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: 10-001831 106OpenMr. Matt Miller DMJ Corporation P.O. Box 299 Hamel, MN 55304-0299 Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your letter asking whether DMJ Corporation (DMJ) would be considered a brake hose assembly manufacturer subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), if it assembles brake hose and end fittings for its own use. The answer is no. In your letter, you explain that DMJ owns trucks and trailers. You wish to know whether, when the brake hoses on those vehicles must be replaced, they can be replaced by brake hose assemblies manufactured by DMJ itself. You plan to take rubber hose and end fittings manufactured by other companies and completing them into brake hose assemblies for use on your vehicles. You provided printouts (from what appears to be www.Gates.com) of air brake hose and air brake end fittings that you are considering using.
By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue and enforce the FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 106 specifying labeling and performance requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. In response to your question, brake hose assembly is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 106 as follows: Brake hose assembly means a brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system, but does not include an air or vacuum assembly prepared by the owner or operator of a used vehicle, by his employee, or by a repair facility, for installation in that used vehicle. Based on the information you provided, we understand that DMJ will be preparing air brake hose assemblies for installation in its used vehicles. You have advised us that you are making the air brake hose assemblies only to replace hose on trucks and trailers owned by DMJ.
Thus, the definition of brake hose assembly would not include DMJs assemblage of the hose and end fitting. DMJ would thus not be considered a brake hose assembler and would not have to meet FMVSS No. 106 requirements for air brake hose assemblies at S7.2.3. Note that the assemblies you manufacture are considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, if DMJs trucks and trailers are commercial motor vehicles, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and appropriate State Department of Transportation agencies may have requirements for your brake hose assemblies. For information about FMCSA requirements, please contact that agency at: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590, telephone 1-800-832-5660, www.fmcsa.dot.gov. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 6/24/2010 |
2010 |
ID: 10-003161 Honda 110 label march 16 dfOpenJay Joseph, Senior Manager Product Regulatory Office American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 1919 Torrance Boulevard Torrance, CA 90501-2746 Dear Mr. Joseph: This responds to your letter asking whether your method of presenting the designated seated capacity of a vehicle meets a labeling requirement in S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110.[1] Our answer is yes. S4.3 of the standard requires each vehicle to show certain information, specified in S4.3(a) through (g) of the standard, on a placard permanently affixed to the vehicle at a specified location. Your question pertains to the information specified by S4.3(b). That section states: (b) Designated seated capacity (expressed in terms of total number of occupants and number of occupants for each front and rear seat location)[.] In addition, among other things S4.3 states: This information shall be in the English language and conform in color and format, not including the border surrounding the entire placard, as shown in the example set forth in Figure 1 in this standard. Figure 1 of the standard shows that for SEATING CAPACITY, the terms set forth on the depicted label are: TOTAL, FRONT, AND REAR. Hondas Placard
You ask about the placard from a Model Year 2010 Odyssey LX, which has one front row and two rear rows. For this vehicle, the placard sets forth SEATING CAPACITY information for the TOTAL capacity, and for the FRONT, SECOND, and THIRD rows. Unlike the example placard shown in Figure 1 of the standard, your placard for this vehicle does not provide a single number for rear seats. The question you present is whether presenting the seating capacity information for the second and third rows in the vehicle, rather than for the entire rear, meets S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. You believe that presenting the Odysseys rear seating capacity information by rows meets S4.3(b) and is the most beneficial method of providing this information to consumers due to variations in rear seating capacity and configuration among a vehicles models and trim levels. You explain that a vehicle such as the Honda Odyssey minivan has different trim levels, including LX, EX, EX-L, and Touring models. The LX model has a seating capacity of 7 occupants, with two designated seating positions each in the front and second rows, and three in the third row. The EX, EX-L, and Touring models are configured for 8 occupants, two in the front row and three designated seating positions each in the second and third rows. You believe that providing the maximum seating capacity per row of seating gives the consumer valuable information about the safe operation of the vehicle. Response
