NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: nht92-3.38OpenDATE: 09/29/92 FROM: DONALD G. MCGUIGAN -- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO: KENNETH N. WEINSTEIN, ESQ. -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, LITIGATION DIVISION, NHTSA ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-20-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DONALD G. MCGUIGAN (A40; STD. 114) TEXT: This letter requests NHTSA's concurrence in our interpretation of how compliance with the newly-effective amendment to Section 4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 appropriately may be demonstrated. Our associated company, Mazda Motor Corporation, informs us that in designing the key-locking and shift control mechanisms for the Ford-built 1993 Escort and Tracer vehicles, as well as for certain Mazda vehicles, it understood that compliance with the "key-locking system" requirement of the recently-amended FMVSS 114 was to be demonstrated by attempting to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents. When so tested, the key-locking systems of 1993 Escort and Tracers "prevent removal of the key" except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the "Park" detent. We have become aware of speculation that it would be appropriate to test compliance with S4.2's "key-locking system" requirements by deliberately placing the transmission shift lever at various points between the "Reverse" and "Park" position gear selector detents while attempting to remove the ignition key. When so tested, the shift control system on at least a large proportion of 1993 Escorts and Tracers can be manipulated to one or another spot -- varying from vehicle to vehicle -- at which the key can be removed while the selector lever is held short of engaging the "Park" positioning detent. (Because the parking pawl will be engaged in or abutted on the park gear, the vehicles will not be free to roll more than a matter of inches). We are informed and believe that it may be possible to induce key removal while the selector lever is mispositioned between gears in vehicles produced by other manufacturers, too. Ford respectfully submits that a compliance test involving mispositioning of the shift control lever between gear positions would be inappropriate in light of the revised standard's purpose and history. Such a test would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the recent amendment to FMVSS 114 is to prevent shifting errors (i.e., to ensure that drivers attempting to shift into "Park" fully engage the park mechanism on the vehicle). Of course, the rulemaking record regarding the FMVSS 114 amendment to S4.2 repeatedly indicates that the primary purpose of the FMVSS 114 amendments is to ensure that children or other occupants of a vehicle parked on a slanted surface with the ignition off and the key removed will not be able to move the transmission shift lever out of the "Park" detent, thereby placing the transmission in a neutral mode and creating the potential for a rollaway accident. There is no indication in the rulemaking history that the revisions of FMVSS 114 are intended to address shifting errors. Indeed, shortly after issuance of the amendment to FMVSS 114 in question, the agency appropriately concluded in another context that the potential for "inadvertent vehicle movement" incidents because of shift control mispositioning is "relatively small" and did not justify beginning a rulemaking proceeding. See, W. A. Barr, 55 Fed. Reg. 25340 (June 21, 1990). A test based upon mispositioning the shift control lever also seems inappropriate for the additional reason that no peculiar hazard arises because the transmission shift lever may have been left in-between the "Reverse" and "Park" detents. In assessing any safety implications related to an unattended child in a parked vehicle, it must be remebered that NHTSA had permitted manufacturers to have until September 1, 1993 to install covers that would "childproof" the key-lock system override button. Thus, at least in vehicles produced before September 1, 1993, a child who pushed the override button could move the transmission shift lever in a parked vehicle with the key removed, regardless of whether or not the transmission shift lever had been properly positioned in the "Park" detent. More importantly, since the key-locking system requirement of FMVSS 114 only covers the situation where the ignition has been turned off by removal of the key, the possibility of vehicle movement addressed by the standard involves only unpowered rollaway, and arises only if the vehicle has been parked on a slanted surface without the parking brake having been set. Thus, the scenario envisioned by the revised standard involves even smaller potential for injuries due to inadvertent vehicle movement than the scenarios assessed by NHTSA when it evaluated the Barr petition which included, among other things, powered movement of unattended vehicles. We hope that you are in agreement with our view of the appropriate approach to FMVSS 114 compliance testing. Assuming this to be the case, we would appreciate your confirming this by return correspondence. We are available to discuss this matter with you at your convenience. |
