NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam4709OpenMr. Kent D. Smith 12249 S. 1565 E. Draper, UT 84020; Mr. Kent D. Smith 12249 S. 1565 E. Draper UT 84020; Dear Mr. Smith: This is in reply to your letter of January 26, l990, t 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. 108 that supplemental lighting devices shall not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 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. 108 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; |
|
ID: aiam3536OpenMr. E. L. Anderson, Project Engineer, Transportation Products Inc., P.O. Box 329, Suffern, NY 10901; Mr. E. L. Anderson Project Engineer Transportation Products Inc. P.O. Box 329 Suffern NY 10901; Dear Mr. Anderson: This responds to your February 18, 1982, letter asking for a interpretation of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. In particular, you question the requirement of section S5.3.3 which specifies that a continuous warning device shall sound when a school bus ignition is in the 'on' position and the release mechanism for an emergency door is not closed. You ask whether depressing the button on the outside of the door should activate the warning device.; The actual requirement of S5.3.3 states that the warning device must b audible when the *release mechanism* is not in the closed position. The release mechanism is that mechanism that keeps the door from opening. So, for example, if the outside button were depressed but the actual door latch did not open and the door would not itself open, it would not be necessary for the warning device to actuate. However, I assume that the outside button releases the latch which in turn allows the door to open. If this is the case, then at the moment that the latch is released, the warning device must be audible. If this did not occur, it would be possible that the door could be in an open position with the vehicle operating and without the knowledge of the occupants.; I hope that this resolves the question for you. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4359OpenMr. M. Iwase, Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg., Ltd., Shizuoka Works, 500, Kitawaki, Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka- ken, Japan; Mr. M. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi Shizuoka- ken Japan; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1987, asking two question with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.108; Your first question concerns an aiming adaptor for replaceable bul headlamps whose lenses may slant 60 degrees from the vertical or horizontal. You have discovered that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with these headlamps, and you propose to provide a special adaptor with each vehicle equipped with such headlamps, as well as aiming adjustment procedure information in the vehicle's service manual. You ask for confirmation of your belief that this is permissible under Standard No. 108.; Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provide with a motor vehicle, only that its headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that the adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an owner of a vehicle with the 60-degree headlamps may encounter difficulties of State inspection stations where mechanical aimers are in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim of headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the 60- degree headlamps.; Your second question concerns the legality of the upper aiming boss o a low profile headlamp. Because the height of the lens is insufficient to incorporate the upper aiming boss, you propose to place it on a flange of the lens in a 'photometrically ineffective area.' However, the flange is concealed when the hood is shut, and the hood must be opened in order for aiming adjustment to occur. You believe that this is acceptable under Standard No. 108. and ask for confirmation.; Paragraph S4.1.1.36 (a)(2) requires that 'the lens of each replaceabl bulb headlamp shall have three pads which meet the requirements of Figure 4....' Your drawing indicates that the flange is part of the headlamp lens even though that portion of the lens is not needed to provide illumination. Therefore this design would appear to meet the requirements of Figure 4 as you have concluded.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3166OpenMr. Bruce Henderson, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1002, Arlington, Virginia 22202; Mr. Bruce Henderson Automobile Importers of America Inc. 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 1002 Arlington Virginia 22202; Dear Mr. Henderson: #This is in response to your October 29, 1979 request for an interpretation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You asked whether vehicles equipped with space-saver spare tires must be tested for compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards with that spare tire actually used as one of the four tires mounted on the vehicle during the tests. Our interpretation is that the spare tire need not be used during those tests. #This agency does not currently require that a motor vehicle be equipped with a spare tire. If a spare tire is included with the vehicle, it must, of course, comply with all standards applicable to tires. #Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5118OpenMs. Joanna L. Campfield Vice President Ultra B-O-N-D, Inc. 11151 Pierce Street Riverside, CA 92505; Ms. Joanna L. Campfield Vice President Ultra B-O-N-D Inc. 11151 Pierce Street Riverside CA 92505; "Dear Ms. Campfield: This responds to your letter asking the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue an 'approval' letter for your method of repairing cracks in windshields. As explained below, this agency does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, this letter does discuss Federal safety requirements in connection with windshield repairs. By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205) which establishes performance and location requirements for glazing used in new motor vehicles and for all new replacement glazing for motor vehicles. Neither Standard No. 205 nor any other FMVSS establishes performance requirements for repair kits, such as the Ultra B-O-N-D method, used to repair cracks in broken glazing. However, use of such a material or process in a new windshield prior to the first consumer purchase which requires repair, for example, as a result of damage sustained in shipment would be affected by Standard No. 205. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. If a windshield is repaired prior to the new vehicle being sold for the first time to a consumer, the person making the repairs would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulations (Part 567). As an alterer, the person would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205. In the case of a used vehicle, use of a windshield repair kit could potentially be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In discussing the applicability of section 108(a)(2)(A) to the repair of windows in used vehicles, NHTSA has said that the prohibitions of that section do not apply to use of a product or process used in the repair of a windshield which has been previously installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. The agency has considered the event that damaged the windshield, and not any subsequent action by the person repairing the damaged window in a used vehicle, as the event which rendered inoperative the compliance of the glazing with the standard. Thus, there is no Federal regulation which would prohibit the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. I note, however, that if the repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield that is installed in a vehicle renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop would violate section 108(a)(2)(A). In addition, the manufacturer of the windshield repair kit is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment. Accordingly, it is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Please be aware that the laws of the individual States may be relevant to the repair of motor vehicle glazing. For more information about these laws, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2327OpenMr. Kenneth W. Schang, Manager, Vehicle Safety and Noise, American Motors Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. Kenneth W. Schang Manager Vehicle Safety and Noise American Motors Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Schang: This responds to your telephone request of June 17, 1976, fo confirmation that S 575.101 of Part 575, *Consumer Information*, was recently revised to specify vehicle stopping distance information based on stops that may include wheel lockup under the conditions allowed by Standard No. 105-75, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*. You note that the text of S 575.101(c)(5), and the accompanying illustration in Figure 1 of the section, describe the information provided as performance achieved 'without locking the wheels.'; Your interpretation of the requirements of S 575.101 is correct. I amending Part 575 to permit the use of stopping distance data collected in tests for Standard No. 105-75, the agency made all changes it believed necessary to provide for the use of stopping distance information gathered in connection with Standard No. 105-75 (41 FR 1066, January 6, 1976). The reference to 'without locking the wheels' should have been deleted from the text of S 575.101(c)(5) and Figure 1. A correcting amendment will be issued shortly.; The correction of an omission from the text of the first paragraph of 575.101(c) will also be made at that time. In the last sentence of that paragraph, the concluding option (as published in the *Federal Register*) should read 'under the procedures specified in paragraph (d) of this section and the conditions specified in paragraph (e) of this section.'; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam5548OpenMr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York State Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan, NY 14527; Mr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York State Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan NY 14527; "Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your fax of May 4, 1994 requesting information on a May 4, 1994, final rule (59 FR 22997) delaying the effective date of one section of the November 2, 1992, final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413). Your letter enclosed a bulletin from Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. concerning 'options' which can be deleted because of the delay of effective date. Your fax notes that New York state regulations exceed the minimum requirements of Standard No. 217 and requested any information we can provide on how the delay of effective date affects buses in the State of New York. The November 2, 1992, amendment to Standard No. 217 set requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The May 4, 1994, delay of effective date affects only the amendments to S5.2. Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2) The November 2, 1992, final rule revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses. As amended, S5.2.3 states, in part: The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening. The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. The November 1992 rule amended S5.2.3.1 by specifying additional exits to meet the new minimum area requirement of S5.2.3. If, after deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), additional exits are needed to meet the minimum area requirement of S5.2.3, any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) an emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows. The May 4, 1994 final rule delayed the effective date of the amendment of S5.2.3.1 only. The effect of the delay is that, until September 1, 1994, manufacturers may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217 by installing either a rear emergency exit door, or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. Your letter notes that New York regulations exceed Standard No. 217 in that they require additional exits. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. Section 103(d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that are different from the applicable standard except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law requiring exits in addition to those required by Standard No. 217 would be preempted under 103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. Any exits required by New York regulations on public school buses which exceed the requirements of Standard No. 217 would be considered voluntarily installed for purposes of federal law. Emergency Exit Release (S5.3) The November 2, 1992, final rule added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either emergency exit windows or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the release mechanisms comply with the requirements of S5.3. The effective date for the amendments to S5.3 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule. Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4) The November 2, 1992, final rule revised the extension requirements for side emergency exit doors on school buses and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either side emergency exit doors or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with the new extension requirements. The effective date for the amendments to S5.4 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule. I note that the bulletin enclosed with your letter implies that, due to the delay of the effective date of the November 2, 1992, final rule, flip-up seats are not needed to meet the new requirements of S5.4. This information appears to be incorrect, since the May 4, 1994, final rule did not delay the effective date of S5.4. Compliance with the new requirements of S5.4 might entail the installation of flip-up seats. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch. Thus, if New York requires side emergency exit doors, flip-up seats adjacent to those exits might have to be used to enable the bus to meet these requirements. For example, a flip-up seat might be needed to meet the requirement that the aisle for a side exit must be at least 30 centimeters wide. Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5) Finally, the November 2, 1992, final rule revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effective date for the amendments to S5.5 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule. As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit.' For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. The identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3). Please note that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the November 2, 1992, final rule. In a July 7, 1993, letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company NHTSA stated that it would issue a correction notice that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. I have enclosed a copy of the May 4, 1994, final rule for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. Mitchell, IN 47446 Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2777OpenMr. Philip P. Friedlander, Jr., Executive Vice President, National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc., 1343 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Mr. Philip P. Friedlander Jr. Executive Vice President National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association Inc. 1343 L Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20005; Dear Mr. Friedlander: This responds to your February 23, 1978, letter asking whether a tub can be installed in a tubeless tire without any adverse effects upon safe operation of that tire. In our January 6, 1978, letter to Mr. Philip Taft of your Association, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicated that a retreader could not change a tire originally labeled 'tubeless' to a tire labeled 'tube type,' because such an alteration would violate the labeling requirements of Standard No. 117, '*Retreaded Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars.*' The NHTSA did not state, as you indicate in your letter, that tubes could not be installed in retreaded tubeless tires.; You ask whether the use if tubes in tubeless tires creates any safet problems. The agency is unaware of safety problems resulting from the use of tubes in tubeless tires. The NHTSA has determined, however, that tubes should not be placed in damaged tubeless tires in lieu of permanent repairs to those tires. This determination applies to those instances where tubes were used in tubeless tires after failure of the tire. In such cases, the tire casing could have been fractured or some other damage to the tire could have been sustained that would cause excessive wear of a tube inserted in the tire. Excessive wear of a tube could cause further tire failure. Therefore, tubes should not be inserted as a permanent repair of a damaged tubeless tire. Nothing in this finding, however, is intended to indicate that tubes in undamaged tubeless tires create safety problems. At this time the agency has no data to support your theory that the use of tubes in undamaged tubeless tires poses a safety problem.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook |
|
ID: aiam1858OpenMr. M. Delen, Technical External Relations, Van Doorne's Personenautofabriek DAF B.V., Postbus: 1015, Geldropseweg 303, HOLLAND; Mr. M. Delen Technical External Relations Van Doorne's Personenautofabriek DAF B.V. Postbus: 1015 Geldropseweg 303 HOLLAND; Dear Mr. Delen: This is in response to your letter of March 17, 1975, asking whethe the pendulum test device sensors described in section S5.3.7 of the March 12, 1975, notice proposing to amend the Federal bumper standard must be installed for compliance testing if you can prove that no part of the test device, other than the impact ridge, will contact the vehicle.; Under the assumption of your letter, the force and pressure measurin sensors would not need to be installed on planes A and B of the pendulum test device during your compliance testing. A manufacturer is only obligated to exercise due care in assuring himself that his product is capable of meeting the performance requirements of applicable standards when tested in the manner prescribed. If a vehicle is constructed so that it does not touch planes A and B, there is no need to measure the force and pressure on those surfaces.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3865OpenMr. Ken Pomer, President, Premier Crown Corp., P.O. Box 30576, Umstead Industrial Park, Raleigh, NC 27622; Mr. Ken Pomer President Premier Crown Corp. P.O. Box 30576 Umstead Industrial Park Raleigh NC 27622; Dear Mr. Pomer: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, as it relates to one of the Premier helmet models. You enclosed a photograph of the helmet which shows that the helmet has a visor in the front. You state that the visor is an integral part of the polycarbonate helmet shell and ask if this helmet complies with the standard.; This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391 *et seq*. (as amended) (the Act). Certification that an item of motor vehicle equipment, such as a motorcycle helmet, complies with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is the obligation of the manufacturer under section 114 of the Act. For this reason, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not state in advance whether a helmet complies with the standard. The agency's determination of compliance occurs only in the context of an enforcement action.; This office has reviewed the photograph of the Premier helmet regardin the visor and notes that paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 218 requires that: 'The brow opening of the helmet shall be at least 1 inch above all points in the basic plane that are within the angles of peripheral vision (see Figure 3).' The intent of this provision is to give the helmet user an unobstructed view. Therefore, if the lowest point, or the tip, of the visor is at least one inch above the basic plane, as shown in Figure 2 of the standard, the helmet should meet the requirements of this provision.; A copy of 49 CFR Part 556, *Exemption for Inconsequential Defect o Noncompliance, is enclosed for your information, if you decide to petition the NHTSA regarding the inconsequentiality of a noncompliance.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |