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: nht91-4.22OpenDATE: June 18, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Andreas Geis -- Robert Bosch GMBH, Automotive Division TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-2-90 from Paul Jackson Rice to S. Kadoya; Also attached to letter dated 4-19-91 from Andreas Geis to U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA TEXT: This responds to your letter asking how a vehicle should be loaded when determining compliance with Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You suggested that the vehicle's loading state could influence the position and size of the vision areas. As explained below, a vehicle must comply with the vision area requirements in Standard No. 104 under each and every loading condition between and including unloaded and loaded to the maximum recommended weight. Standard No. 104 does not specify a loading condition for the development of vision areas, nor does SAE Recommended Practice J903a (May 1966), presently incorporated by reference into the Standard. Furthermore, there is no mention of the vehicle loading condition in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 104. Since no loading condition is specified in the standard, the question arises whether the absence of loading conditions means that a vehicle complies with Standard No. 104 if it complies with the vision area requirements at any single loading condition between unloaded and fully loaded or whether the vehicle must comply with the vision area requirements at every loading condition between unloaded and fully loaded. NHTSA has recently discussed this issue at length in an October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc. (copy enclosed). As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions can only be overcome if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions. Applying this test to the vision area requirements in Standard No. 104, we begin with the presumption that the vision area requirements must be met under all loading conditions. We must then examine the standard as a whole and its purposes to see if there are any indications of an intention to limit Standard No. 104 to a particular loading condition or conditions. Nothing in the language of Standard No. 104 suggests an intention to limit the standard to a particular vehicle loading condition. In fact, there is some indication in the language of the standard that it's requirements are intended to be met irrespective of loading condition (see sections S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3). Moreover, the purpose of the standard, to ensure driver visibility by requiring wiper systems to clear a specific portion of the windshield, is only serve if the wiper system functions adequately at all loading conditions. Therefore, since the language and purpose of Standard No. 104 indicate no intention to limit the standard's requirements to a particular vehicle loading condition, the presumption that a wiper system must comply at all loading conditions stands. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any further questions. |
|
ID: 571.141 NCC-230601-001 Nagaraj-SuperhornOpenSeptember 13, 2023 Dear Mr. Nagaraj, This letter responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding compliance of a new horn function named “Superhorn” with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 141. Based on the information you provided, as explained in more detail below, we have concluded that Superhorn is permissible under FMVSS No. 141. Description of the Superhorn You state that Superhorn is a feature that plays a horn sound through the same system used for emitting the pedestrian alert sound; the vehicle would not be equipped with a traditional horn trumpet. In addition to being user-actuated, you state that Superhorn would resemble a traditional horn both in sound and loudness and would only be played for the duration of continuous horn control actuation (up to a maximum of a 60 seconds before the system times out). You further state that Superhorn is independent of the pedestrian alert system, and that the pedestrian alert system would be emitted alongside the Superhorn sound from the same speaker system. You acknowledge that the pedestrian alert sound may be masked to some extent by the horn when the horn is actuated. Background NHTSA established FMVSS No. 141 in 2016, pursuant to the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010 (PSEA).1 The standard sets minimum sound level requirements for hybrid and electric light vehicles operating at low speeds and aims to reduce injuries to pedestrians and other road users by increasing the detectability of hybrid and electric vehicles. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSS outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Discussion There are three requirements of FMVSS No. 141 pertinent to the analysis of the Superhorn. Sound performance requirements (S5.1 through S5.4) S5.1 through S5.4 describe performance characteristics related to measured volume and frequency bands of sounds emitted from covered vehicles. The volume and frequency requirements described in S5.1 through S5.4 are vehicle-level requirements; individual sounds such as horns, including the proposed Superhorn, are not required to independently meet those requirements.2 The performance requirements described in S5.1 through S5.4 are intended to measure the detectability of a vehicle during routine operation. Since the Superhorn is not automatically engaged during routine operation, the Superhorn may not be used to meet FMVSS No. 141’s minimum required sound levels.3 Sameness requirement (S5.5) S5.5 describes the “Sameness requirement,” which requires all vehicles of the same make, model and trim equipped with a pedestrian alert sound to emit the same set of sounds. NHTSA has previously explained that the Sameness requirement, which stems from the PSEA,4 only applies to sounds added to the vehicle for the purposes of complying with the standard.5 The agency believes that this interpretation is still appropriate. Requiring all sounds produced by non- pedestrian alert systems to be identical would be overly burdensome and would prevent certain optional equipment that could affect the sound of a vehicle from being offered for sale. Even though the Superhorn would be played through the same speaker system as the pedestrian alert system, according to your description it is not being added to meet volume and frequency requirements of FMVSS No. 141, and it is only active during horn control actuation. Therefore, Superhorn is not subject to the Sameness requirement. Prohibition on altering the sound of a covered vehicle (S8(b)) S8(b) prohibits providing “any mechanism, equipment, process, or device intended to disable, alter, replace, or modify the sound emitting capability of a vehicle subject to this standard, except in connection with a repair of vehicle malfunction or to remedy a defect or non-compliance.” S8(b) is derived from a similar provision in the PSEA.6 In proposing S8(b), NHTSA described the intention of the provision as “to avoid the situation where vehicle sounds are changed, at the request of the consumer, to something individualized and no longer associated with the specific make/model of motor vehicle, or indeed even recognizable as a motor vehicle at all.”7 NHTSA reaffirmed this position in response to a petition for reconsideration, stating that S8 is intended to prevent access to vehicle features that could modify or adjust the emitted sound or render it noncompliant.8 As a practical matter, NHTSA has not applied S8(b) to other vehicle devices or mechanisms such as traditional horns or audio systems, even though these systems have the potential to alter the sound produced by vehicles and how they are perceived by pedestrians. NHTSA views S8(b) as preserving the integrity of the pedestrian alert system and, more generally, the vehicle’s detectability by pedestrians. Devices that directly touch upon the vehicle alert system, including a vehicle’s pedestrian alert speakers or audio file, receive a higher level of scrutiny. This is not to imply, however, that these are the only systems that may potentially run afoul of S8(b); devices or mechanisms that supersede or replace the pedestrian alert sound may also be found non-compliant. NHTSA believes that the Superhorn, as it is described in your correspondence, does not conflict with S8(b). From your description, the pedestrian alert would continue to play the same set of sounds unaltered and concurrent with the Superhorn for the duration of horn control actuation. As you noted, the Superhorn has the potential to mask the pedestrian alert, in much the same way as a traditional horn may mask a pedestrian alert. However, the pedestrian alert would be masked with a trumpet sound resembling the tone, pitch, and loudness of a traditional car horn and only while the Superhorn sounds. Trumpet horn sounds are distinctive and recognized as a warning to pedestrians and other road users of an imminent hazard such as a vehicle collision. NHTSA notes that this interpretation is based on the description of the Superhorn you provided. If the Superhorn’s performance varies in any way materially from the description you provided, this interpretation will no longer be applicable. For example, if the Superhorn played in the absence of continuous horn control actuation, played for a longer duration, played a sound that made vehicles less identifiable as a vehicle, or disabled the pedestrian alert sound, then the feature would likely be deemed a device that alters, disables, or replaces the pedestrian alert in contravention of S8(b) or a pedestrian alert subject to the Sameness requirement in S5.5. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Connet of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-5547.
Sincerely,
John Donaldson
1 Pub. L. No. 111-373, 141 Stat. 4086 (Jan. 4, 2011). 2 Hybrid and electric vehicles are not required to have a dedicated pedestrian alert sound; vehicles that produce sufficient sound to meet the performance requirements described by S5.1-S5.4 may satisfy the requirements of FMVSS no. 141 without a dedicated alert system. See 81 FR 90416, 90450 (Dec. 14, 2016). 6 See PSEA § 3(2).
