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: CNGLABEL.CRSOpenMr. Stan Gornick Dear Mr. Gornick: This is in response to your letter of September 3, 1996, to Coleman Sachs of my staff, raising a question regarding the certification of compressed natural gas ("CNG") powered buses under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ("NHTSA's") vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. As described in your letter, Western Star Trucks has a sister company, Orion Bus Industries, Inc. ("Orion"), which manufactures transit buses. Orion currently has an order for fifteen CNG powered buses. While inspecting the CNG containers that have been supplied to it for this order, Orion noted that the containers were missing labels required under paragraph S7.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity, 49 CFR 571.304. After bringing this matter to the attention of the container supplier, Orion was informed that the containers were manufactured before March 27, 1995, the date on which the requirements of FMVSS 304, including the labeling requirement, went into effect. You have asked whether Orion can install these containers in the transit buses, and still certify that those vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on their date of manufacture. Paragraph S6.1 of FMVSS 304 provides, in relevant part, that "[e]ach . . . bus that uses CNG as a motor fuel shall be equipped with a CNG fuel container that meets the requirements of S7 through S7.4." Paragraphs S7 through S7.3 prescribe three separate tests to establish that a CNG fuel container complies with the standard. As previously noted, paragraph S7.4 establishes a labeling requirement for CNG fuel containers. The information to be inserted on this label must include the month and year of the container's manufacture and the symbol DOT, which, as stated in paragraph S7.4(d), constitutes certification by the container's manufacturer that the container complies with all requirements of the standard. In light of these provisions, a bus that uses CNG as a motor fuel could not be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards if it is manufactured with a CNG container that lacks the label required under paragraph S7.4 of FMVSS 304. Following his receipt of your letter, Mr. Sachs informed you by telephone that Orion could use the containers in question, regardless of their date of manufacture, if they were manufactured in conformity with the requirements that were ultimately adopted as FMVSS 304, are certified to comply with that standard, and are labeled as required in paragraph S7.4. Citing an interpretation letter dated March 2, 1995, that this Office sent to Mr. Steve Anthony, you questioned whether a manufacturer could label a CNG container as complying with the standard if the container were manufactured before March 27, 1995, the standard's effective date. The pertinent language in the letter to Mr. Anthony reflects his acknowledgment that "it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to include the symbol DOT on CNG containers manufactured prior to March 27, 1995." This language should be read in the context of the letter in which it appeared. That letter was sent prior to the effective date of the standard and was focused on the issue of whether a CNG container could be certified as complying with FMVSS 304 before the standard went into effect. The letter concluded that this was prohibited, based on language in the preamble of the final rule establishing FMVSS 304, which characterized a certification as "a statement that a vehicle or item of equipment meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are then in effect." (See letter to Mr. Anthony, quoting 59 FR 49010, 49020, September 26, 1994). Nevertheless, now that the standard has taken effect, this prohibition no longer applies. The preamble of the final rule establishing FMVSS 304 describes that standard as being modeled after existing industry standards. (See preamble at pages 49012-49020). If the CNG containers in question were manufactured in compliance with the requirements that were ultimately adopted as FMVSS 304, the manufacturer of those containers may now certify them as complying with the standard. If the containers are labeled in accordance with paragraph S7.4 of the standard to reflect this certification, their installation would not preclude Orion from certifying the buses on which they are installed as complying with all applicable standards in effect on their date of manufacture.If you have any further questions concerning vehicle certification, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at 202-366-5238. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:567 d:10/30/96 |
1996 |
ID: nht87-2.67OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/11/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Melvin H. Smith -- Illinois Dept. of Transportation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept of Transportation - New York (Std - 222); 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Larry F. Wort TEXT: Mr. Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 S. Dirksen parkway Springfield, IL 62764 This responds to Your June 9, 1987, letter to me asking whether Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts an Illinois statute requiring 28-inch high seat backs on all new large school buses. The answer to your question is yes. I must disagree with your view that FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, does not regulate seat back height. A seat back height requirement, established in paragraph S5.1.2, is an integral part of the standard's mandated comp artmentalization system of passenger crash protection. This agency has consistently said that any State requirement relating to seat back height that is not identical to S5.1.2 is preempted under Section 103(d) of the Safety Act. I have enclosed a copy of a March 23, 1976 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin relating to the preemptive effect of Federal law over a New York State law for 28-inch high seat backs. Please note the discussion in the Chauvin letter relating to State requirement s for additional safety features in public school buses. Under Section l03(d), a State may require a seat back height higher than 20 inches for its public school buses, provided that the vehicles continue to comply with all applicable federal safety stan dards. I will send a copy of this letter to Mr. Larry Wort of your Department, whose earlier letter to us asking about our requirements for seat back height and restraining barriers raised also the same preemption issues. Please feel free to contact my office i f you have further questions.
Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure (see 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept. of Transportation - New York; see also 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Larry F. Wort) June 16, 1987 Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 480 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590 Dear Ms. Jones: My letter of June 9, 1987. about preemption of the Illinois statute requiring 28 inch high seat backs in school buses contains an inadvertent error. On the first page, In the last full paragraph. the reference in parentheses should have read (49 CFR 571. 222S5.1.2.). Please correct the reference and forgive our error. Sincerely, Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety June 9, 1987 Ms. Erika Z. Jones. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 480 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Ms. Jones: In this letter I ask you to agree that the Illinois statute requiring 28 inch high seat backs on passenger seats in Type I school buses Is not preempted by a Federal statute; i.e., 15 USC 1392(d). A copy of the Illinois statute (Section 12-807.1 of the I llinois Vehicle Code (IVC) - Ill. Rev. Stat., 1986 Supp., ch. 95 1/2. par. 12-807.1) is enclosed. A Type I school bus has a GVWR more than 10,000 pounds (IVC 12-800, enclosed) .
We believe IVC 12-807. 1 is not preempted because it governs an aspect of performance not governed by a federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS - 49 CFR 571). In Illinois. every school bus must meet the construction standards promulgated by this Department. (See IVC 1-182, 12-100. and 12-812, enclosed. By administrative agreement, the State Board of Education promulgates rules. regulations, and/or standards fo r OPERATION of school buses.) This Department's construction standards, among other things, require that each school bus conform to applicable provisions of FMVSS. The "high back" seats must conform to FMVSS 222. Each manufacturer of Type I school buses agrees and so certifies on the required permanently affixed Federal and State certification labels. FMVSS 222 does not specify the height of a seat back. Instead, it specifies that each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that presents a prescribed front surface area located between two horizontal planes, one of which passes th rough the seating reference point while the other is 20 inches above the seating reference point (49 CfR 572.222S5. 1.2) . Each 28 inch high seat back required by IVC 12-807. 1 presents the required area and. according to Manufacturer's certifications, o therwise conforms to each applicable FMVSS requirement. FMVSS 222 does not specify or limit the amount of the seat back's front surface area which may be located above the higher of the Ms. E. Z. Jones June 9, 1987 Page Two two horizontal planes. FMVSS 222 does not specify or limit the maximum distance the top of the seat back may be located above the empty seat cushion, the seating reference point. or any other point, plane, or object. In short, FMVSS 222 does not limit ei ther the maximum area or the maximum height of the seat back installed on a school bus passenger seat. Please advise that the Illinois statute requiring 28 inch seat backs on passenger seats in Type I school buses (Ill. Rev. Stat.. 1986 Supp., ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-807.1) is not preempted. Because of the effective date of this statute, a prompt reply will b e deeply appreciated. Sincerely, Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety Enclosures
1986 SUPPLEMENT TO REVISED STATUTES 1985 STATE BAR ASSOCIATION EDITION Laws of the 84th General Assembly from Acts 84--1109 through 84-l431 Convened January 8, 1986 Adjourned July 2, 1986 with INDEX |
|
ID: GF006332OpenMr. Timothy C. Murphy Dear Mr. Murphy: This responds to your letter dated August 18, 2004, asking whether strobing stop lamps or auxiliary lamps are permissible under the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment, including stop lamps, is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. The relevant sections of that standard read as follows:
In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 mandates that all lamps be steady burning, unless otherwise explicitly permitted.In the present case, stop lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c).Accordingly, FMVSS No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady burning. We regard a strobe lamp as one that flashes. For this reason, the strobing stop lamps described in your letter would be prohibited by FMVSS No. 108, if they are installed as original equipment on motor vehicles.They would also be prohibited from being sold as replacement for original equipment stop lamps.Further, unless auxiliary lamps mentioned in your letter fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c), they must also be steady burning. This prohibition would also apply to aftermarket lighting installation because 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative safety equipment installed in accordance with FMVSS No. 108 (and any other applicable FMVSS as well).Accordingly, installation of a strobing lamp not permitted by S5.5.10 would create a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 which constitutes "making inoperative" within the meaning of the statute. The list of persons prohibited from making vehicle modifications affecting compliance in 49 U.S.C. 30122 does not include vehicle owners. I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2004 |