|
ID: 000180cmcOpenMr. James W. Gilchrist Dear Mr. Gilchrist: This responds to your letter of August 25, 2002, requesting a waiver allowing a drivers seat to be moved in order to accommodate your son.In your letter you state that because of your sons tremendous size, " he does not fit in the drivers seat of any cars we can find. The drivers seat of the cars we have looked at need to be moved back several inches to gain the extra legroom he needs." You further state that dealerships will not move the drivers seat back because they claim relocation of the seat "is prohibited by federal regulations." As explained below, federal regulations do not prevent qualified dealers or repair businesses from moving the drivers seat rearward. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicable laws and regulations to you.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.; Vehicle Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing motor vehicles or equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) (49 U.S.C. 30122).NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.Several such exemptions have been promulgated in 49 CFR Part 595, but only portions of some FMVSSs are covered. Two standards are directly relevant to moving a drivers seat: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, may also be relevant if the sensor for the airbag is located under the drivers seat. Under Part 595, there is no exemption available from FMVSSs No. 207 and 210 in order to move a drivers seat as in your situation.This is because it may be possible for a repair business to move a seat in a manner that preserves compliance with those standards.There is an available exemption for FMVSS No. 208 under part 595 if the modifier cannot move the seat without taking the vehicle out of compliance with that standard.This exemption is only available to a repair business that has registered with NHTSA that it intends to use the Part 595 make inoperative exemption in modifying vehicles. As a practical matter, as long as the new holes drilled in the floor are of the same size as the original holes, the same bolts are used, and the floor is the same thickness (or compensation is made in that regard) the modifier can be confident that the vehicle still complies with FMVSS No. 207.If the upper anchorage for the shoulder belt must be moved after the seat is moved rearward, compliance with FMVSS No. 210 can be preserved by keeping the anchorage within the "acceptable range" shown in Figure 1 in the standard.We have included a copy of this figure along with the brochure, "Adapting Motor Vehicles for People with Disabilities," which explains this approach.This may be more problematic than preserving the FMVSS No. 207 compliance, depending on the vehicle chosen to be modified; therefore, you should consult the vehicle modifier before choosing the vehicle to modify. We caution that the work should be done by a business that is experienced in making vehicle modifications and that has registered to use the make inoperative exemptions.The vehicle to be modified should be chosen after consulting with that modifier to ensure that there is enough room to move the seat the amount required and that the upper anchorage for the shoulder belt can be relocated if necessary. I hope this information is helpful.If you have any other questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:207 |
2002 |
ID: 571-108 - outdoor exposure test - Sabic - 08-005252OpenMarketing Director, Lighting Sabic Innovative Plastics Two Towne Square Southfield, MI 48076 Dear Mr. Wilson: This responds to your letter regarding requirements for inner lenses in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you asked whether inner lenses are subject to certain performance requirements of the version of FMVSS No. 108 that are scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2009. The answer is that inner lenses are required to meet the haze test requirements, similar to the way they are in the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. In your letter, you state you seek confirmation that FMVSS No. 108 does not require plastic materials used for inner lenses to meet the performance requirements in S14.4.2.2.4 when they are covered by outer material meeting the requirements of that section and not exposed directly to sunlight. Neither the currently applicable version of FMVSS No. 108, nor the version of the standard that becomes effective on December 1, 2009 (hereinafter, the rewrite), supports that position.
