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: aiam1801OpenMr. Fred W. Cords, Minnesota Automotive, Inc., Box 2074, North Mankato, MN 56001; Mr. Fred W. Cords Minnesota Automotive Inc. Box 2074 North Mankato MN 56001; Dear Mr. Cords: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1975, requesting a opinion on whether a person who installs a Mico Brake Lock device on a new vehicle before its sale to the first purchaser is required to affix an alterer label in accordance with 49 CFR SS 567.7 and 568.8. You state that you believe the device, which serves as a hydraulic parking brake, is readily attachable because it can be installed in a minimum amount of time and does not in any way alter the operation of the vehicle's original brake system.; The NHTSA will generally abide by a good faith determination on th part of a manufacturer that a device is readily attachable. Such a decision should be based primarily on the intricacy of the installation of the device. Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable. You should note that section 567.7 of the Certification regulations also requires an alterer label when the installation of a component invalidates a vehicle's existing weight ratings, whether or not the component is readily attachable. On the basis of your letter, however, it appears to us that this would not occur as a result of installation of the Mico Brake Lock device.; If your device meets these criteria, no additional labeling will b required.; Yours truly, James C. Schultz, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 16614-1.pjaOpenMr. Shane K. Lack Dear Mr. Lack: This responds to your request that we review your draft summaries and interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 205 (49 CFR 571.205, Glazing materials) and 217 (49 CFR 571.217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release). We apologize for the delay in responding. Because your documents are lengthy (36 pages) and contain so many statements, questions, and interpretations, we are unable to address each individual point in this letter. Instead, we will confirm that, in general, your summaries and interpretations of our standards are correct. We offer the following answers to your questions and corrections to a few of your interpretations, with reference to the page number and line number of your summary. For brevity, we have paraphrased the relevant portions of your letter in italics. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials
The answer to the first part of your question is yes. The material of which the glazing is constructed is not specified. Both Standard 205 and the American National Standard, Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways -- ANSI Z26.1-1977 (hereafter referred to as ANSI Z26.1, which is incorporated by reference in the CFR) may refer to specific kinds of glazing in headings. Examples of this are in paragraph S5.1.2.3 of the standard, which refers to "flexible plastics," and the column headings of Table 1 in ANSI Z26.1, which lists materials such as "laminated glass." These headings are for illustrative purposes only, to indicate the material and construction that typically is used to meet the enumerated tests. See note 1 to Table 1 in ANSI Z26.1, which specifically states that future materials that meet the enumerated tests may be used. Therefore, any material that meets all the tests for a particular item of glazing complies with the standard, regardless of composition or construction.
Again, the mention of safety plastics is illustrative. The words "safety plastics" should not have been included in the standard. However, the performance-based method (i.e., whatever meets the tests) of determining compliance is maintained even for item 12 glazing.
The answer to both questions is yes.
The list of approved glazing types on page 2 is correct.
Yes.
Yes.
No, it does not. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release
We assume when you say "to be counted" you mean whether a particular exit would count for determining if the bus has the correct number of exits specified in Standard No. 217. When conducting a compliance inspection of a new vehicle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would normally have the manufacturer's certification data showing which exits are designated as emergency exits. If an exit did not comply in some way, this agency would not "uncount" that exit for meeting exit number and exit area requirements. Instead, the vehicle would be considered to have failed only the requirements that were not fulfilled. For example, if an otherwise compliant exit were not labeled, the bus would fail only the S5.1.1 labeling requirement. The area for that exit would still be counted for meeting the emergency exit number and area requirements.
The first sentence of your interpretation is correct. Your computation in the second sentence is incorrect. The minimum emergency exit opening computes to 1296 sq. cm for a 33cm X 50cm ellipsoid. The area of an ellipse = 3.14 times the product of the major and minor semi-axes.
While it is true that there is no prohibition explicitly stated in the standard, NHTSA interprets its regulations consistently with their purposes. The purpose behind the emergency exit requirements, which is clearly reflected paragraph S2 and in its preambles on the subject, is to provide readily accessible emergency egress. It is highly unlikely that a manufacturer would actually place emergency exits in such an unusual configuration. If it did, NHTSA would not regard the emergency exit placed on top of another as being accessible, and would not count it toward meeting the requirements.
