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: 1868yOpen BY FAX Mr. H. Hasegawa Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Section Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. FAX 03-792-0007 (Japan) Dear Mr. Hasegawa: This is in reply to your FAX letter of May 22, l989, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You have two questions with respect to the amendment to Standard No. l08 published on May 9, l989 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 8). Your first question is the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1.(a), which you point out was not previously a requirement of Standard No. l08. You suggest the need for a delayed effective date (but give no reason why one may be needed). Paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) will be effective June 8, l989. Although the requirement is a new one (the restriction on motion of a headlamp when an external aiming device is applied to it), it was proposed as part of the December 29, l987 NPRM, and no comments received indicated a need for a delayed effective date. Your supposition is correct; S7.5.5.1 will apply to all headlamps with an external aiming system, including those incorporating replaceable bulbs. Your second question relates to paragraph S7.7.5.l(b), and you ask "whether the requirement of '0.1 in. max.' will be determined, either during the test or after the test". In pertinent part, subsection (b) states "nor shall the lamp recede more than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) after being subjected to an inward force...." This means that the measurement is determined after the test. Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:l08 d:6/l9/89 |
1970 |
ID: 07-001583asOpenKerry Legg, Safety & Compliance Manager Customer Services Head Office New Flyer, Inc. 25 DeBaets Street Winnipeg, Manitoba R2J 4G5 Canada Dear Mr. Legg: This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You ask whether it would be permissible to incorporate flashing applications of otherwise steady-burning lamps, or add additional special functioning lamps, for emergency conditions on a transit bus. According to the information you supplied, these lamps would be part of a silent alarm system, perhaps used in conjunction with a GPS or radio alarm system, which would notify outsiders or law enforcement to the presence of an emergency situation on the bus without alerting the individual(s) who may be causing a threat inside the vehicle. After considering the information you provided and the analysis discussed below, we regret to inform you that the silent alarm system you have described with flashing clearance or other special lamps would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Analysis of the Silent Alarm Lamps under Paragraph S5.5.10 The question of which lamps are permitted to flash on a vehicle is addressed in paragraph S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108. The relevant provision states: The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are: As you correctly point out in your letter, paragraph S5.5.10(d) of the standard supplies the general rule. All lamps are required to be steady-burning unless specifically excepted by S5.5.10(a)-(c). Therefore, any lamp not covered by these exceptions cannot flash under any circumstances. You specifically ask whether clearance lamps are permitted to flash. Clearance lamps do not fall under any exception enumerated in S5.5.10 (a) through (c). Accordingly, clearance lamps must be steady burning and cannot flash.[1] Paragraph S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps and side marker lamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes. However, we do not believe that the silent alarm system constitutes signaling purposes for the purpose of S5.5.10(b). We do not believe that the phrase signaling purposes should be interpreted in its broadest possible context, which could mean any information communicated to others via visual signals. Instead, we interpret the phrase signaling purposes to be limited to those signals communicating traffic information.[2] The silent alarm, however, does not signal traffic information, but rather information regarding the duress of the driver. We believe that extending our interpretation of signaling purposes could conflict with the intent of S5.5.10(d), which is to limit the use of flashing lamps on vehicles to a limited and easily-understandable set of signals. Therefore, a silent alarm system utilizing flashing headlamps and side marker lamps would not be permitted under FMVSS No. 108. Under S5.5.10(a), turn signal lamps and hazard warning signal lamps must be wired to flash. Therefore, S5.5.10 would not prohibit the use of those lamps as part of a silent alarm system. However, we note that the lamps must still conform to the requirements listed in Table III of FMVSS No. 108. Analysis of Silent Alarm Lamps under Paragraph S5.1.3 While Standard No. 108 mandates the installation and design of required lamps, it does not prohibit the installation of auxiliary lamps. However, the use of auxiliary lamps is subject to the restriction in paragraph S5.1.3 (as well as the general prohibitions on flashing lamps in S5.5.10(d)). Paragraph S5.1.3 reads: S5.1.3 No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. As you have not provided the specific designs and locations of the auxiliary lamps you are considering, we will provide some examples of interference with required lamps. Off-color lamps, such as red lamps in the front of a vehicle, would be considered to interfere with the standardization of highway signals set forth by Standard No. 108.[3],[4] Lamps that distort established patterns, such as the three-lamp identification cluster, would be prohibited by Standard No. 108.[5] Auxiliary lamps that are close to required lamps, and whose glare may obscure the required lamps, would be prohibited under Standard No. 108.