ID: 571-217-Rear Door Emergency Exit-Emad Louis--SPWOpen
Mr. Emad Louis 8300 Snow Egret Way Fort Worth, TX 76118 Dear Mr. Louis: This responds to your September 27, 2017 email asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. As we understand your email, you are asking whether the standard allows a certain design configuration on a bus that is over 10,000 pounds and not a school bus. In your email, you explain that the bus you purchased has a cargo net that can be pulled and secured across a portion of the back of the bus to allow the back of the bus to be used for storage. You state that, behind the cargo net, there are four foldaway seats that are flipped up when the area is used for storage. As we understand your questions, you ask whether, with this bus design, the standard permits a manufacturer to install a roof exit in lieu of a rear exit to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 217 and whether it is permissible to have a rear door that is not designated and labeled emergency exit. Our answer to both questions is yes.[1] Background By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. In your email, you provided NHTSA with an email exchange that occurred in June 2016 between the bus manufacturer, Glaval Bus (Glaval), and an employee of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). In his response, the FTA employee stated that FTA and NHTSA agreed with Glavals interpretation of FMVSS No. 217. NHTSA has been unable to confirm any communication between FTA and NHTSA. We point out, however, that official interpretations of legal requirements under this agencys statutes, standards, and regulations are issued only by this office and only in writing. We apologize for any confusion that statement may have caused. Discussion Roof Exit
Your first question asks whether NHTSA would permit the installation of a roof emergency exit instead of a rear emergency exit in your bus that has a cargo net that can portion off part of the rear of the bus for use as a storage area. FMVSS No. 217 permits a bus that is over 10,000 pounds and not a school bus (non-school bus) to meet the requirement for the provision of emergency exits by either meeting the requirements of S5.2.2 or S5.2.3. We assume from the facts you provide that Glaval intended for the bus to meet the requirements in S5.2.2, which applies to buses other than school buses.[2] In relevant part, S5.2.2.2 states that [w]hen the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear half of the bus. The purpose of S5.2.2.2s requirement to provide a rear exit is to ensure emergency egress in the case of a rollover. To accommodate bus designs that preclude the installation of an accessible rear emergency exit door or window, FMVSS No. 217 allows the installation of a roof emergency exit in lieu of a rear emergency exit door or window. However, the agency emphasizes that the alternative roof exit is only permitted when the bus design precludes installation of an accessible rear exit.[3] An issue raised by your question is: When does a bus configuration preclude installation of an accessible rear exit? Clearly, buses with a rear-engine design preclude installation of an accessible rear exit.[4] NHTSA has also allowed the installation of a roof emergency exit in lieu of a rear emergency exit when a bus had a permanent storage cage that blocked access to the rear emergency exit.[5] While the past interpretations of what designs would preclude the installation of a rear exits have dealt with permanent structures or vehicle features, NHTSA does not require the configuration to be permanent to preclude installation of the rear exit. Given that the addition of the cargo net, when pulled across/installed, could block passengers access to the rear exit door during normal operation and in an emergency, in this circumstance, NHTSA would accept the manufacturers determination that the bus configuration precluded the installation of a rear exit. Therefore, based on the facts you presented, the installation of the emergency roof exit in lieu of an emergency rear exit would be allowed.[6] Labeling
