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: nht74-3.29OpenDATE: 09/17/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: The Weatherland Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 14, 1974, pointing out a discrepancy in the constriction test requirements for hydraulic brake hose found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74. We are considering a change in our next notice concerning Standard 106-74, so that S6.7.2(c) will conform with S5.3.1 as that paragraph was amended by Notice 11 (39 F.R. 24012). Yours Truly, The Weatherhead Company August 15, 1974 Reference: MUE 486 Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel -- NHTSA Subject: FMVSS 571.106-74 Reference Notice 11 Docket 1-5 Your timely personal response to our request for clarification of the labeling of 1/8 inch O.D. SAE J844c nylon air brake tubing is sincerely appreciated. The NHTSA's determination to exempt this small sized tubing is reasonable, without adverse effect on vehicle safety, and sustains the usage of an economic product. While preparing our corporate documentation to support product compliance with 571.106-74 a troublesome inconsistency was noted. Perhaps NHTSA can incorporate a minor change in the wording of Para. S6.7.2(c) in the next publication released concerning The Brake Hose Standard. Paragraph S6.7.2(c) retains the Constriction Test requirement for the complete brake hose assembly stating: "Drain the brake hose assembly, immediately determine that every inside diameter of any section of the hose assembly is not less than 64% of the nominal inside diameter of the hose, and conduct the test specified in S6.2." As you may recall Notice 11 excluded end fittings, distribution blocks and residual valves by amending constriction requirements to be applicable to only ". . . that part of the fitting in which hose is inserted". Realizing this inconsistency in Para. S6.7.2(c) is an oversight and that it would not cause an unnecessary compliance variance, a repetitive petition is withheld pending correction. Thank you once again for responding so promptly to our requests for clarification concerning this Standard. John H.Mueller Manager, Engineering Standards cc: D. Delve W. Redler |
|
ID: nht74-4.23OpenDATE: 08/12/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: The Weatherland Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your July 10, 1974, request to modify the hose labeling provisions of Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses, to permit DOT labeling of 1/8-inch O.D. nylon tubing. To the best of our knowledge 1/8-inch O.D. tubing is not used as brake hose as it is defined by the standard: "Brake hose" means a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. The tubing is used for pressure gauge lines and in two-speed differentials, but is apparently not used to transmit or contain the pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. As it is not considered to be brake hose under the standard, it should not be labeled with the DOT symbol. Aside from this prohibition on the use of the DOT symbol, you are free to label 1/8-inch O.D. nylon tubing as you choose. The Weatherhead Company July 10, 1974 Ref. MUE: 468 Mr. Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation SUBJECT: Air Brake Hose Labeling 571.106 The Weatherhead Company manufactures nylon air brake tubing (hose) covered by FMVSS 571.106 (effective September 1, 1974). The DOT labeling requirements for this product specified in the safety standard calls for at least 1/8 inch high letters. One of the common sizes of tubing (hose) (1'8 inch outside diameter) used in truck air brake systems does not have adequate outside surface area to accomodate 1/8 inch high lettering. A specific exemption of this label requirement is requested to allow The Weatherhead Company to DOT label nylon air brake tubing (hose) of 1/8 inch outside diameter with letters smaller than 1/8 inch high. Since this standard becomes effective September 1, 1974 for manufacturers of hose and because a lead time is necessary to obtain new DOT labeling equipment, a prompt reply to this request would be greatly appreciated. JOHN H. MUELLER Manager - Engineering Standards & Specifications ENCL.-SAMPLE |
|
ID: nht74-4.24OpenDATE: 05/10/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Volvo of America Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 16, 1974, requesting an interpretation of the test procedure specified in Standard No. 301 (Docket 73-20; Notice 2) concerning the operation of the vehicle's fuel pump during testing. Paragraph S7.1.3 of the standard requires that electrically driven fuel pumps be in operation during the barrier crash tests if they normally operate with the activation of the vehicle's electrical system. If the pump is incapable of functioning with the independent activation of the electrical system and requires the operation of the vehicle's engine, then the pump should not be running during the barrier crash tests. Once the barrier crash tests have been completed, if the fuel pump was operating it may be