[6] In addition, lamps that communicate non-standard signals are generally prohibited under Standard No. 108.[7] Emergency Circumstances You also suggest that silent alarm applications, even if they use non-compliant lamps, may meet the spirit of the regulation because they are only used in emergency circumstances. We cannot concur with this interpretation. Your alarm system must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108. While some police and other emergency vehicles have emergency lighting systems involving flashing lamps, we do not permit these systems on other vehicles. NHTSA determined that the drivers that operate police vehicles will be instructed to use the warning system only under certain circumstances, and permitted the system because of the circumstances which are unique to law enforcement.[8] Aftermarket Considerations In your letter, you also requested a waiver, permitting manufacturers to install your system in existing vehicles. The modification of existing vehicles is regulated by Section 30122 of the Safety Act, which states: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may 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 prescribed under this chapter If one of these entities listed in 30122 were to install lighting equipment that resulted in the vehicle no longer meeting S5.5.10, S5.1.3, or any other portion of FMVSS No. 108, then the entity would be in violation of 30122. We do not issue waivers from the responsibility entities have to meet under FMVSS No. 108. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:108 d.2/21/08 [1] We note that this would not prevent the combination of a clearance lamp with an auxiliary turn signal lamp, as long as the auxiliary turn signal lamp did not impair the effectiveness of the required clearance lamp. [2] We note that this interpretation of signaling purposes is not limited to turn signals, but extends to traffic signals generally. See 1996 letter of interpretation stating that headlamps that flashed when the horn was activated were compliant with paragraph S5.5.10(b). August 30, 1996 letter to Julius Fischer, Esq., available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [3] See, e.g., 11/16/99 letter to Mr. Terry W. Wagar, analyzing various supplementary lamp proposals using amber and red lamps in different locations on a vehicle. It is available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [4] We note that this system would also be subject to State law. Furthermore, with respect to using various colored lamps, States reserve the use of the color blue for emergency vehicles. Increasingly, the color purple is used to designate funeral processions. [5] See 7/28/05 letter to Robert M. Clarke, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [6] See, e.g., 4/8/98 letter to Mr. Michael Krumholz, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [7] See 4/14/97 letter to Mr. Jack Z. Zhang, stating that a lamp has the potential to cause confusion for the very reason that it is unique. This letter also addresses the issue of aftermarket considerations. It is available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [8] See 7/30/2001 letter to Mr. Larry Hughson, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. |
2008 |
ID: deetz.ztvOpenMr. Jeff Deetz Dear Mr. Deetz: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 2002, to John Womack of this office with respect to a High Intensity Discharge (HID) light source conversion kit that you wish to sell for replaceable bulb headlamps in the United States.On August 15, Taylor Vinson of this office e-mailed you to request a sample of the kit so that we might be better able to advise you.The kit arrived on September 12. Your specific request was "for guidance in how to begin the process of obtaining D.O.T. approval" for your kit.We have no authority either to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.We do advise correspondents of the relationship of their products to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and other regulations that we administer.If a manufacturer determines that its product is covered by one or more of the FMVSS, and that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS, it must certify compliance of the product when the product is offered for sale. The symbol "DOT" on replacement lighting equipment is often mistaken for "DOT approval" of the equipment but, in fact, it is the manufacturers own certification of compliance. Because your HID conversion kit is intended to replace certain original headlighting equipment, the kit is subject to paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, 49 CFR 571.108.Paragraph S5.8 requires that any motor vehicle replacement replaceable light source that is offered for sale in the United States comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108.The Federal specifications for replaceable light sources used in original equipment motor vehicle headlighting systems are located in 49 CFR Part 564, Replaceable Light Source Information.The purpose for storing the specifications in Part 564 is two fold:(1) to ensure the availability to replacement light source manufacturers of the specifications of original equipment light sources such that replacement light sources are interchangeable with original equipment light sources and provide equivalent performance, and (2) that redesigned or newly developed light sources are designated as distinct, different, and noninterchangeable with previously existing light sources. Paragraph S7.7, Replaceable light sources, of FMVSS No. 108, requires in part that each replaceable light source be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to Part 564.Thus, in order to use a replaceable light source in a replaceable bulb headlamp, a manufacturer must first have submitted certain information with respect to it (and its ballast if required) in Part 564, or it may use a light source (and ballast if required) if its specifications are already filed in Part 564. The kit