Dated: 9/13/23 Ref: Standard No. 141 |
2023 |
ID: prevost_applicabilityOpenMr. Deny Bertrand Dear Mr. Betrand: This replies to your inquiries regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles. You explained that your company manufactures over-the-road coaches and is thus required to comply with the requirements specified in the two standards. You focused your inquiries on two areas, the requirements for threshold warning signals and the application of the standards to vehicles and lifts that were manufactured prior to the effective date. I have addressed each of your questions below. By way of background, in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that certain vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. On December 23, 2004, the agency published a final rule that extended the compliance date of FMVSS No. 403 until April 1, 2005, and compliance date of FMVSS No. 404 until July 1, 2004 (69 FR 76865) . 1. Threshold warning signal In a letter and e-mail correspondence, you asked about the threshold warning signal requirements of FMVSS No. 403 for public use lifts. Specifically, you asked whether:
(b) S6.1.4 requires that a passenger backing onto a platform lift be able to see the actual beacon, (c) the vehicle manufacturer or lift manufacturer is solely responsible for compliance with the threshold warning system requirements, (d) optical sensors could be used to detect an occupant in the threshold area, and (e) the threshold warnings could be activated based on whether an access door were open. As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency established a threshold warning signal requirement for platform lifts to minimize the risk of a lift user backing off a vehicle before a lift is properly positioned. For public-use lifts, S6.1.3 requires that:
(a) Visual warning beacon
While the standard specifies several criteria for the visual warning, it does not specify design criteria such as size or shape for the beacon. Therefore, a flat light may be relied upon to comply with S6.13, so long as when installed according to the lift manufacturers instructions, it complies with the color, intensity, frequency, and line-of-sight requirements in S6.1.4. (b) Line-of-sight requirement In a telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you stated that your companys lift supplier intends to provide a beacon that mounts above the access door such that a passenger backing onto the platform from interior of the vehicle will not see the beacon directly. You further explained that this supplier stated that it intends to rely on light reflected from the beacon in order to comply with the requirement. This would not be acceptable. Compliance with the line-of-sight requirement is based on the location of the beacon and not by light emitted from the beacon. S6.1.4 states that the beacon must be installed such that it does not require more than 15 degrees of side-to-side head rotation to be viewed by a passenger backing onto the platform from the interior of the vehicle. A warning system that relied on reflected light, as opposed to the physical location of the beacon, would be more susceptible to environmental light conditions, thereby reducing its effectiveness. (c) Compliance responsibility Your e-mail further asked if compliance with the threshold warning signal requirements is the responsibility of the lift or vehicle manufacturer. The threshold warning signal requirements are part of FMVSS No. 403, which as previously explained, applies to platform lifts. Lift manufacturers are required to certify that their lifts comply with all applicable requirements under the standard. S6.13 of FMVSS No. 403 requires that lift manufacturers provide installation instructions with each lift, including procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational and compliant with requirements such as the threshold warning signal requirements (see S6.13.2) . Therefore, it is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to provide a lift that, when installed according to manufacturer instructions, complies with all the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Under S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 404, it is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to install an FMVSS No. 403-compliant platform lift according to the instructions provided by the platform lift manufacturer. Under S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404, the platform lift as installed must continue to comply with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. (d) Optical sensors In your letter, you asked whether a platform lift could comply with the threshold warning signal requirements through the use of optical sensors, as opposed to a sensitive floor pad. S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires the appropriate threshold warning signal to be activated when any portion of a passengers body or mobility aid occupies the platform threshold area defined in S4 of that standard, and the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch) below the vehicle floor reference plane. A platform lift must meet this requirement when tested in accordance with S7.4 of the standard. S7.4 specifies that the appropriate signals must be activated when one front wheel of the wheelchair test device, as described in S7.1.2, is placed in the platform threshold area and the platform is more than 25 mm (1inch) below the vehicle floor reference plane. The standard specifies the performance requirements for a threshold warning system, but not the design. Therefore, a lift manufacturer may use optical sensors to comply with the threshold warning requirement, as long as it satisfies the performance requirements of the standard. (e) Access Door Condition In your letter you asked whether a lift that activates the threshold warnings whenever the lift is more than 25 mm (1 inch) from the vehicle floor level and the access door is open would comply with the standard. You explained that in such a case, a lift would not be required to be equipped with detection equipment. Again, the threshold warning signal minimizes the likelihood of an individual backing off of a vehicle when a platform lift is not in proper position. An appropriate signal must be activated when a platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch) out of position and one front wheel of the wheelchair test device is in the platform threshold area. Under S7.4.2, removal of the test device from the platform threshold area must deactivate the alarm. The deactivation requirement ensures that a signal is only activated when an occupant is at risk of off-loading onto a lift before the lift is in position. If an alarm were permitted to be activated whenever an access door were open and the lift were more than 25 mm (1 inch) from the vehicle floor, the effectiveness of the alarm would be diminished. In that instance, the alarm would continue to signal even when a lift user were safely on the lift and being lowered to ground level. Additionally, the prolonged signaling may irritate the lift user and other vehicle occupants. 