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: nht76-2.7OpenDATE: 05/05/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Blue Bird Body Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 29 and 31, 1976, and April 14, 1976, requests for confirmation of several interpretations you have made regarding the new safety standards for school buses and the definition of "school bus" as they become effective in October 1976. Your interpretation is correct that "bus passenger compartment" as used in S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, means that portion of the bus that is rearward of the forwardmost point on the windshield. Your request confirmation that the requirement in S5.7(a) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, to open emergency exits during the application of force to the bus roof are inappropriate and therefore not applicable in the case of roof exits. Your interpretation is correct, and the NHTSA intends to modify the language of Standard No. 220 appropriately. You request confirmation that the knee impact requirement of S5.3.2.1 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, does not apply to the rear row of seating in a school bus because there is no passenger seating behind this row. Your interpretation is correct. I would like to point out that the seat back of the rear row of seating also is not subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.1 for the same reason. You are also correct that "school bus passenger seat" as defined in S4 does not include a wheelchair that is placed in a school bus to transport non-ambulatory bus passengers. Our response on other issues concerning special arrangements for handicapped passengers will be forthcoming as a response to the outstanding Sheller-Globe petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 222. In your March 31, 1976, letter you asked whether a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying kindergarten and nursery school children to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus under the redefinition of "school bus" that becomes effective October 27, 1976 (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The answer to your question is yes, because the statutory definition underlying the NHTSA definition of school bus specifically lists preprimary students as passengers of school buses. See 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14). In your April 14, 1976, letter you ask whether the requirement of S5.3.1.3 of Standard No. 222 for a minimum "contact area" on a described spherical head form refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the spherical head form, or the area of contact on the head form as seen in projected view. The "contact area" refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the head form. SINCERELY, BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY March 29, 1976 Thomas W. Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration We have several questions requiring interpretations for recently issued safety standards which apply to school buses. FMVSS 217 S5.2.3.1 states in part "Each school bus shall provide at the manufacturer's option one emergency door on each side in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment . . .". We need a definition of the term "bus passenger compartment." Are we correct in assuming that this means the front of front windshield to the back of the bus body so that the engine hood on a Conventional type school bus is effectively eliminated? This in effect would define the bus passenger compartment as the "box" which the passengers occupy. We feel that this is the most workable definition of the term since any other definition would have to reference some other bus component which would not be easily identified in all bus configurations. FMVSS 220 S4b states in part "each emergency exit of the vehicle provided in accordance with Standard 217 (571.217) shall be capable of opening as specified in that standard during the full application of the force and after release of the force . . .". S5.7a states in part "In the case of testing under the full application of force, open the emergency exits as specified in S4b while maintaining the force applied in accordance with S5.4 and S5.5." These requirements seem unrealistic and indeed practically impossible with respect to roof emergency exits. As written the force application plate would have to have an access hole through which the roof emergency exit would open. Obviously, roof emergency exits will be in different protions of the bus for different bus sizes and, therefore, would necessitate a variety of complicated force application plates. More importantly would be the questionable meaning of such a test since the configuration of the access hole in the force application plate would significantly affect the deflection in the area of the roof emergency exit. This, of course, would affect the operation of the emergency exit as far as latch forces and opening forces are concerned. In addition, this requirement does not seem to be realistically required in accident situations. The only time a roof load would be imposed is when the bus is in the rolled over orientation. Obviously, in this condition passengers would not be able to use roof emergency exits and would choose one of the other emergency exits that are required on all bus configurations. We, therefore, request that roof emergency exits need not be tested during the application of the roof load but rather before and after the application of the roof load. Because of the timing involved, we must proceed on this assumption in order to meet tooling deadlines for the October 26 effective date. We request your written approval of this approach and rulemaking action which would clarify this requirement. FMVSS 222 We are somewhat unsure of the requirements of S5.3.2.1 with respect to knee impact requirements for the last row of seats in a bus. As we understand this requirement the rearmost seat in a bus does not have to meet the knee impact requirements on its seat back since there will be no occupants behind it. These are special seats because of the rear emergency door exit requirements of FMVSS 217 and, therefore, require special tooling. We are committing tooling on this assumption and request your concurrence. From previous conversations with NHTSA personnel it is our understanding that wheelchair seating positions in buses for transporting handicapped students need not meet the requirements of FMVSS 222. For buses which have occupant positions for both wheelchair confined passengers and ambulatory passengers we are assuming that the seating and barrier requirements of FMVSS 