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: nht87-2.5OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/10/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Anonymous (confidential) TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Dear This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1987, with respect to whether a new headlamp design is permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In the new design, the upper aiming pad is integral with the lens but it recessed and concealed by the lip of the hood. Thus, the hood must be open for a mechanical aimer to be applied. You believe that this is not precluded by section 5.1 of SAE J580 in corporated by reference in Standard No. 109, which requires aiming to be effected "without the removal of any ornamental trim rings or other parts." Your drawing indicates that the flange is part of the headlamp lens even though that portion of the lens is not needed to provide illumination. The fact that the hood must be raised in order to aim the headlamps does not constitute a "removal" within the meaning of SAE J580. Therefore this design is not prohibited by Standard No. 108. In accordance of your letter of April 27, 1987, your request for confidentiality is granted to the extent that all information which might identify you or your employer will be deleted from the publicity available copies of this letter. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 13 March 87 Dear Ms Jones RE: INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SAD J580, SECTION 5.1 AUG 79 REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY - HEADLAMP LENS AND AIMING PAD DESIGN the of the passenger car seeks a legal interpretation of FMVSS No.108; referen ced SAE J580 Aug 79, Sealed beam headlight assembly and confidentiality of its new headlamp lens and aiming pad design. SAE 580, Section (5.1) states, "Headlamps shall be de signed so that they may be inspected and aimed by mechanical aimers as specified in SAE 602 c (December 1974) without the removal of any ornamental trim rings or other parts." is proposing a replaceable bulb type headlamp system with the upper aiming pad integral with the lens but recessed and concealed by the lip of the hood as shown in the attached drawing. It is, opinion that our lamp design is permissible under FMVSS No. 108 referenced SAE 580 Section 5.1. That is, if it is acceptable to raise the hood to adjust headlamp so should it be permissible to raise the hood to attach mechanical aimers. For this reason requests a legal interpretation of SAE J580, Section 5.1 and request confidentiality of our headlamp design described and shown herein. Yours Sincerely Chief Engineer INSERT GRAPHIC |
|
ID: 1985-04.14OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/04/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. T. Chikada TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo, 153, Japan
Dear Mr. Chikada:
This is in reply to your letter of September 19, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.
This paragraph forbids the installation of lamps and reflective devices other than those specified by the standard, as well as other types of motor vehicle equipment, if such will impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. You have asked if this prohibits the installation of any lamp that is not specified by the standard, and if there are any restrictions for the color, mounting location, or luminous intensity. You ask this with reference to "a decorative extra lighting device". Paragraph S4.1.3 does not prohibit the installation of lighting devices not required by the standard. There are no restrictions covering the areas that interest you. Whether a "decorative extra lighting device" would be prohibited by S4.1.3 would, of course, be determined by its size, shape, luminous intensity, proximity to required lighting equipment, etc. but in the absence of a description of your device we cannot offer an opinion as to whether it would conflict with S4.1.3.
Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
September 19, 1985
Att.: Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.
Re: Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No.l08
Dear Mr. Berndt,
We are thinking of producing a decorative extra lighting device, which will be mounted on the rear side of motor vehicle. FMVSS mentions about such lighting device, as below. FMVSS N0.108, Paragraph 4.1.3 -
No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.
Does this paragraph mean that any lamp which is not specified in Regulation, shall not be mounted on the motor vehicle? If there is any restriction for the color, mounting location, luminous intensity for the decorative extra lighting device, including reflex reflective device, please let us know.
We are looking forward to your quick reply.
Very truly yours, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. |
|
ID: 86-2.9OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/24/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. T. Chikada TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan
Dear Mr. Chikada:
This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking whether it is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to equip a motorcycle with an auxiliary lighting device described in your letter. The device is mounted on an optional trunk and performs the functions of a supplementary taillamp and stop lamp, though its maximum intensities in either mode is less than the minimum required by Standard No. 108 for each such mode. Under paragraph S4.1.3. a device such as you have described is permissible as original vehicle equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. From your diagram and information, it does not appear that these supplementary taillamp and stop lamp functions will impair the effectiveness of the primary ones, and therefore paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
February 18, 1986
Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.
Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108
Dear Ms. Jones,
We are thinking of producing a decorative extra lighting device which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108.
As shown in the attached sheet, this decorative device will be mounted on the rear face of an optional motorcycle rear trunk. Emitted light color of this extra lighting device is red, and its size is smaller than the tail & stop lamp required in FMVSS No.108. Its function is interlocked with a tail lamp. Its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the tail lamp. When the stop lamp is lit, it increases the luminous intensity, but the maximum is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the stop lamp.
