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: 86-1.40OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/21/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Dean Hansell, Esq. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Dean Hansell, Esq. Messrs. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 555 South Flower Street Los Angeles. California 90071
Dear Mr. Hansell:
This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1986, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits headlamps to be nonrectangular.
Standard No. 108 prescribes dimensions only for sealed beam headlamps, in accordance with the terms of the standard and the materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers incorporated by reference. Under these requirements, sealed beam headlamps must be either circular or rectangular according to either the diameters or length/width dimensions specified.
In 1983 Standard No. 108 was amended to allow additional headlighting systems (see paragraph 54.1.1.36) incorporating a replaceable light source with an "0" ring seal. Dimensions are prescribed for this light source. With this type of system, the emphasis on standardization of lighting equipment shifts from size and shape of the unit to the light source itself. This allows the headlamp designer freedom to choose the headlamp size and shape most acceptable to his client within the constraints of the standardized replaceable light source and the photometric requirements of the standard which are essentially the same for all headlamps. Further, such headlamps must be capable of mechanical aim just like sealed beam units.
I hope that this answers your question.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
January 14, 1986
Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 4000 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: FMVSS 108 - Request for Interpretation
Dear Ms. Jones:
We seek the Agency's interpretation concerning FMVSS 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). Our question is whether headlamps can be nonrectangular.
We find nothing in FMVSS 108 mandating a specific shape for a headlamp. However, the illustrations in FMVSS 108 (for example, figures 11 and 12) all show rectangular headlamps. Although this is presumably due to the fact that only rectangular headlamps were available at the time the regulations were initially written, it did raise a question whether some intention to limit the shape of headlamps was being indicated. In any case, it is now our understanding that in connection with the rewriting of FMVSS 108, the size and shape of headlamps has been "deregulated". We do understand that, if an alternate shaped headlamp is used, the beam pattern and photometric output specifications of FMVSS 108 must be followed and the headlamp must be capable of being used with a standardized universal adapter (or have an "O" ring). Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
Yours truly,
Dean Hansell
DH:l
cc: Jere Medlin Crash Avoidance Division |
|
ID: Wheeler.1OpenMs. Angela Wheeler Dear Ms. Wheeler: This responds to your letter in which you seek clarification regarding the implications under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) of modifying the seat assemblies of 20 medium-duty trucks to convert them from having intermediate seat backs to high seat backs. The purpose of these modifications would be to improve driver safety in the event of a rear impact. According to your letter and a subsequent phone conversation with Eric Stas, you stated that the California Department of Transportation, Division of Equipment (CalDOT) is a final-stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and it affixes certification labels in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. You stated that CalDOT owns the vehicles in question and would make such modifications itself. Your letter also described in detail both the original seat assembly delivered with the vehicle and the replacement seat assembly (whose back portion you wish to install), both of which you state conformed to FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems, at the date of manufacture. We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to our standards. 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. NHTSA does not issue approvals of these products, but instead, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must self-certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards, prior to offering such products for sale. Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, in order to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. Before answering your specific questions, I would begin by discussing a few general matters of relevance here. First, it should be noted that under our certification requirements, every completed vehicle must be certified as complying with applicable FMVSSs. Final-stage manufacturers that complete vehicles for their own use are subject to this requirement. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person may not "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, unless such vehicle complies with safety standards and is so certified. Ongoing use of a vehicle by its manufacturer on the public highways would constitute introduction of the vehicle into interstate commerce. Therefore, a manufacturer would need to certify the vehicle prior to such use, even if the vehicle has not been sold. In a phone conversation, you also asked about CalDOTs responsibilities at the time of sale of these vehicles (i.e., after they have been used on the public highways by CalDOT). As indicated above, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits a person from selling a vehicle unless it complies with applicable safety standards. Your question raises the issue of whether a vehicle that has been used by its manufacturer on the public highways, but has never been sold, must continue to meet the safety standards at the time it is eventually sold. If the user-manufacturers (in this case CalDOTs) use of the vehicle has been bona fide, we would consider CalDOTs actions in using the vehicles on the public highways to be equivalent to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. This would have an impact upon CalDOTs ongoing responsibilities, because under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1), "This section [49 U.S.C. 30112] does not apply to (1) the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment in good faith other than for resale." Thus, when CalDOT sells these trucks, they would be sold as used vehicles, and no additional certifications or alterations would be required under our regulations prior to sale. As a general matter, Federal regulations do not prevent final-stage manufacturers, dealers, or repair businesses from modifying an original seat. For modifications made prior to initial vehicle sale, the entity must ensure that the new or modified seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207, as is required under 49 U.S.C. 30112. For modifications made after the vehicle is certified and sold, the business must ensure that its modifications do not violate the "make inoperative" provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits actions that would take a vehicle out of compliance with any applicable motor vehicle safety standards. We now turn to the three specific questions presented in your letter. For ease of reference, we repeat each question, followed by our response:
Each of our safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment when testing for compliance with that particular standard. NHTSA follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions in effect at the time of product certification when conducting its compliance testing. In this case, S4.2, General performance requirements, of FMVSS No. 207 provides:
However, we note that a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards (including actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means), provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567. In evaluating the need to conduct testing, relevant considerations here would include whether the new seat would require increased loading (due to greater mass) and load application at a greater height (due to higher center of gravity), as these factors could potentially induce greater stress on the seat and seat attachment hardware.
