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: 1984-2.43OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/03/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Transport Canada TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. G.N. Farr, P. Eng. Transport Canada Standards and Regulations Division, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 CANADA
Dear Mr. Farr:
This responds to your request for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR S571.222). First, I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. You specifically asked for an interpretation of section S5.1.3.4 of Standard No. 222, which section requires the seat back to absorb 4,000W inch-pounds of energy. This energy is applied to the seat by a loading bar moving forward. When calculating the energy absorbed by the seat, the force transmitted back through the loading bar after the forward pressure is released is subtracted from the energy which was transmitted through the loading bar when it was moving forward. You asked at what point the forward movement of the loading bar is stopped in order to permit the seat back to rebound with a resultant energy absorption by the seat back of 4,000W inch-pounds. You noted that the rebound characteristics of the seat being tested would have to be known in advance to calculate the point at which the forward movement of the loading bar should be stopped.
This point was explained in the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking which preceded the adoption of Standard No. 222 (40 FR 17855; April 23, 1975) (copy enclosed). An earlier proposal had specified a requirement that, "The energy necessary to deflect the seat back 14 inches shall be not less than 4,000W inch-pounds". This agency decided that this language created needless confusion, by inaccurately combining two different requirements. Accordingly, the requirements were set forth in two separate sections. Section S5.1.3(b) now specifies that seat back deflection shall not exceed 14 inches. This requirement is related to the requirement in section S5.1.3.4 that the seat back absorb 4,000W inch-pounds. When conducting the compliance testing for section S5.1.3.4, the agency deflects the seat back as far as it will go, and then releases the seat back. If the seat back absorbs 4,000W inch-pounds of energy or more when tested according to the procedures set forth in S5.1.3.4, it is deemed to pass the test. If the seat back does not absorb 4,000W inch-pounds during the test, the seat back has failed the test. I think your question arose from your impression that the testing must be continued until the seat back has absorbed exactly 4,000W inch-pounds of energy. This agency tests only to see if the seat back absorbs 4,000W inch-pounds or more. Should you need any further information on this subject, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5, January 9, 1984.
Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, U.S.A.
Dear Sir:
On November 22, 1983 we wrote to request a copy of any legal interpretations which have been made to clause S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222. A copy of the letter is attached.
We would appreciate it if you could review this item and respond at your earliest convenience.
Yours very truly,
G.N. Farr, P. Eng., Standards and Regulations, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation.
Attach. Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5, November 22, 1983.
Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, U.S.A.
Dear Sir:
This is a request to be provided with a copy of any legal interpretation which has been made to clause S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222. The interpretation would involve the method used to determine the amount of energy absorbed in deflecting the seat back (or retaining barrier). S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222 requires that an additional force be applied until 4000W inch-pounds of energy has been absorbed by the seat back. The force-deflection curve used to calculate the energy consists of both the forward and rearward travel of the loading bar pivot point. The question regarding clarification is, at what point do you stop the forward movement of the loading bar, in order to permit the seat back to rebound, with a resultant energy absorption of 4000 W inch-pounds? The rebound characteristics of the seat back would have to be known in advance in order to determine this point. If a legal interpretation of this point has been made in the past, we would appreciate receiving a copy of same.
