NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: 3301yyOpen Mr. Robert A. Rogers, Director Dear Mr. Rogers: This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device to be installed on the MY 1992 General Motors Pontiac Bonneville line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Pontiac Bonneville vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. The agency has reviewed the changes to the system and for the following reasons concludes that the differences between the original system and one installed on the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville constitute a de minimis change. As you are aware, the Pontiac Bonneville car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because General Motors showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This antitheft device is known as the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system. The exemption was issued on April 4, 1991, and appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14413). As was stated in the April 1991 Federal Register notice, the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system utilizes an ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. Before a vehicle can be started, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a fixed resistance in the decoder module. In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1992, two design changes were made in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Pontiac Bonneville. The new system on the Bonneville is known as "PASS-KEY II," and differs from "PASS-KEY" as follows. First, in "PASS-KEY II," if a key other than the one with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes plus or minus eighteen seconds. In "PASS-KEY," this shut down period is two to four minutes. Second, if, during the time the decoder module has shut down in "PASS-KEY II," trial and error attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer will not reset to zero, as is the case with "PASS-KEY." GM states that this difference in functions will provide a similar level of performance as "PASS-KEY" since the "PASS-KEY II" module, while shut down, will ignore further attempts to start the system by means other than use of a key with the proper resistance pellet. Any further unauthorized attempt after the initial three minute shut down time will result in the module shutting down again. After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. In addition to providing some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, "PASS-KEY II" also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for General Motors to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2). If General Motors does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter for MY 1992, we request that this agency be notified of such decisions. Sincerely,
Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking / ref:Part 543 d:2/7/92 |
1992 |
ID: 06-006237drnOpenMs. Julie Laplante Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil, Inc. 830, 12 ime Avenue Laurentides (Qubec) J5M 2V9 CANADA Dear Ms. Laplante: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask for guidance on affixing 1 inch retroreflective tape on the outside perimeter of the rear emergency exit door on your single rear wheel model school bus. You provided photographs showing that the top half of the rear emergency exit door is flanked by two windows, one each to the right and to the left. The windows are placed close to the doors such that there is not enough room for the 1 inch retroreflective tape outlining the rear emergency exit door to lie flat. Under these circumstances, you wish to know how to place the tape so that the bus meets requirements for identifying school bus emergency exits at S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 217. S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217 states: (c) Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a retroreflective tape with a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters [one inch] and either red, white or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of Standard No. 131 (49 CFR 571.131), meets the criteria specified in Table 1 of that section. The purposes of the retroreflective tape requirement are to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers, and to increase on-the-road visibility of the bus. As discussed below, based on our understanding of your letter and the photographs you enclosed, there are ways to apply the 1 inch-width tape to meet FMVSS No. 217. Please note, however, that you based your inquiry on the use of 1 inch tape, stating without further explanation that you are using this width tape to standardise our production. The standard requires tape of a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters (cm) (1 inch). A manufacturer cannot claim it is impracticable to meet the standard using a tape of a width greater than 2.5 cm (1 inch) if it would be practicable to mark the perimeter using 2.5 cm (1-inch) tape. Your Question. Your photographs show that the windows on each side are so close to the rear emergency exit door that the 1 inches of tape that you use cannot be placed around the outside of the door without overlapping the windows.