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: 2515yOpen Mr. William D. Falcon Dear Mr. Falcon: This responds to your letter to our agency concerning your law enforcement standard (71.4.1) for an interior partition you call a "safety barrier." I regret the delay in responding. The copy of 71.4.1 you provided states: "Vehicles used primarily for transporting prisoners (80 percent of their use) should have the driver separated from the prisoner by a safety barrier." The "commentary" to 71.4.1 states that, "The safety barrier may be of wire mesh or heavy gauge plastic to prevent the prisoner from having access to the driver's compartment ..." Mr. Steven Crowell wrote you last year suggesting that this commentary should be revised to state: "The safety barrier must be one which has had a label or tag affixed to it which certifies compliance with all applicable" Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). Mr. Crowell believes such certification is required by Federal law, and apparently bases this on our September 13, 1985 letter to him. You ask whether his understanding is correct. Mr. Crowell is not entirely correct in his understanding of our certification requirements. Our regulations do not generally require materials in safety barriers to be certified, except for glazing materials in barriers. Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used for an interior partition. The standard does not require labels or tags to certify the compliance of the glazing material with it. However, the standard does require that glazing material in a barrier must bear a mark to certify compliance with the standard. Standard No. 205 is the only FMVSS that applies directly to interior partitions (and only if the partition contains glazing material). There is no other FMVSS to which the partition itself would be certified. Since glazing material in safety barriers need not be certified by labels or tags, and because safety barriers made from materials other than glazing materials are not certified under Federal law, we believe 71.4.1's seeking to require affixing a certification label or tag on the barriers may engender confusion about NHTSA's requirements. We note also that there is no Federal requirement for persons to certify modifications made to used vehicles. Therefore, we recommend against 71.4.1's seeking to require certifications in the form of labels or tags affixed to safety barriers installed in new or used vehicles. However, we agree with Mr. Crowell that safety barriers should be installed in a safe manner, and believe that our regulations promote this to the extent possible under the Vehicle Safety Act. If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of a partition as original equipment (prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer), the person making the installation would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify (by attaching a label to the vehicle) that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS's. These FMVSS's include the standards for head restraints (Standard 202), interior impact protection (201), rearview mirrors (111), and crash protection (208). We know of no reason why a suitable partition can't be developed which could be placed in a vehicle equipped with head restraints and shoulder belts. Further, it does not seem to be a difficult matter for the barrier to be installed so that the vehicle would meet Standard 111's requirements for rearview mirrors. On the other hand, installation of the barrier could interfere with the compliance of the back of the front seat with Standard 201 (copy enclosed). Paragraph S3.2 of that standard sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to protect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. The partition design should be capable of meeting Standard 201's requirements for energy absorption and should not be hazardous to head impact. If the safety barrier were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation if he knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This prohibition is contained in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the safety barrier you described, also have responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under 151 et seq., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. The Safety Act imposes a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation upon any manufacturer who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in its motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. In view of the fact that a police department may alter its own vehicles without regard to 108(a)(2)(A), we believe Mr. Crowell might be suggesting that 71.4.1 recommend that the safety barrier should be installed in a manner that does not negatively affect the compliance of the vehicle with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA generally encourages vehicle owners not to remove safety equipment or otherwise alter their vehicles if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. Therefore, while we do not agree with Mr. Crowell that you should seek to require affixed certification labels or tags for barriers, we agree that installation of the barrier should be done in a manner that avoids degrading the overall safety of the vehicle. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure /ref:201#202#205#VSA d:5/3l/90 |
1970 |
ID: 8234Open Mr. Donald Ray McCray Dear Mr. McCray: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1992 to former Secretary Card. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for motor vehicle safety. Your letter expresses concern about the buses that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (DCJ) uses to transport inmates. You believe the buses are unsafe and operated in violation of Federal law. As explained below, it appears the DCJ did not violate any NHTSA regulation. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, each person selling a new bus must ensure that the bus complies with the FMVSS's for buses. NHTSA's requirements for vehicle seats are set forth in FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems. However, that standard does not require seat covers or pads for any bus seat. Also, there is no FMVSS that requires buses to be heated. NHTSA does not regulate the use of motor vehicles, such as the speed at which the DCJ must operate the bus. Individual states, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. Texas state officials would be best able to answer your concerns about the manner in which you were transported. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:207 d:2/9/93 |