222 only apply to those ambulatory passengers who will occupy a standard type school bus passenger seat. In other words, we are assuming that the definition of "school bus passenger seat" in FMVSS 222 does not apply to a wheelchair in a school bus. We feel that there will be many questions regarding the applicability of FMVSS 222 to handicapped buses in the future. Some general guidelines form NHTSA concerning this matter should be considered. May we have your early written reply to each of these matters? W. G. Milby Staff Engineer BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY April 14, 1976 Tad Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration SUBJECT: FMVSS 222 We need an interpretation on Paragraph S5.3.1.3, head form force distribution, of the subject standard. The last sentence of this paragraph reads: "Where any contactable surface within such zones is impacted by the head form from any direction at 5 feet per second, the contact area on the head form surface shall be not less than three square inches." Do the words "contact area" refer to the spherical contact area on the head form or the projected contact area? W. G. Milby Staff Engineer BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY March 31, 1976 Thomas W. Herlihy Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Part 571, Docket No. 75-24; Notice 02, Redefinition of "School Bus." The question has arisen as to whether a bus that carries kindergarten and nursery school children would be defined as a "school bus." Thanks for a ruling on this matter. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer |
|
ID: nht76-5.2OpenDATE: 08/31/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Volvo of America Corporation COPYEE: ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP.; U.S. TESTING CO., INC. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your April 6, 1976, request for interpretations regarding certain sections of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, when applied to the continuous loop seat belt assemblies provided on current Volvo vehicles. Paragraphs S4.4(b)(1) and (2) specify performance requirements for components in the pelvic restraint and upper torso restraint portions of a belt system, tested separately and in combination. You ask for verification of your interpretation that the requirements for separate testing of pelvic and upper torso portions are inapplicable to a continuous loop seat belt, on the basis that this type system "can never in real life be subjected to forces only in the pelvic restraint." Your letter includes an illustration of your test apparatus for determining compliance with paragraph S4.4(b), and you request verification that your procedure is correct. Section S5.3(b) of the standard sets forth the test methods that would be used in a determination of whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly conforms to the requirements of S4.4(b). Paragraph S4.4(b)(1) specifies that the pelvic restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 2,500 pounds, and S4.4(b)(2) specifies that the upper torso restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 1,500 pounds. The Volvo continuous loop belt systems are subject to these requirements. A recent NHTSA interpretation letter to Toyo Kojyo (copy enclosed) on the same subject sets forth the responsibilities of the manufacturer in cases where the specified test procedures may not be entirely suitable to a new safety component design. In testing continuous loop belt systems for compliance with S4.4(b)(1) and (2), the agency has interpreted S5.3(b) to necessitate the use of a clamp in the same fashion as suggested by Toyo Kojyo to ensure that the force is applied to the appropriate portion of belt webbing and hardware. It must be understood, of course, that the NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturers's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification. It is impossible for the agency to foresee whether the various aspects of a particular test procedure will be conducted in a proper fashion, based solely on a written description of that test procedure. In the second part of your letter you asked whether the buckle crush requirements of paragraph S4.3(d)(3) of Standard No. 209, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S5.2(d)(3), are applicable to Volvo seat belt buckles and, if so, whether Volvo's interpretation as to how the test should be conducted is correct. It is true that the buckle requirements were originally included in the standard to guard against possible damage to the buckle caused by the steering wheel in a crash situation. Since the issuance of the standard, new seat belt assembly designs have been developed in which the belt buckle is located between the front seats. As you pointed out in your letter, these buckles are not likely to be contacted by the steering wheel in a crash situation. In view of the significant design changes that have occurred, the agency has reconsidered its 1972 interpretation to United States Testing Company on this subject. Because it is unlikely that any of these buckles would be damaged by compressive forces in a crash, we have determined that the requirements are inappropriate. Therefore, we conclude that the existing S4.3(d)(3) buckle requirements are not applicable to buckles that are located between bucket seats and attached to the console or to the end of a rigid cable or bar. SINCERELY, April 6, 1976 Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 209 Demonstration Procedures FMVSS 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies in detail performance requirements which must be met by automotive seat belt assemblies. The manner in which conformance with these requirements is to be demonstrated is outlined in S5 of FMVSS 209. Both the performance requirements and the demonstration procedures reflect the design characteristics of those types of seat belt assemblies commonly in use when the standard was written. We have experienced difficulty in applying these requirements to the single loop type seat belt assembly employed on current Volvo vehicles. Attached are a discussion of section S4.4(b) and a discussion of sections S4.3(d)(3) and S5.2(d)(3) of FMVSS 209 outlining our interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 209 apply to single loop type seat belt assemblies. Also attached are illustrations of the Volvo single loop seat belt assembly. Your verification that our interpretation of FMVSS 209, as stated in the attached discussions, is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 209 would be appreciated. Any questions on this matter may be addressed to the undersigned. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this request. VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development Donald J. Gobeille, Jr. Product Safety Engineer Request for Interpretation FMVSS 209 S4.3(d)(3) and S5.2(d)(3) S5.2(d)(3) specifies that a seat belt buckle shall be subjected to a compressive force of 400 pounds applied ". . . anywhere on a test line that is coincident with the centerline of the belt extended through the buckle . . ." (alternative 1) or ". . . on any line that extends over the center of the release mechanism and intersects the extended centerline of the belt at an angle of 60 degrees . . ." (alternative 2). The requirements which shall be met, when tested in this manner, are found in S4.3(d)(3). The intent of these requirements is expressed in Docket 69-23, Notices 1 and 2, published on March 17, 1970 (35 F.R. 4641) and on March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4607), respectively, where it is stated that the test will tend to eliminate buckle designs which are prone to accidental damage, or which release during the initial phase of the accident. For a design where the buckle is rigidly mounted on the floor between the front seats (see attached description), its location protects it from accidental damage and from release during the initial phase of an accident. It is our interpretation that if the buckle crush requirements are at all applicable to buckles of this design and location, they shall be tested in accordance with alternative 1 above and the force shall be applied as indicated on the attached description. The basis for this interpretation is that the only damage which may occur results from compression if the seats are displaced as a result of a side impact, where the protective effect of a belt in any case can be discussed. Therefore we request you to: (1) state if the buckle crush requirements of S4.3(d)(3), when tested in accordance with S5.2(d)(3), are applicable to the described type of buckles, and (2) if so, if our interpretation as to how this test shall be conducted is correct. Request for Interpretation FMVSS 209 S4.4(b) S4.4(b) specifies requirements for Type 2 seat belt assemblies. S4.4(b)(1) and (2) specify requirements for components in the pelvic restraint and in the upper torso restraint, respectively. Then S4.4(b)(3) specifies requirements for components which are common to pelvic and upper torso restraints. A Type 2 seat belt assembly which is designed as a continuous loop seat belt with a sliding locking tongue, can never in real life be subjected to forces only in the pelvic restraint. Therefore we interpret S4.4(b)(1) and (2) as not directly applicable to such a design of seat belts. Only S4.4(b)(3) should apply, which indirectly covers the same aspect of performance. The maximum elongation requirements of S4.4(b)(4) and (5) can be met by limiting the double-roller block travel to 10 inches when the 6000 pounds force is applied. The breaking strength requirement of S4.4(b)(6) for a webbing cut of the pelvic restraint should be applicable to any webbing cut in a continuous loop seat belt. In accordance with our interpretation, a continuous loop seat belt assembly should be tested as indicated in the following figure: As can be seen from this figure, the test set up includes all attachment hardware, and the positions of the components simulate as close as possible their actual positions in a vehicle. We request that you confirm our interpretation as stated above. (Graphics omitted) Part of drawing No 1290538 (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: 10407Open Mr. Larry W. Overbay Dear Mr. Overbay: This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems, and NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02. You stated that your organization recently tested a vehicle's compliance to the emergency stopping distance requirements in FMVSS No. 121 by disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. You further stated that this action "essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops" making the vehicle totally reliant on the front brakes for stopping. According to your letter, the vehicle manufacturer contends that the manner in which you conducted the test is invalid since it was not done in accordance with NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02, which specifies rapid bleeding of the vehicle's air reservoirs. In addition to general questions about FMVSS No. 121 and the NHTSA Test Procedure, you asked whether the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No. 121. After providing background information that responds to your general questions about testing of motor vehicles, I will respond to your specific question about test conditions applicable to the emergency stopping requirements. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (Formerly, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30303) NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies performance requirements for the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA has provided instructions, known as "compliance test procedures," to the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests for the agency. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between various testing facilities. The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, provide additional detail beyond what is set forth in the relevant FMVSS. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. The agency has generally stated that the test procedures are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s) and that in some cases the test procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. With this background in mind, let me respond to your specific questions. As for your first question, the requirements in FMVSS No. 121 take precedence over the TP 121-02. As noted above, TP 121-02 contains instructions issued by NHTSA to provide information to agency contractors about how to conduct compliance tests. In contrast, the law requires manufacturers to certify their vehicles to Standard No. 121. As for your question about FMVSS No. 121's emergency stopping test requirements, those requirements are set forth in section S5.7.1. However, those requirements are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers, as the result of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in PACCAR v. DOT, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978). (see S3 of 49 CFR 571.121). The agency retained the language in S5.7.1 so that those manufacturers that wish to construct their vehicles in accordance with the non-mandatory sections of the standard will have the necessary information to do so.