[1] You state that you cannot move each window one inch away from the door because there is no room to move the windows. In the photographs on the page labeled #1, you show that the space around the rear emergency exit door is not wide enough to accommodate the tape. You indicate that if you were to put the tape around the outside perimeter of the door, the tape would overlap the frame of the adjacent windows, i.e., only inch of the tape would be on a flat surface on the outside perimeter of the door, and 1 inch of the tapes width would be in a fold in the curved surface of the fixed rear upper windows, resulting in what you describe as bad finishing, tear and dont [sic] stay in place. Given the close proximity of the rear emergency exit door and the two rear windows to the right and left, you ask about three approaches for outlining the rear emergency exit door. The first approach involves not applying the tape to the perimeter of the door by the rear windows, while another approach involves cutting the tape in that area to a width of -inch. The last approach involves placing the tape on the door itself. The first two suggestions would not meet the standard. Your first suggestion is to interrupt the portion of the tape (18 inches on each side [of the door]), that is, to not have any retroreflective tape for 18 inches on each side of the door. This approach would not enable the bus to meet the requirement of S5.5.3(c) that the emergency exit opening be outlined around its outside perimeter since a large portion of the perimeter would not be outlined. Your other suggestion is to cut off the portion of the tape that sticks on the curved surface of the fixed upper windows. (It would leave a width of of an inch for those two 18 inches portion of tape.) This approach would not meet S5.5.3(c) because the two 18-inch portions of the tape would not meet the minimum width requirement of 2.5 centimeters [one inch]. Your last suggestion (slightly revised) would meet the standard. Your last suggestion is to affix the tape of the whole two side perimeters on the door directly. We agree that you may apply the tape to the door itself, as near as possible to the outside perimeter of the door. This is in accordance with an interpretation letter of June 8, 1994 to Van-Con Inc., in which we addressed a situation where there was no room available for placement of retroreflective tape outside of the doors bottom edge. In the Van-Con instance, NHTSA permitted a portion of the retroreflective tape to be on the door itself, stating: Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuers ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door. Accordingly, you may affix the tape for the vertical sides of the exit directly on the door.[2] However, we do not agree that you need not have tape at the door handle, since it appears from photograph #3 that there is sufficient space on the inside perimeter of the door to accommodate a 1 tape width. NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. Occasional breaks in the tape for the hinges shown would not appear to negatively affect a rescuers ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel #ref:217 d.2/5/07 |
2007 |
ID: nht73-4.11OpenDATE: 04/17/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Habco Inc. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of January 29 and March 20, 1973, concerning the application of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to trucks to which you add railroad wheels, enabling the trucks to be driven on railroad tracks. In response to our letter to you of February 26, 1973, you enclosed in your letter of March 20 a picture representative of these vehicles, and provided us with certain information. Among other things you state that the vehicles are used on public highways approximately 50 per cent of the time, and that they are licensed under State laws. Based on our examination of this picture, and the information provided with it, we are of the opinion that these vehicles are motor vehicles, specifically trucks, and are required to conform to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to trucks. This is true if the vehicles are new vehicles when you modify them, regardless of whether they are your own trucks or whether they are modified for customers. The Certification requirement which you refer to is based on section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403), and regulations issued by NHTSA (49 CFR Parts 567, 568, copy enclosed). Essentially, the regulations specify a means for manufacturers to certify their vehicles as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your responsibilities for Certification will depend upon whether you are an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, as these terms are defined in the regulations. While it is your responsibility to determine which category applies to you, it appears to us that you are most likely an intermediate manufacturer. We base this opinion on the fact that the truck pictured Jacks a body, even though the railroad wheels have been added. It appears that some form of body will be added, as you state in your March 20 letter that the vehicles are intended to be "spray trucks". If this is correct, your responsibilities for Certification are found at Part 568, "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages". Briefly, intermediate manufacturers are required to forward to the final-stage manufacturer the document the intermediate manufacturer received with the incomplete vehicle. If the intermediate manufacturer alters the vehicle so as to affect the validity of statements in the document, he is required to provide an addendum to the document indicating the changes he made. If the vehicle is a completed vehicle before the rail wheels are added, your responsibilities are contingent upon the extent of the modification you perform. Because these modifications are significant with respect to the vehicle's intended use, we would consider section 567.4, "Requirements for Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles," the appropriate requirements for you to meet. The NHTSA has proposed requirements for vehicle alterers, which might apply to you in this case, but these requirements have not yet been issued in final form. You may obtain copies of NHTSA requirements as specified on the enclosed form, "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." ENCLS. |
|