1993 |
ID: nht92-9.21OpenDATE: February 6, 1992 FROM: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. TO: Administrator, NHTSA TITLE: Re: Marking requirements of FMVSS No. 108 S7.2.(b) ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated March, 1992 (est.) from Paul Jackson Rice to S. Watanabe (A39; Std. 108) TEXT: As the overseas company of our firm-Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Japan, there are Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Thailand and Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. in Taiwan. We would like to have your advice about the Manufacturer Identification Mark required by FMVSS No. 108 S7.2.(b) on Thai or Taiwan made headlamps for U.S. As the Manufacturer Identification Mark, Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. has "TH STANLEY", "TH STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TH" (in capital letters), as well as Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. has "TW STANLEY", "TW STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TW" (in capital letters). Can Thai Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. and Taiwan Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. use one of the marks to identify the manufacturer in order to conform the requirements of FMVSS NO. 108 S7.2.(b)? In connection with this matter, we inform you that "TH STANLEY" and "TW STANLEY" have been made an application to the U.S. Patent and Trade Marks Office as a trade mark. However, "TH STANLEY" (in capital letters), "STANLEY. TH" (in capital letters), "TW STANLEY" (in capital letters) and "STANLEY. TW" (in capital letters) are not registered as a trade mark, because we think that they are not a trade mark, but a manufacturer's name. |
|
ID: 06-001831 child seat coverOpenCristina M. Offenberg, Esq. 1100 Aquidneck Avenue Middletown, RI 02842 Dear Ms. Offenberg: This responds to your March 13, 2006 letter asking whether Federal regulations apply to a cloth infant/child car seat cover that your client manufactures. While not describing the product in detail, your letter states that the owner of the car seat will fit the cover on the seat and that the cover does not alter the car seat in any way. You ask if there are any Federal regulations that apply to the seat cover, and whether the seat cover would be a violation of any traffic safety laws or whether it exposes my manufacturer to any liability. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter. There currently is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to a car seat cover. Our standard for child restraint systems, FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), applies to any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 30 kilograms (kg) pounds or less.[1] (Infant/child car seats are included in the definition of child restraint system.) The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a cover that is used with a child restraint system, which is sold to consumers to install on their child restraints. (Accessory items sold to consumers for use with the products they own are sometimes referred to as aftermarket products.) However, as explained below, there are Federal requirements and safety considerations of which your client should be aware. While no FMVSS applies to an aftermarket car seat cover, the product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, your client is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for, among other things, notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in compliance with the Federal safety standards. The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners installing aftermarket items on their own vehicles or equipment. We recognize that it is unlikely that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business will be installing your clients product. However, when manufacturing a child seat cover, the following should be considered. FMVSS No. 213 requires rear-facing infant/child car seats to be labeled with certain safety information, including a prominent warning not to use the restraint rear-facing in the front seat with an air bag. A deploying air bag impacting the back of the child restraint could subject the child to severe or fatal head or neck injuries. A motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business that obscures the warning label by covering it with a car seat cover may be subject to penalties for violating 30122. In addition, FMVSS No. 213 requires child restraints to meet flammability resistance requirements. Installation of a cover that degraded the flammability resistance of the child restraint may subject the commercial entity to penalties for violating 30122. We recommend that manufacturers of child seat covers consider the concerns about the air bag warning label and flammability resistance of the child restraint regardless of whether the cover would be installed by a commercial entity or by the child restraint owner. In addition, we recommend that manufacturers of seat covers examine how the cover interacts with the child restraint. The cover should not interfere with the belt systems in restraining the child. The cover should not have excessive padding or other material that can compress in a crash and introduce slack into the belt system, which can result in a greater likelihood of head impact or ejection. In response to your last questions, state or local jurisdictions have their own traffic safety laws which could affect the manufacture and sale of the cover. For information about those requirements, you should contact the state departments of motor vehicles. As for liability issues, we are unable to provide guidance as to your clients potential liability in a private tort action. Issues related to liability and seat covers are more a matter of state than Federal law. We hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:213 d.6/6/06 [1] There is a proposal to increase the mass limit from 30 kg (65 pounds) to 36 kg (80 pounds). 70 FR 51720; August 31, 2005 (NHTSA Docket No. 21245). |
2006 |
ID: 1985-01.40OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/01/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Control Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. T. Chikada, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan
This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for a clarification of certain terminology relating to the definition of a standardized replaceable light source in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.
