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: 1983-1.9OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 01/28/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Velvac, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Jan 28 1983
NOA-30
Mr. Robert R. Brester Velvac, Inc. 2900 South 160th Street New Berlin, Wisconsin 53151
Dear Mr. Brester:
This responds to your November 18 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office. In that letter, you asked whether certain heavy duty trucks may have installed on each side of the vehicle two mirrors each of 25 square inches surface area. The dual mirrors would be mounted in a common bracket with a gap between the mirrors.
The language of FMVSS 111 clearly envisions that there shall be a single mirror of at least 50 square inches of surface area on each side of the vehicle. Section 7.1 of the standard provides that such trucks must have exterior mirrors "each with not less than 50 in2 of reflective surface...." (Emphasis added.) Further, the agency questions whether the performance of the dual mirror would be equivalent to that of a single mirror. For example, images could temporarily be lost in the gap between the two mirrors, potentially presenting a hazard to the driver. Further, the mirrors could have slightly different orientations in the common mounting, possibly misleading the driver as to the speed and location of an object viewed in the mirrors. Therefore, we conclude that the split system does not comply with FMVSS 111.
If you have further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
November 18, 1982
Mr. Roger Fairchild National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 Room 5219 United States Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Fairchild,
I am writing you this letter in response to a phone conversation I had with Mr. Kevin Cavey, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards in regards to compliance with F.M.V.S.S. 111 using a flat mirror split system.
Specifically, I addressed the question to Mr. Cavey, "Will two flat mirrors mounted on a common bracket with a combined square area meeting current F.M.V.S.S. specifications be equivalent to a single flat mirror?" (see example).
FLAT MIRROR
**INSERT** Would this be acceptable under the current FMVSS 111? Mr. Cavey said he is not in the position to comment on this matter verbally and that I should contact you in writing. Please give this matter your prompt attention as we have a customer desiring to purchase this split system to eliminate a blind spot that is caused by one large mirror. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at 1-414-786-0706. Sincerely, Robert R. Brester-Chief Engineer c.c. W. Sandham R. Hosmer |
|
ID: 20391.ogmOpenMr. Gil De Laat Dear Mr. De Laat: This responds to your letter asking for our interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, Seating systems, as it applies to the seat belt web guide attached to the seatback of a rear center seat. I apologize for the delay in our response. You describe the web guide as a plastic extrusion that forms a loop to guide seat belt webbing. Your letter further states that the guide does not have any structural benefit for the purposes of seat or seat belt performance, but instead acts to position the seat belt for user comfort. You ask that we provide our opinion of the applicability of S4.2 of FMVSS No. 207 to the seat belt guide. FMVSS No. 207 is intended to ensure that seats and their attachments are strong enough not to fail as a result of "forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact" (S1). S4.2 sets forth the general performance requirements for occupant seats and specifies that a seat shall withstand certain forces in a forward direction (S4.2.(a)), certain forces in a rearward direction (S4.2.(b)), and certain forces applied to the seatback (S4.2(d)). In addition, if a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat, the seat shall simultaneously withstand the loads specified in S4.2.(a) or (b) and the belt anchorage loads of S4.2 of FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages. We assume your question is not whether the seat would be subject to S4.2, which it undoubtedly is, but rather whether the addition of the seat belt webbing guide to the seat back requires that the seat be tested in accordance with the requirements of S4.2(c). We note that S4.2(c) applies in those instances where a seat belt is "attached" to the seat. The use of a webbing guide that is permanently attached to the seat raises the question of whether such a guide is an "attachment" for the purposes of S4.2(c). Your letter states that the web guide "does not have any structural benefit for the purposes of seat or seat belt performance, but rather acts to position the seat belt webbing for user comfort." Under the conditions you describe, it is our opinion that the web guide is not an "attachment" of the seat belt assembly to the seat for the purposes of FMVSS No. 207. A seat that has no seat belt anchorage attached to it will not experience the load from the seat belt in a crash. You have represented that the web guide serves no structural purpose and will not transfer seat belt loads to the seat itself. Since the seat will not be loaded in a crash by the forces generated by the safety belt, it is not necessary that the seat be capable of withstanding the load from the belt. Thus, the use of the web guide you describe does not require that the seat be subjected to the seat belt anchorage loads of FMVSS No. 210. I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253. Sincerely, |
2000 |