Yours very truly,
G.N. Farr P. Eng., Standards and Regulations, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulations |
|
ID: nht79-2.37OpenDATE: 03/22/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Blue Bird Body Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: March 22, 1979 NOA-30 Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030 Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your November 29, 1978, letter asking several questions about test procedures conducted in accordance with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Your questions concern the impact and contact area test requirements of the standard. First, you suggest that the head and knee impact tests should be conducted with only one impact allowed per seat back. The standard states in S5.3.1: "A surface area that has been contacted pursuant to an impact test need not meet further requirements contained in S5.3." You apparently interpret "surface area" to mean an entire seat back. The purpose of the above-cited sentence in S5.3.1 is to assure manufacturers that the agency will not hit the test seat in the identical spot twice during compliance testing. However, it is permissible for several tests to be run on a seat as long as the test device does not impact the same specific area previously contacted by the device in an earlier test. This test method is appropriate because it approximates accident conditions. A seat is likely to be impacted more than once in an accident when the seat immediately behind it is occupied by three passengers. Accordingly, the agency will continue to run multiple tests on a seat back but will never impact the same "surface area" more than once. In your second question, you suggest that a test sequence is appropriate for contact area testing. The agency disagrees. The agency agrees that the head form and knee form impact tests are different tests for the reasons outlined in your letter. However, nothing in those reasons compels the agency to conclude that a test sequence would be appropriate for contact area testing. In an accident, the impact of children on a seat back may or may not be sequential in nature. Therefore, the existing test method, which permits the agency to sequence tests in any manner, closely reflects actual accident experiences. Accordingly, the agency will not adopt a specific sequence in its test procedures. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel November 29, 1978 Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 SUBJECT: FMVSS 222 Dear Mr. Levin: The purpose of this letter is to seek an interpretation regarding the sequence of testing required by FMVSS 222. The testing sequence is important because many of the tests required by the subject standard have an interactive effect. It is obvious that bus seats are an expendable item in a collision. This is attested to by the destructive nature of the requirements of the subject standard. The head and knee impact requirements of the subject standard are both destructive in nature, and both have interactive effects not only with respect to each other, but also with respect to subsequent impacts within the head requirements or subsequent impacts within the knee requirements. Because of the interactive effect of these requirements, not only on the immediate contact area, but also the surrounding area, it is not appropriate to conclude that a non compliance exists based on multiple impacts on any given seat. We believe this issue is addressed by S 5.3.1 which states "...a surface area which has been contacted pursuant to an impact test need not meet further requirements contained in S 5.3". It is further addressed by S 5.3.2.2. This section states "When any point ... is impacted...". (Emphasis added). We interpret this singular language to indicate that for compliance test purposes, only one point should be impacted on any given seat. We therefore seek your confirmation of this interpretation. It should be noted here, as a practical matter, that multiple impacts on a particular seat are appropriate so long as the resulting data do not indicate a non compliance. This is so because multiple impacts on a particular seat constitute a worst case approach; if the seat passes under these circumstances, then it can be assumed it passes if only one impact per seat is made. However, if an indicated non compliance is encountered, it must be verified by impacting a virgin seat in the same location. The second issue relating to testing sequence is the 3 in2 contact area requirement vs. the HIC and Force Distribution requirements with the head and maximum force requirements with the knee. We interpret the contact area requirements to be distinctly different tests for both the head and the knee for two reasons: 1. S 5.3.1.2 and S 5.3.1.3 require different velocities for the two tests, and 2. S 6.8 requires that the head form, knee form and contactable surfaces must be clean and dry during impact testing. We therefore seek your confirmation of this interpretation also. The importance of these issues was raised recently during compliance testing now being conducted by NHTSA at Mobility Systems laboratories. We urge you to resolve these issues by interpretation prior to the issuance of the FMVSS 222 compliance test report on the Blue Bird All American bus currently at Mobility Systems. Thank you for your prompt reply. Very truly yours, W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services sw |
|
