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: HoganHartsonOpenPatrick M. Raher, Esq. Hogan & Hartson LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. Raher: This responds to your letter of May 8, 2007, addressed to Ms. Julie Abraham, concerning the Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) petition for exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standards parts marking requirements for the Mercedes-Benz C-Line Chassis vehicles beginning in model year 2008. Under 49 CFR Part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may, for each model year, petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for an exemption of one car line from the requirements of the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.[1] You submitted your letter in response to an inquiry from NHTSA concerning whether MBUSA and DaimlerChrysler are eligible as separate manufacturers for such exemptions. Given the one car line limitation specified in Part 543, these companies must be eligible as separate manufacturers if they are both to receive an exemption for the same model year. After reviewing the information you provided in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, and as discussed below, we conclude that MBUSA and DaimlerChrysler are eligible as separate manufacturers for parts marking exemptions. The definition of manufacturer for the theft prevention standard program is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 32101(5), and reads as follows: manufacturer means a person (A) manufacturing or assembling passenger motor vehicles or passenger motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. In considering whether related companies are separately eligible for parts marking exemptions, we believe it is appropriate to consider two issues. First, we consider whether the companies are structured such that they can be considered separate persons under the statutory definition. Second, assuming the answer is yes, we look beyond the corporate structure and consider whether the companies are operationally independent from each other. It is necessary to consider this since a manufacturer could be highly integrated in operation but, for a variety of reasons, use multiple corporations. Also, we separately consider, with respect to the vehicles for which an exemption is sought, whether the vehicles can be considered to have more than one manufacturer and, if so, whether that would affect eligibility for the requested exemption. We note that the statutory provision does not indicate that a person is a manufacturer of a vehicle solely by virtue of ownership or control of another person that is a manufacturer. As to corporate structure, you indicated in your letter that MBUSA is the authorized importer of Mercedes-Benz and Maybach brand vehicles manufactured by DaimlerChrysler AG (DCAG) in Germany. You stated that DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DCC) builds, markets and sells Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands. You stated that MBUSA and DCC operate as separate corporate entities. Based on this information, we conclude that the companies are structured such that they can be considered separate persons under the statutory definition. As to whether the companies are operationally independent from each other, you stated in your letter that for purposes of design, development, marketing and selling, certifying compliance with safety regulations, compliance with NHTSAs enforcement program, and providing NHTSA with a manufacturer of record responsible for the vehicles, MBUSA and DCC operate as separate corporate entities. You also stated that MBUSA and DCC have different dealer networks, administer different warranty programs and are legally distinct corporate entities. You stated that MBUSA and DCC are linked only by virtue of the fact that both are within the larger corporate structure of DCAG. In a conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, you discussed the issue of separation between MBUSA and DCC, with further consideration of DCAG, which manufactures the vehicles that are imported by MBUSA, and also Mercedes Benz U.S. International, Inc. (MBUSI). MBUSI manufactures certain Mercedes Benz vehicles in the United States, which are marketed by MBUSA. You indicated that considering all of these different companies, there is no operational linkage or integration between the companies responsible for Mercedes Benz vehicles and those responsible for DCC vehicles. Based on the information you provided and noted above, we conclude that MBUSA and DCC are operationally independent from each, and, therefore, separately eligible for theft exemptions. Finally, as indicated above, we separately consider, with respect to the vehicles for which an exemption is sought, whether the vehicles can be considered to have more than one manufacturer and, if so, whether that would affect eligibility for the requested exemption. For example, if the Mercedes-Benz C-Line Chassis could also be considered to be manufactured by a manufacturer other than MBUSA and that other manufacturers might also be applying for theft exemptions, we would want to consider the effect on eligibility. However, based on the information you provided, this does not appear to be a relevant consideration for this requested exemption. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that MBUSA is separately eligible for a theft exemption for the C-Line Chassis, without regard to petitions for exemption from DCC. We note that the analysis presented in this letter is limited to eligibility for theft exemptions. Before deciding whether the analysis would apply in other contexts, we would want to carefully evaluate the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and purposes. If you have questions about this or related issues, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:543 d.7/12/07 |
2007 |
