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: 77-4.25OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 10/31/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 29, 1977, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of S4.5.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.5.4 requires that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." Oshkosh trucks are equipped with split air brake systems. This system incorporates a parking brake system on the rear axles. You indicated that there are three conditions under which the parking brakes will apply: Condition 1. - Parking Application. The spring brakes are driver applied through a hand operated parking control. Condition 2. - Rear Service Brake System Failure. The spring brakes can be driver applied through the service brake foot operated treadle valve control in the event of a failure in the rear service brake system. Condition 3. - Spring Brake Cavity Pressure Loss. A component failure which allows air pressure to exhaust from the spring cavity of the rear brake chambers will cause the spring brakes (parking brakes) to apply. This condition is not driver initiated." You have interpreted Condition 2 as the only "service brake" application since it is the only one of the three that is driver-initiated through the service brake control, and that stop lamp activation under the other two Conditions is not required by Standard No. 108. This will confirm your interpretation. With respect to Condition 1, we do not consider that driver application of the parking brake portion of the service brake system is "application of the service brakes" within the meaning of S4.5.4. Nor do we consider that activation of the parking brakes through component failure is "application of the service brakes", your Condition 3. SINCERELY, August 29, 1977 Chief Counsel NHTSA Subject: FMVSS 108 Stop Lamp Circuitry Interpretation Request Oshkosh Truck Corporation equips its trucks and truck tractors with split air brake systems. The Bendix-Westinghouse Corporation has a publication which very concisely explains the operation of a split air brake system like the one adopted by Oshkosh Truck. A copy of this publication "Bendix-Westinghouse Dual Air Brake System" is attached. As explained on page 5 of the Bendix publication, the spring brakes on the rear axles are the vehicle's parking brakes. There are, however, three conditions in which the spring brakes will apply. Condition 1. - Parking Application. The spring brakes are driver applied through a hand operated parking control. Refer to page 5 of the attachment. Condition 2. - Rear Service Brake System Failure. The spring brakes can be driver applied through the service brake foot operated treadle valve control in the event of a failure in the rear service brake system. Refer to page 6 of the attachment. Condition 3. - Spring Brake Cavity Pressure Loss. A component failure which allows air pressure to exhaust from the spring cavity of the rear brake chambers will cause the spring brakes (parking brakes) to apply. This condition is not driver initiated. FMVSS 108 requires that the stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes (para. 4.5.4) but does not require that the stop lamps be activated upon application of the parking brakes. Although all three of the above conditions are possible with the vehicle in motion, Oshkosh Truck Corporation interprets condition 2 as the only "service brake" application of the three described in that this spring brake application is the only one of the three that is driver initiated through the service brake control. In its interpretation of FMVSS 108 Oshkosh Truck Corporation has determined that stop lamp activation is not mandatory when the spring brakes are applied by conditions 1 or 3 described above (regardless of the vehicle's FMVSS 121 status). Oshkosh Truck requests written confirmation. Your immediate attention to this request will be greatly appreciated. Stephen C. Nimmer Senior Supervising Engineer [Publication Omitted.] |
|
ID: nht75-4.18OpenDATE: 10/23/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Coach and Equipment Sales Corp. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, to Mr. Schwartz of this office, seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. FMVSS No. 205 requires that the prime glazing manufacturer certify each piece of glazing covered by the standard by marking it with the letters DOT, the manufacturers code mark assigned by the Department of Transportation and the markings required by section 6 of A.N.S.Z-26. The latter markings are the "AS" number, the model number and the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. The distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which the standard applies is required to mark the material in accordance with section 6 of A.N.S.Z-26. Thus, each of the rectangular lites should be marked with the manufacturer's model number and trademark in addition to the AS number, but not with the letters DOT or the prime glazing manufacturer's DOT number. Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 requires that you, as the vehicle manufacturer, certify that your product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This would, of course, include FMVSS No. 205. I hope I have fully answered your questions. If you have any further need for information please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, ATTACH. COACH AND EQUIPMENT SALES CORPORATION July 30, 1975 Fred Schwartz -- Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Schwartz: To further clarify the questions asked on the telephone and also that I may have the answers/opinions in writing, I am addressing this correspondence to you. Our questions perhaps boil down to only two. Regarding interpretation of FMVSS 205, in particular the identification markings on glazing material. As explained to you on the phone our company makes a small vehicle for school bus use primarily by converting a van vehicle to conform to Federal and State standards for use in transporting school pupils. (Brochure enclosed) Thus, our