For reference, paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 108 reads as follows: S5.1.2 Plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576 JUL91, except that: (a) Plastic lenses (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors) used for inner lenses or those covered by another material and not exposed directly to sunlight shall meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.3 and 4.2 of SAE J576 JUL91 when covered by the outer lens or other material; [emphasis added][1] . . . . We interpret this requirement as follows. The requirement in S5.1.2 which states that plastic materials shall conform to SAE J576 JUL91 is the general requirement. The subparagraphs ((a) through (g)), are exceptions to this requirement. Therefore, the exception described in subparagraph (a) requires plastic lenses used for inner lenses to meet the specifications of paragraphs 3.3 and 4.2 of SAE J576 JUL91 while covered by the outer lens. This is instead of being required to meet these specifications while directly exposed to sunlight.[2] The inner lenses are not, as you suggest, fully excluded from the general test requirements in S5.1.2. We believe that the relevant paragraph S14.4.2.2.4 in the rewrite is substantively identical. For reference, that paragraph reads as follows: S14.4.2.2.4 Performance requirements. Plastic lenses, other than those incorporating reflex reflectors, used for inner lenses or those covered by another material and not exposed directly to sunlight must meet the optical material test requirements when covered by the outer lens or other material. We interpret this paragraph to establish the same requirements as paragraph S5.1.2 and S5.1.2(a) in the current standard. With regard to plastic used for inner lenses, and not exposed directly to sunlight, they must meet the optical material test requirements when covered by the outer lens. This is the same as is currently required by FMVSS No. 108. You also provide an analysis as to why you believe that inner lenses are not required to be certified to the specifications of S5.1.2. We respond to that analysis below. In your letter, you state that in a 1970 final rule (35 FR 16840, October 31, 1970), NHTSA made clear that inner lenses would be considered to be protected when covered by an outer lens and not directly exposed to sunlight. We have reviewed the final rule at issue and have not found a relevant difference between that version and the current version. It too states that [p]lastic materials used as inner lenses and not exposed directly to sunlight shall meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.4 and 4.2 of SAE J576b when covered by the outer lens or other material.[3] Finally, we note you argued that the fact that inner lenses are protected is critical when applying the SAE Recommended Practice upon which the standard is based. We agree that the lenses you describe in this letter would be considered protected. However, merely because a lens is protected does not mean it is not subject to a weathering test. Instead, according to the SAE Recommended Practice referenced in FMVSS No. 108 (SAE J576 JUL91), protected lenses are subject to test requirements albeit less stringent requirements than exposed lenses (a 6-month weathering period, instead of 3 years). If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: November 6, 2009 Ref:
[1] For reference, paragraphs 3.3 and 4.2 of SAE Recommended Practice J576, Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts such as Lenses and Reflex Reflectors of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices, revised July 1991, relate to the Outdoor Exposure Tests and the After Outdoor Exposure requirements, respectively. SAE J576 has been incorporated by reference into FMVSS No. 108. [2] The language in paragraph 3.3 of SAE J576 JUL91 does not specify that protected inner lenses can be covered by the outer lens during the outdoor exposure tests. It specifies a shorter, but otherwise similar, outdoor exposure test than the one for exposed outer lenses. [3] 70 FR 16843. |
|
ID: nht91-7.24OpenDATE: December 2, 1991 FROM: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef -- Attorney, General Motors Legal Staff TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA COPYEE: Stephen R. Kratzke; Charles W. Babcock, Jr.; Robert A. Rogers; John E. Kromrei TITLE: General Motors Corporation; FMVSS 209, Section S4.6(b); Request for Interpretation ATTACHMT: Also attached to letter dated 12-20-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef (A38; Std. 209) TEXT: Enclosed is a request for interpretation of FMVSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, S4.6(b), as amended by the Final Rule published November 4, 1991 at Docket No. 74-14, Notice 72, 56 Fed. Reg. 56323. Specifically, General Motors Corporation (GM) seeks the agency's concurrence that it is permissible for manufacturers to continue to include the term "dynamically-tested" in the label required by S4.6(b) for seat belt assemblies not subject to FMVSS 209 S4.5(c). GM has also submitted a Petition for Reconsideration of the same Final Rule, a copy of which is attached. Should the agency concur with the analysis outlined in the enclosed request for interpretation, please disregard the petition. I appreciate your consideration of the enclosed request, and welcome the opportunity to work with you to resolve this issue. If you require further information in that regard, please feel free to call me.
