NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: 11294Open Ms. Rita Cola Carroll Dear Ms. Carroll: This responds to your question whether a child sitting on a school bus seat with part of his body extending into the aisle, is afforded the compartmentalization protection of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. We have addressed this issue in an October 26, 1994, letter to Ms. Debra Platt of Stuart, Florida, and have enclosed a copy of our response for your information. In the Platt letter, NHTSA agrees that it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, rather than face forward. We are enclosing a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, which is referenced in the Platt letter. Guideline 17 uses specific wording with regard to seating of school children. It says: "Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat intended by the vehicle's manufacturer to provide accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.208." We are also enclosing a copy of a report prepared by this agency entitled School Bus Safety Report, and a copy of a Report Summary prepared by the Transportation Research Board in May 1989. The latter two reports give a good overview of school bus safety issues, and they and Guideline 17 contain recommendations to the various states in developing their own pupil transportation safety programs. As noted in the Platt letter, since the States regulate school bus use, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Pennsylvania Governor's highway safety representative is: Mr. Michael Ryan Governor's Highway Safety Representative Deputy Secretary Highway Safety Administration Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1220 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Telephone: (717) 787-6815 I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:222 d:11/21/95
|
1995 |
ID: 571.108--Convertible CHMSL Beam Angle--MagnaOpenApril 3, 2023 Doris C. Schaller Homologation Magna Steyr Engineering AG & Co KG Liebenauer Hauptstrasse 317 8041 Graz Austria Dear Ms. Schaller: This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the permissibility, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, of two proposed variants for mounting the center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) on a soft top convertible. Based on the information you provided in your letter, as explained in more detail below, we have concluded that mounting the CHMSL on the “service lid” is permissible under FMVSS No. 108, whereas mounting the CHMSL on the “soft top cover” is not. Background FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Paragraph S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 contains requirements for the mounting location of all required lamps, including CHMSLs, and states specifically that: Each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair, within the mounting location and height limits as specified in Table 1, and in a location where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all obstructions considered. You ask how S6.1.3.1 applies to two possible lighting design variations. Although you ask that certain information in your interpretation request be treated as confidential, we do not need to reveal or reference the information other than in general descriptive terms in order to answer your questions. What follows is our interpretation based on our understanding of the facts you provided. Variant 1: CHMSL mounted on the “service lid” You state that you believe that a configuration in which the CHMSL is located on the vehicle’s service lid complies with the mounting location requirement in S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108. We agree. As noted above, S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 states that required lamps “must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair.” NHTSA believes that the service lid is “a rigid part of the vehicle,” based on the information that you have provided, which suggests that the service lid is similar (albeit adjacent) to a trunk lid. NHTSA has previously interpreted a vehicle’s “deck lid” (i.e., trunk lid) as a rigid part of the vehicle,[1] and while the service lid you describe is not a trunk lid, we believe that interpretation covers other similar lids on a vehicle, such as the service lid, that are solid and cannot be easily removed. Additionally, you expressly describe the service lid as “only [able to] be moved with special tools in qualified garages,” which is consistent with the “not designed to be removed except for repair” requirement. Therefore, so long as the CHMSL meets all photometric and other requirements, NHTSA believes that it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 to mount the CHMSL on the vehicle’s service lid. Variant 2: CHMSL mounted on the “soft top cover” Based on the information you have provided, this second variant is not permissible. As noted above, S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 states that a required lamp must be mounted “in a location where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all obstructions considered.” If there are obstructions that would cause the lamp to fail to meet photometric and visibility requirements, S6.2.2 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that “the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp or device of the same type which meet[s] all applicable requirements of this standard, including photometry and visibility.” In a past interpretation request, a vehicle manufacturer sought to install a CHMSL on a movable rear spoiler, such that it would occasionally not comply with the photometric requirements for CHMSLs. The manufacturer stated that it would employ an additional CHMSL that met the requirements when the “primary” CHMSL on the movable spoiler did not. NHTSA responded[2] that this approach to compliance would be permissible under what is now S6.2.23 of FMVSS No. 108, which states that “If any required lamp…is obstructed by motor vehicle equipment…, and cannot meet the applicable photometry and visibility requirements, the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp … which meet[s] all applicable requirements of the standard, including photometry and visibility.”4 The situation you describe, where the CHMSL on the soft top will occasionally not comply with FMVSS No. 108, is similar to the one described above, except that it does not appear that your vehicle is equipped with an auxiliary CHMSL. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that the “soft top cover” CHMSL mounting variant is not permissible under FMVSS No. 108. If you have further questions, you may refer them to Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Ann Carlson Chief Counsel Dated: 4/3/23 Ref: FMVSS No. 108 [1] See letter to M. Iwase (Sept. 15, 1988), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/2954o [2] Letter to Michael Love (July 7, 1992), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht92-528. 3 The original reference was to S5.3.1.1. |