first question. Are we required to have the glazing material, namely laminated glass, we install to be marked with the "DOT" symbol, a manufacturer's code mark, and the "M" number? Our second question is of course heavily dependent on the answer/ opinion to the first question. To clarify our second question it is necessary to point out that our volume of production is not large, and we have found over the years that we have been serviced better by the distributor's of glazing material rather than the prime manufacturer. In which case, the distributor orders from his manufacturer glazing material to be cut to size and shape from a common sheet size. (Ex: Six (6) rectangular lites - 10 1/2" x 23 3/8" from a large 48" x 62" sheet) It should be noted that the 48" x 62" sheet is marked in only one place. To satisfy various State standards, we require a marking on each lite showing the "AS" number. Because of the correspondence between your office and Commander Heath of California, we are now finding the prime manufacturer with-holding the right of the distributor to mark with the trademark the individual lites the distributor has cut. In our interpretation of 56.4 of FMVSS 205, the distributor can mark the individual lites. Are we correct in this interpretation? Phrasing the question another way for maximum clarification to us would be as follows. Can the prime manufacturer with-hold the ability of the distributor to mark the individual lites? We assure you that the answer/opinion to these questions are important and critical to us and respectfully request a reply as soon as possible. Sincerely, Richard L. Kreutaiger -- Vice President |
|
ID: 12-000762 W.Thompson III 9 Std. No. 108Open
William H. Thompson III 146 N. 58 St., Philadelphia, PA 19139
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This responds to your letter dated September 21, 2011. In that letter, you made inquiries regarding two subjects. First, you requested that NHTSA revisit its position in its previous letter to you (dated July 29, 2011).[1] That letter responded to your original request for an interpretation of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. In that letter, we explained our opinion that your invention, which alters the sequence in which school bus signal lamps will flash, would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. Second, you state that you are requesting the phase out of the four lamp system and the addition of the equivalent of the yellow traffic light function (as described in [your original request for interpretation]). We will address each of these requests in the following paragraphs.
(1) The July 29, 2011 Interpretation Letter In our July 2011 interpretation letter, we explained that because your invention would alter the standard lighting scheme of school bus signal lamps, it would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps. As we have explained on many occasions, traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with standardized lighting signals. In your letter requesting reconsideration of our interpretation, you made arguments specifically in regards to whether or not there is a standard message for the red school bus lamps. You noted that FMVSS No. 108 permits either an eight-lamp signal system (four red and four amber signal lamps) or a four-lamp signal system (four red signal lamps). You stated that, given the way that some states utilize the four-lamp signal system (e.g. the red lamps being activated prior to the stop location), there does not seem to be a standard message from the red warning lamps. You also asserted that your invention does not impair the effectiveness of the required lamps because the two original messages [of the required lamps] are now expanded to three distinct and complementary statements. While we have reviewed your arguments, they do not provide a basis for us to change our interpretation. The option for school buses to have either an eight-lamp or four-lamp signal system goes back to the 1960s. While motorists may, in light of this option, potentially encounter two types of school bus signal systems, school bus signal lamps are standardized to that extent and we believe that motorists are familiar with the messages imparted by these systems. Further, while the manner in which school bus owners utilize their vehicle lamps is a matter of state law, the message that the red lamps are intended to convey is clear and is specified in our regulations. The red lamps on school buses are required to conform with Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J887, July 1964 (incorporated by reference as part of FMVSS No. 108, S5.1.4(b)) which states that [s]chool bus red signal lamps are . . . intended to identify a vehicle as school bus and to inform other users of highway that such vehicle is stopped on highway to take on or discharge school children (emphasis added). According to your letter, your invention would alter the sequence in which school bus signal lamps flash (by including a stage of lighting where red and amber lights flash concurrently) for the purpose of providing a new kind of signal. It continues to be our opinion that this would, at the very least, impair the effectiveness of the red signal lamps by changing the standardized meaning of those lamps to mean something other than the meaning specified in SAE Standard J887. (2) Requested Changes to FMVSS No. 108
In your letter, you also recommended various changes to FMVSS No. 108s requirements for school bus signal lamps.
If you wish to petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108, you should submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to the requirements specified in 49 CFR Part 552. However, you should also be aware of the agencys Statement of Policy regarding petitions for rulemaking on signal lamps.[2] I am enclosing a copy of that document. Before submitting a petition to the agency, we recommend that you carefully review that Statement of Policy and make sure that you are submitting the kind of data necessary for us to evaluate your petition.