ID: 21015.ogmOpenMr. Murray West Dear Mr. West: This responds to your letter requesting information about modifying the seat back in your new Ford Escort. I apologize for the delay in our response. You indicate that the angle of the seatback is uncomfortable for you and that you wish to have the seat modified so that the seat back would be perpendicular to the seat cushion. Representatives of the dealer who sold the car to you have indicated that it would be illegal for them to modify the seat in the manner you request. You ask that you be provided with the statutes or regulations which make modifying the existing seat illegal. We would like to explain that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to assure that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems (49 CFR 571.207; copy enclosed), sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as your Ford Escort. FMVSS No. 207 does not contain any requirements that specify that the seat back must be within a certain range of angles to the seat back. The standard does, however, require that seats and seat backs meet certain strength requirements. Any modifications to the seat that would alter its original design could affect the seat's ability to meet these strength requirements. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, sets forth certain performance requirements for frontal crash protection. Modifying the seat back angle in the manner you describe in your letter may have an impact on the ability of the seat belt and air bag to protect the driver in a crash. We do not know if modifying the adjustment mechanism on your seat to make the back perpendicular to the seat cushion would affect the seat's compliance with FMVSS No. 207 or No. 208 and how such a modified seat would perform in a crash. You may wish to ask the manufacturer of your vehicle what effect modifying the seat back angle would have on its ability to meet FMVSS No. 207 or No. 208 as well as the seat's performance in a crash. If the seat back angle can be changed in the way that you describe without affecting the safety performance of the vehicle and its compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the dealer would not be violating the "make inoperative" provisions described above by modifying the seat. If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
2000 |
ID: 571-108 - outdoor exposure test - Koito - 05-006676OpenMr. Kiminori Hyodo Deputy General Manager, Regulations & Certification Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 4-8-3, Takanawa Minato-ku Tokyo Japan Dear Mr. Hyodo: This responds to your recent letter, in which you asked whether it would be necessary to carry out a three-year, outdoor exposure test on a new combination of plastic lens and coating material under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter stated that you plan to use two existing types of polycarbonate materials, each of which independently meets the requirements of S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 (i.e., Material A with a coating, and Material B without a coating). However, we understand that you now intend to combine these materials, such that Material A is used as an inner lens without a coating, and Material B is used as an outer lens with the same coating that had been applied to Material A. In response to your question, FMVSS No. 108 does not specifically require manufacturers to conduct testing, but it is the manufacturers responsibility to produce a product that complies with all applicable requirements of our standard when tested in accordance with the standard, and to properly certify compliance. 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. NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). We note further that the agencys safety standards specify the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA follows the test procedures and conditions applicable and in effect at the time of certification when conducting its compliance testing. A manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that its product complies with applicable standards when tested in accordance with NHTSA procedures. A manufacturer may choose a valid means other than NHTSA performance test procedures for evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified by the standard and to provide a basis for its certification of compliance. If the agency has reason to believe that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard(s). If in fact the vehicle or equipment does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard when tested according to procedures specified by the standard, the manufacturer will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer. In addition, the manufacturer will be subject to civil penalties, unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care in the design and manufacture of the product to ensure compliance, that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standard(s) (49 U.S.C. 30115(a) and 30165). This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute reasonable care in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. As you are aware, the requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, which provides in relevant part: S5.1.2 Plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576 [Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J576, Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts Such as Lenses and Reflex Reflectors of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices] 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; (b) After the outdoor exposure test, the haze and loss of surface luster of plastic materials (other than those incorporating reflex reflectors) used for outer lenses shall not be greater than 30 percent haze as measured by ASTM D 1003-92, Haze and Luminous Transmittance