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: GF009467OpenChristopher E. MacDonald, President Dear Mr. MacDonald: This is in response to your letter asking whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110; "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less" apply to low-speed vehicles. As explained below, they do not. By way of background, a low-speed vehicle is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as follows: "Low-speed vehicle (LSV) means a motor vehicle, (1) that is 4-wheeled, (2) whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, and (3) whose GVWR is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds)". There are only two FMVSSs applicable to low-speed vehicles. They are, FMVSS No. 500; "Low speed vehicles," and FMVSS No. 205 "Glazing materials."I enclose both standards. I note FMVSS No. 500 incorporates certain requirements found in other FMVSSs by reference. However, the requirements in FMVSS No. 110 are not referenced in FMVSS No. 500. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood 2 Enclosures ref:110 |
2006 |
ID: 06-005822asOpenMr. Chris Tinto Vice President Technical and Regulatory Affairs Toyota Motor North America, Inc. 601 13th Street, NW Suite 910 South Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Tinto: This responds to your letter asking about positioning the front passenger seat under crash test conditions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 208 and 214, Occupant Crash Protection and Side Impact Protection, respectively. Specifically, you asked whether we would consider a non-seating forward position of the front passenger seat the forwardmost position for purposes of positioning the seat in the crash tests of FMVSS No. 208 (S8.1.2 and S16.2.10.3.2), as well as FMVSS No. 214 (S6.3). As explained below, because there are design features in the vehicle that make it unlikely that an occupant would be seated in the forward position when the vehicle is in use, our answer is no, we would not consider the position to be the forwardmost or full forward position for purposes of positioning the seat for the respective crash tests of the 5th and 50th percentile crash test dummies. In your letter, you describe an extended seat slide system for the front passenger seat planned for your new vehicles. When this seat is unoccupied, the occupant classification system recognizes that there is no occupant and will allow the seat to be adjusted to a non-seating position forwardmost location. This feature is intended to provide extended legroom for the rear passenger when the front passenger seat is unoccupied. When the front passenger door is opened and if the seat is forward of the forwardmost seating position location, the seat will automatically move backward to the forwardmost seating position. Your question relates to positioning the seat to accommodate the test dummies used in the two standards. FMVSS No. 208 paragraph S8.1.2., which concerns the positioning of the seat in the adjustment position to prepare for a crash test using the 50th percentile adult male dummy, reads: Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. S16.2.10.3.2 of FMVSS No. 208 states that when testing with the 5th percentile adult female test dummy the full forward seating position is used. S6.3 of FMVSS No. 214 specifies that when testing with the 50th percentile adult male dummy, adjustable seats are placed in the adjustment position midway between the forward most and rearmost positions. You ask if the forwardmost, forward most, and full forward positions referenced in these standards would be the non-seating position forwardmost location you are considering incorporating into the new design. You believe that the answer is no, believing that the provisions for adjusting the seat refer to adjustment positions that are available for seating to the passenger. You point out that if the seat were in the non-seating position forwardmost location, the seat will automatically adjust to the forwardmost seating position, and not the extended forward non-seating position, when the door is opened. We agree with your view on this matter. In an October 2, 1990, letter to Mazda, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) discussed the issue of how compliance is determined in situations in which a standard does not specify a particular test condition.[1] In that letter, NHTSA stated: In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of a specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does not specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. [T]he language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation[or whether] such a decision should be reached in rulemaking. In the case you present, we considered the purpose of the seat positioning requirements, which is to assess the vehicles protection of passengers in various seat positions. This purpose indicates that the test conditions should be limited to only those in which there would be a person occupying the seat. Based on your letter to us and subsequent email communication, we are aware that you have incorporated various design features into the vehicle to eliminate unreasonable risk that the seat would be in the non-seating position forwardmost location in a crash. These safety precautions include using the occupant classification sensor, door switch, and seat belt sensor to determine if the front passenger seat is occupied. Because these precautions eliminate unreasonable risk that the non-seating position would be occupied in a crash, we agree that safety considerations are not served by considering the forward non-seating position to be the forwardmost, full forward, or forward most positions for purposes of S8.1.2 and S16.2.10.3.2 of FMVSS Nos. 208 and S6.3 of FMVSS No. 214. You note in your letter that you are not asking for an interpretation related to positioning the seat for the FMVSS No. 208 out-of-position tests with child test dummies. You acknowledge that tests with the child dummies should be conducted with the seat in the non-seating position forwardmost location, since a child could enter the vehicle through a vehicle door other than the one triggering automatic movement of the seat, and could climb over a seat to occupy the front passenger seat. In such a scenario, the front passenger seat could be occupied in the non-seating position forwardmost location by an out-of-position child. We agree that todays interpretation is limited to positioning the seats relative to the standards crash tests with the adult dummies, and that different circumstances and considerations arise relative to the out-of-position tests with the child test dummies. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:208 d.3/30/07 [1] That letter concerned questions about how NHTSA would test a variable-height suspension system, which was active only when the vehicle was running. The standards did not specify a suspension height to be used during compliance tests. |
2007 |
ID: 09-002367 111OpenWilliam E. Otto, Esq. Sebring & Associates 2735 Mosside Boulevard Monroeville, PA 15146 Dear Mr. Otto: This responds to your inquiry dated April 15, 2009 following up on a previous letter to you from this office, concerning the outside rearview mirror requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. In your first letter to this office, you asked about an outside drivers side rearview mirror for passenger cars. The mirror contained two parts. On the right portion of the mirror, a section of the mirror contained an FMVSS No. 111-compliant flat mirror, while the left portion of the mirror contained a curved or aspheric component. You asked whether S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 permits a single drivers side mirror containing both a flat portion and a curved or aspheric portion located to the left of the flat portion. In our January 16, 2009 letter to you, we said the answer is yes. S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 applies to the drivers side mirrors on passenger cars. It states: [e]ach passenger car shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification. That section does not prohibit an additional curved or aspheric portion to expand the field of view beyond the required viewable area. We also referred to two previous legal interpretations reiterating this point.[1] In your current letter, you ask if a single drivers side mirror containing both a flat and curved portion would be permitted for other vehicle types under paragraphs S6, S7, S8, and S10 of FMVSS No. 111, if the flat portion alone otherwise is compliant with the applicable requirements. Our answer is that such mirrors would be permitted under the standard. Paragraph S6 applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks, and buses, other than school buses, with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) or less. The section does not contain any language that would prohibit a supplementary curved mirror portion. S6.1(b) states that the vehicle shall have either mirrors that comply with S5, or outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 126 cm2 of reflective surface, located to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. If this requirement is met, there is no specific prohibition on additional mirrored surfaces, which can be convex or aspheric or flat.[2] S7 applies to MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg and less than 11,340 kg and buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg. S8 applies to MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg or more. A similar analysis indicates that paragraphs S7 and S8 do not prohibit the types of mirrors at issue. These sections of FMVSS No. 111 require that the vehicles have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 323 cm2 of reflective surface, located to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. If this requirement is met, there is no specific prohibition on additional mirrored surfaces, which can be convex or aspheric or flat. Paragraph S10 applies to motorcycles. S10.1 specifies motorcycles to have either a mirror of unit magnification with not less than 8065 mm2 of reflective surface, or a convex mirror with not less than 6450 mm2 of reflective surface and an average radius of curvature not less than 508 mm and not greater than 1524 mm . The portion of the mirror required by FMVSS No. 111 must be contiguous. A convex or aspheric or flat mirror may supplement the mirror required by S10. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is the agency in the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible for safety regulations concerning motor carrier operations. Among other things, FMCSAs regulations include certain requirements for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) equipment necessary for safe operations, including rear-vision mirrors. For information on FMCSAs requirements for CMV equipment, please contact FMCSA at 1-800-832-5660. I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 6/1/2010 [1] In a January 15, 1995 letter to Mr. Amin Ahmadi, we stated that [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed. Similarly, in a June 22, 1998 letter to Mr. Bobby Kim, we stated that [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself meets FMVSS No. 111 requirements applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed. Both letters are available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [2] We note that although mixing of convex or aspheric and flat mirrors is not prohibited, mixing the mirrors could present visual confusion to the vehicle operator. |
2010 |
