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: X PrizeOpenKenneth N. Weinstein, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP Dear Mr. Weinstein: This responds to your request, on behalf of the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize (PIAXP) for a statement and/or interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the implications under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act) of vehicles participating in the PIAXP competitions operating on the public roads. You asked this question in light of the fact that the vehicles would not necessarily comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The issues raised by your request are addressed below. In short, given the specific facts related to the PIAXP competitions that you provided, including the limited nature of the operation of these vehicles on the public roads and the fact that the roads will be closed under local or State government supervision, it is our opinion that the Vehicle Safety Act would not have the effect of preventing these vehicles from participating in the competitions. Our opinion is based on the facts you provided and the analysis set forth below. The PIAXP is, as described in information available on the PIAXP website[1]: An international competition designed to inspire a new generation of viable, super fuel-efficient vehicles. The independent and technology-neutral competition is open to teams from around the world that can design, build and bring to market 100 MPGe (miles per gallon energy equivalent) vehicles that people want to buy, and that meet market needs for price, size, capability, safety and performance. The nature of the competition is described, in draft guidelines available on the PIAXP website, as follows: The competition will comprise two vehicle classes: Mainstream and Alternative. Mainstream vehicles will be required to carry four or more passengers, have four or more wheels, and allow for a 200-mile range. Alternative-class vehicles will be required to carry two or more passengers, have no constraints on the number of wheels, and allow for a 100-mile range. All vehicles will need to meet requirements for performance and features to make the cars attractive to consumers. The competition will culminate with two dramatic, long-distance stage races in 2009-2010 a Qualifying Race and the Grand Prize Final Race. Race courses will reflect typical consumer driving patterns during numerous stages, in varied terrain, communities, and weather conditions. To win, vehicles must complete both races with the lowest overall time averaged over all scoring stages while still meeting the requirements for 100 MPGe fuel economy and low emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. The $10 million prize purse will be split 3:1 between the winners of the Mainstream and Alternative classes. You provided the following description of the manner in which the PIAXP races would be conducted: Competition vehicles will participate in stage races designed to test the vehicles under typical driving conditions. To ensure adequate safety, pre-race inspections will verify that vehicles have PIAXP-required safety equipment and features. And pre-race performance tests will verify that the vehicles meet PIAXP braking and stability requirements. These safety requirements were established by a Working Group that includes current and former NHTSA experts. Some race stages will be conducted on closed tracks, others on public roads. For the stages conducted on public roads, vehicles will start one-at-a-time and will be timed separately. No side-by-side driving will be permitted, with strict rules on giving way to a faster vehicle. Vehicles will have to obey all speed limits and other traffic regulations. The public roads will be closed to all non-race traffic during the race stages (these may be rolling closures that cover the full extent of the PIAXP vehicles on the course as is often done for running and cycling events). Road closures will be supervised by local city and state governments, and implemented by local police and other agencies. Vehicles will also participate in non-race demonstration events to showcase them to the public, to government officials, and to the media. These events will largely take place at closed public-private venues e.g., large parking lots. If any of these non-race demonstrations do take place on public roads, they will do so under the same conditions described above (closed roads supervised by local city and state governments). Most vehicles will be shipped from one event to the next, rather than driven. We may organize a PIAXP-sponsored [convoy] to drive in parade-format from one event to the next, but any such [convoy] will likewise occur over closed roads, as described above. Any team that wishes to drive a noncompliant vehicle independently between events (or under any other circumstances on public roads) is responsible for obtaining any necessary exemptions and/or permits that might be needed to meet all legal requirements. As indicated above, you asked us to address the implications under the Vehicle Safety Act of operation on the public roads of vehicles participating in the PIAXP competitions in light of the fact that the vehicles would not necessarily comply with applicable FMVSSs. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), with certain exceptions, a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless it complies with applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. The primary issue raised by your request is whether operation on the public roads of vehicles participating in the PIAXP competitions would constitute introducing the vehicles in interstate commerce. Since we are only addressing the implications of the Vehicle Safety Act with respect to the operation of these vehicles in the PIAXP competitions, the prohibitions on manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, and importing noncomplying vehicles are not relevant to the analysis. Given the limited nature of the operation of these vehicles on the public roads as part of participating in the PIAXP competitions, including the fact that the roads will be closed under local or State government supervision for the races, possible demonstrations, and convoys between events, it is our opinion that such operation on the public roads would not constitute an introduction into interstate commerce for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. We note that this opinion does not cover independent driving on the public roads by teams between events, or other activities not specifically addressed in this letter. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:VSA d.1/16/09 |
