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: 09-001535 206Open
Ms. Valrie Fortin Regulations and Standards Technician Girardin Minibus Inc. 3000 rue Girardin Drummondville, Qubec J2E 0A1 Dear Ms. Fortin: This responds to your letter concerning a February 6, 2007 final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. Among other matters, that rule removed an exclusion of vehicle doors equipped with wheelchair platform lift systems from FMVSS No. 206 requirements. As explained in the enclosed agency response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule, Thomas Built Buses petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to reinstate the exclusion, and we have done so. See the enclosed Federal Register document (75 FR 7370, February 19, 2010) for a detailed explanation as to the agencys rationale. Please note, however, that NHTSA determined that the former exclusion of all doors equipped with a wheelchair lift was too broad, given that some lifts made today do not completely block the doorway. Therefore, in the enclosed document, the agency has amended the February 2007 final rule (the requirements at S4 of FMVSS No. 206) to exclude doors equipped with a permanently attached wheelchair lift system meeting the following criteria: (a) When the lift is in the retracted position, the lift platform retracts to a vertical orientation parallel to and in close proximity with the interior surface of the lift door; (b) in that position, the platform completely covers the doorway opening, has fixed attachments to the vehicle and provides a barricade to the doorway; and (c) the wheelchair lift door is linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visible signal located in the drivers compartment or an alarm audible to the driver that is activated when the door is not fully closed and the vehicle ignition is activated. These requirements appear to not exclude the wheelchair lift system in one of the pictures you enclosed because that platform only halfway covers the door opening. As to the second picture you enclosed with your letter, we cannot determine from that picture whether that door meets all the requirements for the exclusion set forth above. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure Dated: 3/18/2010 |
2010 | ||||||||||||
ID: 1982-3.11OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 10/21/82 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. R. Scheiner; NHTSA TO: Kioto Manufacturing Co., Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
October 21, 1982
AIR MAIL
M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-Ken JAPAN
Dear Mr. Iwase:
This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1982, regarding signal flashing on an auxiliary lamp. You asked several questions on your proposed auxiliary lamp which would be installed as original equipment to supplement the lower beam headlamp:
1. Whether this auxiliary lamp would be legally accepted to be flashed for a passing signaling purpose.
2. In case that this auxiliary lamp is designed to comply with the requirements of SAE J583d - Fog Lamps, instead of SAE J582a -Auxiliary Low Beam Lamp: Whether the auxiliary lamp (Fog Lamp) could be legally accepted to be flashed for a passing signal purpose. The answer to these questions is: No.
Paragraph S4.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment allows turn signal and hazard warning signal lamps to flash but subparagraph (b) states:
"All other lamps shall be steady-burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes."
We interpret "all other lamps" to include all lamps, required and auxiliary lighting such as the lamp you propose.
In summary we interpret FMVSS No. 108 not to allow the auxiliary lamp you propose to be used as a flashing lamp.
Sincerely,
Stanley R. Scheiner, Acting Chief Crash Avoidance Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards
NHTSA:OVSS:CAD:Medlin:orb:9/27/82:(JWASE) REWRITTEN:Medlin:orb:9/30/82 RETYPED:orb:10/7/82: REW:Vinson:nbb 10/18/82 Copies to: NRM-01 Chron NRM-11 Chron/Subject/Medlin's File/Hold;NOA-30 Interps;NOA-30 Redbook(3)
No Control |
|||||||||||||
ID: 77-1.43OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/09/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Blue Bird Body Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1977, letter asking whether a New York state requirement mandating the installation of both side emergency doors and rear emergency doors in school buses would mean that both emergency doors would be required to comply with the school bus exit specifications in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. The NHTSA has determined previously that only those exits required by S5.2.3 must meet the requirements specified for school bus emergency exits in Standard No. 217. Paragraph S5.2.3 requires either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear push out window. The side emergency door to which you refer is installed in addition to a rear emergency door. The presence of the rear emergency door, alone, satisfies the requirements of S5.2.3. Therefore, a side emergency door is not required by the standard and need not meet the specifications for school bus emergency exits. Emergency exits installed in school buses beyond those required in S5.2.3 must comply with regulations applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses. These requirements are also detailed in Standard No. 217. SINCERELY, BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY February 8, 1977 Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration SUBJECT: FMVSS 217 The latest New York state specifications require emergency doors as follow: Capacity Rear Emerg. LH Emerg. Door RH Emerg. Door Door Rear of Center Rear of Center 17-30 X 31-48 X X 49-66 X X 67 & up X X X