ID: RavensOpen Mr. Jeff Shahan Dear Mr. Shahan: This is in response to your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, "Rear Impact Protection," as applied to the Ravens Steel Dump trailer with an 18-inch deep spreader pan bolted or welded to the rear of the trailer. As explained below, the Ravens Steel Dump trailer equipped with such a spreader pan will be required to incorporate a rear impact guard that complies with FMVSS No. 223, "Rear Impact Guards." You provided a drawing of the Steel Dump trailer with an 18-inch deep spreader pan bolted or welded to the rear of the trailer. According to that drawing, the spreader pan extends across the full width of the rear of trailer, and the top rear edge of the spreader pan is 52 and 3/4 inches above the ground. FMVSS No. 224 requires most trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard complying with FMVSS No. 223. The standard does not apply to pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, low chassis vehicles, special purpose vehicles, wheels back vehicles, or temporary living quarters. None of these exclusions apply to the Steel Dump trailer depicted in your drawing. The Steel Dump trailer clearly does not qualify as temporary living quarters or as a pole trailer, pulpwood trailer, or low chassis vehicle. As explained below, it also does not qualify as a special purpose vehicle or a wheels back vehicle. S4 of FMVSS No. 224 defines a "special purpose vehicle" as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something. A spreader pan does not perform work in this sense. Therefore, we do not consider the spreader pan to be work-performing equipment, and the Steel Dump trailer does not meet the definition of a "special purpose vehicle." Moreover, according to the drawing you provided, the spreader pan does not, while the vehicle is in transit, reside in or move through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard. In an interpretation letter issued to the National Truck Equipment Association on September 9, 1998, NHTSA stated that the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, or "guard zone," is the cubic area extending (1) vertically from the ground to a horizontal plane tangent to the bottom of the trailer; (2) laterally to the side extremities of the trailer as defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224; and (3) from the rear extremity of the trailer, as defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224, to a transverse vertical plane 12 inches forward. The spreader pan does not reside in this zone; thus the Steel Dump trailer does not meet the definition of a "special purpose vehicle." S4 of FMVSS No. 224 defines a wheels back vehicle as "a trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of tires . . . is not more than 305 mm [12 inches] forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle." A vehicle's "rear extremity" is defined as
Since the rearmost axle on the Steel Dump trailer is located such that the rearmost surface of the tires is only 3 and 7/8 inches forward of the rear of the tailgate, but 21 and 7/8 inches forward of the rear of the spreader pan, the question becomes whether the spreader pan is structural and, therefore, constitutes the rear extremity of the trailer. Merely because an object is attached to the vehicle's body does not mean that the object is a nonstructural protrusion. The attributes that the examples of nonstructural protrusions listed in the definition of "rear extremity" have in common are that they are relatively small and localized and would not have a major impact on a colliding passenger vehicle. The spreader pan is 18 inches in depth and extends the full width of the trailer. Consequently, it cannot be considered relatively small or localized. In addition, according to your drawing, the spreader pan is located 52 and 3/4 inches above the ground. At this height, and without a rear underride guard, the spreader pan could penetrate the passenger compartment of a colliding passenger vehicle. For these reasons, we do not consider the spreader pan to be nonstructural. Thus, the Steel Dump trailer equipped with a spreader pan does not meet the definition of a "wheels back vehicle." Since the Steel Dump trailer equipped with a spreader pan does not qualify for any of the exclusions, it must be equipped with a rear underride guard that complies with FMVSS No. 223. I hope this letter answers your question. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey in the Office of the Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:224 |
2001 |
ID: nht94-6.47OpenDATE: April 7, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Ulrich Metz -- Automotive Division, Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany) TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/93 from Ulrich Metz to NHTSA (OCC 9194) TEXT: This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshield. I apologize for the delay in responding. The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes. The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared. The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening. With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe pattern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels THROUGH A CYCLE) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement during system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme AND RETURN" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met. As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at least 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of engine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system. Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, however, apply only to passenger cars. I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht94-2.20OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: April 7, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Ulrich Metz -- Automotive Division, Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany) TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/93 from Ulrich Metz to NHTSA (OCC 9194) TEXT: This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshield. I apologize for the delay in responding. The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, W indshield Wiping and Washing systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes. The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 10 4. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared. The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must als o be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening. With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe p attern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels THROUGH A CYCLE) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement du ring system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme AND RETURN" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met. As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at l east 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of en gine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system. Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpo se passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, howeve r, apply only to passenger cars. I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 9194Open Mr. Ulrich Metz Dear Mr. Metz: This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshields. I apologize for the delay in responding. The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes. The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared. The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A", "B", and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening. With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe pattern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels through a cycle) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement during system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme and return" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met. As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at least 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of engine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system. Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, however, apply only to passenger cars. I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:104 d:4/7/94 |
1994 |
ID: Roberts.1.wpdOpenMr. Mark Roberts Dear Mr. Roberts: This responds to your letter asking whether it would be permissible for a member of the transit bus industry to replace a required passenger-side, flat unit magnification mirror installed on new buses having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) with a 40" to 60"-radius convex mirror. As discussed in a conversation with Eric Stas of my staff, your company manufactures the aftermarket mirrors in question, and you seek confirmation of "What is [a] legal and an illegal mirror once the buses are in revenue service?" We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. One of the safety standards we have issued is FMVSS No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors" (49 CFR 571.111). FMVSS No. 111 sets different requirements for buses depending on the GVWR. Buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg must meet the requirements of S7.1, which requires outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 323 cm2 of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must install mirrors that comply with S7.1 in order to certify new buses covered under the standard. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the "make inoperative" provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1). Thus, a manufacturer of new transit buses or other commercial entity repairing or modifying such buses could not replace a mirror complying with FMVSS No. 111 with another mirror that does not comply with the standard. However, it would be permissible to install your convex mirror on the passenger side of the bus as a supplement to a unit magnification mirror that meets all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 111. The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her own vehicle. Consequently, NHTSA regulations do not prevent transit bus companies from making changes to their own used buses in their own garages or repair and maintenance facilities, even if they cause a vehicle to no longer comply with NHTSA safety standards. However, we urge vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including those required by FMVSS No. 111. Further, I note that the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. Under FMCSA regulations, there is a provision related to "rear-vision mirrors" at 49 CFR 393.80, which provides in relevant part:
49 CFR 393.80(a). Thus, for vehicles covered under FMCSA regulations, there is an ongoing requirement for rear-vision mirrors that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. You or transit bus owners should contact Larry Minor of the FMCSA at (202) 366-4009 for further information about this regulation and the vehicles to which it applies. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you or transit bus owners should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements. 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:111 |
2003 |
ID: 1983-2.20OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/23/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Middletown Van Pool Association TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your note of May 27, 1983, attaching correspondence between yourself and a District Manager for Ford Motor Company. You requested that we investigate the Ford E-150 van (which you state is a 15-passenger van) to determine if the stated Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of that vehicle is accurate. Each manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required by the agency's regulations to place a certification label on the vehicle specifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations (issued pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966). This certification label must include information regarding the vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, as specified in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3): "(3) "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" or "GVWR", followed by the