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: nht93-3.24Open
DATE: April 27, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA TO: John B. White -- Industry Standards & Government Regulations, Michelin TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-13-93 from John B. White to General Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8292) TEXT: This responds to your letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify our certification procedures for the information of some of your customers. Specifically, you stated that some customers believe that you are required to test your tires for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), and that this agency then certifies your tires after reviewing and evaluating your test results. Those impressions are incorrect. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES FOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS, found at 49 CFR 571.119. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, ET SEQ. (Safety Act) establishes a self-certification procedure applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. This means that the tire manufacturer, and not a governmental agency such as NHTSA, certifies that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. Each new tire must be certified as meeting the applicable FMVSSs regardless of whether the tire meets an equal or higher standard in another country. The UTQGS are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative ratings of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers. Again, that is the manufacturers' responsibility and NHTSA neither reviews nor approves the ratings prior to their assignments by the manufacturers. Neither the Safety Act nor NHTSA standards and regulations require that a manufacturer base its certifications on any specific tests, any number of specified tests or, for that matter, any tests at all. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with applicable Federal safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public. This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before introduction into the U.S. retail market. Similarly, NHTSA does not approve or certify manufacturers' test results. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If they fail the tests and are determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. Government compliance test results are available to the public upon request from the NHTSA Technical Reference Division (NAD 52), 400 Seventh Street SW, Room 5108, Washington, D.C. 20590; (202) 366-2768. I hope this information will assist you in clarifying tire certification requirements to the satisfaction of your customers. If you have any further questions or desire further clarification, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 1984-2.33OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/20/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Blue Bird Body Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030
Dear Mr. Turner:
This responds to your June 14, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Section 5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 217 provides manufacturers with three options with which they may meet the unobstructed openings requirements for buses other than school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. You asked for our confirmation of your interpretation that windows and doors on these vehicles which meet the specifications of options (b) and (c) of section 5.2.2 have no requirements as to emergency exit release, extension, and identification. As discussed below, windows and doors installed in compliance with section 5.2.2 in a bus other than a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less must comply with the requirements of section 5.3 and 5.4 of the standard. They do not have to comply with the requirements of S5.5 unless specially-installed emergency exits, such as push-out windows, are used.
Section 5.3 specifies emergency exit release requirements for push-out windows or other emergency exits not required by S5.2.3. Similarly, section 5.4 specifies emergency exit extension requirements for push-out windows or other emergency exits not required by S5.2.3. Since section 5.2.3 only specifies emergency exit requirements for school buses, the windows and doors on buses other than school buses with GVWR of 10,000 or less must comply with Sections 5.3 through 5.5 of the Standard. The Standard permits the emergency exit requirements to be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which are manually operable to an open position that provides a specified area for egress. Standard roll-down windows generally meet these requirements. You are correct in your understanding that Standard No. 217 does not require standard roll-down windows and doors on these vehicles to be labeled as emergency exits. The purpose of the emergency exit marking requirements of Standard No. 217 is to identify for occupants the location and use of specially- installed emergency exits. In the case of buses having a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, the emergency exit requirements may be met with the vehicle's doors and with windows which meet the specifications of S5.2.2(b). Standard roll-down windows generally meet these specifications. The agency has determined that the operation of standard roll-down windows and doors are generally familiar to persons who are old enough to read instructions. Thus there would be little justification for providing emergency exit markings for these exits. However, section 5.5.1 provides that specially-installed emergency exits whose operation are not immediately obvious in such buses, such as push-out windows, are not exempted from the emergency exit identification requirement. Sincerely,
Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
NHTSA NOA-30:D.Hom:p11:69511:7/6/84:PR: NOA-30:Subj/Chron Concurrence: NRM; NEF Interps: Redbook (3) Std. 217 NRM-01:Info NEF-01:Info OCC 765
June 14, 1984 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Reference: 49 CFR Part 571.217 Bus Window Retention and Release Dear Mr. Berndt:
Section S5.2.2, "Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.", of the subject standard states the following:
Buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less may meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing: (a) Devices that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 without using remote controls or central power systems; (b) Windows that can be opened manually to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit unobstructed passage, keeping a major axis horizontal at all times, of an ellipsoid generated by rotating about its minor axis an ellipse having a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches; or (c) Doors
Option (a) specifies devices that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5. Options (b) and (c) make no reference to the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5. Based on this it is our understanding that options (b) windows . . . and (c) doors, do not have to meet the requirements of Sections S5.3 through S5.4 dealing with emergency exit release, extension, and identification.