At a recent meeting of the New York State Bus Body Association we understand that it was stated: "The rear emergency door will be described in the future as a primary emergency exit and the side emergency door defined as a secondary exit. The only requirement for the secondary emergency door will be that the ellipsoid defined in Federal Specifications will pass through the side emergency door without obstruction." Is this statement correct regarding a side emergency door when it is in addition to a rear emergency door (FMVSS 217 - S5.4.2.1(b))? This would allow the seat back in front of the side emergency door to extend into the door opening in this case. Thanks for your help in this matter. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services |
|||||||||||||
ID: 08-002061 chen date of manufactureOpenJames C. Chen, Esq. Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. Chen: This responds to your letter asking about requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, that manufacturers label their products with a date of manufacture. A date of manufacture is required to be labeled on add-on child restraints (S5.5.2(c)), built-in child restraints (S5.5.5(c)), and on the child restraint registration card required by S5.8.1(c) of the standard. When describing the date of manufacture that manufacturers must provide, the standard refers to month and year (S5.5.2(c) and S5.5.5(c)), month, year (S5.8.1(c) and S5.8.2(a)(2)), or ZZ-ZZ-20ZZ (Figure 9a depicting registration form). You ask whether your client, Graco Childrens Products, Inc., may depict the date of manufacture as:
You state that Graco would include the clarifying text that explains the meaning of the numerals. For instance, a typical label would appear as follows in the shaded area of the registration form (the area outside of the space for the consumer to fill in) (you provided this example in a letter to us dated May 16, 2008):
Our answer is yes, Graco may use the above format to provide the date of manufacture on the child restraints and on the registration card. Discussion FMVSS No. 213 requires that the month and year of manufacture be identified. It is our opinion that Gracos year-month-day format satisfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 213, provided that the words year, month, and day accompany the numerals. The words are important to explain the meaning of the numerals, since the U.S. typically uses a month, day, year format. With the accompanying text your clients format is readily understood as providing the month and year of manufacture. Accordingly, Gracos labeling would satisfy the standards requirement that a date of manufacture be provided. We would like to make the following observations about use of the format on the registration form. FMVSS No. 213 strictly controls the appearance of the form. We have found that the appearance of the form affects the likelihood that a consumer will participate in the owner registration program. S5.8(b)(2) requires that the registration form conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard. Each form must be preprinted with the restraints model name or number and its date of manufacture. Under S5.8 no other information is permitted to appear on the postcard, except information that distinguishes a particular restraint from another restraint system may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a. (S5.8.1(b)(3)). Gracos year-month-day format does not affect the overall appearance of the registration form. It provides the month and year of manufacture, and distinguishes a particular restraint from another restraint system. According to the example you provided, the year-month-day grid will be placed on the shaded area of the postcard. All of these factors lead us to conclude that the year-month-day format would satisfy S5.8.1(b)(3) of the standard. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:213 d.11/20/08 |
2008 | ||||||||||||
ID: 1985-02.42OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/18/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Mr. H. Nakaya TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018
Dear Mr. Nakaya:
Please forgive our delay in responding to your letter of May 30, 1984, asking for interpretations of Standard No. 108 as it applies to center high-mounted stoplamps.
In your letter you stated that the preamble to the final rule discussed the definition of "window opening" and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. You have presented two rear window designs in which (1) ceramic opaque dots descend in increasing size to the bottom of the glazing and in which (2) shaded material becomes progressively darker as it descends, though the material is translucent, not opaque. You also show a design with an interior-mounted windshield wiper, including motor and cover, placed on the rear vertical centerline above the bottom of the glazing. In each instance you have asked at what point would the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) consider an "obstruction" exists for purposes of defining the bottom of the window.