appropriate value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds." Thus, you are correct in your assumption that the GVWR for a 15-passenger vehicle would have to include 2,250 pounds for occupant weight. Further, if a 15-passenger vehicle has a stated GVWR of 6,200 pounds, its unloaded vehicle weight could not exceed 3,950 pounds. I cannot state whether the Ford E-150 van has an unloaded vehicle weight in excess of this figure. However, I am sending a copy of your correspondence to our Office of Enforcement so that they may review this matter. SINCERELY, Marriott Hotels 5/27/83 MR. FRANK (Illegible Word) CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA THE ATTACHED FILE I BELIEVE POINTS TO A PROBLEM FORD MOTOR CO. HAS AND THEY NEED TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION ON. THANKS FOR LOOKING INTO THIS PROBLEM. (Illegible Words) May 21, 1983 Mr. J. R. Rose - District Manager Ford Motor Company Dear Mr. Rose Just a note to let you know that I received your May 17 letter which contains various specific accuations that "you (refering to the writer) apparently intensified the problem of load by actually carrying an overload". Sorry to inform you Mr. Rose, but you are totally misinformed and there is some question on the facts you put forth. Consider: 1. A Ford representative, Mr. Frank Palbo, speced out the Van in question. . . .as per the attached specification sheet. He had very simple guidelines. (a) Want a 15 passenger Ford Van (b) Want to carry 10 passenger in Captains Chairs (c) Want individual reading lights for each Captains Chair. 2. Frank's note of August 17, 1981 and vehicle layout (copy attached) indicate, (a) Seats will fit (b) Van converter will do the job (c) Finance Company approved the lease. 3. Consider Mr. Rose, I specified a 15 Passanger Ford Van. . . .which normally contains: (a) Two front seats . . . . equals 2 b) Three bench seats holding three persons each . . . equals 9 (c) One rear bench seat holding four people . . . equals 4 (d) If my math holds up . . . that is 2 + 9 + 4 = 15 people (e) If your letter is correct, I quote "10 passengers possibly totally 1500 lbs" is correct . . . then your Ford 15 passenger van carries a payload of 15 times 150lbs = 2250 pounds of payload. (f) Since we are saving 5 passengers we should be saving . . . . 5 times 150lbs = 750 pounds. (g) Now, we added 8 captains chairs on bases verses your 4 bench seats . . . and since our seats our top quality, we'll agree they probably weigh on a two for one bases, 50 pounds each more than seats . . . so eights seats times 50lbs. = 400 pounds.
(h) O.K. - I saved 750lbs. by carrying 5 less passengers - I added 400lbs by using Captains Chairs . . . so basic subtraction says 750 minus 400 equals 350 pounds. (i) Now the Van converter recommended we beef-up your flooring along with insulating the floor so we added 3/4" plywood to the floor in under your luxurious carpeting. Say that added 100lbs. to the Van. Let's see, I still have 350lbs. I saved and I take away 100lbs. from that and I have 250lbs. . net savings. (j) We also added reading lights, electrical wire, front wood console, rear tire carrier . . . must all total out to at least 50lbs . . . . so I reduce my 250pounds savings by 50 and my new net savings is 200 pounds. (k) Now our regular riders are of hearty stock and probably average 20lbs. overweight to your 150lbs. standard . . . so 10 passengers being 201lbs. each overweight equals 200lbs . . . can you believe it . . . 200 plus and 200 minus and I come out to . . . ZERO. Now that we've finished our basic math quiz we can get down to the heart of the problem. Ford is selling a Cargo/Passenger vehicle that can't possibly meet their stated weights . . . . once again simple math says: GVW is 6200 pounds 15 Passengers -2250 pounds NVW is 3950 pounds There is no way that vehicle or any Ford Vehicle setting on your showroom floor, equipped with bench seats and ready accept 15 passengers can weigh less than 400 pounds. So, by your own figures, you show that you are falsely representing your product, that you are endangering peoples lives and worst of all you don't give a damn. And to prove that statement, I'll take a Saturday and in your facility, take out the eight captains chairs and bases and let you weigh the Van. And so that everyone knows things are on the up and up, let's invite the President of Ford to be the official weighing judge. He certainly has a vested interest. And just in case you don't want to accept the challenge, rest assured I'll do it on my own, having everything (Illegible Word) so that TV Stations, Consumer Organizations, FTC, and NHTSA can all benefit from this information. So, back to you Mr. Rose and this time please do your homework and get the facts straight before you respond. I want to know why a Ford Motor Company representative speced and sold our group a Van that could not possibly conform to what we requested. A VERY UNHAPPY FORD VAN LEASEE: WILLIAM E. MEITER Middletown Van Pool Association Ford Motor Company May 17, 1983 William E. Meiter Middletown Van Pool Association Dear Mr. Meiter: This is in response to your recent letter to Mr. Peck in which you relate the problems experienced with replacement of brake linings and pads on your 1982 Ford E-150 Van. While the warranty which you received with the Ford E-150 Van covers defects in material and workmanship within the first 12 months or 12,000 miles, it does not cover replacement of normal maintenance items such as brake linings (friction material). There are several factors that may effect brake life; for example: individual driving habits, road conditions, stop and go traffic into and within Manhattan and optional equipment such as 10 captian chairs causing extra load. You apparently intensified the problem of load by actually carrying an overload which is indicated in the following: Your vehicle's GVW is - 6,200 lbs. After alterations, your vehicle's net weight registered as - 5,720 ibs. Allowing you - 480 lbs. to use as load; i.e.: passengers.