ID: 8640Open Mr. Shawn Shieh Dear Mr. Shieh: This replies to your undated letter to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, asking questions about an emergency communication product intended to be permanently mounted in the back window of an automobile. The product uses light emitting diodes to form messages for the drivers of following cars to read. I enclose a copy of a letter dated August 17, 1989, that the agency sent to Alan S. Eldahr who asked for our comments on a similar device. The same advice applies to your product. As you will see, our opinion is that the product is of doubtful legality under Federal law when used on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, which are equipped with center highmounted stoplamps. In addition, the product must not create a noncompliance with the Federal field of view requirements for interior rear view mirrors. Thus, we cannot answer your question about the maximum size of a permanent structure to be installed in an automobile because that will vary from car to car. With respect to your other questions, there are no Federal specifications for the material of the base support. The "restriction" on the product's wiring is that it must not interfere with the functioning of any Federally required lamp on the vehicle. This agency is the only government agency you have to consult on the product. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d:6/8/93 |
1993 |
ID: nht93-5.22OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: July 13, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education, Office of Commissioner TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from Ernest Farmer to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8815) TEXT: We have received your letter of June 25, 1993, with respect to your plan to retrofit three school buses with strobe lights for "the traditional incandescent lights currently used in the eight light overhead warning system on school buses." You ask whether this equipment would "conflict with the provisions of FMVSS 108." Yes, the substitute system would not conform to S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 because it is not a school bus signal lamp system meeting the requirements of SAE J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964. Moreover, section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392 (a)(2)(A) ) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. We assume for purposes of this interpretation that the State is the owner of the school buses, and owns the repair facilities where the conversion will occur. Under these circumstances, there is no Federal legal prohibition against the State's conversion to the strobe light system if the work is performed in its own repair shops. |
|
ID: nht90-4.73OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: December 3, 1990 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: William Walters TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-8-90 from W.G. Walters to E. Jones (OCC 5327); Also attached to article entitled Dankert's Device, Local inventor wants to produce Info-Lite (text omitted); Also attached to United States Patent Information for Paten t Number 4,922,225, dated May 1, 1990, (text and graphics omitted) TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 8, 1990, to Ms. Erika Jones, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked that we review the enclosures to your letter, and provide "the reason why this system is not being used." The primary material you enclosed is a patent granted May 1, 1990, for an "Automobile Warning Light Improvement." The purpose of the "Improvement" is to enhance existing rear signal lamps by sending an advance warning of driving situations which have th e potential of impeding the flow of traffic. The device activates the center highmounted stop lamp under situations other than when the brake pedal is applied. According to the patent, the device causes the center lamp to operate in a steady-burning mo de when a vehicle is in reverse gear, and in a flashing mode when the turn signals are operating. When activated under these conditions, the center lamp will be deactivated when the accelerator is depressed. The reason why this system cannot presently be used is that its installation would create a noncompliance with existing requirements. The performance of the center highmounted stop lamp is specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamp s, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.5.4 of the standard specifically states that "The highmounted lamp on passenger cars shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes." In addition, the effect of paragraph S5. 5.10 is to require all stop lamps to be steady burning when in use. Activation of the center lamp by means other than application of the brake pedal (such as putting the vehicle into reverse gear, or activating the turn signals), and in a mode other tha n steady burning (flashing with the turn signals) is prohibited by Standard No. 108. The reason why this system is unlikely to be used in the future is that it appears to have little if any potential for improving motor vehicle safety. Backup lamps, turn signal lamps, and center stop lamps have specific and different tasks to perform. Use of the center lamp to assist the other lamps in performing their tasks has the potential for creating confusion. The red center lamp used alone sends an unmistakable message: this vehicle is braking, with a deceleration that may lead to a stop. It is a message to which the motoring public is accustomed. Use of the center lamp when the backup lamps are on sends a false signal that the vehicle may be decelerating in a forward motion or stopped when, in fact, it may be proceeding in a reverse motion . Use of a flashing stop lamp, mounted on the centerline of the car, in conjunction with a turn signal lamp that is flashing either to the right or left of the centerline, has the potential also to create confusion as to the intent of the driver, and distracts attention from the messa ge sent by the turn signal that the vehicle is changing lanes or preparing to turn. we appreciate your interest in safety and in bringing this invention to our attention. |
|