Your second question asks whether NHTSA would allow your bus to have a rear door that is not designated as an emergency exit. As we state above, a roof emergency exit is permitted to be installed in compliance with S5.2.2.2 in lieu of the rear emergency exit in a bus with the configuration you describe. As long as the bus otherwise complies with FMVSS No. 217, the rear door would not be required to be designated and labeled as an emergency exit. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jonathan Morrison Chief Counsel Dated: 12/7/17 Ref: FMVSS No. 217 [1] Based on your letter and your conversations with Ms. Roach of my staff, we understand that while you currently own the bus in question, you are requesting NHTSA to interpret FMVSS No. 217 as it would have applied to the vehicle on the date of its manufacture. Therefore, NHTSA will respond to your question as if the manufacturer is asking whether the described bus configuration was permitted under FMVSS No. 217 on the date of the vehicles manufacture. As you cite the current regulatory language in your letter, we will assume that, for the purpose of this letter, the requirements that would have applied to the vehicle are the same as those in the current standard. [2] S5.2.3 contains requirements for school buses which, at the option of the manufacturer, may be met by a non-school bus to satisfy FMVSS No. 217s provision of emergency exits requirement. [3] Letter to Mr. Timothy A. Kelly (May 30, 1990), found at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/90/nht90-2.58.html. [4] Id. [5] Letter to Ms. Teresa Stillwell (May 21, 2003) found at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/001646drn.html. [6] The emergency roof exit must meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 and, as required by S5.2.2.2, must be located in the rear half of the bus. |
2017 |
ID: nht88-2.58OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/28/88 FROM: KARL H. MAYER -- DR ING H. C F PORSCHE AG RULES AND REGULATIONS PORSCHE TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION/CLARIFICATION FMVSS 101 AND FMVSS 102 ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/03/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KARL H. MAYER, REDBOOK A33 (4), STANDARD 101, STANDARD 102; LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT; LETTER DATED 08/25/88 FROM DEAN HANSELL TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA, RE PORSCHE'S JUNE 28 REQUEST FOR REGULATORY INTERPRETATION FMVSS 101 AND 102 TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones, In connection with the development of a new vehicle transmission we would like to request your opinion concerning regulatory questions raised by this transmission and its related gear shift mechanism, taking into account Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stan dards 101 and 102. We understand that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. We also realize that, under the National Traffic Motor Vehicles Safety Act, it is the responsibility o f the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles and equipment comply with the applicable standards. Nevertheless, in our opinion it can at times be helpful and desirable for both the NHTSA and a motor vehicle manufacturer if a candid dialogue can be brought about regarding new technological developments and related regulatory questions. It is the inten t of this letter to create such a dialogue, as needed, in connection with the questions we are presenting. I. Descriptions of the transmission, its functions and the operation of the gear shift lever The above mentioned motor vehicle transmission is characterized by two functions -- i.e., a manuel gear shift and an automatic gear shift -- combined in a single unit. The transmission will thus let the driver decide at any time if he wishes to shift manually or transfer that task to the automatic portion of the transmission. A motor vehicle equipped with such a unit does not have a clutch pedal. Regardless of which of the dual functions is chosen, its operation depends entirely on the position selected for the gear shift lever. As is customary, the gear shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The movement between the two slots corresponds to the change-over from the automatic to the manual function or vice versa. Movement of the lever between the slots can be accomplished while driving the vehicle forward or also while the vehicle is standing still, entirely at the option of the driver. To accomplish the change from one slot (or function) to the other one, the driver only needs to move the shift lever to the other side across a tranverse connecting slot. As attached drawing 1 shows, this change can only be made from the "D" position on the automatic side to the "M" (manual shift) function on the other side, or vice versa. When the slot exchange takes place from the automatic to the manual function, at first there is no actual gear shift change; i.e., the vehicle remains in the gear it was in on the