I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:121 d:2/17/95
|
1995 |
ID: nht95-1.74OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: February 17, 1995 FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive and Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Department of the Army TITLE: None ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/4/94 LETTER FROM LARRY W. OVERBAY TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10407) TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems, and NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02. You stated that your organization recently tested a vehicle's compliance to the emerg ency stopping distance requirements in FMVSS No. 121 by disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. You further stated that this action "essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops" making the vehicle totally relian t on the front brakes for stopping. According to your letter, the vehicle manufacturer contends that the manner in which you conducted the test is invalid since it was not done in accordance with NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02, which specifies rapid blee ding of the vehicle's air reservoirs. In addition to general questions about FMVSS No. 121 and the NHTSA Test Procedure, you asked whether the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is conside red by NHTSA to be a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No. 121. After providing background information that responds to your general questions about testing of motor vehicles, I will respond to your specific q uestion about test conditions applicable to the emergency stopping requirements. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (Formerly, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30303) NHTSA, however, does not appro ve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies performance requirements for the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA has provided instructions, known as "compliance test procedures," to the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests f or the agency. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance char acteristics of the product being tested, not differences between various testing facilities. The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, provide additional detail beyond what is s et forth in the relevant FMVSS. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. The agency has generally stated that the test procedures are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s) and that in some cases the test procedu res do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. With this background in mind, let me respond to your specific questions. As for your first question, the requirements in FMVSS No. 121 take precedence over the TP 121-02. As noted above, TP 121-02 contains instructions issued by NHTSA to provide inform ation to agency contractors about how to conduct compliance tests. In contrast, the law requires manufacturers to certify their vehicles to Standard No. 121. As for your question about FMVSS No. 121's emergency stopping test requirements, those requirements are set forth in section S5.7.1. However, those requirements are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers, as the result of the U.S. Court of Appe als decision in PACCAR v. DOT, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978). (see S3 of 49 CFR 571.121). The agency retained the language in S5.7.1 so that those manufacturers that wish to construct their vehicles in accordance with the non-mandatory sections of the standard will have the necessary information to do so. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 07-002015--31 Oct 07--rlsOpenMr. Dick Sabath Senior Manager, Compliance Country Coach, LLC 135 East First Avenue P.O. Box 400 Junction City, OR 97448 Dear Mr. Sabath: This responds to your letter concerning testing of driver and front row passenger bucket seats and seat belt systems to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) No. 207 and 210. Specifically, you asked whether a longitudinal movement of - to -inch of these seats during testing constitute[s] an out-of-compliance or safety concern under FMVSS No. 207. Based on the information you provided and the analysis below, we would not consider this amount of movement to constitute a test failure under FMVSS No. 207. By way of background information, 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. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. In your letter, you stated that all three anchorage points of both seats (type 2 seat belts) are on the seat. You further describe the forward and rearward movements of these seats as being motorized with a single electric motor. It appears that the electric adjustment motor affects the performance of your seats in the compliance tests for FMVSSs No. 207 and 210. You explain that During the (repetitive) forward pull tests . . . we have observed a consistent and repetitive forward travel of to -inch in the longitudinal adjusted position due to the backlash of the electric adjustment motor. You further state that: Once the backlash has occurred, the entire seat and seat belt assembly holds the prescribed test loads for the time specified in the FMVSS 207/210. No other movement or breakage was observed during the four different tests we conducted on the same seat models to verify the cause of the to inch forward displacement. The to -inch of travel remains consistent throughout all tests. S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207 states that Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, each seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in S5. (Emphasis added.) We have long interpreted S4.2.1 to allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that structural integrity of the seats is maintained.[1] For example, we have stated that bending and twisting of the seat or seat components during the force test would not result in non-compliance with FMVSS No. 207, unless the bending or twisting resulted in the seat moving from one adjustment position to another, which would violate S4.2.1s requirement that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested. You indicate that the movement of the seat is due to backlash in the electrical adjustment motor. The term backlash in this context typically refers to the gap between mechanical elements such as mating gears used to drive or move a device.[2] As such, backlash may also be present in a manual seat adjustment, such as the detents in a typical seat fore-aft adjustment mechanism. As such, forward movement of a seat during the application of the required loading strictly due to backlash, whether or not the mechanism of adjustment is an electrical motor, would not be considered in violation of the requirement in S4.2.1 that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested. Thus, in terms of the specific factual situation described in your letter, we would not consider such movement a test failure under FMVSS No. 207. However, if any of the seat movement were due to a factor such as movement of the driving mechanism, such as rotation of the gear providing the seat adjustment, S4.2.1 would be violated. In addition, as we have previously stated, if a change in the adjusted position of the seat back is caused by the gear mechanism being destroyed, the seat would also not comply with S4.2.1.[3] Thus, in terms of the specific factual situation described in your letter, we would not consider such movement a test failure under FMVSS No. 207. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:207 d.11/13/07 [1] See, e.g., Letter to Glenn L. Duncan, Aug. 26, 1988, and Letter to Paul N. Wagner, Dec. 23, 1994 (enclosed). [2] The Standard Handbook of Machine Design by Joseph Shigley and Charles Mischke (McGraw-Hill, 1996) defines backlash as the amount by which the width of a tooth space exceeds the thickness of the engaging tooth measured on the pitch circle. [3] See Letter to Paul N. Wagner, Dec. 23, 1994. |