Consistent with our response to Question (1) above, if CalDOT chooses to conduct testing pursuant to FMVSS No. 207, it may do so at its own testing facilities.
We note that your letter included several photographs (i.e., Figure 1 (original seat); Figure 2 (proposed seat); Figures 3 and 4 (depicting seat belt attachment)). However, we cannot determine from these photographs whether your proposed seat modifications would warrant your conducting testing under S4.2(c) of the standard. The responsibility for this determination lies with the entity that makes the modifications. We note generally that S4.2(c) applies in those instances where a seat belt assembly is "attached" to the seat, in order to account for associated forces that may act on the seat in the event of a crash. In a July 10, 2000 interpretation letter to Mr. Gil De Laat, we examined whether a webbing guide permanently attached to the seat, but which did not have any "structural benefit" for purposes of seat or safety belt performance, is an "attachment" for purposes of S4.2(c). As presented by Mr. De Laat, the webbing guide in question served no structural purpose and would not transfer safety belt loads to the seat itself. Because the seat would not be loaded in a crash by the forces generated by the safety belt loads to the seat itself, we determined that it would not be necessary that the seat be capable of withstanding the load from the belt, so use of the webbing guide would not require that the seat be subjected to the seat belt anchorage loads of FMVSS No. 210, as described in S4.2(c) of FMVSS No. 207. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:207 |
2005 |
ID: 08-002063asOpenInternational & Regulatory Affairs Valeo Lighting Systems 34, rue Saint-Andr 93 012 Bobigny Cedex France Dear Mr. Dorleans: This responds to your letter, in which you ask about the activation of daytime running lamps (DRLs) under the administrative rewrite version of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you ask whether various LED (light-emitting diode) lamp designs, incorporating a parking lamp function in addition to other functions, can be used as DRLs under the new version standard. Our answer is that the new version of FMVSS No. 108 does not affect that opinion we provided in our April 29, 2008 letter to you. 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. On December 4, 2007, NHTSA published an administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 (72 FR 68234). This rewrite was intended to present the existing regulatory requirements in a simpler, more straightforward manner, and to reduce the need to consult outside documentation. As we stated in the summary of the notice: This document amends the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 on lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment by reorganizing the regulatory text so that it provides a more straightforward and logical presentation of the applicable regulatory requirements, which includes the agencys interpretation of the existing requirements. This final rule does not impose any new substantive requirements on manufacturers. In a letter of interpretation we mailed to you on April 29, 2008, we stated: For the purpose of S5.5.11(a) [of the current version of FMVSS No. 108], the array of LEDs that you described in your letter, which can serve the function of parking lamps or other lamps depending on how they are activated, would not be considered parking lamps in either of the scenarios that you described. In DRL mode, the lamps would be substantially brighter than the parking lamps, and according to your letter, their photometric output would comply with the requirements of S5.5.11(a)(1), which sets minimum and maximum output for DRLs. This would result in effective DRLs, which is the intent of the requirement in FMVSS No. 108. This relayed our opinion that your lighting system was permissible under FMVSS No. 108. This opinion is not changed by the fact that the standard has been reworded. For reference, as you stated in your letter, the rewritten language (now in paragraph S6.1.1.4) reads: Daytime running lamps. A passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus may be equipped with a pair of daytime running lamps (DRLs) as specified in Table I and S7.10 of this standard. DRLs may be any pair of lamps on the front of the vehicle, whether or not required by this standard, other than parking lamps or fog lamps. Therefore, the opinion expressed in our previous letter, that the lighting system that you propose is permissible under the standard, will still hold true when the new language for FMVSS No. 108 comes into effect. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel
d.1/16/09 |
2009 |