In other words, on a bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less built on a Commercial cutaway van chassis, large windows meeting S5.2.2 (b) and/or the driver's door provided with the chassis and the entrance door, can be used to meet the unobstructed opening requirements of S5.2 without regard to the requirements of S5.3, S5.4, or S5.5.
We request your confirmation that our understanding is correct and thank you for your early reply. Very truly yours,
Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services
fvc c: FMVSS 217 File |
|
ID: 1985-01.46OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/07/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Ron Marion Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27267
Dear Mr. Marion:
This responds to your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection. You asked whether a single, full width, 90 inch seat may be placed at the last row of the school bus and be designated as a four passenger seat. In telephone calls with Ms. Hom of my staff, you stated that these school buses have a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. Further, the next to last row of seats has two 59 inch, three passenger seats, on the left and right of the aisle.
I would like to separate your question into two parts. The first part with designating the full width seat as a four passenger seat even though, under S4.1 of Standard No. 222, the number of seating positions is six. The second part concerns the restraining barrier requirement of Standard No. 222.
We believe that designating a 90 inch, full width seat as a four passenger seat would not comply with FMVSS No. 222. Paragraph S4.1 of the standard states that:
The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 75 and rounded to the nearest whole number. Thus, under S4.1, the number of seating positions on a 90 inch width seat is six. Labeling a 90 inch width seat as a four passenger seat amounts to a disclaimer by the manufacturer that two seating positions are not to used. This practice is prohibited since, despite the disclaimer, it is likely that passengers will use all six seating positions and, thus, each position should provide the level of occupant protection required by our standard. A manufacturer cannot escape its occupant protection responsibilities associated with a designated seating position responsibilities associated with a designated seating position simply by disclaiming that position. The second part of your question deals with designating the 90 inch seat as a six passenger seat and the requirement in Standard No. 222 for restraining barriers. Standard No. 22 requires a restraining barrier of specified size in front of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point (SRP). From the information in your letter, we have determined that at least one of the designated seating positions in the center portion of the last row would not have the rear surface of another passenger seat within 24 inches of its SRP. A restraining barrier would have to be placed in front of these designated seating positions, and would block the center aisle. Such a barrier would obstruct access to the emergency exits.
FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, regulates the number, size, and operation of school bus emergency exits. Paragraph S2 states that one of the purposes of Standard No. 217 is "to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress." Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires each school bus to be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window. Paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 require unobstructed passage through these exits from the interior of the bus. If there is unobstructed access, as required by paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4, with the restraining barrier in place, then the buses you describe would not violate that requirement. However, even if the barrier and other aspects of the bus design would not violate the requirement, we would urge that the manufacturers of such buses ensure that the design not complicate efforts of the passengers to reach and use the emergency exits.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel
July 13, 1984
Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Berndt,
I would like to request an interpretation of the Federal Standard #222 - School Bus Seating and Crash Protection.
Currently, buses with the engine location in the rear, produced by this company, have been seated two-ways as follows: 1. In non-school buses the last row of seats is a single seat across the total width of the vehicle.
2. In the school bus of this type the last row of seats include two separate 39" seat, one on the right and one on the left, leaving an area between the seats for access to the rear emergency exit. My question is, "Would it be in compliance with Federal Standard #222 to place the single, full width, 90" seat, at the last row of the school bus and designate it as a four passenger seat?" Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,
THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.
