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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: 07-004114asOpenPaul S. Rosenlund, Esq. Duane Morris LLP One Market, Spear Tower Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105-1104 Dear Mr. Rosenlund: This responds to your letter regarding your clients manufacture of bicycle racks for use on transit buses. You ask a number of questions about ensuring compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, with regard to a bicycle rack installed on the vehicles. We are happy to provide answers to your questions below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new 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. Question 1. We understand that vehicle manufacturers bear the sole legal obligation to certify vehicles as compliant with FMVSS 108 and other applicable safety standards, and that [F]ederal law does not require or make provisions for bicycle rack suppliers such as [our client] Sportworks to certify a bicycle rack or its component parts as being in compliance with [F]ederal standards. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: While you are correct that manufacturers of new vehicles are responsible for certifying the compliance of the vehicle with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 108,[1] there are certain obligations of which your client should be aware.[2] The first is S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108, which reads: No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. S5.1.3 has implications for a vehicle manufacturer or alterer installing the bicycle rack onto a new vehicle.[3] That party would need to certify the vehicle as complying with FMVSS No. 108 with the bicycle rack installed, ensuring that the bicycle rack does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. The second is 49 U.S.C. 30122 which we will discuss below, particularly in answering question 5. 2. We understand that 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits making federally mandated safety devices and elements inoperative, applies only to a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business; this make inoperative prohibition does not pertain to the activities of vehicle owners, such as transit agencies which own and operate transit buses, who may make changes to their buses in their own repair and maintenance facilities, even if they cause a vehicle to no longer comply with NHTSA safety standards such modifications would be governed by applicable [S]tate laws. Please confirm our understanding to be correct.
Answer: As you point out in your letter, 30122 of the Safety Act has implications for your client. Section 30122 states, in pertinent part: 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 . Your understanding is correct that the make inoperative provision of 30122 would not apply to a vehicle owner, such as a transit agency, that installs the bicycle rack in its own buses in its own repair and maintenance facility. However, please see our answer to question 5 for a more expansive discussion of 30122. In addition, there may be applicable Federal or State operational requirements relating to transit buses. 3. We understand that paragraph S7.8.5 of FMVSS 108 prohibits any styling ornament or other feature in front of the lens of a headlamp. In regard to all required lighting, we understand that paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS 108 prohibits motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. Please confirm that these requirements pertain only to equipment such as a rack, and not to a bicycle or other item which may be placed in a rack. In this regard, we do understand that [S]tate laws may have other requirements that relate to bicycles or other temporary baggage wholly or partially obscuring any required lighting. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: I would like to clarify several aspects of your statement. To begin, paragraph S7.8.5 only applies to the design of vehicle headlamps. The ornament or other feature described in that paragraph related to parts of the headlamp (e.g., wiper blades or translucent covers), not to additional vehicle equipment, such as a bicycle rack. Therefore, S7.8.5 would not be relevant to this discussion. With regard to paragraph S5.1.3, as discussed in our answer to question 1, you are correct that a bicycle rack must not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. In testing whether the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 108, we would test the vehicle without a bicycle loaded on the rack, nor with any other cargo loaded into the vehicle. However, see our answer to question 5 regarding the make inoperative provision. In addition, if the rack were installed such that a bicycle loaded onto the rack interfered with the functioning of a required lighting device, it is possible that such a situation could pose an unreasonable safety hazard. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers are responsible for ensuring their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects. If the design of the bicycle rack posed an unreasonable safety risk, we could investigate the problem as part of our defect authority. Finally, you are correct in your understanding that the vehicle would be subject to State law requirements relating to items wholly or partially obscuring any required lighting. In addition, you should consider whether there are applicable Federal or State operational requirements relating to transit buses. 4. Sportworks on occasion supplies only the pivot plate assembly and/or bumper mounting brackets for its racks to OEM bus manufacturers for installation on new vehicles, with the understanding that the ultimate purchasers of these buses transit agencies will install racks in the configurations they select. In such circumstances, we understand that the OEM bus manufacturer may certify the bus as compliant with all applicable [F]ederal standards and that the owners selection, installation and use of the rack will be subject to [S]tate laws rather than to the FMVSS. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: Your understanding is correct that the bus manufacturer must certify that the buses, with the installed private plate assemblies or mounting brackets installed, are compliant with FMVSS No. 108. However, please see our answer to question 5 for a more expansive discussion of issues raised by this question. 5. Finally, we understand from prior interpretive rulings that NHTSA considers a bicycle rack to be equipment such that if it is installed by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business, the complete vehicle, including the rack, must comply with the FMVSS, and if part of the rack installed by a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business makes inoperative any required lamps or reflectors on the body of the vehicle, it would be necessary for the vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business to install auxiliary lamps or reflectors to replace the function of those made inoperative. Likewise, we understand from prior interpretive rulings that if a vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business sells a vehicle that complies with FMVSS 108 when delivered to the owner, but with hardware installed that the seller knows will be used to create a noncompliance, you would consider the vehicle manufacturer, dealer or repair business to have created the noncompliance. Please confirm our understanding to be correct. Answer: It is correct that the new vehicle must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSSs with the bicycle rack installed. The vehicle must be certified with any system, part or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured. (See definition of motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(A)). With regard to your questions about the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122, you are correct that NHTSA has addressed the scenario you describe (see March 26, 1996 letter to Chris Jorheim of New Flyer Industries, copy enclosed).[4] Mr. Jorheim asked about a manufacturer delivering a new bus to the end user with an advertising frame on the bus side. A required left side reflector would be unobstructed when the bus was delivered but once the owner placed an advertisement in the frame the reflector would have been covered. NHTSA determined that in this situation, the manufacturer produced a bus with the knowledge that the owner intended to create a noncompliance, and provided the hardware installed to enable the owner to do so. The agency determined that in this situation, both the bus manufacturer and the owner were creators of a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108. However, since the owner is not subject to the provisions of 30122, the agency determined that the liability would be the manufacturers alone. This analysis extends to the situation you describe as well. If the bus manufacturer installing Sportworks bicycle rack knew that the rack could not be used without creating a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 through, e.g., obstruction of the vehicles headlamps by the bicycles carried on the rack, both the bus manufacturer and the end user will be held to have created the noncompliance. Since the end user may not be subject to 30122, the bus manufacturer could alone be liable for making inoperative the vehicle safety system. Finally, you are correct that one option to rectify a potential noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 is to install auxiliary lamps or reflectors to replace the function of those made inoperative. This provision is contained in paragraph S5.3.2.2 of FMVSS No. 108, which states: If any required lamp or reflective device is obstructed by motor vehicle equipment (e.g., mirrors, snow plows, wrecker booms, backhoes, winches, etc.), and cannot meet requirements of S5.3.2, the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp or device of the same type which meet all applicable requirements of this standard, including S5.3.2. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d.2/21/08 [1] Please note that because FMVSS No. 108 applies to original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, manufacturers of replacement equipment also have responsibilities to certify compliance with the standard. [2] It is also correct that NHTSA has not issued an FMVSS specifically applying to bicycle racks. Therefore, Sportworks would not certify its bicycle racks as meeting any specific standard. [3] A bicycle rack installed on a new vehicle is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. See also May 25, 1990 letter to Susan Birenbaum, Esq., available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [4] Available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. |
2008 |
ID: nht88-1.79OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: MARCH 25, 1988 FROM: AMNON SHOMLO -- PRESIDENT, A.A.S. TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-10-88, TO AMNON SHOMLO, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, STD 108 TEXT: Enclosed please find samples of our PEACE decal. It is designed to be placed in front of the center highmounted brake light to project the word "PEACE" when the brake is applied. If you separate the decal from its protective paper, you will notice that the white letters and design are printed on transparent plastic, in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specif ied candela. Prior to marketing this decal we would like to know what Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product. If your office is not in the position to fully examine and a pprove the intended use of this decal, please advise where and how we can go about attaining such an authorization/certificate of approval. I can be reached at (904) 731-6409 daily from 9-5pm. I look forward to your reply. |
|
ID: 1985-02.5OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 03/28/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Mr. Robert M. Levy TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Robert M. Levy Manager, Design Engineering Abex Corporation Signal-Stat Division P.O. Box 438 Somerset, New Jersey 08873-3492
Dear Mr. Levy:
This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency, asking for clarification of an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 108 that tnis agency furnished last year to Wesbar Corp.