desctivated, as the standard only requires that it operate during the crashes. Thank you for your inquiry. Volvo of America Corporation April 16, 1974 Lawrence Schneider, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Volvo of America Corporation hereby requests an interpretation of the test procedure specified in ammended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, published March 21, 1974, 39 Federal Register 1050 (Docket No. 73-20; Notice 2). Section S7.1.3 of that standard specifies conditions under which electrically driven fuel pumps must be operating at the time of the barrier crash. Volvo requests an interpretation on the operating condition of the fuel pump after the barrier crash. The electric pump used by Volvo normally ceases to operate when the engine speed drops below 70 RPM. On the basis that the engine is unlikely to remain running after a 30 MPH barrier crash, and that no condition is specified in FMVSS 301, Volvo requests that post-crash evaluation and testing be performed with the fuel pump de-activated. Volvo thanks you for your consideration of this matter and requests a reply as soon as practical. Rick Shue Product Safety Engineer cc: E. Skarin |
|
ID: nht74-4.30OpenDATE: 07/03/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Imperial-Eastman Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1974, question whether "I" or "II" should appear as a part of the label information on renewable 3/8-inch and 1/2-inch SP fittings. It is not permissible to include type "I" or "II" in the labeling required on renewable fittings. S7.2 calls for the end fitting identification which appears in your letter, but S7.2 reserves the use of "I" and "II" for use in reusable assemblies, that is, assemblies which include reusable end fittings. The standard classifies renewable end fittings as a type of permanently-attached end fitting. Yours truly May 21, 1974 Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attention: T. W. Herlihy We manufacture a line of renewable fittings for 1/4, 3/8, 7/16, 1/2 and 5/8" I. D. air brake hose. These couplings have a deformable sleeve and can be assembled in our factory, or in the field, with hand tools. While the sleeve can only be used once, the other components can be reused with a new sleeve (hence, the name renewable). According to our interpretation of FMVSS 106, these fittings will now fall into the permanently attached coupling classification. However, because they are not two piece end fittings attached by crimping or swaging, they must be permanently labeled. After carefully studying the DOT specificaion, we have decided on the following marking for each size of fitting (the hose involved is SAE J1402 Type A and Type B). HOSE I. D. COUPLING IDENTIFICATION 1/4 DOT ** A 1/4 3/8 * DOT ** A 3/8 7/16 DOT ** A 7/16 1/2 SP * DOT ** A 1/2 SP 5/8 DOT ** A 5/8 * Shown on reusable assembly Table III. My question is this - What, if any, designation must appear after the letter "A" on the 3/8 and 1/2 SP. fittings? The above fittings are compatible with both SAE Type A and Type B hose and your Table III does not specify which type is represented by your Type I or Type II and the dimensions of each hose are identical. Is it necessary to use I or II after the A's? Your prompt reply will be greatly appreciated. IMPERIAL-EASTMAN CORPORATION Eastman Division M. A. Chermak Chief Product Engineer |
|
ID: nht73-1.19OpenDATE: 12/28/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Continental Rubber Products, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: At the request of Continental Tire Company by letter of November 27, 1973 (90316 - Ga/MAB/Sc), we are forwarding our response to their question through you. They asked to know the lettering height to be used in compliance with the labeling requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is presently considering the lettering height to be used for labeling required by Standard 119. Our decision as to lettering size will appear in the Federal Register as soon as possible after it has been made. Yours truly, ATTACH. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration November 27, 1973 90316 - Ga/MAB/Sc Gentlemen: Re: Part 571 FMVSS 119 Docket 71-18, Notice 3 Part 571 S 109 Preamble 25-26, Docket 71-23, Notice 3, prescribes a height of 0.078" for the general lettering on tires; excepted herefrom is the Identification No, which can be 5/32" or 1/4". The abovementioned Notice referred to Standards 109 and 117 only, no mention being made of Standard 119. It would therefore be appreciated if you would advise us of the lettering height to be used in order to comply with the labeling requirements of Standard 119. If we might be permitted to voice an opinion, we would suggest a height of 0.078" in view of the fact that motorcycle tires, with limited sidewall space, will have to be labeled; the same applies to small trailer tires. We would be grateful for your early advices, as we intend to start soon with engraving of the relevant tire molds. May we suggest you notify our US representatives Conti Rubber Products Inc. Minue Street Carteret, N.J. per telex (transcontoret, No. 138 297) who will forward your instructions to us. Thanking you in advance for an early reply, we are Yours very truly, CONTINENTAL Gummi-Werke Aktiengesellschaft; Fritsche; Garbe |
