NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: 23381ogmOpen Mr. Robert Babcock Dear Mr. Babcock: This responds to your electronic mail message of July 9, 2001, regarding the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter asks whether seat belt anchorages must meet the location requirements found in S4.3 of Standard No. 210 after the anchorages have been subjected to testing to determine if they comply with the anchorage strength requirements found in S4.2. Your message indicates that Hyundai believes that the anchorages are not required to meet the anchorage location requirements after testing for compliance with S4.2. You ask the agency to confirm that your company's interpretation is correct. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) agrees with your interpretation. Standard No. 210 applies to new vehicles and does not require that anchorages remain in their original positions after being subjected to the severe loads that may occur in a crash. Strength requirements for seat belt anchorages are found in S4.2 of the Standard. These requirements specify that seat belt anchorages must withstand a certain amount of force when tested in accordance with procedures found in S5. As you point out in your message, S4.2.3 of Standard No. 210 indicates that deformation of a seat belt anchorage or the surrounding area is not considered to be a failure if the forces required by S4.2.1 are maintained for a specified time. Therefore, Standard No. 210 anticipates that some deformation of an anchorage or the nearby structure is likely when an anchorage is subjected to the loads it would be exposed to in a crash. Such deformation may cause changes to the location or geometry of anchorages that complied with S4.3 prior to being tested for compliance with S4.2. NHTSA would not consider the post-test position of the anchorages to determine compliance with S4.3. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:210 |
2002 |
ID: 23394.jegOpen
William Kurtz, Manager Dear Mr. Kurtz: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135. You asked for our concurrence that "S5.3.2 Controls, which prohibits 'a control to manually disable the ABS, either fully or partially' does not prohibit the transmission's electronic control unit from automatically disengaging the ABS when the central differential is locked in an off-road driving mode." You asked your question in connection with the G-class multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV). By way of background information information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following opinion is based on the facts provided in your letter and in telephone conversations with your attorney, James Chen, Esq., and stated in this letter. As discussed below, it is our opinion that S5.3.2's prohibition of a control that manually disables ABS does not apply to a vehicle setting where the vehicle can, as a practical matter, only be driven for off-road operations. Since, based on the information provided in your letter and by Mr. Chen, the G-class MPV cannot, as a practical matter, be driven on paved roadways when the central differential is locked, the S5.3.2 prohibition does not apply in this situation. I will now explain our position. S5.3.2 reads as follows: For vehicles equipped with ABS, a control to manually disable the ABS, either fully or partially, is prohibited. In proposing this provision in July 1991, we included the following discussion: Some manufacturers have argued that [an antilock disabling switch], which would enable a driver to turn off the ABS, would be useful in conditions such as mud or deep snow, where a locked wheel could produce shorter stops than a rolling wheel. However, NHTSA agrees with the position taken by the GRRF that such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial. 56 FR 30538, July 3, 1991. Thus, the purpose of the provision is to prevent situations where a vehicle's ABS is needed but is not available because the driver has turned it off. According to your letter, when a driver of the G-class MPV locks the central differential for off-road operation, the ABS system is disengaged. You suggest that this type of system should not be considered to be prohibited by S5.3.2, because the ABS system is disengaged "automatically," as a result of the vehicle having its central differential locked, rather than manually. We disagree with the view that the ABS system is not being disengaged manually in this situation. The word "manually," as used in S5.3.2, has reference to action by the driver. If activation of a particular control by the driver results in the ABS being disengaged, we would consider the control to manually disable the ABS, regardless of whether the control also does something else, such as locking the central differential. In light of other information provided by you and by Mr. Chen, however, we nonetheless believe that the S5.3.2 does not apply in the situation you describe. As noted above, the purpose of the S5.3.2 prohibition is to prevent situations where a vehicle's ABS is needed but is not available because the driver has turned it off. In light of this purpose, we believe it is appropriate to interpret the provision as not applying to a vehicle setting where the vehicle can, as a practical matter, only be driven for off-road operations. According to your letter, the ABS system of the G-class MPV is disengaged only when the central differential is locked. We also understand from Mr. Chen that if the central differential is unlocked, the ABS system is always engaged again. You stated that with the central differential locked, a vehicle setting intended only for off-road use, all four wheels rotate at the same speed. Operation of the vehicle in this manner on hard road surfaces would result in serious wheel chatter, hard steering and risk of serious damage to the transmission. There is also a yellow warning label adjacent to the differential lock switches which states: "Warning! Never use differential locks on paved roads! Engaged differential locks limit the ability to move around curves." Given the above facts, we conclude that, for the G-class MPV, locking of the central differential is a vehicle setting where the vehicle can, as a practical matter, only be driven for off-road operations. Accordingly, the S5.3.2 prohibition does not apply in this situation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack cc: NCC-20 :EGlancy :mar :10/16/01 :62992 :OCC 23394 |
|
ID: 2342yOpen Mr. Jim Evans Dear Mr. Evans: This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 1989, with respect to whether the installation of "yellow" reflex reflectors on the rear of motor vehicles is permissible under Standard No. l08. Because the standard uses the term "amber" instead of "yellow", I shall refer to yellow as amber also. As you note, the standard requires two red reflex reflectors to be mounted on the rear, but is silent as to whether additional reflectors, amber in color, are permitted. One of your customers has asked you to manufacture an amber turn signal lens that would have an amber reflex reflector area around the outer edge. The turn signal lamp would be adjacent to a lamp of apparently identical size and shape with a red lens and reflex reflector area, providing stop and tail lamp functions. The State of Michigan apparently allows only red reflex reflectors on the rear. You have asked whether reflectors of other colors may be mounted on the rear as long as the required red ones are present, and if it is illegal, whether Standard No. l08 may be amended to eliminate the confusion. Because an amber reflector is not a required item of lighting equipment that Standard No. l08 specifies to be installed on the rear of a motor vehicle, its acceptability is subject to the general provisions of section S5.1.3. This states, in pertinent part, that no additional reflective device may be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. It does not appear to us that an amber taillamp lens with an amber reflector would create an impairment. Under Standard No. l08, amber is a permissible color for rear turn signal lamps, and its presence on a reflector surrounding the lamp should not create confusion. Therefore, manufacture, sale, and installation of an amber taillamp lens with an amber reflector would not constitute a noncompliance with Standard No. l08. However, an interpretation by NHTSA that its lighting standard does not forbid the installation of an amber reflex reflector does not mean that a State could not adopt and enforce a law prohibiting such a reflector. Under section l03(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a State may impose its own safety requirements covering any aspect of performance that is not covered by Standard No. l08. We construe this provision narrowly, as allowing a State to regulate all lighting equipment that is not specifically required by Standard No. l08. Noting that Section CI 257.691 of the Micigan vehicle lighting code that you enclosed specifies that reflectors "mounted on the rear shall reflect a red color to the rear", the appropriate remedy would be to seek an amendment of the Michigan law. This agency presently has no plans to specify yellow as an alternate color for rear reflex reflectors. Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:l08#VSA d:2/26/90 |
1990 |
ID: 2343yOpen Herr Tilman Spingler Dear Herr Spingler: This is in reply to your FAX to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your first question is: 1) To turn the adjusting screws of a HB-2 headlamp it will be necessary to remove two snap on covers without the use of any tool. Will this be legal? Section S7.7.2 requires a headlamp to be installed with a mounting and aiming mechanism that allows aim inspection and adjustment, "and is accessible for those uses without removal of any vehicle parts, except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." The section is not directed to the number of covers, only the ease of removal for the specified purposes. Therefore, the use of two snap on covers is not prohibited by Standard No. 108. Your second question is: 2) A combination of HB2-headlight (low + high beam) and auxiliary driving beam in one unit shall be equipped with only vertical adjusting screws for the driving beam. The beam pattern will be so wide that even bulbs with extreme tolerances will allow to meet all photometric requirements without horizontal adjustment. Will this be legal? Under section S7.7.2, the aiming mechanism of a headlamp must allow for adjustment of both horizontal and vertical aim. Thus, the portion of the lamp that provides the lower and upper beam must have both horizontal and vertical aiming screws, and the headlamp would not comply with S7.7.2 if either aiming screw is lacking. For that part of the same headlamp that is a driving beam and which is therefore not regulated by Standard No. l08, the manufacturer may provide any means of adjustment it wishes, as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the aim of the upper and lower headlamp beam. Your final question is: 3) When will the 9007 bulb be legal? Date of final rule? According to the plans of this agency, further action on the 9007 (proposed to be known as HB5) is expected in May l990. I hope that this responds to your questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref 108 d:3/23/90 |
1990 |