RON MARION, Specification Engineer
RM/jm |
|
ID: GF000843.2Open
Mr. Robert S. Livingston Dear Mr. Livingston: This responds to your January 27, 2005, e-mail regarding lamp, reflex reflector, and conspicuity system requirements for trailers. First, you ask whether the rear side marker lamp, the rear clearance lamp, and the reflex reflector can be combined into a single lighting device so long as it is "visible from both vehicle axes. " Second, you ask whether the retroreflective sheeting located at the rear of the trailer can be combined with the retroreflective sheeting located on the underride guard. You provided a photograph of the prototype vehicle and indicated that its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is over 10,000 pounds. Our answers follow. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment on trailers and other motor vehicles is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. S5.4 of FMVSS No. 108 permits combining certain items of lighting equipment if the requirements for each item are met. Based on the language of this section, you ask two questions regarding combining lamps, reflex reflectors, and retroreflective sheeting on trailers. Combining Lighting Devices Tables I & II specify that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things:
You ask if these requirements can be met by single lighting devices at each rear corner of the trailer. The photograph accompanying your e-mail shows a lamp and a reflex reflector tilted at a (approximately) 45-degree angle on each rear corner of the trailer. With respect to reflex reflectors, S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that your trailer be equipped with a conspicuity system. Further, S5.1.1.29 specifies that a trailer equipped with a conspicuity system in conformance with S5.7 need not be equipped with the reflex reflectors required by Table I, if the conspicuity material is placed at the locations required for the Table I reflectors. Thus, if your trailer is equipped with conspicuity material at the appropriate locations specified above, you may omit installing reflex reflectors on this trailer. With respect to side marker and clearance lamps, S5.4 discussed above allows these lamps to be combined, if the photometric requirements for each lamp are met, as installed on the vehicle. SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps," July 1972, specifies that both side marker and clearance lamps meet the minimum photometric requirements (expressed in candela) at test points located 45 degrees to the left and right of each lamp. We are familiar with combination lamps that emit a photometric output over 180-degrees wide in order to simultaneously satisfy the photometric requirements for side marker and rear clearance lamps. This is because the angle between the furthest forward test point of the side marker lamp and the furthest inboard test point of the rear clearance lamp is 180-degrees. We examined the photograph of the prototype trailer and question whether your lamp could simultaneously meet the applicable photometric requirements of J592e for both a clearance and side marker lamp because it does not appear to be a combination lamp capable of emitting light over a 180-degree angle. We suggest you contact the lamp manufacturer to determine whether the proposed combination lamp would be capable of complying with all the applicable requirements as installed on your trailer. Combining Retroreflective Sheeting Table I specifies that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things, a conspicuity system meeting the requirements of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108. In particular, S5.7.1.4.1 requires 3 elements of retroreflective sheeting at the rear of each trailer. Element 1 must be located at the bottom, horizontally across the full width of the trailer. Element 2, consisting of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, must be located horizontally and vertically at the upper contours of the body. Element 3 must be located horizontally across the full width of the rear underride guard. You ask if Element 1 and Element 3 retroreflective sheeting could be combined into one retroreflective sheet located on the underride guard. Our answer is no. S5.4 does not apply to your second question because trailers equipped with underride guards must have separate retroreflective sheeting on the underride guard, and on the rear at the bottom of the trailer. Thus, the retroreflective sheet located on the underride guard cannot satisfy the location requirements for Element 1 retroreflective sheeting, which must be located on the trailer, above the underride guard. Accordingly, your trailer must have Elements 1 and 3 retroreflective sheeting to comply with the requirements of S5.7.1.4.1. We are enclosing Figures 30-1, and 30-2 to clarify this issue. We note that the picture of your prototype trailer appears to be missing Element 2 retroreflective sheeting. Your trailer must also, be equipped with Element 2 retroreflective sheeting. I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2005 |
ID: 06-005826asOpenKim D. Mann, Esq. Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson 1850 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Dear Mr. Mann: This responds to your letter asking about the permissibility of certain auxiliary lighting equipment under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You asked about this in connection with a product of one of your clients. Specifically, your letter requested our opinion as to the permissibility of a row of eleven lamps that function as identification lamps, stop lamps, supplemental stop lamps, and turn signals. Based on the information about the product that you provided and the analysis below, it is our opinion that the auxiliary stop lamps and turn signal lamps would impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps, and thus be impermissible under the standard. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 specifies that no additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. As you are aware, identification lamps are required You present a variety of arguments that you believe support the permissibility of your clients product, and we will address them here. In your first argument, you state that NHTSA issued an interpretation in 1999[1] stating that a set of brake lights, functioning as supplemental stop lights when brakes are applied, may be installed adjacent to compliant three-lamp cluster rear identification lamps. [emphasis added] This reading is somewhat inaccurate. In that letter, the product addressed was a light bar which contained the required cluster of three identification lamps. Those same three bulbs also acted as supplemental stop lamps by increasing in intensity when the brakes were applied. In addressing the increased brightness, we stated that the effectiveness of [the identification lamps] would not be impaired by an increase in the intensity of the lamps when the brake pedal is applied. [emphasis added] The distinguishing difference between this product and the one you ask about is that the product addressed in the 1999 letter maintained the characteristic three-lamp cluster indicative of identification lamps even when acting as a supplemental stop lamp, whereas the additional eight lamps of your clients design would effectively mask the three-lamp cluster, turning it into an eleven-lamp cluster. Table II of Standard No. 108, which lays out in detail the location and many characteristics of required lighting equipment for truck trailers, is specific that three lamps are to be used, as well as to their required configuration. In your second argument, you noted a letter sent by this agency in 2005,[2] which stated that auxiliary lamps should be located sufficiently distant from the three-lamp ID cluster so as not to impair its effectiveness. You then proceed to state that: It is not the precise number of lights, three, that indicates the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway. It is the presence of a series of high-mounted lights across the rear of the trailer. This logic deviates from the logic that NHTSA has used for some time in creating a standardized system for lighting symbols on the highways. In a 1999 letter of interpretation, we summarized our position as follows: Intuitively, it may seem to you that providing additional stop lamp, turn signal, and taillamp functions can only enhance motor vehicle safety. However, we are convinced that our current standardized approach to motor vehicle lighting has positive safety benefits by virtue of its broad public and international acceptance, and that lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108 for a specific purpose ought not to be used for a different purpose. A driver, when confronted with a signal, must not be confused and must react to it as quickly as possible. The use of the outer lamps of the identification lamp cluster as supplementary turn signals, carry the potential for confusion and hence impairment of the lamps[3] Thus, we believe that the three-lamp cluster, by virtue of the standardization ensured by Standard No. 108, is inherently safer than other, non-conforming patterns of lamps such as an eleven-lamp cluster. This is also why we reject the argument you make that the additional high-mounted turn lights would, when activated, make the trailers presence even more pronounced. While the additional lamps would perhaps make it brighter, the obscuring of the highway-standard three-lamp cluster would outweigh that benefit. You also argue that with regard to an identification lamp cluster, three bulbs is a minimum according to paragraph S5.1.1. You state that the number of identification lamps may be any number exceeding two (including 11). We disagree that this is a correct interpretation of the language in that paragraph. The relevant language of paragraph S5.1.1 reads: Each vehicle shall be equipped with at least the number of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment specified in Tables I and III and S7, as applicable This language simply indicates that FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for a minimum number of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. We note that it does not permit additional lamps that interfere with the functioning of the required lighting equipment, or alter established lighting systems, contrary to paragraph S5.1.3. NHTSA has previously stated that the identification lamp system must consist of no more than three lamps. For example, in 2003, NHTSA made the following statement: [A]n identification lamp system complying with Standard No. 108 cannot have more than three lamps. You have correctly interpreted Standard No. 108 to your prospective customers who have expressed an interest in having an array of more than three such lamps.[4] Finally, you point to a 1991 letter of interpretation to J.C. Brown,[5] which stated that an auxiliary high mounted stop light and turn signal complied with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 as lending support to the argument that your clients product would be compliant. The 1991 interpretation concerns an auxiliary center high mounted stop lamp/turn signal that was to be installed on trailers in close proximity to the three-lamp identification cluster. In that letter, the agency concluded that the auxiliary lamps were permitted despite concern that they could mask the light from the identification cluster when activated. The agency reasoned that because of the presence of clearance lamps, which also serve the purpose of identifying the vehicle, the fact that the light from the identification cluster might be temporarily masked did not impair its effectiveness for purposes of section S5.1.3. In the instant matter, our concern is not that the auxiliary stop and turn signal lamps could mask the light, but rather that they necessarily will obscure the standard three-lamp cluster that NHTSA has determined to be the standard for identification lamps, by turning it into an unrecognizable eleven-lamp cluster. We note that while you stated the eleven-lamp cluster would significantly enhance safety, no engineering data were provided to support this assertion. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.4/25/07 [1] 6/23/99 letter to a confidential recipient, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [2] 7/28/05 letter to Robert Clarke, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [3] 10/26/99 letter to Michael Lafon, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [4] 3/7/03 letter to Randy McGuire, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [5] 3/7/91 letter to J.C. Brown, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. |
2007 |