|
ID: nht94-1.61OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: February 15, 1994 FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company TO: George Entwistle -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA TITLE: NEF-31GEn/NCI 3302 ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/8/94 from John Womack to Thomas Turner (A42; Std. 131); Also attached to letter dated 1/26/83 from Frank Berndt to Thomas D. Turner TEXT: Last Week I received by FAX an advanced copy of NCI 3302 concerning an apparent non-compliance of stop arms with strobe lights to FMVSS 131 Section S6.2.2, "Flash Rate." Blue Bird is forwarding a copy of NCI 3302 to our supplier of stop arms, Specialty Manufacturing Company in Pineville, North Carolina, so that they can determine if a non-compliance exists. In studying the requirements of S5.3, a question has arisen. S5.3 Conspicuity states "The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both." Some of the stop arms we install are reflectorized and have strobe lights. Based on NCI 3302 , it appears that the strobe lights do not comply with S6.2.2, so these stop arms do not comply with the "S5.3.2" or the "both" option of Section S5.3. However, these stop arms fully comply with the S5.3.1 option of Section S5.3; and the use of the stro be lights could be considered as optional lighting, not required by FMVSS 131 and therefore not required to meet the requirements of S6.2. NOTE: As a general rule, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No. 108 as long as it does not "impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment" required by the standard. (See attached letter from Chief Counsel dated January 2 6, 1983.) It is our understanding that a stop signal arm that fully complies with the requirements of S5.3.1 has satisfied the requirements of S5.3 Conspicuity, even if it has optional strobe lights installed that do not meet S5.3.2. WE REQUEST CONFIRMATION THAT THE OVSC CONSIDERS A REFLECTORIZE STOP SIGNAL ARM THAT FULLY COMPLIES WITH S5.3.1 AS COMPLIANT WITH S5.3 WITH OR WITHOUT STROBE LIGHTS INSTALLED. Your immediate response is needed so that we can proceed with work on our response to NCI 3302. |
|
ID: nht95-4.92OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 6, 1995 FROM: Jeffrey S. Bakst -- Attorney at Law TO: Dorothy Nakama -- NHTSA TITLE: FMVSS Standard 124 "Accelerator Control Systems"/Mitsubishi Motorist Corporation Carburetor ATTACHMT: 12/28/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Jeffrey S. Bakst (A44; Redbook 4; Std. 124; VSA 30118) TEXT: First, I want to inform you we are dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988. The accident involved occurred in December, 1990. I would like to acquire the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrat ion's opinion on the following questions: 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser? 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accele rator control in use, does the carburetor fall to comply with FMVSS 124? I can represent to you that we took a brand new carburetor and proved that if the secondary throttle plate were to get stuck shut for whatever reason, the primary throttle linkage would bind on the secondary throttle linkage, causing the primary throt tle plate to get stuck in a wide open throttle position, which results in engine overspeed. In essence, the two sources of energy on this carburetor are not sufficient to return the throttle to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control. Mitsubishi's own test on a brand new carburetor proved that if there was a malfunction in the secondary throttle plate, that the two (2) sources of energy were insufficient to return the throttle to idle position. As I explained, time is truly of the essence. Mr. Bode requested his letter to attach to his Appellate Brief. I now have to respond to his brief, and I must have your report by the end of this year, if I am going to be able to use it in the appeal. If you need additional information, please let me know. |
|
ID: nht95-7.50OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: December 6, 1995 FROM: Jeffrey S. Bakst -- Attorney at Law TO: Dorothy Nakama -- NHTSA TITLE: FMVSS Standard 124 "Accelerator Control Systems"/Mitsubishi Motorist Corporation Carburetor ATTACHMT: 12/28/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Jeffrey S. Bakst (A44; Redbook 4; Std. 124; VSA 30118) TEXT: First, I want to inform you we are dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988. The accident involved occurred in December, 1990. I would like to acquire the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's opinion on the following questions: 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser? 