2007 |
ID: nht90-2.94OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: June 22, 1990 FROM: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation ATTACHMT: Attached to Ford Bulletin number 10 dated 12-15-89 entitled Splicing Into The Stop Lamp Electrical Circuit, signature by R.R. Chestnut; Also attached to memo dated 6-6-90 from Tekonsha Engineering Company; Also attached to letter dated 8-31-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 5-2-84 from F. Berndt to L.F. Henneberger; Also attached to letter dated 11-30-81 from F. Berndt to K.G. Moyer (A23; Std. 108; Redbook 3); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to L.F. Henneberger (A36; VSA Sec. 103 (d); Std. 108) TEXT: I am submitting this request for interpretation on behalf of my client, Echlin Inc. and more specifically Tekonsha Engineering Company, a subsidiary of Echlin, concerning a California Vehicle Code lighting provision which, in our view, conflicts with and is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 108. The respective NHTSA and California requirements at issue are subparagraph S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 and subparagraph 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code. These provisions are reproduced in juxtaposition at Attachment A to this letter. Essentially, the conflict arises from the California Highway Patrol's (CHP) interpretation of 24603(f) as requiring the activation of a vehicle's stop lamps upon the application of the manual emergency override for use in controlling trailer sway. Tekonsha believes that the California provision is at odds with S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 since its hand controlled emergency device (a) is not intended to and in the usual case, does not result in diminished vehicle speeds; (b) does not involve application of the vehicle's service brakes; (c) if connected to the stop lamps, would provide an unsafe, false braking signal; and (d) by not being connected to the stop lamps, eliminates other unsafe conditions caused by electrical interference. BACKGROUND Tekonsha has recently developed and introduced into the market a new generation, "state of the art" product known as the Commander Electronic Brake Control specifically designed to avoid splicing into the stop lamp switch circuit. This new development eliminates electrical interference including interference which causes serious safety problems. Electrical interference can, for example, prevent the speed control from disengaging upon braking, or deactivate antilock brake system operation. See Ford Motor Company Bulletin No. 10 (December 15, 1989) and Tekonsha product memorandum (June 6, 1990), both enclosed, respectively, as Attachments B-1 and B-2. The Commander brake control permits the driver of a vehicle to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to control swaying. In this emergency condition, the Commander brake control does not send out false signals because it is not connected into the stop lamp switch circuit. It is not the intention of the driver in controlling sway to stop or diminish speed. Therefore, by definition, the stop lamps should not be activated. REGULATORY APPLICATION Subparagraph S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 provides that the "stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." A review of the applicable SAE Standard, SAE J586 FEB84 (currently referenced by FMVSS 108), provides, at S2.1 of the SAE standard, a definition of "stop lamps" as "lamps giving a steady light to the rear of a vehicle to indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Indeed, previous interpretations of NHTSA have restricted stop lamp activation to vehicle functions which involve deceleration of the vehicle. See, e.g., the agency's two interpretations to the undersigned on behalf of Jacobs Manufacturing Company, by letters dated August 31, 1978 (Attachment C-1), and May 2, 1984 (Attachment C-2). Subparagraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS 108 provides, in part, that "no additional ... motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." In a November 30, 1981, letter of interpretation issued by NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Mr. Kenneth Moyer, the agency emphasized that a motor vehicle device which activated the stop lamps "under a condition indicating an intent other than (to stop or diminish speed by braking) ... could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps." The 1981 interpretation letter went on to state that NHTSA considered "any use of required lighting equipment for a purpose other than as defined, as an 'impairment'" precluded by what is presently subparagraph S5.1.3 of Standard 108 in the case of original equipment, and as a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as a device which would "render ineffective in whole or in part" required lighting equipment, in the case of an aftermarket device. In strong language which we believe is directly applicable to CHP's attempted stop lamp indication requirement here, NHTSA, in its November 1981 interpretation letter, underscored its position that a stop lamp, under FMVSS 108, must operate in such a way as to indicate the intention of the vehicle operator to stop or diminish speed by braking. "We are especially concerned that a high rate of 'false alarms' may lead to a decrease in the overall warning value of the stop lamp signal itself, i.e., the 'cry wolf' phenomenon. This could lead to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any proposed system." The November 30, 1981, interpretation letter is included in our submission as Attachment D. Subparagraph 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code provides that "stoplamps shall be activated on application of the service (foot) brake and the hand control head for air, vacuum, or electric brakes." The ambiguous drafting and resulting difficulties of interpreting a conjunctive provision such as the foregoing notwithstanding, CHP has taken the position that the cited clause mandates application of the stop lamps when the Commander Electronic Brake Control manual emergency override is used, even though the service brakes are not applied at the time. Besides the potential safety hazards presented by stop lamp circuit connection with the override as outlined above, this condition, which is typically intended to control trailer sway and not "to stop or diminish speed by braking," presents a false braking signal to following vehicles. By logical extension, the CHP position could require stop lamp indication for any of a myriad of vehicle activities and functions, none of which is related to vehicular braking or deceleration. Tekonsha submits that the CHP position frustrates and is totally at odds with the plain wording and underlying intent of subparagraph S5.5.4. In the situation under review, the service brakes are not in the applied position and the vehicle is not in a stopping mode because it is not subject to any decelerating mechanism of the braking system. Under these circumstances, Tekonsha believes that the CHP position with respect to California vehicle Code subsection 24603(f) results in the California standard's being substantively dissimilar to FMVSS 108 on the same aspect of motor vehicle equipment performance and as such, preempted by the application of Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1392(d). CONCLUSION For the reasons as set forth, Tekonsha respectfully requests an interpretation confirming its view that subparagraph 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code is preempted by S5.5.4 of FMVSS 108 to the extent that the former mandates stop lamp activation for a vehicular function such as the Commander Electronic Brake Control manual emergency override, which is unrelated to stopping activity and intended to assist in controlling a swaying trailer under emergency conditions without application of the service brakes. We appreciate your consideration of our request for interpretation, and encourage you to contact the undersigned, should questions remain. FMVSS 108 S S5.5.4 The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The highmounted stop lamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes. California Vehicle Code S 24603(f) Stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the service (foot) brake and the hand control head for air, vacuum, or electric brakes.... |