We would like to ask you whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the above mentioned accessory lamp. We believe that this device have a good effect on the safety by increasing the visibility from upside.
We are looking forward to your advice.
Sincerely yours,
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting |
|
ID: nht79-2.32OpenDATE: 10/15/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: United States Testing Company, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: OCT 15 1979 NOA-30 Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division United States Testing Company, Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 Dear Mr. Pepe: This responds to your recent letter concerning the testing procedures specified in Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Specifically, you ask about the proper sequence of requirements and testing procedures provided in paragraphs S4.3(j), S4.3(k), S5.2(j) and S5.2(k). Paragraph S4.3(j) provides that a retractor must meet certain requirements when tested in accordance with S5.2(j). Compliance with this paragraph should be determined initially. Then, paragraph S4.3(k) provides that the same retractor must be able to comply with paragraph S4.3(j) after being tested in accordance with S5.2(k), except that the retraction force is only required to be 50 percent of its original value. This original value was determined, of course, during the compliance procedure of S5.2(j). Therefore, the first interpretation included in your letter is correct. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel August 22, 1979 Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street Washington, D.C. 20590 RE: FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, Interpretation Emergency Locking Retractor, Test Sequence Dear Mr. Levin: Several manufacturers have raised questions pertaining to the testing of Emergency Locking Retractors in accordance with FMVSS No. 209. The specific paragraphs in question are S4.3 (j), S4.3 (k), S5.2 (j) and S5.2 (k). One interpretation of the standard is as follows: S4.3 (j) and (k) are Requirement paragraphs and S5.2 (j) and (k) are Demonstration paragraphs. Keeping this in mind, it appears that S4.3 (j) requires an Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) to be tested for lock up distance and retraction force in accordance with the procedures of S5.2 (j) in the "as received" condition. Paragraph S4.3 (k) requires an ELR to be tested for performance (environmental conditioning and cycling) in accordance with S5.2 (k) and then again comply with S4.3 (j) and also with paragraph S4.4. Another interpretation is that paragraph S4.3 (j) and (k) specify the requirements for an ELR and paragraph S5.2 (j) indicates what to test and S5.2 (k) specifies when to test for conformance with S4.3 (j) and (k). Therefore, retraction force measurements are made prior to performing the cycling testing. After cycling, lock-up distance and final retraction force are measured. I would appreciate your prompt review of the above interpretation and your opinions as to which is the proper meaning and intent of FMVSS No. 209. Very truly yours, Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division FP:mg |
|
ID: nht81-1.17OpenDATE: 02/19/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether certain flexible air pressure hoses for use on trucks would be subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. The hose in question would be used to transfer pressure from the air reservoir of the brake power assist unit (of the hydraulic service brake system) to a cylinder that actuates the exhaust brake control. Safety Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as: "A flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." The hose that your company desires to use is not a part of the service brake system or the power assist system, either directly or indirectly. If pressure should be lost in the exhaust brake circuit of which the subject hose is a component, the loss would be isolated from the performance of the service and power assist circuits by means of a check valve. Therefore, the hose does not transmit the pressure or vacumm used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes, and it would not be considered a "brake hose" subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106. Sincerely, ATTACH. MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC. December 17, 1980 OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Request For Interpretation; FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses Dear Madam or Sir: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby requests an interpretation as to whether or not certain flexible air pressure hoses proposed for use on our truck models would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS 106, brake hoses. The hose in question would serve to transfer pressure from the air reservoir of the brake power assist unit (of our hydraulic service brake system) to a cylinder that actuates the exhaust brake control. The brake power assist unit reservoir is protected against pressure loss in this exhaust brake circuit by means of a check valve located directly on the reservoir. All pertinent components are identified on the attached drawing No. BL046/80. Inasmuch as the hose used in this exhaust brake circuit is neither within the hydraulic service brake circuits, nor within the brake power assist unit circuit (air), and should pressure be lost in this exhaust brake circuit it would be isolated from the performance of the service and assist circuits by means of a check valve, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. believes that this hose is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 106. Should you have any questions regarding this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office, Best regards, HEINZ W. GERTH -- VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING AND SERVICE |