ID: nht80-1.15OpenDATE: 02/08/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance - Enforcement TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: DATE: Feb. 8, 1980 SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation of Fuel Tank Capacity as used in Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity FROM : Chief Counsel TO : Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Enforcement This confirms the oral response previously given by Hugh Oates to your memorandum requesting an interpretation of the term, "capacity", as used in Safety Standard No. 301-75. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard provides that "the fuel tank is filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard solvent ...." You ask whether "capacity" should include the vapor volume in the air dome plus the volume of the fuel filler pipe when filling a fuel tank for compliance purposes. (Total tank volume = usable capacity + unusable capacity + vapor volume + fluid in filler pipe.) Apparently, the vapor volume can be filled with solvent if the solvent is added very slowly to force the air vapors out of the dome. This has been done in past compliance testing. It is our opinion that the term, "capacity", should not be interpreted to include the vapor volume in the air dome, since fuel tanks are never filled to this level by vehicle users. Fuel tanks are designed to include an area for fuel vapor and pressure build- up. Vehicle users never fill their tanks so slowly that this area is displaced with fuel. Therefore, it would be an unrealistic test to require manufacturers to fill tanks in this fashion. Moreover, I understand from convervations between our offices that fuel is actually squeezed out of the filler pipe during compliance testing if the tank is filled to this absolute level. This would not seem to be an accurate test of fuel tank integrity, since it is leaks or punctures in the tank itself that generally cause fuel loss in real-world crashes.
In consideration of these facts, we would interpret "capacity" to mean "usable capacity", as used in the vehicle manufacturer's Part I submission to the EPA, plus "unusable capacity" (i.e., the volume of fuel left in the tank when the engine fuel pump sucks air). I think it should be emphasized that the "usable capacity" should be determined only after the tank has been filled to its "unusable capacity". In other words, when testing a tank that has never been filled, the unusable, residual fuel level should be reached before the "usable capacity" is added to the tank. If this is not done, the actual volume of fuel in the tank will be somewhat below the "usable fuel capacity". Frank Berndt February 20, 1980 Note From Tom Grubbs FMVSS 301-75 Safety Compliance Engineer Office or Vehicle Safety Compliance As of February 20, 1980, all FMVSS 301-75 vehicle compliance tests will use the following fuel tank filling technique: 1. Test vehicle's engine will be "run dry"*. 2. 95% of the "usable capacity" of the fuel tank (as determined from EPA Part I submissions) will be added. *After "run dry", the fuel left in the tank will be the "unusable capacity". November 25, 1979 Request for Interpretation of Fuel Tank Capacity as used in FMVSS No. 301-75, "Fuel System Integrity" NEF-31TGr Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
THRU: Associated Administrator for Enforcement In order to preclude controversies during the FY 1980 FMVSS No. 301-75 vehicle safety compliance testing program, it is requested that an interpretation of "capacity" be issued by your office. At the present time, S7.1.1 of FMVSS No. 301- 75 states, "The fuel tank is filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard solvent...." The word "capacity" can be interpreted to mean one of the following: 1. Total Tank Volume - The unusable tank capacity plus the usable capacity plus the vapor volume in the air dome plus the volume of solvent in the fuel filler pipe as shown on the attached sketch. In order to completely fill the total tank volume, the solvent must be added slowly to force the air/vapors out of the air dome which is presently being performed by the OVSC testing laboratories. The vehicle manufacturers claim that this is not a realistic fuel tank filling technique. 2. Usable Capacity - The usable capacity of the fuel tank as stated in each vehicle manufacturers' Part I submission to the EPA. Some manufacturers are using 95 percent of this "usable capacity" value for their FMVSS No. 301-75 certification tests. It appears that this would be the most realistic fuel tank filling technique. The FY 1980 FMVSS No. 301-75 vehicle compliance testing program will be initiated during the first week of January 1980, and it is requested that an interpretation be made prior to that time. Francis Armstrong Attachment NEF-31TGrubbs:vgw:11/21/79:62807 cc: NEF-01 Chron NEF-30 Chron NEF-31 Subj/Chron/TGrubbs/File LEFT SIDE VIEW OF TYPICAL GM FUEL TANK IN 1980 MODEL *INSERT DIAGRAM HERE |
|
