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: Webb.1OpenMr. Sean P. Webb Dear Mr. Webb: This responds to your May 13, 2004, letter, in which you seek clarification regarding certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, related to headlamps. In your letter and in a subsequent phone conversation with Mr. Michael Cole of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, you described perceived problems with your 2003 vehicle, which was purchased new and unmodified. Specifically, you stated that your vehicles halogen headlamps (high beams and low beams) and fog lamps periodically "flicker off and on" or change intensity when activated. In your letter, you asked whether FMVSS No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning and whether "flickering" of the headlamps would impair the standards minimum illumination requirements. Our response to your questions follows. The relevant section of FMVSS No. 108 reads as follows:
In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be steady burning, unless otherwise permitted. The situation that you describe does not appear to fall within any of the exceptions to the steady-burning requirement. We are unable to comment on the compliance of your specific vehicle with FMVSS No. 108 without conducting independent testing. We note, however, that Mr. Cole confirmed the entry of the information that you provided in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations consumer complaints database and provided you with a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders, which set forth the procedures for petitioning the agency to examine possible noncompliances or defects in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. 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:108 |
2004 |
ID: 08-006966rev.drnOpenMr. Jacques Bolduc SRD Bolduc, Inc. 12521 St.-Charlotte Drive Tampa, FL 33618 Dear Mr. Bolduc: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. That standard specifies requirements for the return of a vehicles throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control, or in the event of a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. You wish to know of foreseeable concerns that a vehicle equipped with an engine and a parallel hybrid electric vehicle drive may have with complying with FMVSS No. 124. We address your question below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce the FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by, among other things, purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. Your letter stated that your client, a final stage manufacturer, completes an incomplete heavy duty vehicle by adding various bodies and a parallel hybrid electric vehicle drive system. You expressed concern about whether the completed vehicle can meet FMVSS No. 124 because: The hybrid system provides, in addition to providing electrical power to truck mounted equipment, power assist (acceleration) on a decreasing level. The power assist operates at RPMs below 3600 and speeds below 40 MPH. The higher the RPM and the vehicle speed, the less input from the power assist. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer provides a gasoline or diesel engine to the vehicle. Your client places an electric power assist system that is intended to function when the vehicle speed is less than 40 miles per hour (MPH). The electric power assist system works in parallel with the gasoline or diesel engine and is intended to provide additional torque at lower speeds. Cutting back on torque required for the gasoline or diesel engine results in reduced fuel consumption. You stated that whether the vehicle is propelled by the engine or the electric power assist system is determined by the vehicle. The driver does not control whether the vehicle is propelled by the engine or the electric power assist system. As noted above, you asked whether there are any foreseeable concerns with the compliance of a vehicle equipped with such a power assist in regards to the requirements of FMVSS 124. While we can provide information about our standards and respond to specific requests for interpretation, we are unable to provide technical analysis of specific products. As noted above, manufacturers have the responsibility to ensure that their vehicles meet applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to make required certifications. As a final stage manufacturer, your client should, among other things, be familiar with 49 CFR Parts 567, Certification, and 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More StagesAll Incomplete, Intermediate and Final-Stage Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 9/22/09 |
2009 |
ID: 08-001245 belly padOpenMs. Diana D. Smith Belly Pad Buddies 1795 N. Fry Rd., #148 Katy, TX 77449 Dear Ms. Smith: This responds to your letter about a product you market called the Belly Pad Buddy, which you describe as a type of pad designed for use with an infant child restraint (infant seat) with a 5-point harness restraint. You ask for information about Federal and state requirements that apply to your product. According to your letter, the Belly Pad Buddy was designed to help prevent pinching caused by the 5-point harness buckle when securing the infant in the car seat carrier. Other benefits can be that it helps prevent against a hot buckle and provides a cushion to protect the infant from the hard buckle. The pad is attached to the infant seat by strapping a part of it around the infant seat crotch strap. The Belly Pad Buddy consists of a 4- by 6-inch pad that is about to 1 inches thick.[1] You state that the product is sold in the aftermarket for installation by the owner of the infant seat in his or her own vehicle. By way of background, 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 (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Belly Pad Buddy. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS No. 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less." (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds.) The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pad that is used with a child restraint system. While no FMVSS applies to the Belly Pad Buddy, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, while it is unlikely that the Belly Pad Buddy would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. You state in your letter that you believe that the Belly Pad Buddy does not interfere with the infant seats buckle restraint system. Because we do not approve or certify products, we cannot agree or disagree with your assessment. Instead, we note for your consideration that FMVSS No. 213 requires specific levels of performance for infant seats as a system and also for seat webbing and buckles as components of the child restraint system, whose performance could be affected by aftermarket accessory pads. Further, an aftermarket pad inserted between the webbing and the child passenger could compress in a crash and degrade the ability of the belt system to properly restrain the infant in a crash. In addition, FMVSS No. 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for child restraints. Any person listed in 30122 who installs a Belly Pad Buddy must not make inoperative the flammability resistance of the child restraint system. The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. State or local jurisdictions might have their own requirements for products such as the Belly Pad Buddy. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:213 d.4/17/08 [1] This description is based on your letter and on a photograph of your product shown on your website: www.bellypadbuddies.com. |
2008 |
ID: Warren.1OpenMs. Ellen Warren Dear Ms. Warren: This responds to your November 3, 2003 letter asking which Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), if any, would be applicable to a product your company is developing for installation in motor vehicles. The product is a video-based, forward-looking collision avoidance device consisting of a digital video camera mounted inside the front windshield, near the rearview mirror, that is connected to a processor mounted on or under the dashboard. The products goal is to "help prevent the most common types of collisions by providing warnings of undesired lane departures, high closure rates with objects in the path and failure to decelerate when approaching stop signals." I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations and to discuss how they may affect your product. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards (see 49 CFR Part 571) before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to your product. However, installation of your product may affect a vehicles compliance with several safety standards. If the device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle, prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles. In order to determine how installation of your video camera system could affect vehicle compliance with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard contained in 49 CFR Part 571. However, there are certain standards (discussed below) of which you should be particularly aware. First, I would draw your attention to paragraph S5.3.5 of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, which places a limitation on sources of illumination within the passenger compartment, in order to prevent glare visible to the driver. Although your letter does not indicate the type of output associated with your crash avoidance system (e.g., light, sound, or some combination thereof), any related monitor or display would be required to control glare as required under S5.3.5. You should assess also your products effect upon a vehicles compliance with FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which are designed to protect drivers and passengers, both by ensuring the crashworthiness of the vehicle and by reducing injuries resulting from contact with various interior components. In discussions with Eric Stas of my staff, you mentioned the foreseeable potential for your products to be adapted to rearward application. Consequently, you may wish to be aware of NHTSAs ongoing rulemaking in which we are considering establishing a performance standard for rear object detection, as part of FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors.NHTSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on this topic on November 27, 2000, which included consideration of a rear video system as a compliance option under a future standard (see 65 FR 70681). We expect to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2004. Beyond compliance with relevant federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over commercial vehicles and interstate motor carriers operating in the United States.You may wish to contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2004 |
ID: 1982-3.9OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 10/14/82 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Isuzu Motors America, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, Michigan 48076
Dear Mr. Tokunaga:
This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock and Transmissions Braking Effect. You asked whether a 5-speed automatic transmission which you are considering producing meets the requirement of section S3.1.1 that a neutral position be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions.
By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.
In reference to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the relevant question is whether, in accordance with the above requirement, there is a neutral position between the HD (highway drive) and R (reverse) positions. As explained below, it is our opinion that the answer to that question is yes.