Paragraph S5.2.1 allows manufacturers of non-school buses to meet the specifications for non-school buses in S5.2.2 or the specifications for school buses in S5.2.3. If S5.2.2 is followed and a roof exit is needed because a rear exit cannot be provided, then paragraph S5.2.2.2 specifies that the roof exit is to be located in the rear half of the bus. If S5.2.3 is followed, then S5.3.2.2(b) specifies both the longitudinal and lateral position of all roof exits.
We do not know to which interpretation you are referring. A computerized search of all our previous interpretation letters did not reveal an interpretation with those words. It is true, however, that the provisions specifying that the release mechanisms can only be actuated by applications of a certain magnitude of force in certain directions are designed to prevent inadvertent opening of an exit. I hope this is helpful. Again, my sincere apologies for the delay in our reply. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: 06-006237drnOpenMs. Julie Laplante Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil, Inc. 830, 12 ime Avenue Laurentides (Qubec) J5M 2V9 CANADA Dear Ms. Laplante: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask for guidance on affixing 1 inch retroreflective tape on the outside perimeter of the rear emergency exit door on your single rear wheel model school bus. You provided photographs showing that the top half of the rear emergency exit door is flanked by two windows, one each to the right and to the left. The windows are placed close to the doors such that there is not enough room for the 1 inch retroreflective tape outlining the rear emergency exit door to lie flat. Under these circumstances, you wish to know how to place the tape so that the bus meets requirements for identifying school bus emergency exits at S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 217. S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217 states: (c) Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a retroreflective tape with a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters [one inch] and either red, white or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of Standard No. 131 (49 CFR 571.131), meets the criteria specified in Table 1 of that section. The purposes of the retroreflective tape requirement are to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers, and to increase on-the-road visibility of the bus. As discussed below, based on our understanding of your letter and the photographs you enclosed, there are ways to apply the 1 inch-width tape to meet FMVSS No. 217. Please note, however, that you based your inquiry on the use of 1 inch tape, stating without further explanation that you are using this width tape to standardise our production. The standard requires tape of a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters (cm) (1 inch). A manufacturer cannot claim it is impracticable to meet the standard using a tape of a width greater than 2.5 cm (1 inch) if it would be practicable to mark the perimeter using 2.5 cm (1-inch) tape. Your Question. Your photographs show that the windows on each side are so close to the rear emergency exit door that the 1 inches of tape that you use cannot be placed around the outside of the door without overlapping the windows.[1] You state that you cannot move each window one inch away from the door because there is no room to move the windows. In the photographs on the page labeled #1, you show that the space around the rear emergency exit door is not wide enough to accommodate the tape. You indicate that if you were to put the tape around the outside perimeter of the door, the tape would overlap the frame of the adjacent windows, i.e., only inch of the tape would be on a flat surface on the outside perimeter of the door, and 1 inch of the tapes width would be in a fold in the curved surface of the fixed rear upper windows, resulting in what you describe as bad finishing, tear and dont [sic] stay in place. Given the close proximity of the rear emergency exit door and the two rear windows to the right and left, you ask about three approaches for outlining the rear emergency exit door. The first approach involves not applying the tape to the perimeter of the door by the rear windows, while another approach involves cutting the tape in that area to a width of -inch. The last approach involves placing the tape on the door itself. The first two suggestions would not meet the standard. Your first suggestion is to interrupt the portion of the tape (18 inches on each side [of the door]), that is, to not have any retroreflective tape for 18 inches on each side of the door. This approach would not enable the bus to meet the requirement of S5.5.3(c) that the emergency exit opening be outlined around its outside perimeter since a large portion of the perimeter would not be outlined. Your other suggestion is to cut off the portion of the tape that sticks on the curved surface of the fixed upper windows. (It would leave a width of of an inch for those two 18 inches portion of tape.) This approach would not meet S5.5.3(c) because the two 18-inch portions of the tape would not meet the minimum width requirement of 2.5 centimeters [one inch]. Your last suggestion (slightly revised) would meet the standard. Your last suggestion is to affix the tape of the whole two side perimeters on the door directly. We agree that you may apply the tape to the door itself, as near as possible to the outside perimeter of the door. This is in accordance with an interpretation letter of June 8, 1994 to Van-Con Inc., in which we addressed a situation where there was no room available for placement of retroreflective tape outside of the doors bottom edge. In the Van-Con instance, NHTSA permitted a portion of the retroreflective tape to be on the door itself, stating: Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuers ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door. Accordingly, you may affix the tape for the vertical sides of the exit directly on the door.