ATTACHMENT December 2, 1991 Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration Nassif Building 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20590 Dear Mr. Rice: Re: General Motors Corporation; FMVSS 209, Section S4.6(b); Request for Interpretation The Final Rule included at Docket No. 74-14, Notice 72, 56 Fed. Reg. 56323 (November 4, 1991), deleted the phrase "dynamically-tested" from the label required by section S4.6(b) of FMVSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to make that section's label identical to the label required by FMVSS 209 S4.5(c). The purpose of this letter is to seek the agency's concurrence that it is permissible for General Motors Corporation (GM) to continue to include the phrase "dynamically-tested" on its labels for seat belt assemblies which are not subject to S4.5(c). BACKGROUND: The label addressed in S4.6(b) must be included on light truck and multipurpose passenger vehicle seat belt assemblies certified as complying With FMVSS 208 S4.6.1. Such seat belt assemblies are dynamically-tested manual belt assemblies. The rule currently requires subject seat belt assemblies to be marked or labeled: This DYNAMICALLY-TESTED seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right") in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)). S4.6(b) (Emphasis added). The label required by S4.5(c) must be included on seat belt assemblies which include load limiters. It requires subject seat belt assemblies to be marked or labeled: This seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right") in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)). S4.5(c). In the Preamble to the Final Rule, the agency stated: This rule clarifies the scope of the labeling requirement for crash tested manual belts and modifies that labeling requirement to make it identical to the labeling requirement for safety belts with load limiters. These amendments will improve the clarity of the labeling requirements and AVOID NEEDLESS BURDENS ON THE MANUFACTURERS. 56 Fed. Reg. 56323. (Emphasis added.) The amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. GM'S ANALYSIS: GM has released the part numbers for its 1993 model year production, and the seat belt assemblies affected by the amendment include the term "dynamically-tested" on the label. GM interprets the amendment to allow this, since the agency has, on a number of occasions, provided interpretations which indicate that manufacturers can alter label language without violating safety standards and regulations. For example, in a December 19, 1980 interpretation to Ford Motor Company, Mr. Frank Berndt concluded that Ford could alter a label required by FMVSS 213. He explained:
Your proposed revision DOES NOT MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN THE MEANING OF THE WARNING specified for the label. Since the proposed change is A MINOR VARIATION INTENDED TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE ... it is permitted. In another interpretation issued by Mr. Berndt, this one dated May 3, 1984, he explained to Nissan Research & Development, Inc., that a certification label that consists of two separate parts could be used as long as it "WILL NOT LEAD TO CONFUSION AND ... WILL SATISFY THE BASIC INTENT of Part 567." And in a series of interpretations on tire labeling requirements, the agency has consistently stated that additional information may be included, provided the additional language "DOES NOT OBSCURE OR CONFUSE THE MEANING OF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, OR OTHERWISE DEFEAT ITS PURPOSE." See, e.g., May 31, 1988 letter from Ms. Erika Z. Jones to Metzeler Motorcycle Tire; and May 2, 1980 letter from Stephen P. Wood to the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. GM's proposed inclusion of the term "dynamically-tested" in its seat belt labels falls within the agency's constraints on additional label language in each circumstance quoted above. The additional language does not substantively change the warning included in the label, and is a minor variation which clarifies that the restraint system included in the vehicle is dynamically tested. Nor will it obscure or confuse the message relayed by the label in any way. CONCLUSION: GM estimates that several hundred seat belt assembly part numbers (including production and service seat belt assemblies) would be affected by a requirement that GM exclude the term "dynamically-tested" from 1993 model year labels. As quoted