We are aware of the problem underlying your question, i.e., that the standard contemplates testing of the bulb with its base but the photometrics specified are appropriate for the capsule portion alone. Our Rulemaking staff is reviewing this issue. The agency will inform you of the results of that review. If appropriate, the issue will be addressed through an appropriate interpretation or amendment of the standard.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
January 11, 1985
Attn: Mr. Taylor Vinson Lawyer
Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A. Dear Mr. Vinson,
We are a little bit confused with your wordings in a current FMVSS 108 particularly on S3 "Definition" of specifying "Standardized Replaceable Light Source".
By the S3, Definition of Standardized Replaceable Light Source, it specifies that it is an assembly of a headlamp bulb, base and terminals as described in Fig. 3.
From the above S3 Definition, it can also be interpreted that the means a halogen capsule alone without base as described in Fig. 3 -5.
The lumen values specified in a (b) (1), the general specification of the bulb shall be: for standardized replaceable light source required in S4.1.1.38 of FMVSS 108, can we take that values measured from a halogen capsule alone, without base? Because the wordings are very ambiguous. Please refer the wordings and words underline in the attached.
What is more, at the (b) in S4.1.1.38 says, the bulb portion of the standardized replaceable light source, this bulb portion and the bulb in the (b) (1), the general specification of the bulb shall be: you are talking the same thing, Bulb only (means capsule) without base, we presume.
We would appreciate it very much if you would clarify the each meaning of the word, "Bulb" colored in blue and assembly, light source and the relation between the above words and standardized replaceable light source in the attached.
Sincerely,
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
T. Chikada, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.
Encl. Copies of FMVSS 108 (5) KW/es
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.108 Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment S1. Purpose and scope
This standard specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment necessary for signaling and for the safe operation of motor vehicles during darkness and other conditions of reduced visibility. S2. Application
This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles, and to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies.
S3. Definitions
"Headlamp test fixture" means a device designed to support a replaceable bulb headlamp in the test position specified in the laboratory tests in S4.1.1.36(d), and whose mounting hardware and components are those necessary to operate the headlamp as installed in a motor vehicle.
"Replaceable bulb headlamp" means a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly, and a standardized replaceable light source.
"Seasoning" means a process of energizing the filament of a headlamp, at design voltage, for a period of time equal to 1 percent of average rated laboratory life.
"Standardized replaceable light source" means an assembly of a headlamp bulb, base, and terminals, as described in Figure 3. S4. Requirements S4.1 Required motor vehicle lighting equipment
S4.1.1.38 Each standardized replaceable light source shall conform to the following requirements: (a) A silicone O-ring shall be provided. (b) The bulb portion of the standardized replaceable light source shall meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.
(1) The general specifications of the bulb shall be: Low beam High beam Maximum power, watts at 2.8V (design voltage) 50 70
Lumens (without black cap) at 12.8 V design voltage 1.067 + 10% 1.738 + 10%
Average life at 14.0 V rated voltage (life testing 320 hrs 150 hrs as conducted in a finished headlamp assembly placed in the normal operating attitude)
(2) The bulb filaments shall be subject to seasoning prior to wattage and lumens measurement. (3) Wattage and lumens measurements shall be made with the direct current test voltage regulated within one quarter of one percent. (4) Except for reference dimensions, and unless otherwise specified, a general tolerance of +0.004 in. (0.10 mm) shall apply to all linear dimensions and +1o.00' shall apply to all angular dimensions. (5) Bulb, lead wires and/or terminals shall be installed in the base so as to provide an airtight seal. (6) After a bulb deflection test conducted in accordance with S7, the permanent deflection of the glass envelope of each standardized replaceable light source shall not exceed 0.005 inch (0.13 mm) in the direction of the |
|
ID: 1985-01.50OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/15/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Gordan Bonvallet Manager, Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. P.O. Box 2040 Cortland, New York 13045-2040
Dear Mr. Bonvallet:
This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1985, asking for an interpretation of the humidity testing procedure for replaceable bulb headlamps.