Our response is that your method of providing the vehicles designated seated capacity, expressing the number of occupants for each of the two rear rows rather than for the entire rear, meets S4.3. Under S4.3(b), the placard must provide the designated seated capacity, expressed in terms of total number of occupants and number of occupants for each front and rear seat location. We believe that the Odysseys placard, specifying the seating capacity for each row of seats, satisfies the requirement to express the vehicles designated seating capacity in terms of the number of occupants for each front and rear seat location. In this instance, specifying the number of seats in each rear row will help a consumer determine whether the second row of seats has either two or three designated seating position depending on the vehicles trim level. We recognize that in a preamble responding to a petition for reconsideration, NHTSA interpreted S4.3(b) as not permitting the placard to indicate the rear seating capacity by row.[2] The agency sought to limit information that could overcrowd the placards rich content. For example, a vehicle with many rows of seating would make the placard difficult to read if it had text describing the vehicles seating capacity for individual rows. However, with regard to the Odysseys placard, we believe that your manner of expressing the number of occupants for each rear row expresses the number of occupants for each rear seat location, in accordance with S4.3(b). Further, the sample Odyssey placard you provide in your letter shows the information for the seating capacity in a single line of legible text. This is important because S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 states that This information [set forth in S4.3(a) through (g)] shall be in the English language and conform in color and format, not including the border surrounding the entire placard, as shown in the example set forth in Figure 1 in this standard. We believe format as used in this context refers to features such as the size, shape, layout and arrangement of the information. Your placard appears to preserve the format and relative size of the information shown in the example placard shown in Figure 1. The rear capacity of the Odyssey is shown in a single line of text in the location where Figure 1 shows the REAR capacity. We conclude that your placards seating capacity information conforms to the format provided in Figure 1. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel 5/31/2011 |
|
ID: 10-004142 -- Toyota CAFE credit transfer banking -- 5 Jul 11 final for signatureOpenTom Stricker Director-Corporate Manager Toyota Motor North America, Inc. Suite 910 South 601 13th Street, NW Dear Mr. Stricker: This responds to your letter dated June 10, 2010 concerning the definition of the term transfer, as used in relation to Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) credits. You asked several questions relating to the revision to the definition of transfer in the April 2010 final rule establishing CAFE standards for model years 2012-2016. By way of background, credits are earned by automobile manufacturers for over-compliance with passenger car and light truck CAFE standards, and may be used by the manufacturer to make up shortfalls in different model years and different compliance categories, subject to certain statutory and regulatory constraints, and may also be provided to or acquired from other manufacturers. Manufacturers have been able to carry-forward[1] and carry-back[2] CAFE credits since the early 1980s, but NHTSA only gained authority to permit credit trading and transferring as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007.[3] NHTSA established 49 CFR Part 536 in 2009 to implement a program pursuant to this authority, and defined credit transfer as the application by a manufacturer of credits earned by that manufacturer in one compliance category [domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars, light trucks] or credits acquired by trade (and originally earned by another manufacturer in that category) to achieve compliance with fuel economy standards with respect to a different compliance category. For example, a manufacturer may purchase light truck credits from another manufacturer, and transfer them to achieve compliance in the manufacturers domestically manufactured passenger car fleet.[4] As a way to improve the transferring flexibility mechanism for manufacturers, as part of the rulemaking establishing CAFE standards for MYs 2012-2016, NHTSA clarified its interpretation of EISA, saying that EISA allowed the banking of credits for use in later model years. The agency amended the definition of transfer accordingly. Specifically, we added the following sentence to the end of the above definition of transfer: Subject to the credit transfer limitations of 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3), credits can also be transferred across compliance categories and banked or saved in that category to be carried forward or backward later to address a credit shortfall.[5] You have asked several questions with regard to this revision to the definition of credit transfer, which we will answer in turn below. 1. Does the revised definition apply to MY 2011 and later credits, and may such credits be transferred across compliance categories in the same or later model year and banked or saved in that compliance category, subject to the limitations specified by 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor specified at 49 CFR 536.4(c)? Answer: Yes, this is correct. We note that credits are not adjusted until they are actually used for compliance purposes. See 49 CFR 536.4(c) and 536.5(d)(5). 2. Once transferred, are such credits considered to be credits within the compliance category to which they were transferred, and may they be applied without further adjustment, in the same manner as a credit that was generated as a result of over-compliance in that compliance category? Answer: No, this is incorrect. 49 CFR 536.4(c) states clearly that the adjustment factor is applied to credits when traded or transferred and used, and 536.5(d)(5) similarly states that the value of traded or transferred credits is adjusted when used for compliance. (Emphasis added.) Thus, when credits are transferred and banked, they are simply stored in the compliance category to which they are transferred, but they retain their original character and value until they are used for compliance, at which time they are adjusted. 3. Does 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) limit the credits that can be transferred into a compliance category in a given model year? Answer: 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) limits the maximum CAFE increase in any compliance category attributable to the application of credits earned in a different compliance category to 1.0 mpg for model years 2011-2013; to 1.5 mpg for model years 2014-2017; and to 2.0 for model years 2018 and beyond. The statute does not limit how many credits may be transferred in a given model year, rather it limits the application of transferred credits to improve fuel economy in a compliance category. Thus, manufacturers may transfer as many credits into a compliance category as they wish, but transferred credits may not increase a manufacturers CAFE level beyond the statutory limits. 