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fall to comply with FMVSS 124? I can represent to you that we took a brand new carburetor and proved that if the secondary throttle plate were to get stuck shut for whatever reason, the primary throttle linkage would bind on the secondary throttle linkage, causing the primary throttle plate to get stuck in a wide open throttle position, which results in engine overspeed. In essence, the two sources of energy on this carburetor are not sufficient to return the throttle to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control. Mitsubishi's own test on a brand new carburetor proved that if there was a malfunction in the secondary throttle plate, that the two (2) sources of energy were insufficient to return the throttle to idle position. As I explained, time is truly of the essence. Mr. Bode requested his letter to attach to his Appellate Brief. I now have to respond to his brief, and I must have your report by the end of this year, if I am going to be able to use it in the appeal. If you need additional information, please let me know. |
|
ID: nht75-4.34OpenDATE: 06/23/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE: R. L. Carter; NHTSA TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition for rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking. Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive belt system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply. Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warning provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds. Our January 16 letter states "additional [safety] devices could not be installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply." This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning. For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additional warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned. SINCERELY, March 25, 1975 James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration U. S. Department of Transportation SUBJECT: Petition for Rulemaking The enclosed Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 supercedes and replaces Volkswagen's Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 dated February 20, 1975. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. J. W. Kennebeck, Manager Emissions, Safety & Development Petition for Rulemaking of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Volkswagenwork Aktiengesellschaft Volkswagen of America, Inc. Petitioners TO Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation Petition for Rulemaking Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 Request to allow S4.5.3.3 to allow, at manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Background: In October, 1973, Volkswagen petitioned NHTSA to amend MVSS 208 to specify emergency release interlock and warning systems for vehicles equipped with passive belt restraint systems. Based on NHTSA's response to this petition (Docket 74-4; Notice 2), VW laid firm production plans for its diagonal belt/energy absorbing knee panel passive restraint system for incorporation in a new model, the Rabbit. In October, 1974, President Ford signed into law the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, which stipulated that new regulations be written by NHTSA to effectively eliminate requirements for starter interlocks and long duration warning buzzers. NHTSA responded quickly by eliminating all requirements in MVSS 208 for the starter interlock, and with a proposal for a new warning system (in S4.5.3.3) which, for passive belts, represented a change from continuous lights and buzzers, activated when either front outboard belt was disconnected, to four- to eight-second light warnings activated after ignition is turned on, with concurrent buzzers activated if the driver's belt was disconnected. Between November 1974 and February 25, 1975, the effective date for the new warning systems, VW produced Rabbits for sale in the U.S. with optional passive restraints, equipped with the "old" warning system permitted under MVSS 208 until February 25. These vehicles were also fitted with starter interlocks for the emergency release. Excellent sales volume of early Rabbits largely depleted supplies of vehicles fitted with the passive restraint, and Volkswagen saw a need to produce more passive restraint cars after February 25 so that we could continue to offer our customers the passive restraint on an optional basis. A letter from Mr. R. Dyson, Esq. (copy attached), confirmed that since starter interlocks were not regulated in any NHTSA regulation, they were not prohibited and could be installed at the manufacturer's option. Based on this interpretation, VW continued to fit its passive restraint cars with starter interlock. However, Volkswagen feels that the emergency release starter interlock must be supplemented by an effective warning system to inform the driver why he cannot start the car and to discourage occupants from unbuckling the belt while driving, although it is much easier to wear the belt properly than to defeat it. Therefore, we petitioned NHTSA with our letter of February 20, 1975, to allow manufacturers to continue to produce