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: 23312.drnOpenThe Honorable Fred Upton Dear Congressman Upton: Thank you for your letter asking for information about the use of buses and other vehicles to transport Michigan's school children. Your letter was referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. You state that "Federal law prohibits the use of school vehicles to provide transportation to eleven or more students, unless it meets the safety standards of a school bus." You inform us that many Michigan school districts use vans to transport smaller student groups and would like to continue using vans. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition directed against schools or school districts which prevents them from using vans carrying 11 or more persons. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. NHTSA has the authority, under 49 U.S.C. 30112 et seq. (Chapter 301) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all "school buses." The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. The parties subject to Chapter 301 are the manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. Chapter 301 requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards. By regulation, a van designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) is a "bus," and is a "school bus" if intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. A person may sell a new bus (including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school or school district provided that the vehicle meets our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. In the event a Michigan school district decides to buy a new school bus, we would like the district to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under Federal law to sell complying school buses. The seller should know that he or she risks civil penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold for pupil transportation. Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles. Michigan state law would thus establish the requirements for how schools must transport school children. For further information, please contact Michigan's State Director of Pupil Transportation: Claudette Nelson, Supervisor In closing, I wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that it is therefore strongly recommended that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, your constituents may wish to consult with their attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on this issue. I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: nht75-1.39OpenDATE: 03/18/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Gp. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 14, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. You have asked whether Bendix may use the same manufacturer identification designation on brake hose, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies manufactured at three plants which are geographically separated. While S5.2 of Standard No. 106-74 requires designations identifying the manufacturer of these components, nothing in the standard prohibits a single manufacturer from applying the same designation to components manufactured at different plant locations. Yours truly, ATTACH. Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Group Mark Schwimmer, Attorney -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration February 14, 1975 Subject: Docket 1-5; Notice 9, FMVSS No. 106 -- Brake Hose Identification Ref.: Letter from F. Armstrong to R. W. Hildebrandt dated July 1, 1974. Phone conversation of R. G. Brewer and M. Schwimmer dated February 6, 1975. Dear Mr. Schwimmer: As per the above referenced phone conversation of February 6, 1975, The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group, desire a clarification on the Manufacturer Identification Regulation. A hose assembly identification designation has previously been assigned to our organization. Hose assemblies are manufactured at three plants which are geographically separated. The same management is responsible for operation of the three plants. All engineering is done at one location and hose assembly designs at the three plants are identical. In addition, identical quality control standards are maintained at all plants. Does the Regulation permit our Corporation to manufacture hose, hose fittings, and hose assemblies under FMVSS No. 106 in more than one plant location with the same identification designation? Can the identification designation be used at all plant locations. We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, R. W. Hildebrandt -- Group Director of Engineering cc: R. Daley POWER CONTROLS DIVISION -- Midland-Ross Corporation January 16, 1975 Mark Schwimmer -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Schwimmer: As relayed in our telephone conversation of January 14, 1975, we are interested in the relationship between the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106 and Military Specification MIL-H-3992C. Both of these refer to automotive air and vacuum brake hoses. Several questions have been raised regarding the applicability of these two documents with respect to hose purchased to the MIL-H-3992C specification (either for military or commercial use). We would appreciate rulings by you or your office to the following specific questions: 1. Both MIL-H-3992C and FMVSS 106 require specific labeling on the hose and on a tag on the assembly. Is it necessary for sale to the military to run two lines of identification (one per MIL-H-3992C and the other per FMVSS 106) on this hose? Likewise for commercial sale? Is it necessary for sale to the military, to include both the FMVSS 106 and the MIL-H-3992-C requirements on the assembly tag? Likewise for commercial sale? 2. Would hose manufactured and sold to the MIL-H-3992C specification also be required to meet the physical requirements of FMVSS 106 for military applications? Likewise for commercial applications? Very truly yours, Leon C. Huneke -- Chemical Engineer |
|
ID: nht72-1.9OpenDATE: 11/06/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Paul Utans TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: In your letter of October 9, 1972, you enclosed a master brake cylinder cover ("Exhibit A"), and a reservoir label ("Exhibit B"), both produced by Alfred Teves, and asked our views as to their conformity with the lettering size and contrast requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a. These sample items appear to conform to the lettering requirements, with the exception that the cylinder cover of Exhibit A is the same color as the raised lettering, and does not provide a contrasting background as required by the standard. |
|
ID: 1984-1.50OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/14/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Department of State Police; Commonwealth of Virginia TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
U.S. Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
MAY 14 1984
B. R. Belsches, Captain Safety Officer Department of State Police Commonwealth of Virginia P.O. Box 27472 Richmond, Virginia 23261-7472
Dear Captain Belsches:
This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1984, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and "a history relative to the inclusion of such function of headlamps and marker lamps."