[2] However, we do not agree that you need not have tape at the door handle, since it appears from photograph #3 that there is sufficient space on the inside perimeter of the door to accommodate a 1 tape width. NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. Occasional breaks in the tape for the hinges shown would not appear to negatively affect a rescuers ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel #ref:217 d.2/5/07 |
2007 |
ID: 86-5.13OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/05/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. William Shapiro TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Sep 5 1986
Mr. William Shapiro Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647
Dear Mr. Shapiro:
This responds to your letter concerning a newly designed Volvo child safety seat. You stated that this child safety seat can be certified as complying with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213), when secured only by a vehicle lap belt, in the rearward-facing mode for infants and in the forward-facing mode for toddlers. In addition, you indicate that this child safety seat can be used in certain vehicle specific installations in Volvo vehicles, and that the vehicle specific installations "provide a higher level of protection." You asked this agency's opinion as to whether this new child safety seat is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of Standard No. 213 and whether it can be used in both the universal application (that is, secured by only a lap belt) and Volvo vehicle-specific modes.
With respect to your first question, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) provides no authority under which this agency can assure a manufacturer that its product has been designed in due care to comply with all applicable requirements or to otherwise "approve" it. The Act establishes a process of self-certification under which a manufacturer is not required to submit a product to the agency for approval before sale, but simply to provide a certification to dealers and distributors that it does meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that product does not in fact comply, the manufacturer must notify and remedy the noncompliance according to the Act, and it is in presumptive violation of it (and therefore subject to civil penalties) unless it can establish that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the product was noncompliant. The statute thus provides an affirmative defense to the manufacturer, but it is a defense that does not arise until there is a violation of the Act, and the burden is upon the proponent to establish it.
Under the Act a product must comply at the time of sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. This means that a manufacturer's responsibility to insure compliance does not end at the design stage, but extends through manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product. In this context whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in the design stage can be an irrelevant question if the noncompliance was caused by an error in the manufacturing process which should have been detected and corrected, for example. For these reasons we cannot provide the opinion that you seek. With respect to your second question, Volvo can recommend its child seat for use with a lap belt in vehicles other than those manufactured by Volvo and for vehicle-specific uses in Volvo cars. The preamble to the 1979 final rule establishing Standard No. 213 included the following statement: "As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions." 44 FR 72131, at 72136; December 13, 1979. Therefore, Volvo can provide the vehicle-specific installation conditions for its child safety seat in Volvo automobiles. Please note that section S5.6 of Standard No. 213 requires manufacturers recommending vehicle-specific installations to provide step-by-step instructions for securing the child restraint in those particular vehicles, as well as providing such instructions for securing the child restraint when it is used in vehicles for which no vehicle-specific installation is recommended.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
April 9, 1986
Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590
Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #213 - Volvo Child Safety Seat
Dear Ms. Jones:
This will confirm the discussion of March 26, 1986 between Volvo ad NHTSA personnel regarding the Volvo child safety seat. Based on that meeting, we request the following be clarified. Volvo is deeply committed to the safety of all ages of the occupants of vehicles. For the past 10 years, we have marketed in Europe a vehicle-specific rearward facing Volvo child safety seat. We believe the rearward facing mode is a safer way to travel for children than forward facing. Its experience in Sweden has been excellent. However, due to the particular wording in FMVSS #213, we were unable to market it in the U.S.