2. Applicability to the Installation of Lifts on Used Vehicles Under FMVSS No. 403, as recently amended, all lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005, must comply with that standard. Under FMVSS No. 404, all vehicles with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005, and later that are manufactured with a platform lift must comply with the vehicle standard. Vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with a FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift. Based on your phone conversation with Mr. Calamita, you asked about two situations: (a) the installation of a lift on a used vehicle that was manufactured before the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date, and (b) the installation of a lift on a used vehicle that was manufactured on or after the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date. (a) Installation of a lift on a used, pre-July 1, 2005 vehicle Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale) . See 49 CFR 30112. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Vehicles manufactured prior to July 1, 2005, whether originally manufactured with or without a lift, are not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. Therefore, a non-FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift may be installed on such a vehicle, so long as the installation does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the standards to which it was originally certified. For example, if a vehicle were manufactured with a platform lift on September 1, 2004, a vehicle modifier would be permitted to replace the original lift with either a non-FMVSS No. 403-complaint lift or a FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift. Further, the agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system or interlock system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122. (b) Installation of a lift on a used vehicle manufactured on or after July 1, 2005 After first retail sale, the "make inoperative" provision only applies to standards to which a vehicle is certified as complying. If a vehicle with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005 or later is manufactured with a lift, that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if after first retail sale a platform lift is added to a vehicle that was not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404, a modifier need not bring that vehicle into compliance with a FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift. In your letter, you asked about a specific situation in which vehicles are manufactured to accept a removable lift, but as manufactured and certified, are not equipped with a lift. A removable lift would then be installed by the vehicles owner. First, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by a vehicle owner to his/her own vehicle. Additionally, even if a removable lift were added by a repair shop or dealer after first retail sale, these vehicles would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. Again, these vehicles were not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. If a removable lift were added by a modifier, the addition of the lift must not cause any applicable FMVSS to be made inoperative. However, modifications made to a vehicle that was certified as complying with FMVSS No. 404 must not remove that vehicle from compliance with that standard. If an automotive repair business were to replace a lift on a vehicle that complied with FMVSS No. 404, the lift must be replaced with a FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift and in a manner that would maintain the vehicles compliance with FMVSS No. 404. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:403#404 |
2005 |
ID: nht75-4.48OpenDATE: 11/24/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA TO: Butler Associates Inc. TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: I am writing in response to your September 22, 1975, letter concerning safety standards applicable to your 1975 Ford Custom Wagon. Your letter was referred to this agency by Senator Magnuson. I am enclosing a brochure entitled Standards which briefly lists the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the vehicles to which they apply. Most of the standards were initially applied to passenger cars because they accounted for the vast majority of traffic deaths and injuries. Your Custom Wagon is classified for the purposes of our standards as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle (MPV). Each particular type of vehicle, such as a car, small or large truck, van, bus, or motorcycle, has its own design characteristics and configuration, with widely different causes of crash injury and fatality. Since the original Federal standards were established in 1967, effective January 1, 1968, we have been in the process of extending the applicability of our current standards and of preparing new standards where appropriate to other vehicle types, including MPV's. For example, effective January 1, 1976, all trucks and MPV's with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or less will be required to be equipped with combination lap and shoulder belts with inertial retractors, just as has been required of passenger cars since September 1973. With the constantly improving accident investigation information on how and why particular injuries occur in particular types of vehicles, we expect to be able to determine which safety items are necessary and will do the most good on all vehicles. We will then issue appropriate standards as rapidly as possible. I appreciate your concern over the safety of our motor vehicles. Sincerely, Enclosure: "Standards" United States Senate -- COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE November 3, 1975 James B. Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation Dear Dr. Gregory: I am enclosing for your information a letter that I received from Mr. Charles F. Butler who complains that his 1975 Ford Custom Wagon does not need to comply with many of the federal motor vehicle standards. He has asked that I look into this problem. As you may know, the Commerce Committee has a long-standing record of concern about the exclusions for multi-purpose vehicles from the motor vehicle safety standards. I request that you provide Mr. Butler with the justification for these exclusions and send me a copy of your response to him. Sincerely yours, WARREN G. MAGNUSON -- Chairman Enclosure September 22, 1975 Honorable Warren Magnuson, Chairman -- Senate Commerce Committee, United States Senate Dear Mr. Chairman: Recently, I had occasion to purchase a 1975 Ford Custom Wagon for personal use. It is a van type of vehicle with windows all around and seating for eight passengers. As you may know, this type of vehicle is growing in popularity for family transportation. Since the vehicle is for personal use, it is registered as a passenger vehicle by the State of Maryland and my insurance rates reflect that status. Unfortunately, under federal regulations it is classified as a Multi-purpose Vehicle (MVP) and, therefore, exempt from some of the safety requirements that must be on passenger cars. The most notable is the lack of any head restraint for front seat passengers. I consider this a most dangerous situation because the bucket seats they supply are below shoulder level thereby inviting severe injury if the vehicle is struck from the rear. I am still searching for headrests to correct the problem. The only other alternative will be new seats at a cost of $ 140.00 each. Ford advertises and sells these vehicles for passenger use, not commercial. There seems to be a gap in the federal safety regulations that requires closing immediately. While other deficiencies also exist (no energy-absorbing steering column etc) the head restraint is the most serious. Any vehicle that can be registered as a passenger vehicle should be required to have these basic safety devices. While it would do me no good, I would urge that your Committee, through its oversight function, look into these problems. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Charles F. Butler -- President, BUTLER ASSOCIATES, INC. |
|
ID: nht73-3.14OpenDATE: 01/19/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Chrysler Corporation TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: By letter dated October 2, 1972, you were advised by Andrew Detrick, Director, Office of Defects Investigation, that the defect reports required by 49 CFR Part 573 are required to be filed with this agency when a safety related defect has been determined in a class of vehicles regardless of whether or not these vehicles were sold to the general public. In his letter, Mr. Detrick had directed his inquiry as to why no defect report had been filed with respect as to why no defect report had been filed with respect to certain 1973 model year Chrysler Corporation vehicles which appeared to have a safety problem in their hall joint assemblies. In your letter of response dated October 23, 1972, you advised that although Chrysler had undertaken to repair some 11,998 vehicles upon which the ball joint assembly in question had been installed through a notice to dealers dated August 17, 1972, the corporation had made a determination that no defect report was required to be filed under 49 CFR 573 because all of these vehicles were either in the hands of the manufacturer or the dealer and had not passed to the first purchaser. This is contrary to the position taken by this agency. Subsequently, on November 3, 1972, you advised us that some 2,960 vehicles had not been repaired an undetermined number of which had passed into the hands of purchasers. With respect to these 2,560 vehicles you filed an untimely defect report on November 3 and issued a notification to the purchasers. No defect report, however, has been received regarding the remainder of the vehicles in this class. This is to advise you that we do not agree with your legal interpretation to the effect that defect reports are only required if the vehicles have passed into the hands of the purchasers. In our view, the reports are required to be furnished to this agency within five days of the determination of the existence of a safety related defect with respect to all vehicles subject to the defect that have been delivered to the distributor or dealer in addition to those which have been sold to the general public. Accordingly, Chrysler Corporation has failed and refused to file a timely defect report for the remainder of the vehicles in the defined class. You are hereby directed to file such report within five days of receipt of this letter. In addition to the foregoing, we have been advised informally by Mr. Kittle of your staff that in the future Chrysler Corporation will file timely defect reports irrespective of whether or not the vehicles have passed into the hands of the purchasers. Please advise us in writing within ten days of the date of receipt of this letter of whether or not Chrysler Corporation intends to comply with the defect reports regulation by filing timely defect reports with respect to all vehicles subject to a safety related defect that have been delivered to a distributor or dealer in addition to those which have been sold to the general public. We have fully considered the legal arguments, contentions and facts presented in mitigation of any legal(Illegible Word) this agency might seek, including injunctive sanctions or civil penalties, for Chrysler's not having filed a timely defect report regarding those of the 11,998 vehicles in question which had been delivered to the distributor or dealer and have rejected Chrysler's position. Accordingly, before we accept any offer in compromise regarding the amount of civil penalties to be imposed for the violation or violations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, we will await your response regarding the matters hereinabove mentioned. |
|