Paragraph S4.6(b) allows means to be provided for the automatic flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes, as an exception to the general rule that vehicle lamps (other than turn and hazard warning signals, and school bus warning lamps) be steady-burning in use. This confirms your understanding of the wording of the standard and its effect. It does not allow, however,modulating headlamps which do not flash on and off, but deviate between a higher intensity end a lower one. Originally, paragraph S3.5 of the standard (see e.g . 49 CFR 371.21, Standard No. 108 rev. as of January 1, 1970) stated that "normally steady-burning lamps may be capable of being flashed for signaling purposes." On January 3, 1970, the agency proposed paragraph S4.6 (35 F.R. 106) as it exists today. It was adopted on October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 16840). The agency observed that some commenters requested that additional lamps be permitted to flash and some requested that flashing headlamps be prohibited. It also noted that, with the exceptions set forth in S4.6(a), flashing lamps should be reserved for emergency and road maintenance-type vehicles, and that flashing lamps are otherwise prohibited in the Uniform Vehicle Code. The agency further noted that lamps could be flashed by the driver merely by turning the switch on and off, and that itcould not prohibit that type of operation, but that the definition of "Flash," also adopted in the amendments, made clear that automatic flashers for use with steady-burning lamps other than headlamps and side marker lamps were prohibited.
This is the rulemaking history of paragraph S4.6. I hope that this will answer your questions.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE P.O.Box 2472, Richmond, Virginia 23261-7472
April 20, 1984
Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel, NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590
Dear Mr. Berndt:
In Virginia we prohibit flashing or modulating headlamps used for the purpose of emergency warning; however, there appears to be some conflict to this Virginia mandate in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
I refer to 49CFR (FMVSS), Part 571.108, Paragraph S4.6, Subparagraph b. From the wording in this paragraph, it appears that manufacturers are permitted to provide a means to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes.
Would you provide us an interpretation of this paragraph and, if possible, a history relative to the inclusion and benefit of such function of headlamps and marker lamps. Sincerely,
B. R. Belsches, Captain Safety Officer (AC-804-323-2017)
BRB/kf
|
|
ID: bailey.ztvOpenThe Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison Dear Senator Hutchison: We are replying to your recent inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Walter E. Brown of Tyler. Dr. Brown is the owner of a 1995 BMW. When he attempted to buy a replacement lens for one of his headlamps, he was told by his local dealer that the lens was unavailable, and later, that the part was no longer available and that he would have to replace the entire headlamp assembly. BMW of North America telephoned him and told him that "a new government regulation precluded BMW from selling the lens separately." Dr. Brown was referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. He asked that you look into this matter for him. As Dr. Brown indicated in his letter to you, the applicable regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108,Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment). This regulation prescribes requirements for both original and replacement motor vehicle headlamps. Until 1983, all headlamps were required to be sealed and indivisible, so that if the bulb burned out or the lens cracked, the entire headlamp had to be replaced. Because headlamps were sealed, contaminants such as dust and moisture could not enter and the integrity of the reflector over the life of the headlamp was assured. In 1983, Standard No. 108 was amended to allow non-sealed headlamps with replaceable bulbs. To maintain the integrity of the reflector, replaceable bulbs were required to have a seal at their base, and the headlamp lens had to be bonded to the reflector. These non-sealed headlamps had to pass environmental tests verifying their ability to resist heat, dust, and corrosion. However, the requirement that the lens be bonded to the reflector means that if either the lens or the reflector broke or was defective, the entire lens/reflector unit had to be replaced. This appears to be the type of headlamp that was installed on Dr. Brown's 1995 BMW. Therefore, in order to replace a cracked lens, he has to buy a lens/reflector assembly. This is necessary to ensure that his replacement headlamp provides the same continuing level of safety as his original headlamp. Since December 1995, one specific type of replaceable bulb headlamp (one incorporating an on-board aiming device) has been permitted to have a lens designed to be replaceable, provided that the lamps pass even more stringent environment tests. However, all 1995 model cars were manufactured before the effective date of this new alternative headlamp requirement, and thus were not permitted to have headlamps with replaceable lenses. Since the headlamps in Dr. Brown's car do not have replaceable lenses, his dealer must replace the complete lens/reflector assembly. This has been the practice since 1983 and is not the result of "a new government regulation." It is the December 1995 regulation, not the older one, that permits replacement lenses for one type of headlamp. I hope that this explanation will be useful to Dr. Brown. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 20869NichirinDFOpenMr. Frank Johnson Dear Mr. Johnson: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, "Brake Hoses," and its application to automotive vacuum brake tubing. I regret the delay in responding. You ask us to clarify the meaning of S9.2 of the standard and several requirements set forth for vacuum brake tubing. S9.2 of Standard 106 states: Each vacuum brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof shall be capable of meeting any of the requirements set forth under this heading, when tested under the conditions of S11. and the applicable procedures of S10. However, a particular hose assembly or appropriate part thereof need not meet further requirements after having met the construction [sic] requirement (S9.2.1) and then having been subjected to any one of the requirements specified in S9.2.2 through S9.2.11. You first ask whether S9.2.1 is a "construction" requirement, as referenced in S9.2, or a "constriction" requirement. The answer is the latter. S9.2 should refer to S9.2.1 as a "constriction" requirement. You next ask whether S9.2 requires a vacuum brake hose assembly or appropriate part thereof to meet only one of the requirements specified in S9.2.2 through S9.2.11, or all of the requirements. The answer is generally, all of the requirements. Under the second sentence of S9.2, a particular hose assembly must be subjected to the constriction requirement of S9.2.1, followed by any one of the tests in S9.2.2 through S9.2.11, considering the appropriateness of the test for the assembly. Manufacturers must ensure that their brake hose assemblies or parts thereof will pass all of these tests. NHTSA explains, in 49 CFR 571.4 (copy enclosed), the use of the word "any" in our safety standards and regulations. That section states, in part, that: "The word any, used in connection with a range of values or set of items in the requirements, conditions, and procedures of the standards or regulations in this chapter, means generally the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing, except where clearly specified otherwise." (See 571.4 for several examples and further explanation.) You question the applicability of the adhesion test (S9.2.9) and the deformation test (S9.2.10) to vacuum brake tubing. You believe that these tests were written for rubber hose and are inappropriate for brake tubing. Automotive vacuum brake tubing is "brake hose" under Standard 106. The standard defines "brake hose" as (S4): "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes...." Automotive vacuum brake tubing must meet all applicable requirements of Standard 106. NHTSA has stated in past interpretations that brake hose (tubing) will not be tested to requirements that are obviously inapplicable. The adhesion test (S9.2.9) of Standard 106 is conducted on brake hose (tubing) that has more than one layer, such as an inner tube and outer cover. We have also stated that the adhesion test is not applicable if there are no layers in the hose's construction which could fail to adhere. (See enclosed copy of September 13, 1984, letter to R.S. Anson.) You state that the deformation test (S9.2.10) of Standard 106 should not apply to brake tubing because "plastic under 'light duty' applications would not meet the first application of 50 lbs. force." In previous letters on this subject, NHTSA indicated that brake tubing is subject to the deformation requirement of the standard. (See enclosed copies of a July 8, 1974, letter to Bendix and June 19, 1981 and November 2, 1981, letters to Meiji Rubber and Chemical Company.) If you believe that the deformation test is inappropriate for plastic vacuum tubing, you may petition the agency to change the standard in this regard. However, such a petition must be accompanied with data and information to support your views. We will consider your information in deciding whether to initiate a rulemaking to amend the standard. Sincerely, |
2000 |
ID: 09-007712 lavigne jul28OpenMr. Lawrence N. Lavigne Vice President Operations/General Counsel Foreign Tire Sales, Inc. 2204 Morris Ave., Suite L-5 Union, NJ 07083 Dear Mr. Lavigne: This letter responds to your September 29, 2009 request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and motorcycles. You ask whether you may import a particular size special trailer tire. You note that the tire is not listed in the publication of a tire organization listed in S5.1(b), but that an identically sized light truck tire is listed. As we explain below, there may be a way for you to import such a tire for sale in the United States. By way of background, S5.1 of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire manufacturer ensure that a listing of the rims suitable for that manufacturers tires is provided to the public. There are two ways of complying with this requirement. First, a document listing suitable rims is made available by the manufacturer to tire dealers, NHTSA, and other parties upon request. If this approach is chosen, each rim listing must include dimensional specifications and a diagram of the rim. Second, the listing of suitable rims can be made available in publications of one of the following organizations: (1) The Tire and Rim Association; (2) The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation; (3) Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association, Inc.; (4) Deutsche Industrie Norm; (5) British Standards Institution; (6) Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization; and (7) The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia. If the latter method is used, the listing need not