ID: nht94-5.18OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 23, 1994 FROM: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef -- Attorney, GM TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Re: Alternative To 9005 & 9006 Bulbs: ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/27/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef (A43; Std. 108) TEXT: General Motors Corporation (GM), in conjunction with Osram Sylvania Inc., has developed alternatives to two existing HB3 and HB4 (9005 and 9006) bulbs approved for automotive use in FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The alt ernative bulbs have a different base configuration than the currently approved bulbs, but in all other ways are identical. The alternative configuration would allow packaging flexibility while still maintaining all photometric/output characteristics of the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. Since the alternative bulbs improve packaging flexibility without affecting the output of the lamps, GM would like the alternative bulbs to be interchangeable with the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We request your Office's guidance as to the most app ropriate method for seeking approval of the alternative bulb configurations. BACKGROUND The currently approved 9005-6 bulbs have bases that form right angles (see attachment 1). This configuration provided the most appropriate means of meeting automotive packaging considerations when these bulbs were originally approved. Since then, however, aerodynamics and styling have dramatically affected the construction of the front of vehicles. In some instances it has become very difficult to package the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. In addition, the bulbs can be difficult t o access for replacement. It occurred to GM and Osram Sylvania that the situation could be improved with a simple modification to the existing 9005-6 bulbs. By straightening the base of these bulbs (see attachment 2), while keeping all other design criteria the same, the packagi ng could be improved without affecting any performance characteristics of the bulbs. Since the new configurations are identical with the currently approved bulbs in all ways other than the bases, GM believes it appropriate to allow them to be interchangeable with the existing 9005-6 bulbs. This would further enhance packaging flexibilit y by allowing alternative configurations which might be better suited to late program design changes. The alternative bulbs will have little or no affect on the consumer. A vehicle will come equipped with one of the bulb configurations, and the operator's manual will reference the appropriate configuration. If the alternative bulb is inadvertently purc hased for replacement, it could be used in all cases except in the highly unlikely circumstance that the vehicle packaging is so restrictive as to prevent the bulb from being inserted. Once inserted it is designed to perform identically to the bulb that has been replaced, regardless of the configuration of the base. In the unlikely case that the bulb could not be inserted because of restrictive packaging, the owner would need only to return the inappropriate bulb for the bulb approved for his or her v ehicle - a situation that exists today. To further minimize any confusion on the part of the consumer, we would recommend that the alternative bulbs have a unique identifier to distinguish them from the current bulbs. This could easily be accomplished by adding a character to the codes of the existing bulb. For example, HB3S and HB4S could be used to identify the alternative bulb configurations of HB3 and HB4. APPROVAL PROCESS GM believes there are three possible methods that could be used for seeking approval of the 9005-6 bulb alternative configurations. They are 1. Seek approval of the alternative configuration through 49 CFR Part 564. The language of Part 564 suggest that we would be unable to maintain interchangeability between alternative configurations and the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We understand these provisions were adopted to prevent interchangeability between bulb s with different photometric output, since such interchangeability could have drastic effects on headlamp beam patterns. This, however, is not the case with the alternative bulbs GM proposes. Except for the bases, they are identical in all respects to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. Therefore, there is no photometric difference between the two sets of bulbs, and hence, no safety concern. Still, the wording in Part 564 would suggest that the alternative bulbs we developed would require a new or different connector than 9005-6. We do not believe that this is appropriate in this instance, and seek clarification of whether Part 564 direc tly applies to this circumstance. 2. Petition for FMVSS 108 rulemaking to allow new bulb configurations as alternatives to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. While this appears to be a valid method for obtaining approval of the proposed configurations, it is our understanding that NHTSA is planning to transfer all bulb specifications from the body of FMVSS 108 into Part 564. Therefore, we believe that the agency may not welcome a petition to amend FMVSS 108 to comprehend additional bulbs (or new bulb configurations). 3. Request that the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs be placed in Part 564 with the alternative configurations included on the drawing. Attachment 3 contains a draft of what the drawings might look like. Please confirm which method the agency believes is most appropriate for seeking approval of the new alternative bulbs which, as described above, except for their bases perform identically to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. Sincerely, |
|