that you furnished us appears to be designed to replace an H1 replaceable light source, and consists of two parts marketed under the name "Thunder Beam."The first part is labeled "HID Bulb Set" and contains two replaceable light sources, identified on the packaging as "WB-H1."The second part is labeled "HID Driver UnitTD-5000," and contains a ballast, an ignitor, a relay, and adapters to convert the motor vehicles wiring harness to be compatible with the HID conversion kit. Based on a review of the H1 light source specification filed in the Part 564 docket (#3397), it is apparent that the Thunder Beam HID Conversion kit is a significant redesign of the H1 light source.At the most basic level, an H1 light source incorporates an incandescent filament in which light is produced by a metallic wire coil heated to incandescence by an electrical current, whereas the HID conversion kits light source incorporates a discharge arc to produce the light and requires a ballast for operation.Thus, in order to comply with paragraph S7.7 of FMVSS No. 108,the Thunder Beam light source must comply with, inter alia, the dimensional specifications for the metallic wire coil filament size and location, the electrical connector size and location, and the ballast would need to be a design currently on file for use with an H1 light source.Complying with the dimensional aspects of the H1 light source appears to be an impossibility considering that the wire coil filament and the electrical connector are not a part of your design. Furthermore, there are no ballast designs on file for use with an H1 light source.Thus, your companys HID conversion kit is not a design that conforms to the Standard and could not be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 108, nor imported into or sold in the United States. This interpretation would apply to any HID replaceable light source whose base was modified or manufactured to be interchangeable with any regulated headlamp replaceable light source that incorporates an incandescent filament design. If you have any questions regarding how a manufacturer may submit information to Part 564, you may contact Michael Cole of our Office of Rulemaking (202-366-5276).For legal questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2002 |
ID: 7008Open Mr. S. Watanabe Dear Mr. Watanabe: This responds to your letter of February 6, l992, to the Administrator, requesting an interpretation of section S7.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Section S7.2(b) requires that headlamp lenses be marked "with the name and/or trademark of the manufacturer, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office." Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan has subsidiaries in Thailand and Taiwan. Each subsidiary uses three manufacturer identification marks, and you have asked whether each subsidiary may use one of the marks as a manufacturer identification under S7.2(b). You also relate that application has been made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to one of those identification marks. Certainly, once registration has been completed, Stanley of Thailand and Stanley of Taiwan may use the registered mark and this will be in compliance with Standard No. 108. Stanley has not registered the other two identification marks (TH STANLEY or TW STANLEY, and STANLEY TH or STANLEY TW) because it has concluded that these are not trademarks but the manufacturer's name. We agree with your suggestion that the identification marks TH STANLEY, TW STANLEY, STANLEY TH, and STANLEY TW are just the manufacturer's name, not a trademark. Section S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108 does not specify any particular form in which the manufacturer's name must appear on the lens, nor does that section require the manufacturer's name to be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, there would be no violation of S7.2(b) if your Thai and Taiwanese subsidiaries mark the lenses of their headlamps with the identification marks identified in your correspondence as manufacturer names. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/12/92 |
1992 |
ID: nht89-2.9OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/19/89 FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL TO: H. HASEGAWA -- AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL SECTION STANLEY ELECTRIC CO. LTD. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/22/89 FROM H. HASEGAWA TO RICHARD L. VANIDERSTINE, RE REVISION OF FMVSS NO 108 [DOCKET NO 85-15 NOTICE 8 TEXT: Dear Mr. Hasegawa: This is in reply to your FAX letter of May 22, 1989, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You have two questions with respect to the amendment to Standard No. 108 published on May 9, 1989 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 8). Your first question is the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1.(a), which you point out was not previously a requirement of Standard No. 108. You suggest the need for a delayed effective date (but give no reason why one may be needed). Paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) will be effective June 8, 1989. Although the requirement is a new one (the restriction on motion of a headlamp when an external aiming device is applied to it), it was proposed as part of the December 29, 1987 NPRM, and no comments received indicated a need for a delayed effective date. Your supposition is correct; S7.5.5.1 will apply to all headlamps with an external aiming system, including those incorporating replaceable bulbs. Your second question relates to paragraph S7.7.5.1(b), and you ask "whether the requirement of '0.1 in. max.' will be determined, either during the test or after the test". In pertinent part, subsection (b) states "nor shall the lamp recede more than 0. 1 in. (2.5 mm) after being subjected to an inward force...." This means that the measurement is determined after the test. Sincerely,
|
|