automatic side. Only after a further "shift order" is given by the dri ver (by tapping on the shift lever) is the desired gear shift change achieved; i.e., either by shifting up (+) or by shifting down (-). (Shifting on the manual side has a "rocker" characteristic similar to that found with a computer video control, which always returns the gear shift lever to the "M" position after being tapped). When changing from the manual to the automatic function, at first the gear selected on the automatic side is "taken along" from the one selected by the driver in the manual mode. However, immediately thereafter the automatic speed adaption of the aut omatic function takes over. This adaption, as usual, depends upon the load factor and the engine revolutions as well as the vehicular speed, and corresponds to the conventional functioning of existing automatic transmission units. II. Questions resulting from the new transmission and Standards 101 and 102 1. We are of the opinion that th s new type of transmission with a dual function is basically permissible under the FMVSS, provided certain requirements are met as per FMVSS 101 and 102. We would like to know whether the NHTSA agrees with this inter pretation of the regulations. The requirements we have taken into consideration in reaching our conclusion are, among others: The shift lever can be reached by the driver. FMVSS 101. S5.1. hand operated controls, item (j) of the list. The shift pattern manufactured as per drawing 1, is continually visible to the driver on the middle console during daylight, FMVSS 101, S5.1 displays, item (c) of the list. The shift pattern, as per drawing 2, shown in the speedometer, is continually visible to the driver and provided with illumination, which is in accordance with the requirement contained in FMVSS 101, S5.3.1. If a gauge is listed in column 1 of Table 2, and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 5, then the gauge and its identification required by S5.2.3 shall be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. Controls, gauge s, and their identifications need not be illuminated when the headlamps are being flashed. The above mentioned illumination of the shift pattern is adjustable, in accordance with FMVSS 101, S5.3.3. In the automatic mode the gear position can be set selectively to P, R, N, D, 3, 2, or 1, clearly readable on the guide display plate of the gear shift on the middle console, as well as clearly marked for the driver by illuminating the corresponding a rrows (arrow) on the shift display in the speedometer. The engine can only be started if the shift lever is in the P or N position as per FMVSS 102. S3.1.3. [FOLLOWING PAGE MISSING] 4. The display shown in drawing 3 differs from the mode depicted in drawing 2 only by including the letter "M" on the manual side. The corresponding arrow would be illuminated during use of the manual mode. Additionally the arrow of the selected sh ift position would light up. Please advise us if the display mode shown in drawing 3 is permissible. Note: The speedometer depicted in drawings 2 and 3 will have a scale reading in MPH in the version manufactured for the USA instead of a scale in KM. We are prepared to provide you with any further information that you would need to consider this inquiry, whether by telephone or in writing, or, if you would prefer, in a face-to-face meeting. We have developed a working model of the dual function shif t lever which we are prepared to demonstrate for you, if that would be helpful to you in evaluating these questions. Your early favorable consideration of these requests would be greatly appreciated so that we can move this technology toward production as soon as possible. A confidential treatment of this inquiry in accordance with 49 CFR Part 512 ist requested. (See enclosed declaration.) Very truly yours, Enclosure (FIGURE 1-3 OMITTED) |
|
ID: nht95-3.25OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: June 23, 1995 FROM: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Re.: Neon High Mounted Stop Lamps ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/18/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO YOSHIAKI MATSUI. (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108) TEXT: Dear Sir, We are planning to develop high mounted stop lamps with neon tubes as their light sources. During the last SAE meeting in Scottsdale, we heard Mr. van Iderstine mentioned that some new regulatory requirements should be provided for neon as light sources. However, we believe it is possible, even at this time, to conduct tests to such stop lamp s in accordance with FMVSS No. 108 and to determine the compliance of the tested high mounted stop lamps to FMVSS No. 108. Therefore, we would like to ask you to give us your advice to the following questions concerning the acceptability of neon tubes as light sources. Q1) Are neon tubes accepted as light sources by the current FMVSS No. 108? Q2) If the answer to the above Q1) is NO, what kind of requirements should be provided to accept the neon? Q3) If the ballast is integral and indivisible part of a neon high mounted stop lamp, like integral beam headlamps with HID, should such stop lamps be accepted under the current FMVSS No. 108 with no reservation provided the lamp is complied to all requi rements specified in the FMVSS No. 108? Q4) If the ballast is separable from lamp assembly, should such high mounted stop lamps with neon tube be accepted under the current FMVSS No. 108 or under the amended FMVSS No. 108 allowing such stop lamps in near future? Your answers will be highly appreciated. |
