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: 003011cmcOpenMs. Patricia Cunningham Dear Ms. Cunningham, This is in response to your interpretation request via e-mail dated December 13, 2002, and your conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. In your letter, you state that your company intends to import taxi vehicles that have an "integrated" (built-in) child booster seat in the rear. You further state that "[t]he dummy size we tested with and designated for use in our [built-in] booster seat is the 6 year old" and that the seat is recommended only for children 49 to 80 pounds (22 36 kg). You ask if the booster seat must comply with the seat back requirements of FMVSS No. 213, even though only the 6-year-old dummy is used to test the booster seat. As explained below, the answer to your question is no. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" This compliance requirement includes child restraint systems, which are subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems, including built-in child restraint systems, in order to reduce injuries to children in motor vehicles. S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS No. 213 states:
S5.2.1.1 specifies seat back height requirements, seat back width requirements, and rearward rotation limits of test dummies. S5.2.1.2 requires that conformance to the requirements of S5.2.1.1 is determined using the dummy that corresponds to the heaviest weight for which the system is recommended. Under S7.1, a system recommended for use by a child with a weight of 40 pounds (18 kg) or greater would use the 6-year-old dummy described in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart I for compliance testing. However, S5.2.1.2 states that the 6-year-old dummy is not to be used to determine the applicability of or compliance with S5.2.1.1. The built-in booster seats in the vehicles you intend to import are recommended for children in the weight range of 49 to 80 pounds (22 to 36 kg), and therefore would require use of the 6-year-old-dummy to determine compliance with S5.2.1.1. Because under S5.2.1.2 the 6-year-old dummy is not used for this determination and the built-in booster seats are not recommended for use by children of a weight that would be tested with a different dummy, the taxi booster seats do not have to comply with S5.2.1.1. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, ref:213 |
2003 |
ID: LWP008657OpenMr.Robert Babcock Dear Mr.Babcock: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.201s requirements for instrument panels, set forth in S5.1.You ask whether an interior component contiguous to the instrument panel of a future model shown in a photograph and diagram you submitted would be excluded from meeting S5.1 under a provision of S5.1.1 of the standard.Our answer is yes.(We note that by letter dated November 3, 2005, you removed the request for confidentiality related to your interpretation request.) The photograph shows an instrument panel (dashboard) of a vehicle.The instrument panel forms a T-shape design with a contiguous structure that contains the gear shift lever and some dials and compartments.The design is visually similar to "one-piece" dashboard and console assemblies that do not have a space separating the dashboard from the console assembly.However, in your design, the contiguous structure containing the gear shift lever does not extend all the way rearward between the driver and passenger seats.It extends less than a foot below the instrument panel. FMVSS No.201 establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash.Certain areas within the vehicle must be properly padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to provide head protection in the event of an impact.The requirements for instrument panels are set forth in S5.1.S5.1 states, "Except as provided in S5.1.1, when that area of the instrument panel that is within the head impact area is impacted" by a head form, the deceleration of the head form shall be within specified limits.The exceptions relevant to your letter are S5.1.1(a) and (e). S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No.201 excludes console assemblies from the head impact protection requirements of the standard.Although console assemblies are not defined in FMVSS No.201, we have noted in previous interpretations that we regarded a "low-lying structure mounted on the floor and [lying] primarily between the vehicle seats" to be a console assembly. (September 21, 1988 letter to Mr.Hiroshi Kato; October 27, 1986 letter to Mr.Shimizu.)The structure you ask about in your design does not extend between the seats and is not "mounted to the floor". It is thus different from structures we called console assemblies in the past. However, S5.1.1(e) of FMVSS No.201 excludes from the head impact protection requirements "[a]reas below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel". You suggest that the rearmost surface of the instrument panel in this vehicle is the rearmost surface of the dashboard at the right front passenger seating position.Based on your letter, we agree with you that the line you have drawn on your photograph shows the rearmost surface of the instrument panel.Areas below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to that rearmost surface are excluded from S5.1. If you have further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P.Wood ref:201 |