ID: nht93-7.2OpenDATE: September 30, 1993 Est. FROM: Randolph Schwarz TO: John Messera -- NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/94 from John Womack to Randolph Schwarz (A42; Std. 116) TEXT: I would appreciate your help in getting a few short questions answered regarding DOT 5 silicone brake fluid. I had called the NHTSA Hotline and was advised that, as the Engineer for FMVSS 116, you are currently the appropriate person to contact. My basic question is that when retrofitting a vehicle with DOT 5 silicone brake fluid, does one have to be concerned with the compatibility of this fluid's seal swelling additives with various elastomers that may be used in past and present brake systems, such as SBR, EP, EPDM, neoprene, etc?. Would the fact that a DOT 5 brake fluid meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116 insure such elastomer compatibility? With regard to elastomers, does FMVSS 116 only address SBR compatibility (SBR cup tests)? If FMVSS 116 only mentions SBR, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification or have an advisory note on the product container regarding elastomer compatibility/incompatibility? Product information from Dow Corning and Union Carbide differ in FMVSS 116 DOT 5 requirement for maximum viscosity at -40 F (900 cSt vs. 1,500 cSt respectively). What should the correct specification be? If it would help expedite matters, feel free to write your responses directly on this letter. Thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you shortly. |
|
ID: nht76-2.47OpenDATE: 02/12/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA TO: F. A. McNiel COPYEE: HON. J. J. PICKLE TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your petition of November 7, 1975, "for the correction of subsection S4.5.4 and S4.6(b) as set forth by existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108." It is your opinion that S4.5.4, which requires activation of stop lamps upon application of the service brakes, is design restrictive, and "leaves no opportunity for innovation by the private sector for other solutions for the activation of a motor vehicle's stoplamps". You have suggested that S4.5.4 be amended to include at its end "or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle". Any performance standard is design restrictive to some extent; it must restrict manufacturers to designs that meet the desired performance requirements. Its validity as a performance standard depends on whether the restrictions of the standard are only as narrow as reasonably necessary to achieve the desired safety performance. In this case we have found that the requirement meets this test. A signal to other drivers that the service brakes are being applied is precisely the performance being sought in S4.5.4. A signal based on some other condition (e.g., vehicle deceleration, might not be as timely, or might fail altogether to operate at the critical moment (as where it is based on lifting the accelerator pedal). Since the requirement is limited to the desired safety performance, we find it valid, and your petition in this area is denied. You also ask for an amendment of S4.6(b) to include "rearlamps" among those that may be flashed for signalling purposes, since you believe that conventional wiring circuits presently allow these lamps to be flashed when headlamps are flashed. When the headlamps are flashed by means of the on-off switch, it is true that rear lamps will flash. But that type of flashing is in no way restricted by the standard. The flashing intended to be regulated by S4.6(b) is by automatic means (see S3 definitions) and, except for rear turn signal lamps, these automatic devices would not be connected to rear lamp circuits. Thus, there appears to be no need for the amendment you suggest and your petition is accordingly denied. We appreciate your continuing efforts on behalf of traffic safety. Sincerely, ATTACH. F. A. McNiel 611 Bouldin Avenue Austin, Texas 78704 NOVEMBER 7, 1975 U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: A petition for the correction of sub-sections S4.5.4 and S4.6(b) as set forth by existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Gentlemen: Quoting from a letter date of Jan. 29, 1968, from William Heddon Jr., Director of the Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau, in answer to a letter that Congressman J. J. Pickle had forwarded to the Department of Transportation in my behalf, - Director Haddon states: "under the law the Congress directed us to set 'performance' standards and not standards requiring specific devices or designs. The Congress chose this approach to give the private sector the greatest opportunity for innovation and to permit a variety of solutions in meeting specific performance requirements". The 'performance' standards as established by FMVSS No. 108 for the functioning of a motor vehicle's stoplamps are as follows; Except for the size, location, lens type, and candlepower, the only standard 'set' for stoplamp functioning that is covered by FMVSS No. 108 is sub-section S4.5.4, which states: "The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes". Sub-section S4.5.4 is in direct conflict with Director Haddon's letter on two seperate counts, i.e. 1. Said section as worded constitutes a mandate of intendence that a 'specific design' (use of the service brakes) shall be the only means used to activate a motor vehicle's stoplamps. 