|
ID: 07-005006--13 May 08--rlsOpenMs. Stefanie Siverly Intertek 4700 Broadmoor SE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49512 Dear Ms. Siverly: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether aftermarket tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) would be subject to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire pressure monitoring systems. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that your company is a testing laboratory and that you have a client who is distributing TPMS as an aftermarket item. Specifically, you state that your client produces both mechanical systems (where the vehicle operator would look at a gauge installed on the tire stem) and electronic systems (where there is a device which can be mounted or stored in the vehicle which alerts the operator to low pressure). Based on the information you have provided and the analysis below, we have concluded that the aftermarket products you describe would not directly be subject to FMVSS No. 138. However, if these aftermarket TPMS devices are installed on vehicles already equipped with TPMS, installation of the devices could be subject to the statutory prohibition against making items of motor vehicle safety equipment inoperative. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. 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. As noted above, some FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles, some apply to motor vehicle equipment, and some apply to both. FMVSS No. 138 is a vehicle standard, specifying performance requirements for tire pressure monitoring systems on new vehicles.[1] The standard does not apply to aftermarket TPMS. However, there are several provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., the Safety Act) that have a bearing the manufacture and sale of aftermarket TPMS. First, 30122(b) of the Safety Act states, in relevant part: Prohibition. 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. In general, this section prohibits the entities listed in 30122 from removing, disabling or otherwise making inoperative any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. Therefore, the question of whether installation of an aftermarket TPMS violates the render inoperative prohibition is linked to whether the vehicle in which the aftermarket TPMS is being installed originally was subject to FMVSS No. 138. (We assume the modification of the vehicle is by an entity listed in 30122.) If the vehicle in which the aftermarket TPMS is being installed was not originally certified as meeting FMVSS No. 138, under our regulations the aftermarket TPMS could be installed without regard to FMVSS No. 138 requirements. On the other hand, if a compliant TPMS that had been installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 138 were removed and replaced by the aftermarket TPMS, the removal of the compliant TPMS would violate the render inoperative prohibition unless the vehicle, as equipped with the aftermarket TPMS, meets the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 138. The second provision of our safety statute of which you should be aware relates to the responsibilities of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. An aftermarket TPMS is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:138 d.3/10/09 [1] S2, Application, of the TPMS standard states that This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle, according to the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. 49 CFR 571.138. |
2009 |