2009 |
ID: Xiao.1OpenMr. Xiaoda Xiao Dear Mr. Xiao: This responds to your letter seeking an evaluation of your product (the Vector Blind Spot Mirror enclosed with your letter), in order to determine whether the mirror, when properly installed, blocks the front windshield or shakes during driving. Because, we do not conduct certification testing or offer product endorsements, we are unable to provide such an evaluation. The following discussion briefly explains how our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) operate and how they may pertain to your product. By way of background information, 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. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards (see 49 CFR Part 571) before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. As you are probably aware, FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, sets forth requirements for mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles in order to provide a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear (49 CFR 571.111). New vehicles must be certified as complying with the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, as well as all other applicable standards. However, the packaging and descriptions of your product suggest that it would not be installed on the vehicle as original equipment, but instead, it would be sold as aftermarket equipment. Accordingly, we believe that your product would be a supplemental mirror that is not covered by FMVSS No. 111, so you would not have any corresponding certification responsibilities under our standards. With that said, there are certain limitations on aftermarket installation of motor vehicle equipment. For example, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles. Beyond compliance with relevant federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. We are also returning to you the sample mirror provided with your letter. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosures |
2005 |
ID: XSCIOpen Mr. Dan Goor Dear Mr. Goor: This responds to your September 21, 2000, letter to Ms. Heidi Coleman of my staff, informing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of your intent to file an "application for rulemaking" concerning our safety standard for child restraint systems (Standard No. 213, 49 CFR 571.213). You have developed a rear-facing child restraint which you believe is "compatible with an airbag." You would like NHTSA to adopt a regulation under which a manufacturer could certify rear-facing seats as "acceptable for use an air bag" if the seats meet certain performance requirements. You state: The Application for RuleMaking [sic] will propose: That providing, based on NHTSA approved testing, any given rear-facing infant seat/restraint which performs within CRABI performance guide-lines (as may be modified by NHTSA) when interacting with an airbag, be accredited, and labeled in a similar manner to: Certified acceptable for front seat placement. Additionally, such seats will not be required to carry labels to the contrary. Standard No. 213 requires rear-facing child restraints to be conspicuously labeled with warnings to consumers not to place the restraint on the front seat with an air bag (S5.5.2(k)(4)). Assuming that you wish to change this requirement, the procedure for petitioning NHTSA for a change to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is set forth in 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, or certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. It is important for you to note that your child restraints must have the air bag warning label specified in S5.5.2(k)(4) in the absence of an amendment to the standard. You are not permitted to change the content of the label. Further, you should not assume that your petition will result in the amendment you seek. Our decision whether to grant your petition, should you decide to submit one, will be made in the context of an administrative proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. If you have further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Enclosure ref:213 |
2000 |
ID: Yuen.1OpenMr. Derek Yuen Dear Mr. Yuen: This responds to your recent e-mail to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you seek clarification regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, pertaining to motorcycle headlamps. Specifically, you asked whether a motorcycle (or a three-wheeled vehicle with two wheels at the front) may be equipped with a four-headlamp system (with two lower beams and two upper beams), and if so, whether it would be permissible to place one set of lamps (either the lower beams or upper beams) closer to the outer edge of the vehicle, provided that the other two lamps are within 200 mm of each other. As discussed below, FMVSS No. 108 does not permit a motorcycle headlamp system composed of more than two headlamps, so we need not consider the additional issue of spacing of a second pair of headlamps. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. As an initial matter, you are correct in that the three-wheeled vehicle mentioned in your letter would be considered a "motorcycle" under our regulations. Under 49 CFR 571.3, "motorcycle" is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contract with the ground". The requirements for motor vehicle lighting are contained in FMVSS No. 108, with the headlighting requirements for motorcycles set forth in S7.9, Motorcycles. In particular, paragraph S7.9.6 requires that a headlighting system be located on the front of the motorcycle and, most pertinent to your proposed design, be installed in accordance with the requirements of S7.9.6.2. The requirements of S7.9.6.2 are as follows: (a) If the system consists of a single headlamp, it shall be mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle. (b) If the system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline. (c) If the system consists of two headlamps, one of which provides an upper beam and one of which provides the lower beam, the headlamps shall be located on the vertical centerline with the upper beam no higher than the lower beam, or horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline and mounted at the same height. Because the system your letter envisions consists of four headlamps, it would not meet the requirements of S7.9.6.2 of FMVSS No. 108. (We note further that the Japan Auto Parts Industries Association submitted a petition for rulemaking in 1998, which included a request to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow four distinct headlamps on motorcycles, but the agency decided not to do so (see 69 FR 55993 (Sept. 17, 2004). ) Because such a system is not permitted under Standard No. 108, we need not analyze this system in terms of the motorcycle headlamp location requirements contained in paragraph S7.9.6 of the standard. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure |
2006 |
ID: Zimmer.rbmOpen Ms. Reneta Zimmerman Dear Ms. Zimmerman: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognizes your concerns about placing your infant in front of the passenger-side air bag of your Mazda Miata. Since your vehicle has no back seat, NHTSA will grant an exemption to allow the dealer or a repair business to deactivate the passenger-side air bag. NHTSA is allowing this deactivation because an infant in a rear-facing child restraint should never be placed in front of an air bag and because it recognizes that you may be unable to replace your vehicle with a car equipped with a back seat. If it is possible to retrofit your car with the installation of a manual cutoff switch, this option should be pursued rather than a total deactivation of the air bag. Mazda should be able to tell you if a manual cutoff switch is available for your vehicle. If installation of a manual cutoff switch is not an option, you may choose to have your passenger-side air bag deactivated. Federal law now requires that new cars be equipped with air bags at the front outboard seating positions. The Federal law also prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. However, in very limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate a person's special physical needs, NHTSA has previously stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" provision as technical and justified by public need, and that it would not begin enforcement proceedings. Since your vehicle does not have any back seat, NHTSA will consider the deactivation of the passenger-side air bag as a technical violation of the "make inoperative" provision that is justified by public need. Accordingly, it will not begin enforcement proceedings against any dealer or repair business which deactivates the passenger-side air bag. Please note, however, that the purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, that the current and subsequent owners and occupants of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to have the air bag reactivated once your child is old enough to ride safely in the front seat or when it is returned to the company which leases it. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that passengers in your vehicle use their safety belts and to tell them that the passenger-side air bag has been deactivated. I hope this letter resolves your problem. You should show this letter to the dealer or repair business when you take your car in for deactivation of the passenger-side air bag. If you have any other questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:11/19/96 |
1996 |
ID: Zozloski_1635OpenMr. Stanley J. Kozloski Dear Mr. Kozloski: This responds to your letter in which you asked about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to "golf carts" with modified speed capabilities. Specifically you asked about the applicability of FMVSS No. 500, Low speed vehicles. You also raised several questions regarding the ability of Florida to regulate the operation of "golf carts."I have addressed your questions below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:
Under this authority, NHTSA established FMVSS No. 500 (copy enclosed) to ensure that low-speed vehicles (LSVs) are equipped with an appropriate level of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. The agency defines an LSV as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, except a truck, whose attainable speed in one mile is more than 20 miles per hour (mph) but less than 25 mph (49 CFR 571.3(b)). The FMVSSs generally apply to motor vehicles only prior to their first retail sale. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122; "make inoperative" provision). You indicated in your letter that your initial concern was the applicability of the Federal standards to "golf carts" that have had been modified after their first retail sale. You stated that local businesses are modifying golf carts through the installation of "high speed 5.5 hp motors, high speed gears, high speed controllers, oversize tires," and the modifying or disengaging of a speed controlling governor. Your letter further explained that these modifications are to increase the maximum speed capacity from just below 20 mph to one as high as upwards of 30 mph. I note that, in establishing FMVSS No. 500, NHTSA explained that the agency did not intend to regulate golf carts with a maximum speed capability of 20 mph or lower (63 Federal Register 33209; June 17, 1998; enclosed). The agency has determined that conventional golf carts (those with a maximum speed capacity of 20 mph and lower) are not motor vehicles for the purpose of our regulations. [1] The primary purpose of a conventional golf cart is not for operation on public roads, beyond that of an incidental nature. Therefore, they are not included in the definition of "motor vehicle." Because conventional golf carts are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to any FMVSS as originally manufactured. Therefore, a conventional golf cart cannot be taken out of compliance with an FMVSS, because none apply. As such, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply. The act of modifying a golf cart for use on the public roads would, however, create a motor vehicle to which new-vehicle FMVSSs would become applicable at the time of the modification. For purposes of compliance with NHTSAs regulations, we would regard the modifier as the manufacturer. As a motor vehicle manufacturer, the modifier would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle conformed to all applicable safety standards. These would vary depending on whether the vehicle was an LSV or some other type of motor vehicle. You indicated in your letter that many of your concerns relate to the operation of"golf carts" with modified speed capabilities. You specifically asked about the establishment and enforcement of State or local registration, inspection, insurance, and operational requirements. These areas are within the jurisdiction of the States. You may therefore wish to raise these concerns with your local or State representatives. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure [1] This does not imply that all vehicles with a maximum speed capability 20 mph and below are not motor vehicles. |
2004 |
ID: nht95-4.29OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 20, 1995 FROM: Jonathan P. Reynolds -- Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Cosco TO: Deirdre Fujita -- NHTSA TITLE: Cosco's Petition for Reconsideration Final Rule - Federal Register Volume 60 Number 129 Docket No. 74-09; Notice 42 ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/24/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JONATHAN P. REYNOLDS (REDBOOK 4; PART 553; 74-09, N42-005-02) TEXT: Dear Ms. Fujita: In accordance with the requirements set forth in the Federal Register announcement of the subject Final Rule, Cosco submitted its petition for reconsideration in a timely fashion. The petition was transmitted via Federal Express on Friday, August 4, 199 5, for next day delivery, on Monday, August 7, 1995. Although we have not been formally advised, we have learned informally that NHTSA may contend that the petition was not received until August 10. We have confirmed with Federal Express that in fact the petition was delivered on August 7, 1995, and signe d for by NHTSA employee T. Proctor. Attached are the Federal Express forms signed by each recipient of a Federal Express delivery, showing T. Proctor under item 15 on page 2 for August 7, 1995. Federal Express has confirmed that this package was in fac t delivered to NHTSA on August 7, 1995. Please confirm in writing that Cosco's petition is being deemed as timely received and that a response to the petition will be forthcoming in a timely fashion. Given the scope of the Final Rule and the very important concerns involved, Cosco assumes tha t the agency wishes to promptly address the issues raised by Cosco in its petition. Please contact me if you require any further information or have any questions. I look forward to your prompt reply to this inquire. (Federal Express forms omitted.) |
|
ID: nht95-4.3OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 29, 1995 FROM: Carrie Stabile; James v. Stabile, III TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: 12/11/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Carrie Stabile (A43; Std. 108) TEXT: To Whom It May Concern, I recently wrote to Senator Alfonse D'Amato regarding both my brother James and my concept on improving the safety of children while loading and unloading on and off the school buses. It is called "VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM". Senator D'Amato co ntacted Mr. Charles Hott, Safety Engineer, who in return suggested we submit our idea to you, for further review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards. The illuminated sign would be specially designed to boldly alert other motorists to the fact that the school bus is in the process of loading or unloading children and should not be passed. The sign would be easily visible during daytime, darkness and p oor weather conditions. It is our opinion as well as other bus companies that this system would provide children with a safer loading and unloading zone. Features like the stop sign that extends out from the side of the bus do not effectively alert dri vers and the safety of children has been greatly compromised. Our intention with your approval would be to initiate a pilot study from a supporting bus company to survey its effectiveness and approval from the various school districts. We thank you for your consideration in this matter and look forward to hearing from you with regards to your guidance and support. Enclosure IN THE APPLICATION OF JAMES VINCENT STABILE III CARRIE ANN STABILE For A VEHICLE ILLUMINATED WARNING SYSTEM Filed With The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Text omitted) |