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
Enclosure
Ref: 108 Dated:5/31/12
[1] The agencys original response dated July 29, 2011 is available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/10-007285 S5-1-4 William H Thompson III 108 School Bus Lighting Interp Letter.htm. [2] This Statement of Policy was published in the Federal Register on November 4, 1998. See 63 FR 59482, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-11-04/pdf/98-29520.pdf. |
2012 |
ID: nht81-3.30OpenDATE: 11/02/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your recent letter regarding the use of flexible nylon tubes in vacuum braking systems. You ask whether such plastic hoses would qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" for purposes of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. We recently received a letter asking this identical question from Tokai Rubber Industries of Japan. I am enclosing a copy of that letter for your information. I believe that it will answer all of your questions. You will see from the letter that these nylon tubes cannot qualify as "vacuum tubing connectors" and must comply with the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106. Sincerely, ENC. TOKAI RUBBER INDUSTRIES, LTD. April 20, 1981 Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA Subject: Questionnaire Concerning the Application of All Plastic Vacuum Brake Hoses Dear Sirs, Our company, Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. is supplying vacuum brake hoses to Japanese automotive industries, which have both met the requirements of the standards of FMVSS-106(1974), S9 and been approved by your department. As you know, it has began to make use of the variety of vacuum brake hose instead of conventional rubber vacuum hose in application to brake systems. Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. has been developing and making plans for the supply of several kinds of plastic vacuum brake hoses which are composed of a single material and are molded in an exact, set shape for the specific application. We are intending to utilize two(2) flexible nylon tubes for a vacuum braking system, and our concept of assemblies is the following: (Graphics omitted) We have found, however, that these plastic vacuum brake hose does not meet several requirements of the FMVSS-106, S-9 due to the feat that their characteristics are different from the conventional type vacuum brake hoses, and therefore we would like to clarify the following points: (1) The molded plastic vacuum brake hose apparently does not meet the above mentioned requirements, such as Bend (S9.-2.7.) and Deformation (S9.2.10) of the FMVSS-106, S9. Is there any alternative standard or requirement? (2) Based on the notice for amendment to the definition in the Standard No.106-74, a definition for 'vacuum tubing connector' is added. is our nylon flexible tube and assembly indicated above in a category of 'vacuum tubing connector'? (3) If so, there is no federal rule concerning vacuum brake hoses to use in a vacuum brake booster system. Can we design a vacuum brake hose and assembly only based on manufacturer's performance standards ? I thank you very much for your help and consideration in this matter and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Very truly yours, John Y. Yonezana -- Engineer - Development cc: Mr. Sugimoto, Tokai AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS April 2, 1981 John Y. Yonezawa -- Tokai Rubber Industries, Ltd. Dear Mr. Yonezawa: Reference is made to your letter of February 20, 1981 in which you have requested our interpretation of the FMVSS-106 as it addresses brake hose and vacuum tubing connectors. We have reviewed your questions and have tried to interpret the standard as it applies to your application and have contacted Mr. Vern Bloom at NHTSA for his interpretation of the 106 standard. Mr. Bloom (Illegible Words) your questions directly - the Office of Chief Counsel at NHTSA for a formal interpretation of the standard. This would preclude any misinterpretation which could be very costly to your firm. AAMVA, as agent of the states and provinces, must use the FMVSS-106 for the certification of brake hose. If it is determined by NHTSA that the hose or device is not subject to the FMVSS-106, then it is not necessary to have it certified by us. When NHTSA gives Tokai Rubber Industries their interpretation, we would appreciate receiving a copy for our reference. We are sorry that we were not able to answer your questions in this matter. Sincerely yours, George E. Walton -- Associate Director, Safety Equipment Services MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD. September 30, 1981 Our Ref. T-859/TT/tm Messrs. Office of Chief Council Dear sirs RE: Inquiry to your interpretation on our plastic made vacuum brake hose through AAMVA We are one of leading automobile hoses manufacturers in Japan, and developing new material's vacuum brake hose which made from Poly-amide resin to replace from conventional rubber hose. However, you specify that vacuum brake hose must be conformed to all items of requirement in FMVSS 106, our nlyon made vacuum hose (not reinforced with any fiber, so we call it as "tube") don't satisfy S9.2.10 Deformation test and S10.6 Bend test. This is the common problem of plastic made vacuum brake hose which developed by several manufacturers, we've asked the interpretation of yours against the adoption of this new material's hose to AAMVA. Mr. George Walton Associate Director of AAMVA might request your interpretation to our inquiry that whether Nylon vacuum brake hose has a possibility of acceptance as vacuum brake hose which connect between rigid points or not. We are awaiting your interpretation of Nylon vacuum brake hose, please inform us. Enclosed please find the copies of our letter to Mr. Walton. Although we were asking him in our letter, it was also the question to you. We must excuse our sudden request, but if you kindly inform us your interpretation or advise, it would be much appreciated for us. We are looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience, we remain, Yours sincerely