Paragraph S6.8 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that after completion of the test cycle in which the headlamp shall have been in an environment of 100oF with a relative humidity of 90+105, it shall then be in an environment with a temperature of 73oF and relative humidity of 30+10% before removal for photometric testing. You believe that this implies an instantaneous transition in temperature/humidity conditions which, in your view, is "impossible to achieve." You have set forth three alternative procedures and ask which is the most acceptable to this agency.
Under your first alternative, the temperature and humidity in the humidity chamber would be reduced to 73oF-43%;, requiring about an hour) whereupon the headlamp would be removed to a "dry box" chamber of the requisite temperature/ humidity before photometric testing. In the second alternative, there would be no such removal before the photometric testing. In the third alternative, the headlamp would be removed from the humidity chamber and immediately carried to a "dry box" with the requisite temperature/ humidity; however, in your test set up this would require three to five minutes elapsed time between chambers.
Paragraph S6.8 does not specify a humidity of 43% in any of its test conditions, and a procedure incorporating the first and second alternatives clearly would not be in accordance with paragraph S6.8. That paragraph, however, does not specify that the temperature/humidity sequences must occur in the same chamber but it does imply that the lower temperature/ humidity soak should take place directly following the higher temperature/humidity one. Therefore, your third alternative is the one that meets the intent of paragraph S6.8. To insure consistency of results, we recommend that no transfer period exceed three minutes and that the headlamp be exposed as briefly and as little as possible to the ambient temperature/humidity of the test laboratory.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel
Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590
Gentlemen:
Subject: Interpretation of Testing Procedure FMVSS 108 Replaceable Bulb Headlamps
Paragraph S6.8 Humidity of FMVSS 108 states a test procedure which implies a headlamp should undergo an instantaneous transition in temperature/ humidity conditions from 100oF-90% relative humidity (tolerances have been omitted here) to 73oF-30% R.H. This, of course, is impossible to achieve. The attached discussion suggests possible testing procedures to resolve the problem. I request an interpretation on which is acceptable and if none are, please clarify how the test can and should be performed. We expect to have headlamps to test within the next couple of weeks, so prompt consideration would be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division
GB/mm Enclosure
Docket No. 81-11
Replaceable Bulb Headlamp
FMVSS 108 Paragraph S6.8 Humidity The present ruling requires the headlamp to be subjected to a controlled environment of 100oF + 9o and a relative humidity of 90% + 10%. Following the 20 consecutive 6 hour test cycles, the headlamp is to be "soaked" for 1 hour at 73oF (20oC) and a relative humidity of 30% + 10% before it is removed for photometric testing. Most environmental chambers (Thermotron, Blue M, for example) do not have the capabilities to reduce the humidity to 30% (or 40%) at the 73oF temperature. We have constructed a special chamber which is capable of about 35% RH at 73oF although this is very dependent on the room ambient temperature and humidity. This chamber is located near the Photometric test range so we can perform the following photometric test in a very short time. Unfortunately, this chamber is located a couple hundred feet from the standard environmental chamber. At the completion of the humidity test, we must remove the headlamp and carry it to the "dry box" for the one hour soak. Men the headlamp is removed from the 100oF environmental chamber, it immediately is subjected to a cooler room ambient, perhaps 65o -70oF and 60% RH.
We have experimented with a procedure which reduces the temperatures humidity of the environmental chamber following the normal humidity cycles, to a range of 73oF and about 43% RH. This procedure takes about one hour to accomplish. We cannot get the humidity any lower with prolonged operation of the chamber. Following this procedure, the headlamp is carried to the "dry box" for the one hour soak. I know of no standard environmental chambers which can operate at 100oF - 90% RH and reduce in conditions to 73oF - 30 + 10% RH within a short enough period to allow a one hour soak at the final temperature/humidity conditions, period to allow a one hour soak at the final temperature/humidity conditions, other than s chamber designed for thermal shock and these have no humidity control. I request an interpretation on which of the described procedures should be used.