|
ID: nht95-4.30OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 20, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. TITLE: Re: Headlamp System Containing Fog Lamp ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/11/95 LETTER FROM YOSHIAKI MATSUI TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TEXT: Dear Mr. Matsui: This replies to your letter of August 11, 1995, with reference to possible headlamp systems that produce a fog lamp beam, as well as upper and lower beams. According to your letter, "the fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex.; HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be lit simultaneously." You refer to paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and conclude that "such a combination will not impair the effectivene ss of the headlamp." We agree, with respect to the headlamp itself, that a fog lamp operating simultaneously with the lower beam will not impair the effectiveness of the lower beam's photometrics and ability to illuminate the roadway. We view this as a supplement to the low er beam. However, under S5.1.3, the question is whether the fog lamp, either operating alone or when the lower beam headlamp is activated, will impair the effectiveness of any front lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The responsib ility for the determination of compliance with S5.1.3 is not Stanley's, but that of the manufacturer of the vehicle in which the combination headlamp is installed, who must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety s tandards. The other front lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 consists of parking lamps and turn signal lamps. The amber parking lamps serve to mark a vehicle, a function incidentally served by white fog lamps. Thus we do not believe that the Stanley headlamp would impair the effectiveness of parking lamps in any position in which the headlamp may be installed on the front of a vehicle. The situation differs with respect to turn signal lamps. A vehicle manufacturer must take care to ensure that a vehicle on which the combination headlamp is installed conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 108 and to paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE Stand ards J588 NOV84 or J1395 APR85, the two turn signal standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.4 treats the relationship between luminous intensity and photometrics "where the front turn signal is mounted in close proximity to the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the low beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp." It does this by establishing luminous intensity multipliers based upon the distance that separates the lamps. For example, if the space between the front turn signal and the lighted edge of the fog lamp is 75 mm to less than 100 mm, the photometric requirements for a front turn signal lamp are 1.5 times more than those required when the spacing is 100 mm or mo re (Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 requires the multiplier at this distance to be 2.5 when the lamp is a lower beam headlamp rather than a fog lamp). Finally, as a cautionary note, we believe that Stanley should evaluate the glare potential of the headlamp when the fog lamp and lower beam are operating simultaneously, as it is important to safety that oncoming drivers not be distracted or discomforted in the operation of their vehicles. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263). |
|
ID: nht95-4.31OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: September 20, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products, Inc. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/31/95 LETTER FROM DENNIS G. MOORE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, with respect to lens area requirements of amber turn signal lenses. You believe that "by reducing the minimal area of the Amber Turn Signal light lens from 12 square inches to approximately 8 square inches or 6 square inches the U.S. would have more practical rules for U.S. Exports at no expense to Safety. You ask that, "If NHTSA's Legal Council feels this error should be corrected through the Petitioning Process, I ask that this writing be considered a 'Petition for Change of FMVSS # 108 Request'". Standard No. 108 contains two relevant regulations, one applicable to vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, and one to those whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Under paragraph S5.1.1.26(a), the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp of either red or amber on a vehicle whose overall width is less than 80 inches shall be not less than 50 square centimeters. This is approximately 8 square inche s. Therefore, no rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation. The standard that applies to turn signal lamps on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more is SAE Standard J1395 APR85, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Under its paragraph 5.3.2, the functional lighted lens area of a single turn signal lamp shall be at least 75 square centimeters, or approximately 12 square inches. Therefore, rulemaking is required to implement your recommendation. We are transmitting your letter to our Office of Safety Performance Standards for consideration as a petition for rulemaking to change the minimum lens area requirement for turn signal lamps on large vehicles from 75 to 50 square centimeters. On Septemb er 4, 1995, I determined that your letter met our procedural requirements for a petition. Accordingly, the Office of Safety Performance Standards will inform you not later than January 1, 1996, whether your petition has been granted. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). |
|
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.