ID: HollidayOpenW. David Holliday, Esq. Attorney At Law 8330 Meadow Road, Suite 122 Dallas, TX 75231 Dear Mr. Holliday: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for air bags. According to your letter, you are representing an individual who sustained a serious neck injury in a crash where the air bag in his 2000 Dodge Caravan which he was driving did not deploy. In your letter you asked questions related to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they existed at the time the vehicle was manufactured, January 2000. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) covering new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we issued, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires passenger cars and other light vehicles to be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at both the driver and right front passenger seating positions. While these requirements were phased in over time, the phase-in had been completed by January 2000, the time period you ask about. I note that the Caravan was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, and was among the light vehicles to which the standards air bag requirements applied. In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my office, you clarified that while your letter includes various statements concerning your understanding of the FMVSSs, your primary question is whether FMVSS No. 208 established a frontal impact speed or crash severity threshold above which the air bag must be activated or below which it may not be activated. Among other things, Standard No. 208 specifies that vehicles meet certain performance requirements in crash tests. These tests are conducted with instrumented test dummies placed in the front outboard seating positions of the vehicle. During the tests, the forces measured on the dummies may not exceed specified limits. However, the standard does not specify any crash severity threshold or frontal impact speed where the air bag must, or must not, deploy. This was true in January 2000 and it remains true today, although we note that additional crash test and other requirements have been added since January 2000. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref: 208 d.11.20/08 |
|
ID: honda-spw-jan172001Open William R. Willen, Esq. Dear Mr. Willen: This responds to your March 1, 2000, letter asking whether Honda's hybrid electric vehicles with "Idle Stop" automatic transmission systems are permitted under S3.1.3 of Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect (49 CFR 571.102). Paragraph S3.1.3 states: "the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." As explained below, we conclude that the systems on Honda's hybrid electric vehicles meet S3.1.3. You also asked about a 'gasoline engine version' of the Insight that Honda is developing. Detailed information, such as that provided to us regarding the automatic transmission hybrid electric vehicle Insight, is apparently not yet available for that version. Therefore, we will defer an opinion on that version until Honda can make available to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) similar information about it. As noted above, your letter described two future design vehicles that would use "Idle Stop" technology to conserve fuel and reduce exhaust emissions when the vehicle is normally stopped and idling. One is the Honda Insight hybrid-electric vehicle equipped with an automatic Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT). According to your letter, this vehicle uses both an electric motor and gasoline engine to provide motive power. The other vehicle is a "normal gasoline-engine vehicle" that would be equipped with an automatic transmission. Based on your letter and your discussions with NHTSA's engineers, we understand that the Honda Insight hybrid electric vehicle equipped with a CVT and Idle Stop Technology (IST) works as follows. The hybrid vehicle is designed so that the transmission shift lever must be placed in Park or Neutral when the driver manually uses the key to engage the starter to start the vehicle's gasoline engine. Honda believes this design feature enables the hybrid vehicle to comply with the original intent of S3.1.3. When the hybrid vehicle is driven with the transmission in Drive and the driver stops the vehicle with the brake, the IST shuts off the gasoline engine. When the driver subsequently removes his foot from the brake, the hydraulic brake fluid pressure is maintained, the transmission lever remains in Drive while the transmission itself electronically shifts internally from Drive to Neutral, the starter engages the gasoline engine, and the gasoline engine starts up. After the engine starts, the transmission shifts internally from Neutral back into Drive, the hydraulic brake fluid pressure is released, and the vehicle may start to creep forward. Honda engineers said that the vehicle will not lurch forward. To accelerate, the driver must depress the accelerator pedal. Honda believes that this automatic shut-off and restart sequence also meets S3.1.3, in that the driver's direct manual activation of the starter is not needed after the engine is initially engaged to start the vehicle. Toyota submitted a similar request for interpretation regarding its Prius hybrid vehicle. In an interpretation letter of October 22, 1999, to Toyota, NHTSA noted that the Prius has a drive train system that is more complex than those on vehicles that existed when Standard No. 102 was issued. The agency said that it will examine the requirements and conduct a rulemaking to update them as necessary. The agency concluded by saying: "Until that action is completed, we will interpret S3.1.3 of Standard No. 102 as requiring that driver activation of the engine starter must be inoperative when the transmission lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." (Emphasis added.) By "driver activation," we meant direct manual activation of the starter by the driver. Both the Prius and the Insight meet S3.1.3 as so interpreted. In stating this conclusion, NHTSA wishes to elaborate on its reasons for believing that there are safety concerns that must be addressed through rulemaking. The agency is aware that, besides Honda and Toyota, other vehicle manufacturers are currently designing vehicles with gasoline or diesel engine and hybrid propulsion plants that operate differently but attempt to achieve improved fuel economy. NHTSA does not wish to impede any of these efforts, but must be mindful of its safety responsibilities. The agency expects that those other vehicles, like the Prius and Insight, will have safety features that prevent sudden lurching forward or backward when the gasoline engine is restarted. Such lurching is a concern because it could result in a crash. Our rulemaking will address this and other potential issues. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:102 |
2001 |