include dimensional specifications or a diagram of a rim if the information is contained in the publication. You ask specifically about an all steel radial special trailer tire size ST235/85R16 14-ply rated. You note that this designation is not found in the Tire and Rim Association yearbook. We note that there are seven different organizations whose publications may have the necessary information. Also, that information can be submitted to NHTSA. Although you have not stated that you consulted all seven organizations publications or NHTSAs database, we will presume for the purpose of this letter that the information about the tire in question has not been provided to NHTSA or published in any of the seven organizations publications. Nevertheless, you may request that the tires manufacturer provide the rim listings and specifications to NHTSA. Alternatively, you may obtain the necessary information from the tires manufacturer and provide it to NHTSA. As the importer of the tire, you would fall under the statutory definition of manufacturer of the tire. If either you, as the importer, or the tires original manufacturer provides the necessary information to NHTSA (or, alternatively, has the data published in one of the listed organizations publications), and the tire meets all of the other requirements of FMVSS No. 119, including performance, treadwear indicator, and tire marking requirements, you may import the tire for sale in the United States. Although you state that your engineer has verified the loads and pressures of the tire in question, the fact remains that the tire manufacturer has not provided the information required by S5.1. You note that the Tire and Rim Association yearbook lists tire size LT235/85R16 14-ply rated. This tire is a light truck tire. You ask us to allow you to interpret FMVSS No. 119 to allow you to import a special trailer tire that is the same size. We cannot do so. The exact tire you wish to import must be in NHTSAs database or one of the tire organizations publications. The light truck tire you refer to is not the same tire you wish to import. The tire you wish to import is subject to a different Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 49 CFR 571.139. The tire you wish to import and sell is for special trailers and, based on your representation, is not in the appropriate publication. Accordingly, you cannot import for sale in the United States the tire in question based on the appearance of this light truck tire in the Tire and Rim Association yearbook. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel 11/19/2010 |
|
ID: nht92-4.13OpenDATE: 09/09/92 FROM: G. THOMAS OWENS, -- SENIOR ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVE, AETNA TO: THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY COUNCIL ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-03-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO G. THOMAS OWENS (A40; PART 571.3) TEXT: As a safety professional, I am interested in current information regarding school bus safety. Would it be possible to obtain information regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration? The type of information I am seeking includes a book or pamphlet containing applicable standards. If there is a cost associated with this material, please forward a list of the reference material with the associated costs. Thank you for taking the time to attend to this request. |
|
ID: nht95-4.96OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 8, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Alison Vredenburgh -- Vice President Research and Development, Error Analysis, Inc. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 9/18/95 letter from Alison Vredenburgh to Kenneth Hardie TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1995, to Kenneth Hardie of this agency, with respect to the Motorcycle Conspicuity Enhancement System (the "System") described in your letter. You understand "that this system may only be used during dayl ight hours and may not affect the headlight", and you ask if there are any other regulations of which you should be aware. We understand that the System is still under development, and that the intent is to offer it both as original and aftermarket equipment. Two Systems will be tested, at a flash rate of 60 to 80 per minute, one at an intensity of 35,000 candlepower, and t he other at 50,000 candlepower. One System will have three bulbs, and another, four. Each System will be activated when the headlamp is on. We note that motorcycle headlamps are wired to be activated when the ignition is on because many States require that headlamps be operating at all times. As you know, each motorcycle must be manufactured and certified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 prescribes no requiremen ts for supplemental equipment such as the System. However, additional lighting equipment may not be installed by the manufacturer or dealer before sale if the supplemental equipment impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3). You are therefore correct when you say that the System "may not affect the headlamp." One way in which the System could impair the effectiveness of the headlamp is if it continued to operate at a time when the headlamp is required to provide sufficient i llumination of the roadway (as you recognize in your comment that "the system may only be used during daylight hours"). You have not described the method by which the System will be deactivated. We believe that this should not be a manual operation, le ft to the discretion of the motorcycle operator. In establishing the specifications that allow optional installation