2006 |
ID: Roseman_ltrOpen Mr. Robert A. Roseman Dear Mr. Roseman: This responds to your letter to Stephen P. Wood of my staff asking two questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). Both of your questions are answered below. You explain that your company manufactures boat trailers and that you have questions about a brake hose assembly "that does not meet Standard No. 106." You ask for confirmation of information you were given that "DOT doesn't apply to boat trailers because they are not for commercial use." As explained below, the information you were provided is incorrect. Question 1: Does 49 CFR 571.106 apply to boat trailers that are used on the public highways for non-commercial use? The answer is yes. All trailers, including boat trailers, manufactured for use on the public highways and all brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and end fittings used on trailers and boat trailers must comply with FMVSS No. 106. (See S3 of FMVSS No. 106 regarding the applicability of the standard.) The term "boat trailer" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3, as "a trailer designed with cradle-type mountings to transport a boat and configured to permit launching of the boat from the rear of the trailer." (Emphasis added.) As a subcategory of "trailers," boat trailers must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to trailers, including FMVSS No. 106. We note that our answer would be the same even if the boat trailers you manufacture were used on the public roads for commercial rather than non-commercial purposes. Question 2: What would my exposure for correction be if I simply began using the lower cost brake hose assemblies until the issue is clarified? Would I have to replace all those that I supplied? Under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (the Safety Act), you must use brake hose, end fittings and assemblies that comply with Standard No. 106. 49 U.S.C. 30112. Under 30115 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to certify that their motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. Section 30115 prohibits any person from issuing such certification "if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect." Persons who knowingly certify compliance of vehicles containing non-compliant equipment are subject to the Act's civil penalty provisions. 49 U.S.C. 30165. Under 30165, anyone who violates 30112 or 30115 is subject to a civil penalty up to $5,000 per violation, up to a maximum penalty of $15,000,000 for a series of related violations. In addition, the Act prohibits the sale of non-compliant vehicles or equipment. The statute also requires manufacturers to notify consumers that a motor vehicle or item or equipment they purchased fails to comply with the FMVSSs or contains a safety-related defect, and requires manufacturers to remedy such noncompliances and defects without charge. We have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes these and other manufacturer responsibilities. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Robert Knop of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2002 |
ID: 1983-3.3OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/06/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: BMW of North America, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
September 6, 1983 NOA-30
Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645
Dear Mr. Ziwica:
This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. Your request was in regard to a type of brake reservoir you are considering producing which would contain common fluid for the brake circuits and the brake hydraulic power assist unit. The issue raised by your letter was whether section S5.4.2 of the stnadard permits the common fluid to be counted as part of the minimum capacity required for the braking system. As discussed below, the answer to that question is no.
The first sentence of section S5.4.2 states:
Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard. As noted by your letter, the agency has previously interpreted this section with respect to a brake reservoir servicing both the braking system and the clutch. In an October 9, 1981, letter to Toyota, we explained:
This section specifies the total minimum fluid capacity that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs must have. That amount is determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system, i.e., by the fluid displacement which results when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced bythe reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes.
The agency interprets section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. If fluid is available to both the brakes and the clutch, some of that fluid will be used by the clutch in normal service and thus be unavailable to the brakes. In the event of clutch failure, all of the common fluid may be used by the clutch. Therefore, while Standard No. 105 does not prohibit manufacturers from producing master cylinders with reservoirs that have some fluid available to both the braking system and the clutch, none of that common fluid may be counted toward meeting the minimum requirements of section S5.4.2.