2023 |
ID: 571.141 NCC-230601-001 Nagaraj-SuperhornOpenSeptember 13, 2023 Dear Mr. Nagaraj, This letter responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding compliance of a new horn function named “Superhorn” with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 141. Based on the information you provided, as explained in more detail below, we have concluded that Superhorn is permissible under FMVSS No. 141. Description of the Superhorn You state that Superhorn is a feature that plays a horn sound through the same system used for emitting the pedestrian alert sound; the vehicle would not be equipped with a traditional horn trumpet. In addition to being user-actuated, you state that Superhorn would resemble a traditional horn both in sound and loudness and would only be played for the duration of continuous horn control actuation (up to a maximum of a 60 seconds before the system times out). You further state that Superhorn is independent of the pedestrian alert system, and that the pedestrian alert system would be emitted alongside the Superhorn sound from the same speaker system. You acknowledge that the pedestrian alert sound may be masked to some extent by the horn when the horn is actuated. Background NHTSA established FMVSS No. 141 in 2016, pursuant to the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010 (PSEA).1 The standard sets minimum sound level requirements for hybrid and electric light vehicles operating at low speeds and aims to reduce injuries to pedestrians and other road users by increasing the detectability of hybrid and electric vehicles. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSS outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Discussion There are three requirements of FMVSS No. 141 pertinent to the analysis of the Superhorn. Sound performance requirements (S5.1 through S5.4) S5.1 through S5.4 describe performance characteristics related to measured volume and frequency bands of sounds emitted from covered vehicles. The volume and frequency requirements described in S5.1 through S5.4 are vehicle-level requirements; individual sounds such as horns, including the proposed Superhorn, are not required to independently meet those requirements.2 The performance requirements described in S5.1 through S5.4 are intended to measure the detectability of a vehicle during routine operation. Since the Superhorn is not automatically engaged during routine operation, the Superhorn may not be used to meet FMVSS No. 141’s minimum required sound levels.3 Sameness requirement (S5.5) S5.5 describes the “Sameness requirement,” which requires all vehicles of the same make, model and trim equipped with a pedestrian alert sound to emit the same set of sounds. NHTSA has previously explained that the Sameness requirement, which stems from the PSEA,4 only applies to sounds added to the vehicle for the purposes of complying with the standard.5 The agency believes that this interpretation is still appropriate. Requiring all sounds produced by non- pedestrian alert systems to be identical would be overly burdensome and would prevent certain optional equipment that could affect the sound of a vehicle from being offered for sale. Even though the Superhorn would be played through the same speaker system as the pedestrian alert system, according to your description it is not being added to meet volume and frequency requirements of FMVSS No. 141, and it is only active during horn control actuation. Therefore, Superhorn is not subject to the Sameness requirement. Prohibition on altering the sound of a covered vehicle (S8(b)) S8(b) prohibits providing “any mechanism, equipment, process, or device intended to disable, alter, replace, or modify the sound emitting capability of a vehicle subject to this standard, except in connection with a repair of vehicle malfunction or to remedy a defect or non-compliance.” S8(b) is derived from a similar provision in the PSEA.6 In proposing S8(b), NHTSA described the intention of the provision as “to avoid the situation where vehicle sounds are changed, at the request of the consumer, to something individualized and no longer associated with the specific make/model of motor vehicle, or indeed even recognizable as a motor vehicle at all.”7 NHTSA reaffirmed this position in response to a petition for reconsideration, stating that S8 is intended to prevent access to vehicle features that could modify or adjust the emitted sound or render it noncompliant.8 As a practical matter, NHTSA has not applied S8(b) to other vehicle devices or mechanisms such as traditional horns or audio systems, even though these systems have the potential to alter the sound produced by vehicles and how they are perceived by pedestrians. NHTSA views S8(b) as preserving the integrity of the pedestrian alert system and, more generally, the vehicle’s detectability by pedestrians. Devices that directly touch upon the vehicle alert system, including a vehicle’s pedestrian alert speakers or audio file, receive a higher level of scrutiny. This is not to imply, however, that these are the only systems that may potentially run afoul of S8(b); devices or mechanisms that supersede or replace the pedestrian alert sound may also be found non-compliant. NHTSA believes that the Superhorn, as it is described in your correspondence, does not conflict with S8(b). From your description, the pedestrian alert would continue to play the same set of sounds unaltered and concurrent with the Superhorn for the duration of horn control actuation. As you noted, the Superhorn has the potential to mask the pedestrian alert, in much the same way as a traditional horn may mask a pedestrian alert. However, the pedestrian alert would be masked with a trumpet sound resembling the tone, pitch, and loudness of a traditional car horn and only while the Superhorn sounds. Trumpet horn sounds are distinctive and recognized as a warning to pedestrians and other road users of an imminent hazard such as a vehicle collision. NHTSA notes that this interpretation is based on the description of the Superhorn you provided. If the Superhorn’s performance varies in any way materially from the description you provided, this interpretation will no longer be applicable. For example, if the Superhorn played in the absence of continuous horn control actuation, played for a longer duration, played a sound that made vehicles less identifiable as a vehicle, or disabled the pedestrian alert sound, then the feature would likely be deemed a device that alters, disables, or replaces the pedestrian alert in contravention of S8(b) or a pedestrian alert subject to the Sameness requirement in S5.5. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Connet of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-5547.