of modulating headlamp systems for improving the conspicuity of motorcycles, this agency requires that they be equipped with a sensor th at will deactivate the modulation when a certain low ambient light level is reached. Also, the modulation rate is regulated to prevent seizures in susceptible individuals. I enclose a copy of paragraph S5.6 of Standard No. 108 which discusses these lig ht levels. The System must also not impair the effectiveness of the motorcycle's front turn signals. That is to say, it must not mask the signal or detract from its detectability by oncoming drivers. Whether this might occur will depend upon the color and brightn ess of the System and its proximity to the turn signal lamp. If a motorcycle manufacturer is satisfied that the installation of the System on its product would be permissible under S5.1.3, then it may certify that the motorcycle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not ques tion a determination of non-impairment unless it appears to be clearly erroneous. Satisfaction of Federal new vehicle requirements means that the System is acceptable for sale in the aftermarket under Federal regulations. However, supplementary lighting equipment, whether original or aftermarket, that is not specifically covered by S tandard No. 108 remains subject to regulation by the States. We note that many States have vehicle equipment and use regulations regarding auxiliary amber flashing lamps, Many States also prohibit blue as a color for lamps, reserving it for police, fire , and emergency vehicles. We are unable to advise you on the specifics of State laws, and urge you to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). |
|
ID: nht95-7.53OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 8, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Alison Vredenburgh -- Vice President Research and Development, Error Analysis, Inc. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 9/18/95 letter from Alison Vredenburgh to Kenneth Hardie TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 18, 1995, to Kenneth Hardie of this agency, with respect to the Motorcycle Conspicuity Enhancement System (the "System") described in your letter. You understand "that this system may only be used during daylight hours and may not affect the headlight", and you ask if there are any other regulations of which you should be aware. We understand that the System is still under development, and that the intent is to offer it both as original and aftermarket equipment. Two Systems will be tested, at a flash rate of 60 to 80 per minute, one at an intensity of 35,000 candlepower, and the other at 50,000 candlepower. One System will have three bulbs, and another, four. Each System will be activated when the headlamp is on. We note that motorcycle headlamps are wired to be activated when the ignition is on because many States require that headlamps be operating at all times. As you know, each motorcycle must be manufactured and certified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 prescribes no requirements for supplemental equipment such as the System. However, additional lighting equipment may not be installed by the manufacturer or dealer before sale if the supplemental equipment impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3). You are therefore correct when you say that the System "may not affect the headlamp." One way in which the System could impair the effectiveness of the headlamp is if it continued to operate at a time when the headlamp is required to provide sufficient illumination of the roadway (as you recognize in your comment that "the system may only be used during daylight hours"). You have not described the method by which the System will be deactivated. We believe that this should not be a manual operation, left to the discretion of the motorcycle operator. In establishing the specifications that allow optional installation of modulating headlamp systems for improving the conspicuity of motorcycles, this agency requires that they be equipped with a sensor that will deactivate the modulation when a certain low ambient light level is reached. Also, the modulation rate is regulated to prevent seizures in susceptible individuals. I enclose a copy of paragraph S5.6 of Standard No. 108 which discusses these light levels. The System must also not impair the effectiveness of the motorcycle's front turn signals. That is to say, it must not mask the signal or detract from its detectability by oncoming drivers. Whether this might occur will depend upon the color and brightness of the System and its proximity to the turn signal lamp. If a motorcycle manufacturer is satisfied that the installation of the System on its product would be permissible under S5.1.3, then it may certify that the motorcycle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not question a determination of non-impairment unless it appears to be clearly erroneous. Satisfaction of Federal new vehicle requirements means that the System is acceptable for sale in the aftermarket under Federal regulations. However, supplementary lighting equipment, whether original or aftermarket, that is not specifically covered by Standard No. 108 remains subject to regulation by the States. We note that many States have vehicle equipment and use regulations regarding auxiliary amber flashing lamps, Many States also prohibit blue as a color for lamps, reserving it for police, fire, and emergency vehicles. We are unable to advise you on the specifics of State laws, and urge you to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). |
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.