of Transparent Plastic; . . . (g) All outdoor exposure tests shall be 3 years in duration, whether the material is exposed or protected. Accelerated weathering procedures are not permitted. We note that neither SAE J576 nor Standard No. 108 specifically requires use of a coating. Thus, the standard sets forth the test that NHTSA follows in conducting compliance testing. Specifically, under SAE J576 (incorporated by reference in FMVSS No. 108), the agency will subject plastic materials used for optical parts to an unaccelerated, three-year outdoor exposure test. In short, Koito must ensure that its lamps as manufactured conform to all applicable requirements of FMVSS No 108, including that the plastic materials meet the exposure test requirements under S5.1.2. Again, our standards do not compel manufacturers to test the motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that they produce under NHTSAs test procedures, although many choose to do so in order to provide a basis for their certification. However, if the agency subjected the lamp in question to compliance testing, the lamps plastic materials would need to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, as certified. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel
Dated: October 4, 2005 Ref: Standard No. 108 |
|
ID: 05-009139drn-2OpenDr. Jane van Tilborg Dear Dr. van Tilborg: This responds to your inquiry related to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids (set forth in Volume 49 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)) (49 CFR 571.116). You noted that the standard has a section related to labeling of brake fluid containers. While you recognize that this requirement applies in the United States, you asked if we could advise you about the situation for the "rest of the world". Specifically, you indicated that you may wish to "claim performance specifications FMVSS 116 DOT 3, DOT 4, etc". outside the United States, while meeting the local national labeling requirements but not the FMVSS No. 116 labeling requirements. We regret that we cannot advise you about the brake fluid requirements of countries other than the United States. We are concerned, however, that to the extent that you make claims about performance related to our standard, that the claims not be misleading. This would be a concern wherever the brake fluid is sold, and we assume that it would be a concern to other countries as well as to us. If the brake fluid meets all of the applicable requirements of FMVSS 116 other than labeling, you might include a statement to that effect on the label. Also, you must not certify that brake fluid meets FMVSS 116 if it does not meet all of the standards requirements. In addition to concerns related to the country in which the brake fluid is sold, purchasers might rely on such certification to import the brake fluid into the United States. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:116 |
2006 |
ID: nht88-1.15OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 01/13/88 FROM: L.F. ROLLIN -- COMMANDER COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES SECTION DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL TO: THOMAS A. COZ -- LAW DEPARTMENT NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO THOMAS A. COZ -- NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 04/28/89 FROM THOMAS A. COZ -- NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES TO NHTSA, RE HIGH MOUNTED TRAILER STOP LAMPS/TURN SIGNALS; OCC 3469 TEXT: Dear Mr. Coz: This is in response to your December 30, 1987, letter requesting an "Experimental Devices Permit" for high mounted stop lamp/turn signals which are installed on some North American Van Lines trailers. No experimental device permit is necessary since these supplemental lamps are currently permitted by the California Vehicle Code. However, these lamps are in violation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 (FMVSS 108). FMVSS 108 specifies mounti ng heights for brake lights (not less than 15 inches nor more than 72 inches) and turn signals (not less than 15 inches nor more than 83 inches) above the level roadway surface. Both the trailer specifications and the trailer picture you provided show t he lamps to be mounted above the mounting heights specified in FMVSS 108. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) confirmed that all brake lights and turn signals installed by a manufacturer of vehicles must conform to the FMVSS 108 mounting requirements. NHTSA does not differentiate between required or "su pplemental" lights on trailers. The FMVSS 108 restrictions on mounting do not apply to equipment installed by the owner. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Ellis Hirst our staff engineer for clarification. Very truly yours, |
|
ID: nht95-2.18OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: April 3, 1995 FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: David T. Holland -- President, Europa International, Inc. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/24/95 LETTER FROM DAVID T. HOLLAND TO MARY VERSAILLES TEXT: Dear Mr. Holland: This responds to your letter of February 24, 1995, regarding the passive restraint phase-in requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether an importer which "imports Canadian specificat ion MPV's (multipurpose passenger vehicles), such as the Chrysler Minivan, that meets (sic) the MPV passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 . . . . can count these vehicles toward the required percentage." Section S4.2.5.6.1(a) states, "(a) vehicle that is imported shall be attributed to the importer." Thus, to determine compliance with the passive restraint phase-in requirements, Europa International should (1) count all trucks, buses, and mpv's with a gr oss vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, (2) count all such vehicles which meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208, and (3) determine if that class of vehicles is a sufficient percentage of the first class of vehicles to satisfy the phase-in requirements. However, as Mary Versailles of my staff cautioned you on the phone, some manufacturers are installing European (face) air bags but are not certifying that vehicles with such air bags meet the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208. Therefore, you should verify that any vehicle with an air bag is in fact certified to FMVSS 208's passive restraint requirements. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht74-3.33OpenDATE: 09/04/74 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 1974, asking whether a new model Bunny Bear child seat ("Sweetheart Seat II") must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when the seat is used as an infant carrier. We received from Mr. Samuel Linden of Bunny Bear the tentative instruction sheet which will be furnished with this device. According to these instructions, the device is to be installed laterally across the vehicle seat when used as an infant carrier ("for children weighing 15 lbs. or less and unable to sit up alone") and in the traditional forward-facing mode when used as a child seating system ("by children capable of sitting upright by themselves, and weighing between 15 lbs. and 40 lbs., and whose height is between 24 inches and 40 inches"). The vehicle lap belt is installed differently in each mode, and an adjustment must also be made to the frame when converting from one mode to another. We would not consider the device, when used as an infant carrier, to be a child seating system under Standard No. 213. It would consequently not be required to meet the standard's requirements when installed in that mode. Although S4.11.1 of Standard No. 213 does require that a child seating system in which the attitude of the child is adjustable meet the standard's requirements at each designed adjustment position, we believe the differences in installation for this Bunny Bear device are sufficiently extensive that the modification to an infant carrier is bona fide, and not merely a different adjustment position. We are concerned, however, about the possibility that users may attempt to recline the device (by loosening and adjusting the wing nuts in the base) when the device is attached to the vehicle in the forward-facing position. Although this adjustment position is not mentioned in the instruction sheet, it seems from the sheet that such an adjustment is possible. The instruction on page 1 of the sheet reading, "[a]lways loosen the lap belt attached to the child seat when changing from one position to another," adds some further ambiguity on this point. Consequently, we believe that the seat must meet the requirements of Standard No. 213 when reclined in the forward-facing position unless the instruction sheet is changed to clearly indicate that the device should not be reclined when attached in that position. In addition, because the device has a dual use, we believe the proposed certification statement appears on the first page of the instruction sheet is misleading. It implies that the device meets applicable Federal standards in all configurations, although no standards exist for infant carriers. Accordingly, the statement should reflect the fact that no Federal standards exist for infant carriers. Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. July 25, 1974 Richard Dyson Acting Chief Counsel -- NHTSA The purpose of this letter is to request clarification of the applicability of FMVSS 213. For several years, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. has provided technical consulting and testing services to Bunny Bear, Inc. of Everett, Massachusetts, among other child seat manufacturers. Bunny Bear is now in the process of introducing to the market an unusual new child seat. In accordance with its customary practice, Bunny Bear has solicited BBN's opinion as to whether its new seat meets all requirements of FMVSS 213. The new seat is convertible from a semirecumbent infant carrier to an upright child seat, and is designed to eliminate the need for purchasing two different restraint systems as a child grows. In its child seat mode, it is a conventional forward-facing child seat. In its infant carrier mode, however, it is installed so that the child sits in a semirecumbent position with its spine oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the automobile. The seat label and instructions state explicitly that it is to be used in the semirecumbent, sideways-facing mode only for infants weighing less than 15 lbs and unable to sit upright by themselves. S2 of FMVSS 213 states that "This standard does not apply . . . to systems for use only by recumbent or semirecumbent children." S4.11.1(b) requires that "A child seating system in which the attitude of the child is adjustable pursuant to the instructions provided in accordance with paragraph S4.2 shall meet these requirements at each designed adjustment position." The question that concerns us here is whether FMVSS 213 is applicable to this child seat when it is used in its semirecumbent, sideways-facing mode. The answer to this question appears to hinge upon whether the two modes of seat use are viewed as separate types of seating systems or merely as different adjustment positions. We believe that the semirecumbent mode does not represent a different adjustment position as that term is used in S4.11.1(b), but rather represents a conversion of the seat for use exclusively by semirecumbent