Sincerely,
John Donaldson
1 Pub. L. No. 111-373, 141 Stat. 4086 (Jan. 4, 2011). 2 Hybrid and electric vehicles are not required to have a dedicated pedestrian alert sound; vehicles that produce sufficient sound to meet the performance requirements described by S5.1-S5.4 may satisfy the requirements of FMVSS no. 141 without a dedicated alert system. See 81 FR 90416, 90450 (Dec. 14, 2016). 6 See PSEA § 3(2).
Dated: 9/13/23 Ref: Standard No. 141 |
2023 |
ID: 571.108--NCC-230201-001 LED Headlights_ M. BakerOpenFebruary 13, 2024 Mr. Mark Baker, B.S.E.E. Soft Lights 9450 SW Gemini Drive PMB 44671 Beaverton, OR 97008 mbaker@softlights.org Dear Mr. Baker: This responds to your letter and email dated June 27, 2021 and October 31, 2021, respectively, regarding the legal status and safety of motor vehicle headlamps that use light-emitting diode (LED) technology as the light source. Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your letter and email. You ask about the “legality of LED headlights.” You state your belief that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 does not regulate “peak luminance, absolute spectral power distribution or flicker” and that the standard “only applies to spherical emitters such as tungsten- filament and gas-discharge and is not applicable to non-uniform luminance flat-source emitters such as LED chips.” You ask whether it is “NHTSA’s position that FMVSS No. 108 is only applicable to uniform luminance emitters which can be regulated by setting maximums for luminous intensity without the need of setting peak luminance maximums” and whether “NHTSA [has] approved the use of spatially heterogeneous visible radiation for use as the light source used in vehicle headlights.” You state your concerns about adverse health impacts due to the performance characteristics of LEDs, such as high peak luminance, high-color temperature, high-energy blue wavelength light, and flicker. You request NHTSA’s opinion about the “sufficiency” of FMVSS No. 108 regarding these health concerns. We understand you to use “uniform luminance emitters” to refer to filament (halogen/tungsten) and high-intensity discharge (HID) light sources, and “non-uniform” or “heterogenous emitter” to refer to LED light sources. We therefore understand you to be asking whether LEDs are legal as a light source in motor vehicle headlamps under FMVSS No. 108, and, if they are legal, what is NHTSA’s position on the safety of LED light sources in headlamps with respect to “eye safety, mental safety, and visual performance.” Background NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. FMVSS No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment,” applies to “[p]assenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles” and covers, among other things, “original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment” for motor vehicles. The standard specifies performance requirements for headlamps. The most common types of headlamps are integral beam (S10.14) and replaceable bulb (S10.15, S11) headlamps. NHTSA has stated that LED light sources are permitted as part of an integral beam headlamp if they are wired in series such that a failure of one LED would cause all the LEDs to cease functioning, and they otherwise comply with all relevant FMVSS.1 Paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 108 defines an integral beam headlamp as “a headlamp … comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, except that a headlamp conforming to paragraph S10.18.8 or paragraph S10.18.9 may have a lens designed to be replaceable.” The standard does not contain performance requirements for a light source that is part of an integral beam headlamp, but instead specifies performance requirements for the complete headlamp. These include (among other things) photometry, through minimum and maximum candela at specified test points,2 color, which must remain within specified boundaries,3 and that the headlamp be steady burning.4 While LED light sources that are part of an integral beam headlamp are permitted as noted above, no LED light source is currently permitted to be used in a replaceable bulb headlamp. FMVSS No. 108 contains specific requirements for the replaceable light sources (i.e., bulbs) used in replaceable bulb headlamps. These requirements are intended to support light source interchangeability. Paragraph S11 of the standard requires that “[e]ach replaceable light source must be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to part 564 of this chapter[.]”5 Part 564 requires that replaceable bulb manufacturers submit to NHTSA for review and acceptance various design specifications for the bulb. If accepted, this design information is then placed in a publicly available docket to facilitate the manufacture and use of those light sources. As of the date of this letter, no submission that includes LEDs as the light source for a replaceable bulb headlamp has been listed in the docket. Therefore, no LED replaceable light source may be used in a replaceable bulb headlamp. Discussion Pursuant to FMVSS No. 108, paragraphs S4 and S10.14, LEDs are allowed to be used as a light source in integral beam headlamps as long as the headlamp conforms to all applicable headlamp requirements in FMVSS No. 108. However, LEDs are not currently permitted in a replaceable bulb headlamp. Nevertheless, illegal LED headlamp replaceable light sources may be available for purchase on the internet, and although these lights do not conform to the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, some consumers purchase and install these LED light sources in their replaceable bulb headlamps. While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of light sources, it generally does not regulate the modifications individuals make to their own vehicles. It is therefore left to State law to address installation of an LED replaceable light source in a headlamp. FMVSS No. 108 does not directly regulate what you describe as peak luminance as measured in nits or the spectral power distribution of the headlamp light source. However, this is indirectly regulated through the headlamp performance requirements, such as the photometry and chromaticity requirements. Additionally, flicker is regulated through the requirement that lower beam headlamps be steady burning. We also note that, although FMVSS No. 108 requires that the light emitted by headlamps be white, the permissible boundary of white includes colors that may be perceived by the human eye as white with a yellow tint and white with a blue tint.6 In your communications, you raise concerns about the health impacts of LED headlamps. We are aware of concerns raised about possible adverse effects of certain LED devices, particularly as used in street lighting that emits excess blue light.7 NHTSA’s focus is on automotive safety, but the agency recognizes that separate expertise resides in sister agencies that are health-focused, such as the Food and Drug Administration. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Donaldson