Your letter states that "the transmission is neutral whenever the shift lever is at any place on the horizontal line (including its left and right extreme ends) at the center of which the mark 'N' is shown." Further, your letter indicates that "the shift lever is spring-loaded to return to the center of the horizontal line ('N' position) whenever the lever is left free on that line." In shifting between HD and R, the lever must cross the horizontal line. We understand that if the lever is merely held on the horizontal line at the crossing point, i.e., the extreme right, the transmission will be in neutral. Further, we understand that if the lever is left free in that position, it will return to the center of the horizontal line where it will remain in neutral. Based on these two understandings, it is our opinion that the extreme right crossing point constitutes a neutral position between the HD and R positions.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
DET82-134
May 18, 1982
Mr. George L. Parker Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Parker,
This letter is intended to seek your advice on the interpretation of the requirement in FMVSS 102 on the location of automatic transmission shift lever positions.
Show in the attached sheet is the shift lever pattern of a 5-speed automatic transmission we are planning to use on our passenger car. As far as you see on the pattern, it looks one can shift from "HD" (highway drive) to "R" or vice versa without passing a neutral position. But the fact is that the transmission is neutral whenever the shift lever is at any place on the horizontal line (including its left and right extreme ends) at the center of which the mark "N" is shown. Therefore, we think arrangement meets the requirement of FMVSS 102, S3.1.1 which says: "A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions." For additional information, the shift lever is spring-loaded to return to the center of the horizontal line ("N" position) whenever the lever is left free on that line. The lever can be moved from "HD" to "R" and vice versa at any time but a built-in transmission control unit works to prevent gear engagement unless the vehicle speed is suitable for the intended shift.
We would like to receive NHTSA's interpretation about the compliance of this system with FMVSS 102. Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering |
|
ID: 86-3.2OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/01/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: A.D. Fish TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. A. D. Fish Road Transport Division Ministry of Transportation Aurora House 62 The Terrace Wellington, New Zealand
Dear Mr. Fish:
We regret the delay in responding to your letter (14/1/9) dated September 18, 1985, to Mr. Francis Armstrong requesting information in relation to our compliance test report number 213-CAL-83-011-33-011. Your letter was referred to my office.
In your letter you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, regarding the reason for the test laboratory marking two parts of the test procedure as not applicable to your child restraint. The answers to your specific questions are as follows:
1. Page 12--Resistance to Microorganisms. Polyester and nylon, which comprise 100% of all vehicle seat belt and child seat harness webbing, are inherently resistant to microorganisms. Therefore, in an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the agency has thus far chosen not to conduct this test on nylon and polyester belts. If a child restraint harness or vehicle seat belt were found to be made of cotton or some other fibrous material, the resistance to microorganisms test would be conducted on those materials. In addition, the agency reserves the authority to test nylon and polyester belts as well, although it has no plans to do so. 2. Page 26--S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems. The requirements of S5.4.3.3 apply to child restraints that are "designed for use by a child in a seated position." Infant restraints are designed to place the child in a rear-facing, semi-recumbent position instead of a seated position and therefore S5.4.3.3 is not applicable to them. Since infant restraints are rear-facing, the major forces acting on the child's body from vehicle deceleration are exerted by the foam liner/plastic shell instead of the belt system. In addition, all infant restraints on the market are equipped with a three-point harness system (shoulder belt/crotch strap) to position the child and hold him or her in the restraint during rebound. Sincerely,
Original Signed By
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
modifies its own vehicles. Since a vehicle owner is free under the Safety Act to alter its own vehicles, any such action by Wayne County or its school systems does not violate the Safety not or render them subject to any penalty under the Act. On the other hand, Wayne County's conversion of the vans would, of course, still have to comply with any applicable state laws.
If you have further questions, please contact my office. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
Enclosure
14/1/9 ROAD TRANSPORT DIVISION
18 September 1985
AIRMAIL
Contract Technical Manager Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.
Dear Sir
We are experiencing some difficulty in interpreting FMVSS 213 in relation to your report number 213-CAL-83-011 and would be glad of any assistance you may be able to give us in this regard. The two points of difficulty are as follows: 1. Page 12. Resistance to micro-organisms.
The report lists this as N/A. However, my copy of FMVSS 213, S5.4.1(b) indicates that S4.3(e) to (h) of FMVSS 209 apply. (Presumably meaning S4.2).
2. Page 26. S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems.
FMVSS 213 seems to require upper torso and lower torso restraints, but the report lists this section as N/A and the restraint system does not seem to comply.