above, the Final Rule is intended to "avoid needless burdens on manufacturers". The burden addressed there was the burden faced by manufacturers of seat belt assemblies subject to both S4.5(c) (i.e., equipped with load limiters) and S4.6(b). However, if interpreted to preclude the "dynamically-tested" language, the burden to GM to re-issue new parts for all of its affected assemblies (none of which include load limiters) would be considerable in both time and expense -- all to remove an accurately descriptive term from the label. In light of the agency's previous interpretations addressing additional language on required labels, GM seeks your concurrence on its conclusion that FMVSS 209 S4.6(b), as amended, does not preclude use of the term "dynamically-tested" in the label. Very truly yours, Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef Attorney DNV:cc Attachment c: Stephen R. Kratzke Charles W. Babcock, Jr. John E. Kromrei Robert A. Rogers
ATTACHMENT USG 2926 dated 12-4-91 from Robert A. Rogers (signature by F. Laux) to Jerry R. Curry regarding General Motors Corporation Docket 74-14; Notice 72 - Petition for Reconsideration of the Final Rule. (Text of USG omitted.) |
|
ID: nht92-8.17OpenDATE: March 26, 1992 FROM: Michael J. Sens -- Researcher, S.E.A., Inc. TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael J. Sens (A39; Std. 206; Part 571; Part 567) TEXT: By way of this letter, I am seeking an interpretation of FMVSS 206, 214, and 216 as they would pertain to a 1985 Jeep CJ-7. The Jeep CJ-7 was classified (it is no longer in production) by its manufacturer, American Motors Corporation, as a "sport-utility vehicle". The vehicle came with a soft top and a removable fiberglass top option. The side doors are easily removable. FMVSS 206, "Door Locks and Door Rentention Components," requires at S4. that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." It goes on to say, "However, components on folding doors, roll-up doors and doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors need not conform to this standard". My first question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7's side doors are easily attached and removed by design for operation in a doorless manner, is it exempt from conformity to FMVSS 206? FMVSS 214, "Side Door Strength," states at S2. that "this standard applies to passenger cars." The 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is defined by its manufacturer as a "sport-utility vehicle." This classification is not that of a "passenger car." My second question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is classified as a "sport-utility vehicle," does FMVSS 214 apply to it? FMVSS 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars," states at S3. that "This standard applies to passenger cars." After stating that it does not apply to vehicles that conform to the rollover test requirements of S5.3 of standard 208, it continues, "It also does not apply to convertibles." My third question is: since the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is classified as a "sports-utility vehicle" and is a convertible, does FMVSS 216 apply to it? Please find enclosed two views of the type vehicle under discussion. The 1985 CJ-7 shows the soft-top package with the top down and the side doors removed. Unfortunately, I do not have an illustration of the 1985 CJ-7 with the optional hard snap-on top. However, the 1981 CJ-7 model photograph enclosed is typical of how the 1980's CJ-7 line appeared with the optional top. Thank you in advance for your time and considerations on this issue. If you require additional information, do not hesitate to contact me. Attachment Photos and text pertaining to the 1981 and 1985 CJ-7 vehicles. (Text and graphics omitted) |
|
ID: nht93-6.43OpenDATE: September 21, 1993 FROM: Joe Takacs -- Director of Engineering, Kinedyne Corporation TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA TITLE: Ref: Final rule amending Standard No. 222 School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection FMVSS; Federal Register/Vol. 58, No. 170/Friday/ September 3, 1993/Rules and Regulations; Docket No. 90-05; Notice 5; 49 CFR Part 571 TEXT: Based on the above referenced document that denied Kinedyne Corporation's petition but clarified the intent of implementing FMVSS 209 requirements for wheelchair securement systems, we would appreciate your comments on our interpretation of the final rule: 1. The webbing used in Kinedyne Corporation's wheelchair strap assemblies is industrial type 1.00 inch or 2.00 inch wide polyester webbing that meet the strength and other requirements of S4.2 of FMVSS No. 209. Therefore, this webbing is acceptable for use on wheelchair securement systems per FMVSS No.222. 