ID: 23443.drnOpenMr. Jim Elliott Vice President Sales & Marketing Dear Mr. Elliott: This responds to your July 19, 2001, letter asking that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) create a "special purpose bus" vehicle type specifically for the child care industry. Essentially, this would be a bus that meets NHTSA's crash worthiness school bus safety standards, and not stop arm or school bus lighting requirements. Please be advised that NHTSA is currently considering a rulemaking to propose this new vehicle type. We anticipate publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that would specify the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that a "special purpose bus" would have to meet. I am enclosing a copy of our interpretation letter of December 5, 2000, to Southern Illinois Bus. In this letter, we explain that although school bus manufacturers or dealers cannot "make inoperative" the compliance of a school bus with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices, or any other safety standard by removing such equipment, the Federal "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to the owner of a school bus (i.e., to the school or school district). Thus, a child transportation provider may purchase a school bus and remove the stop arms and school bus lamps without violating any NHTSA requirements. If you have any further questions, please contact me at this address or at (202) 366-9511. Sincerely, John Womack Enclosure |
2001 |
ID: 23449ogmOpen Mr. Leonard Reisinger, Jr. Dear Mr. Reisinger: This responds to your letters addressed to former Administrator Martinez and former Secretary Slater. Your letters express concern that vehicles used by a private contractor for transporting prison inmates do not have seat belts. According to your letters, the vehicles at issue use school bus seats arranged to face each other to accommodate prisoners in transport. Your letter further indicates that these seats are located within a "cage" and that the seats are not equipped with seat belts. You are concerned that the failure to provide seat belts to prisoners violates both State and Federal safety belt laws. Let me begin by making clear that this office has no special knowledge or expertise with respect to individual state laws. My answer will address only the requirements of the laws and regulations administered by this agency. Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR 571.208) which, among other things, requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in motor vehicles. However, different requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the size and weight of the vehicle. In addition, there are separate requirements applicable to new school buses. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific requirements for the vehicles you are concerned about without knowing the vehicles' date of manufacture, seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating. Chapter 301 provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208 (See 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter... Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of our standards. Thus, if an entity, such as a State or a contractor, purchases a vehicle and makes modifications itself, there is no violation of Federal law, even if the modified vehicle does not comply with our standards. Your letter also asks if it is proper under state law for prisoners to be transported in highway vehicles without being restrained by seat belts. You also indicate that, when asked, a contractor that provides prisoner transport indicated that it was under no obligation to provide seat belts or air bags for prisoners. As noted above, this office cannot provide you with advice regarding the seat belt use laws of a particular state or states. I respectfully suggest that you contact the state or states whose laws may apply to your particular situation to determine if, and how, those laws apply. Finally, you request "any information or studies" on seat belt safety and any hazards resulting from not having seat belts in vehicles. NHTSA has conducted many studies on this subject, including ones on the effectiveness of seat belts and automatic restraints in preventing or reducing injury. I am afraid that your request is so broad, and potentially encompasses so much material, that I cannot provide a specific response. If you have access to the internet, I would suggest that you visit the NHTSA website at www.nhtsa.dot.gov and review some of our most recent publications to determine if they contain the kind of information you require. If you do not have access to the internet, I would suggest that you call NHTSA's technical reference division at (800) 445-0197 to determine if there is a specific report or publication that is relevant to your particular concerns. Sincerely, John Womack ref:208 |
2002 |
ID: 2344yOpen Mr. Lowell W. Sundstrom, Jr. Dear Mr. Sundstrom: This is in response to your letter of December 9, 1989 to this office, asking us to confirm your opinion that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302) does not apply to the "HOOD LOCKER" product you describe in your letter. You state that this product will be a plastic box to hold tissues which consumers may use to wipe off the engine crankcase dipstick when checking the crankcase oil. According to your letter, the product can be mounted near or on the vehicle fender well, on the under side of the hood, on the side or top of the air cleaner, or in another location near the dipstick. You believe that Standard No. 302 does not refer to the product because it will not be placed within the occupant compartment of motor vehicles and will not be placed within one-half inch of any occupant's air space. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations for you. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that every one of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act also gives this agency authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 302. That standard sets forth flammability resistance requirements applicable to all new motor vehicles. Therefore, any motor vehicle manufacturer that installs your "HOOD LOCKER" as original equipment in its vehicles must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 302, with the "HOOD LOCKER" installed. However, Standard No. 302 does not apply to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment, as your "HOOD LOCKER" appears to be. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with Standard No. 302 before offering it for sale. Parenthetically, I note that your observation is correct that Standard No. 302 applies only to materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles, and not to materials used in an engine compartment that is separated from the occupant compartment. However, there are other statutory requirements that may affect this product. First, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as this "HOOD LOCKER" are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either the equipment manufacturer or this agency were to determine that the "HOOD LOCKER" contained such a defect, the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge to the purchasers. Second, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative" devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation, the above-named parties should examine the proposed installation instructions for the "HOOD LOCKER" and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the "HOOD LOCKER" in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The most relevant safety standards would seem to be Standards No. 113, Hood Latch System, and 302. If the installation of the "HOOD LOCKER" would not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the "HOOD LOCKER" can be installed by dealers, distributors, and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements. I trust that we have been responsive to your questions. For your information, I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and information on how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure /ref:VSA#302 d:3/22/90 |
1990 |
ID: 23451Open Mr. Chris Tinto Dear Mr. Tinto: This responds to your letter concerning S9.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). Standard No. 225 requires vehicles to have child restraint anchorage systems meeting configuration and other requirements of the standard. S9.1.1 specifies that the lower anchorages "consist of two bars" that, among other things, are not less than 25 mm, and not more than 40 mm in length (1) You ask about forming the two lower anchorages by bending two bar segments from one continuous rod. Your letter is the second from you relating to such a method. Your first was a March 19, 2001, letter (see docket NHTSA-01-10302-2) asking about forming two bar segments that were approximately 35 mm long and that protruded 67 mm from the rest of the rod. In a July 30, 2001, letter (NHTSA-01-10302-1), we responded: because the bars protrude 67 mm from the main portion of the rod and the part of the rod between the two bars would be in the seat bight and not visible to the consumer, two distinct bars are presented to consumers. A consumer is not likely to be confused about where a child restraint should be attached.We could have concluded otherwise had the bars not protruded 67 mm (or some other substantial distance) from the rest of the rod. For example, if they protruded only 10 mm from the rest of the rod, it would not be apparent that two bars are present. An anchorage system with such a design would not meet S9.1.1 of the standard. You now ask about bar segments that protrude only about 15 mm from the rest of the rod. Further, the bar segments are gradually ramped from the main portion of the bar. You state: the rod is bent such that there are 19 degree angled portions of the rod between the rear portion of the rod and the bar segments and 23 degree angled portions of the rod between the edges of the rod and the bar segments [Figure 2]. These angled portions of the rod create ramps, such that even if a parent incorrectly attaches the child restraint's soft anchors onto the rod instead of the bar segment, as the parent tightens the soft anchors, they will self correct and slide onto the bar segments (the 31.5 mm bar segments in Figure 1 and Figure 2). Issue Presented The issue you present is whether your lower anchorages consist of two bars meeting the configuration requirements of S9.1.1. One of the purposes of requiring the lower anchorages to consist of two bars and to meet configuration requirements is to standardize the design of the anchorage system, in part to avoid consumer confusion as to where a child restraint should be attached. If the bars were not distinct, consumers may attach a child restraint improperly, e.g., to a part of the seat that was not intended for anchoring a child restraint. The configuration requirements also ensure the universal attachment of all child restraints to anchorages in any vehicle. Your design raises two questions. First is whether your anchorages consist of two bars, i.e., whether components extraneous to the bars are permitted, such as the straight portion of the rod between the bars. Our answer is no, in that only the bars can be visible to the consumer, and not the extraneous components. This is to standardize, to the extent possible, the design of anchorage systems. The two bar segments of your current design protrude only 15 mm from the rest of the rod. This is a much shorter distance than the 67 mm protrusion of the design described in your March letter. We will evaluate whether the portion of the rod between the segments is visible when the vehicle seats are adjusted according to the specifications in S10(a) of Standard No. 225. S10(a) specifies that the seats are adjusted to their full rearward and full downward position, and the seat backs are adjusted to their most upright position. (2) The second question involves whether the two bar segments are "straight, horizontal and transverse" (S9.1.1(b)), and "are not less than 