ID: 001112cm EZOnOpenMs. Lori Crouzillat Dear Ms. Crouzillat: This is in response to your letter of February 24, 2003, in which you ask for a clarification of the labeling requirement for child safety harnesses that mount to school bus seat backs. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 requires child safety harnesses [1] manufactured on or after February 1, 2003, that attach to school bus seat backs to be labeled with the warning specified in FMVSS No. 213. In your letter, you state that several states and members of the school bus industry believe that "seatmount products" in use, that were manufactured before February 1, 2003, are not in compliance with FMVSS No. 213 because they are not labeled with a warning. You ask whether the agency requires all harnesses, irrespective of manufacture date, to be labeled with the warning contained in FMVSS No. 213 in order to be in compliance with that standard. The answer is no. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30111. NHTSA has used its authority to issue FMVSS No. 213, regulating child restraint systems, in order to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. Each new child restraint system, including harnesses, must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213. FMVSS No. 213 generally prohibits a child restraint system from having any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat back. (See S5.3.1.) However, to facilitate the safe transportation of preschool and special needs children, the agency amended FMVSS No. 213 on an interim basis to exclude from this prohibition harnesses manufactured for use on school bus seats. (67 Federal Register 64818; October 22, 2002.) The interim rule went into effect October 22, 2002, and NHTSA has decided in the exercise of its enforcement discretion, not to take enforcement action with respect to harnesses manufactured before that date. [2] For seat-mount restraints manufactured on or after February 1, 2003, the interim rule requires them to be labeled with the following warning:
The labeling requirement applies only to the restraints manufactured on or after the specified date (February 1, 2003). Furthermore, the labeling requirement applies to manufacturers of the seat-mount harnesses and does not impose any requirement on the end user to obtain labels for those harnesses manufactured before February 1, 2003. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:213 [1] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, uses the term "harness." Some manufacturers use the term "vest." We consider the terms "harness" and "vest" to be interchangeable. [2] The interim rule expires December 1, 2003. The agency is currently reviewing the interim rule to determine if it should be made permanent. (67 FR 64818.) |
2003 |
ID: 10-001391 217OpenMs. Fiona Murphy New Product Development Manager L.M. INNOV8s 4-7 Steeple Industrial Estate Antrim, County Antrim N. Ireland, BT41 1AB Dear Ms. Murphy: This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, to your product, the Firefly, which you describe as an emergency window breaker device for buses and coaches. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States of America. Unlike the case in many countries, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Thus, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers also must ensure that their products are free from safety-related defects. Your letter asks whether your emergency window breaker device meets FMVSS No. 217. Information attached to your letter describes the Firefly, as the only product in the world specifically designed to work on double glazing and it also breaks single glazing and as an alternative to emergency hammers. The Firefly can be retrofitted to windows by permanently fixing into position with an industrial strength adhesive. Graphics you provide show the Firefly placed on the upper left hand corner of a window. The Firefly is operated by pulling down on a cover, exposing a red button. Pushing the exposed red button breaks the glass. Your letter does not explain how the glass is broken. With this background, I will now address your questions. I am enclosing a copy of FMVSS No. 217 so that you can better understand our answers. Question One: You ask whether FMVSS No. 217s window retention requirements restrict the types of glass that can be fitted in buses and coaches. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing material used in all motor vehicles (including buses). The regulation allows laminated, tempered, multiple glazed and rigid plastic materials to be used in bus passenger side windows. The window retention test requirement of FMVSS No. 217 ensures that the glazing and bonding material used in the exit have minimum retention capabilities. Question Two: Your second question asks whether the emergency exit window must be an open able window, or whether an emergency hammer can be fitted in the vehicle to be used to break the designated emergency exit window on the bus/coach. The exit must be capable of being opened without an emergency hammer. FMVSS No. 217 establishes operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for bus emergency exits, (including emergency exit windows) to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. The standard specifies how many and what type of emergency exits must be provided at a minimum, where the exits must be