2 Photometry requirements for headlamp systems can be found in FMVSS No. 108, Tables XVIII and XIX. 3 See FMVSS No. 108, Table I-a (headlamp color). Chromaticity requirements are pursuant to FMVSS No. 108 S14.4. 4See FMVSS No. 108 Tables I-(a and c). NHTSA has stated that “steady burning” means “light that is essentially unvarying in intensity.” See Letter from Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to United Sidecar Association, Inc. (Feb. 9, 1982). A device may fail to meet this requirement where the driver “would not see a signal that was consistent or reliable in its meaning.” See Letter from Paul Jackson Rice, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Bob Abernathy, Idea’s Inc. (Sept. 7, 1990) (applying steady burning in a taillamps context). In the context of a modulating motorcycle headlamp, we have stated that “there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be a steady beam.” Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Joe De Sousa (March 10, 1994). 5 See Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Nancy Tavarez, Beitrix Industries (Aug. 30, 1995) (clarifying application of Part 564 to replaceable headlamp bulbs). 6 Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, NHTSA, to Richard Hodson, (July 4, 2000) (stating that “SAE J578c defines white by blue, yellow, green, red, and purple boundaries within a chromaticity diagram. Thus, it is possible to design a headlamp that emits a light that approaches the blue boundary and is perceived as having a blue tint but which nevertheless remains within the boundaries that define "white." These headlamps would comply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108.”). 7 See “AMA adopts guidance to reduce harm from high intensity street lights,” American Medical Association, June 14, 2016, available at https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-adopts-guidance-reduce-harm-high- intensity-street-lights. |
2024 |
ID: NCC-200810-001-HMSL Hazard Lamp - RostraOpenMarch 5, 2024 Mr. Peter Kallgren Vice President, Sales & Marketing Rostra Precision Controls, Inc. 2519 Dana Drive Laurinburg, NC 28352
Dear Mr. Kallgren, This responds to your company’s request for interpretation regarding whether a replacement center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) intended to be installed on a truck cap is permitted to flash when a vehicle’s hazard lamps are activated. As we explain below, it is our view that it would not be permissible for the CHMSL to flash as a supplemental hazard warning lamp because our regulations require that a CHMSL be steady burning when activated. We respond to your question in more detail below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and NHTSA does not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following represents NHTSA’s opinion regarding the applicability of FMVSS No. 108 requirements to your proposed CHMSL, based on the information you have provided. Under 49 U.S.C. 30122, a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or repair business generally may not knowingly “make inoperative” any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. You ask specifically about a CHMSL that would be a supplement to the existing one. This additional lamp is made necessary because, without one, a truck cap installed by your company would “make inoperative” the existing CHMSL by creating an obstruction or blockage. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. The standard contains a number of specific requirements for certain lamps, such as headlamps, turn signal lamps, and high-mounted stop lamps, among others. In order to not “make inoperative” the required CHMSL, the lamp you propose to mount on the truck cap to avoid the obstruction would need to meet all the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 that apply to the original CHMSL. A CHMSL, by definition under paragraph S4, is expected to be steady burning, and it is also expressly required to be steady burning by paragraph S6.1.5, Activation, which states in relevant part that “Each lamp must be activated as specified … in response to the inputs specified in Table I ….” Table I-A, in turn, requires high mounted stop lamps to be “steady burning” and to “be activated only upon application of the service brakes or [ ] be activated by a device designed to retard the motion of the vehicle.” You describe a situation in which a CHMSL mounted on a truck cap is wired into a vehicle’s signal lighting system in a manner that causes the CHMSL to flash with the turn signals when the vehicle’s hazard warning system is activated. Accordingly, you ask whether it is permissible for the CHMSL to be considered a supplemental hazard lamp that flashes when the vehicle’s hazard warning system is activated. Because FMVSS No. 108 requires a CHMSL to be steady burning, as explained above, a CHMSL that flashes would not comply and would fail to prevent the cap obstruction from rendering inoperative the CHMSL required by FMVSS No. 108. The fact that hazard warning lamps have been activated does not change the requirement that the CHMSL be steady burning, and FMVSS No. 108 does not permit a CHMSL to cease to function as a CHMSL and begin to function as a supplemental hazard warning lamp simply because the hazard warning system is activated. This is consistent with past NHTSA interpretations, where the agency stated that “causing the center high-mounted stop lamp to flash would not change the center lamp into a ‘hazard warning lamp’ within the meaning of Standard No. 108.”1 If you have further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Donaldson Acting Chief Counsel