ID: aiam4246OpenMr. H. Tsujishita, Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., 1. Daihatsu- Cho, Ikeda City, Osaka Prefecture, *JAPAN*; Mr. H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co. Ltd. 1. Daihatsu- Cho Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture *JAPAN*; Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter dated October 30, 1986, seeking a interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, *Bumper Standard* and seeking our comments on sample reports required under several of our regulations. This letter addresses your question about our bumper standard first, and then comments on your sample reports.; You asked about one of the protective criteria specified in sectio 581.5(c) of Part 581. Part 581 requires vehicles to meet the damage criteria of that section after specified test impacts.; Section 581.5(c)(8) states: >>>The *exterior surfaces* shall have no separations of surfac materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact, except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. (Emphasis added.)<<<; You stated that you understand 'exterior surfaces' to refer to th exterior body surface which can be observed without the removal of any components, and that it does not mean the body surface which cannot be observed unless components are removed. Based on this understanding, you stated that you believe that two areas of a car, identified in an attached drawing as Area A and Area B, need not conform to the no damage requirement. Both Area A, a radiator support panel located directly under the headlamp, and Area, (sic) B, a fender apron located below the headlamp but along the side of the car, cannot be observed unless the bumper assembly is removed.; You understanding of 'exterior surface,' with respect to Areas A and of your drawing, is correct. Those areas are not exterior surfaces, because they are located behind the bumper assembly and cannot be observed unless that assembly is removed.; *Sample Reports* 1. 49 CFR Part 565, *Vehicle Identification Number - Conten Requirements*; Assuming that the Daihatsu is the only make and type of vehicle yo will sell in the United States, the submission of the unique identifier would comply with S565.6(b). If you are planning to sell other makes, you would also have to include information on those makes in this submission.; The deciphering information would be sufficient under S565.5(d) excep for the information about the engine type. The information you suggest providing describes the engine only as a 'CB'. The term 'engine type is defined at S565.3(d) as 'a power source with *defined* characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement and net brake horsepower.' None of these factors can be deciphered from your 'CB' marking. The deciphering information should indicate whether this is a gasoline or diesel engine, the number of cylinders, engine displacement, and net brake horsepower. With this modification, the sample report would comply with the requirements of Part 565.; 2. 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification* The sample identifying information from Daihatsu is sufficient for th purposes of Part 566.; You also asked how accurate this identification must be with respect t the GVWR ranges of the vehicles. As you noted, S566.5(c) requires manufacturers to submit the 'approximate ranges' of GVWR for each type of motor vehicle produced by the manufacturer. The agency explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule that it was seeking only basic information on the vehicles produced by the manufacturer. *See* 36 FR 7970, at 7971, April 28, 1971. Thus, if you wish to state that you produce passenger cars with a GVWR between 2300 and 2500 pounds, as suggested in your letter, that information would satisfy the requirements of Part 566.; You also asked the purpose of requiring the Part 566 report. Th purpose was explained as follows in the notice of proposed rulemaking:; >>>In order to carry out the provisions of the Act, it is ofte necessary to have certain basic information about the manufacturers of motor vehicles or vehicle equipment subject to the Act. This is particularly so in the area of enforcement and in carrying out the several requirements for communication, inspection, and reporting. It is necessary to have centrally organized and collected information regarding the manufacturer's corporate status, mailing address, items manufactured, and manufacturing location. Moreover, it is necessary to assemble this information so as to make it readily accessible to those having enforcement responsibility under the Act, and provide a means for identifying and classifying manufacturers according to the types of motor vehicles or equipment which they manufacture. A system is also needed whereby NHTSA can provide information to manufacturers of various types of vehicles or equipment. 36 FR 7971, April 28, 1971.<<<; 3. 49 CFR S551.45 *Designation of Agent* You first asked whether your sample designation of agent conforms wit the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45. It does not. Section 551.45 specifies that a designation of agent must include the following six items of information:; 1. A certification by the person or persons signing the designatio that it is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made.; Your sample contains no such certification. 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of the manufacturer.; This information is set forth only on the letterhead of you stationery. If the corporate name set forth on your stationery is the full legal name, it would satisfy this requirement. If that is not the full legal name, however, the full legal name must be separately shown. The same principle applies to the requirements to submit your principal place of business and mailing address.; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of th manufacturer's products which do not bear its name.; It is impossible for us to determine where there are no such marks, i the Daihatsu symbol on your letterhead is the only such mark, or if you have not satisfied this requirement.; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.; There is not such statement in your sample. 