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: aiam2725OpenMr. James O. Peterson, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Transportation, 4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Madison, WI 53707; Mr. James O. Peterson Administrator Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Transportation 4802 Sheboygan Avenue Madison WI 53707; Dear Mr. Peterson: This responds to your September 20, 1977, letter asserting that th Wisconsin requirement for minimum seat spacing does not conflict with the Federal requirement for maximum seat spacing found in Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) specifies that no State shall have in effect a safety standard concerning an aspect of performance regulated by a Federal safety standard, unless the State standard is identical. The Act provides a limited exception to the above where a State or local municipality has a requirement which applies only to vehicles purchased for their own use and which imposes a higher standard of performance. Both Standard No. 222, which regulates maximum seat spacing, and the Wisconsin standard, which regulates minimum seat spacing, regulate the same aspect of performance. This position is supported by our statements in Notice 5 of Standard No. 222 (41 FR 4016) which expressed the opinion that seat spacing is the regulated aspect of performance (copy enclosed). Since your State standard is not identical to the Federal standard, it is the opinion of the NHTSA that it is preempted.; You should note that although you are not permitted to impose thi State standard on all vehicles used in your State, the Federal government does not preclude you from purchasing any buses for your own use from among the several designs now in production. You could, therefore, purchase only those vehicles that afford you the minimum knee space you desire. You should note further that purchase for your own use has been interpreted to mean purchased by a contractor under contract to provide transportation for school children.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam0091OpenMr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, Department of California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Mr. Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Mr. Heath: Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning requirements for combination clearance and side marker lamps.; Paragraph S3.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 permits th combination of two or more lamps providing the requirements for each are met. Table I in SAE Standard J592b gives the photometric requirements for both the clearance and side marker lamps, and Section J of the Standard permits their combination providing the combination complies with both clearance and side marker minimum candlepower requirements. Section J also defines the H-V axis of the combination as parallel with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle when checking clearance lamp test points, and normal to this vehicle axis when checking side marker test points.; Your table of minimum candlepower requirements for the Type combination lamp meets J592b and therefore Standard No. 108 providing you define the H-V axis as that of the side marker lamp. The requirements for the Type 1 combination as specified in your table will not meet J592b or Standard No. 108 unless you change H-10, -20, -30, -45, -60, - 80 and -90, both L and R to H-15, -25, -35, -45, -55, -65, -75 and -90, both L and R, and define the H-V axis as a line through the center of the lamp at a 45 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.; Your mounting instructions are considerably more restrictive than thos implied in J592b and Standard No. 108. Actually, no additional mounting instructions are necessary, because any mounting which meets the minimum candlepower requirements of Table I in J592 and your table with the suggested revisions would meet the requirements of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, David A. Fay, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service; |
|
ID: aiam5124OpenMr. Frank E. Timmons Rubber Manufacturers Association 1400 K St., N.W. Washington, DC 20005; Mr. Frank E. Timmons Rubber Manufacturers Association 1400 K St. N.W. Washington DC 20005; "Dear Mr. Timmons: This responds to your letter about our November 199 letter to the Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce. In that letter, NHTSA discussed Federal requirements for tires sold in the United States for passenger cars and other 'motor vehicles.' You wish to ensure that the Under Secretary understands that the term 'motor vehicles' only refers to vehicles 'manufactured primarily for use on highways.' We are glad to clarify the meaning of the term 'motor vehicle.' 'Motor vehicle' is defined in 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' (Emphasis added.) Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle that the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function. This agency has issued many interpretations of what is and what is not a 'motor vehicle.' In general, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Likewise, vehicles that are designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of its customers actually would use them on the highway. Vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are considered motor vehicles. Furthermore, even if the majority of a vehicle's use will be off-road but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, this agency has interpreted that to be a motor vehicle. We appreciate your interest in this matter and will provide the Under Secretary with a copy of this letter. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Under Secretary, Kuwait Ministry of Commerce"; |
|
ID: aiam4476OpenMr. Richard W. Ward Vice President K-D Lamp Company 1910 Elm Street Cincinnati, OH 45210; Mr. Richard W. Ward Vice President K-D Lamp Company 1910 Elm Street Cincinnati OH 45210; "Dear Mr. Ward: This is in reply to your letter of September 14, l988 asking for a clarification of Federal requirements for the minimum lens area for turn signal lamps and stop lamps. The understanding expressed in your letter is correct. The SAE materials for turn signal lamps and stop lamps for wide vehicles incorporated by reference in Table I apply to original equipment on vehicles currently being manufactured, and to equipment intended to replace such original equipment. These standards were expressly incorporated to supersede earlier versions of SAE standards for turn signal lamps and stop lamps. However, in recognition that original equipment lamps made to earlier SAE specifications might not be compatible with the electrical systems of vehicles designed to conform to later SAE specifications, the agency adopted paragraphs S4.l.l.6 and 4.l.l.7, allowing the continued manufacture for replacement purposes only, of turn signal lamps and stop lamps designed to conform to earlier specifications. Both sections incorporate in their text portions of the earlier SAE standards. Because the earlier specification for turn signal lamps, J588d, required an effective projected luminous area not less than 12 square inches for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles, this requirement is also specified in S4.1.1.7 for replacement lamps manufactured in conformance with J588d. In short, your interpretation is correct with respect to turn signal lamps manufactured for installation on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Single compartment turn signal lamps designed to conform to SAE J588e need meet only a minimum luminous lens area of 8 square inches. But if a turn signal lamp is manufactured to replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to conform to SAE J588d, its minimum luminous lens area is 12 square inches. I hope this clarifies the matter for your customer. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5214OpenMs. Gail Lindsey Hillsborough County Public Schools Risk Management and Safety Department 707 East Columbus Drive Tampa, FL 33602; Ms. Gail Lindsey Hillsborough County Public Schools Risk Management and Safety Department 707 East Columbus Drive Tampa FL 33602; "Dear Ms. Lindsey: Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle o the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply. You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You therefore requested information on 'crash safety standards' of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter. For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992, Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992, Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988, a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations, and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan. The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations. 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"; |
|
ID: aiam4427OpenMr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 18881 U.S. 31 North Westfield, IN 46074; Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing Inc. 18881 U.S. 31 North Westfield IN 46074; "Dear Mr. Lawler: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208). Specifically, you noted that a final rule published July 6, 1988 (53 FR 25337) upgrades the safety belt requirements for heavy vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. One of the new requirements for those safety belts is that, if an automatic locking retractor (ALR) is used, that retractor 'shall not retract webbing to the next locking position until at least 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the retractor.' Standard No. 208 sets forth this requirement in section S4.3.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, and in section S4.4.2.2 for buses. You asked whether an ALR that depended on a mechanism external to the retractor itself to prevent it from retracting webbing to the next locking position would comply with S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2. The answer to your question is no. The agency explained in detail the reasons why the final rule did not adopt the proposed requirement for all heavy vehicle safety belts to be equipped with emergency locking retractors only, see 53 FR 25338-25340. The proposed prohibition of ALR's in heavy vehicles was based on the tendency of current designs of ALR's to become progressively tighter around an occupant as the vehicle travels over potholes or other jarring surfaces of the road. However, NHTSA acknowledged in the final rule that some newer designs of ALR's do not exhibit this tendency. In response to these newer designs of ALR's, the agency said: Therefore, this rule has been expanded from the proposal, in order to permit ALR's with anti-cinch capability to be installed in heavy vehicles. For the purposes of this rule, anti-cinch capability is determined by examining the working of the retractor after it has locked after the initial adjustment of the safety belt. 53 FR 25339. This language explicitly states that the 'working of the retractor' is what determines whether an ALR on a heavy vehicle belt complies with the requirements of Standard No. 208. Since the focus is exclusively on the 'working of the retractor,' an ALR must comply with these requirements without depending upon any external mechanisms to assist it. Any ALR that cannot satisfy these requirements without the assistance of external mechanisms would not comply with Standard No. 208's requirements for ALR's on heavy vehicles. This conclusion is reinforced by the agency's statement that: 'NHTSA believes it is appropriate to measure compliance with this new 3/4 inch minimum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 208 under the same conditions currently specified for determining compliance with the existing 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 209.' 53 FR 25340. The 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's is set forth in section S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 became effective in 1968, the agency has determined whether ALR's comply with this requirement by examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms. As explained in the final rule, the same procedure (examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms) will be used to measure compliance with the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208. In your letter, you requested that we issue an interpretation that any ALR that complies with Standard No. 209 can rely on the use of an external mechanism, such as your company's 'Komfort-Lok,' to comply with the minimum webbing travel requirements of Standard No. 208 for ALR's on safety belts in heavy vehicles. I cannot do so, for the reasons explained above. Any ALR used on a heavy vehicle safety belt must satisfy the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208 by the working of the retractor itself, without the use of any external mechanisms. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4750OpenMr. John W. Garringer 158 E. Center Street Shavertown, Pennsylvania 18708; Mr. John W. Garringer 158 E. Center Street Shavertown Pennsylvania 18708; "Dear Mr. Garringer: This responds to your letter asking whethe Federal law permits the installation of tinted plastic film on the bottom of motor vehicle windshields. The purpose of this film would be to reduce glare for the driver and any front seat passengers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how our laws and regulations apply to such a product. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which sets forth performance requirements for windows and other glazing items installed in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement. Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with your Hood Glare product installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and your tinting film must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer would be permitted to install your tinting film on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3948OpenMr. M. Mizuguchi, Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd., 12, 4-chome Yokobori, Higashi-ku, Osaka, Japan; Mr. M. Mizuguchi Ashimori Industry Co. Ltd. 12 4-chome Yokobori Higashi-ku Osaka Japan; Dear Mr. Mizuguchi: Your letter of February 28, 1985, was forwarded to my office for reply You asked whether the webbing attached to a buckle you intend to use must meet the webbing width requirement of S4.2 of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. The webbing is enclosed in a plastic sheath. As explained below, the webbing must meet the width requirement of the standard.; S4.2 of Standard No. 209 provides that the 'width of the webbing in seat belt assembly shall be not less than 1.8 inches, except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position when measured under the conditions prescribed in S5.1(a).' The purpose of S4.2 is to ensure that belt webbing which comes into contact with an occupant has a minimum width that spreads the load imposed by the belt in a crash. By requiring webbing to spread rather than concentrate the load, the belt width requirement helps minimize the possibility of webbing-caused injury.; In the case of your design, the webbing is enclosed in tightly-fitting plastic sheath. You state that the webbing/sheath combination can come into contact with an occupant. The sheath enclosed with your sample is made from an easily deformable plastic. Thus, when the crash loads are imposed by the belt, the sheath will deform and the crucial factor in concentrating the load on an occupant is the width of the belt. Since the webbing/sheath combination can contact and impose crash loads on an occupant, the agency concludes that the webbing must meet the minimum width requirement of S4.2.; If the webbing were encased in a reinforced sheath that did no appreciably deform under loading, the agency would consider both the width of the webbing and its encasing sheath in determining whether the requirement of S4.2 was met.; I have enclosed the sample of your product sent with your letter. I you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5192OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; "Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993 regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1. Your two questions and the answer to each follows. 1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21, Notice No. 2 proposed the use of 'one inch wide' retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a 'minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape.' The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a 'minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape.' Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide. Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3(c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available. You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801, July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to 'metric equivalents' in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term 'metric equivalents' was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. 2. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that 'each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter.....' The retro- reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening. In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off. 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. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4987OpenMr. Michael Love Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno, Nevada 89520-3911; Mr. Michael Love Manager Compliance Porsche Cars North America Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno Nevada 89520-3911; Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992 requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps. Porsche wishes to install a center lamp on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that 'If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars.' Although Porsche's intended center lamp meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible. Nevertheless, you believe that this may be acceptable. You cite an opinion rendered Mazda in which NHTSA did not object to center lamps mounted on tailgates because, as we advised Mazda, the center lamp is a 'supplementary' lamp, and that 'Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps. . .' You further quote NHTSA's frequently repeated advisory that 'Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position. . . ,' and argue that Porsche's design 'fulfills the spirit of the height requirements under all conditions' and the height requirement itself 'under a majority of 'normal driving conditions.'' You further argue that even in the down position the triangular relationship between the center lamp and the stop lamps is retained. Finally, you argue that the proposed lamp conforms with NHTSA's philosophy to make Standard No. 108 more performance-oriented 'by fulfilling the photometric requirements at all positions.' I am sorry that we cannot concur in your interpretation. When we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The fact that the vehicle may not comply under all conditions of operation is, of course, of concern to us, but we try to weigh the realities of vehicle design and usage against the need of the public for safety. In the Mazda interpretation, there was no question that the vehicle as manufactured would comply with the locational requirement for center lamps when the tailgate was closed. The 'normal driving position' of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. In another interpretation, rendered years ago, the fact that a vehicle with hydraulic suspension would not meet the minimum height requirements for headlamps with the vehicle at rest was considered a technical noncompliance only because by the time the vehicle was in its normal operating condition (with the engine running and the car ready to move into the stream of traffic), the suspension had raised the vehicle to a height where the headlamps exceeded the minimum height requirements. By contrast, the center lamp on the Carerra will not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, that is to say, under low-speed urban driving conditions where the center lamp is most likely to achieve its purpose of reducing the frequency and severity of rear end impacts. This, to us, is the 'normal operating position' of the Carerra with respect to the location of the proposed center lamp. I would like to close by pointing out that the agency went to a considerable extent in considering the comments of manufacturers before adopting the requirements of S5.3.1.8, in order to minimize design restrictions consistent with safety. NHTSA proposed three alternative locations, and adopted one that was less restrictive than any of the alternatives. Subsequently, pursuant to petitions for reconsideration by vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA relaxed the location requirements of S5.3.1.8 even further. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
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.