25 mm, but not more than 40 mm in length" (S9.1.1(c)). This question relates to the ramped angles forming the bars. Unlike your earlier design, the bars are not distinctly attached to segments that protrude 90 degrees from the rod. Instead, they are gradually ramped 19 and 23 degrees from the rod, and the apex of the protrusion is a straight, horizontal, portion that is 31.5 mm in length. You intend for the portion of the rod forming the apex to be the "bar" that meets the requirements of S9.1.1, and not the portion of the rod that angles from the straight part of the rod. Your design is permitted. Standard No. 225 does not require the two bars to be mounted on segments that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. However, we are concerned that consumers might attach the restraint to the ramped portion of the bars. While you believe that a soft anchor will "self correct" and slide onto the straight part of the bar when the parent tightens the webbing attachment, some parents might not tighten the soft attachment as they should. Further, future child restraint anchor attachments might consist of "hard" attachments in addition to soft ones. For these reasons, we recommend that the vehicle be clearly marked as to where the child restraint attachment should be properly anchored. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:225
1 The agency has received petitions for reconsideration asking that the maximum limit of 40 mm be deleted or increased to 50 mm. See Docket No. 98-3390, Notice 2. NHTSA's response to the petitions is pending. 2 When the Static Force Application Device (SFAD) 2 is used in testing and cannot be attached to the lower anchorages with the seat back in this position, S10(a) specifies that the seat back is adjusted as recommended by the manufacturer in its instructions for attaching child restraints. If no instructions are provided, the seat back is adjusted to the position closest to the upright position that enables SFAD 2 to attach to the lower anchorages. |
2002 |
ID: 2345yOpen Mr. Kent D. Smith Dear Mr. Smith: This is in reply to your letter of January 26, l990, to the agency with respect to a safety lighting device. You have asked for our recommendations regarding this invention. The problem addressed by your invention is "that vehicles need some way of signaling following drivers if the headlamps of their vehicles are blinding you." Your solution is to install a button that activates the backup lamps and extinguishes them in a matter of a second or less. One alternative would be to operate only a single backup lamp, and another, to activate only the license plate lamp. This would provide a warning to the following driver. The agency is concerned with glare, but its investigation of the phenomenon indicates that there are two types: discomfort glare, and disabling glare. Although it is certainly an annoyance, the glare produced by a headlamp shining into a rear view mirror is discomfort glare. In our judgment, a vehicle driver looking into the mirror will not suffer disabling glare so that he is unable to discern vehicles approaching, or pedestrians in the roadway; most vehicles are equipped with manual "day/night" mirrors which may be easily operated in the event of discomfort. Equipment manufacturers have already addressed the problem by providing rear-view mirrors that have a photoelectric cell that dips them when a certain level of light intensity is reached. In summary, the agency does not believe that there is a nationwide safety problem requiring it to mandate the use of your device on motor vehicles as new vehicle equipment. As an aftermarket item which a dealer could offer a new-car purchaser, its installation would be subject to the general prohibition in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 that supplemental lighting devices shall not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. l08 requires. The question to be answered, therefore, is whether the device would impair the effectiveness of the backup lamps, or other rear lighting devices. The problem here is the necessity of rear lighting devices to provide clear and unambiguous signals and messages to following drivers. Anytime a lighting device does not provide a cue to which a following driver is accustomed, the potential for confusion arises. The driving public is unfamiliar with the sudden, though temporary, activation of the backup lamp, at normal driving speeds, or a modification in intensity of the license plate lamp. Without a substantial nationwide public education campaign, the signal imparted by your device is not likely to be understood by a following driver, and might distract him from the signals of the other rear lighting devices. In this sense, we believe that your device might impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. l08 does allow. You have also noted the State prohibitions against use of backup lamps when the car is going in a forward direction. Even if the agency concluded that the device was permissible and would not cause impairment, the States are not precluded from enacting and enforcing their own standards on the use of lighting systems. You may be interested to know that two letters to the Editor of The New York Times have appeared on this issue in the last month which suggest the use of existing lighting equipment to signal following drivers that their upper beams are on. I enclose these letters for your consideration. I am sorry that we cannot be more encouraging in our remarks, but we do appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure /ref: 108 d:3/22/90 |
1990 |