1 Letter to Randy I. McClanahan (April 2, 1996), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/11610ztv. Dated: 3/5/24 Ref: Standard No. 108 |
2024 |
ID: NCC-230816-001 Antolin Sun VisorOpenMay 17, 2024 Dr. Enrique Curiel Sanz Dr. Curiel Sanz, This responds to your email to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the standards that sun visors must meet under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Your question concerns evaluation of sun visors, specifically how NHTSA determines if the sun visor is covered in an energy absorbing material. Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email. Background NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. In your July 19, 2023 message, you asked about the evaluation criteria for sun visors. Specifically, you asked whether sun visors are tested with a pendulum to determine if they are made of an energy absorbing material, and if so, which criteria are used to determine whether the sun visor passes or fails the test. On July 24, 2023, NHTSA responded to your message, indicating that the sun visor requirements in FMVSS No. 201 require that the visor be constructed of or covered with energy absorbing material and that each sun visor mounting present no rigid material edge radius of less than 3.2 mm that is statically contractable by a spherical 165 mm diameter head form. Thereafter, you requested clarification as to how a manufacturer may confirm that a visor’s material meets the definition of “energy-absorbing,” such as material composition or testing under impact conditions. Discussion As explained, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Given 1 49 U.S.C. 30115. Page 2 Dr. Enrique Curiel Sanz this “self-certification” regime, NHTSA does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS. Manufacturers may not certify a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment if, “in exercising reasonable care, [they have] reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect.” FMVSS No. 201, “Occupant protection in interior impact,”3 establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. Paragraph S5.4 of the standard requires that sun visors be “constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material” and that the visor’s mounting must “present no rigid material edge radius of less than 3.2 mm that is statically contactable by a spherical 165 mm head form.” The purpose of this requirement is to reduce the injuries that occur when occupants strike the visor or visor mounting with their heads. The standard does not further define “energy-absorbing.” Moreover, neither the standard nor NHTSA’s own test procedure4 provides a performance-based or material definition of energy-absorbing, or a test for measuring the energy-absorption capability of sun visor material. Further, the laboratory test procedure for assuring compliance with the standard requires only that the sun visor be made of an energy-absorbing material; no further guidance is provided. Therefore, the responsibility is with the manufacturer to self-certify that the material from which sun visors are constructed or with which they are covered is energy-absorbing to meet the requirements of this standard. In so doing, please note that in addition to meeting the S5.4 requirements, S4.2 dictates that vehicles must also comply with the requirements of S6. S6.1.4.2 in turn requires that new vehicles meet the performance standards set forth in S7. Therefore, in addition to the requirement that sun visors be constructed of or covered in an energy absorbing material, manufacturers of sun visors must construct them in such a manner as to ensure compliance with the performance standard of S7 when installed in a vehicle. Compliance with S7 will ensure that the sun visors meet the performance standard, which is what NHTSA requires, along with ensuring that all components are free of safety defects. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Terrence Sommers of my staff at the address above or at (202) 366-7577. Sincerely, 2 Id. Dated: 5/17/24 |
2024 |
ID: 571.108 School Bus Focused Illuminated Projection Lanyon NCC-230125-001OpenMarch 21, 2023 Mr. Bobby Lanyon Dear Mr. Lanyon, This letter responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) allow, but not mandate, your company’s product, the “Focused Illuminated Projection” system, for application on school buses under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices. Your request was referred to my office to determine whether the feature you describe is allowed under existing FMVSSs. While you asked for an amendment to FMVSS No. 131, we believe it is appropriate to consider whether your product would be permitted as an auxiliary lighting device under FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Based on the information you have provided, our answer is that your device is permissible under FMVSS No. 108 for the reasons explained below. By way of background, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture before the products can be offered for sale. Manufacturers must also ensure their products are free of safety-related defects. This letter represents NHTSA’s opinion concerning whether your product, as you describe it, would be permitted under FMVSS No. 108. It is not an approval of your product, nor is it an endorsement of the safety claims made in your interpretation request. Under FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1, non-required additional lamps are prohibited on new 1 Letter to Michael Haas (May 6, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20HDC%20Supplemental%20Turning%20Lamps%20--%20HAAS%20--%2015-4155.htm. Page 2 Description of the “Focused Illuminated Projection” system Your letter describes the system as a “low technology, high reliability solution