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the manufacturer.; Your sample would satisfy this requirement. 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. Your sample would satisfy this requirement. You then asked what the designated agent does, and whether all report had to be submitted to this agency via the designated agent. The designated agent acts as the agent for foreign manufacturers upon whom service of process, notices, orders, and decisions may be made *for and on behalf of the manufacturer*. Please note that both your designation of agent and acceptance erroneously state that such service may be made by or on behalf of the *agent*. Under the due process clause of our Constitution, a party cannot be bound by the outcome of a legal proceeding unless he or she has been given notice of such proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. Since we cannot go into a Japanese court, the U.S. government must have some device by which it can ensure that a foreign manufacturer is given proper notice of any proceedings affecting it in the United States. Thus, the designation of an agent by Daihatsu helps to ensure that the company will be fully and promptly apprised of any governmental action involving the company.; Hence, foreign manufacturers are *not* required to submit report through their designated agents - the designated agent is only a means for this agency to serve process and so forth on the foreign manufacturer. In fact, we recommend that foreign manufacturers submit reports and other correspondence directly to NHTSA, so as to facilitate the exchange of information.; 4. 49 CFR Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* The sample report you submitted is exactly that which is specified i Figure 2 of S575.104. It would therefore comply with S575.6(a) and S575.104(d)(1)(iii). Please note that there are typographical errors for the words 'treadwear' and 'passenger' in the sample you submitted.; 5. 49 CFR S575.101, *Vehicle Stopping Distance* Your stopping distance sample report is in the format specified i Figure 1 of S575.101. Accordingly, it would satisfy the requirements of S575.101(c).; 6. 49 CFR Part 537, *Automotive Fuel Economy Reports* Your sample fuel economy report, including the statement as t representativeness, satisfies the requirements of Part 537. Please note that the timing for submitting the reports is set forth in S537.5(b), and that your 1988 pre-model year report is due in December 1987, while your 1988 mid-model year report is due in July 1988.; 7. 49 CFR Part 542, *Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered b the Theft Prevention Standard*; Your sample Part 542 submission would satisfy the requirements of tha Part.; Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information o our regulatory requirements.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0494OpenDr. J. G. Lundholm, Jr., 8106 Post Oak Road, Rockville, MD 20854; Dr. J. G. Lundholm Jr. 8106 Post Oak Road Rockville MD 20854; Dear Dr. Lundholm: Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1971, to Secretary Volpe, i reference to our occupant crash protection program.; I am enclosing a copy of the proposed amendment to Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which would allow an ignition interlock system as an option to front seat passive systems from August 15, 1973, to August 15, 1975. I am also enclosing an explanatory press release.; In regard to your question number one, we require that the interloc system be sequentially linked to the seat switch, such that a person would have to fasten the belt, after being seated, each time he attempted to start the car.; With regard to your questions numbers two and three, the Nationa Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 permits us to establish standards which serve as guides for individual state safety programs. It is possible for the states to undertake such anti-tampering regulations. We will certainly be considering such actions once we determine the magnitude and effect of tampering in vehicles which have been produced to meet the Federal standards.; In regard to your question number four, I am not presently aware of an plans by insurance companies to require seat/shoulder belt usage in order to be reimbursed for collision coverage in case of an accident.; You are certainly correct in that the present shoulder belt design often make it difficult to have a properly adjusted shoulder belt and still be able to have a reasonable degree of freedom of movement during normal vehicle operation. We are attacking this problem on two fronts. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination--Passenger Cars, requires that most critical controls, such as the steering wheel, headlamp switch, etc., be within reach by a person restrained by a lap and shoulder belt system. The present version of this standard does not include the parking brake or its release mechanism. The second action, which we are taking, is to propose a requirement that shoulder belt systems in cars manufactured after August 15, 1973, shall be equipped with inertia reel retractors that allow freedom of movement except in a crash situation.; I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your intense interest in ou motor vehicle safety programs. It is very helpful to our efforts to improve highway safety when concerned citizens, such as yourself, take the time to bring their comments and suggestions to our attention.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: 16788.ztvOpenMr. L. W. Camp Dear Mr. Camp: This replies to your letter of December 16, 1997, to Dr. Martinez asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Paragraph S7.8.