|
ID: 07-000136 two harnessesOpenMs. Desire Kootungal 12405 Alameda Trace Circle 1012 Austin, TX 78727 Dear Ms. Kootungal: This responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking whether it is permissible to provide two harnesses with the child restraint system you wish to produce. As explained below, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, does not prohibit you from providing two harnesses. By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal safety requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.). Under that authority, we issued FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), which sets forth requirements which must be met by any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less. (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds. Notice of proposed rulemaking, August 31, 2005, 70 FR 51720.) Child restraint manufacturers must certify that each of their child restraints satisfy all requirements of FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 213 is frequently amended and manufacturers are responsible for keeping current on its requirements. For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts validation checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with FMVSS No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with FMVSS No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30120). Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Discussion You ask about S5.4.3.1 of FMVSS No. 213, which states: Each belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system shall be adjustable to snugly fit any child whose height and weight are within the ranges recommended in accordance with S5.5.2(f) [which requires the manufacturers recommendations for the maximum mass and height of children who can safety occupy the system] and who is positioned in the system in accordance with the instructions required by S5.6. You explain that you are working with a company that is designing a child restraint system (CRS) for physically handicapped children, for use only in the forward-facing position. The CRS would provide five-point restraint for children ranging in weight from 22 to 130 pounds (lb). You state that, to accommodate the broad range of occupants, the CRS must be sold with two harnesses, which together would encompass the weight and height ranges that the restraint is designed for. You ask: Is it permissible to have two harnesses, with the second (larger) harness designed and specified to be used only by children weighing more than 66 lb (or 81 lb when the new standard becomes effective)? FMVSS No. 213 does not prohibit manufacturers from providing more than one harness with child restraint systems. We interpret the requirement in S5.4.3.1 that each beltshall be adjustable to snugly fit any child of a height and weight recommended for the restraint as not to require that each belt (harness) alone must be adjustable to fit all the children recommended for the restraint. Rather, that section requires each child restraint to be sold with sufficient belts (harnesses) that provide the adjustability needed to snugly fit the child occupants recommended for the restraint. Of course, each belt (harness) sold with the restraint would each have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 for belts, belt buckles and belt webbing (S5.4), flammability resistance (S5.7), and all other applicable requirements.[1] There is an issue in your question as to whether child restraints recommended for children weighing more than the upper weight limit of the standard (65 lb, or in the future 80 lb assuming the standard were amended as currently proposed) may have features not permitted by the standard. For your information, our general view on this issue is that manufacturers are not permitted to avoid complying with FMVSS No. 213 simply by labeling their child restraint as not recommended for children within the weight range of Standard No. 213, if in fact the restraint is marketed toward or otherwise will likely be used by children weighing 65 lb (or in the future, 80 lb) or less. NHTSA would check whether the manufacturers assertion is bona fide. Moreover, restraint systems for children weighing 65 lb (or in the future, 80 lb) or more are motor vehicle equipment under our Safety Act, and as such must be free of safety-related defects. Finally, we note a procedural regulation that would apply to you if you begin manufacturing child restraints. 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires a manufacturer of child restraints to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Please note that our address has changed. Our new address is: Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Mail Code: W41-227, Washington, DC 20590. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref:213 d.6/18/07 [1] Note that NHTSA administers an Ease-of-Use (EOU) consumer information program that rates child restraints on their ease of use (49 CFR 575.201). This program started in 2002, when Congress directed us to establish a child restraint safety rating consumer information program to provide practicable, readily understandable, and timely information to consumers for use in making informed decisions in the purchase of child restraints. The EOU program encourages CRS manufacturers to produce child restraints with features that make it easier for consumers to use and install correctly. See final rule, November 5, 2002, 67 FR 67491, Docket 10052. The EOU program currently does not evaluate restraints targeted to handicapped children. We do not know the details of your design but broadly speaking, a child restraint sold to the general public with a design that required the owner to replace the harness when the child outgrew it would likely receive reduced marks in the EOU program. |
2007 |
ID: 04-009159drnOpen
David Ring, Operations Manager Dear Mr. Ring: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). In particular, you asked about the most current version of FMVSS No. 106 and FMVSS No. 106 requirements for assemblers of crimp style air brake assemblies for aftermarket customers. In responding to your letter, I note that 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. FMVSS No. 106 applies to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. The various requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose fittings are set forth in S7 of FMVSS No. 106. You ask if FMVSS No. 106 requires your two associate distributors, which are independent contractors, to "register their unique symbols" if they are purchasing materials from Fluid Connector Products to manufacture crimp-style air brake assemblies for their aftermarket customers. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the two associate distributors are not permitted to label the air brake assemblies with "FCP" and that Fluid Connector Products does not assume responsibility for assemblies manufactured by the associate distributors. With this background, the answer is yes, the two associate distributors must "register their unique symbols". FMVSS No. 106 at S7.2.3Assemblies states:
[The mailing address has changed to: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Equipment Division NVS-222, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC20590. This new address is reflected in the December 20, 2004 brake hose final rule and is the preferred address.]