The phrase "window opening" does not appear in Standard No. 108. The preamble discussion appears to be irrelevant with respect to the final rule, and was intended as a clarification of proposed location requirements which, in fact, were not adopted. The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 8, 1981, proposed a definition of "daylight opening" as "the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface...," relating to three alternative locations proposed for the lamp in which the term "daylight opening" was used as a locational reference. For instance, in Alternative 1, proposed paragraph S4.3.1.9(a) would have placed "the center of the lamp within 3 inches of the outside bottom edge of the rear window daylight opening." When the final rule was adopted in October 1983, none of the three alternatives was judged acceptable and a requirement allowing more design freedom was adopted omitting all reference to "daylight opening." Paragraph S4.3.1.8 simply specified that "no portion of the lens shall be higher than the top of the back window or lower than three inches below the bottom of the back window." The requirement was even further relaxed in the May 1984 response to petitions for reconsideration in which paragraph S4.3.1.8 was amended to allow mounting "at any position on the centerline" (note, no limitation on upper mounting height relative to the rear window) and if "mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars" The preamble also clarified that, if the lamp were mounted on the interior, photometric compliance would be judged with the glazing in place.
Thus, whether glazing is opaque or obstructed is not the question a manufacturer must ask in determining the location of the lamp with respect to the lower edge of the window. If the lamp is mounted on the interior, it must meet photometric and visibility requirements with the glazing in place, taking into account any graduated dots on or opaqueness of that glazing, and any wiper motor. If the lamp is mounted on the outside, its upper permissible height is determined by the height of the car and not by the window. The question of opaqueness or obstruction is irrelevant to the lower permissible height of 3 inches below the window. The window is the perimeter of its glazing, and 3 inches is measured from the lower edge. Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel
Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590
Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 108; Lamps, Reflective devices and Associated Equipment - High Mounted Stoplamp
Dear Mr. Berndt:
The recent final rule amending Standard No. 108 addresses many issues raised by manufacturers, including the definition of "window opening". The preamble of the final rule discussed this definition and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. Applying this definition to the bottom rear window opening boundry, certain aspects of the final rule establishing this boundry as the reference for the mounting location are still not clear. Our questions are as follows:
1. In Figure 1, two examples are shown (out of many possible designs) that are aimed at minimizing the visibility of objects in the passenger compartment by means of a graduated shade. Design A employees a series of ceramic, opaque dots forming an array that become progressively larger (and allow less light transmittance) as they descend toward the glazing/body interface. Also, Design B utilizes a material that becomes progressively darker (and allows less light transmittance) as it approaches the bottom of the rear window glazing. However, the material is translucent, not opaque. For purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider individually each graduated shade design and identify the point (A, B or C) at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom rear window opening obstructed (should reference point B be identified, please quantify).
2. Contained in Figure 2 is a depiction of a rear window wiper motor, cover and blade. The motor and motor cover are mounted inside the vehicle along the vehicle centerline for reasons of symmetry. Although a small obstruction is projected onto the rear glazing, the device does not contact the glazing and is limited to only a narrow portion of the bottom rear window opening. Again, for purposes of defining the bottom of the rear window opening, please consider this design and identify the point at which the NHTSA would consider the bottom window opening obstructed. Further, does availability of such a device as a factory option or as standard equipment have any bearing on this matter?
We would appreciate your interpretation of these aspects of FMVSS 108 at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
H. Nakaya Branch Manager
NH/mls
enclosures |
|||||||||||||
ID: 86-6.1OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/01/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Francois Louis -- Governmental Affairs Director, Renault USA TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 10/13/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Paul Utans (Std. 208); 8/11/88 letter from Paul Utans to Erika Z. Jones (occ 2405); 8/18/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to D. Black (Std. 210) TEXT:
Mr. Francis Louis Governmental Affairs Director Renault USA 1111 19th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036
Thank you for your letter of October 17, 1986, to Dr. Richard Strombotne of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your letter was referred to this office for reply. You have asked a number of questions concerning how the requirements of the standard apply to the automatic restraint system Renault intends to use in one of its vehicles. The answers to your questions are discussed below.