Your advice on the above points would be greatly appreciated. Yours faithfully
A.D. Fish for Director, Road Transport Division
18I5/Trl |
|
ID: 86-4.49OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/18/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: William Shapiro TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
Thank you for your letter of May 5, 1986, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 212, Windshield Retention, apply to a passenger car that is equipped with a driver-only air bag system. As explained below, such a vehicle must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after being tested in accordance with Standard No. 212. Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicle that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.
You noted that S4.1.3.4(b) of Standard No. 208 provides that, for purpose of calculating the number of passive restraint-equipped cars during the phase-in of passive restraints, a car with a driver-only, non-belt passive restraint will be counted as a vehicle complying with the passive restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1(a). Such a driver-only system can have a manual safety belt installed at the right front passenger position. You said that Volvo considers a vehicle with a driver-only, non-belt system to be a passive restraint vehicle and thus subject to the 50 percent windshield retention requirement of S5.1
As discussed in a July 5, 1977, Federal Register notice (42 FR 34288), one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles has because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield. In addition, there could be incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield. Because the same air bag-to-windshield and dummy-to-windshield contact is possible in a vehicle equipped with a driver-only air bag system, the agency believes that it is appropriate to apply the 50 percent retention requirement to a driver-only air bag system. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
May 5, 1986
Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590
Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #212 Windshield Mounting
Dear Ms. Jones:
FMVSS #212 requires passive restraint equipped vehicles to retain not less than 50% of the portion of the windshield periphery on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline and vehicles not equipped with passive restraints to retain not less than 75% of the windshield periphery.
FMVSS #208 Section 4. 1.3.4(b) states, for purposes of calculating the numbers of cars manufactured under Section 4. 1.3. 1 .2, Section 4. 1.3.2.2, or Section 4.1.3.3.2 L; comply with Section 4.1.2.1. (first option - frontal/angular automatic protection system): "Each car whose driver's seating position with comply with the requirements of Section 4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type or seat belt ad whose front right seating position is equipped with a Type 2 seat belt is counted as a vehicle conforming to Section 4,1.2.1.",
During the period 1987-89MY, NHTSA has classified cars with a non-belt passive restraint on the driver's side and a Type 2 seat belt on the passenger's side as "passive restraint vehicles". Volvo interprets that the vehicles covered under Section 4.1.3.4(b) are passive restraint vehicles ad the requirements of FMVSS #212 for those vehicles are the ones that apply to passive restraint vehicles, i.e. , minimum 50% windshield periphery retention on each side of the vehicle longitudinal centerline.
We would appreciate your confirmation of that position as soon as possible.
If additional information is required on this matter, don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA Product Planning and Development
William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs |
|
ID: nht87-3.34OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/03/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: M. Iwase, Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 7/23/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M. Iwase (Std. 108) TEXT: Mr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimuzu-shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1987, with further reference to features of a 60 degree slant replaceable bulb headlamp presently being developed by Koito. You have explained that the aiming pads for the new system will be installed on t he aiming adapter, rather than the headlamp lens, and have asked for confirmation that this is "not illegal" under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. As you noted in your letter, paragraph S4.1.1.36(a) (2) specifically requires the exterior face of each replaceable bulb headlamp lens to have three aiming pads. The agency has no specifications for the design of aiming adapters, and a headlamp without a iming pads would be one that is not designed to conform to the standard. The agency is examining concepts for aiming methods for other than mechanical aim, but no amendments to Standard No. 108 are contemplated that would permit or require aiming pads to be on aiming adapters. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Air-Mail Ms. Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A. Dear Ms. E. Z. Jones: We would like to further ask you the following question of headlamp aiming adaptor in connection with your kind advice mentioned in your letter of July 23, l987 replying to our letter of March 24, l987. (Refer to the attached.) RE = 1 ) Aiming Adaptor for 60 " Slant Bulb Replaceable Headlamp As shown below, instead of being installed, on the lens of headlamps, aiming bosses are installed on the surface of the special adaptor which is to be equipped onto each vehicle so that mechanical aiming can be performed, by use of the headlamp aimer " s pecified SAE J602C. Of course, the special adaptor is so designed that it can be surely attached onto the proper design position of headlamps. The aiming bosses and markings, which are applied to 54. 1. 1.36 (a) (2)& (3) of FMVSS No. 108, are placed on the surface of the special adaptor. (INSERT GRAPHICS) Attn: Ms. Erica Z. Jones Date: Sept. 15, 1987 Page: 2 / 3 Question: We believe that the aiming boss installation as abovementioned can be applied to FMVSS NO. 108 and not illegal under FMVSS NO. 108. We would like you to confirm whether our interpretation is correct or not. Aiming pads are specified in 54.1. 1.36 (a) (2) of FMVSS NO. 108 as follows; "The exterior face of each replaceable bulb headlamp lens shall have three pads which meet the requirements of Figure 4, Dimensional Specifications for Location of Aiming Pads on Replaceable Bulb Headlamp Units .. ." However, for all this prescription, we can not find it necessary that aiming pads shall be placed on the lens of headlamps which can be aimed by the use of the adaptor equipped onto each vehicle, because the special adaptor can be designed regardless of lens bosses so as to be surely attached onto the proper design position of headlamps in any way, we think. And it is not only useless but also impractical that the specified aiming bosses are placed onto the lens of headlamps which slant up to about 60o in vertical and horizontal, because the projection of the aiming bosses becomes higher according to the len s slant inevitably. (INSERT GRAPHICS) Attn: Ms. Erica Z. Jones Date: Sept. 15, 1987 Page: 3 / 3 Upon our consideration of the abovementioned matter, it should not be required that aiming bosses shall be placed on the lens of headlamps which are aimed by use of the special adaptor equipped onto each vehicle. Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, M. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works See 7/23/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to M. Iwase. |
|
ID: nht74-3.19OpenDATE: 11/12/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: The Flxible Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to Flxible's October 11, 1974, petition to exempt the "trackless trolley coach" category of bus from the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You describe the vehicle as similar to your diesel bus but without the weight of the diesel engine, and with electrodynamic braking provided by the traction motor to a maximum of 2.0 mph per second in conjunction with brake operation. I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Flyer Industries Limited on the same subject. The letter describes our position with regard to status of the trackless trolley as a motor vehicle, and also how it must be tested under Standard No. 121. You have noted several difficulties in testing a vehicle which uses overhead electric lines as a source of power. I would like to point out that, as we interpret the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, we have established the policy that a manufacturer may conduct certification testing in any manner it chooses, as long as it is calculated, in the exercise of due care, to demonstrate that the vehicle would pass if tested as specified in the standard. Thus, you would be free to certify the vehicle based on tests without use of overhead lines and the benefit of electrodynamic braking. We understand from your letter that without the weight of the diesel engine the trackless trolley has better braking performance than the equivalent diesel engine. At this time we have issued a proposal that would establish special test conditions for certain vehicles and limited exemptions for other vehicles, based on their configuration. We will consider your letter as a petition under this rulemaking action, and we invite you to make further comments to Docket 74-10; Notice 7, within the next 30 days. We will advise you of our determination by letter or by notice in the Federal Register. YOURS TRULY, ENCLS. THE Flxible CO. OCTOBER 11, 1974 Mr. Richard Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th. Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Dyson: The purpose of this letter is to request a clarification concerning the certification of a trackless trolley coach to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #121, Braking System. The Flxible Company is seeking certification of the trackless trolley coach without testing as a part of our family of vehicle of which the diesel powered buses are certified to FMVSS #121. The trackless trolley coach will be on a forty (40) feet long by one hundred two (102) inches wide chassis. All brake system components, with the exception of the air compressor are the same ones used on the diesel coach. The air compressor, of necessity, is motor driven and of larger capacity than the compressor used on most diesel coach applications. Calculations, based on compressor capacity and reservoir volume, show that the compressor exceeds the requirements of Para. S5.1.1 of FMVSS #121 by 55-60 per cent. While the chassis is the same as the diesel