1. Following the humidity test, reduce the temperature and humidity in the chamber to 73oF - 43% RH in a one hour period, transfer headlamp to the 73oF - 30 + 10% RH dry box for one hour followed by the photometric test.
2. Following the humidity test, reduce the temperature and humidity in the chamber to 73oF - 43% RH in a one hour period, followed by the photometric test.
3. Following the humidity test, remove the headlamp from the humidity chamber, carry it at room ambient conditions (approximately three minutes - five minutes) to the dry box and soak at 73oF and 30 + 10% RH for one hour followed by the photometric test. If none of these alternatives is acceptable, please clarify exactly how the test can and should be performed.
Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. February 4, 1985 |
|
ID: nht79-4.45OpenDATE: 01/11/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHSTA TO: Grumman Flxible TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 JAN 11 1979 NOA-30 Mr. R. L. Ratz, P.E. Product Safety Engineering Grumman Flxible 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43015 Dear Mr. Ratz: This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1978, asking whether the front and rear clearance lamps on your Model 870 Urban transit coach comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The front clearance lamps on the Model 870 are combined with the turn signal lamps, side marker lamps, and side reflex reflectors. The units are located "on line with and just outboard of each rectangular headlamp," with lens center 32 inches above the road surface, at a point that appears to be at the vehicle's overall width. The rear clearance lamps are combined with the stop lamps and rear side marker lamps, their horizontal center lines 64 inches above the road surface, at approximately the vehicle's overall width. Front and rear identification lamps are mounted at the top of the vehicle. The general rule expressed by Table II of Standard No. 108 is that clearance lamps must be mounted "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle ... and as near the top thereof as practicable." But a partial exception is provided by S4.3.1.4.: When the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle."
This means that the mid-body location of the rear clearance lamp is acceptable since the rear identification lamps are at the extreme height of the vehicle. But the exception does not extend to the front clearance lamps. While Standard No. 108 allows the manufacturer to determine what location is "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle", there will be instances when the overall width of the vehicle will not be indicated by the highest location. In such instances the best location will be the one that most closely approximates the intent behind the requirement - to indicate the overall width. Specifically with reference to the Model 870, it appears to us that the close proximity of the combination lamp to the headlamp may result in the effectiveness of the clearance lamp being impaired by the brightness of the headlamp, and that the most practicable location sufficiently indicating the overall width of the vehicle, would be at the outer edges of the body directly below the windshield. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel GRUMMAN FLXIBLE 970 PITTSBURGH DRIVE DELAWARE, OHIO 43015 614/369-7671 Telex : 245484 70-0220rlr December 8, 1978 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 References: (a) FMVSS No. 108. Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, current edition. (b) Grumman flxible Model 870 Advanced Design Transit Coach, photographs attached. (c) Certificates of conformance copies attached. Dear Sirs:
Your assistance is requested with respect to an official interpretation of reference (a) above as it relates to the installation location of the clearance lamps on our new Grumnan Flxible Model 870 urban transit coach as shown in the enclosed photographs. Refering to Photograph #1, the amber lamp seen on line with and just outboard of each dual, rectangular headlamp is a combination lamp which performs the functions of a turn signal lamp, a clearance lamp, a sidemarker lamp and a side reflex reflector. The lamp contains a single, dual-filament bulb. A 3 c.p. filament provides the light source for the combination clearance/sidemarker lamp functions. and a 32 c.p. filament provides the light source for the front turn signal function. This lamp has been certified as being in conformance with FMVSS No. 108 by the manufacturer (See Attachment #1) and certificates of approval have been issued by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (See Attachment #2) and the Department of California Highway Patrol (See Attachment #3). These lamps are mounted with lense centers 32 inches above road surface, on the outermost edges of the vehicle front view envelope thus indicating the overall width of the Model 870. It should be noted from Photo #1 that the vehicle sides converge from a point just beneath the baseline of the windshield up to the topmost roof corners. The amount of this convergence is such that each roof corner is eleven inches inboard if the base of the windshield cornerpost. Therefore, clearance lamps mounted at the top-most roof corners would identify the vehicle as being twenty-two inches narrower than it actually is. Our rear exterior lamp configuration is shown in Photo #4. The upper red lamp on each outer edge of the rear view functions as a stop signal lamp, a clearance lamp and a sidemarker lamp. The horizontal center line of this lamp as installed is 64 inches above road surface. The lower red lamp functions as a tail lamp, a turn signal lamp, rear reflex reflector and a side reflex reflector. It's horizontal center line as intalled is 50 inches above road surface. Each lamp contains a single, dual-filament 3 c.p. & 32 c.p.) bulb. The stop signal and turn signal functions utilize the 32 c.p. filament. The clearance, sidemarker and tail lamp functions utilize the 32 c.p. filament. The white lamp shown between the two red lamps on each side are backup lamps. Attachments #4, #5 and #6 are copies of the certificates associated with these lamp units. We would greatly appreciate a review and evaluation by the Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, of the installation locations of the clearance lamps on the Model 870 bus as regards to conformance with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Sincerely, R.L. Ratz, P.E. Product Safety Engineering Enclosures |