ID: aiam4055OpenFinbarr J. O'Neill, Esq., General Counsel, Hyundai Motor America, 7373 Hunt Avenue, P.O. Box 2669, Garden Grove, CA 92642- 2669; Finbarr J. O'Neill Esq. General Counsel Hyundai Motor America 7373 Hunt Avenue P.O. Box 2669 Garden Grove CA 92642- 2669; Dear Mr. O'Neill: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of FMVSS No 101, *Controls and Displays*, concerning the color of the highbeam telltale. You stated that while Table 2 of the standard indicates that a manufacturer has the option of choosing a green or blue telltale, your review of competitive vehicles shows that virtually all have chosen blue telltales. You asked whether NHTSA has taken any position as to whether one color is preferable to the other. You also asked for comment on whether NHTSA has any reasonable anticipation of changing this requirement.; I would note that in the past NHTSA required the highbeam telltale t be blue. That color was selected primarily to promote international harmonization of standards regulating vehicle controls and displays. Blue is the color requirement of the International Standards Organization, the Economic Commission for Europe, and the European Economic Community.; On January 21, 1982, NHTSA amended Standard No. 101 to permit green a an alternative to blue (47 FR 2996). The purpose of the change was to allow the use of light emitting diode technology, which at that time could not produce the color blue. While we do not have a preference as such as to how manufacturers choose to meet our standards, we would note that use of the color blue tends to promote international harmonization.; On September 12, 1985, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (50 F 37240) a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 101. Among other things, the proposal concerns color requirements for electronic displays. See 50 FR 37244. We have enclosed a copy of the notice for your convenience.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: NCC-230120-001 571.108 Peterson Trailer Auxiliary Door Light 11.06.24 signedOpenNovember 6, 2024 Mr. Donald Lane Peterson Manufacturing Co. 4200 E. 135th Street Grandview, MO 64030
This responds to your letter, received January 6, 2023, in which you requested a letter of interpretation asking whether a lamp located on the front of a trailer that would illuminate green or red to indicate whether the trailer doors are open or closed is compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Based on the information you provided in your letter, as explained in more detail below, we have concluded that installing the lights as described would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. Background NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. After first purchase of a vehicle or equipment in good faith other than for resale, section 30122 of the Safety Act requires that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. This letter represents NHTSA’s opinion concerning whether your design, as you describe it, would be permitted under FMVSS No. 108 and section 30122. In your letter, you state that you have been asked to install an “auxiliary light” on trailers at or over 2032mm in width and 8.1m in length. The light would be installed on the front of the trailer “so as to be visible to the driver in the driver’s side mirror” and would illuminate green when the trailer doors are shut and red when at least one of the trailer doors are open. Although it is not clear from your description, we assume that the light would also be visible to other individuals looking at the trailer from the front. You also state that you intend for the lamp to only illuminate on the private property of the trailer owner, not on other roads. You ask whether the light could be made with green and red LEDs and clear lenses or in the alternative use green or red lenses. Requirements of the Standard FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, including for trailers. For auxiliary lamps, the primary restriction imposed by FMVSS No. 108 is by S6.2.1, which states that “[n]o additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment is permitted to be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.” Both original equipment and aftermarket lighting can run afoul of the “make inoperative” provision, and NHTSA considers the installation of an aftermarket lamp to violate the “make inoperative” provision if the installation of the same lamp as original equipment would violate FMVSS No. 108.1 Therefore, while you do not state in your letter whether your installation would be as original equipment or in the aftermarket, we conduct the same impairment analysis. These prohibitions bar installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business of lamps that would impair the effectiveness of required lighting, but do not apply to the owner of a vehicle. Typically, the impairment determination under FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1 is made on a case-by- case basis and considers four main characteristics of the auxiliary lamp to analyze whether it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting: the brightness, color, location, and activation pattern of the lamp. This list is not exhaustive and other considerations may be relevant to the analysis. NHTSA has long maintained that highway traffic safety is enhanced by drivers’ familiarity with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly. Therefore, NHTSA has interpreted the impairment provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are colors and are mounted in locations which are likely to cause confusion to other road users. For auxiliary lamps located on the front of vehicles, these colors include red, which could be confused for a taillamp or stop lamp, and green, which typically conveys the message that one may proceed forward and could therefore impair required lighting that indicates caution.2 1 See, e.g., Letter to Timothy C. Murphy (Nov. 1, 2004), available at For required lighting relevant to your inquiry, FMVSS No. 108 requires that all trailers have two red taillamps and two red stop lamps on the rear of the trailer, at the same height, symmetrically about the vertical centerline, and as far apart as practicable. Also, all trailers of 2032 mm or more in width must have three red identification lamps on the rear, at the same height as one another, as close to the top of the trailer