You explained that Renault plans to use, at both front outboard seating positions, an automatic restraint system consisting of a motorized, detachable, two-point automatic belt and a knee bolster. You stated that the automatic restraint system meets all the Injury criteria of the standard when tested in the 30 mile per hour frontal barrier test of S5.1 of the standard. You also explained that Renault has decided to install voluntarily a manual lap belt with your automatic restraint system. You further stated that the addition of the manual lap belt does not affect the performance of the automatic restraint system, since your testing shows that the automatic restraint system can meet the injury criteria in a 30 mile per hour frontal barrier crash test both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.
As I understand your first question, you are, in essence, asking the agency to confirm that under S4.5.3 of the standard an automatic belt system with a single diagonal torso belt can be used to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) and can also be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2). As provided in S4.5.3 of the standard, an automatic safety belt system can be "used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option." Thus, you are correct that an automatic safety belt can be substituted for the Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt otherwise required by S4.1.2.1 (c)(2) of the standard. This means that a Renault vehicle equipped with an automatic safety belt would not be subjected to the lateral crash test of S5.2 or the dynamic rollover test of S5.3.
Your second and final question concerned how our safety standards, in particular Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, would apply to a manual lap belt voluntarily installed by manufacturers with an automatic safety belt system. In a March 1, 1979 letter to Ford Motor Company, NHTSA stated that "active lap belts and their associated anchorages are not required to comply with Federal safety standards if installed voluntarily by a manufacturer in addition to a single, diagonal passive belt." In responding to Ford, NHTSA also noted that in past interpretations the agency has stated that "systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the passive belt in this case) to comply with Federal safety systems." In Renault's case, the addition of the manual lap belt does not appear to affect the automatic safety belt, since you stated that Renault can meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.
If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
October 17, 1986
Dr. Richard Strombotne Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Room 5320 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590
Reference: FMVSS 208 - Request for Interpretation
Dear Dr. Strombotne:
As of September 1, 1987, Renault intends to sell on the US market a vehicle equipped with a passive restraint system at both front out-board seating positions consisting of:
- a motorized detachable thoracic diagonal belt, with a 2-point anchorage on the body of the vehicle, and - a knee bolster.
As required by Standard 208, all injury criteria are satisfied when the vehicle is tested in accordance with S.5.1.
Since a webbing is an integral part of our passive protection device, S.4.5.3 is applicable. We interpret S.4.5.3 to say that "the torso webbing offers a similar level of protection in lateral/rollover crashes as does a single lap belt mounted in conjunction with the knee bolster".
In other words, this means that "in passive systems including a knee bolster, a webbing that is exclusively pelvic or the addition of a lap belt to the existing torso belt would not appreciably upgrade the quality of protection that is offered to the occupants in lateral/rollover crashes by a purely thoracic webbing". We voluntarily chose to comply with S4.1.2.1.c.2 of Standard 208, that is. to furnish a lap belt, so that compliance with the lateral/ rollover test requirements would not be necessary. Consequently, the upper webbing is no less efficient than a lap belt. Therefore, we are not obligated to provide a lap belt at all, and if we do, it is purely on a non-compulsory basis (this obviously does not apply to air bags when no torso webbing is supplied). However, in order to cover the widest range of crash situations, we decided to offer a seat-mounted lap belt anyway. The requirements of S.5.1 are still met with or with- out that additional belt. As our lap belt is not compulsory, it is installed voluntarily, and thus does not have to comply with any other requirement.
Could you please confirm to us that our interpretation as stated here is correct in its entirety? If it is incorrect, how are we to interpret S.4.5.3 properly and what requirements then apply to our active lap belt? In particular, what loads and location requirements have to be considered in order to meet FMVSS 210?