This same rationale applies to a reservoir which contains common fluid for the brake circuits and brake hydraulic power assist unit. As indicated in our October 1981 letter, the minimum fluid capacity requirements were determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system for the purpose of assuring that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes, i.e., the wheel cylinders and pistons. More specifically, the requirement for minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position, was based upon maintaining a sufficient supply of fluid to enable a vehicle to stop even when there was complete brake lining wear-out in the service brakes. Put another way, the requirement assures an adequate supply of brake fluid over the lifetime of the brake linings, even if a driver fails to add fluid as part of routine maintenance.
This purpose would not be met if fluid available to both the brake circuits and brake hydraulic power assist unit was counted toward meeting the minimum fluid capacity requirements. Some of the common fluid would be used by the brake hydraulic power assist unit in normal service and thus be available to the brake circuits. Moreover, in some instances of brake hydraulic power assist unit failure (e.g., a failure in the brake hydraulic power assist unit return line), all of the common fluid might be used by that unit. Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure
May 11, 1983
Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 RE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 105-75
Dear Mr. Berndt
For future models, BMW is considering a new braking system with hydraulic power assist. Included in this system is a brake fluid reservoir which would contain common fluid for the brake circuits and the brake hydraulic power assist pump. This design is shown in the attached drawing, where X and Y are the individual reservoir compartments for the brake circuits and Z is the compartment for the brake hydraulic power assist pump. The area marked W represents fluid available to both the brake circuits and the brake power assist pump.
We request an interpretation of S 5.4.2 (reservoir capacity) of FMVSS 105-75, with respect to the proposed brake fluid reservoir described above.
We have reviewed the various interpretations given by NHTSA, and are unable to find any opinions which apply to our specific reservoir. Among the interpretations applicable to "multi-purpose" reservoirs is one given to Toyota in a letter from Mr. F. Berndt, dated October 9, 1981. The response to Toyota presented the agency's position that "the minimum fluid capacity requirements for brake reservoirs be met by fluid which is not available to the clutch, either during normal use or in the event of clutch failure".
We believe that the agency's position is appropriate with respect to a common brake/clutch system. A leak in the line to the clutch would not necessarily cause failure of the clutch itself; hence, there would be no warning that a leak existed and that the fluid level in the reservoir was being depleted. Thus, a driver could go through a complete set of brake linings without recognizing the leak. It is therefore brake and clutch systems should not be counted towards meeting the reservoir capacity requirements of S 5.4.2. If, however, a leak should occur in the brake power assist subsystem of BMW's proposed design, the braking power assist ("boost") fails after a few brakings, Because the Boost pump compartment (Z) of the reservoir has been emptied. In this case, the fluid level warning lamp would be activated, due to the fact that the fluid level warning point is located above the walls of the boost compartment. Additionally, the warning lamp provided specifically for power assist unit pressure will be activated. Vehicle braking can be achieved through the application of increased pedal pressures, in compliance with S 5.1.2.1, S 5.1.3.4, S 6.13, and S 7.9 of FMVSS 105-75. Further, the amount of fluid remaining in compartments X and Y of the BMW reservoir is sufficient to meet the requirements of the second sentence of S 5.4.2., which is as follows:
"Reservoirs shall have completely separate compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston." With regard to the total minimum capacity requirements of S 5.4.2 (full lining wear) under the condition of a power assist unit leak, neither the sum of the two brake circuit compartment volumes (X,Y) nor either of them are equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all wheel cylinders move from a new lining condition to a fully worn position.
We believe it highly unlikely that, under the conditions just described (lack of power assist, 100 - 150 pound pedal force for deceleration, and activation of two warning lights) a driver would wear down a complete set of brake linings over a typical range of 20,000 to 40,000 miles. In such a case, it would be reasonably expected that a driver would seek repair at a dealer or service station immediately upon loss of brake power assist and long before the brake linings were fully worn.