ID: Hopkins.1OpenMr. Bruce A. Hopkins Dear Mr. Hopkins: This is in response to your letter of October 21, 2003, in which you requested clarification of several issues under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, as amended by a final rule published on November 18, 2002, (67 FR 69600). Your questions involved actions that your final stage manufacturer members must take to meet the requirements of the regulation, once the revisions become effective on September 1, 2004. [1] Specifically, you asked about the content and placement of vehicle placards, listing of information related to spare tires, and reporting of seating capacity. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in the process of responding to petitions for reconsideration of the November 18, 2002, final rule, and we expect to issue our response shortly. We note that RVIA itself submitted a petition to the agency on this rulemaking. Our review suggests that the issues raised in your most recent letter are already before the agency in the context of the petitions for reconsideration, and we believe that the response will clarify these matters and will allow manufacturers sufficient time to assure compliance with applicable requirements. Should you have any remaining or additional questions once the response to the petitions for reconsideration is published, please feel free to submit them to the agency. If you have further questions in the interim, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:110 [1] 68 FR 33655 (June 5, 2003,) (final rule; response in part to petitions for reconsideration; delay of effective date). |
2004 |
ID: Huser.1OpenMr. Ken Huser Dear Mr. Huser: This responds to your recent e-mail to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you ask whether our regulations include requirements for the activation (illumination) of clearance, identification, and side marker lamps on vehicles of 80 inches or more in overall width. Your correspondence stated that you are seeking confirmation of this point because a customer is requesting that you modify a vehicle equipped with front clearance lamps to provide a switch that would allow the operator to turn off those lamps. The answer to your questions is no, although other Federal or State laws may apply in this situation. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571). After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122. The requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. As you point out in your e-mail, paragraph S5.5.7 of the standard sets forth activation (illumination) requirements for certain lamps on passenger cars, motorcycles, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses less than 80 inches in overall width (e.g., when the parking lamps are activated, the taillamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps shall also be activated). It is also correct that, in certain cases, the standard specifies activation requirements for certain lamps on all vehicles, such as paragraph S5.5.3, which provides that the taillamps on each vehicle shall be activated when the headlamps are activated in a steady-burning state. However, the standard contains no similar requirements for any electrical wiring or switching relationship between the clearance, identification, and side marker lamps on vehicles of 80 inches or more in overall width, and any other required lamps. However, I would note that other authorities with jurisdiction over vehicles operational safety may have addressed this issue, so you may wish to make further inquiries before undertaking modifications to the vehicle in question. Specifically, the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You may wish to contact FMCSA at (202) 366-4009 to obtain further information regarding any FMCSA regulations dealing with vehicle operating requirements related to lighting. 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 where the vehicle will be used regarding any such requirements. I hope you find this information useful. 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, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2004 |
ID: Hyodo.B-3OpenMr. Kiminori Hyodo Dear Mr. Hyodo: This responds to your letter, in which you sought clarification under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, as to the location of the axis of reference for a headlamp that incorporates a bending light function. Specifically, you asked about the location of the axis of reference for a bending light mechanism where a portion of the nominal beam pattern is actively redirected to provide illumination in a turn. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. 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. FMVSS No. 108 sets forth the requirements for both original equipment and aftermarket lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for use on motor vehicles covered under the standard. NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). Regarding the requirements for a headlamp with a bending light function, this topic was addressed in a Request for Comments published in the Federal Register on February 12, 200. (see 68 FR 7101). In that document, we explained that under FMVSS No. 108, "the bending light performance (by automatically reaiming the lamp) is not prohibited because the Standard does not specifically address the initial or subsequent aim of a headlamp in a headlighting system.. 68 FR at 7102. We noted that in a July 21, 1999 interpretation letter to Mr. Mark Cronmiller, VDO North America, we stated that if a "smart" headlamp system meets the static aiming hardware requirements of FMVSS No. 108, a dynamic aiming feature is permissible. After discussing our July 1999 interpretation, we included the following paragraph in our document in the Federal Register:
In your letter, you asked about the last sentence of the foregoing paragraph. You stated that for bending light mechanization where some of the light in the nominal beam pattern is actively redirected, "NHTSA clarified its legality that the photometric requirements must be met regardless of the active changes in the light distribution within the beam pattern . . . but did not address the location of the axis of reference for the determination of photometric compliance.. You stated that for this type of system, when the optical axis (kink) of the lower beam headlamp moves due to the swivel of an adaptive beam contributor that is utilized with a non-swiveling base beam, you must compensate the goniometer to locate the axis of reference to H = 0 degree / V = 0 degree for that determination.