Thank you in advance for your response to these questions. Sincerely,
Francois Louis Governmental Affairs Director Washington, DC |
|||||||||||||
ID: nht76-2.31OpenDATE: 03/05/76 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA TO: Department of California Highway Patrol TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1976, asking whether S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows a flashing side marker lamp "in any location on the side of a motor vehicle without having to comply with State law pertaining to side-mounted turn signals." S4.6(b) allows side marker lamps to flash for signalling purposes. Since a flashing side marker lamp is in essence a side turn signal lamp, any State regulation specifically addressed to location and flash rate of side turn signals would appear to be preempted by Standard No. 108, if the side marker lamp is combined with a side turn signal lamp. If the side turn signal lamp is a separate lamp, then it would be subject to State regulation. Your inquirer wishes to install "a side marker lamp on each side near the middle of the trailer to flash with the turn signal lamps." If the lamp to be added is not the intermediate side marker lamp required by Standard No. 108 for trailers whose length is 30 feet or more, it would be governed by the California Vehicle Code and not preempted. We intend to address the issues of side mounted turn signal lamps, flashing side marker lamps, and flashing headlamps in a rulemaking proposal whose publication is imminent, and I will include your letter in the Docket as a comment to be considered. YOURS TRULY, DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL March 10, 1976 File No.: 61.A218.A4343 James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration We have a question concerning an interpretation of Section S4.6(b) of FMVSS No. 108. This paragraph states that "means may be provided to flash headlamps and sidemarker lamps for signaling purposes". We have had an inquiry from a supplier to a major trailer manufacturer as to whether or not he can install a sidemarker lamp on each side near the middle of the trailer to flash with the turn signal lamps. The California Vehicle Code provides that "side-mounted turn signal lamps of an approved type projecting a flashing amber light to either side may be used to supplement the front and rear turn signals. Side-mounted turn signal lamps mounted to the rear of the center of the vehicle may project a flashing red light no part of which shall be visible from the front." The Administrative Regulations require the approved side turn signal lamps to meet the same requirements as SAE Standard J914a. These standards were adopted to assure that lamps installed on a vehicle as a side turn signal lamp had sufficient performance to be of value to other motorists both day and night, whether mounted on a passenger car, a truck or a trailer. A range of mounting heights was established in our regulations so that the side turn signal lamp would be near the eye height of drivers alongside the vehicle. In the past, the only vehicles flashing the sidemarker lights as allowed by your standard were passenger cars. In these cases, we had read your standard as permitting the minimum number of sidemarker lamps required by your standard to flash but not giving authority for the indiscriminate addition of numerous other sidemarker lamps in other locations on the side of the vehicle. We do not see any particular problem with allowing a required sidemarker lamp to flash simultaneously with a required turn signal lamp on the same side and on the same end of the vehicle. Unfortunately, one major passenger car manufacturer selected a system that caused the sidemarker lamps to flash alternately with the turn signals which, in our opinion, detracts from the signal value of the required turn signal instead of adding to it, particularily when both signals are seen to flash alternately at certain angles from the front or rear of the vehicle. We now come to the question. Does Section S4.6(b) permit a manufacturer to install and flash with the turn signal any sidemarker lamp in any location on the side of a motor vehicle or trailer without having to comply with State law pertaining to side-mounted turn signals? If the answer is "yes", we ask that you consider an appropriate revision to FMVSS No. 108 within the near future. We suggest that an amendment be proposed to require the side turn signals to flash simultaneously and in unison with the appropriate turn signal rather than alternately with the signal. In addition, we request that: 1. Only the minimum required sidemarker lamps on the each end of the vehicle be allowed to flash with the turn signal lamps. 2. Only sidemarker lamps near the eye height of passenger car drivers alongside the vehicle be allowed to flash. Sidemarker lamps at the extreme tops of trucks and trailer lamps are so far removed from the turn signal that another driver seeing them blink would likely be distracted by them instead of relating them to a turn being signaled. 3. New provisions be worded so attempts of various state laws to require higher-performing side mounted turn signals that are effective in the daytime are not placed in limbo because the Federal Standard allows a far less effective lamp of only 0.25 to 0.62 candlepower to flash in its place. 4. High mounted sidemarker lamps on buses not be allowed to flash as part of the turn signal system, because transit buses are permitted in this State to simultaneously flash all clearance and sidemarker lamps as a crime warning signal when driver or passengers are accosted. These signals are visible both from police patrol cars and police helicopters. Before-and-after surveys have shown that they are quite effective in making substantial increases in the rate of apprehension of suspects. 5. Headlamps not be allowed to flash with the turn signal lamps as now permitted. It is more important that a driver of a vehicle be able to see a lighted roadway in the direction in which he is going rather than using the headlamps to supplement an already effective front turn signal. We would appreciate receiving your interpretation of the flashing headlamp and sidemarker lamp provisions. If you wish, we will be pleased to send you copies of our regulations on side turn signal lamps, alternately flashing headlamps for emergency vehicles, and data on the reduction in crime on buses following the installation of flashing crime warning lamps. WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section |
|||||||||||||
ID: 1985-04.17OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/07/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Norman Friberg, P.E. -- Manager, Product Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647
This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated June 27, 1985, for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Paragraph S4.3 of the standard requires that a specified placard show the recommended tire size designation. Volvo has provided labels on approximately 3,200 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state "185/65R15" but the correct information is "185/70R14." However, Volvo intends to mail correct placards "to owners of all affected vehicles."