|
ID: nht78-2.19OpenDATE: 05/22/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Volvo of America Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1978 asking whether there is any legal objection to Volvo's installation of red rear fog lamps on passenger cars it sells in the United States. As you have noted, "the only possible objection" to these lamps is the prohibition of S4.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 against the installation of lamps that impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment mandated by the standard. We have no basis for disagreeing with your opinion that the red "rear fog lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment." However, the lamps would be subject to the laws of the individual States. SINCERELY, Volvo of America Corporation May 3, 1978 Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Levin: Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS #108 An item which has met with some popularity on the European market is the red rear fog lamp. This is a red lamp controlled by a separate switch on the dashboard and operated at the driver's option. The purpose of this lamp is to provide improved visibility in fog or other adverse weather. Red rear fog lamps are standard equipment on Volvo 262/264 models for all EEC countries. These lamps are made to comply with EEC directives regarding installation and photometrics. Enclosed for your information are covering installation of lighting (Section 4.11 covers rear fog lamps); and covering photometric requirements of rear fog lamps. These lamps do not qualify as tail lamps since they are not controlled by the same switch as the headlights. In our opinion, they would not, then, be subject to the maximum tail lamp candlepower restrictions of FMVSS #108, S4.1.1. This section also states that each vehicle be equipped with at least the number of lamps specified in the section. As we read FMVSS #108, the only possible objection to these lamps might arise from Section 4.1.3 which states that "no additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard". In our opinion, rear fog lamps do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. Furthermore, we believe that these lamps will greatly enhance vehicle safety. We feel that the spirit of the law is to improve vehicle visibility which these lamps will in fact do. Please advise us as to whether you agree with our interpretation. If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please feel free to call. VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning and Development William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs [EEC INFORMATION OMITTED] |
|
ID: nht75-6.42OpenDATE: 09/24/75 FROM: J. C. ECKHOLD -- DIR., AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY OFFICE, FORD MOTOR CO. TO: JAMES B. GREGORY -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION IN RELATION TO CONDUCTING FMVSS 301-75 TESTS WITH PROPOSED 1978 EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEM TEXT: In preparing for compliance with 1978 California SHED evaporative emission requirements (presently under consideration by EPA for application in all areas), Ford Motor Company (Ford) is considering modifications to the fuel tank vapor venting system. At this time, Ford's primary design direction for certain of its 1978 vehicles is to incorporate a pressure relief valve in the vapor vent tube between the fuel tank vapor separator/rollover valve and the carbon canister (see Attachment). When the engine is operating, this pressure relief valve will be open and the fuel tank will vent in a normal manner through the carbon canister. When testing according to the procedure set forth in FMVSS 301-75, the pressure relief valve would be closed, contrary to its normal open position when the engine is operating, and such closure would prevent venting of vapor from the fuel tank into the carbon canister. As a result, vapor pressure could build up within the fuel tank during FMVSS 301-75 testing, and indeed would do so if the fuel tank were exposed to elevated ambient temperatures during the substantial time period (in some instances several hours) required to ready the test vehicle for the rollover test following an impact test. If such pressure built up, it (taken together with the hydrostatic pressure of the Stoddard solvent in the tank) might force open the vacuum/pressure valve in the fuel tank cap and permit leakage through that valve (cap). Such leakage would not occur in an accident involving a rollover because, in such a situation, vapor pressure would not build up in the fuel tank, and therefore, the vacuum/pressure valve in the cap would not open. Any rollover of the vehicle that may occur would happen immediately after the collision, before vapor pressure build-up. Hence the vacuum/pressure valve (cap) would remain closed after rollover. More particularly, just before the accident, the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve would be open, preventing vapor pressure build-up. Accordingly, Ford proposes to perform tests relating to compliance with FMVSS 301-75 with the vapor vent tube pressure relief valve open, the better to simulate actual usage conditions. Before testing in this manner, Ford would appreciate receiving assurance from the Administration that it regards as appropriate the maintaining open of this pressure relief valve during rollover tests, and would conduct in that manner its rollover tests of those Ford vehicles equipped with such a valve. As you are undoubtedly aware, in addition to design and development work, a test program required to obtain emission certification covers a period of many months. Therefore, since Ford has only a limited time in which to develop a 1978 evaporative emission system complying with the SHED requirements, an early response to this letter is urgently requested. ATTACHMENT PROPOSED 1978 EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEM (Graphics Omitted) |