As part of reviewing your letter, we analyzed the paragraph in our February 2003 notice that you asked about. We note that the paragraph construed the language of S5.3.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108 as it existed at that time. Subsequently, we amended that portion of the standar. (see 69 FR 48805, 48813 (August 11, 2004)). The standard no longer includes the former language of S5.3.1.1 that "no part of the vehicle" shall prevent lamps from meeting photometric requirements. Instead, the standard now states at S5.3.2(a) that lamps and reflective devices must be installed in a location where they comply with all applicable photometric requirements and visibility requirements with all "obstructions" on the vehicle. We note that in making this change, the agency explained that it was clarifying the sentence and moving it, without making any substantive changes. Thus, in the August 2004 notice, the agency viewed the superseded S5.3.1.1 requirement that no part of the vehicle prevent lamps from meeting photometric requirements as referring to obstructions, a more narrow view than it took in the February 2003 notice. In retrospect, and after reviewing the relevant language and comparing how the agency viewed it in the February 2003 and August 2004 notices, we believe the more narrow reading was correct. In any event, the language of S5.3.1.1 construed in the paragraph you asked about is no longer in FMVSS No. 108. That paragraph is not a correct explanation of the standards requirements today and should be disregarded. As to what is required for the design you asked about, and similar to the situation where the entire headlamp is reaimed, the standards photometry requirements must be met in the nominal position of the lower beam headlamp (i.e., considering the location of the axis of reference to coincide with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle). As defined under S4 of FMVSS No. 108, "axis of reference" means "the characteristic axis of the lamp for use as the direction of reference (H=0, V=0) for angles of field for photometric measurements and for installing the lamp on the vehicle.. In the case of a visually/optically aimable headlamp, for example, the agency would orient the axis of reference through the headlamp optical axis marks. These marks are required by S7.8.5.3(f)(1) to establish the horizontal and vertical alignment of the headlamp, aiming screen, and goniometer, relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Furthermore, SAE J575 DEC88, as incorporated by reference into FMVSS No. 108, specifies that the vertical axis of the test sample be vertical and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle when mounted on the goniometer, and that the intersection of the H and V planes (a.k.a. axis of reference) be parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Once the nominal aim was established, photometry testing would be conducted. FMVSS No. 108 does not require that photometric requirements be met for other axes of reference. We note that the photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108 are intended both to ensure adequate illumination of the roadway and overhead signs and to avoid unnecessary glare to other drivers. While, as discussed above, the standard does not include photometric test requirements for a headlamp with a bending light function other than for the nominal position of the lower beam headlamp, we encourage manufacturers to carefully consider accommodating both of these goals as they design headlamp systems incorporating this new technology. I hope this information is helpful. 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 ref:108 |
2006 |
ID: HYUNDAI.CRSOpenMr. Robert Babcock Dear Mr. Babcock: This is in response to your letter of September 9, 1996, to Coleman Sachs of my staff, concerning an error in the certification labels placed on certain 1997 Hyundai Tiburons. As described in your letter, these labels contain a misspelling of the word "passenger," which appears as "passbnger" in the vehicle type classification that was inserted on the label under the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(g)(7). You state that Hyundai implemented a running change to current production after it discovered this error, but that the company has no plans to institute a recall or other campaign to correct the error on vehicles already produced. The company has requested our comments if we do not agree with its decision in this matter. Because the nature of the misspelling could cause no confusion with respect to the vehicle's classification, we agree that Hyundai is not obliged to correct the labels on vehicles already produced. If you have any further questions concerning vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at 202-366-5238. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:568 d:9/25/96 |
1996 |