By providing the corrective placard, Volvo will remedy the noncompliance. Because the noncompliance will no longer exist, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moot. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Volvo will provide owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek renotice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.
The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and do not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.
Our records indicate that Volvo is in technical noncompliance with 49 CFR Part 575, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, by failing to file a report within 5 days of its determination of the existence of the noncompliances. We will, however, treat the submission of information in your petition as a Part 575 report. Part 575 also requires 6 quarterly reports on the progress of recall campaigns. In your situation, the campaign will be accomplished in a single mailing. We ask that you furnish the agency with a report of the number of letters sent and the number of letters returned as undeliverable in lieu of the Part 575 quarterly reports. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
June 27, 1985
CERTIFIED MAIL
Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20590
Dear Ms. Steed:
Re: Petition For Inconsequential Non-Compliance
In accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR S556, Volvo submits herein a petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act, on the grounds of that the the subject non-compliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
FULL NAME ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Volvo North America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07637
a Delaware corporation
DESCRIPTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE
It has come to our attention that the tire information placard, as required by FMVSS No. 110 Sect. 4.3, installed on about 3,200 l985 model year Volvo 740 Turbo Diesel passenger cars, may contain the incorrect tire size designation.
The correct tire size designation for these vehicles is 185/70 R 14, whereas the labels read 185/65 R 15.
DATA AND VIEWS SUPPORTING PETITION
Volvo believes this error to be inconsequential because the other information regarding these tires, vehicle capacity weight and inflation pressure, are the same for both tire types. Thus, an owner could not inadvertently overload his vehicle as long as he did not exceed the weight shown on the existing placard.
If an owner were to attempt to mount a 185/65 R 15 tire on the 14-inch rim supplied with the car, he would find it to be impossible, and a quick check of the other tires on the car would show that a 13-inch tire is required.
Even in the unlikely event that an owner mounted a 15-inch tire and rim in one or more locations on the vehicle, it would not result in any significant adverse vehicle characteristics since the rolling radii of the two tire sizes are very close to each other, differing only by approximately 1.1%.
We request your earliest possible decision on this matter. In the meantime, Volvo intends to send correct tire pressure placards to owners of all affected vehicles. -
Please have your staff contact me if you have any questions regarding this petition.
Sincerely yours, Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF: cmr cc: B. Holthe W. Shapiro P-O Beiring S. Bengtson G. Leoj R. Mercer
July 10, 1985 Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Re: Petition for Inconsequential Non-Compliance Clarification Dear Ms. Steed: This is to supplement my letter of June 27, in which we requested exemption under 49 CFR S 556 on the basis of inconsequential non-compliance.
Please be advised that, as stated in page 2 of the letter, a tire placard (reference FMVSS No. 110 S4.3) containing correct tire size information will be sent to all owners of record of affected vehicles. This label will be of the peel-off, adhesive type. Instructions for affixing this label in place of the original label will be included.
We trust that this will serve to clarify our intent in this matter. Sincerely yours, VOLVO CARS Of NORTH AMERICA Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF:jy cc: P.O. Beiring S. Bengtson |
|||||||||||||
ID: 77-1.46OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/17/77 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Paulson and Humphrey TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your February 3, 1977, letter asking whether the intersection of a plywood floor panel and the floor channel structure constitutes a "body panel joint" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (body panel) that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the joint you describe, it appears that the joint must comply with the requirements of the standard, because it is the connection of a body component (floor channel structure) with a body panel that encloses occupant space (plywood floor panel). In your letter, you argue that the standard is not directed at these types of joints and that in fact the NHTSA stated that not all joints would be regulated by this standard. While it is true that not all joints are regulated by the standard, all joints between the edge of a body panel and a body component are regulated unless expressly excepted from coverage by the language of the standard itself. Since the joint you describe connects a body panel to a body component, it is exactly the type of joint for which coverage was intended. Finally, you argue that all joints located below the floor are not covered by the standard. This is correct. However, the NHTSA has required floor panels regardless of composition to comply with the requirements of the standard, since these panels form the floor and do not fall below it. SINCERELY, PAULSON AND HUMPHREYS February 3, 1977 Frank Berndt, Esquire Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration This is a request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, submitted on behalf of the Gillig Corporation of Hayward, California.
