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: WRL3229OpenBryce Pfister, P.E. Dear Mr. Pfister: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components."Specifically, you ask whether a door configuration used in your school buses is a "folding door" excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 206. As discussed below, we believe the door you describe in your letter is a folding door for purposes of Standard No. 206. You explain in your letter that the Collins Bus Corporation manufacturers school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) ranging from 9,500 to 19,500 pounds.One of your customers needs a vehicle with a passenger capacity of nine passengers, for the purposes of transporting pre-schoolers.You plan to sell the same basic vehicle you ordinarily would sell as a school bus, but with a reduced passenger capacity. Because the vehicle will only accommodate nine passengers, you will have to classify these vehicles as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) rather than as school buses. [1]However, in a telephone conversation with Rebecca MacPherson of this office, you stated that, with the exception of the requirements for flashing lights and stop arms, these vehicles meet all Federal requirements for school buses. You describe the door used in these vehicles as follows: The typical passenger entrance door configuration of the Collins school bus includes two door leafs, each pivoting along its outer edge, and each attached to the door jamb at one upper and one lower pivot point.Both door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger, and the door opening is formed between the two door leaves in their outward position.A hand-operated linkage extending from the drivers seating position opens and closes the forward door.An overhead linkage connecting to the forward door controls the rear door motion.The doors are latched in the closed position by a device attached to the door operating linkage near the drivers seat. Standard No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle in the event of a crash.The standard applies to passenger cars, trucks, and MPVs, but not to school buses.S4(c) of Standard No. 206 specifically excludes "folding doors" from the standard's requirements.The door described in your letter is a type of door typically used in school buses rather than MPVs. As to whether the door is a "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206, we note that the standard does not include a definition of that term. Unlike some of the doors typically used for the same purpose in school buses, your door does not consist of two leaves that are hinged together and "fold" in on themselves.Rather, the two leaves in your door are separate.Each pivots outward. Nonetheless, considering the total design of your door as described above, including (but not limited to) the facts that both door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger to form an opening, and both leaves operate together (through a linkage) by means of the same hand-operated control, we believe your door comes within the meaning of "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206. I hope you find this information helpful.If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson in my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:206
[1] 49 CFR 571.3 defines a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." |
2002 |
ID: alliance.march20OpenRobert Strassburger, Vice President Dear Mr. Strassburger: This is in response to your letter of March 18, 2003, in which you asked questions regarding our interpretation of certain provisions of the early warning reporting rules promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579. You requested prompt turn around in view of the fact that the first reporting period will soon begin. This letter provides that response. I will first paraphrase your inquiries and then provide a brief statement of our interpretation. 1. Reporting Information on the Face of a Claim/Complaint. The Alliance inquired as to whether manufacturers must report complaints/claims based on the information contained on the face of the complaint or claim, rather than reporting on the basis of the manufacturers review or analysis of the complaint/claim. The answer is yes. Reporting is to be based on the information in the complaint or claim, rather than on the manufacturers assessment. Even if the manufacturer disagrees with the assertions of the consumer/claimant after conducting its analysis, the manufacturer must still report the complaint or claim. Each of the five examples given in your letter would be reportable as a "consumer complaint" under the early warning reporting rules. 2. Marketing Survey Information. The Alliance sought NHTSAs concurrence that marketing information purchased from third-party vendors (such as J.D. Power) or supplied by third parties (such as Consumer Reports magazine), which might contain information reflecting a consumers dissatisfaction with a product, is not reportable in the early warning program as a "consumer complaint," or otherwise, even if the information contains "minimum specificity" about the make, model, and model year of a vehicle. You also asked about complaints that are included in "marketing information" solicited by a manufacturer directly from the purchasers of its products. We concur with respect to third-party submissions, since they are not "addressed to the company . . . ." and therefore do not fall within the regulatory definition of "consumer complaint" in Section 579.4(c). However, if a manufacturer collects the information directly from its consumers, by itself or through a contractor, it would have to report any "complaints" included in that information, regardless of whether the primary purpose of the activity is marketing. As you note in your letter, consumers responding to such manufacturer surveys are "likely aware that they are communicating with the manufacturer." The fact that the comments are solicited by the manufacturer is not determinative, particularly since many consumers who make a complaint about a vehicle in this context will justifiably believe that they need not repeat that complaint to a different office within the company. 