On May 16, 1984, Wesbar asked whether the correct minimum effective luminous lens area on stop lamps and turn signal lamps was 8 square inches or 12 square inches, when intended for use on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater. This office advised Wesbar on July 3, 1984, that, as specified in SAE J586c for stop.lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, the answer was 8 square inches. Your letter calls to our attention the fact that these SAE standards require each stop and turn signal lamp to have a minimum of 12 square inches in those vehicle configurations where two stop or turn signal lamps are mounted on the same side of the vehicle and are closer to each other than 22 inches.
Thank you for calling this oversight to our attention. Indeed, SAE J586c and J588e establish this exception to the general minimum requirement of 8 square inches. We are furnishing a copy of this letter to Wesbar and apologize for any confusion that the earlier letter has caused.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel
cc: Mr. C.I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095 |
|
ID: nht89-3.5OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/28/89 FROM: MARK F. HOLMES TO: STEVE WOOD -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL N.H.T.S.A. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MARK F. HOLMES; REDBOOK A34-VSA 108[A][2][A]; STANDARD 108 LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM MARK F. HOLMES TO STEVE WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3980 TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood: Prior to our phone conversation, enclosed please review a bit of information concerning two new multi-purpose products, THE STROBALARM, and THE SPOTLIGHT ALARM that may be of interest to your Company. For a number of years, I have studied all the car alarm systems that are sold on the market today. During my studies, I have learned that all of these alarms are basically the same with just a bit of variation. There similarity begins with the sounding of a ordinary siren that cannot be seen or detected in a crowded parking lot, or on a dark street covered or uncovered by light. These sirens do very little to ward off a thief, and they offer no real protection for the vehicle, it's valuables, and it' s owner. The Strobalarm, with it's bright strobe light and 12-volt filament, can be incorporated into any existing alarm system. This unique concept will easily ward off a potential thief by exposing him to the people in his immediate surrounding. The Strobalar m attracts attention like bees to honey. It allows the endangered vehicle to be seen by many in any given area during the course of an evening. It is just as effective in the rain, snow, and fog, as it is on sunny days! *An example of just how powerful and noticeable a strobe light is can be seen by viewing an airplane in flight during the night. The unique feature of the Strobalarm is that it uses very little energy to produce it's flash.* The Strobalarm has been reconstructed and redesigned a number of times with the automobile and it's owner in mind. The incorporation of a CAR LOCATOR with its remote control key case is evidence of that. The car locator will allow an owner to locate hi s or her vehicle from a far away distance of 400 feet. The 12-volt filament can be turned on and remain on with the same key case. This will allow the owner to see who may be standing around the vehicle. The Carfinder, which is the latest device for finding cars, only allows the head lights to blink off and on. But in a crowded parking lot, and if you happen to have a small vehicle surrounded by larger vehicles these blinking lights will not be seen. T he blinking head lights may also be mistaken for something else such as, an alarm going off, someone parked with their headlights on, or the simple switching of headlights to high beams. The Carfinder does not work with vehicles that have hidden headlig hts, such as Corvettes, Porches 928, 944, and Texas AMs. The DISTRESS EMERGENCY FLARE SIGNAL, would serve useful during emergencies, such as highway break-downs. With the use of pink color lens the Distress flare Signal will eliminate the danger of having to use those pink colored torches that are seen on hig hways at night. Most insurance companies offer premiums on cars equipped with passive alarm, the Strobalarm is such an alarm. The Spotlight Alarm, which is designed for smaller vehicles with a little less headroom, is equipped with Halogen Beam Lights that blink off and on with the assistance of the key case control. The Spotlight, like the Strobalarm, can be used only as a ca r locator and/or it can be connected to any alarm system. The STROBALARM and the SPOTLIGHT ALARM are ideas of today and with newer cars having more windshield, side and rear window, these ideas would certainly be items of interest in the future. Mr. Wood, if you find the alarm or just the Car Locator with or without the built-in Distress to be of interest, feel free to notify me. I would be more than willing to come to your office at my own expense to present the technical drawing for the simpl e to use, easy to install and cost efficient alarm device. A device that is easy to build and does not exceed the cost of systems already on the market. A preliminary patent search has already been concluded and a disclosure document has been filed with the U.S. Patent Office for Patentability of these concepts. Sincerely, |