ID: 571-110- placard 1- CHP - 13-003266OpenCullen Sisskind Commercial Vehicle Section; Location 062 California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001 Dear Mr. Sisskind: This letter responds to an email from Clint Hightower of the California Highway Patrol to Louis Molino requesting a written interpretation concerning the definition of the term occupant, as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110. Specifically, you would like to know whether the driver is considered an occupant for the purpose of the vehicle placard required by S4.3. To respond to your question, we would consider the driver to be an occupant of a vehicle for the purpose of stating the vehicles seating capacity on the placard required by FMVSS No. 110. FMVSS No. 110 requires that a placard bearing information about vehicle capacity weight, designated seating capacity, and information regarding the tires and loading be permanently affixed to each new motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less .[1] For the purpose of determining designated seating capacity, S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 110 requires that the capacity of a vehicle be expressed in terms of the total number of occupants. The term designated seating capacity is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 for the purposes of the FMVSSs as the number of designated seating positions provided. Section 571.3 also defines the term driver as the occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system. Thus, by definition, the driver is considered an occupant of a motor vehicle. Because the drivers seating position is considered a designated seating position, it follows directly from the definition of the designated seating capacity that the drivers seating position is included in the calculation of a vehicles seating capacity. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 2/4/14 Ref: Standard No. 110 [1] Alternatively, the tire and loading information may be displayed on a separate label. |
2014 |
ID: 77-1.45OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/16/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Sheller Globe Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1977, question whether the use of a front-row two-passenger bench seat with a three-passenger seat back requires a forward restraining barrier for two or three designated seating positions according to the requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The NHTSA answered this question on February 22, 1977, in response to a request for an interpretation from Blue Bird Body Company. I am enclosing a copy of that interpretation for your information. You will note that Blue Bird accomplished the modification of the front-row seat by the installation of a two-passenger bench seat. As the interpretation indicates, the NHTSA requires a restraining barrier only in front of designated seating positions. You also ask what procedure is required to obtain approval from the NHTSA for a particular front-row seat design. Although the agency does not give formal "approval" of designs, it is willing to give an opinion as to whether your design appears to satisfy the requirements of the standard. We require that you submit full detail (including pictures if possible) of any proposed design. In particular, we would like to know how you intend to render the excess 13 inches of frame permanently inoperative as a seating position. We would also be interested to know why you cannot install a two-passenger bench seat to obviate the problem of excess seat frame. SINCERELY, SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center February 8, 1977 Frank R. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA REF: FMVSS 222 Sheller-Globe Corporation is requesting an interpretation of S.5.2.2 barrier position and rear surface area of FMVSS 222 - School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Some states have for many years required a 24 inch clearance between the driver's stanchion and stepwell stanchion and are concerned about the 12 inch aisle between the barriers closing this area at the stepwell and entrance door. Our question relates to the possibility of supplying front right-hand and/or left-hand seat with a 39 inch seat back and using a two passenger or 26 inch wide seat, cushion with a barrier width also of 26 inch width. The 39 inch seat is used as an example with the understanding the same question also refers to other size seats such as 45, 36, 34, etc. If this type seat and barrier will comply with your requirement and a method is devised to make the remaining 13 inches of the seat frame as to render it unusable as a seating area, what procedure is required to obtain approval from NHTSA that the particular design is determined to be a none seating position. Your prompt attention is requested due to April 1, 1977, effective date and many questions from states reviewing their standards. R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities |
|
ID: nht81-1.19OpenDATE: 02/19/81 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: FEB 19 1981 NOA-30 Mr. Jiro Kawano General Manager U.S. Representative Office Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, NJ 07094 Dear Mr. Kawano: This responds to your recent letter regarding a new emergency locking retractor design that incorporates, within the retractor housing, a separate webbing lock mechanism. You ask for confirmation that the one-inch locking requirement of S4.a(j)(1) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, applies only to the retractor itself and not to a separate webbing lock that is incorporated in the retractor housing. Your interpretation is correct. Provided the retractor as a whole complies with the one-inch locking requirement of S4.3(j)(1), the webbing lock is permissible and would not have to comply with the requirement as a separate component. The agency would view the webbing locking device as a voluntary component not required by the standard. We have recently issued an interpretation to the American Testing Company which deals with a similar subject. That interpretation discusses the requirements of S4.3(j) as applicable to dual sensitive retractors (i.e., retractors that have both vehicle sensitive and webbing sensitive mechanisms). I am enclosing a copy of that interpretation for your information. It explains more fully the requirements of section S4.3(j). If you have any further questions after reviewing this information, please feel free to contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992). Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure December 1, 1980 Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D. C. 20590 Dear Mr. Berndt: This is to seek confirmation of our interpretation of FMVSS 209 paragraph S4.3(j)(1) as it applies to a new emergency locking retractor (ELR) design which incorporates, within the same housing, a separate webbing lock. As we explained in our September 30, 1980 informal meeting with Mr. Ralph Hitchcock and others of the NHTSA staff, this additional webbing lock improves overall seat belt performance and, for space and weight saving considerations, is built into the same housing as the ELR itself. Therefore, we ask NHTSA to confirm that the one (1) inch locking requirement of paragraph S4.3(j)(1) of FMVSS 209 applies only to the ELR itself, and not to a separate webbing lock that may physically be incorporated into the same housing as the ELR. We trust you will treat the above as confidential and should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, at (262) 347-6007. Sincerely, TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD. Jiro Kawano General Manager U. S. Representative Office JK:dd cc: Donald M. Schwentker |