a more effective warning system, i.e. the "old" system. While this petition was under consideration, our engineers have been able to develop on short notice, a warning system which meets the new S4.5.3.3, and, in addition, provides that release of the passenger's belt, as well as the driver's belt, as stipulated in the rule, activates the buzzer system during the specified four- to eight-second period. In a telephone conversation with NHTSA Legal Counsel, it was decided that this feature is allowed under MVSS 208 because the driver's side requirement is only a minimum standard. However, we feel this warning system is not adequately effective, as it does not warn the occupants when a belt becomes disconnected after the four- to eight-second warning period. Therefore, by making a simple change to the visual warning, we developed a more effective system which satisfies the letter and the intent of Section 109 of the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974" and, we believe, satisfies the intent of MVSS 208 in meeting the basic provisions of S4.5.3.3. The substantive request of this petition is merely to allow a system in which the visual warning can remain activated indefinitely if belts are not in use, at the manufacturer's option. Although we still feel that the most effective warning system available (the "old" system specified formerly under MVSS 208) offers the greatest safety benefits, we submit the following proposal with the hope that it will meet more favorable response from NHTSA. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED NEW WARNING SYSTEM 1. The warning light activates for a period of four to eight seconds after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" position, when both passive belts are in use, as determined by emergency release being buckled. 2. The audible signal activates for a four- to eight-second period after the ignition is switched to the "on" position if one or both front outboard belts are not in use, as determined by the emergency release belt latch mechanism not being fastened. 3. In addition to the above, the warning light activates continuously whenever the ignition switch is in the "on" position and either front outboard belt is not in use, as determined by the emergency release being unbuckled, regardless of the elapsed time after the ignition has been switched "on". Since Section 109 of the Public Law 93-492, the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974," does not address the time duration of visual warning systems, we believe our proposed system satisfies the wording and intent of the law. Therefore, Volkswagen petitions NHTSA to amend MVSS 208, S4.5.3.3 to allow, at the manufacturer's option, passive belt systems to retain the warning lamps with indefinite activation when belts are not in use. We suggest that the following words might be used: Subparagraph S4.5.3.3 (b) (1) is amended to read: (1) At the left front designated seating position (driver's position), and, at the manufacturer's option, at the right front designated seating position, be equipped with a warning system that activates, for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" position), a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver, displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B), and, at the manufacturer's option, activates a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B). (A) The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" position or to the "start" position. (B) The driver's lap belt, or, at the manufacturer's option, either the driver's or the right front passenger's belt, is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. July 11, 1975 Tad Herlihy, Esq. Chief Counsel Office of the Administrator NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Subject: Letter from Robert L. Carter Dated June 23, 1975 This will confirm our recent telephone conversation advising that our engineers are not entirely happy with the suggestion that we install a continuous warning light in addition to the 4-8 second lamp. It is our intention to reaffirm our Petition for Rulemaking previously submitted to your office and plan to submit additional supporting data as soon as the annual factory recess in Germany has ended. We hope to be able to have this information on file in Washington no later than the last week in August or the first week in September. Gerhard P. Riechel Attorney |
|