By transporting 10 passengers possibly totalling 1,500 lbs., you are overloading your vehicle by approximately 1,000 lbs. We regret that our response could not be more favorable, but appreciate having had the opportunity to review this matter for you. J. R. Rose District Manager New York District MANHATTAN FORD, LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC. (Illegible Words) 555 WEST 57th STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10019 (201)581-7860 PRICE BOOK DATE PAGE DATE SALESMAN: SALBO CUSTOMER: J.C. PENNY ADDRESS ATTENTION: W.E. MEITER 60 WALLACE ROAD, MIDDLETOWN, N.J. 07748 PHONE: 212-957-0092. MODEL: EIEO WINDOW VAN SUPER (Illeg.) 6941.- PAYLOAD PACKAGE: #2 GVM: 6200 N/C ENGINE: 302-V8 101.- TRANSMISSION: AUTOMATIC 352.- AXLES FRONT: (TRACTION LOK) REAR RATIO: 4.75 170.- TIRES: P235 75R 15XL STD.- SPARE TIRE: P235 75R 15XL 111.- AIR CONDITION DASH [] HI CAPACITY [] 1020.- ALTERNATOR: 60 AMP INCL W/AIR. - BATTERY: HD 36.- BRAKES: POWER STD BUMPER: REAR STEP. 84.- OUT CONVENIENCE GROUP: INTER WIPERS-12" O/N MIRROR-RHVANITY MIRROR 50.- COOLING SYS EXTRA [] SUPER [] 55.- DOOR SIDE: SLIDING OR HINGED N/C FUEL TANK: AUX. TOTAL CAP. 40 GALS 112.- (Illeg.) SPEED CONTROL 135.- GLASS (Illeg.): SWING OUT REAR. 40.- GLASS TINTED [] PRIVACY [] 264.- (Illeg.): COMFORT RIDE 15.- HEATER AUX [] HI OUTPUT [] 25.- INSULATION: DELUX 362.- LIGHT (Illeg.): COURTESY SWITCHES 24- LOCK GROUP: SECURITY 51.- MIRRORS: WESTERN LOW MTG. 69.- PAINT: ONE COLOR N/C PROTECTION GROUP RADIO: AM. FM. CASSETTE (4 SPEAKERS.) 224.- SEATING: QUAD CAPTS. CHAIRS. (2 ONLY) 1100.- 550 SHOCKS: HD FRONT & REAR (Illeg.) SPRING FRONT: HD REAR: HD 62.- STABILIZER BAR: FRONT 25.- STEERING: POWER 197.- (Illeg.): OUTSIDE SWING AWAY TIRE CARRIER. 117.- (Illeg.): CIGAR LIGHTER. 17.- FREIGHT 509.- DELIVERY & PREPARATION CHARGE 75.- 1981 PRICE (Illeg.) 82 ESTIMATED INCREASE 4% 500.- 12926- BILL, THE VAN PEOPLE ON LONG ISLAND WANT X 355.00- EACH INSTALLED FOR CAPTAINS CHAIRS FIGURING ANOTHER SEVEN TX 368.00-297.50 25.00- 2.972 I STILL WANT TO SHOP THIS ITEM LIGHTS 34.35 15 TOTAL 212.45 504.00 15.286 (Illegible Words) P.S. ALL ACCESSORIES ARE FIGURED AT COST SO ANYTHING YOU THINK YOU DON'T WANT JUST DELETE. LENNIE (Illegible Words) - 914-638-2972 3 YR. #562 MO PLUS INSURANCE. DOWN #600 + ONE MOS. PAYMENT $ 8,500 BUY BACK MANHATTAN FORD, LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC 8-17-81 BILL, JUST A QUICK NOTE TO TELL YOU THE FINANCE CO. APPROVED THE LEASE. ALSO ATTACHED IS A LAY OUT. I GOT THE SEAT PEOPLE TO DROP THEIR PRICE TO $ 297.50 AND THE READING LIGHTS INSTALLED EACH SEAT $ 34.95 EACH.