2. The hardware used on Kinedyne Corporation's wheelchair strap assemblies are industrial type 1.00 inch or 2.00 inch overcenter, ratchet or cam buckles; wire hooks; snap hooks and track fittings which meet the strength and other requirements, as specified, in S4.3 of FMVSS No. 209. Therefore, these fittings are acceptable for use on wheelchair securement systems per FMVSS No. 222. Industrial type webbing and hardware used in our wheelchair securement strap assemblies have been successfully used in wheelchair securement applications for approximately 20 years. We trust that these same assemblies meet the requirements of Amended FMVSS No. 222. We would appreciate a reply within the next 30 days. Thank you for your assistance. |
|
ID: 22526.ztvOpen Mr. Benjamin J. Freeman Dear Mr. Freeman: This is in reply to your email of December 26, 2000, asking about the status of military vehicles for spare parts. You have been offered 30 trucks of model years 1990-96. You state that "as long as I have all engines and transmissions removed and have the remaining vehicles meet all standards for that year the vehicle was manufactured, FMVSS. Or as I thought of mainly offering the spare parts as upgradeable (newer) replacement core components to others like myself with older Land Rovers." We are not quite clear as to whether the military trucks are Land Rovers or other types of vehicles. We are also unsure whether you would be importing these parts. Nevertheless, we can offer some guidance. Vehicles manufactured pursuant to U.S. military contracts are exempt from the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Military vehicles that are not manufactured pursuant to U.S. military contracts are not exempt from the FMVSS and, if they are imported, they are subject to the same requirements as apply to the importation of non-military motor vehicles. Motor vehicles that are imported for resale and that were not originally manufactured to comply with the FMVSS (such as a Land Rover manufactured for the British armed forces) can only be imported through an entity that our agency has recognized as a Registered Importer. Items of motor vehicle equipment may be imported provided that those items that are subject to one of the FMVSS comply with the applicable standard and are so certified (e.g., brake hoses must be stamped DOT as certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 106, but brake discs or drums do not have to be certified or to comply with any standard, since no FMVSS applies to them). Used components of military vehicles may be imported and sold as replacement parts for non-military vehicles, subject to the compliance/certification restriction mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, if a vehicle is disassembled, its component parts sent to the United States, and reassembled after importation, or if a vehicle is assembled from imported parts, we consider that the FMVSS that apply to it are those in effect as of the date of its latest assembly regardless of the age of the parts. If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack |
2001 |
ID: nht93-4.5OpenDATE: May 20, 1993 FROM: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc. TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel, Rulemaking, NHTSA COPYEE: David Elias; William Fan TITLE: Re: 49 CFR 571.206, FMVSS No. 206; Door Locks and Door Retention Components; Request for Interpretation ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from John Womack to Karl-Heinz Ziwica (A41; Std. 206) TEXT: Recently, William Scully of my staff and our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, met with David Elias of your staff and William Fan of Rulemaking to discuss our interpretation of 49 CFR 571.206, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, with respect to a new design door latch and lock system that BMW is planning to introduce on a new car line in the United States in the near future. At that time, Mr. Scully also demonstrated the new system on a modified production BMW passenger car. We hereby request the agency's confirmation of our interpretation that the operation of BMW's new system conforms to the applicable provisions of FMVSS 206.