We respectfully submit, therefore, that the power assist unit should be considered an integral part of the brake system and should be recognized as a subsystem of the brake system for which the same requirements applying to brake subsystem leakage should also be valid. In our view this is a reasonable assumption because, as detailed earlier, the driver will receive immediate warning of a fluid leak, in the form of a loss of brake power assist, as well as activation of two warning lights. Similarly, a loss of fluid from a brake circuit would also be obvious to the driver, since pedal effort would increase noticeably and a warning light would be activated. As a further example, the proposed BMW system would comply with the following sections of FMVSS 105-75, if the power assist unit is considered a subsystem and if a leak developed in that subsystem (compartment Z):
S 5.1.2 Partial Failure S 5.4.1 Master Cylinder Reservoir S 6.13 Control Forces S 7.9 Service Brake System Test Partial Failure
We believe a final point which should be considered by the NHTSA regarding BMW's proposed design is international harmonization. As an exporter of vehicles to a number of markets throughout the world, our goal is to design components (including brake fluid reservoirs) to comply with as many different national regulations as possible. In the case of our proposed reservoir, the U.S. and Japanese requirements conflict with regard to total reservoir capacity. FMVSS 105-75, based on previous NHTSA interpretations, refers to the fluid volume available exclusively to the brake system. On the other hand, Japanese requirements apply to the total reservoir capacity, including every and all subsystems. If the volumes of X and Y were increased to provide sufficient fluid within them to meet the requirements of S 5.4.2., we would be forced, in order to comply with Japanese regulations, to increase the volume W as shown on the attached drawing. The total reservoir capacity, already a significant amount (700 cc), would have to be increased dramatically (43 ?) to approximately one liter in order to meet NHTSA's interpretation of brake/clutch reservoirs. Further, we would be required to raise the position of the switch point for the fluid level warning light. This could result in unnecessary activations of the warning signal. Through normal use, the fluid could drop to a level which would switch-on the warning light, but this level of fluid would still meet S5.4.2 requirements and would not represent a "low" fluid level condition.
Interpretation of the power assist unit as a subsystem of the proposed BMW brake system will allow BMW to market a common reservoir worldwide, rather than being forced to manufacture a unique reservoir exclusively for the U.S. market.
To summarize, the proposed BMW brake fluid reservoir would contain the S 5.4.2 total minimum capacity fluid requirement when the brake power assist unit is considered to be a subsystem of the total brake system. We believe that inclusion of the power assist unit circuit as a brake subsystem is valid for the following reasons. First, in the event of a fluid leak in the power assist unit circuit, the driver would receive multiple warnings (increased pedal effort, warning lights) in a manner analogous to the warnings received when a brake circuit leak occurs. Second, the proposed BMW system, including the power assist unit subsystem would be accurately described by the S 4. definition of "split service brake system", which "...means a brake system consisting of two or more subsystems actuated by a single control designed so that a leakage-type failure of a pressure component in a single subsystem (except structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems) shall not impair the operation of any other subsystem."
Accordingly, we believe that the proposed BMW brake fluid reservoir described in this letter would fulfill the requirements of S 5.4.2 with regard to total minimum reservoir capacity. We ask that you confirm our interpretation at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours,
Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering
WS/fw 0104 - 83
Encl.
BMW PROPOSED BRAKE FLUID RESERVOIR
***Insert Diagram Below*** |
|
ID: 86-3.11OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/02/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Bob Carlson TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. Bob Carlson 8305 29th Avenue, N.W. Seattle, WA 98117
This responds to your January 23, 1986 letter inquiring about Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to your projected sale of aftermarket windshield wiper systems for trucks. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, applicable to new motor vehicles. As you note, this standard applies to trucks, as well as other types of vehicles. In your letter, you ask which performance requirements apply to wiping systems for trucks.