4. Given the transfer cap in 32903(g)(3), is there a limit on how many credits can be transferred out of a compliance category in a given model year, or a limit on transferring credits from one compliance category to multiple compliance categories in the same model year or across model years, as long as the transfer cap in 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c) are not violated? Answer: Again, manufacturers may transfer as many credits out of a compliance category to either of the other compliance categories as they wish, but transferred credits may not increase a manufacturers CAFE level beyond the statutory limits. Furthermore, the adjustment factor is only relevant when the transferred credits are used for compliance; they are not applied at time of transfer. 5. Is the expiry date of transferred credits established by the model year in which such credits are originally earned, regardless of the model year or compliance category to which they are transferred? Answer: Yes, this is correct. Please see the definitions for credits and expiry date in 49 CFR 536.3. 6. When a compliance category has a shortfall in a given model year, is there any restriction on the order in which available banked credits and available transfer credits must be applied? E.g., could a manufacturer meet a shortfall by carrying forward available credits banked in that compliance category, and then transfer additional credits into that compliance category to be banked or saved, subject to the limitations of 32903(g)(3) and the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c)? Answer: Your example is correct. Part 536 is intended to give manufacturers maximum flexibility to apply credits in the manner that they deem most appropriate, thus there is no restriction on the order in which available banked credits and available transferred credits can be applied to a shortfall. As long as the credit transfer cap of 32903(g)(3) is not violated, and as long as the adjustment factor in 49 CFR 536.4(c) is properly applied when the banked credits are used, the situation described should be permissible. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, /s/ O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Part 536 7/6/11 [1] That is, apply credits earned for a fleets over-compliance in one year to a shortfall for that same fleet in a subsequent model year (e.g., credit earned for over-compliance with the MY 2000 light truck standard could be applied to a shortfall with respect to the MY 2002 light truck standard). [2] That is, apply credits earned for a fleets over-compliance in one year to a shortfall for that same fleet in a previous model year (e.g., credit earned for over-compliance with the MY 2000 light truck standard could be applied to a shortfall (or deficit) with respect to the MY 1998 light truck standard). [3] See 49 U.S.C. 32903(f) and (g). [4] We note that credit transfers are also subject to the limitation in 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(4) , which requires manufacturers to meet the minimum standards for domestically-manufactured passenger cars without the use of transferred credits. [5] See 74 Fed. Reg. 49454, 49736-37 (Sept. 28, 2009) and 75 Fed. Reg. 25324, 25665-66 (May 7, 2010) for NHTSAs discussion of this issue in the MYs 2012-2016 CAFE standards rulemaking. |
|
ID: 06-004314OpenPatrick Boyd, Head Mechanic Manchester Local Schools 6075 Manchester Road Akron, OH 44319 Dear Mr. Boyd: This responds to your request for a ruling or clarification on the extent to which diodes on school bus light emitting diode (L.E.D.) lighting must be burned out for the school bus to be taken out of service. Our answer is provided below. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Each State has the authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles, including school buses, which travel on the public roads of that State. The question you pose relates not to the manufacture and/or sale of a new school bus but to operational requirements (i.e, which lights or diodes on the school bus must function) for school buses to be permitted to travel on Ohio roads. The agency notes that L.E.D. lamps are certified to our lighting standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment) by manufacturers at the time of sale with a full one hundred percent of the diodes operating. However, the determination of when a school bus is taken out of service is entirely up to State law. Further, your State motor vehicle administration should be able to tell you which State official has the final authority in making decisions about which school buses will be permitted to be used on Ohio roads. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:VSA d.9/5/06 |
2006 |
ID: 06-004327drnOpenDean Rose, Founding Partner Transportation Safety Products, Ltd. 6797 N. High Street, Suite 214 Worthington, OH 43085 Dear Mr. Rose: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements that apply to a voice alarm system that, according to the advertising pamphlet you enclosed, actually talks to and alerts the children with three distinct, clear and loud voice messages. There is also a panic button that verbally warns pedestrians and/or children that a car is moving around the school bus stop arm by announcing: Danger! Get back! A car is coming! By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates reports of safety-related defects. There is no FMVSS that applies to a child safety alarm system such as you have described. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for, among other things, notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your device is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) In addition, Section 30122 of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from making modifications that make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard Any person in the aforementioned categories installing your device on a new or used school bus or transit bus must take care with the safety systems required of the vehicles. For example, FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, establishes requirements for school bus emergency exit release. Section S5.3.3.1 requires, among other things, an audible warning at the school bus drivers seating position and in the vicinity of the emergency exit door if the release mechanism is not in the position that causes the emergency exit door to be closed and the vehicles ignition is on. In addition, FMVSS No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices, has a requirement in section 5.5 for a warning audible to the driver when an optional device that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm is activated. Your device must not negatively affect the operation of either of these required warning systems. The make inoperative provision does not apply to a vehicle owner making changes to his or her own vehicle. However, NHTSA urges owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. We also note that this child safety alarm system appears to shift some of the burden of responsibility to child pedestrians. The responsibility for looking out for children should, first and foremost, be on the adults (i.e., the school bus driver and the drivers of vehicles around the school bus). This product should not be viewed as a substitute for vigilance on the part of drivers to look out for children. In addition, the talking bus should not distract children, especially when they are crossing the street. We are also concerned that the bus may attract the curious child, encouraging approaching the bus and seeking out the source of the voice. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) may have requirements that affect the placement of your child safety alarm system on transit buses. I would suggest you contact them directly for a legal opinion about the applicability of FTA requirements to your product. Note also that States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. If you wish to know whether State law permits the installation of your child safety alarm system in school buses or other motor vehicles, you should contact State officials with your question. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA d.11/3/06 |
2006 |
ID: 06-004732drnOpenMr. Terrill J. Blair, Sr. 7013 86th Street, NW Gig Harbor, WA 98332 Dear Mr. Blair: This responds to your letter asking whether a used car with deployed air bags must have its air bags reinstalled before sale. As discussed below, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. However, individual State laws may require such reinstallation before a used car is sold. You explain that you recently purchased a 1996 Buick LeSabre from a private party. You state your belief that the vehicles air bags have been deployed, and the air bags were not reinstalled. You write to ask whether this car [can] be sold without the air bags (safety equipment) being reinstalled. I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed as a result of a crash. The first letter, dated January 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, State law may require replacement of deployed air bags. You may wish to contact the Attorney General of the State of Washington to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations: Office of the Attorney General State of Washington 1125 Washington, St., S.E. P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 The Washington State Attorney General has branch offices that might be closer to you. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:208 d.12/13/06 |
2006 |
ID: 06-005423asOpenMr. Kiminori Hyodo Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 4-8-3, Takanawa Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan Dear Mr. Hyodo: This responds to your letter requesting clarification regarding the luminous intensity requirements for front turn signal lamps under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). Specifically, you asked whether the multiplier in paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 applies to the minimum luminous intensities listed in Figure 20, Visibility of Installed Lighting Devices (Luminous Intensity Measurement Method). As discussed below, it does not. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). On August 11, 2004, NHTSA published a final rule updating FMVSS No. 108 to increase compatibility with the relevant standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) pertaining to a variety of lighting requirements (see 69 FR 48805). The luminous intensity multiplier referred to in paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 applies to the photometric requirements of turn signal lamps. Paragraph S5.3.1.7 specifies that the multiplier applied to obtain the required minimum luminous intensities shall be 2.5. The multiplier referred to in paragraph S5.3.1.7 supersedes the luminous intensity multiplier described in paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE J588 (rev. Nov. 84), which has been incorporated by reference into FMVSS No. 108 via paragraph S5.1.1 and Table III of the standard. (S5.1.1 refers to Table III, which references SAE J588 (rev. Nov. 84) as the applicable standard for turn signal lamps.) To explain more fully, paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE J588 (rev. Nov. 84) specifies numerous luminous intensity multipliers dependent on the lamp separation distance. Paragraph S5.3.1.7 overrides this SAE specification by requiring that turn signal lamps mounted within 100mm of the lighted edge of a headlamp shall use 2.5 as the multiplier. Thus, the luminous intensity multiplier referred to in FMVSS No. 108 paragraph S5.3.1.7 applies to the SAE J588 (rev. Nov. 84) photometric requirements of turn signal lamps. We note that the minimum luminous intensities referred to in Figure 20 of FMVSS No. 108 are visibility requirements, not photometric requirements. The origin of these requirements is FMVSS No. 108 paragraph S5.3.2(b). This paragraph states that a manufacturer must certify compliance of each lamp to one of the following visibility requirement options, with one option being that each such lamp must provide a luminous intensity not less than that specified in Figure 20. Because this refers to visibility requirements, referencing the light seen by the human eye, as opposed to photometry requirements, referencing the output of light from the lamp (and which was the subject of the luminous intensity multiplier), the multiplier does not apply to the values in Figure 20. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.2/7/07 |