|
ID: nht87-1.38OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/23/87 FROM: C.M. MEHTA -- AUTOLITE [INDIA] LIMITED TO: NHTSA TITLE: DOT APPROVAL ON HEADLAMPS/DRIVING LAMPS ETC FOR MARKETING IN USA ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/17/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO C.M. MEHTA, REDBOOK A30, STANDARD 108 TEXT: Dear sirs, Kindly refer to our letter No. 1476 dated 9.1.87 whereby we introduced ourselves as a reputed manufacturer and exporter of all types of Automobile Headlamp Assembly, Semi Sealed Beam Units, Fog Lamps etc., under trademark 'AUTOPAL'. We had requested you to send us following informations: 1. Details of DOT/SAE approval required in marketing our Headlamp Units 7", 5 3/4" (Round) and Rectangular small and large. (We had already sent you an illustrated catalogue of our products with the above letter). 2. Can we market these lamps as referred in Para No. 1 fitted with 9004, 9005 and 9006 Bulbs. If there is any specifications/technical details available with you, please send us a copy. 3. We understand that the use 9004, 9005, 9006 bulbs are permitted on Headlamps with lens and Reflectors made of Plastic. Kindly advise, if we can use these Reflector made of metal? 4. Details of approval required for High Beam Driving Lamps to be used for off-road vehicles. 5. The details of specifications for Driving Lamps to be used on Cars, Trucks etc. In addition to the above, we further request you to please provide us the following specifications immediately by airmail:- I) SAE-F-80 FRONT FOG LAMPS II) SAE-J-79 MOTOR CYCLE HEADLAMPS III) SPECIFICATION FOR DRIVING LAMPS USING H3 BULB. Kindly send us the above informations/specifications urgently. If there is any charges for technical details/specifications, please inform us and send us your Proforma Invoice to cover the cost of the same when it will be remitted to you. Awaiting to hear from you soon. Thanking you, we remain Yours faithfully, |
|
ID: 86-1.28OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/10/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Timothy Pawl, P.E. -- President, Pawl Inventioneering Corp. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Timothy Pawl P.E. President Pawl Inventioneering Corporation P.O. Box 5425 West Bloomfield, Michigan 48033
This is in response to your letter of November 29 ,1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency Jeffrey R. Miller, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your letter is vague as to the precise function of your "safety related" lighting device, and whether you wish to offer it as original equipment or equipment intended for installation after the sale of a vehicle to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. If the latter, then its legality is determinable solely under the laws of each State in which it will be used. If you intend it as original equipment, on a vehicle at the time of its initial sale, then its legality would be determinable under Standard No. 108. As a general rule, section S4.1.3 prohibits the installation of any device that would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. You have informed us that your device, which consists of "amber LED's" in the "rear package tray," is inoperative during application of the service brakes; thus, it does not appear that it would impair the effectiveness of the center high-mounted stop lamp. You have also stated that it is located "in relative proximity" to the center stop lamp but is not combined with it, and you have asked if this meets the intent of S4.4.1 regarding equipment combinations. This section forbids the combination of the center stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. Since your device is physically separate from the center lamp, S4.4.1 would not appear to prohibit your device.
You have also stated that when viewed from the rear, "the pattern of illuminated LED's may change, possibly giving the illusion of flashing," and you ask for a definition of "flashing" as described in section S4.6(c). This section has been renumbered S4.5.11, and subsection (c) permits an exception to the general rule that lamps in use must be steady-burning, permitting headlamps and side marker lamps to "flash" for signalling purposes. The definition of flash is that contained in S3, a cycle of activation and deactivation by automatic means, and this definition does not specify frequency or other characteristics. To us, the important question is whether your device complies with section S4.5.11(e) which requires all lamps (other than those specifically excepted) to be steady-burning in use. A lamp that changes patterns may not flash, but it cannot be viewed as steady-burning either.