|
ID: nht80-1.4OpenDATE: 01/11/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Blue Bird Body Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your October 8, 1979, letter and follow-up meeting in which you ask several questions about the compliance of your school buses with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. In your letter, you ask about four separate joints and ask whether they would be required to comply with the standard. As you know, the standard applies to any joint of a body panel that encloses bus body space and a body structure member. An exception from the standard exists for those joints that connect maintenance access panels. In our meeting with you, we stated the agency's objection to the existing industry practice involving maintenance access panels, and further stated that the agency was contemplating rulemaking to restrict the maintenance access panel exception. Responding directly to the four joints that you reference in your letter, you first ask whether the contact point between the headlining panel and the spring clip is a joint subject to the standard. A spring clip is entirely enclosed within a bus wall. Its function is to aid in holding the body panel in place while the rivets or adhesives are being applied. It serves no function beyond that. The agency does not believe that a spring clip is either a body structure member or a body panel enclosing occupant space. Accordingly, the joint of this clip and any other body member is not a joint subject to the standard. In your second question, you ask whether the joint between the headlining panel and the headlining panel positioning tab is a joint subject to the standard. The positioning tab is a device that is approximately two inches long and contacts the headlining panel in two places between the bus body bows. The purpose of this tab, is to prevent buckling of the headlining panel between the two bows. The agency concludes that positioning tabs are body structure members. Therefore, if they contact a body panel at its edge, the intersection of these two components creates a joint subject to the standard. Your third question asks whether an extruded aluminum sash assembly must comply with the standard. You state in your letter that this assembly is part of the window and, therefore, exempt from the requirements. The aluminum sash assembly to which you refer is an add-on device above the window found in your larger buses to provide more headroom. The agency concludes that this device has no function as a part of the window but merely is a trim panel that serves to cover part of the bus sidewall. Accordingly, the joint connecting this panel to the remainder of the bus structure would be required to comply with the standard. Finally, you ask whether the joint between a positioning angle and a headlining panel must comply with the joint strength requirements. A positioning angle is a body structure member that runs from bow to bow and supports the edge of the headlining panel to prevent buckling. The agency concludes that this positioning angle is a body structure member and its connection with a body panel is a joint subject to the standard's requirements. SINCERELY, BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY October 8, 1979 Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation SUBJECT: FMVSS 221 REF: 1. Letter from Francis Armstrong to Albert L. Luce dated 6-1-79; NEF-31 MPa CIR 2087 Dear Mr. Berndt: The subject standard requires 60% joint strength for certain defined joints on school buses; other joints, as defined in S4 of the standard, are exempted. The purpose of this letter is to seek confirmation that certain aspects of a proposed design change are exempted under the provisions of S4. In preparation for initial compliance with the subject standard, Blue Bird Body Company redesigned the wire service panel and obtained approval for the new design; please refer to letter to and from NHTSA on February 13, 1976 and April 26, 1976 respectively. In reference 1, NHTSA raised questions concerning our wire service panel. The questions carried no allegations of non compliance. However, in keeping with Blue Bird Body Company's philosophy of meeting the spirit of NHTSA regulations as well as the letter, we are now proposing changes to the wire service panel and surrounding components. These changes are described by the two enclosed prints. The prints show cross sections of the proposed wire service panel design for 74" headroom and 77" headroom vehicles. The specific items with regard to this design proposal which we would like you to confirm are: 1. That the area of contact between the headlining and spring steel clip is not a joint subject to FMVSS 221 requirements. As shown on the prints, this clip is used only as an assembly aid to support headlining panels while permanent fasteners are installed. The clip will be approximately 3/4" wide. While the permanent integrity of the design is not dependent on the clip, the intent is to leave it in place after the permanent fasteners are installed. 