ID: 2346yOpen Mr. R.M. Cooper Dear Mr. Cooper: This responds to your letter asking this agency to consider a problem your company faces with respect to Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). More specifically, you asked how some of your buses could be certified as complying with the emergency exit labeling requirements set forth in Standard 217 for buses other than school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. Paragraph S5.5.1 of Standard 217 provides that, in buses other than school buses, each push-out window or other emergency exit shall have the designation "Emergency Exit" followed by concise operating instructions, describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit, located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. The purpose of this requirement is to identify for bus occupants the location and explain the use of specially-installed emergency exits. As I understand your letter, you have no difficulties providing appropriate instructions in the specified location. Paragraph S5.5.1 continues with the following language: When a release mechanism is not located within an occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label...that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within the occupant space. The terms "adjacent seat" and "occupant space" are defined in S4 of Standard 217 as follows: "Adjacent seat" means a designated seating position located so that some portion of its occupant space is not more than 10 inches from an emergency exit, for a distance of at least 15 inches measured horizontally and parallel to the exit. "Occupant space" means the space directly above the seat and footwell, bounded vertically by the ceiling and horizontally by the normally positioned seat back and the nearest obstruction of occupant motion in the direction the seat faces. You stated that many of your buses have seats that face the aisle and that back up against windows designated as emergency exits. These aisle-facing seats are "adjacent seats" with respect to the emergency exits. The release mechanism for the emergency exit is not within the "occupant space" for these aisle-facing seats, since the release mechanisms are behind, not above, these seats. You enclosed a group of photographs to further illustrate this situation. Since the release mechanism for the emergency exit is not within the occupant space of these adjacent aisle-facing seats, paragraph S5.5.1 of Standard 217 requires a label indicating the location of the release mechanism for the emergency exit to be placed within the occupant space for these seats. You have noted that the occupant space for these seats does not include any place to which this label could be attached. The nearest obstruction of occupant motion in the direction the aisle-facing seats face is the aisle facing seat on the opposite side of the bus. There are no intervening objects other than narrow vertical stanchions in the center of the aisle. Additionally, you suggested that placing the label on the floor or ceiling of the bus would not serve the purposes of this requirement, since those locations would not be readily visible to the seated occupant in an emergency situation. In response to your letter, we have carefully considered the labeling requirements of S5.5.1 as they apply to aisle-facing seats in front of windows that serve as emergency exits. The final rule adopting this additional labeling requirement explained that NHTSA was concerned that an occupant of an adjacent seat might hinder egress through an emergency exit if the occupant did not know how to use the emergency exit. See 37 FR 9394, at 9395; May 10, 1972. In instances in which the release mechanism itself is not within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label within the occupant space directing the occupant of the seat to the emergency exit instructions will help reduce the likelihood that the occupants would inadvertently obstruct egress through the emergency exits. NHTSA's goal of minimizing the likelihood of inadvertent obstruction of emergency exits is equally applicable to forward-facing and aisle-facing seats. However, the means of achieving that goal (i.e., placing a label within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, if the release mechanism is not within that occupant space) may not be equally successful for forward-facing and aisle-facing seats. The agency did not focus upon aisle-facing seats when it adopted this labeling requirement. With respect to forward-facing seats, it is relatively simple to locate a label within the occupant space that will be readily visible both to seated occupants and to persons standing in the aisle, as required by S5.5.2. However, with respect to aisle-facing seats, there may not be any location within the occupant space of such seats where a label could be placed so that the label would be visible to occupants of the seat and to persons standing in the aisle. If the labels were not visible in an emergency, such labels would not further NHTSA's goal of minimizing inadvertent obstruction of emergency exits. Accordingly, we plan to issue a notice proposing to amend and clarify the requirements of S5.5.1 of Standard 217 as they apply to aisle-facing seats. Please note that, unless and until a final rule amending S5.5.1 of Standard 217 becomes effective, the current requirements of S5.5.1 remain in effect for aisle-facing seats. However, the agency believes that it would be inappropriate at this time to enforce the requirement in S5.5.1 that additional information be labeled within the occupant space of aisle-facing seats given the uncertainty that such labels will serve the purpose for which the labeling requirements were established, as noted above. Accordingly, until the agency makes a final decision on the proposed rulemaking mentioned above, NHTSA will not take any enforcement actions against bus manufacturers that do not place a label indicating the location of the nearest emergency exit release mechanism within the occupant space of adjacent aisle-facing seats. Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:217 d:3/20/90 |
1990 |