located, and how they must be configured, opened, and identified to occupants. For buses other than school buses, S5.3.1 states that each emergency exit shall be releasable by operating one or two mechanisms located within certain regions specified in the standard. S5.3.2 requires that each emergency exit shall allow manual release of the exit using certain force applications. S5.3.2 further states Each exit shall have not more than two release mechanisms. In the case of exits with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two force applications to release the exit. In the case of exits with two release mechanisms, each mechanism shall require one force application to release the exit. At least one of the force applications for each exit shall differ from the direction of the initial motion to open the exit by not less than 90 degrees and no more than 180 degrees. As you can see from these requirements, FMVSS No. 217 requires emergency exit windows to be releasable by release mechanisms. An emergency hammer is not considered a release mechanism of the exit. Among other concerns, the hammer might not be present when the occupant has to release the emergency exit, and the force needed to hammer open an exit might be excessive for some occupants. With regard to the Firefly, it does not appear that a bus with the Firefly would meet FMVSS No. 217 requirements. Even if we were to consider the Fireflys breaking of the glass as releasing the exit and the red button as the release mechanism, it appears that the number and type of force applications needed to release the emergency exit do not meet the standards requirements. Your website www.fireflysafety.com (Frequently Asked Questions) indicates that a pin must be removed from the red button to trigger the Firefly. FMVSS No. 217 does not permit complex motions to activate a release mechanism, such as those involved in removing a pin. We also note that a companion requirement in FMVSS No. 217 that applies to school buses
(see S5.3.3.2) states: Each release mechanism shall operate without the use of remote controls or tools. We would consider a pin to be a tool, and a release mechanism that is dependent on the removal of the pin would not meet S5.3.3.2. Even if a pin were not part of the design, the mechanism must have two force applications to release the exit. The Firefly does not appear to meet this requirement. In addition, an emergency exit must be operable for the life of a vehicle. Your website indicates that the Firefly breaks the window glazing by way of an armed firing mechanism that has a life of about ten years. Our understanding is that buses in the U.S. can have a service life of 20 years or longer. An emergency exit that was only operable for some portion of the on-the-road life of the vehicle would raise safety concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure Dated: 7/19/2010 |
2010 |
ID: AFTERMARKETWINDSCREENOpenMr. Rick Mckeon Dear Mr. Mckeon: This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of United States safety standards to an "after-market product for the Mazda Miata intended to eliminate back-draft on the driver and passenger when the top is down or the plastic rear window is removed." You ask whether the device must be transparent or translucent, or be a "screen" type material. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. NHTSA also has the authority to investigate and order recalls to remedy safety related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. As far as we can tell from your letter, your product appears to be an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment," in relevant part, as any system, part, or component "sold as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:
Your back-draft eliminator appears to be an accessory because it was presumably designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. (We make this assumption because you designed the product for use in a Mazda Miata). Further, you state that the back-draft eliminator is an aftermarket product and, therefore, intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. The installation of a back-draft eliminator by a commercial entity is subject to certain restrictions. The Federal Vehicle Safety Act at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the back-draft eliminator could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the ability of a vehicle to comply with any FMVSS. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of the FMVSSs. You should carefully review the FMVSSs, particularly FMVSS Nos. 111 and 205 as discussed below, to determine whether installation of your back-draft eliminator would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards.up> Pursuant to NHTSAs authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26)." Your companys product, as described in your letter, would be considered either item 4 or item 5 glazing subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26 if constructed of a glazing material, e.g., plastic or glass. Item 4 glazing includes safety glazing material for use in motor vehicles in auxiliary wind deflectors at levels requisite for driving visibility. We would consider the back-draft eliminator to be at a level requisite for driving visibility if it is at a level through which any size driver may view the road and traffic to the rear of the vehicle. Under FMVSS No. 205 and the ANSI standard, item 4 glazing must comply with Test Nos. 