designed and implemented to re-enforce the explicit and implied scope (S1) and Purpose (S2) of Section 571.131 by statically illuminating the 10ft stopping threshold” onto the roadway in front of and behind a school bus during a school bus stop. AIG also describes it as creating an “illuminated crosswalk” for students. The system consists of red LED lights mounted onto the front and rear of the bus adjacent to or below the signal warning lamps above the front windshield or rear window. It projects a red line onto the road 10 feet in front of and behind the bus. It is controlled by the “same electrical relay that illuminates” the lamps on the stop signal arm. We assume, for the purposes of this interpretation, that this device only activates when the vehicle is stopped and is in a loading/unloading state, when the stop arm is also activated or the door is open. Discussion FMVSS No. 108 requires that school buses be equipped with a system of two red signal lamps, and optionally two amber signal lamps, installed at both the top front and top rear. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. We have previously stated that auxiliary lamps can impair the effectiveness of required lighting in four ways: brightness, activation pattern, color, and mounting location.2 Brightness will cause impairment if the additional lamp is so bright as to obscure or distract from required lighting. Based on the photographs provided in your submission, it does not appear that your device would cause impairment of a school bus’s required lighting due to brightness. Additionally, because your device is a projection system, brightness concerns, particularly at a distance, are mitigated by the ability to apply a shade to the device to ensure that only the projected image is visible. Regarding activation pattern, FMVSS No. 108 requires all auxiliary lamps, with the exception of certain specified types of lamps such as turn signal lamps, to be steady burning.3 You state that the “Focused Illuminated Projection” is “statically illuminating” 2 Letter to Paul Schaye (September 9, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20AMA%20--%20Schaye--front%20color%20changing%20light.htm. Page 3 the stopping threshold in front of and behind the bus, which we understand to mean that the device is steady burning. Therefore, your device’s activation pattern is unlikely to distract other road users from the required lighting and will not impair the effectiveness of the vehicle’s required lighting due to activation pattern. Regarding color, NHTSA has stated that impairment concerns prohibit the use of lamps of colors that are likely to cause confusion to other road users.4 For example, NHTSA has previously stated that red lamps placed on the front of non-school-bus vehicles impair the effectiveness of lighting required under FMVSS No. 108 because drivers understand red to mean stop and those lamps can be confused with stop lamps.5 However, this is not necessarily the case with school buses because they are required to have red signal warning lamps on the front of their cabs. Here, the question is whether your device would impair a school bus’s required lighting, in particular the red signal warning lamps that are required on the front and rear of school buses. The purpose of the signal warning lamp is to “identify a vehicle as a school bus and to inform other users of the highway that such vehicle is stopped on the highway to take on or discharge school children.”6 Your device is designed to increase the conspicuity of a stopped school bus and benefit that purpose. It supplements the signal warning lamp by activating only while the required red signal lamp is activated, which occurs when the bus is in a stopped and loading/unloading state. This matches the purpose of the red signal lighting. In addition, nearby drivers are likely to understand the red indicator to mean “stop” and “do not enter the projected zone,” which may further the purpose of the required signal lamps. Therefore, it is our opinion that it is unlikely to impair the effectiveness of lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 due to color. Regarding mounting location, lamps impair the effectiveness of required lighting under FMVSS No. 108 if they are mounted in locations that cause them to interfere with the ability of a vehicle’s required lamps to achieve their purpose.7 Generally, we have found that this requires auxiliary lighting to be mounted “far enough away” from other lamps that it does not impair their effectiveness.8 Although your device is mounted adjacent to or just below the signal warning lamps, your device’s mounting location is not likely to impair the signal warning lamps because your device is a projection system. At distance, especially if there is a shade on the device, other road users are unlikely to observe any interference with the signal lamp. Previously, we have found that certain auxiliary stop signal lamps on school buses were likely to impair the effectiveness of required lighting under FMVSS No. 108. For example, we found the ALLSTOP system, a red flashing light affixed to the roof of a 4 Letter to Paul Schaye (September 9, 2019), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20AMA%20--%20Schaye--front%20color%20changing%20light.htm. Page 4 school bus that only activated when the school bus door was open, “would divert a With respect to the aftermarket, 49 U.S.C. 30122 has the effect of requiring that the installation of any aftermarket vehicle lamp, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, must not “make inoperative” any element of design or device installed on a vehicle in accordance with FMVSS No. 108. As with original equipment, we regard the addition of a projection lamp that is used in the way we understand your “Focused Illuminated Projection” system to operate not to make inoperative a vehicle’s original required lighting equipment. If you have further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Donaldson 9 Letter to J. Adam Krugh (May 22, 2003), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/002769drn.html. Dated: 3/21/23 |
2023 |