as practicable and as close as practicable to the vertical centerline of the trailer, with lamp centers spaced not less than 6 inches or more than 12 inches apart. Additionally, such trailers must also have two amber clearance lamps on the front and two red clearance lamps on the rear, symmetrically mounted about the vertical centerline as near the top as practicable to indicate the overall width of the trailer.3 Discussion We now turn to your inquiry. As an initial matter, it is immaterial to this analysis that the lamp is intended to illuminate only on the trailer owners’ property. NHTSA’s longstanding position is that when the vehicle is designed to be used on-road, its equipment must meet all applicable FMVSS.4 Your lamp is not required equipment and so would be considered, as you correctly describe it, as auxiliary or supplemental lighting. Therefore, we turn to the question of impairment and look to the relevant characteristics.5 The factors most relevant to your inquiry are the location and color of the lamps, which we analyze together. We find that the lamp design described in your letter is likely to impair the effectiveness of the identification and clearance lamps required by FMVSS No. 108, and, if installed by you or another entity subject to the “make inoperative” prohibition as aftermarket equipment, would impair the effectiveness of that required lighting installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 108. By requiring different colored lamps on the front and the rear of trailers, FMVSS No. 108 facilitates rapid recognition by road users of the direction that a trailer is facing or is moving. Because your device illuminates red in the front of the trailer, it operates contrary to this standard’s intention. This lighting arrangement could cause drivers to mistake the front of the trailer for the rear. Such a mistake, even if only for a moment, may cause drivers to take unnecessary, and possibly unsafe, driving maneuvers or to fail to take other maneuvers in time to 3 FMVSS No. 108 Table I-a. We hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Dated: 11/6/24 |
2024 |
ID: nht69-1.48OpenDATE: 01/16/69 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr.; NHTSA TO: State of Iowa TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1968, concerning the requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With respect to the number and color of lamps in your six-lamp system, I would agree that, when viewed singly from the front or rear, your system would have the same general appearance as a four-or eight-lamp system of other states. However, as mentioned in the third paragraph of your letter, Standard No. 108 also specifies a standard method of energizing the lamps in a four-and eight-lamp system, including the front-and rear-mounted lamps. Therefore, a motorist, who is familiar with the four-or eight-lamp system in other states, could be easily confused when viewing alternately the front and rear of a six-lamp system, since on a system basis it would not conform to either the four-or eight-lamp system. As stated in my recent letters to your Congressional Delegation, any person adversely affected by the safety standards may, under the procedural rules of the Federal Highway Administration, petition the Administrator under Part 206, Subchapter B, Section 216.31 or Section 216.35, published in the Federal Register on November 17, 1967, a copy of which is again enclosed for your convenience. Your attention is particularly invited to paragraph (d) of Section 216.35 which reads, "Unless the Administrator otherwise provides, the filing of a petition does not stay the effectiveness of the rule." With respect to the questions raised in Mr. Arthur Roberts' letter of February 22, 1968, to Mr. David A. Fay of this Bureau, and also relating to your preparation of proposals for new school buses, I would call your attention to Section 103 (d) of Public Law 89-563, a copy of which is enclosed. In part, this section reads, "Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no state or political subdivision of a state shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." It would appear therefore that preparation of your proposals for new school buses could be initiated on the basis of Standard No. 103 requirements and prior to the next meeting of your legislature in January, 1969. Again, as indicated in my recent letters to your Congressional Delegation, it is the position of this Bureau that the provision of Standard No. 103 permitting optional use of either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system is reasonable, practicable and in the interest of highway safety. A consideration of the information presented in your letter has not altered this position. Therefore, we still do not believe that a change in the provision of Standard No. 108 to permit optional use of a third or six-lamp system is justified. Thank you for writing. |
|
ID: aiam4282OpenMr. Robert W. Christian, Executive Director, Wisconsin School Bus Association, P.O. Box 168, Sheboygan, WI 53082-0168; Mr. Robert W. Christian Executive Director Wisconsin School Bus Association P.O. Box 168 Sheboygan WI 53082-0168; Dear Mr. Christian: This responds to your letter to former Chief Counsel Frank Bernd asking about our school bus regulations. I hope you find the following discussion helpful and regret the delay in providing it.; You ask whether our school bus safety standards apply to vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons but which are actually used to transport nine or fewer students. According to your letter, Wisconsin does not consider 12 and 15-passenger vans as 'school buses' if they are used to carry only nine or fewer students. You ask also whether these vehicles must be painted and identified as school buses.; Because your letter raises several issues concerning our school bu regulations, I believe some background information might be helpful in answering your questions. Our agency has two sets of regulations that apply to school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Vehicle Safety Act'), applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The second set of 'regulations' for school buses was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. Those regulations or 'highway safety program standards,' are recommendations from this agency to the states for