2007 |
ID: 06-005429as-6OpenMr. Kiminori Hyodo Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 4-8-3, Takanawa Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan Dear Mr. Hyodo: This responds to your letter, in which you seek clarification as to the definition of the optical axis for a lower beam headlamp using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you asked how one would determine the optical axis for a LED lower beam headlamp, where respective LEDs provide different light intensities or beam configurations. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the optical axis for a visual/optical aim headlamp is the reference axis necessary to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the optical aiming equipment. It is up to the manufacturer to decide how to determine that axis and to select the location of the required marking. This interpretation would apply to any visually/optically aimed headlamp regardless of light source type. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. 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. Your letter asked what constitutes the location of the optical axis in a situation in which LEDs of varying intensity are used in a headlamp. You described a situation in which one LED from an array of LEDs serves to provide the dominant intensities toward the center of the beam pattern and determines a major characteristic of a cut-off. You asked if it would be appropriate to use that element to determine the optical axis. You also ask this question assuming a condition where respective LEDs are directed differently to constitute respective parts of the low-beam illumination. These questions caused the agency to closely examine the meaning of optical axis in order to assure proper headlamp aiming. In your letter, you cited a prior agency interpretation (December 21, 2005 letter to Mr. Takayuki Amma) regarding lower beam headlamps using several LEDs of equal light intensities, and our conclusion that the optical axis shall always correlate to the actual photometric output of the lamp. In view of your latest inquiry, we reexamined our 2005 interpretation relative to the determination of the optical axis. In our 2005 interpretation, we expressed agreement that the optical center would serve as an optical axis of a lower beam headlamp. We also agreed with your recommended approach and said that for LED lower beam headlamps, the optical center should be determined as the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminated by the LED light sources. While we continue to believe this could be a valid approach, manufacturers may choose other methods as well. For example, with LED light sources of varying intensity, a manufacturer could conclude that the geometric center of the illuminated lens might not be accurate for marking the lamp for aiming purposes. The agency notes that the term optical axis as used in FMVSS No. 108 may be inconsistent with the encyclopedic definition of the phrase. For visually/optically aimed headlamps, the term optical axis, as it is used in Standard No. 108, refers to the reference axis (a.k.a. mechanical axis) of the headlamp. Given this, we have reexamined a second point from the 2005 letter, in which we stated that the center of the emitted light is always taken to be the center of the optical axis. In saying this, we were quoting a January 14, 1976 letter of interpretation to the Department of California Highway Patrol. Upon closer examination, the 1974 letter addressed the optical axis (i.e., the mechanical or reference axis) in turn signals, not headlamps. As turn signals are symmetrical, the center of light emitted should always constitute the reference axis. However, as headlamps are asymmetrical, the quoted portion of the 1974 letter does not apply to headlamps. Paragraph S7.8.5.3(f) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that a visually/optically aimed headlamp include a mark or markings identifying the optical axis of the headlamp. The location of this mark or markings is to be determined by the headlamp manufacturer. Once chosen, the mark establishes the reference axis that will be used to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment of the aiming screen or optical aiming equipment with the headlamp being aimed. NHTSA will use this mark to identify the reference axis, and will conduct its compliance testing accordingly. Finally, we note that this interpretation broadens flexibility for manufacturers under the rule and, as such, does not amount to a change implicating compliance issues for manufacturers currently relying on the opinions in our previous letters. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.5/25/07 |
2007 |