|
ID: nht78-2.18OpenDATE: 12/04/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Department of the Army TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1978, to the Administrator questioning whether certain trucks procured by your Command comply with paragraph S4.5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. That paragraph states "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You wrote that "when the hazard warning lights are activated the stop lamp cannot be activated upon application of the service brakes." The system you describe would be in compliance with Standard No. 108, if the stop lamps and signal lamps are optically combined, for the following reasons. Paragraph S4.4.1 allows combination of a stop lamp with a turn signal lamp (which provides the hazard warning signal). Paragraph 4.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970 (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 as the operative standard for stop lamps) requires that "When a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing." This, of course, means that in a combination lamp the stop signal cannot be given while the hazard warning signal is being operated. If the Army deems it desirable it could require a different circuitry in combination lamps by which the stop lamps and hazard warning signal lamps could operate simultaneously, as military vehicles need not conform to Federal safety standards (49 CFR 571.7(c)). Because several jurisdictions require slow-moving vehicles to use the hazard lamps while in motion, I am asking our Office of Rulemaking to review this prohibition. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. SINCERELY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE MATERIEL READINESS COMMAND NOVEMBER 13, 1978 Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin Dear Ms. Claybrook Reference is made to FMVSS 108, paragraph S4.5.4. Reference paragraph states "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." Inspection of the lighting system in some commercial trucks recently procured by this Command disclosed that when the hazard warning lights are activated the stop lamp cannot be activated upon application of the service brakes. While it is recognized that the primary purpose of hazard warning lights is to warn approaching traffic of a disabled vehicle, several states require the use of hazard warning signal for slow moving vehicles, i.e, NY Thruway, and Pennsylvania Turnpike. Application of the service brakes under this condition would not activate the stop lamps to warn following traffic. Request this office be provided the DOT position as to whether or not the system described above meets the requirements of FMVSS 108, S4.5.4. ROBERT J. SHIROCK Safety Director |
|
ID: nht78-3.26OpenDATE: 02/14/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr,; NHTSA TO: Thomas Built Buses TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your December 8, 1977, letter asking for an interpretation of the term "passenger compartment" as used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Standard No. 217 requires that a school bus side emergency door be located in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment. The NHTSA interprets the term "passenger compartment" to mean the area from the windshield to the back of the bus. In a companion question, you ask whether it would be permissible for a small portion of a side emergency door, installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b), to fall within the front half of a bus as long as most of the door is within the required rear half of the passenger compartment. The answer to your question is no. The emergency door must be totally located within the rear half of the passenger compartment. SINCERELY, THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC. December 8, 1977 Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation Attn: Roger Tilton Subject: School Buses - Emergency Door, Location of Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, Section S5.2.3.1(b) The above referenced section states: "One emergency door on the vehicle's left side that is in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment . . . .etc." Several questions have arisen regarding the quoted portion of the standard, and we would appreciate an answer to these questions. We have included prints to help explain our inquiries. 1. Passenger Compartment: From what point to what point longitudinally is the passenger compartment measured? As can be seen on the print the passenger compartment may vary depending on what is definition of the passenger compartment. Is it from the windshield to the rear of the bus (1/2L + 1/2L), or from the back of the front barrier to the rear of the bus? (1/2R + 1/2R) NOTE: For clarity, we have shown these measurements on opposite sides of the bus. Also for your information the State of New York measures (1/2L + 1/2L) or glass to glass as it is commonly called. Our prime purpose of the inquiry is that the State of Washington requires that the side emergency door be located in front of the rear axle. In certain cases this is impossible, and still meet your requirement of FMVSS 217-S5.2.3.1(b). We realize that Federal Standards take precedent over the State Standard yet on certain models, due to the module construction, a portion of the door impinges upon the forward section of the passenger compartment. Is this permissible? Areas marked W/H are wheelhouses, and no side emergency door may be installed in these area and comply with FMVSS 217-S5.4.2.1.(b). If we may be of further assistance, kindly advise. James Tydings, Specifications Engineer |
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.