ID: NCC-220915-001 Speedometer Conformity Interp LetterOpenMarch 21, 2023 Chris Cowen Dear Mr. Cowen: This responds to your email to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting a determination as to whether certain vehicles imported into the United States from Canada comply with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) relating to speedometers. Specifically, you ask whether vehicles equipped with both an analog speedometer that displays only in kilometers per hour (km/h) and a multifunction display that is capable of displaying in miles per hour (MPH) if the driver selects that option would be permissible for importation into the United States without modification. Based on the requirements of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays, the answer is no. These vehicles do not conform to NHTSA’s requirements and thus are not eligible for importation without modification. Please note that our answer is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email. Background The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards and investigates alleged safety-related defects. Page 2 Of relevance to your request, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101 (49 CFR § 571.101), which primarily ensures the accessibility, visibility, and recognition of motor vehicle indicators, including speedometers, to reduce safety hazards caused by diversion of the driver’s attention. This standard specifies performance requirements for location, identification, color, and illumination of motor vehicle indicators. It applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Discussion The questions inherent in your request, as we understand it, are below:
Regarding the first question, paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 101 defines an indicator as “a device that shows the magnitude of the physical characteristics that the instrument is designed to sense.” Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101 specifies that speedometers are, in fact, indicators. Regarding the second question, paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 101 states that all covered vehicles fitted with indicators listed in Table 1 must meet the requirements for the location, identification, color, and illumination of those indicators. Based on our review of the photographs you provided, the speedometers at issue appear to satisfy the requirements for location and color, in accordance with paragraph S5.1 “Location” and paragraph S5.4 “Color.” We now turn to the identification requirement. Table 1 specifies that speedometers must be identified with units of measurement, using either “MPH” or “MPH and km/h.” You provided pictures of two speedometers: an analog gauge displaying only metric units (km/h) and a digital display that allows the driver to select U.S. customary units (MPH). The analog gauge clearly does not meet the identification requirement of Table 1 because it is marked only in km/h. Next, we consider whether the digital display, defined as a multi-task display in paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 101, meets the requirement. A multi task display is a display on which more than one message can be shown simultaneously. For example, the display here reportedly presents a layered menu of functions that the driver can change. If the driver selects the digital “MPH” display, the speedometer appears to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 101. If, however, the driver selects a different menu option (or no menu option), the speedometer no longer displays “MPH.” Therefore, the multi-task display, by itself, does not meet the identification requirement that “MPH” always be displayed, and in the absence of an analog speedometer that displays MPH, this vehicle would not be compliant with FMVSS No. 101. We have not evaluated the “illumination” requirement, as your correspondence does not provide sufficient information to allow us to do so. Page 3 In sum, an indicator, including a speedometer, must meet all requirements of FMVSS No. 101. For the reasons enumerated above, the requirements of the FMVSS are not met and the vehicles are noncompliant. Therefore, vehicles containing these instruments are not eligible for importation into the United States without modification. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Terrence Sommers of my staff at this address or at terrence.sommers@dot.gov. Sincerely, John Donaldson Dated: 3/23/23 |
2023 |
ID: Interpretation-ElectraMeccanica-May 22 2024OpenMay 22, 2024 Mr. Isaac Moss Dear Mr. Moss: This letter responds to your request, on behalf of the ElectraMeccanica Automotive USA, Inc., for guidance as to whether passenger car tires certified to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139 may be installed on new motorcycles. Your letter references a December 30, 1982 interpretation letter confirming that paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 120 permitted a motorcycle to be equipped with passenger tires certified as complying with FMVSS No. 109, as long as the tires were fitted to rims listed as suitable for use with the equipped tires, and as long as those rims met the marking requirements of FMVSS No. 120.1 You note that since this 1982 interpretation letter, FMVSS No. 120 has been revised. Although you do not note this in your letter, since 1982, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has substantially updated tire requirements and new passenger car tires are now required to meet FMVSS No. 139. You ask three questions in your letter, and I will address each in turn. First, you ask whether NHTSA can expand its December 30, 1982 interpretation letter to include passenger cars meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 139. I can confirm for you that FMVSS No. 120 allows new motorcycles to be equipped with tires certified to meet FMVSS No. 139. This is explicitly stated in paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 120. Second, you ask whether NHTSA can confirm that NHTSA would reference S4 of FMVSS No. 139, in lieu of the references to S4.4 of FMVSS No. 109 and S5.1 of FMVSS No. 119 1 Letter to Anonymous (Confidential) (Dec. 30, 