applicability of FMVSS 106 to Chassis-Mounted Vacuum Brake Tubing
Dear Mr. Berndt:
Brake hose is defined in FMVSS 106 (49 CFR S571.106-74) as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes". We interpret the word flexible in the definition to mean a conduit that is flexible in operation rather than flexible to facilitate installation on the vehicle. Typically, metal, plastic or polyamide tubing is used for that portion of the brake line that is attached to the vehicle's chassis. Such tubing usually is non-rigid so as to facilitate installation, but, once installed, does not bend or flex during normal vehicle operation.
Therefore, it is our understanding that the brake hose requirements of FMVSS 106 apply only to conduits that are designed to be flexible in operation -- that is those linking the brake tubing fitted to the chassis to unsprung parts of the suspension system. But for convenience of installation, the tubing attached to the chassis could be absolutely rigid, and therefore clearly outside of the standard's definition of brake hose. The standard was intended to apply to brake hose required to be flexible in operation, and therefore usually made of rubber. For example, the FMVSS 106 whip test and the ozone resistance test have no real applicability to a relatively stiff plastic or polyamide tube. In fact, the primary concern with such tubing is not ozone, but ultra-violet, and no such durability requirement is specified in FMVSS 106.
In summary, we would like your confirmation of our interpretation that the term flexible conduit as used in the definition of brake hose in FMVSS 106 does not include semi-rigid tubing of metal or plastic not designed to flex during normal vehicle operation, nor does the term brake hose end fitting apply to a coupler designed for attachment to the end of such a semi-rigid tube.
A timely response would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
RIVKIN SHERMAN and LEVY
Donald M. Schwentker
DMS:kg |
|
ID: 24345.ztvOpenMr. Ronald E. Kish Dear Mr. Kish: This is in reply to your recent undated letters to Frank Seales, Jr., and John Womack, with reference to a license plate lamp you intend to market for use on a cargo utility trailer. You enclosed a test report and stated that the test results are "within the SAE Standard J587 and FMVS 108." You asked "may we market this model as compliant with D.O.T. ???" Under the primary motor vehicle safety statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment must certify that its product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) if there is a FMVSS that applies to its product (49 U.S.C. 30115). Paragraph S5.8, the replacement equipment provisions of FMVSS No. 108, applies to the license plate lamp you intend to manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 allows you, as the manufacturer, to certify compliance by labeling each lamp with a DOT symbol (S5.8.10). Use of this symbol identifies the lamp as compliant with DOT standards applicable to license plate lamps, but if you wish to use further language indicating compliance, we prefer that you say the lamp "complies with FMVSS No. 108" rather than "compliant with D.O.T." We express no opinion as to whether your lamp design complies with FMVSS No. 108. The test report you sent us relates to the photometric performance of a center highmounted stop lamp with a clear red lens, and you cannot use this as a basis for certifying conformance of a license plate lamp. Assuming that you have, or will have, a test report indicating that your license plate lamp meets SAE J587, the fact that a prototype lamp meets the tests specified in applicable SAE standards does not necessarily indicate that all production lamps will comply with SAE specifications incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108. A manufacturer must exercise "reasonable care" in ensuring that each of its products complies with all applicable FMVSS and in certifying such compliance (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A), 30115) in order not to violate the provisions of Chapter 301. Occasional surveillance testing of production items is one means of ensuring continuing compliance of products. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
2002 |