|
ID: nht95-6.5OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 8, 1995 FROM: Eric D. Swanger, PE -- Engineering Manager, Specialty Manufacturing Co. TO: John Womack -- NHTSA ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Eric D. Swanger (A43; Std. 131) TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack: Research is performed at Specialty Manufacturing on a continual basis to investigate different means of improving upon the safety of school bus equipment. Recently, an inquiry has been made to Specialty concerning the usage of light-emitting diodes (LED's) on stop arms. Apparently one state feels the usage of LED's to spell out the word "STOP" on the stop arm blade would increase the visibility of the sign in certain weather conditions. After the engineering department of Specialty Manufacturing manufactured a prototype unit and tested the unit, several questions were raised which we feel need clarification from NHTSA in reference to FMVSS 131. The first being the basic viewing angles of LED's. While LED's have a quicker "on" and "off" time than incandescent bulbs, the overall viewing angle of an LED is extremely limited. Depending upon the placement of the LED's in the stop arm blade, the word "STOP" can vary from being noticeable to being a scattered pattern of lights. Exact placement of the LED's will depend upon the consistency of the manufacturing process. With incandescent lights, the light is very noticeable from all angles and manufacturing consistencies are not at all a concern. The second issue is the legibility of the LED "STOP" at any given distance. Opinions of many casual onlookers asked to critique the LED sign when lit, seem to indicate that the letters are not large enough nor spaced far enough apart to be discernible at larger distances. Since the size of the letters is clearly defined by FMVSS 131, it appears that standard may have to be revised in order to ensure that "STOP" is legible at greater distances. P2 The third issue is that of safety equipment consistency. Currently, all stop arms must have the word "STOP" displayed on the stop sign itself. The red lights are optional. The addition of another optional method of lighting may lead to confusion and subsequent passing violations due to visiting drivers being unfamiliar with state or county practices of school bus identification. The development of an LED stop arm appears to our company to be quite expensive at the out set, and we are definitely concerned with the viewing angle, legibility from certain distances, and that consistences provided by FMVSS 131 could be in jeopardy. I'm asking if you would please give us your interpretation of FMVSS 131 and the use of LED lights outlining the word "STOP." Specialty Manufacturing would be available to help in any standard research, manufacturer input, etc., as we have done in the past. If I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 1-800-951-7867. |
|
ID: nht95-3.81OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 8, 1995 FROM: Eric D. Swanger, PE -- Engineering Manager, Specialty Manufacturing Co. TO: John Womack -- NHTSA ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Eric D. Swanger (A43; Std. 131) TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack: Research is performed at Specialty Manufacturing on a continual basis to investigate different means of improving upon the safety of school bus equipment. Recently, an inquiry has been made to Specialty concerning the usage of light-emitting diodes (LED 's) on stop arms. Apparently one state feels the usage of LED's to spell out the word "STOP" on the stop arm blade would increase the visibility of the sign in certain weather conditions. After the engineering department of Specialty Manufacturing manufactured a prototype unit and tested the unit, several questions were raised which we feel need clarification from NHTSA in reference to FMVSS 131. The first being the basic viewing angles of LED's. While LED's have a quicker "on" and "off" time than incandescent bulbs, the overall viewing angle of an LED is extremely limited. Depending upon the placement of the LED's in the stop arm blade, the word "STOP" can vary from being noticeable to being a scattered pattern of lights. Exact placement of the LED's will depend upon the consistency of the manufacturing process. With incandescent lights, the light is very noticeable from all angles and manufacturing consistencies are not at all a concern. The second issue is the legibility of the LED "STOP" at any given distance. Opinions of many casual onlookers asked to critique the LED sign when lit, seem to indicate that the letters are not large enough nor spaced far enough apart to be discernible at larger distances. Since the size of the letters is clearly defined by FMVSS 131, it appears that standard may have to be revised in order to ensure that "STOP" is legible at greater distances. P2 The third issue is that of safety equipment consistency. Currently, all stop arms must have the word "STOP" displayed on the stop sign itself. The red lights are optional. The addition of another optional method of lighting may lead to confusion and s ubsequent passing violations due to visiting drivers being unfamiliar with state or county practices of school bus identification. The development of an LED stop arm appears to our company to be quite expensive at the out set, and we are definitely concerned with the viewing angle, legibility from certain distances, and that consistences provided by FMVSS 131 could be in jeopardy. I'm asking if you would please give us your interpretation of FMVSS 131 and the use of LED lights outlining the word "STOP." Specialty Manufacturing would be available to help in any standard research, manufacturer input, etc., as we have done in the pas t. If I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 1-800-951-7867. |
|