infants weighing less than 15 lbs. This conversion will occur only once, when the child's weight reaches 15 lbs; the seat will not be adjusted back and forth from one mode to the other. On the basis of this reasoning, we have advised Bunny Bear that we do not believe that FMVSS 213 applies to the seat when used in its semi-recumbent sideways-facing mode. We would appreciate your comments regarding the correctness of our interpretation, since, if it is not correct, we must devise some method of conducting performance tests for the seat when used in its infant carrier mode. Duncan C. Miller Samuel Linden, Bunny Bear, Inc. Bunny Bear, Inc. August 14, 1974 Micheal Peskoe National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. As you know, Dr. Duncan Miller of Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. has contacted you on behalf of Bunny Bear, Inc. requesting clarification of the applicability of FMVSS 213 to our new car seat when used in the semirecumbent infant carrier position and placed laterally on the automobile seat. Dr. Miller has asked me to send you a copy of our instructions to help you in your evaluation of the child seating system. Enclosed you will find a copy of the instruction booklet which, of course, will not be printed until the final clarification has been made. This is merely a copy of the proof. The information will illustrate exactly how this item is used. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Samuel Linden Executive Vice President cc: Duncan Miller Bunny Bear AMERICA'S OLDEST MANUFACTURER OF NURSERY NECESSITIES SINCE 1918 NURSERY LANE EVERETT, MASS. 02149 INSTRUCTIONS THE SWEETHEART SEAT II (trademark) THIS SEAT IS DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Please read thoroughly and follow carefully all instructions so that all safety features designed and built into this seat will be effective. The certification label attached to the back or bottom contains important information which must be followed for proper use of this child's seat. Please do not remove this label Use only in passenger cars at seating positions having an adult seat belt which can be used as per instructions given inside. NOT FOR USE AT SEATING POSITIONS WHERE AN AUTO SHOULDER BELT IS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE AUTO LAP BELT. WE RECOMMEND THAT THIS CHILD SEAT BE USED IN THE CENTER OF THE REAR SEAT WHENEVER POSSIBLE. THIS WILL PROVIDE INCREASED PROTECTION FOR THE CHILD. Always loosen the lap belt attached to the child seat when changing from one position to another. Be sure shoulder straps go through bottom slot in seat back when used in infant carrier position and through the top slot when used in the full upright position. (See instructions inside). The strap in back of the child seat connecting the top and bottom frames, should always be centered on the bottom frame. It spreads the distribution of impact forces when child seat is used in upright position. FASTENING CHILD INTO INFANT CARRIER OR UPRIGHT POSITION 1. When used in infant carrier position, the shoulder harnesses should come through the bottom slot in the child seat back. (See Diagram C-1) 2. When used in the upright sitting position, the shoulder harnesses should come through the top slot in the child seat back. (Diagram C-1). To change shoulder straps from one slot to another simply pull ends of shoulder straps through adjustment slides -- one on each shoulder strap -- releasing them from the harness system. Then pull straps back through the slot they are in and thread through other slot back to front. Rethread ends of web through slots of eye loops and then through adjustment slides - reconnecting the harness system. (Diagram C-2 & C-3). (Graphics omitted) 3. With snap buckle released and 5 point harness system loose, place child in infant carrier or in upright position. (Diagram C-4). 4. Place the shoulder straps one over each shoulder of the child. (C-4). 5. Bring each end of lap belt together so that the eyes of the metal loops - one on each end of the lap belt -- overlap on top of each other, aligning the holes. (Diagram C-5). 6. Bring tongue of snap buckle through the eyes of the metal loops and snap together securely. (Diagram C-5). 7. All belts have adjustment slides (C2). Adjust lap belt and crotch strap to fit around child's hips and lap, not around child's waist. Adjust straps to fit as snugly as possible and still be comfortable Leave one inch of space between shoulder straps and child's chest. (C6). 8. Bring ends of all straps back through slides for added locking strength. (Diagram C-3). (Graphics omitted) |
|
ID: GF001032OpenMr. John A. Labalestra 1712 Tatum Street Saint Paul , MN 55113 Dear Mr. Labalestra: This responds to your letter concerning a device which you intend to market for installation on motor vehicles. You requested a ruling on my business project. As explained below, we do not provide rulings or approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, this letter will explain which Federal statutes and regulations may apply to your device. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. While you did not provide a detailed description of your device, we understand that it consists of a hi-resolution camera attached in the upper right hand portion of the windshield. The camera is connected to a monitor installed in the vehicle instrument panel (akin to monitors used in vehicles equipped with navigation systems). The purpose of the device is to provide an enhanced image of the road ahead and its immediate surroundings. NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to your product. However, installation of your device may affect a vehicles compliance with several safety standards. If the device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSSs. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle, prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (see 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business, the entity would not be required to recertify the vehicle, but could not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS (see 49 U.S.C. 30122). In order to determine how installation of your product could affect compliance with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each FMVSS (available online at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/). However, there are two standards of which you should be particularly aware. First, we note that S5.3.5 of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and displays, specifies operational requirements on sources of illumination within the passenger compartment in order to prevent glare visible to the driver. Although your letter does not indicate the type of output associated with your device, any monitor or display is required to control glare. Second, you should assess your products effect upon a vehicles compliance with FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, which establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of the vehicle during a crash. We also note that beyond compliance with relevant federal safety standards, motor vehicle accessories are items of motor vehicle equipment subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the product and remedying the problem free of charge. Finally, you should be aware that States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State where you plan to sell your device. If you need further assistance, please contact J. Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:201 d.6/23/06 |
2006 |
ID: 08-003232 tunick door locksOpenMr. Lance Tunick Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 23078 Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078 Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your letter concerning a February 6, 2007, final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You ask whether the amendments continue to permit a double pull door handle found on some rear side door locking systems. The first actuation of the interior rear door handle unlocks the door and the second pull releases the latch to open the door. As discussed below, our answer is yes, FMVSS No. 206 will continue to permit the double pull door handle you described in your letter. The February 6, 2007, final rule added to and updated requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and harmonized with the worlds first global technical regulation for motor vehicles (72 FR 5385). (The effective date of the final rule is September 1, 2009; there are pending petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882.) To prevent inadvertent rear door openings, the standard specifies in S4.3.1: S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement mechanism located within the interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control. As noted in your letter, NHTSA stated in the final rule that the requirement in S4.3.1 for separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control have been in place for the interior rear door locks of every new car and light truck sold in the United States since 1968. (72 FR at 5395) A review of past agency interpretations on the double pull design is thus instructive. Past interpretations have been issued by NHTSA permitting the double pull door locking design (see March 28, 1996 letter to you and an October 7, 1993 letter to Karl-Heinz Ziwica)[1] under current FMVSS No. 206 requirements. The current FMVSS No. 206 requirement (S4.1.3.2) states: In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative. In those letters, NHTSA interpreted the word inoperative to refer to the operation of opening the door, rather than that of disengaging the lock. For the double pull rear side door lock systems, when the locking mechanism is engaged, actuation of the door handle cannot open the door, which NHTSA stated met the requirement of current S4.1.3.2. The new S4.3.1 reflects current S4.1.3.2 in the second clause of the amended standard (and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control). Thus, for the double pull rear side door lock systems described in the March 28, 1996 and October 7, 1993 letters, this second clause of S4.1.3.2 is met, since actuation of the door handle cannot open the door. The new S4.3.1 has a further provision in its last clause (and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control). We believe that the double pull door locking design described in the March 28, 1996 and October 7, 1993 letters meets the last clause of the new S4.3.1. For the double pull rear side door lock system you described, two separate actions are needed to open the door: the first pull unlocking the door and the second pull which activates the latch release control and opens the door. This design is distinguished from a system in which a door can be unlocked and unlatched with a single pull of the door handle, which is not permitted under the new S4.3.1. 72 FR at 5395. In conclusion, the new FMVSS No. 206 door locks requirements continue to permit the double pull rear side door lock system described in the letters you referenced. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:206 d.1/16/08 [1] The double pull door lock system in those letters were like the one you currently describe: the first pull of the inside rear door handle unlocks the door but does not release the latch to open the door, and the second pull releases the latch to open the door. |
2008 |
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.