2. That the area of contact between the headlining and the headlining panel positioning tab on the header of 74" headroom models is not a joint subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221. The purpose of the tab is to prevent the headlining from bowing outward between roof bows. The tab is shown full size on the 74" headroom print. There will be two tabs per window section. 3. That the window frame extension on 77" headroom models is exempted under the provisions of S4 where windows and body panel joints designed for ventilation are exempted. 4. That the headlining panel positioning angle on 77" headroom models is exempted. This angle performs the same function on 77" headroom models as the headlining panel positioning tabs serve on the 74" headroom models; see item 2 above. Your early review and confirmation of these items will be appreciated. We are available for conference at your convenience to answer any questions you might have. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services ENCLS. |
|
ID: nht78-1.30OpenDATE: 12/01/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Wayne Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Dec 1, 1978 NOA-30 Mr. Robert B. Kurre Wayne Corporation P. 0. Box 1447 Industries Road Richmond, Indiana 47374 Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your September 6, 1978, letter asking for a clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In particular you ask whether paragraph S5.3.3 which requires that, "a continuous warning sound shall be audible at the driver's seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency exit door having the unclosed mechanism" means that there must be a separate warning alarm at each emergency door and a warning alarm in the driver's seating area. In your letter you recite the early history of this standard which addresses the alarm system requirement. At the time of the final rule's adoption, commenters questioned the requirement in the same manner that you have questioned in your letter. The agency stated in the preamble to the final rule (41 FR 3871) that the requirement mandated the use of audible alarms at each door and in the driver's seating location. The rationale for that requirement was outlined in the preamble and referenced in your letter. Since this interpretation of paragraph S5.3.3 was part of the initial rulemaking with respect to this standard, it is not necessary for the agency to undertake further rulemaking at this time to make this requirement binding upon manufacturers. The multiple alarm system requirement has been the agency's interpretation of paragraph S5.3.3 since its issuance, and manufacturers are required to comply with the safety standards as they are interpreted by the agency. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel
September 6, 1978 Administrator NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Sir: It has come to our attention, by way of an operator of Wayne school buses, that personnel from the San Francisco regional office of NHTSA claims that a condition of noncompliance exists on Wayne's school buses. This compliant concerns the requirements of FMVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, S5.3.3, namely, there is no alarm device located in the vicinity of the emergency door. A phone call from Mr. Shannon of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance in Washington confirmed the allegation. Mr. Shannon said the allegation is based on NHTSA's interpretation contained in the preamble of the Notification of Amendment 41 FR 3871, Docket No. 75-3, Notice 2. We quote the fifth paragraph of the preamble which is the one in question. "Six comments supported the proposal to require an audible alarm when the ignition is on and the release mechanism of any emergency door is not closed. Five of these, however, objected that an alarm at each door in addition to one in the driver's cormpartment should be unnecessary and unduly costly. The NHTSA does not agree. The purpose of audible alarms at each door is to indicate which release mechanism is not closed. This is especially critical while the vehicle is in motion, as it will serve to warn the passengers in the area of the possibility that an emergency door could open. In addition, it will serve as a deterrent to tampering by children with the emergency door release mechanisms. Therefore, the requirement that an audible alarm be positioned at each ermergency door and at the driver's position has been retained. We do not agree that this preamble statement constitutes an interpretation, it is clearly a different version of the standard -a different requirement. The requirement for an audible alarm to be positioned at each emergency door and at the driver's position could not have been retained as stated in the preamble because this requirement has never existed in the standard. As originally proposed in the notice to amend, published in the Federal Register of February 28, 1975, Docket No. 75-3, Notice 1, the requirement was stated thusly: "When the release mechanism is unlatched and the vehicle ingitlon is in the wonw position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible in the driver's compartment and in the vicinity of the emergency door having the unlatched mechanism." Docket 75-3, Notice 3, the version of the standard which went into effect on April 1, 1977, states this requirement in this way: "When the release mechanism is not in the closed position and the vehicle ignition is in the "on" position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible at the driver's seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency door having the unclosed mechanism." A couple of editorial changes were made in the final version, however, in both versions "a continuous warning sound shall be audible at," remains identical. The standard does not require that the sound come from a device located at the driver's seating position and another device located in the vicinity of the emergency door. In addition, the standard is written in the single tense, "a continuous sound." One sound, not two sounds, is required. The performance criteria is whether or not the sound is audible at both the driver's seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency door. As we understand this complaint, the only thing at issue is the existence of an alarm device located at the emergency door. The alarm device located in the driver's compartment produces a continuous sound which is audible at the driver's seating position as well as in the vicinity of the emergency door. After explaining our position to Mr. Shannon, he upheld the San Francisco office's interpretation and suggested we write to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards for resolution of the problem, therefore, we request that NHTSA either inform their regional offices that in order to comply with FMVSS 217, an alarm device does not have to be located at the emergency door, or institute rule making action soliciting comments to amend FMVSS 217 in accordance with the requirements stated in paragraph 5 of the preamble to 41 FR 3871, Dockets No. 75-3, Notice if these are, in fact, the NHTSA's intended requirements. Sincerely, Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering RBK:m |
|
ID: nht90-2.97OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/28/90 FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO: MR. BRAD G. MAGOR TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/01/90 FROM BRAD MAGOR TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; OCC 4766 TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 1, 1990, to the Department of Transportation with respect to your intended purchase of a Canadian truck or van which you will eventually import into the United States. You asked for information on the features requi red to meet the U.S. safety standards, and whether Canadian vehicles generally have these items. There is a great similarity, but not identicality, between the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS), and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Manufacturers in both countries are required to affix a label to their vehicles certi fying compliance with all applicable safety standards. We understand that some Canadian manufacturers may have certified compliance of their vehicles with both the CMVSS and the FMVSS. If dual certification has occurred, it will be evident from reading the certification label on the vehicle (usually located in the driver door post area). If the vehicle bears a certification of compliance that includes the FMVSS, you should encounter no problems in importing, registering, and selling it in the United States. However, if the vehicle is certified only to the CMVSS, you will encounter some difficulty in importing it, notwithstanding the substantial similarity of the CMVSS and FMVSS. By direction of Congress, a vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the FMVSS may not be admitted into the U.S. unless two things have occurred. The vehicle must be on a list of vehicles that the Department has approved for conversion to the FMVSS. If this has occurred, then the vehicle can only be imported by a "regis tered importer" (i.e. converter), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to perform the conversion work. A bond equal to 150% of the entered value of the vehicle must be given to secure performance of the conversion work, which is cancelle d upon satisfactory evidence that the work has been performed.
The new directives of Congress were only effective on January 31, 1990, and we are still working to implement them. We have tentatively proposed an approved general list of vehicles that would include all Canadian trucks and vans manufactured since Janu ary 1, 1968, that were certified as meeting the CMVSS, and which are of the same make, model, and model year of any truck or van originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, or originally manufactured in the United States, and that were certified as meeting the FMVSS. For example, a 1990 Chevrolet truck manufactured in Canada to the CMVSS with a U.S. manufactured and certified counterpart would be covered by this general list. We have received no objections to treating C anadian vehicles in this fashion. A final determination should be published in the near future. We have also accorded registered importer status to a number of applicants. If you choose to buy a vehicle certified to the CMVSS for importation into the United States, we will be pleased to provide the latest list of registered importers as the time draws near for your departure. The minor differences in the standards that may effect you are principally those regarding speedometer/odometers and lighting. The former must indicate miles and miles per hour (and may indicate kilometers and kilometers per hour). Vehicles must be equi pped with headlamps that meet the FMVSS and not those of the ECE. Thus, once a CMVSS-certified vehicle is imported, we do not anticipate that the conversion work should be lengthy or costly. Once the work has been satisfactorily performed and the conve rter's label attached, you should encounter no difficulties in registering the vehicle or in selling it. I hope that this answers your questions. |
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.