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 24 of the ANSI Z26 as well as Test No. 2. Test No. 2 applies a 70 percent light transmittance requirement to areas of glazing that are at levels requisite for driving visibility. Item 5 glazing includes safety glazing material for use in motor vehicles in auxiliary wind deflectors. This glazing must comply with the Tests cited above for item 4 glazing except for Test No. 2. NHTSA has also issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to establish performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Under this standard, your back-draft eliminator may or may not affect compliance of a vehicle with this standard, depending on its particular material, size or location within the vehicle. "Inside" rearview mirrors are required for "passenger cars" by the standard (paragraph S5.1). Since a passenger car, such as the Mazda Miata, must meet FMVSS No. 111's requirements by way of an inside rearview mirror, a back-draft eliminator could not obstruct the view provided by the inside rearview mirror (i.e., the mirror must continue to provide the scope of view required by the standard). In addition, the manufacturer, whether your client or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer. I hope this information is helpful. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
[1] The 'make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles. |
2002 |
ID: nht93-2.20OpenDATE: March 18, 1993 FROM: Jeffery A. Kester -- Product Development, Green Wheels Electric Car Company TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Consul, NHTSA TITLE: Re: Electric Vehicle Conversions and the FMVSS ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-21-93 from John Womack to Jeffery A. Kester (A41; 108(a)(2)(A)) TEXT: I have recently spent a few enjoyable afternoons on the phone with various members of the DOT, and now I find my path leads to you. The recommendation to write to you comes from Z. Taylor Vinson and he believes you may be the one to clarify my current dilemma. I am a principal partner in a company that intends to produce electric vehicles (EVs) for retail sale. We are not building our EVs from scratch. Instead, we intend to perform conversions on existing (used) internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). We are currently converting a 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit and intend to convert VWs of similar (1975-1984) vintage. We plan to expand our vehicle conversion operations to include 1985 and newer VW models, but we have no intention of converting new vehicles. Therefore, according to section 108, (b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (2/92 rev.), I am not bound to comply with the FMVSS and have no reason to petition for exemption from any standards in the FMVSS. That's the rub. NTMVSA section 108(a)(2)(A) says in simple terms that I cannot "render inoperative ... any device or element of design ..." unless I believe it will not be used during the time it is rendered inoperative. I understand the purpose of this subsection, (I was in auto repair/restoration for over 12 years) but I believe it takes on new aspects when applied to rendering inoperative "devices or elements of design" on a permanent basis. The vehicle will obviously be used during the time such devices or elements of design no longer exist. Have I found the fabled Catch 22?--I cannot receive exemptions from the FMVSS because I intend to convert cars subsequent to their first purchase (section 108 (b)(1)) so those standards do not apply, yet it appears that I will be in gross violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). I may have found a way to satisfy the needs of both sections, but it entails some creative interpretation of section 108(a)(2)(A). The interpretation is as follows: I should be able to render inoperative devices or elements of design without violating the FMVSS, because I believe that said inoperative devices or elements of design will not compromise vehicle compliance to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards during the time said motor vehicle is in operation. The paramount wording of section 108(a)(2)(A) is "... applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards ..." I submit the example of the ICEV fuel system to which many FMVSS apply. Since that fuel system will mo longer exist on an EV conversion, there will be no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in regard to the EV fuel system, and I will not have rendered inoperative a device or element of design of an applicable FMVSS.