ID: 001688cmc_DC_acc releaseOpenMr. Robert E. Norton II Dear Mr. Norton: This responds to your letter dated March 12, 2003, in which you inquire about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. You ask if there are objective criteria to evaluate compliance with the requirement under the second sentence of S4.1(e) of FMVSS No. 209 that a "[b]uckle release mechanism shall be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release." As explained below, compliance with S4.1(e) requires viewing that provision of the standard in the context of FMVSS No. 209 as a whole. In your letter, you question how the agency would evaluate compliance with this provision of S4.1(e). You state that if the provision is read in the context of the entirety of FMVSS No. 209, then compliance with the "accidental release" requirement could be demonstrated by satisfying the performance requirements of S4.3(d)(3) of FMVSS No. 209, which refers to a test procedure set out in S5.2(d)(3). In the alternative, you contend that if compliance with S4.1(e) cannot be ascertained using this test procedure, then this provision of S4.1(e) would be invalid for lack of objective test procedures. The S4.1(e) requirement that a seat belt buckle be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release during an impact must be viewed as part of FMVSS No. 209 as a whole. FMVSS No. 209 requires, among other things, that seat belt buckles meet minimum performance and material requirements. S4.3(d)(3) establishes criteria to address accidental release, stating that:
Under the test procedure in S5.2(d)(3), a curved cylindrical bar is used to apply the compressive force to the buckle. S4.3(d)(3) was added to FMVSS No. 209 to "eliminate buckle designs that are prone to accidental damage, or that release during the initial phase of the accident." 36 Federal Register 4607; March 10, 1971. S4.3(d)(3) provides an objective standard for minimizing accidental release during an impact, thus providing objective criteria for the requirement under S4.1(e). S4.3(d)(3) does not address accidental release not associated with a crash. Although we recognize that the "accidental release language of S4.1(e) could be read broadly to cover various scenarios, for compliance purpose, we interpret it to only refer to accidental releases that might occur during a crash. Non-crash accidental releases are not regulated by FMVSS No. 209, notwithstanding the arguably broader language of S4.1(e), as the only test procedure designed to address accidental release utilizes a force level much greater than would be contemplated in a non-crash environment. In an August 31, 1976, letter to Volvo, the agency stated that for buckles unlikely to be damaged by compressive forces in a crash, the requirements of S4.3(d)(3) would not be applicable. While the Volvo letter stated that the original motivation for adopting this requirement was to guard against possible damage to a buckle caused by the steering wheel in a crash situation, the language of the requirement is broad enough to guard against other potential compressive forces as well, as evidenced by the fact that the requirement is not limited to buckles in the seating position with a steering wheel. In response to the notice that proposed extending the crush release requirements to all Type 1 and Type 2 seat belts, commentors did request that the requirement only be made applicable to buckles that could contact the steering wheel. (See comments from Britax and Irvin Industries, Inc. at Docket No. 69-23.) However, the agency did not amend the requirement to limit it to that narrower purpose. Accordingly, any current or future buckle with the likely potential to experience any compressive force during an impact would be required to comply with S4.1(e) and S4.3(d)(3), as tested under S5.2(d)(3). I hope this addresses your concern. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:209 |
2003 |
ID: 08-004150 hooper--18 Nov 08--saOpenMr. Chad Hooper Quality Eng Leader Carlex Glass Company 77 Excellence Way Vonore, TN 37885 Dear Mr. Hooper: This responds to your inquiry asking whether the marking you are considering for your glazing would violate any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS). You ask about the location of the AS1 mark with respect to the shade band area of a windshield. As explained below, the marking you suggest in your email is permissible under Federal law. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. The agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (ANSI Z26.1). The following is our interpretation of FMVSS No. 205 based on our understanding of the information provided in your email. In your email, you explain that you would like to keep the AS1 mark in the same location on windshields that have a shade band and shade dot matrix between the visors and on windshields that only have dot matrix between the visors. You would like to print the AS1 mark at the edge of the windshield and below the shade band area (we assume you to mean that on windshields that only have dot matrix between the visors, the shade band area is where the shade band would appear on windshields that have a full shade band) and keep this consistent between all parts. That is, you would like to have the AS1 mark appear in this same location where the windshield only has a dot matrix between the visors as where it appears on windshields that have a shade band. You state, There is a 62 mm difference in the shade