Where a distributor of brake hose parts assembles them into an air brake hose assembly, the distributor would be the manufacturer of the assembly. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment". The enclosed letter of May 13, 2002 to WIRA Fahrzeug-und Maschinenteile GmbH explains additional requirements for manufacturers of brake hoses. On December 20, 2004 (69 FR 76298), NHTSA issued in the Federal Register, a final rule updating FMVSS No. 106, including the requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. No changes were made to S7.2.3 or to S7.2.3.1. The final rule takes effect on December 20, 2006. However manufacturers that wish to do so may begin complying with this new rule beginning on February 18, 2005. I hope this information is helpful. In addition to the above, I am also, enclosing a information sheet for new manufacturers and a copy of the December 20, 2004 final rule updating FMVSS No. 106. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosures |
2005 |
ID: 21490importtiresnebOpenMr. Reginald Williams Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your March 31, 2000, letter requesting information regarding the requirements for "DOT safety compliance labeling required on the tires." You state in your letter that you are a United States customs broker located in Houlton, Maine and that you have three clients interested in importing new and retreaded tires into the United States from Canada. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, endorses, nor grants letters of approval of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects. It is not clear from your letter whether your clients are interested in importing passenger car tires or tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you receive the information that is of concern to you, I will discuss requirements for new and retreaded tires for use on both passenger cars and on other motor vehicles. Generally speaking, all tires which are subject to a FMVSS must have the symbol "DOT" molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. With regard to new tires, FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires (copy enclosed), and FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims (copy enclosed), specify performance standards and labeling requirements for new passenger car tires and rims. FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed), and FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed), specify performance standards and labeling requirements applicable to tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping (copy enclosed), requires new tire manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto one tire sidewall a tire identification number (TIN) and specifies methods by which new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners shall maintain records of tire purchasers. 49 CFR 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS) (copy enclosed), requires new motor vehicle and new tire manufacturers and brand name owners to provide information to consumers concerning the relative performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The UTQGS grades are also required to be molded into or onto the tire sidewall. The labeling requirements specified in the regulations referred to above apply to the actual tire manufacturers and/or brand name owners, and the required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5) as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles or equipment or one who imports motor vehicles or equipment for resale. Concerning retreaded tires, FMVSS No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires (copy enclosed), specifies performance, labeling, and certification requirements for retreaded pneumatic passenger car tires. No FMVSS is applicable to retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. These tires may be imported without certification of compliance by the retreader and a DOT symbol must not appear on these tires as indicated in 49 CFR 574.5. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 Part CFR 574, if they are to be legally sold in the United States. In sum, all new or retreaded tires sold or imported into the United States for sale must comply with all applicable FMVSSs and regulations as discussed above. For you and your clients' information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. If the tires in question are intended for or capable of being used on a commercial vehicle, you may want to check with the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at (202) 366-1790, for information about any applicable requirements. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
2000 |
ID: 571-108--motorcycle rear lamp--Triumph DesignsOpen
Mr. Robert G. Mills Supervisor, Homologation Triumph Designs Limited Normandy Way, Hinckley Leicestershire LE10 3BZ United Kingdom
Dear Mr. Mills:
This responds to your letter, dated April 8, 2011, asking whether the motorcycle rear lamp system you describe is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, which governs lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment on vehicles. In a February 2012, meeting with agency staff you stated that the project for which you were requesting this interpretation was on hold. On October 5, 2015, you emailed Thomas Healy of my staff asking about the status of our response to your letter. I apologize for the delay in our response. As explained below, we believe that the system would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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 approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. 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 represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our regulations to your proposed lighting configuration based upon the facts set forth in the materials that you submitted.