During the past 1-2 years we have designed ad developed a new Volvo child seat. In the Thursday, December 13, 1979 F. R. V44N241, P. 72136 (Docket #74-9, Notice 6) NHTSA commented on vehicle-specific child seats.
"However, since vehicle specific child restraints can provide adequate levels of protection when installed correctly, NHTSA is not prohibiting the manufacture of such devices. The new standard requires them to meet the performance requirements of the standard when secured by a vehicle lap belt. As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions."
Our development for the U. S. was based on this portion of the Federal Register. This seat is designed to be used by both infants (0-1 year) and toddlers (1-about 4 gears). The new Volvo child seat has universal application in automobiles. In addition, it has vehicle-specific modes for Volvo vehicles which provide yet a higher level of protection.
The Volvo child seat is desired to meet the performance requirements or FMVSS #213 when secured by a vehicle lap belt in the rearward racing mode for infants and the forward facing mode for toddlers. This is the universal installation. Because FMVSS #213 is a minimum performance standard, by fulfilling the requirements of FMVSS #213 in these modes we have fulfilled NHTSA intent as stated in the above mentioned Federal Register and believe this seat is designed in due care to meet the requirements of FMVSS #213.
The Volvo child seat in the vehicle-specific mode provides a higher level of protection than the universal application. This is accomplished by the use of an additional vehicle specific attachment strap and hardware. For both the infant and toddler Volvo vehicle-specific mode, the child rides rearward-facing in the vehicle. We interpret that the new Volvo child seat, as described above, is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of FMVSS #213, and can be used in both the universal application and Volvo vehicle-specific modes. Your confirmation of that interpretation would be appreciated as soon as possible.
If there are further questions about the Volvo child safety seat, please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA Product Planning and Development
William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs WS:mc |
|
ID: 1786yOpen The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Dear Mr. Panetta: This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements. The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are: 1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror. 2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive. 3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion. 4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object. Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure /ref:111 d:4/l7/89 |
1970 |
ID: 1982-2.40OpenDATE: 08/16/82 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. M. Price; NHTSA TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
AUG 16 1982
AIR MAIL
Mr. Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section Ichikon Industries, Ltd. 80 Itado, Isehara City Kanagawa 259-11 JAPAN
Dear Mr. Takata:
This is in reference to your letter of June 30, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency concerning the effective luminous lens area of a front turn signal lamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 with respect to three proposed designs. We assume that you wish to know what is the effective projected luminous lens area for a front turn signal on vehicles less than 80 inches in overall width. The SAE Standard No. J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," which you quote, imposes no additional requirements for a two compartment front turn signal lamp. Thus, it appears that so long as you meet the minimum of 3.5 square inches for a single compartment lamp, your proposed designs (Case 1 and 2) meet the necessary requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Case 3 would not conform as neither of the two section compartments meets the 3.5 square inch minimum.
Sincerely,
Courtney M. Price Associate Administrator for Rulemaking
L57/30 June 30, 1982
Mr. Marx Elliott Program Manager Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.
Subject: Effective projected luminous area of Front Turn Signal Lamp Dear Mr. Elliott,
We would like to inquire as follows. FMVSS 108 references SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, and SAE J588e prescribe Effective Projected Luminous Area as follows. SAE J588e
3.2 The effective projected luminous area of a single compartment lamp measured on a plane at right angles to the axis of a lamp must be at least 8.0 sq in. for a rear lamp and at least 3.5 sq in. for a front lamp.
3.3 If a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements of a rear turn signal lamp, the effective projected luminous lens area of each compartment or lamp shall be at least 3 1/2 sq. in. provided the combined area is at least 8 sq in.
That is, in the case of front turn signal lamp, section 3.2 provide that Effective Projected Luminous Area should be more than 3.5 sq in.
But when we want to take into account of two compartments of front turn signal lamp, may we understand that the following cases are acceptable for FMVSS 108.
*Insert artwork
Condition of Effective Projected Luminous Area
Area A Area B A + B
Case 1 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2 >/3.5 in.2
Case 2 /3.5 in.2
Case 3 < 3.5 in.2 <>/3.5 in.2
We await your early reply.