ID: Heller2OpenMr. Peter E. Heller Logo Brake Light 216 Redwood Road Sag Harbor, NY 11963 Dear Mr. Heller: This responds to your letter requesting clarification regarding how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, applies to your patented product, the Logo Brake Light. Your letter described the Logo Brake Light as the merger of the center high mounted stop lamp with the automobile manufacturers logo, symbol or trademark. On a vehicle equipped with your product, when the service brake pedal is depressed, the lighted portion of the center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) will illuminate in a shape representing the vehicle manufacturer or its brand. You enclosed three product samples (two in red and one in a combination of red and yellow). Based on the information you have provided to the agency and the analysis below, we have concluded that your product would not comply with Standard No. 108. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. 30111 and 49 CFR Part 571). It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567). FMVSS No. 108 sets forth the requirements for both new and replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment. Turning to the specific issues raised by your letter, FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for CHMSLs in light vehicles. First, paragraph S5.1.1.27(a) of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that each CHMSL shall: (1) have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 2903 square mm (4.5 square inches); (2) meet the visibility requirements such that a signal is visible from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle; and (3) have minimum photometric values in the amount and location listed in Figure 10 of the standard. In addition, Table III, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, specifies that the CHMSL must be red.[1] (A CHMSL produced using a combination of red and another color, such as yellow or silver, would not comply with the color requirement set forth in Table III.) Because we have not had the opportunity to examine your product in use, we cannot offer an opinion as to whether your product would meet the applicable area, visibility, and photometric requirements of Standard No. 108. However, we note that your product appears to violate the color restrictions set forth in Table III. Furthermore, in discussing your request with the agency in phone conversations, you directed us to your website, www.logobrakelight.com. Upon review of this site, we saw examples of your product mounted below the rear glass (one on a trunk lid and another on an SUV liftgate). We note that your product apparently would not comply with paragraph S5.3.1.8(a)(2), which requires that no portion of the lens [CHMSL] shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars. Thus, the applications of your Logo Brake Light CHMSL currently shown would likely violate this location requirement. Finally, we should also observe that a lighting standard is premised upon consistency of the message intended to warn or alert other drivers or pedestrians. We are concerned that the presence of both regular red and multicolor stop lamps with logos on them could result in confusion of other drivers or pedestrians. Please note that we are returning your product samples to you under separate cover. 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, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.2/7/07
[1] We note that there is a separate provision under S5.1.1.27(b) of Standard No. 108 that allows two CHMSLs (with specifications different from those above) on light vehicles other than passenger cars which have a vertical centerline that, when the vehicle is viewed from the rear, is not located on a fixed body panel but separates one or two movable body sections, such as doors, which lacks sufficient space to install a single CHMSL. Our analysis, however, would not differ for either version of the CHMSL. |
2007 |
ID: 86-5.9Open TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/02/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. Roger F. Hagie TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Roger F. Hagie Government Relations Manager Kawasaki Motors Corporation, D.S.A. P.O. Box 11447 Santa Ana, CA 92711
Dear Mr. Hagie:
This responds to your April 11, 1986, letter to this office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. We regret the delay in our response.
You asked whether brake hoses that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 106 except the whip resistance test of S5.3.3 may be used in locations not subject to movement during vehicle operation. As explained below, the answer to your question is no. As you know, 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." Manufacturers of brake hoses must certify that their hoses comply with all applicable requirements of the standard. From your letter, it appears that while you agree that the equipment you manufacture are brake hoses, you believe that they should not be subject to the whip resistance test because your hoses would not be used between articulating parts.
We do not agree that the whip test does not apply to brake hoses used between non-articulating parts. No provision has been made in the standard or in the whip resistance test of S5.3.3 to exclude hoses manufactured for use between non-moving parts. In contrast, the standard has set separate requirements under certain tests for brake hoses used betheen articulating parts hhen it is appropriate to distinguish between articulat ng and non-articulating applications (see, for example, the tensile strength test of S7.3.10 for air brake hose assemblies).
Further, we believe that there is a safety need to test brake hoses intended for non-articulating applications for fatigue resistance, since they are also subject to vibration, bending and articulating stress while the motor vehicle is being operated or repaired. If you have further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
April 11, 1986
Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS 106
Dear Ms. Jones:
By this letter, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the applicability of 49 CFR Part 571.106 (FMVSS 106 - Brake Hoses) to a proposed installation of brake hose to a Kawasaki motorcycle.