ID: 07-005970--28 Feb 08--saOpenMs. Marine Jacotot Regulation Department Heuliez Cerizay 7. rue Louis Heuiliez BP 70209 79142 CERIZAY Cedex France Dear Ms. Jacotot: This is in response to your e-mail regarding free motion headform (FMH) impact test requirements for upper interior components in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (S6.3), as they relate to your companys retractable hardtop (RHT) roof system. Specifically, you seek confirmation of your interpretation that by excluding any target located on a convertible roof frame or on a convertible roof linkage mechanism, S6.3(a) also excludes any target on a decorative trim located such that during a FMH test, the trim would be between the forehead of the headform and the roof linkage mechanism or convertible roof frame. Based on the information you provided in emails on October 17, 2007 and December 13, 2007, and the analysis below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagrees with your interpretation as it applies to the Peugeot 206 CCs RHT roof system. S6.3(a) of FMVSS No. 201 provides that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of S6.1 through S6.2 (the FMH impact requirements) for any target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible roof linkage mechanism. Convertible roof frame is defined in S3 as the frame of a convertible roof. Convertible roof linkage mechanism is defined in S3 as any anchorage, fastener, or device necessary to deploy a convertible roof frame. In an April 5, 2002 letter we sent your company, we interpreted the S6.3 exclusion as it applies to RHT roof systems and hardtops for convertibles. NHTSA determined that with the exception of those components required to raise and lower the top or to latch it into position, RHT roof systems and detachable hardtops for convertibles must meet the FMH impact requirements of FMVSS No. 201. Previously addressing the application of the FMH impact test requirements to convertible roof systems, in an April 1998 Federal Register notice denying petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA rejected a request to modify the definition of convertible roof frame to include RHTs. We explained that the S6.3 exclusion of convertible roof frames and linkage mechanisms from the FMH impact requirements existed because the presence of a countermeasure such as padding would interfere with the frame and linkage mechanisms movement. We further reiterated that rigid convertible tops could produce head injuries and that the agency believed that protection should be provided for all the hard areas inside a vehicle unless it is not practicable to do so. 63 Fed. Reg. 19839, 19840. NHTSA noted that the petitioner did not submit any data indicating that convertible hardtops cannot be made as flexible as a conventional roof structure. The agency determined that since convertible roof frames and linkage mechanisms are excluded from FMH impact tests, the design of the remainder of the convertible hardtop roof should not present additional compliance difficulties. Id. The photographs and information you sent us was for the Peugeot 206 CCs RHT roof system. This vehicles RHT roof system consists of two moving, rigid panel sections. This RHT roof system retracts and deploys by the movement of two metal arms along the length of both panels of the roof on both sides, in the longitudinal direction. The two panels are connected by the movable metal arms, and by two joints located at the outer edges of the rigid panels. In your photographs, you have denoted these two joint areas, which consist of a metal side of the joint (facing the exterior of the vehicle) and a plastic side of the joint (facing the interior of the vehicle), as the roof joint mechanisms. The user secures the RHT to the vehicle frame by manually locking two front latch mechanisms, which each consist of a fixed striker on the A-pillar, a hook on the RHT, and a handle. The edges of the roof closest to the movable metal arms have a plastic trim that runs along the length of both sides of the rigid roof panels. The trims purpose is to cover the movable metal arms when the roof is deployed in the coupe configuration. Since the trim is linked to the roof, the trim moves when the roof moves, and thus is stowed with the roof when the RHT is in the convertible configuration. The two front latch mechanisms and the two roof joint mechanisms appear to be components necessary to raise and lower the top or to latch it into position. Thus, under S6.3, the vehicle need not meet the FMH impact requirements for any target located on these components. Because the trim moves and stows with the roof panels (and not with the movable arms), it appears that the trim is more a part of the roof than a part of the components necessary to raise and lower the roof or to latch it into position. It does not appear to us that the presence of a countermeasure such as padding would interfere with the trims movement, or that the trim cannot be made as flexible as the rest of the roof structure. Accordingly, while the roof joint mechanisms and front latch mechanisms are excluded from being targets for the FMH impact tests, the plastic trim on the Peugeot 206 CCs RHT roof system that covers the metal bars would not be excluded as a target in the FMH impact tests. This trim covering the movable metal arms is distinguished from any plastic pieces on the front latch mechanisms or roof joint mechanisms, which we do consider excluded from being a target in the FMH impact tests, because we consider those plastic pieces to be parts of the front latch mechanisms and roof joint mechanisms. We hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.4/29/08 |
2008 |
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.