Very truly yours, ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD.
Fukuo Takata, Manager Certifications Regulations Section |
|
ID: 1982-2.9OpenDATE: 04/30/82 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Sure-View Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. M.W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203
Dear Mr. Urban:
This responds to your letter of April 5, 1982. I believe that the copy which I recently sent you of my May 14, 1980, letter to Mr. Seashores clearly and carefully explains the agency's statutory authority to regulate design elements such as size and dimension. As my letter of March 25, 1983 to you noted S9.1 of Standard No. 111 is consistent with that statutory authority.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
April 5, 1982 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel This in reference to your response to my letter dated 8 Feb. 1982 including a copy of a letter Mr. Seashore date 14 May 1980. I cannot agree your response to my letter is in accord with your letter to Mr. Seashore. It is my belief and as I read your letter to Mr. Seashore, that our U.S. Congress has delegated and LIMITED to the NHTSA, through their Parent Department of Transportation, the determining and defining of a type of Standard designated as "Performance Requirement". It is also my belief Congress intentionally withheld from the NHTSA the requiring of "Design Requirements", rightfully the Responsibility, and Authority, of industry.
Section S9.1 of FMVSS 111 requires rearview mirrors of unit magnification on each side of School Buses, each having a minimum of 50 square inches of reflective surface, mounted in such a position that if any portion of each mirror is visible to the driver, it meets the requirement of the NHTSA in accordance with Section 102(2) that reads, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria".
School children are entitled to safe transportation and I believe our efforts should be in that direction. The Fourth Circuit Court stated: "If an article my be made safer, and the hard of harm may be made safer, and the hazard of harm may be mitigated by an alternate design or device, at no substantial increase in price, the Manufacturer has a duty to adopt such a design."
The Mirror systems for School Buses, Superior in Safety Performance, specified by the State of Texas, had to be returned by the School Bus Safety Performance. I cannot agree this to be in accord with the intent of our U.S. Congress.
Sincerely,
SURE VIEWS, Inc. M.W. Urban
MMU/hl cc: Congressman Dan Glickman
SA20ARDESGNELEMENT4C
Mr. M.W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203
Dear Mr. Urban:
This responds to your letter of April 5, 1982. I believe that the copy which I recently sent you of my May 14, 1980, letter to Mr. Seashores clearly and carefully explains the agency's statutory authority to regulate design elements such as size and dimension. As my letter of March 25, 1982, to you noted S9.1 of Standard No. 111 is consistent with that statutory authority.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 10441Open Mr. Randal Busick Dear Mr. Busick: This responds to your letter of October 14, 1994, concerning whether a belt design would comply with S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as amended in a final rule published on August 3, 1994 and effective on September 1, 1997 (59 FR 39472). As described in your letter, for this belt design, "the inboard lower FMVSS 210 anchorage is located on the seat frame and thus, as the seat moves fore and aft, the system allows a minimum of two seat belt adjustment positions and the distance between the two extreme adjustment positions of the system is more than 5 cm." The August 3 final rule amended Standard No. 208 to improve the fit and increase the comfort of safety belts for a variety of different sized occupants. After the effective date, S7.1.2 will, in pertinent part, read as follows: ... for each Type 2 seat belt assembly which is required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall include a movable component which has a minimum of two adjustment positions. The distance between the geometric center of the movable component at the two extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five centimeters, measured linearly. As illustrated in the drawing provided with your letter, the inboard anchorage on your seat design is the "the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt." It would appear that, under the definition of "seat belt anchorage" in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages, the seat would be considered part of the anchorage for your design. Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as
any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure. If the seat is part of the anchorage, and if the seat can be adjusted more than 5 cm, measured linearly, it appears that your design will meet the requirement of S7.1.2. While not directly relevant to your question, agency technical staff raised concerns about a device in the drawing enclosed with your letter. The drawing of the system shows a device labeled "Slider Bar" to which the outboard lower end of the seat belt anchorage is attached. While no detail is provided on this device, agency staff are concerned that the device (which appears to function as the lower outboard anchorage) allows the seat belt webbing attachment to slide freely fore and aft longitudinally. If our interpretation of the drawing is correct, this device may prevent the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, as well as prevent the anchorage from meeting the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210. Finally, the device may introduce slack in the belt system, preventing the belt from adequately securing a child safety restraint in the seat or providing complete protection to an adult. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:208 d:1/5/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10553Open Mr. G. Brandt Taylor Dear Mr. Taylor: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements applicable to multiple reflectance mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rear View Mirrors. You stated that your mirror can change its reflectivity either by mechanically rotating a shaft or by actuating an electrical motor. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. FMVSS No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which specifies requirements for mirror construction, provides in relevant part that All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance automatically in the event of electrical failure. You asked several questions about the requirement for adjusting the mirror in the event of electrical failure. You first asked if a manual override knob could be removable. You then asked whether a removable manual override could be supplied by the car manufacturer along with the car keys or with the owner's manual for insertion into the mirror and use only in the event of an electrical failure. You also asked about whether "west coast" mirrors and mirrors on trailer trucks could have a removable manual override. The answer to each of your questions is that a removable manual override knob would not be permitted. In the preamble to the final rule amending the mirror construction requirements in FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA stated that the agency's goal is to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. (see 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991) The manual override knob you discuss would serve as the means for the driver to adjust the mirror's reflectance level. However, a removable manual override knob would not always serve this purpose, since it would not necessarily always be with the mirror. We are concerned that a removable override device may become lost or otherwise not available when a mirror's reflectance needs to be adjusted. Accordingly, since the agency's goal of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation would only be achieved by requiring this device to be permanent, a removable override would not be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:111 d:2/13/95
|
1995 |
ID: Maxon9759OpenS.Lafferty, Manager, Engineering Dear Mr.Lafferty: This responds to your letter in which you raised several questions regarding Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No.403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles.Your letter raised issues with the control illumination, attachment hardware, and interlock requirements of the standard.I have addressed each issue below. By way of background, the agency established FMVSS Nos.403 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle.FMVSS No.403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles.The agency also established the companion standard FMVSS No.404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, which specifies requirements for vehicles equipped with platform lifts. Illumination of Lift Controls S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No.403 requires that platform lift controls on a public use lift must be illuminated according S5.3 of FMVSS No.101, Controls and displays.In part FMVSS No.101 requires that the illumination of controls must be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.The low level of illumination is to minimize the impact of the illumination on a drivers night vision. In your letter, you stated that the controls on the lifts manufactured by your company, Maxon, are not located in the driver compartment.As such, you stated that there is no need for a dual level of illumination as specified in FMVSS No.101. The illumination requirement in FMVSS No.403 is applicable to all controls, regardless of location.An amendment to this requirement would have to be accomplished through the agencys rulemaking procedure. Attachment Hardware S6.3.1 of FMVSS No.403 requires that a lift manufacturer provide all of the attachment hardware necessary to install a lift on a vehicle.In your letter you stated that some installations may require longer bolts than that provided or that bolts may be lost during installation.You asked if Maxon would be permitted to specify attachment hardware by "grade, size, plating etc and allow substitute hardware" in those instances. S6.13.1 requires a lift manufacturer to specify, either by make and model or by design elements, the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed.The attachment hardware provided must permit the installation of a lift on these vehicles.If a vehicle is listed under S6.13.1 that requires a longer bolt, then a longer bolt must be provided. With regard to hardware lost during the installation process, we recognize that lift installers may need to obtain replacement hardware.Nothing in the standard prohibits a lift manufacturer from providing the hardware specifications in conjunction with the actual hardware. Interlock requirements Your letter correctly states that under S6.10.2.2 of FMVSS No.403, an interlock must prevent operation of a platform lift from a stowed position until forward and rearward motion of a vehicle is inhibited.You then asked what is required if during lift operation there is a failure of the interlock: should lift operation cease or continue in the event of such a failure? FMVSS No.403 does not specify how a lift must operate in the event of an interlock failure.Therefore, it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine an appropriate default status. I hope you find this helpful.If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr.Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:403#404 |
2005 |
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.