We have examined the standard, as published January 27, 1976 and the NHTSA interpretive opinions to Blue Bird Body Company of April 14 and April 26, 1976 (N40-30). The conclusions which we express are based substantially on the foregoing. It will be appreciated if you will inform us as rapidly as may be feasible whether you agree with these conclusions or whether another interpretation is appropriate. Enclosed are diagrams illustrating a possible form of construction of the floor elements of a school bus design (View #1 and View #2). In both diagrams you will note that the floor structure is formed by use of laminated plywood abutting, on either side, a steel channel structure. Over this floor structure is added a rubberized floor covering. In View #1 the mechanism used to attach the plywood to the steel channel structure is exhibited as one of several screws. In View #2, an adhesive is added between the bottom of the particular plywood panel and the abutting flange of the steel channel structure. Gillig believes that either of the forms of floor structure described will provide adequate structural integrity for foreseeable crash conditions. Gillig wishes, however, to be sure whether the requirements of the standard apply to this structure. The question which arises is whether, in the form of floor diagrammed, either the edge of the plywood panel abutting the steel channel (shown in the diagrams as "Joint A") or the bottom of the plywood panel as it rests on the flange of the steel channel (shown in the diagrams as "Joint B") constitute "body panel joints" as defined in FMVSS No. 221, paragraph S4. In other words, is the standard applicable to either of such "joints"? It is our conclusion that neither of the joints described is a "body panel joint" within the purview of FMVSS No. 221. We base this conclusion on several things: First, the definition of "Body component", in paragraph S4, imports that a component to be a "body component" must be of a "single piece" of either homogenous material or a "single piece" of composite material such as plywood. The form of structure exhibited in the diagrams would not seem to constitute a "body component" and thus would not be subject to joint strength requirements at any point and particularly at "Joint A" or "Joint B". Second, the forces which might be exerted in a vehicle crash and to which the standard is directed would not seem adversely to affect joints like "A" and "B". Further, attempting to achieve the type of increased joint strength to which the standard is directed, i.e. through the addition of more rivets or other fasteners, would probably be impracticable, if not impossible, in the type of joints illustrated in the diagrams. The standard obviously is directed toward achieving essentially a strengthening of those joints between side panels and between side panels and certain other body components, such as the roof or rear wall. The Preamble to the proposed rule, as published March 13, 1975 (40 FR 50, page 11738), substantiates this conclusion in that it states that regulation of all joints has been tentatively determined to be impractical. Finally, an interpretation is stated in the third paragraph at page 2 of the letter to Blue Bird of April 26, 1976 that components located entirely below the level of the floor line are not subject to the standard; but that where a portion lies above the floor line that portion is subject to the requirements of the standard. Your early reply will be appreciated since the standard becomes effective on April 1, 1977. Edmund C. Burnett cc: J. M. DABROWSKI -- DIR. OF ENGINEERING; GILLIG View #1 (Graphics omitted) View #2 FLOOR COVERING ADHESIVE (Graphics omitted) |
|||||||||||||
ID: nht78-2.10OpenDATE: 11/29/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Ichikoh Industries, Ltd. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1978, to Bill Eason of our Office of Rulemaking asking several questions about motor vehicle headlamps and the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 issued on July 27, 1978. Your questions and our answers are: 1. Ichikoh headlamps are designed to comply with SAE Standard J579c with maximum candela not exceeding 37,500. Does the amendment allow Ichikoh to place "DOT" and the new designation code on the lens of each headlight? Ichikoh's practice reflects compliance with the option afforded by S4.1.1.33 until July 27, 1978. The deletion of the option has the effect of allowing the higher maximum candlepower permitted by J579c but does not require it. Thus, Ichikoh may continue its existing practice under the amendment. One purpose of the marking code, however, is to enable a consumer to replace original equipment headlamps with lamps of compatible photometric output. Currently, S4.1.1.21 as amended requires the lens of each Ichikoh headlamp designed to conform to J579c to be marked with the new code on and after July 1, 1979. Obviously such a marking will be misleading if, even though designed to conform to J579c, a headlamp's maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. Accordingly, we are reviewing this problem with the idea of proposing rulemaking that would delete the code requirement for all headlamps whose maximum candela does not exceed 37,500. We do not anticipate a change in the requirement of S4.1.1.21 that the lens of each J579c headlamp be marked with the "DOT" symbol since Ichikoh headlamps comply with J579c, even if they do not take advantage of the now-permissible maximum. 