Finally, you state that "section S4.3 states that no function other than red reflex reflectors shall be combined with CHMSL or rear turn signal lamps" and ask whether amber or any other color "may be used in proximity" since it is not used in combination. We believe you must be referring to section S4.4.1 which states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp or identification lamp, and no high-mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device." As we do not know the intended functions of your LED device, I can offer only general comments. Although red is the required color for all rear lighting devices except backup and license plate lamps, amber is permitted as an optional color for rear turn signals: furthermore, amber is generally accepted as indicating the need for caution. Thus, amber is not a lens color whose presence on rear lighting devices would per se impair effectiveness. The use of other colors for lighting devices on the rear of vehicles could lead to confusion, and be viewed as impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones
Chief Counsel
November 29, 1985
Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Council U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington,D.C. 20590
RE: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 108
Dear Mr. Miller;
We have under development a new device of a safety related nature for automobiles. Before proceeding further on the development, we are hereby requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Our device mounts in the rear package tray area of the automobile. We are therefore concerned about the specific sections pertaining to the operation and restrictions thereof for the Center High Mounted Stoplamp (CHMSL). As a means of definition of the areas of concern, I will list the specific operating characteristic of our device and then the section from the Standard for which we device an interpretation. 1. Our device has amber colored LED's, during the application of the service brakes, these LED's are disabled ,allowing a vehicle following to observe only the CHMSL. Hence, although in relative proximity (near the target area of the CHMSL) it is not combined with the CHMSL. Does this operation meet the intent of S4.4.1 concerning equipment combinations.
2. When a vehicle containing our device is viewed from the rear by a following vehicle, the pattern of illuminated LED'a may change, possibly giving the illusion or flashing. We therefore need a definition of flashing as described in section S4.6(c), frequency, length of time between periods of "steady-burning" operation, etc. 3. As previously mentioned the device contains amber LED's, section S4.3 states that no function other than red reflex reflectors shall be combined with CHMSL or rear turn signal lamps.... since it is not used in combination per our question (1) may amber be used in proximity. If not amber, are there any other colors that may be acceptable.
We would appreciate your attention to this matter and await your response. If necessary we may be reached by phone at (313) 682-2007. Sincerely,
E. Timothy Pawl, P.E. President |
|
ID: aiam4698OpenHerr T. Spingler Abt. K2/ELE2 Robert Bosch GmbH; Herr T. Spingler Abt. K2/ELE2 Robert Bosch GmbH; Dear Herr Spingler: This is in reply to your FAX of July l9, l990, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as 'a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sources.' In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add 'silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens.' Mr. Medlin informed you that this would be a 'bonded lens and reflector assembly.' The standard does not define 'bonded', but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the definition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely,, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4967OpenMr. S. Watanabe Manager, Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. S. Watanabe Manager Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Sect. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; "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"; |
|
ID: aiam4599OpenMr. Thomas C. Gravengood Agap'e Plastics Inc. Grand Rapids, MI 49504; Mr. Thomas C. Gravengood Agap'e Plastics Inc. Grand Rapids MI 49504; Dear Mr. Gravengood: This is in reply to your letter of April 3, l989 to this Office enclosing samples of plastic lenses. Your company manufactures 'heated lights' which appear beneficial in melting snow that accumulates on them in the winter months. In your letter, you stated: 'All lights, lenses, and materials to assemble the heated safety lights have already been certified and passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We have been advised by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that there is no motor vehicle safety standard no. for heated lights. In order for us to do business at the O.E.M. level we require a letter of approval from you to us that we may pass on to our customers so they may start ordering and we may start producing.' We have no authority to 'approve' or 'disapprove' items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, an equipment manufacturer 'approves' each of its own products that are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard by certifying that it meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or (if it is a vehicle manufacturer), that the vehicle on which the lamp is installed, complies with the standards. However, we can advise you of the relationship of your product to Standard No. 108. This should prove helpful in dealings at the O.E.M. level. There are two types of O.E.M. lighting equipment: lamps that are required by Standard No. 108, and supplementary lamps that do not come under its coverage. Although your product literature indicates that the highmounted heated taillamp supplements the original equipment lamp, it is not clear whether the heated signal lamp serves as the required signal lamp or is a supplement to the original equipment. Accordingly, this letter discusses how Standard No. 108 treats both original required and original supplemental lighting equipment. If you are the manufacturer of original lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed, the vehicle manufacturer, and not you, has the legal responsibility under the Act and Standard No. 108 of ensuring that the equipment