FMVSS 206 REQUIREMENTS S4.1.3 DOOR LOCKS. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means inside the vehicle. S4.1.3.1 SIDE FRONT DOOR LOCKS. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. S4-1.3.2 SIDE REAR DOOR LOCKS. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged, both the outside and inside door handles or other latch releases controls shall be inoperative.
DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATION OF THE BMW SYSTEM The inside door handle operates as a door lock release AND SUBSEQUENTLY as a door latch release. The first complete activation of the recessed handle (a pulling motion) releases the door locking mechanism. The second activation (another pulling motion) operates the door latch release control.
WHY THE BMW DOOR LOCK SYSTEM COMPLIES WITH FMVSS 206 -- When the rear door locking mechanism is engaged, the door handles ARE INOPERATIVE.
-- After the door locking mechanism is disengaged (by activating the common door lock/door latch release handle), the door handle BECOMES OPERATIVE.
OCCUPANT PROTECTION INTENDED BY FMVSS 206, AND HOW BMW'S DOOR LOCK SYSTEM PROVIDES SUCH PROTECTION -- Ejection * BMW's system affords even more protection against inadvertent opening of doors than that required by FMVSS 206 for front doors. -- Inadvertent Opening by Children * All BMW products are fitted with rear door child locks (which deactivate operation of the inside door handles) as standard equipment, and when such child locks are engaged, the rear doors CANNOT BE OPENED FROM THE INSIDE. * Restrained children cannot reach the rear door handle. * Two separate actions are required to open the rear doors (when the child locks are not engaged), just as in a conventional door lock and door latch release system. * The door lock release of most current conventional systems is placed immediately adjacent to the door latch release.
OTHER ADVANTAGES OF BMW'S DOOR LOCK SYSTEM In addition to the convenience provided to the vehicle occupants, BMW's door lock system affords easier exit after a crash, and is less vulnerable to damage during side impact. For these reasons, BMW believes its new system fully complies with the applicable provisions of FMVSS 206, while providing distinct advantages to its customers. If you have any questions about this request or the operation of the new BMW door locking system, please contact Mr. William Scully at (201) 573-2069. |
|
ID: 22691.drnOpen Mr. Robert L. Cumpstone Dear Mr. Cumpstone: This responds to your letter asking whether a Connecticut requirement for four emergency exits per side for a bus operating in that State is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. As explained below, the answer is yes. Connecticut may not refuse to register buses that comply with FMVSS No. 217 on the basis of the State's push out window requirement. You wrote to us after a private business tried to register a new 56-passenger touring bus in your State. Apparently, the bus did not pass a State inspection. In your letter, you stated that the bus did not pass inspection because the ... motor bus type vehicle manufacturer has changed the configuration of its vehicles, which eliminates the number of push out windows to less than the number required by the end user for a vehicle to be placed in motor bus service under our user requirements. Specifically, you provided a copy of the Connecticut "user standard that applies to our regulated motor bus operators," which states in part: All buses equipped with push-out windows and no emergency door ... and seating over thirty-seven adult passengers shall have at least four such windows on each side. As you note, this "user standard" is not identical to the emergency exit requirements for buses established by FMVSS No. 217. The issue therefore is whether the State safety standard for four windows on each side of a new bus (seating more than 37 passengers) is consistent with Federal law. Under 49 U.S.C. Section 30103(b), Preemption: (1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter [49 U.S.C. Sections 30101 et seq.], a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter .... There is a "motor vehicle safety standard in effect under this chapter" that is "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle" as the State law, namely FMVSS No. 217. That standard establishes requirements applicable to the same aspect of safety performance; i.e., bus emergency exits. Unlike the State requirement, FMVSS No. 217 does not specify a number of emergency window exits. Paragraph S5.2.2.1 of the standard specifies that non-school buses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus. At least 40 percent of the total required area of unobstructed openings, computed in the above manner, shall be provided on each side of a bus. In determining the total unobstructed openings provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area, shall be credited with more than 3,458 square centimeters of the total area requirement. NHTSA safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30112.) Thus, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Connecticut could not establish a bus exit requirement not identical to that in FMVSS No. 217 that would apply to the manufacture or sale of new buses in Connecticut. However, NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Connecticut is not required to impose operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on State operation requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State. (1) Thus, Connecticut may not refuse to register or allow the operation of buses that comply with FMVSS No. 217 on the basis of the state's more stringent push out window requirement. This conclusion is not inconsistent with the statements made in my November 18, 1996 letter to Ms. Betsy Dittemore of the Iowa Department of Public Safety. That letter addressed an Iowa operating restriction, with respect to the light transmittance of vehicle windows, that was less stringent than the Federal requirement. Unlike the letter to Dittemore, the Connecticut user standard is more stringent than the FMVSS. The more stringent Connecticut user standard conflicts with and frustrates the scheme of Federal law because it prevents the use of vehicles that comply with the FMVSS. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:217
1 |
2001 |
ID: nht78-1.7OpenDATE: 12/05/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Blue Bird Body Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: December 5, 1978 NOA-30 Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. BOX 937 Fort Valley, Georgia Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your September 20, 1978, letter asking whether a particular bus body joint is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. The joint in question is the connection of two body panels under which runs a continuous body member for the entire length of the bus body. Standard No. 221 establishes strength requirements for body panel joints which are defined as "the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component..." Body panel is further defined to mean "a body component used on the exterior or interior surface to enclose the bus' occupant space." The exterior body panels to which you refer are involved in the enclosure of the bus' occupant space, and accordingly, their connection is a joint falling within the requirements of the standard. The fact that an underlying body member runs under the panels perpendicular to the joint in no way excepts the joint from the requirements of the standard. Your analogy of these panels to rub rails whose joints are not tested according to the requirements of the standard is inappropriate. Rub rails are added on to the exterior of a bus over the body panels. All parts of the rub rails fall outside the exterior skin of a bus, and therefore, they serve no purpose in enclosing occupant space. The panels to which you refer, on the other hand, are the primary, sidewall components enclosing bus' occupant space.