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: nht74-1.13OpenDATE: 03/06/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider for R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Lufkin Industries, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your January 30, 1974, request for inclusion in Standard 106, Brake hoses, of J1402 type A and B hose and J844 (nylon type 3) hose. Standard 106 has already been amended by the addition of 3/8-in and 1/2-in special sizes to the list of hose sizes which may be used with reusable fittings, and this addition permits continued use of commonly utilized types of A and B hose. The nylon 3 hose to which you refer is not excluded from use under the standard. Several of its manufacturers have indicated that it does conform to the requirements of the standard, which have been modified to reflect the lower tensile strength valves needed when used at non-articulating points in the system. Yours truly, ATTACH. January 30, 1974 NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION -- Docket Section Re: Docket No. 1-5 Notice 8 49 CFR 571.106; 38 FR 31302 (November 13, 1973) PETITION FOR NEW RULEMAKING - FMVSS Gentlemen: LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, Trailer Division, is a manufacturer of a variety of on and off-highway trailer equipment. We operate a number of branch offices that sell, service, repair and distribute parts for LUFKIN and other trailers. We are concerned that FMVSS 106, in its present form, is design restrictive. The law will severely effect our timetable of preparation for FMVSS 121, for the following reasons: 1. Failure to list SAE J1402 type A and B hose as acceptable air brake hose. 2. Failure to list SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) as acceptable "Chassis plumbing". According to test data provided by our vendors, J1402 type A and B hose meets FMVSS 106, Paragraph S7. We strongly recommend that you recognize this product as acceptable due to its apparent safety and economy. We have used J1402 type B for years as plumbing from air valve to brake chamber, and from belly of trailer down to sliding bogey. Repair manager interviews and review of documentation and warranty reports show no failures due to excessive pressure. Only two hose failures have occurred during the past two years. Both resulted from mechanical damage so severe that SAE 100RS, SAE J1402 type D, wire braid hose could not have prevented failure. The same statements are true concerning SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing. The tubing's adaptability and workability have simplified complex varieties of air brake "chassis plumbing" on a variety of trailer configurations without sacrificing safety or dependability. We petition that SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing be accepted as "chassis plumbing" except for delivery lines from air relay valve to brake chambers, trailer-tractor connections, trailer-dolly-trailer connections, and trailer belly to sliding bogey connections. If SAE J1402 type A and B hose and SAE J844 (Nylon Type 3) tubing are not accepted as brake hose under this law, we, as well as numerous trailer manufacturers, will be faced with unusable hose, tubing and fittings. Because of quantity order requirements necessitated by scarcity, long trailer construction lead times and planning uncertainties generated by FMVSS's 106 and 121, we may be unable to phase-out obsolete material in the time remaining. Additionally, all LUFKIN brake actuation and release timing tests have been conducted on equipment using the type B hose and nylon tubing. Duplication and waste will result if new components are to be introduced now. We respectfully submit that the final disposition of FMVSS 106 needs immediate resolution. We must finalize drawings, purchase required parts, establish pricing, prepare a firm schedule for phase-out of any unusable parts and complete our shop training program. We need, from you, a finalized FMVSS 106 regulation that will allow us to plan effectively to meet mutual safety and reliability goals. Yours very truly, LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC. W. T. Little -- Vice-President General Manager, Lufkin Trailer Division cc: A. G. Colburn; Joe Bills |
|
ID: 07-000630drnOpenKevin M. Wolford, Executive Director Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. 1101 Fifteenth Street, NW Suite 607 Washington, DC 20005-5020 Dear Mr. Wolford: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). You asked several specific questions about vacuum tubing connectors which are answered below. Background of FMVSS No. 106 and Vacuum Tubing Connectors FMVSS No. 106 specifies labeling and performance requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. The standard defines the term 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 vehicles brakes . . . . (Emphasis added) Thus vacuum tubing connectors are not considered brake hoses for purposes of the standard. Some background information about the rulemaking history of vacuum tubing connectors and FMVSS No. 106 may be helpful. Vacuum tubing connectors were not initially excluded from the definition of brake hose. In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on November 28, 1975 (40 FR 55365), we responded as follows to a petition to exclude from FMVSS No. 106 certain short neoprene connectors used in brake booster systems: These connectors, although not traditionally thought of as brake hoses, are included in the present definition. However, they have special performance requirements