Background to Request
Standard 106 defines "brake hose" as "a flexibly conduit . . . manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure . . . used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." In introducing amendments to Standard 145, NHTSA states that "(c)hassis plumbing1/ which is flexible fails within the definition of brake hose." (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8; 38 F.R. 31302.) This pronouncement provoked a number of responses, leading NHTSA to clarify that ". . . a safety need exists to include flexible chassis plumbing in this standard because it is used in the same environment as hose located at articulating points and is subject to many of the same types of stress, including heat, cold, and pressure." (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 10; 39 F.R. 7425.)
However, apparantly realizing that not every installation of flexible hose as chassis plumbing would be, in fact, subject to the same range of stress as that applied to hose connecting the chassis and a wheel-mounted brake system, NHTSA stared that it "will continue to provide interpretations (concerning the applicability of the standard to specific installations) to interested persons upon request." (ibid.) This policy was subsequently restated by NHTSA in Docket 1-5; Notice 11; 39 F.R. 24012: "The NHTSA continues to believe that this concept can best be treated on a case-by-case request for interpretation . . ."
1/ Chassis plumbing, which is not defined to Kawasaki's knowledge, is assumed to refer to brake hoses or lines which are firmly attached to the chassis and are not required to "flex" to accomodate movement such as between chassis and wheel or between tractor and trailer.
Request
Kawasaki wishes to know whether NHTSA would agree that brake hose which complies with all requirements of FMVSS 106 except Section 5.3.3 (Whip resistance) may be used as chassis plumbing, i.e., installed in a location not subject to movement during vehicle operation.
Your earliest consideration of this request will be appreciated. Sincerely, KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.
Roger F. Hagie Government Relations Manager
RFH:jb |
|
ID: nht92-9.20OpenDATE: February 7, 1992 FROM: Charles Danis, P.Eng. -- Les Entreprises Track Test Inc. TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 121 - S5.3.3 (as per our phone call with your Mr. Marvin Shaw, on February 6th 1992) ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Paul J. Rice to Charles Danis (A39; Std. 121) TEXT: We recently performed a compliance FMVSS 121 test on an articulated bus made by MCI Greyhound Canada. For the middle axle of this articulated bus, MCI is using different air pressures than those specified in paragraph S5.3.3. of FMVSS 121 (for reasons of safety). Based on the attached interpretation dated July 23rd 1976 from your Mr. Frank A. Berndt, MCI is using 40 psi as initial service reservoir system air pressure and 28 psi as brake. chamber pressure (at .45 sec. max.). In the case of release, MCI is using 40 psi. We would appreciate very much if you could confirm by return that this attached interpretation is still valid. |
|
ID: nht88-2.35OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: MAY 31, 1988 FROM: M. ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD. TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-10-88, TO M. ARISAKA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, STD 108 TEXT: We would like to know about the installation of an additional Rear Reflex Reflector (RR). We are planning to install the additional Rear RR at the center portion of the rear face of cars in addition to present two Rear RRs required by FMVSS No. 108 Table III. (See attached drawing.) The additional Rear RR will never impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108 Table III. Kindly let us know your advice whether the above mentioned additional Rear RR is allowed or not. We are looking forward to your reply. Present two Rear RRs required by FMVSS No. 108 Table III The Additional rear RR |
|
ID: 04-006678drnOpenMr. Robert Strassburger Dear Mr. Strassburger: This responds to your request of August 26, 2004 that we extend the date at which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will begin enforcing a May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, addressed to Jaguar Cars, on the meaning of "daylight opening" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. As explained below, we have decided to grant your request. In our letter to you of March 31, 2004, in which we denied your request for reconsideration of the May 6, 2003, interpretation, we acknowledged that there has been some confusion in industry regarding the proper interpretation of the term "daylight opening". We stated that we would begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2005. In your letter of August 26, 2004, you stated that "substantial work" will be needed on some vehicle models to meet the May 6, 2003 interpretation letter. You stated that some wiper systems may have to be redesigned to increase the wiped area and that