coach, the total vehicle weight will be slightly less than a diesel coach, powers by a V-8 diesel engine, due to component weight. The weight reduction is a plus factor in meeting the stopping distances as outlined in Table 11 of FMVSS #121. In addition, electrodynamic braking will be provided by the traction motor to a maximum of 2.0 mile per hour per second (MPHPS) in conjunction with brake operation. This feature will most certainly aid the overall braking performance of the vehicle One very important point must be made in requesting certification of the trackless trolley coach without testing. There is no test track available with 600 VDC overhead lines with which to run the vehicle. Cost for such an installation would be prohibitive especially considering the very limited use. Testing methods, such as a portable power system, would also be expensive and not at all practical due to the physical size and weight of components to produce 600 VDC at 550 amperes Based on the above information, The Flxible Company requests deletion of testing and granting of certification to FMVSS #121 of the trackless trolley coach. STANLEY C. FRYE -- Product Engineer-Advanced Design |
|
ID: nht76-1.17OpenDATE: 07/01/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Parker Hannifin Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter concerning the application of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to thermoplastic tubing of 1/8 inch nominal outside diameter that is used in "auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself." You have pointed out that it is difficult to label tubing of this diameter with letters that are 1/8 inch high, and requested an amendment of the standard to permit the labeling of such brake hoses with letters that are 1/16 inch high. Because the tubing that you have described is not manufactured for use in the brake system itself, it is not "brake hose" as that term is defined in Standard No. 106-74 and is therefore not subject to any of the standard's requirements. In fact, although the standard does not prohibit the manufacture of air brake hose of 1/8-inch outer diameter, we are unaware at this time of the existence of any hose or tubing of that diameter that meets the definition of "brake hose". Therefore, the conformity or nonconformity of the tubing in question with the performance or labeling requirements of the standard is a matter of private contract between Parker Hannifin Corporation and those truck manufacturers that are requesting conformity. In consideration of the possibility that 1/8-inch outer diameter tubing may in the future be used in brake systems, however, the NHTSA has decided to grant your petition to reduce to 1/16 inch the minimum required lettering height on brake hoses of such diameter. Accordingly, a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced. You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. Sincerely, ATTACH. PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION M. Schwimmer -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration March 24, 1976 Subject: CFR 571, STANDARD 106 SECTIONS 5.2.2 and 7.2 "MARKING" Gentlemen: As presently constituted, FMVSS 106 requires that the Department of Transportation marking shall be a minimum of 1/8" high. Note specifically Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.2 (a), 5.2.2 (b), 5.2.2 (c), 5.2.2 (d), and 7.2 We have determined that legible marking of this height cannot be printed efficiently by existing production equipment upon thermoplastic tubing of 1/8" nominal outside diameter. This height of letter would cover a total span of 114.5 degrees if in perfect alignment. Even with a grooved marking wheel, we have established that 60 degrees is the practical upper limit for the lettering height to span. Beyond this span, the skewed movement between type and its own printing at the top and bottom of each letter causes perceptible smudging, so that the printing actually becomes less readable instead of more so. Major usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter thermoplastic tubing on highway trucks seems to be in auxiliary air equipment rather than the brake system itself. Nevertheless, the truck manufacturers have required that this size conform to FMVSS 106 for safety reasons. If a complete failure of these lines should occur, they reason that the volume of compressed air supply momentarily lost could create a significant adverse effect upon the brake system. Not holding this size to the same requirements as all others would thus be inconsistent with the stated purpose of FMVSS 106: "To reduce deaths and injuries occurring as a result of brake system failure from pressure . . . lost due to hose or hose assembly rupture." We wish to make the following two alternative petitions in this regard: 1. We petition that the minimum lettering height of required marking on 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing be changed from 1/8" to 1/16". 2. In the event that it is determined that the usage of 1/8" nominal outside diameter airbrake tubing lies beyond the scope of FMVSS 106, we petition for a clear directive which excludes this size from the standard and requires that it must not bear the marking called out in the sections of the standard which are referenced above. Very truly yours, W. E. Currie -- Chief Engineer cc: W. Hertel; C. Foote; T. Landy |
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.