that differ considerably from those of brake hoses, making it inappropriate to apply the standard to them. (See 40 FR at 55366.) In the final rule published on July 12, 1976 (41 FR 28505), we noted that a commenter had suggested that the exclusion of tubing connectors be limited to those used in vacuum systems. We agreed with this comment, stating that this approach provides the requested accommodation of an existing practice that has proved acceptable without encouraging the improper design of short air and hydraulic brake hoses. Thus, vacuum tubing connectors were excluded from the definition of brake hose. The final rule added the following definition of vacuum tubing connector: a flexible conduit of vacuum that (i) connects metal tubing to metal tubing in a brake system, (ii) is attached without end fittings, and (iii) when installed, has an unsupported length less than the total length of those portions that cover the metal tubing. This definition of vacuum tubing connector has not been changed since the final rule was published in 1976. With this background, I will now address your questions. Question One: Your first question is whether vacuum tubing connector means the vacuum supply line between a vehicles intake manifold and its power brake booster. For purposes of answering this question, I will assume that by vacuum supply line, you mean the vacuum supply hose. The issue of whether a particular item is considered a vacuum tubing connector for purposes of FMVSS No. 106 depends on whether it meets the definition included in the standard. A vacuum tubing connector is a short length of hose used to connect two metal tubes that are in close proximity to each other to allow for limited motion due to vibration and thermal expansion. As earlier stated, section (iii) of the definition specifies a vacuum tubing connector when installed, to have an unsupported length less than the total length of those portions that cover the metal tubing. In contrast, a vacuum supply hose (also known as the brake booster hose) typically has a free length that is much longer than the portion of the hose that is supported by the end connections. It would thus not meet section (iii) of the vacuum tubing connector definition. If the vacuum supply hose does not meet section (iii), it would not be considered a vacuum tubing connector. In such a case, the vacuum supply hose is a brake hose. Question Two: Your second question is whether a vacuum tubing connector must meet any testing standard and if so, what standards would apply? A vacuum tubing connector does not need to meet the test requirements of FMVSS No. 106, because as previously explained, it is excluded from the definition of brake hose. Moreover, we do not have any other standards that specify test requirements for vacuum tubing connectors. Question Three: Your third question is whether vacuum tubing connectors must be marked, and if so, how must the connectors be marked? Neither FMVSS No. 106 nor any of our other standards specifies marking requirements for vacuum tubing connectors. Question Four: We understand your fourth question to ask whether an item which otherwise would be considered a vacuum brake hose is installed on a vehicle in a manner so that it fully meets the definition of vacuum tubing connector (including subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii)), would then be considered a vacuum tubing connector and excluded from the requirements of FMVSS No. 106. The answer is yes.
Question Five: Your fifth question asks why the vacuum tubing connector definition specifies a metal tubing to metal tubing connection. You stated that plastic and composite fittings are now used for connections at the brake booster and intake manifold. As indicated earlier, the definition of vacuum tubing connector was added to FMVSS No. 106 in 1976. We believe that, at that time, only metal connections were used and plastic or composite connections either did not exist or were not widely used at that time. Question Six: Your sixth question is whether the requirements in S9 are only for rubber hoses or whether any hose made from any substance, such as a plastic, is required to meet these specifications. S9 specifies requirements for vacuum brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. The requirements apply to all such devices, regardless of material, unless the standard includes a specific limitation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Additionally, please note that our address has changed. Our new address is: Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Mail Code: W41-227, Washington, DC 20590. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:106 NCC112:DNakama:mar:62992:may/8/07:OCC#07-000630 cc: NCC-112 Subj/chron, DN, NVS-200, NVS-100 [U:\NCC20\INTERP\106\07-000630drn-2.doc] Interps: Std. No. 106, Redbook (2) |
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.