1982), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/1982-337 Page 2 contained in S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 120. The answer to this question is yes. If tires certified to meet FMVSS No. 139 are installed on a new motorcycle, the tire manufacturer must list the rims as suitable for use with those tires in accordance with S4 of FMVSS No. 139. This requirement is consistent with the tire and rim matching information for tires certified with FMVSS Nos. 109 or 119. S4 of FMVSS No. 139, like S4.4 of FMVSS No. 109 and S5.1 of FMVSS No. 119, provides for disclosure of the rims that may be used with each tire a manufacturer produces. The tire’s manufacturer may make this disclosure either in a specific document provided to dealers of the manufacturers’ tires and to NHTSA, or in a yearbook published by one of several tire and rim standards organizations. Third, you ask whether NHTSA can provide guidance on whether compliance with FMVSS No. 110 is required in addition to FMVSS No. 120 when tires certified to meet FMVSS No. 139 are used on motorcycles. The answer to this question is no. FMVSS No. 110 is not applicable to motorcycles, even if tires meeting FMVSS No. 139 are installed on motorcycles. S2 of FMVSS No. 110 explicitly excludes motorcycles from the applicability of FMVSS No. 110. The only tire selection and rim standard applicable to motorcycles is in FMVSS No. 120. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Dated: 5/22/24 |
2024 |
ID: NCC-211019-002 Zorn VW EPB FMVSS 135 2024.05.31_InterpOpenMay 31, 2024 Mr. Thomas Zorn Vice President Vehicle Safety Office Volkswagen Group of America 2200 Woodland Pointe Ave. Herndon, VA 20171 Dear Mr. Zorn: This interpretation responds to your letter asking whether Volkswagen’s new Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) system complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, Light vehicle brake systems. Specifically, you asked (1) whether paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS No. 135 would permit an EPB system that uses a traditional friction brake combined with a mechanical drivetrain lock; and (2) whether Volkswagen may rely on the entire EPB system for compliance with the test set out in paragraph S7.12. Based on the information you have provided, our answer to both of your questions is yes. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide advance approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. In addition, in responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. Paragraph S5.2 of FMVSS No. 135 provides: “Each vehicle shall be equipped with a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement.” The term “parking brake” is defined in 49 C.F.R. Part 571.3(c) as “a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle.” Thus, a compliant parking brake must prevent movement of a stationary motor vehicle by means of friction. Additionally, the parking brake system must also have “solely mechanical means to retain engagement,” meaning it cannot be held in place by non-mechanical means such as fluid, air, or electricity. Paragraph S7.12.2 of FMVSS No. 135 describes NHTSA’s conditions and procedures for testing whether a parking brake system complies with our standard. The test procedures require a test conductor to, among other things, drive the vehicle onto a 20 percent grade, apply the Mr. Thomas Zorn Page 2 service brake with enough force to hold the vehicle stationary, shift the transmission into neutral, engage the parking brake system, and remove all force from the service brake. After the test conductor has taken the above steps, the vehicle must then remain stationary for five minutes. If the vehicle remains stationary for the required five minutes, the test conductor then repeats the test with the vehicle facing in the opposite direction on the grade. If the vehicle once again meets the stationary time requirement, and meets all other requirements in the paragraph, the parking brake system passes the compliance test. The EPB system described in your letter appears to be a parking brake of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement. You describe Volkswagen’s new EPB as a system that will “utilize a traditional friction brake combined with a mechanical lock that is automatically engaged in the vehicle drivetrain when the EPB is activated.” Based on this description, the system has a friction element combined with a mechanical drivetrain lock designed to hold the vehicle stationary. Additionally, based on the information provided in your letter, engagement of the friction element of the EPB is not retained by pneumatic or hydraulic means. To the best of our knowledge, the only ways to retain engagement of a friction type brake are by pneumatic, hydraulic, or mechanical means. Because your friction brake is not retained by pneumatic or hydraulic means, for the sake of this letter, we are assuming that engagement of the friction element of the EPB is retained by mechanical means.1 Applying that assumption, the Volkswagen EPB system described in your letter appears to meet the requirements of S5.2 of FMVSS No. 135. 2 You also state that Volkswagen intends to rely on the entire EPB system to demonstrate compliance with paragraph S7.12 and ask whether NHTSA would conduct its compliance tests similarly. In conducting compliance testing for parking brakes, NHTSA follows the testing procedures set out in S7.12, as described above. You state that the friction element and mechanical lock are “designed to operate together only, and cannot be engaged individually by the vehicle operator.” Additionally, you indicate that it would be impossible for Volkswagen’s EPB system to engage the friction brake exclusively without the mechanical lock engaging. The testing procedure specified in S7.12 does not mandate a parking brake system hold a vehicle stationary by exclusively friction means. Accordingly, if NHTSA conducted compliance testing on the EPB described in your letter, it would follow the procedures as written in S7.12. I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Matthew Filpi of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Dated: 5/31/24 |
2024 |