In your letter and the attached diagrams, you describe the lamp system as consisting of two lamps, with one lamp located on either side of the rear vertical centerline of the motorcycle. The center axes of the lamps are separated by a distance of 315 mm (12.4 in). Each of the lamps functions as turn signal, stop lamp, and taillamp. The operational logic chart attached to your letter indicates that the system has four functional modes: 1) both lamps continuously illuminated as taillamps; 2) one lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a taillamp; 3) both lamps illuminated at a higher intensity as stop lamps when the brakes are applied; and 4) in a situation in which the brakes are applied at the same time as a turn is indicated, one lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated at a higher intensity as a stop lamp. You state that the effective projected luminous lens area of the two lamps in your configuration, when combined, is 50 cm2.
You ask whether it would be permissible to combine the two lamps on either side of the vertical centerline of the motorcycle in order to meet the effective projected luminous lens area requirements of FMVSS No. 108. You further inquire whether the required minimum 4 inch edge to edge separation of red turn signal lamps from the taillamp or stop lamp for motorcycles equipped with a single stop and taillamp applies to your lighting configuration.
You pose an additional question about the operating condition of the lamps when both the turn signal and stop lamps are activated. In your letter, you state that when one of the turn signal lamps is activated during braking, only the lamp on the opposite side of motorcycle from the turn signal that is flashing will be activated as a stop lamp. Since only one of the two lamps used to meet the effective projected luminous lens area requirement for the stop lamp is activated in this situation, the effective projected luminous lens area falls below that required for a motorcycle equipped with a single stop lamp. You inquire whether this situation would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108.
We agree that you may combine the lamps on either side of the vertical centerline of the motorcycle for the purpose of meeting the effective projected luminous lens area requirements for a motorcycle equipped with a single stop lamp in FMVSS No. 108. FMVSS No. 108 requires that the stop lamps and the rear turn signal lamps must meet the requirements of Table IV-a. FMVSS No. 108 permits the use of multiple compartment lamps or multiple lamps to meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps.[1] The compartments or lamps in such systems are tested together as a unit as long as all the compartments or lamps are within a certain distance of each other. For a two-lamp system, the center axis of the lamps must be within 560 mm of each other to be tested as a unit. The distance between the two lamps in your configuration is less than 560 mm, thus the lamps could be considered a combination lamp for the purpose of meeting the effective projected luminous lens area requirement for the stop lamp. In previous interpretation letters addressing rear motorcycle lamp configurations, we have applied the distance requirements in FMVSS No. 108 and referenced SAE standards to conclude that lamp systems consisting of lamps on either side of the rear vertical centerline of a motorcycle can be considered single lamps for the purposes of meeting the stop lamp photometric requirements (See enclosed November 20, 1998 letter to Tadashi Suzuki).
You correctly note in your letter that Table I-c of FMVSS No. 108 requires turn signal lamps on a motorcycle to be separated from the tail lamp or stop lamp by 4 inches when a single tail or stop lamp is mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle and the turn signal lamps are red. We do not believe that this requirement is applicable to the configuration described in your letter because the configuration you describe consists of two lamps mounted either side of the vertical centerline instead of a single stop or tail lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.
We believe that the situation in which the turn signal and stop lamp of your proposed lighting system are both activated would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. The Table I-c of FMVSS No. 108 states that when a stop lamp is optically combined with a turn signal lamp, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing. According to the definition of optically combined in FMVSS No. 108, optical combination results when 1) a lamp has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb), and 2) the lamps optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.
In your proposed system, both lamps together constitute the required single stop lamp, and each individual lamp also acts as a turn signal. Under the definition stated above, the single stop lamp (consisting of both lamps) is considered to be optically combined with both turn signals. Such an interpretation could mean that a situation when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a stop signal would not be permissible. Neither of the lamps could be illuminated as a stop signal if one of the turn signals is flashing. In other words, the vehicle would not display any signal indicating that the brakes were being applied in such a situation. If the taillamps could not indicate braking, we would consider this to constitute a safety risk and to be impermissible under FMVSS No. 108.
In the unique situation presented by the lamp system you describe, when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously (and more strongly) illuminated as a stop signal, the lighted section that is flashing as a turn signal does cease to operate as a stop signal. The lamp system as a whole, however, would continue to signal when the brakes are applied because the other lighted section continues to operate as a stop signal. We conclude that the situation when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously (and more strongly) illuminated as a stop signal is permissible under FMVSS No. 108. We caution that this interpretation is limited to the unique motorcycle rear lamp system described in your letter.
If you have further questions, you may refer them to Thomas Healy of this Office (202-366-2992).
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Acting Chief Counsel
Dated: 10/20/15 Ref: Standard No. 108 |
2015 |
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.