T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept. Encl: Copies of our inquiry letter addressed to Mr. Walton AAMVA c.c. to Mr. Walton June 3, 1981 Our Ref. T-809/TT/tm George E. Walton -- Assistant Director Safety Equipment Service, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators Dear Mr. Walton Much appreciated for your kind reply in your letter dated April 7 to our question on plastic made Vacuum brake hose. You've kindly enclosed latest FMVSS-106-74 and suggested us to carry the test in compliance with the standard out. As the result, we have found that our plastic vacuum tube (not reinforced with any fiber, so we call this "tube") is conformed to the requirements such as High temperature resistance, Low temperature resistance, Ozone resistance, Burst strength, Vacuum and Swell test, but not conformed to Bend and Deformation tests. Since we use Polyamide 11 material (fewer plasticizer contained), Kink phenomenon was happened when our vacuum tube was bent as way of bend test as specified. It was more than the collapse, completely yielded at the A point. In the Deformation test, our 3/8 inch I.D. tube was only conformed to the specification, but larger I. D. tubes 1/2 inch were not conformed. Our technicals insist that so far as we use polyamide material to make the tube, it is inevitable to ocurr Kink phenomenon and inferior deformation restorative rate compared to rubber tube. Notwithstanding such weak point, plastic tubes (mainly it is consisted with Nylon material) are available to automobile use. We hear Nylon made vacuum tube has been adopted to European vehicles before long and we can find particular specification of plastic tubing for its nominal diameter, end fittings and its assembly way in S9, Requirement-Vacuum brake hose of FMVSS 106. In case of the appearance of developed products made by new material, it is usual to adapt the specification to new material, we believe. Therefore we would like to ask you followings, 1. When your country import the vehicles which are installed Nylon made vacuum brake hose from Europe, you can accept them or not, we wonder. Because, European Nylon tube may also have inferior property against severe bend compared to conventional rubber made hose, we are afraid. If you have special treatment for them, please inform us. 2. As FMVSS specifies particularly for plastic tube or assembly, we expect, you AAMVA or NHTSA might have some adaptation to introduce these new developed plastic vacuum brake tube, or your administrators may be planning to adapt existent specification or requirement to such a plastic made tube. If so, could you please inform us such a tendency? We are sorry to trouble you again, but if you would inform us your situation or tendency, it would be much helpful for us. Yours sincerely T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept., MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD. July 7, 1981 Our Ref. T-826/TT/tm George E. Walton -- Associate Director, Safety Equipment Services, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators Dear Mr. Walton Thank you so much for your kind answer and exertion to our question. At the moment, we don't yet receive any interpretation from NHTSA, unfortunately. One of our manufacturers of these sort of tube interprets that vacuum brake hose is not fixed between swinging part as like as hydraulic brake hose, only for connecting between stationary parts such as engine to cleaner. Therefore vacuum brake hose can be regarded as rigid piping. If so, Nylon vacuum brake hose is not required severe flexibility and severe bending. We are not sure that his interpretation is acceptable with you or not, but we think, there is some truth in what he says as far as Nylon vacuum hose connect between stationary parts. Sorry to trouble you so often, but could you please address his interpretation to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? Enclosed pleased find a piece of V. W. Golf GII Vacuum hose with plastic made check value for your reference. We are looking forward to hearing from you and are always appreciating for your favour. Yours sincerely T. Takano -- Chief of Development Dept. MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD. Encl: a piece of sample |
|
ID: 00070cmcOpenMr. John A. Meyer Dear Mr. Meyer: This responds to your October 3, 2002, letter requesting clarification of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR 571.213). In your letter, you ask if a child restraint with a detachable base is required to have the manufacturer and model information labeled on the base as well as the seating portion of the restraint. The answer to your question is no. By way of background, each new child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in the United States must comply with FMVSS No. 213. S5.5 of FMVSS requires that each add-on child restraint system shall be permanently labeled with specified information including, among others: (1) the model name or number of the system; (2) the manufacturers name; and (3) the month, year, and place of manufacture. S4 of FMVSS No. 213 defines "add-on child restraint system" as "any portable child restraint system;" and "child restraint system" as "any device. . .designed for use in a motor vehicle. . .to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less. [1]" A detachable base is part of a child restraint system. As long as the labeling requirements are met by the system as a whole, the base is not required to be labeled. The Agency recently amended the labeling requirements under FMVSS No. 213 to clarify and simplify child restraint labels and instructions. (67 Federal Register 61523; October 1, 2002.) In the preamble to that amendment, the agency stated that several labeling issues may need to be addressed through future rulemaking. We will consider the issues raised in your letter prior to the next rulemaking. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of this office at (202) 366-0536. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:213 [1] The agency is considering extending the standard to apply to child restraints recommended for use by children up to 65 pounds. 67 Federal Register 21806; May 1, 2002.