I THINK WE HAVE EVERYTHING, GIVE ME A CALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE Frank THIS IS THE SEAT MOVES BACK & FORWARD & SWIVELS DOES NOT RECLINE. MAIN CUT OFF SWITCH FOR LIGHTS INSTLD. IN DASH 8 (Illegible Word) SEATS INSTLD ON SWIVEL BASES W/SLIDE TRACKS AS SHOWN SEAT INSTALLATION NOTE: POSITION ALL SEATS APPROXIMATELY 4 (Illegible Word) FROM SIDE TO ALLOW FOR: - SWIVEL OF SEATS - STOREAGE OF BLUE CASES ON FLOOR BETWEEN SEAT AND SIDE WALL WE WILL USE 8 OF THESE DRIVE & PASSENGER WILL BE FORD. SPECIAL NOTE: CENTER THIS SEAT (MOVE INTO AISLE) SO PASSENGERS CAN ENTER BEHIND SEAT AND (Illegible Words) AISLE TO THEIR SEATS 9 SINGLE AIRCRAFT LIGHT W/SEPARATE SWITCHES INSTLD OVER EACH SEAT AS SHOWN. (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: nht75-1.39OpenDATE: 03/18/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Gp. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 14, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. You have asked whether Bendix may use the same manufacturer identification designation on brake hose, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies manufactured at three plants which are geographically separated. While S5.2 of Standard No. 106-74 requires designations identifying the manufacturer of these components, nothing in the standard prohibits a single manufacturer from applying the same designation to components manufactured at different plant locations. Yours truly, ATTACH. Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Group Mark Schwimmer, Attorney -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration February 14, 1975 Subject: Docket 1-5; Notice 9, FMVSS No. 106 -- Brake Hose Identification Ref.: Letter from F. Armstrong to R. W. Hildebrandt dated July 1, 1974. Phone conversation of R. G. Brewer and M. Schwimmer dated February 6, 1975. Dear Mr. Schwimmer: As per the above referenced phone conversation of February 6, 1975, The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group, desire a clarification on the Manufacturer Identification Regulation. A hose assembly identification designation has previously been assigned to our organization. Hose assemblies are manufactured at three plants which are geographically separated. The same management is responsible for operation of the three plants. All engineering is done at one location and hose assembly designs at the three plants are identical. In addition, identical quality control standards are maintained at all plants. Does the Regulation permit our Corporation to manufacture hose, hose fittings, and hose assemblies under FMVSS No. 106 in more than one plant location with the same identification designation? Can the identification designation be used at all plant locations. We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, R. W. Hildebrandt -- Group Director of Engineering cc: R. Daley POWER CONTROLS DIVISION -- Midland-Ross Corporation January 16, 1975 Mark Schwimmer -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Schwimmer: As relayed in our telephone conversation of January 14, 1975, we are interested in the relationship between the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106 and Military Specification MIL-H-3992C. Both of these refer to automotive air and vacuum brake hoses. Several questions have been raised regarding the applicability of these two documents with respect to hose purchased to the MIL-H-3992C specification (either for military or commercial use). We would appreciate rulings by you or your office to the following specific questions: 1. Both MIL-H-3992C and FMVSS 106 require specific labeling on the hose and on a tag on the assembly. Is it necessary for sale to the military to run two lines of identification (one per MIL-H-3992C and the other per FMVSS 106) on this hose? Likewise for commercial sale? Is it necessary for sale to the military, to include both the FMVSS 106 and the MIL-H-3992-C requirements on the assembly tag? Likewise for commercial sale? 2. Would hose manufactured and sold to the MIL-H-3992C specification also be required to meet the physical requirements of FMVSS 106 for military applications? Likewise for commercial applications? Very truly yours, Leon C. Huneke -- Chemical Engineer |
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.