ID: 06-005538drnOpenMr. Tab Hauser HASCO Components International Corp. 906 Jericho Turnpike New Hyde Park, NY 11040 Dear Mr. Hauser: This responds to your letter requesting information on how to get your product, the Electronic Flare, approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Please note that DOT does not provide approvals of such products. In this letter, we provide a discussion of relevant requirements of two DOT agencies, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. One FMVSS is FMVSS No. 125, Warning devices, which applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds. FMVSS No. 125 specifically applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources. (See S3. Application.) Since the Electronic Flare is battery operated, it has a self-contained energy source. Therefore, FMVSS No. 125 does not apply to the Electronic Flare. Even though not covered by FMVSS No. 125, the Electronic Flare is motor vehicle equipment, and is subject to various provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety. Motor vehicle equipment is defined at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(7) as: (A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or (C) any device or an article or apparel (except medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner) that is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle and is manufactured, sold, delivered, offered, or intended to be used only to safeguard motor vehicles and highway users against risk of accident, injury or death. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory ... to a motor vehicle, NHTSA analyzes two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected uses of a product is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. NHTSA determines expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these two criteria to the Electronic Flare, NHTSA concludes that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Electronic Flare is related to motor vehicles. Your website, www.electronicflare.com, shows that the Electronic Flare is marketed for use in conjunction with motor vehicles, to be deployed (in lieu of incendiary flares) on the side of the road in the event a vehicle is disabled. Product literature provided with your letter shows the Electronic Flare marketed as a device that can give your family and automobile the protection it needs in the event you have a flat tire or are stalled on the side of the road and as an environmentally friendly alternative to the incendiary flare. Further, you are marketing the product to ordinary motor vehicle owners and drivers for their purchase. For these reasons, we conclude that your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If you or NHTSA should determine that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying NHTSA and purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (See 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Non-Compliance Responsibility and Reports.) The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is the agency responsible for safety regulations applicable to the operation of commercial motor vehicles, in interstate commerce. We consulted with FMCSA about your inquiry, and it provided the following information. The requirements for emergency equipment on all power units, specified in 49 CFR 393.95, require in part that each truck, truck tractor, and bus (except those towed in driveaway-towaway operations) to be equipped with (1) three bidrectional emergency reflective triangles that conform to the requirements of FMVSS No. 125, or (2) at least 6 fusees or 3 liquid-burning flares. Other warning devices may be used in addition to, but not in lieu of, the required warning devices, provided those warning devices do not decrease the effectiveness of the required warning devices. In addition, the States regulate the use of vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Some States may regulate the warning devices that operators of vehicles may or must use when a vehicle is stopped. The States can provide information on whether they have any requirements for warning devices to be used with motor vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA requirements, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. If you have any questions about FMCSA requirements, you may call Mike Huntley at (202) 366-9209. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:125#VSA102(4) d.12/18/06 |
2006 |
ID: 06-005540asOpenMr. Kevin King T-80577 (H.D.S.P.) E2-36 LOW P.O. Box 3030 Susanville, CA 96127 Dear Mr. King: This responds to your letter concerning a model year 2003 or 2004 mini type van/bus that was used by the State of California for transporting prison inmates and that did not have seat belts for the inmates. You asked whether California Vehicle Code section 27315(g) requires that all vehicles have seat belts for passengers. In addition, you asked whether a California prisoner transport vehicle without seat belts constitutes a violation of Federal vehicle safety laws. Let me begin by noting that we cannot answer questions about California law, and refer you to the California Department of Transportation, or any other relevant agency of that state on such matters. This office has no special knowledge or expertise with respect to the laws of individual States. My answer will address only the requirements of the Federal laws and regulations administered by this agency. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR 571.208) which, among other things, requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in motor vehicles. We cannot give specific guidance given the limited description of the van/bus. Depending on the seating capacity and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle, it may have been required to have seat belts originally installed. If the vehicle, as originally manufactured, was designed to carry more than 10 persons, it was a bus under our definitions (see 49 CFR 571.3(b)). If it was a bus and had a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, it was required to be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt at every forward-facing outboard seating position for its passengers, and either a lap belt or a lap and shoulder belt at every other passenger seating position (see paragraph S4.4.3.2) at the time of manufacture and sale. Chapter 301 provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208 (See 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). That section provides that: 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 ... in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter.... Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of our standards. Thus, if a State purchases a vehicle and makes modifications itself, there is no violation of Federal law, even if the modified vehicle does not comply with our standards. I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:208 d.1/18/07 |
2007 |
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.