2. Also, as worded sub-section S4.5.4 leaves no opportunity for innovation by the private sector for other solutions for the activation of a motor vehicle's stoplamps. In order to comply with Director Haddon's interpretation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, I propose that sub-section S4.5.4 be expanded to read as follows: "The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon the application of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle". Under Section S4.5 'special wiring requirements' Sub-section S4.5.7 states - (a) "When the parking lamps are activated the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated", - and (b) "When the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated". - Thus, the said section stipulates that it is mandatory that the side marker lamps be in-circuit with the taillamps and license plate lamps. Under Section S4.6 'when activated' S4.6 states, - (a) "Turn signal lamps, hazard warning lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall flash", - and (b) "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes". Contextually, S4.5.7 (a) and (b), and S4.6 (b) make it unlawful to flash headlamps and side marker lamps by use of the conventional lamp activating means, as this act would also flash taillamps and license plate lamps. The only manner by which headlamps and side marker lamps could be flashed and still leave taillamps and license plate lamps steady-burning would be to isolate headlamps and side marker lamps from the conventional wiring circuit by means of auxiliary wiring and switching means which would operate indipendent of the conventional lighting system. Installation of such auxiliary wiring and switching means would tend to be costly, - and to what avail? In what instance could the flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes enhance traffic safety, - and at the same time, the flashing of taillamps and license plate lamps be detrimental to traffic safety? To make S4.6(b) credible, and to prevent perhaps millions of motorists from unwittingly breaking the letter of the law by flashing a vehicle's lights with the conventional light switch, I propose that the word 'rearlamps' be inserted after the word 'headlamps' to make the sub-section read -- "All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps, rearlamps, and side marker lamps for signaling purposes". In order to bring FMVSS No. 108 more into line with the apparent intent of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, I respectfully petition the Department of Transportation for rule making to re-phrase sub-sections S4.5.4 and S4.6 (b) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to include the wording that I have proposed. Such re-phrasing would establish a standard against which any beneficial means for activating a motor vehicle's stoplamps could be tested. Such a standard would provide an opportunity for the private sector to innovate means for improving the 'performance' of a motor vehicle's conventional stoplamps in a manner that could materially reduce the toll of "10 percent of the fatal motor vehicle accidents and 49 percent of all motor vehicle accidents" ascribed by the National Highway Safety Bureau as resulting from rear end collision type accidents. Such re-phrasing would also remove the current restriction that now makes it unlawful under any circumstances for a motorist to flash a vehicle's lamps by the use of the conventional lamp activating switching means. Respectfully, Fred A. McNiel Traffic Safety Advocate copy: Hon. J. J. Pickle |
|
ID: nht94-3.43OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: June 23, 1994 FROM: John G. Klinge -- Executive Vice President, Lightman TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/12/94: Letter from John Womack to John Rlinge (Std. 125) TEXT: After speaking with your associate Jim Gilkey, it was determined that I should contact you directly with my company's request. Visibility Systems Company has designed (patent pending), and now markets to consumers and law enforcement agencies across the USA, the LIGHTMAN product which is enclosed. Our intention is to also market this product as a warning light source for use by over the road truck fleets and commercial auto fleets. Lightman would augment or replace the need for flares and reflectiv e triangles. Before attempting to market Lightman for truck and auto fleets, we need to know if we are in compliance with Federal standards (perhaps # 125). Would you please have your staff review Lightman's capabilities as a battery powered light source given ou r plans. Lightman comes with domes in five colors (clear, red, amber, blue and green). It is powered by two AA batteries and will operate continuously for over three hours. Visibility Systems plans to market a 3-pack to fleets containing three light units, mu ltiple domes (do you have required colors?), attachment devices and 2 heavy duty lithium batteries. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Should you need more samples or have any questions, please contact me directly. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. cc: James Gilkey |
|
ID: nht90-4.82OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: December 13, 1990 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: M.J.P. Ravier -- R&D Director, Valeo TITLE: Re Your ref 861 M 90 ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 to P.J. Rice from J.P. Ravier and Guy Dorleans (OCC 5304); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-90 to J.P. Ravier from Kathleen Demeter TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of July 13, 1990, with respect to whether your "Aiming concept for headlamps, Solution 2" is acceptable under paragraph S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Ms. DeMeter of t his Office has previously addressed your request for confidentiality. The headlamp aiming concept consists of a spirit level affixed to the reflector, and has its axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Correct vertical aim is accomplished by ensuring that the bubble in the spirit level is centered at zero. Correct horizontal aim is ensured through a coaxial screw and nut with markings which align with markings on the vehicle body. The system bears graduations that accord with those imposed by S7.7.5.2. As Valeo was informed when the device was demonstrated to members of this agency on June 29, 1990, the concept is an acceptable vehicle headlamp aiming device under S7.7.5.2. It is designed to meet the vertical aim requirements of S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and the horizontal aim requirements of (a)(2). We are pleased to provide a confirmation in writing. |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.