Under S4. Requirements, new trucks are required to have a power-driven windshield wiping system that meets the requirements of S4.1.1. The frequency requirements in S4.1.1 apply to trucks, but the wiped area requirements of S4.1.2 apply only to passenger cars. Trucks must also have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965, except that the effective wipe pattern is considered to be "the pattern designed by the manufacturer for the windshield wiping system on the exterior surface of the windshield glazing." Therefore, the vehicle manufacturer establishes the wipe pattern of the system. If a new truck equipped with your wiper system did not comply with Standard No. 104 due to some aspect of that system, the sale of that truck to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones
Chief Counsel Chief Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St S W Washington, DC 20590 Mail Code NOA-30
RE: Wiper System Requirements
Gentlemen:
My name is Bob Carlson. I am a salesman for Sea-Tac Ford Truck Sales, Inc; a heavy duty truck store in Seattle, Washington. I am currently developing a new "after market" wiper system for the "L" Series Louisville Ford truck line (literature enclosed). While I have read FMVSS 104, SAEJ 903A and SAEJ 198, there appears, at least to me anyway, some overlap and confusion as to what test standards will apply to my wiper system developed for use on heavy duty Louisville trucks. therefore request your guidance as to specifically what parts all these federal safety standards will apply. Specifically I will need to know what, if any, a,b,c, zone-wiped area coverages should a person use to check the windshield wiper system. Paragraph S2 in FMVSS 104 states that the standard applies to trucks. However, in Paragraph S 4.1.2, the recommended test procedures and areas specified relate to passenger cars (see tables 1-C FMVSS 104). Now the question becomes. given the fact that you have specified angles in tables 1-4, what then does a person use, if any, for trucks? Do I use the angles specified in the table from J 198 or what?
If the answer is very simple due to the fact that I have misread something or whatever, I would appreciate a phone call either at home or at work using the following numbers:
work: (206) 763 9100; 1-800-426-8305 hours: 8:00 A.m. to 6:00 p.m. PST home: (206) 783 7590 hours: 5:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. or 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. PST
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Bob Carlson 8305 29th Ave N W Seattle, WA 98117 |
|
ID: 77-1.48OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/18/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Blue Bird Body Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1977, letter asking whether 10 described intersections of bus body components qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (body panel) that encloses occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 10 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that none of them are required to comply with the standard. The joints numbered 1 through 4 on page 1 of your letter refer to hanger straps, panels and pads involved in the installation of overhead storage racks. These items of equipment are not considered to have a function in enclosing occupant compartment space and, therefore, are excluded from the standard's requirements. The exterior roof luggage rack described in paragraphs 5 and 6 is not considered to have a function in enclosing occupant space and, therefore, is not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which the rack is fastened, it should be modified as necessary to prevent it from affecting testing of the underlying joint. The NHTSA agrees that the joints described in paragraphs 1 through 4 on page 2 of your letter, relating to the installation of air conditioning units, involve the type of ventilation space that is not subject to the requirements for joint strength. SINCERELY, BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY February 9, 1977 Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration SUBJECT: FMVSS 221 We would appreciate a ruling that FMVSS 221 does not apply to the following joints because of the definition of "body panel joint": Book Racks - Fig. 1 1. Hanger strap to headlining to bow 2. Panel (tray) to panel to hanger strap Parcel Racks - Fig. 2 3. Hanger bracket to headlining to bow 4. Pad to hanger bracket Roof Luggage Rack - Fig. 3 5. Panel to panel to roof sheet 6. Rail assembly to panel to roof sheet We would appreciate a ruling that FMVSS 221 does not apply to the following joints because of the "ventilation clause" in the definition of "body panel joint". Air Conditioner Joints 1. Saddle assembly to roof structural members - Figs. 4, 5, 6 2. Saddle assembly, structural joints - Figs. 7, 8 3. Duct section to duct section - Fig. 9 4. Duct assembly to roof sheet - Fig. 9 Thanks for your help in this matter. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services cc: LARRY HANSON BODY TO SADDLE TRIMS FIGURE #7 FIGURE #8 (Illegible Word) DUCT TO DUCT JOINTS (Illegible Word) DUCT TO ROOF FIGURE #9 (Illegible Word) AIR CONDITIONER COVER TO DUCT TRANSITION (Illegible Word) AIR CONDITIONER COVER TO ROOF (Graphics omitted) Figure 1 Hanger Strap Tray Overhead book rack available for conventent storage. Figure 2 Pad Hanger Bracket Deluxe tubular steel parcel racks shown with upholstered aisel rail. Figure 3 Rail Assembly Panels Roof luggage rack available in various lengths. (Graphics omitted) FIGURE #4 AIR CONDITIONER SADDLE SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE TO BODY STRUCTURE FIGURE $5 AIR CONDITIONER SADDLE TO SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE FIGURE #6 BODY PANELS TO SUPPORTIVE STRUCTURE SADDLE (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: nht78-2.6OpenDATE: 08/23/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: U. S. Suzuki Motor Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1978, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked "whether an aftermarket Class A reflex reflector can be installed in addition to the original Equipment Class A reflex reflector, that is, an existing part of the motorcycle's rear combination lamp assembly." You have stated that "both reflectors would be installed vertically on the motorcycles vertical centerline," and have commented that you understand "that two reflectors may be installed horizontally about the vertical centerline, but it is unclear to us whether they may both be installed one on top of the other, vertically, as this is not addressed in FMVSS #108." You have misunderstood Standard No. 108. Table IV clearly states with respect to location of rear reflex reflectors on motorcycles that "if two are used on the rear, they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." This requirement precludes the use of two rear reflectors mounted above each other vertically on the vehicle's centerline if your fender extension is sold as an accessory on a motorcycle at the time of its first purchase for purposes other than resale. Generally, however, Federal standards do not cover vehicles after their first purchase and an owner may modify his vehicle in any manner he chooses consistent with local law. Modification by dealers, distributors, and repair businesses are prohibited only if they "render inoperative" any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle in accordance with a Federal safety standard. Although aftermarket installation of the fender with reflector by a dealer after a vehicle's sale would not be consistent with the reflector location requirements of Standard No. 108, we cannot say that it would "render inoperative" the reflector installed as original equipment. We therefore have no objection to you offering this component as an aftermarket accessory to be added after a vehicle's initial sale. SINCERELY, U.S. SUZUKI Motor Corporation August 10, 1978 Joseph J. Levin, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Request for interpretation Dear Mr. Levin, The U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation is considering the addition of a rear fender extension to its Suzuki aftermarket accessory line for one of its large motorcycles. The accessory fender extension in question has as a component a Class A reflex reflector. The motorcycle's existing Class A reflex reflector is part of the rear combination lamp assembly. The problem we are encountering is with interpreting FMVSS #108, Table IV, Location of Required Equipment, as to whether an aftermarket Class A reflex reflector can be installed in addition to the original Equipment Class A reflex reflector, that is, an existing part of the motorcycles' rear combination lamp assembly. Both reflectors would be installed vertically on the motorcycles vertical centerline. We understand that two reflectors may be installed horizontally about the vertical centerline, but it is unclear to us whether they may both be installed one on top of the other, vertically, as this is not addressed in FMVSS #108. For demonstration purposes we are enclosing photographs that show one of our current motorcycles in its original state (#1) and two that show the aftermarket fender extension mounted on the motorcycle (#2, #3). We would appreciate your reply as to whether or not Suzuki can offer this fender extension with reflex reflector as an aftermarket accessory, and that if aftermarket installation of it would be permitted. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Dept. ENCLS. CURRENT MODEL MOTORCYCLE WITHOUT AND WITH ACCESSORY FENDER EXTENSION Photograph #1 Motorcycle rear fender in original state "OEM" Photograph #2 Motorcycle rear fender with accessory fender extension installed Photograph #3 Motorcycle rear fender with accessory fender extension installed. (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: nht88-1.65OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/07/88 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Phoenix Transit System TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. Robert W. Hocken General Manager Phoenix Transit System P.O. Box 4275 Phoenix, AZ 85030 Dear Mr. Hocken: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1987 