2. With reference to your quality control system, will the headlamps "be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage?" I am not quite sure what you mean. If you are asking whether Ichikoh may relax quality control so that an occasional headlamp may exceed 37,500 cd the answer is yes. Headlamps designed to J579c are not restricted to the maximum imposed by J579a. 3. You ask our comments on possible mismatch of headlamps on the same vehicle, i.e., one low intensity headlamp and one high intensity headlamp. NHTSA is concerned about this possibility and, as indicated in reply to your first question, is considering rulemaking to delete the code requirement for low intensity J579c headlamps. Your second question, however, does raise the issue of identification of headlamps whose candela may exceed 37,500 but whose maxima are far less than 75,000. We shall also consider this issue and may issue a consumer bulletin advocating replacement of headlamps in pairs to help resolve this potential problem. 4. You ask whether NHTSA intends to adopt the concept of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future. This Regulation requires a mark on a headlamp lens indicating candlepower grade. The NHTSA does not plan to adopt the requirements of Regulation No. 20 because this regulation is in essence an indicator of quality control. I hope this answers your questions. SINCERELY, ICHIKOH INDUSTRIES, LTD. ISEHARA-PLANT September 22, 1978 Bill Eason Office of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Subject: Motor Vehicle Headlamps We, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd., are an original equipment manufacturer of sealed beam headlamps, signalling lamps, rear view mirrors and other accessories for motor vehicles. With regard to the recent amendment of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Docket No. 78-5 : Notice 3, issued on July 27, 1978, we would like to confirm you the following matters: 1. All our sealed beam headlamps (circular and rectangular types) have been approved in each States including AAMVA compliance with the applicable (photometric) requirements of FMVSS 108 : that is, SAE Standard J579c. At the present, the maximum candlepower of each headlamp is maintained as not exceed 37,500 cd, and we have no intention changing to the higher wattage allowed in the above new amendment. In such a case: Does it permit to indicate "DOT" and new "designation code" defined in new paragraph S4.1.1.21 on each lenses of our headlamps?, and 2. May we interpret that, by the new amendment, the old requirements of the maximum candlepower 37,500 cd to headlamps will be allowed to exceed 37,500 cd without any modification of the light source (filament) and wattage? This problem concerns to our quality control system. 3. Besides, according to the amended regulation, it can not install both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on one (1) vehicle. However, if the above item No. 1 is accepted, it result in allowing to use the different type headlamps with the same code on a vehicle, that is, the lower candlepower headlamp(s) (not more than 37,500 cd) and the higher candlepower headlamp(s) not more than 75,000cd. This means headlamp users can not select such different type headlamps with the same identification code, and such mixed use of headlamps would give rise to undesirable influence on the visibilities for road users. Besides, it would lead to substantially allow the use of both headlamps compliance with SAE J579a and J579c on a vehicle. We would like to hear your view point on this problem. 4. As you well know, ECE Regulation No. 20, Halogen Headlamps, requires to mark on each headlamp lens severally graded identification indicating the reference of the maximum candlepower. This make easy to know the headlamp grade. On the other hand, it is impossible to know the headlamp grade (candlepower) with the identification code on the lens under the amended regulation of FMVSS 108. Do you have the intention to adopt the conception of ECE Regulation No. 20 in the near future? With regard to the above matters, your kind and early reply would be highly appreciated. Suminori EGUCHI, Chief Engineer Technical Department. |
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.