windshield redesign may be required. You indicated "substantial costs can be avoided" if, for those models that need reworking, the wiper system and windshield redesigns can be accomplished at the same time as scheduled platform changes. You asked that the agency provide manufacturers until September 1, 2007, to permit an orderly transition to designs that comply with the interpretation. Two vehicle manufacturers subsequently submitted additional information in support of your organizations request. They focused on the work that will be needed for some vehicle models to meet FMVSS No. 104s requirement that windshield wiping systems wipe at least 94% of "Area B". One manufacturer indicated that, taking account of the agencys May 6, 2003 interpretation letter, seven of its vehicles will not meet the 94% requirement. The other manufacturer indicated that five of its vehicles will be below 94% (but at or above 93.2%) for the wiped Area B. That manufacturer stated that it is not easy to increase the 93.2% area because the wiped areas have already been optimized to maximize the wiped surfaces. Even the small increases required to bring the wiped Area B to meet 94% cannot be done with simple changes in the wiper system. The manufacturer stated that some vehicles will require a complete redesign of the wiper geometry, including changes to the sheet metal stampings. Such changes are normally only done when a complete redesign of a model is scheduled because changes to the stamping tools are always expensive. After carefully considering your request and the additional information provided by the two manufacturers, and to minimize the costs of compliance, we agree to provide the requested additional time. While we believe the original date of September 1, 2005 was sufficient to enable manufacturers to make simple changes in wiper systems, we are persuaded that more significant design changes will be needed for a number of vehicles. Therefore, we will begin enforcing FMVSS No. 104 consistent with our May 6, 2003 interpretation letter beginning with motor vehicles manufactured on September 1, 2007. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:104 |
2005 |
ID: 10906Open Mr. Ron Hooker Dear Mr. Hooker: This responds to your question about whether the State of Missouri has authority to promulgate regulations relating to the safety of motor vehicles powered by alternative fuels, particularly compressed natural gas (CNG). The short answer is that while Missouri is generally preempted in this area, it could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles. Federal law will preempt a State law if (1) there is a Federal safety standard in effect, (2) the State law covers the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard, and (3) the State law is not identical to the Federal standard. Specifically, section 30103(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code states that (b) Preemption. - (1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter. State safety standards applicable to CNG fuel system integrity are generally preempted by Federal law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles. (59 FR 19659, April 25, 1994, copy enclosed). The Standard specifies frontal barrier and rear barrier crash tests conducted at 30 mph and a lateral moving barrier crash test conducted at 20 mph. The Standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less and use CNG as a motor fuel. It also applies to school buses regardless of weight that use CNG as a motor fuel. The Standard takes effect September 1, 1995. Accordingly, after September 1, 1995, Missouri could only issue its own safety standard applicable to CNG vehicle fuel system integrity if the State safety standard is identical to FMVSS No. 303. The one exception to requiring such identical standards is that Missouri could prescribe a standard for motor vehicles obtained for its own use, provided the State law imposed a higher performance requirement than the level of performance prescribed by FMVSS No. 303. Thus, Missouri could issue its own more stringent safety standard for State-owned vehicles. NHTSA further notes that Missouri is free to issue safety standards applicable to the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by other alternative fuels (e.g., liquid propane, hydrogen), since the agency has not issued any FMVSS applicable to other alternative fuels. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA d:6/8/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10931Open Mr. Jim Burgess Dear Mr. Burgess: This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system. You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states: [S]ide doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard. FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion. While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude wheelchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriate. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures (2) 1985 final rule Part 552
ref:206 d:8/4/95
|
1995 |
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.