complies with the standard, and of certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a practical matter, however, vehicle manufacturers generally insist that equipment manufacturers provide assurance that their products meet Federal standards, but the 'certification' they may insist upon is not required by the Act. You are correct that there is no standard that applies to heated lamps as such. The Federal standard that applies is the one imposed by Standard No. 108 for the particular equipment item (taillamps or signal lamps in this instance). If you are manufacturing a lamp as an original equipment supplement to required original lighting equipment, the burden remains on the vehicle manufacturer who installs it. The only restriction on a supplementary lamp that Standard No. 108 imposes is that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment (paragraph S4.1.3). Your lamps 'splice into' the wiring for the taillamps and 'marker lamps', according to your product literature. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the vehicle manufacturer to ensure that this installation does not negatively affect the performance of the required taillamps and signal lamps, or otherwise impair its effectiveness. If the vehicle manufacturer determines that no impairment exists, then it may certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Observing that the product literature depicts the heated taillamp installed in the upper corners of a school bus body, we must also call attention to an additional provision of Standard No. 108. The location depicted is one that is frequently used for the clearance lamps required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.4 of Standard No. 108 forbids the optical combination of clearance lamps and taillamps. Thus, your lamp cannot optically combine these two functions if it is to be used as new vehicle equipment. Other enclosures to your letter indicate that at present the heated lamp is being installed on buses in use, that is to say, as non-original equipment. The requirements imposed by Standard No. 108 and the Act for aftermarket manufacturers of lighting equipment differ from those for original equipment. If the lamp you produce is intended to replace an original equipment certified lamp, it is considered replacement equipment. As a manufacturer of a replacement taillamp or signal lamp, the legal obligation to produce a complying equipment item falls squarely upon you, as does the certification responsibility. If the lamp is intended only to replace a supplemental lamp, you are not required to certify. However, there may be instances in which your lamp is interchangeable with original certified equipment, and even though you may not intend it as replaceable lighting equipment, you may encounter questions from state and federal authorities if it is not manufactured and certified in accordance with Standard No. 108. Finally, you should be aware of your responsibilities under the Act in the event that your products do not comply with Standard No. 108, or incorporate a safety related defect (an example would be the inability of the lens to withstand the heat produced during the lamp's operation without warping or cracking). If you or this agency determine that a noncompliance or safety related defect occurs in any item of replacement equipment that you manufacture, you have the obligation to notify purchasers, and to remedy the problem through repair, repurchase, or replacement of the item. With respect to original equipment, this obligation falls upon the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed. If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them. We are returning your samples. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking; |
|
ID: aiam3847OpenMr. C. I. Nielsen III, Vice President - Marketing, Wesbar Corporation, Box 577, West Bend, WI 53095; Mr. C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend WI 53095; Dear Mr. Nielsen: This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of thi office seeking an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You wish to know whether the minimum effective projected luminous lens area for stop lamps and turn signal lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater is 8 square inches or 12 square inches. You cite an apparent conflict between paragraph S4.1.1.6 and SAE Standard J586d, and paragraph S4.1.1.7 and SAE Standard J588f. You have asked for an interpretation so that Wesbar may properly design a 'combination tail lamp.'; First, we will confirm the advice provided by 'D.O.T. staff people that the latest SAE revisions, J586d and J588f, have not been adopted.; You do not state the intended use of your proposed lamp, so we wil assume that it will be sold to trailer manufacturers as original equipment, and to the aftermarket as replacement equipment. As original equipment, it must comply with the requirements specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, SAE J586c for stop lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 3.2 of each standard specifies a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches.; Paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 become relevant, however, if Wesba intends the lamp as replacement equipment on trailers manufactured before September 1, 1978, and after January 1, 1972 (turn signal lamps) and January 1, 1973 (stop lamps). Under paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7, replacement stop and turn signal lamps for trailers manufactured within the 1972-1978 time frame may meet either J586b or J586c, and either J588d or J588e. We note that neither J586b nor paragraph S4.1.1.6 establish a minimum luminous lens area for stop lamps. However, a manufacturer who chooses to comply with paragraph S4.1.1.7 rather than J588e would have to provide the minimum specified luminous lens area of 12 square inches for turn signal lamps of trailers whose overall width was 80 inches or more, the requirement specified in J588d for Class A turn signal lamps. We view this interpretation as one of historical interest than (sic) current relevance.; In summary, if Wesbar designs its lamp to the 8-inch requirement, i would appear to meet specifications for application either as original or replacement equipment.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
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.