developing their highway safety programs and includes guidelines on school bus color and marking.; The Vehicle Safety Act establishes requirements that manufacturers an sellers of new school buses must meet. It requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles must meet all Federal safety standards applicable to 'school buses.' Further, the Act requires any person selling a new bus for pupil transportation purposes to sell a bus that complies with our motor vehicle safety standards for 'school buses' or be potentially subject to fines under Federal law for selling noncomplying vehicles. Under the regulations we issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered a 'bus,' and is considered to be a 'school bus' if sold for school-related purposes.; The first issue you raise is whether it is permissible under Federa law to transport students in 12 or 15-passenger vans which do not comply with Federal school bus safety standards, if the number of students transported is limited to nine or fewer. The answer to your question is yes. Please note that, as further explained below, the fact that the number of students actually carried on the bus is restricted to nine or fewer has no effect on the permissibility of the activity you described.; School bus users such as a school or school district may use thei 'plain (noncomplying) vans' to carry students. This is because the responsibility to comply with Vehicle Safety Act requirements falls upon the manufacturers and sellers of new school buses, and not the users of the vehicles. While persons selling new 12 or 15 passenger vans for pupil transportation purposes are obligated to sell buses which conform to our school bus safety standards, the Act imposes no requirement on school bus users that requires them to transport students in complying school buses.; You ask whether the phrase 'designed for carrying' in our 'bus definition refers to the number of seating positions the vehicle is manufactured with, or the number of passengers actually carried on the vehicle at any one time. The phrase 'designed for carrying' refers to the number of seating positions in the vehicle. NHTSA determines the passenger capacity of a vehicle by the vehicle's actual seating capacity, which is determined by identifying the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. If a van is manufactured to carry 12 or 15 passengers, it is a 'bus' and must comply with school bus safety standards if sold to carry school children. For the purposes of Federal law, whether a school bus user will carry only nine or fewer students in its 12 or 15-passenger van has no affect on the seller's obligation to sell complying school buses.; Further, Federal law applies to the sale of the new 12 or 15-passenge school vans regardless of whether Wisconsin considers these vehicles 'school buses' under state law. I believe this was explained to your association in the June 20, 1983 letter from Mr. Berndt concerning state 'school bus' definitions. Mr. Berndt explained that 'the decision of a state not to adopt the Federal classification has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus standards to that vehicle.' Thus, even if new 12 or 15-passenger vans are not 'school buses' under state law, persons selling such vehicles for pupil transportation are obligated under Federal law to sell complying school buses.; Your next question asks whether 12 or 15-passenger vans must be marke and painted as school buses even if they transport 9 or fewer students. This question concerns the highway safety program standards which I referred to earlier in this letter. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety * (copy enclosed), includes recommendations for the operational aspects of state pupil transportation programs, such as school bus color and marking, vehicle maintenance and driver training. Since the decision to adopt Standard No. 17's recommendations is left to each state, Wisconsin law would determine whether the vans must be marked and painted as school buses.; Your final question asks where you can find the Federal standard relating to 'motor buses.' Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to buses, school buses and other types of motor vehicles. As with the manufacture of school buses, manufacturers of buses must certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards. I have enclosed information on how you can order a copy of our standards.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you hav further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht92-8.43OpenDATE: February 27, 1992 FROM: Kevin J. Stoll -- Technical Advisor, Russell Products Incorporated TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel FMVSS - 108, NHTSA COPYEE: Thomas L. Russell TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to Kevin J. Stoll (A39; Std. 108) TEXT: My purpose for writing you today is that the "Office of Rulemaking" stated to me that I should address my questions directly to you via letter. Russell Products is a multi-line distributor to the recreational vehicle and van conversion industry. We are currently selling third brake lights to the van and R.V. industry. We also are familiar with the standards that are in effect for all vehicles that are manufactured in our industry. However, the purpose for this letter is that I am currently designing a third brake light for the truck cap and truck camper vehicles. Listed below are a few questions that I have not been able to find rulings on. I would appreciate any help or insight that you may have in obtaining the answers to these questions. 1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light? 2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake fight on pickup trucks? b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer? c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light? 3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck. b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationary. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved? 4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated mailings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings.
If you have any questions or would require additional information, please don't hesitate to call me at 1-800-545-5620. I appreciate your help in advance. |
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.