The other operative phrase of section 108(a)(2)(A) is "... unless such ... business reasonably believes ..." I submit that I must have some basis for my belief in regard to the safety of the vehicle with devices or elements of design that I have rendered inoperative, and that basis must come from the FMVSS. That brings me to you. I require something more than the right to tell the local Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV), and any prospective customers, that my vehicles comply to the FMVSS simply because I believe they do and that the FMVSS does not really apply anyway because I sell used vehicles. I hereby request your action on the following matters: 1) That you submit to me in writing your recommendation of the viability of my interpretation of section 108(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1) of the NTMVSA. 2) That, if you believe my interpretation to be viable, you submit a letter stating such that I may distribute to prospective clients and/or the RMV to aid me in convincing them of the safety of converted EVs. 3) That you submit to me in writing, your recommendations for any further action in regard to compliance with section 108(a)(2)(A). 4) That you submit to me in writing, any information or source for information concerning petition for exemption from section 108(a)(2)(A) under section 108 (a)(2)(B) if applicable. 5) That you submit to me in writing, any information or source for information concerning the status of any report, study or investigation resulting from section 108(b)(1) concerning the establishment of uniform Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all used motor vehicles. The reason for all of this is very simple. I want to do the right thing in regard to motor vehicle safety. The fact that used cars that I convert are not required to be in compliance with the FMVSS, will not make those vehicles safe. I am attempting to design safe, reliable vehicles that I can produce on a small-scale production basis. As one of the few professional mechanics involved in the EV industry (a somewhat un-nerving fact that I have discovered over thelast year), I am very concerned that other companies may not be aware of what they are doing to the structural integrity of an ICEV when they convert it to an EV. Many of these small companies have had no contact whatsoever with DOT, or they simply opt to offer "conversion kits" which release them from any safety liability. There is currently an explosion in the small-scale EV industry, with many companies claiming to convert any ICEV to an EV. This is definitely good but it is happening faster than safety regulations are being made. Public acceptance of these vehicles is promising but so far, has been full of skepticism about safety and reliability. I believe that without some kind of Federal regulatory intervention, the poor performance and possibly disastrous outcome in the event of an EV crash, will lead to the abandonment of the modicum of public interest now being express in the EV industry. The general opinion of the public and press is that EVs are interesting, but will not represent a viable transportation alternative until better batteries are in production and available at a reasonable price. I am confident that better batteries will be available in the next few years. I am concerned that, their will be no standards in place to regulate how those batteries are integrated into the automobile industry. We are faced with the problem of EV safety right now, and I believe that some action must be taken now to remedy the situation. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this, if you have any, questions or comments about this letter or anything to do with EVs, please do not hesitate to write or call. I hope I hear from you soon. |
|
ID: 10-007285 S5-1-4 William H Thompson III 108 School Bus Lighting Interp LetterOpen
William H. Thompson III 146 N. 58 Street Philadelphia, PA 19139
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This letter responds to your request dated October 23, 2010 requesting an interpretation of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment as it relates to your invention. We believe that your invention, which alters the sequence in which school bus signal lamps will flash, does not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for the reasons that follow.
In your request, you described the operation of your invention as containing four modes. The first mode is an idle mode where no lamps are flashing. The second mode operates to flash the amber school bus lamps. The third mode flashes one side red and the other side amber then flashes the complement. This mode repeats for approximately three seconds. Finally, the fourth mode flashes only the red lamps when the school bus door is opened and the entire system returns to idle when the bus door is closed. In your telephone conversation with Jesse Chang of my staff on April 11, 2011, you further clarified that the fourth mode would automatically open the school bus door if the school bus is equipped with an automatic door and that the fourth mode would signal the driver to open the door if the school bus is equipped with a manual door. It seems that your inventions alteration of the standard lighting scheme described in FMVSS No. 108 subpart S5.1.4 would likely detract from the standard message intended to be conveyed by school signal bus lamps. Thus, we believe your invention would be prohibited under both S5.1.3 disallowing additional lighting equipment which impairs the operation of required equipment, and the make-inoperative provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to both new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA used this authority to promulgate FMVSS No. 108, which is the subject of your inquiry. While NHTSA is responsible for establishing safety standards, this agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or new items of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet the applicable standards and it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or equipment not in compliance with these standards.
You are correct to refer to FMVSS No. 108 subpart S5.1.4 as the applicable regulation on school bus signal lamps. That standard requires each school bus to be equipped with either the four-lamp, all red lighting system described in subpart S5.1.4(a), or the eight-lamp, four red/four amber lighting system described in subpart S5.1.4(b). Subpart S5.1.4(b)(ii) further requires (in the eight-lamp setup) that the four amber lamps only be activated manually, that the four amber lamps automatically deactivate when the bus door is opened, and that the four red lamps automatically activate when the bus door is opened.