|
2003 |
ID: 1983-1.49OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/03/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Teledyne Continental Motors -- T.A. Eschbaugh, General Products Division TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 2/8/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Talbot Engineers Inc. TEXT:
Mr. T. A. Eschbaugh Teledyne Continental Motors General Products Division 76 Getty Street Muskegon, Michigan 49442
Dear Mr. Eschbaugh:
This responds to your letter of March 22, 1983, asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) specifies wiped area requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The answer to your question is no.
FMVSS No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, specifies requirements for windshield wiping and washing systems. As discussed in an enclosed letter of interpretation, while the standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses, the standard's wiped area requirements only apply to passenger cars. Neither FMVSS No. 104 nor any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifies wiped area requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
(Enclosure omitted here.)
22 March, 1983
Chief Counsel for Legal Interpretation, NHTSA Subject: Clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Requirement 104 Re: Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.104 Paragraph S.2 and S.4.1.2
Dear Sir:
Paragraph S.2 of the above cited reference states that Requirement 104 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Paragraph S.4.1.2 specifies wiped area requirements for passenger cars. Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses are not mentioned in Paragraph S.4.1.2. Question: Are wiped area requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses specified by FMVSS requirement? If these requirements are specified, what are the appropriate references?
Very truly yours,
TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS General Products Division
T. A. Eschbaugh
TAE/js cc: Messrs. A. Saporito, E. Blackburne, R. Schuler, T. Schwallie |
|
ID: label_removal_5298OpenMs. Jennifer Ross Dear Ms. Ross: This responds to your letter in which you ask if an interior label on a motorcycle helmet may be removed by its owner. As you are writing from Canada, I note that my response refers only to regulation under the United States Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). With that clarification, U.S. Federal law does not prohibit an individual owner from removing labels from his or her motorcycle helmet after first retail sale of the helmet. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle helmets. S5.6 of the standard establishes a labeling requirement that specifies information with which a helmet must be permanently and legibly labeled. FMVSS No. 218 specifies that the DOT symbol appear on the outer surface of the helmet but does not specify a location for placement of the additional information, except that it must be read easily without removing padding or any other permanent part. Generally, our standards apply to motor vehicle equipment as manufactured up until the point of first retail sale. However, even after first retail sale a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business cannot "knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard" (49 U.S.C. 30122). In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218. Therefore, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed a label affixed to the exterior or interior of a helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218, then that entity would be making the label inoperative, in violation of U.S. Federal law. This "make inoperative" provision does not extend to an individual consumer after a helmet is first sold for retail. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove or cover the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of U.S. Federal law. If you have any further questions about motorcycle helmets, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:218 |
2005 |
ID: nht92-1.41OpenDATE: December 7, 1992 FROM: W. C. Burke -- Captain, Commander, Commercial and Technical Services Section TO: Paul Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: File No.: 62.A8383.A9181.5242C ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-31-93 from John Womack to W. C. Burke (A41; Std. 205) TEXT: Recently, Mr. Greg Bragg from our California Highway Patrol (CHP) Commercial and Technical Services section spoke with Mr. Marvin Shore and Mr. Clark Harper of your administration regarding the marking requirements of safety glazing installed in motor vehicles. The specific issue they talked about was whether or not a glass installer replacing glass in a motor vehicle according to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 205 is required to mark the glazing. FMVSS 205, S6.4 states "Each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which this standard applies, for use in a motor vehicle or camper, shall mark that material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26." According to the definitions contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, an installer replacing glass in a motor vehicle would be a dealer and would, therefore, be exempt from the marking requirements. We are inquiring about this matter because California has adopted FMVSS 205 and some of our CHP personnel have found school buses with replacement glass that is