You ask how the agency will test this joint since it has a body structure member that runs perpendicular to it. You suggest that the agency cut an appropriate size specimen of the panels' joint, and underlying body member and pull one panel and the body member against the other panel and the body member. The agency disagrees. This procedure would not test the strength of the joint, since the stresses imposed by the test would be carried by the continuous body member being pulled against itself. The agency tests such joints by cutting a specimen of the panels that includes a portion of the underlying body member. The ends of the body member are then removed to allow the testing device to clamp the two body panels that are to be tested. However, rivets or other bonding materials that connect the panels and the body member at the joint remain intact. This is what is intended by the standard's requirement that the underlying body structure be included within the joint strength test. Leaving the underlying structure intact at the joint permits a test of the joint's strength that closely approximates the actual strength of the joint as it is installed in a completed bus. Responding finally to your last comment that the agency by its testing technique is hindering the development of integrally constructed bodies, the NHTSA disagrees. The agency believes that the strength of the entire bus body is dependent upon the strength of its parts. Each joint must be examined independently to ensure that it is strong enough to withstand accident forces. Since those forces vary with the nature of any impact and can result in severe stress on one small section of a bus, it is appropriate to measure the strength of individual joints. However, the agency's testing technique as outlined above considers the effect of the underlying bus structure thus encouraging the development of integrally constructed bodies. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel September 20, 1978 Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 Reference: 1) Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby, April 26, 1976 N40-30 Dear Mr. Levin: The purpose of this letter is to seek an interpretation on two questions: 1. Whether a particular area on our bus body is a joint subject to FMVSS 221 and, 2. What constitutes a joint specimen for testing to determine compliance with FMVSS 221. These questions arose recently during tests at Mobility Systems and Equipment Company under contract to NHTSA No. DOT-HS-7-01670. These issues must be resolved for future compliance testing both by Blue Bird Body Company and NHTSA. The questions are dealt with independently below. 1. The area in question is circled on the enclosed photograph which shows the basic location on the body. The most basic issue is that this should not even be considered a joint. As shown in the attached sketch 41, the alledged joint is only skin over a continous, one piece, 16 gauge structural member which runs the full length of the body parallel to the direction of force application. Even if the skin panels were removed, the body would be fully enclosed beneath them by the solid one piece structural member. The skin in this case in analogous to the rub rails in reference 1 wherein it states that "...the rub rails... are not themselves considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and are therefore not considered body components for the purposes of the requirements." We therefore ask for confirmation that the area shown in the enclosed photograph, and represented by sketch #1 is not a joint. 2. Irrespective of this basic issue, for this particular joint however, there are other questions which must be resolved that apply to all joints. Therefore, even though we do not agree that the particular area in question is subject to the requirements of FMVSS 221, the remainder of this letter is written as though it were a joint so that the other issues can be resolved. The question is what should be gripped and pulled, in order to test a joint? In other words, what constitutes a joint specimen? Our interpretation is that, as defined in the enclosed simplified sketch #2, parts 1 and 3 should be gripped on one end of the specimen and parts 2 and 3 should be gripped on the other end of the specimen. We have arrived at this conclusion through the following analysis of FMVSS 221: S 6.3.1 says "Grip the joint specimen on opposite sides of the joint..." Although "joint specimen" is not explicitly defined in S 4, Definitions, it is implicitly defined in S 6.1, Preparation of the test specimen. This says "...cut a test specimen that consists of any randomly selected 8-inch segment of the joint, together with a portion of the bus body whose dimensions to the extent permitted by the size of the joined parts, are those specified in Figure 1, ..." The underlined portion above tells us we must, in cutting the specimen from the body, cut parts 1, 2 and 3 as defined in the enclosed sketch. Indeed, because of the integral nature of the way parts 1 and 2 are assembled to part 3, it would be impossible not to include part 3 in cutting the specimen from the body. Therefore, the assembly of parts 1, 2 and 3 constitute the joint specimen referred to in S 6.3.1 for the particular joint under consideration. An explanation of how parts 1, 2 and 3 are assembled together is in order at this point. Parts 1 and 2 are fastened to part 3 not only at the "alleged body panel joint" but continuously along the length of the body by rivet row A, making a continuously integral assembly of part 3 to parts 1 and 2. Therefore, the strength of the body panel joint in question is meaningless without considering the strength of part 3. Part 3 is a continuous structural member running the full length of the body. Therefore, "failure" of the alleged body panel joint in question cannot occur without failure of rivet row A and part 3. The issue involved here is more than the simple resolution of how to test one particular joint segment on one manufacturer's bus body or what constitutes a joint specimen. It involves the basic economic incentive or disincentive the NHTSA is creating for manufacturers to build stronger, integrally assembled body structures. NHTSA briefly touched on this fact in the preamble to FMVSS 221 in the January 27, 1976 issue of the Federal Register by acknowledging comments stating that manufacturers could take the approach to FMVSS 221 of weakening the overall body structure in order to lower the required joint strength. This approach is very possible since FMVSS 221 does not set an absolute strength requirement but rather a relative strength requirement; i.e. 60% of the weakest joined body panel. If the NHTSA does not agree with the interpretations outlined above, it will be establishing a policy which will discourage manufacturers from designing strong, integrally constructed bodies, and encourage them toward the most cost effective means of meeting the letter of FMVSS 221 regardless of total body strength. For these reasons then, we look forward to your early confirmation of: 1. The alleged joint in question is not for the purposes of FMVSS 221, and 2. What constitutes a joint specimen. Thank you. Very truly yours, W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services |
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.