Additional lighting equipment is not generally prohibited under the FMVSS No. 108. However, there are two restrictions of interest that limit the permissible additions to the required lighting system under FMVSS No. 108 subpart S5.1.4. The first is S5.1.3 which limits the permissible additions that manufacturers and dealers may make before the first sale by stating that no additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. Through our prior interpretation letter to Steele Enterprises (December 6, 1999), we interpreted S5.1.3 to include under the definition of additional lamp the alteration of required lamps to perform in a manner different from the original design.[1] Further, our agency issued an interpretation letter dated December 11, 1995 and addressed to Ms. Carrie Stabile covering the subject of what constitutes impairment under S5.1.3. In that letter, we clarified the definition of impairment by stating that under S5.1.3, additional equipment cannot detract from the message that the required lamp is intended to impart.[2]
While your invention does not seek to include additional lamps, it is clear from our previous interpretations that altering standard lamps to perform non-standard functions is covered under the prohibition in subpart S5.1.3. Thus, the installation of your invention before the first sale of the vehicle would be governed by subpart S5.1.3. The amber and red lamps are intended to convey distinct messages to the other drivers on the road. The amber lamps indicate to drivers that the school bus is slowing down in preparation of making a stop. Then the red lamps indicate to drivers that the school bus has stopped and is loading or offloading students. As driver familiarity with established lighting standards is essential to preserving the intended message of the required lamps, we believe that your inventions addition of the third-mode lighting stage would impair the effectiveness of the required school bus signal lamps. Drivers familiar with the distinct bus slowing down and bus stopped messages conveyed by the amber and red lamps may not understand an intermediate lighting stage which combines both of these signal lamps. Thus, we believe your invention would be prohibited by FMVSS No. 108 if installed before the first sale.
The second restriction that limits the permissible additions to the required lighting system governs modifications to the vehicle after the first sale. After the first sale, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly mak[ing] 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.[3] In this situation, we have expressed the interpretation that if new equipment or modifications interfere with the standard message that a lighting system is intended to convey, it constitutes rendering the required lighting inoperative. In our interpretation letter to Consumer Imports, LLC (December 6, 2002), we clarified this position by stating that the addition of a flashing stop lamp to the motorcyclists helmet would cause confusion and render the required stop lamp partially inoperative within the meaning of [the Motor Vehicle Safety Act].[4]
Under this second restriction, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses would also be prohibited by FMVSS No. 108 from modifying any buses currently in compliance with FMVSS to utilize your invention. For the same reason that the different flashing sequence would impair the effectiveness of the required school bus signal lamps, it would also render the lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
We thank you for your interest in improving safety for school children riding in school buses and the surrounding road users. If you have any further questions, please contact Jesse Chang (202-366-2992) of this office.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent, Chief Counsel
Ref: FMVSS No. 108 7/29/2011 [1] Available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20856.ztv.html. [2] Available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/1211c.html. [3] 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). [4] Available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/24604.ztv.html. |
|
ID: GF007547OpenMr. Scott Comisar Dear Mr. Comisar: This responds to your e-mail dated October 17, 2003, asking whether LED red and amber strobing warning lights "are safe to use on school buses." 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. I note that this interpretation does not offer an opinion as to whether your particular lighting system is "safe." However, I will identify the federal regulation applicable to school bus signal lamps. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to school bus signal lamps is FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 requires each school bus to be equipped with a system of four red signal (or four red and four amber) lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July 1964 (a copy is enclosed for your information). Previously, we were twice asked whether a school bus warning system consisting of LED strobe lights met the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. I enclose copies of our letters in response to those inquiries. You may use these previous interpretations as a guideline for determining whether your LED system could comply with FMVSS No. 108. We assume that you wish to offer your product as original equipment on school buses. Please note, however, that FMVSS No. 108 also applies to replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. [1] Thus, a manufacturer of both original equipment and replacement LED red and amber strobing warning lights is required to certify that the equipment meets the standards requirements. 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 Enclosures [1] See S3(c) of FMVSS No. 108. |
2003 |
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.