not marked. We have subsequently taken law enforcement action against these school districts. It has been our longtime understanding that all glass installed in a motor vehicle must be marked. However, after careful examination of the wording contained in both the FMVSS 205 and the Safety Act of 1966, it appears that the installer of replacement glass does not have to mark the glazing material and that our past interpretation of this Federal Standard may be in need of further review. We, therefore, request a written interpretation from you on whether or not FMVSS 205 requires an installer (or dealer) who cuts sections of glass from a larger, marked section to mark each individual smaller section (if not already marked) prior to installing them as replacement windows. Your immediate response to this question is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact either Mr. Greg Bragg or Mr. Kyle Larsen of our Commercial and Technical Services Section at (916) 445-1865. |
|
ID: nht74-3.17OpenDATE: 07/30/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your July 3, 1974, question whether the Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses, labeling requirements for brake hose fittings (S5.2.3) permit labeling in addition to that required in the section. Optional labeling is not prohibited by the standard as long as the additional marking does not confuse the required marking. We have already interpreted S5.2.2 to permit optional labeling on the opposite side of the hose from the required labeling. The required labeling must appear without additions to make it clearly legible. Your illustration appears satisfactory as long as the "1/8" and the "lot number" are sufficiently separate for clarity. NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. July 3, 1974 Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration This is to confirm our telephone conversation of June 27th with Mr. Herlihy of your office regarding the brake hose end fitting labeling requirement of FMVSS 106, S.5.2.3. We would like to employ additional labeling in block capital letters or numerals, as shown in the attached Figure 1, which is not requested in the Standard and which will constitute "Lot Numbers" by the fitting manufacturer. We believe that it would be acceptable to have this additional labeling when considering the fact that the FMVSS 106 does not prohibit additional labeling and that we feel the need for additional labeling in order to identify problems more easily if something should happen. We do not think that this kind of additional labeling would cause any confusion with the labeling requested by the FMVSS. Please advise us as to whether or not our understanding in the above matter is correct. Thank you for your attention to our request. Tatsuo Kato Staff, Safety Attachment Example: DOT OSK H 1/8 XXXXX Manufacturer's Designation NHTSA Requested Labeling "LOT NUMBERS" by fitting manufacturer in block capital letters or numerals at same height as requested in the FMVSS labeling. (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: nht92-5.2OpenDATE: August 3, 1992 FROM: Gary L. Hopkins -- VP & G.M. Control Systems Products, Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA TITLE: Request for Interpretation - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124; Accelerator Control Systems (FMVSS #124) ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gary L. Hopkins (A39; Std. 124) TEXT: Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems of Allied-Signal Inc. (BHVS) manufactures electronic treadle assemblies that are utilized by several vehicle manufacturers as a component of their acceleration control system used with electronically controlled diesel engines. The BHVS electronic treadle assembly (see attachment) modulates an electric signal, received from an outside source, in response to the input of the operator's foot. This signal is an input to the engine electronic controller which in turn provides electronic signals that operate the engine fuel injectors to control engine power. (See attached schematic of a typical electronic engine control system). The scope and requirements of FMVSS #124, which is a standard last updated in 1973, are specific as to the return of the vehicles throttle to the idle position. The BHVS electronic treadle assembly is not a throttle as it is not a component of the fuel metering device, nor is BHVS aware of any component on an electronic controlled diesel engine that is a throttle as defined by the standard. Therefore, it is our interpretation and opinion that FMVSS #124 is not applicable to the BHVS electronic treadle assemblies and electronic controlled diesel engines. While BHVS has taken the above stated position on the applicability of FMVSS #124, it is recognized that until an appropriate standard is issued good safety design practices shall continue to be applied. Therefore, a malfunction in the accelerator control system that results in loss of vehicle control would be a safety related issue, not a compliance issue. To be specific, BHVS is hereby requesting confirmation of our position that vehicles equipped with electronic engine control systems of the type as described and depicted in the schematic and which include an electronic treadle assembly are not covered by the scope and requirements of FMVSS #124. If additional information is necessary, please contact me at (216) 329-9200. (Drawings omitted) |
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.