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have received a "Service Information Safety Related letter" from Flxible Corporation stating that deceleration warning lights installed on your buses do not comply with Standard No. 108. You have also asked how you may file for "Special Exception" if your buses are not in compliance. This will confirm that Flxible Corporation, pursuant to applicable Federal regulations, has determined that certain buses produced by it, including the 67 units furnished Phoenix, do not comply with Standard No. 108, and has initiated a notification and remedy campaign (Campaign 87V-089). The basis of this determination was the manufacturer's conclusion that flashing amber deceleration warning lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stop lamps. The company has advised you of the corrective action to be taken, that is, to remove the deceleration flasher. Although the agency encourages owners of campaigned vehicles to remedy noncompliances, the decision whether to do so rests with the vehicle owner. There is no Federal requirement that an owner correct a noncompliance that exists in his vehicle, and no penalty for his failure to do so. Thus, no "Special Exception" is either needed or available for an owner who wishes to continue operating a vehicle in a non compliant state. We are interested in your comment that you experienced a 44 percent reduction in accidents in 1985, the first full year that the system was installed on all your buses, compared with 1984. This report compares favorably with the accident reduction experi enced in our test fleets of passenger cars equipped with center highmounted stop lamps, which has the basis for eventual adoption of that requirement. The agency is engaged in research pertaining to the conspicuity of large vehicles, and would find it he lpful to have a copy of the data upon which you based your comment. It should be sent to Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Research and Development, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, s.w., Washington, D.C. 20590. We appreciate your interest in sa fety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel December 16, 1987 Taylor Vinson, Legal Counsel Rm 5219 NATHA U S Department of Transportation 400 7th St SW Washington DC 20590 Dear Mr. Vinson: We request an official interpretation of rule FMVSS 108. We have received a Service Information Safety Related letter from the Flxible Corporation that states that our deceleration lights do not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 108, "lamps, reflecti ve devices and associated equipment." In the spring of 1982, we began an experiment with 10 buses with DAS (Deceleration Alert System) to see if we could reduce our rear end accidents. The 18 months with the DAS was so successful that we had our entire fleet fitted with the lights. The year of 1985 was the first full year that lights were installed on all our buses. There was a 44 percent reduction in accidents over the previous year (1984). You can see why we need an official interpretation. If we are not in compliance with FMVSS 108, we need to know how we can file for "Special Exception." We will need the required forms; who we need to contact; and to whom the forms need to be sent to in order to achieve this Special Exception. Thank you. Sincerely, Robert W. Hocken General Manager pk |
|
ID: 11-005927 K.Ro (Std. No. 135)OpenMr. Kevin Ro National Manager, Technical & Regulatory Affairs, Safety Toyota Motor North America, Inc. 601 13th St. NW, Suite 910 South Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Ro: This letter responds to your request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Light Vehicle Brake Systems, on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota). You state that Toyota is currently developing an electric vehicle (EV) that falls within the applicability of FMVSS No. 135. You would like confirmation of your interpretation that the phrase accelerate as rapidly as possible found within the test procedure of the standard takes account of a thermal protection feature in an EV battery system. The issue raised by your letter is addressed below. Among the performance requirements for light vehicle brake systems in FMVSS No. 135 is a hot performance test. Prior to conducting that test, there is a procedure, contained in S7.13 of FMVSS No. 135, for conducting heating snubs, which are designed to heat the brakes for the test. As set forth in the test procedure in S7.13.3, the vehicle is driven at an initial speed of 120 km/h (74.6 mph) or 80 percent of the vehicles maximum speed, whichever is slower. The brakes are then applied to slow the vehicle to one-half the initial speed at a constant deceleration rate of 3.0 m/s2 (9.8 fps2). The vehicle is then accelerated back to the initial speed, and the procedure is repeated for 15 snubs. Immediately after the completion of this procedure, the hot performance test is conducted. Your question relates to acceleration of the vehicle back to the initial speed. The pertinent provisions of S7.13.3 are set forth below: S7.13.3 Test conditions and