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that the mounting and aiming mechanisms of headlamps installed on motor vehicles be accessible without the removal of any vehicle parts "except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." You ask whether "a hard object, such as the vehicle ignition key" is a "tool" within the meaning of S7.8.2. We have concluded that an ignition key is a "tool" as contemplated by S7.8.2. A "tool" is defined as "1. An implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file for performing or facilitating mechanical operation. 2. Any instrument of manual operation." (Random House Complete Unabridged Dictionary, Special Second Edition, 1996, at p. 1995). The ignition key, or any other hard object, is an instrument of manual operation held in the hand to facilitate the removal of the headlamp covers, and therefore a "tool." Compare with S5.1.1.27(a)(5) and (b)(4) which specify that center high mounted stop lamps "shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulbs without special tools" (emphasis supplied). Had you asked whether an ignition key was a "special tool" we might well have said that it is not, because any hard object could be used to provide access to the bulbs and access does not require a tool specifically designed for that purpose. We note that Ford initially intended that all covers be removable by hand, and that the reason for your request is that "manufacturing variation of the plastic push pins and vehicle structure can result in elevated retention forces" in "approximately 30% of the attachments." While this is regrettable, identification of the problem at this stage should allow Ford time to resolve this problem before production of your 1999 vehicle commences and forestall any question of compliance with S7.8.2. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: nht92-8.38OpenDATE: March, 1992 EST FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: S. Watanabe -- Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/6/92 from S. Watanabe to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 7008) TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 6, 1992, to the Administrator, requesting an interpretation of section S7.2(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Section S7.2(b) requires that headlamp lenses be marked "with the name and/or trademark of the manufacturer, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office." Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. of Japan has subsidiaries in Thailand and Taiwan. Each subsidiary uses three manufacturer identification marks, and you have asked whether each subsidiary may use one of the marks as a manufacturer identification under S7.2(b). You also relate that application has been made to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with respect to one of those identification marks. Certainly, once registration has been completed, Stanley of Thailand and Stanley of Taiwan may use the registered mark and this will be in compliance with Standard No. 108. Stanley has not registered the other two identification marks (TH STANLEY or TW STANLEY, and STANLEY TH or STANLEY TW) because it has concluded that these are not trademarks but the manufacturer's name. We agree with your suggestion that the identification marks TH STANLEY, TW STANLEY, STANLEY TH, and STANLEY TW are just the manufacturer's name, not a trademark. Section S7.2(b) of Standard No. 108 does not specify any particular form in which the manufacturer's name must appear on the lens, nor does that section require the manufacturer's name to be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, there would be no violation of S7.2(b) if your Thai and Taiwanese subsidiaries mark the lenses of their headlamps with the identification marks identified in your correspondence as manufacturer names. |
|
ID: nht72-6.26OpenDATE: 05/12/72 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: CITROEN TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1972, in which you posed questions about the operation of the seat belt warning system under Standard 208 and about the intent of the headlamp adjustment requirement under Standard 215. Your questions on Standard 208 deal with the requirement in S7.3.3 that the warning system in a vehicle with an automatic transmission must not operate when the engine is operating and the gear selector is in the "Park" position. In answer to your first question, if the two conditions for non-operation exist, the warning system must not operate, regardless of the position of the hand brake lever. If either condition does not exist, e.g., the transmission is in "Park" but the engine is not operating, it would be permissible to have the system operate, and its operation could be controlled by the hand brake so long as the hand brake circuitry does not interfere with the mandatory operation of the system under S7.3.1 and S7.3.5. If the shift lever is in the neutral position, as stated in your second question, you are free to choose whether to have the system operate or not, since S7.3 does not require either operation or non-operation when the transmission is in neutral. In response to your last question on Standard 208, an "operating engine" is an engine that is rotating. It is permissible to have a system in which the warning operates when the transmission is in "Park" and the ignition is "On", but the warning must shut off when the engine begins to operate. Your question on Standard 215 is whether the headlamps must be adjustable after the tests "so as to permit restoration of normal lighting" or whether it is sufficient for the lamps to be adjustable +4 degrees vertically and horizontally whether or not this restores normal lighting. Our reply is that the requirement is intended to provide for the safe operation of the lamps after impact and that the lamps must therefore be adjustable in a manner that restores normal lighting. |
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.