band and the dot matrix area between the visors, and ask if it would be acceptable for the AS1 mark to be 62 mm lower than the dot matrix area. Our answer is yes. Requirements for shade bands and markings are found in FMVSS No. 205 in section S5.3 (shade band requirements) and section S6 (certification and marking requirements for glazing). Section S5.3 of FMVSS No. 205 requires that windshield shade bands comply with either the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100 (rev. June 1995), Class A Vehicle Glazing Shade Bands (SAE J100), or with other specific requirements in S5.3.2 establishing a lower boundary for windshield shade bands. There is no provision in S5.3 that requires the manufacturer marking to appear in any other specific position or area of the glazing. S6 of FMVSS No. 205 requires that glazing have the markings referred to in section 7 of ANSI Z26.1. Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1 requires that manufacturers mark the windshields to show the limits of the area having a luminous transmittance of less than 70 percent (e.g., shade bands). Regarding the location of this marking, section 7 specifies that [g]lazing materials, which in a single sheet of material are intentionally made with an area having a luminous transmittance of not less than 70% (Test 2), adjoining an area that has less than 70% luminous transmittance [i.e., shaded areas], shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with Test 2. (Emphasis added.) Assuming the markings and shade bands meet all requirements in section S6 of FMVSS No. 205 and section 7 of ANSI Z26.1, the AS1 mark may appear at the edge of the sheet of glazing 62 mm below the lowest edge of the dot matrix area or shade band. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:205 d.1/16/09 |
2009 |
ID: 24157.ztvOpenRobert G. Mills, Supervisor, Homologation Dear Mr. Mills: This is in reply to your fax of March 14, 2002, asking three questions with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). Pursuant to our request, you provided supplemental information on April 17, 2002. Your questions are:
SAE materials that are referenced and subreferenced in FMVSS No. 108 are not automatically updated when the SAE revises them, and "earlier dated versions" remain in effect. That is because an SAE update requires an amendment to FMVSS No. 108 in order to be incorporated as a requirement. Under U.S. law, amendments to Federal regulations such as FMVSS No.108 must be proposed for public comment before they can be adopted.
Paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) requires that:
In your design, there would be "two visibly separate headlights" which would be placed "in one seamless housing," each headlamp providing an upper and lower beam, and each lamp placed symmetrically about the vertical centerline. Further, "[o]n each side, there will be clear cover placed over the outside of the lamp." You believe that this headlamp design is allowable but report that your supplier disagrees. In his view, a headlamp is permitted a maximum of two bulbs, and that use of a single housing effectively creates a four-bulb headlamp which is not permitted. We evaluated a similar situation in our letter of February 22, 1999, to Tadashi Suzuki of Stanley Electric Co. (copy enclosed). Our letter commented that "it is possible to design a headlamp with a single lens but with separate housings and chambers; this type of design would effectively create two headlamps." However, the supplementary information that you furnished clarifies that the Triumph headlighting system is designed to be installed in a single housing, and that the upper and lower beam headlamps are not separable from the housing. This design differs from that posited by Stanley and, in our opinion, could not be considered a two-lamp headlamp system. As such, the requirements of S7.9.6.2(b) do not apply to this design, and Triumph needs to ensure that this headlamp complies with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(a). We would like to further comment that a headlamp with four light sources is permitted as a motorcycle headlamp. While there is a limitation on the number of light sources for motor vehicle headlamps, there is no limitation for motorcycle headlamps.
We were asked this question by BMW in a letter of August 15, 1983, and I enclose a copy of our response to Karl-Heinz Ziwicka. The interpretation remains valid. The minimum spacing requirements established by Table IV between motorcycle headlamps and turn signal lamps must be met, for the reasons expressed in our letter, notwithstanding the fact that SAE J588 NOV84 and its predecessor in effect at that time permit a closer spacing of these lamps if a multiplier is applied to the minimum luminous intensities. Sincerely, Enclosures |
2002 |
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.