ID: 10-005859 df samaniOpenMr. Nasser Zamani, Senior Manager Compliance and Regulatory Affairs Daimler Trucks North America LLC 4747 N. Channel Ave. Portland, OR 97217-7699 Dear Mr. Zamani: This responds to your request for assurance that we will apply a tolerance when measuring the width of flexible occupant seats, in testing school buses for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. We regret to inform you that this letter is unable to provide a tolerance. You ask about a flexible occupancy seat, which is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 222 as: a bench seat equipped with Type 2 seat belts that can be reconfigured so that the number of seating positions on the seat can change. The seat has a minimum occupancy configuration and a maximum occupancy configuration, and the number of passengers capable of being carried in the minimum occupancy configuration must differ from the number of passengers capable of being carried in the maximum occupancy configuration. S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 specifies how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will determine the number of seating positions and seat belt positions on a bench seat, including flexible occupancy seats. S4.1(c) states: Except as provided in S4.1(d), the number of Type 2 seat belt positions on a flexible occupant seatis expressed by the symbol Y, and calculated as the seat bench width in millimeters [(mm)] divided by 380 and rounded to the next lowest whole number. See Table 1 [of the standard] for an illustration. S4.1(d) states: A flexible occupancy seat meeting the requirements of S4.1(c) may also have a maximum occupancy configuration with Y +1 Type 2 seat belt positions, if the minimum seat bench width for this configuration is Y +1 times 330 mm. See Table 1 [of the standard] for an illustration. (Emphasis added.) Request for Tolerances You indicate that your flexible occupancy seat has an occupancy configuration of two Type 2 seat belt positions large enough for mid-size adult males under S4.1(c) and an occupancy configuration of three seat belt positions for smaller passengers under S4.1(d). Under S4.1(d), the minimum seat width for the maximum occupancy configuration is 990 mm (3 x 330 mm). You would like the seat width to be permitted to be slightly less than 990 mm wide. You state that since it is difficult to control the tolerance of cushions, the average seat bench width would have to be greater than 990 mm in order to ensure the cushions produced never measured less than 990 mm. You are worried that if the seat bench width is greater than 990 mm, the bus aisle width would be less than 305 mm, which might not meet some State and local requirements. To avoid the difficulties of manufacturing soft goods, you ask if we apply tolerances to the measurement of seat bench width. You suggest that, Tolerances on soft good of this nature are typically +/- 13 mm. Response We regret to inform you that we cannot issue an interpretation along the line you suggest. NHTSA cannot provide variations from the explicit requirements of the FMVSSs through our interpretation letters. This is because under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301; the Safety Act), NHTSA must establish by order appropriate safety standards. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) applies to all orders establishing, amending, or revoking a safety standard. The APA generally requires agencies to publish a notice setting forth the proposed change to a safety standard, and allow the public to comment thereon, before the agency can adopt any change to the established safety standard. Our interpretation letters are not subject to the requirements for public notice and comment, because interpretations do not add, delete, or change any requirements established in a safety standard. Instead, our interpretations explain how the requirements established in safety standards or the Safety Act apply to particular vehicles or equipment, or otherwise clarify the meaning of the established requirements. In this case, S4.1s language is clear. Under S4.1(d), a flexible occupancy seat (bench seat) may have a maximum occupancy configuration with Y +1 Type 2 seat belt positions, if the minimum seat bench width for this configuration is Y +1 times 330 mm. Thus, under the standard, the minimum seat bench width for your flexible occupancy seat is 990 mm (3 x 330 mm=990 mm). We cannot interpret this language to include a tolerance of +/- 13 mm for the bench.[1] Your letter suggests a change to the requirements of FMVSS No. 222, not a clarification of those requirements. We cannot change those requirements without initiating rulemaking and giving the public notice of and the opportunity to comment on the change. We also note that interpreting the standard to include a tolerance would confuse the meaning of Table 1 of the standard. Table 1 illustrates the number of seating positions as a function of seat bench width. The table shows that a seat bench with a width of 990-1139 mm would have a minimum of two seating positions (fixed occupancy seats or flexible occupancy seats), and for flexible occupancy seats, a maximum occupancy configuration of three seating positions. The table also shows that a seat bench with a width of 760-989 mm would have a minimum of two seating positions (fixed occupancy seats or flexible occupancy seats), and a maximum occupancy configuration of two seating positions. If we applied a tolerance of +/- 13 mm as you suggest, a bench seat of 760-989 mm nominal width could have a maximum occupancy of two or three seating positions. An interpretation that 990 mm means some lesser value would render the values in Table 1 confusing. For the above reasons, we cannot interpret FMVSS No. 222 to provide the tolerance you seek. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Std. No. 222 8/17/2011 [1] We assume you meant +/- 13 mm for the entire 990 mm bench and not per 330 mm seating position, but it is unclear from your letter. |
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.