ID: hyundai.ztvOpenMr. Roger Babcock Dear Mr. Babcock: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 2003, asking for an interpretation as to whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 preempts a California statute relating to fog lamps. You reported that "a California statute, Title 13, Section 691" states that "Foglamps shall be mounted so the inner edge of the lens retaining ring is no closer than 10 cm (4 in.) to the optical center of the front turn signal lamp."In your view, "FMVSS 108 allows fog lamps to be located less than 4 inches from front turn signal lamps in certain circumstances" by virtue of "SAE J588, which is incorporated into FMVSS 108." Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Preemption, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle . . . only if the standard is identical to" a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is in effect. Fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. Thus, the action by California in regulating the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps is not "an aspect of performance" that is covered by FMVSS No. 108. Therefore, we do not find that FMVSS No. 108 preempts the California statute. We do not view SAE J588 as relevant to this issue. SAE J588 NOV84, "Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width," is incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108 as the Federal standard applicable to turn signal lamps on passenger cars and motorcycles, and on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in overall width (see S5.1.1 and Table III). J588 does contain references to fog lamps. Under J588, if the lighted edge of "the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp" is closer than 100 mm (4 in.) to the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area, the luminous intensity of the turn signal lamp is required to be higher than it would be if the spacing between the turn signal and other lamp were 100 mm or greater (See J588, 5.1.5.4 and 5.1.5.4.2). But the reference to fog lamps is illustrative only, and the thrust of J588 is to regulate performance of turn signal lamps. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2003 |
ID: Hyundai_flaps_and_dotsOpenRobert Babcock, Manager Dear Mr. Babcock: This responds to your letter concerning the lower anchorage marking requirements in S9.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). As explained below, the concept you ask about would be permitted. By way of background, FMVSS No. 225 requires vehicles to have child restraint anchorage systems consisting of two lower bars and a tether anchorage. The standard contains "marking and conspicuity" requirements for the lower bars to increase the likelihood that consumers will know that a child restraint anchorage system is present in their vehicle and that they will use it. These requirements are for manufacturers either to mark the vehicle seat back with a small circle where the bars are located (S9.5(a)), or to install a child restraint anchorage system such that the bars are visible (S9.5(b)). You request confirmation "that the marking and conspicuity requirements of S9.5 are satisfied when child seat anchorages that are covered with a removable flap or cover are identified with words, symbols or pictograms within the spacing limitations provided by S9.5(a)(3)". Stated differently, you ask whether, having marked the seat back as specified by S9.5(a), you may cover the bars with an unmarked removable cap or cover. Our answer is yes, the cover is permitted, even if the cover is unmarked. In the situation you describe, Hyundais marking the vehicle seat back with the small circles specified in S9.5(a) satisfies the marking and conspicuity requirements of FMVSS No. 225. Having met the requirements by the option of S9.5(a), you are not prohibited from placing a cover over the bars. In fact, the requirements of S9.5(a) presume that the lower bars are hidden from view. Covering them as you describe is therefore not a problem. We assume, of course, that the covers will not obscure the circles required by S9.5(a). If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:225 |
2005 |
ID: Hyundai_S7v2OpenMr. Robert Babcock Dear Mr. Babcock: This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the seat belt warning provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection, that pertain to the audible warning requirement. You asked if a two-second delay is permissible before the audible signal is activated. As explained below, a system as you described would not comply with the audible warning provision of FMVSS No. 208. S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208 establishes a warning requirement to alert vehicle drivers that their seat belt is not fastened. S7.3 provides manufacturers with several options for complying with this requirement. Under each option, a continuous or intermittent audible signal must activate when the vehicle ignition is moved to the "on" or "start" position and drivers safety belt is not in use (S7.3(a)(1) and (2)). The audible signal must sound for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds. In your letter, you asked if a delay was permitted between the time a vehicles ignition is moved to the "on" or "start" position and when the audible signal is activated (assuming the drivers seat belt is not fastened). You stated that self-diagnostic programs may cause a short delay (up to 2 seconds) prior to the vehicle system being capable of functioning fully, and thus may delay the activation of the audible warning for that same period. You asked if this delay, which occurs after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position, is permitted under S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208. As explained above, S7.3 requires the audible signal to activate when the vehicle ignition is moved to the "on" or "start" position. Therefore, the short delay you described would not be permissible. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:208 |
2005 |
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.