procedures. (f) Time interval: Maintain an interval of 45 seconds between the start of brake applications (snubs). (g) Accelerate as rapidly as possible to the initial test speed immediately after each snub. (Emphasis added). You note that, with EV battery systems, greater power discharge results in higher operating temperature. You also note that Toyotas EV battery system is thermally regulated; that is, when the internal temperature exceeds a pre-defined limit, the vehicles speed is limited to prevent thermal damage to the system. You state that Toyotas EV is capable of achieving the initial test speed for all 15 high-speed snubs within the 45-second interval specified in S7.13.3(f). However, because of the thermal protection feature, the vehicle may not be able to attain the initial test speed for 15 consecutive snubs within 45 second intervals if the vehicle is accelerated at wide open throttle (WOT). You state that the only way to complete testing is to keep the throttle at less than WOT. You state that Toyota believes that it is within the language and intent of FMVSS No. 135 to interpret S7.13.3(g) to mean that the vehicle must be accelerated as rapidly as the motor will permit after each snub to the required test speed within the specified time interval and complete the testing. In considering your question, we note S7.13.1 sets forth the purpose of the heating snubs, which is to heat up the brakes in preparation for the hot performance test which follows immediately. The test procedure does not specify the throttle position. However, it does specify the time interval between the start of snubs and states that the vehicle is accelerated as rapidly as possible to the initial test speed immediately after each snub. In conducting the heating snubs, we would ordinarily accelerate a vehicle as rapidly as possible during each acceleration specified for this test. Although the manner in which the vehicle is accelerated as rapidly as possible is not specified in the regulatory text, in practice this is generally done with a full application of the accelerator pedal. For most vehicles, the rate of acceleration in the earlier of the 15 accelerations would not affect the ability of the vehicle to achieve the specified test speed in later accelerations. We understand your letter to indicate that when some electric vehicles are tested under this procedure, the rate of acceleration in the earlier accelerations may affect the ability of the vehicle to achieve the specified initial test speed in later accelerations, due to heat build-up and the thermal protection feature. In this specific situation, we agree that the language as rapidly as possible in S7.13.3(g) should be interpreted in the context of the necessity of the vehicles being able to complete the test sequence at the specified initial speed and within the 45-second time intervals between snubs. This means that we would complete the S7.13 test sequence by accelerating the vehicle as rapidly as possible, consistent with the need to allow the test sequence to be completed, provided each acceleration could be completed within the 45-second time interval between snubs. In the case of the vehicle that you describe, the vehicle may not be accelerated at wide open throttle for each acceleration. In heating up the brakes in preparation for the hot performance test, the key factors in achieving proper heating are the test speed of the vehicle at the beginning of each snub and the time interval between snubs (along with the snubs themselves). This performance test is not intended to test a vehicles acceleration capability. If higher rates of acceleration for the earlier accelerations have the effect of preventing the vehicle from achieving the specified initial test speed in later accelerations within the 45-second time interval, the brakes would not be appropriately heated. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Standard No. 135 Dated: 7/5/12 |
2012 |
ID: 006341drn-2OpenMr. Thomas V. Kazyaka Dear Mr. Kazyaka: This responds to your letter to Dr. Raymond P. Owings, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations, Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Analysis, expressing the view that manual transmission shift levers "may be required to be backlit and possibly display the gear engaged" in order to comply with S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. Because your letter seeks a legal interpretation, I am responding on Dr. Owings behalf. As explained below, S3.2 of FMVSS No. 102 does not require manual transmission shift levers to identify the gear engaged or have backlighting. S3.2 of FMVSS No. 102 specifies the following requirements for vehicles with manual transmissions:
While this paragraph requires identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, it neither requires identification of the gear engaged nor backlighting. I also note that no other FMVSS requires vehicles with only manual transmission shift levers to identify the gear engaged or to have backlighting. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:101#102 |
2003 |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.