3.Dealer Repair Work Orders. The Alliance sought the agencys views on whether dealer repair work orders, if received in writing by a vehicle manufacturer, are reportable as " dealer field reports." These work orders are the dealers internal records of service performed at dealerships. As described in your letter, these work orders are not requested by, or provided to, manufacturers in the ordinary course of business, but might be submitted in the context of "lemon law" proceedings, product liability litigation, or similar proceedings, often many years after the service in question was performed. As such, we would not consider them to be "field reports" under the rule, and they would not have to be reported under that category. However, if the work had been performed under warranty, it would have to be reported as a warranty claim. 4.Vehicle Inspections Conducted to Determine Eligibility for Insurance and/or Extended Warranty Coverage. Finally, the Alliance asked whether written reports of vehicle inspections conducted solely to determine eligibility for insurance and/or extended warranty coverage are reportable as "field reports." As described in your letter, these reports are not prepared in response to an assertion that a specific problem exists in a particular vehicle, which is the normal genesis of field reports. Thus, although it is possible that an inspection report might identify a problem in a vehicle, it would not be a "communication . . . regarding the failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem . . . ." As such, these inspection reports would not have to be reported to us as field reports. If you have any questions, pleas call Taylor Vinson or Lloyd Guerci of this office at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:579 |
1970 |
ID: DNBA_B.Nicolle_Parts_573_and_579OpenBill Nicolle Product Safety and Compliance Officer Daimler Buses North America 350 Hazelhurst Road Mississauga, Ontario Canada L5J 4T8 Dear Mr. Nicolle, Thank you for your email of June 1, 2012 requesting a written notification of the legal obligations of Daimler Buses North America (DBNA) in light of the planned changes at DBNA. You state that DBNA has decided to cease manufacturing and outfitting buses in North America, and explain that this will affect Orion, Sprinter, and Setra buses and motorcoaches. You also state that DBNA will maintain a presence to handle service, warranty, and replacement parts issues for Orion buses, and that Setra will be transferred to MCI Corporation for sales marketing, service and warranty issues. You state that the status of the Sprinter mini-bus is yet to be determined. NHTSA understands that Orion, Sprinter, and Setra are brands of DBNA, and that DBNA fabricated and/or imported these vehicles. The agency also understands that MCI Corporation is not an affiliate of DBNA. You request that the agency furnish a written notification of DBNAs legal obligations for defect and noncompliance recall reporting and early warning reporting. With respect to defect and noncompliance recall reporting, including determining the existence of defects and noncompliances, providing notification to NHTSA and vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers of such, remedying defects and noncompliances, and filing quarterly reports, legal liability falls on the manufacturer of the vehicles. See 49 USC 30118, 30120; 49 CFR 573.5. Manufacturer is defined as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. 49 USC 30102(a)(5). Since DBNA is the manufacturer of Orion, Sprinter, and Setra buses and motorcoaches, DBNA is responsible for any recall-related obligations associated with these vehicles. If MCI Corporation assumes and fulfills the recall obligations for Setra motor coaches, it would be considered compliance by DBNA. However, DBNA remains liable for these obligations under the statute. With respect to early warning reporting, the vehicle manufacturer is liable for the required reports. See 49 CFR 579.5, 579.11, and 579.2. The early warning regulations define manufacturer as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or importing motor vehicles, or motor vehicle equipment for resale. This term includes any parent corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate, and any subsidiary or affiliate of a parent corporation of such a person. 49 CFR 579.4. However, compliance by the fabricating manufacturer, the importer, the brand name owner, or a parent or subsidiary of such fabricator, importer, or brand name owner of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment is considered compliance by all persons. See 49 CFR 579.3. Accordingly, since DBNA is the manufacturer of Orion, Sprinter, and Setra buses and motorcoaches, DBNA is responsible for submitting early warning reports for these vehicles. However, if MCI Corporation or another Daimler affiliate assumes and fulfills the obligation of submitting to the agency the required early warning reports for DBNAs buses and motor coaches, compliance by MCI Corporation or a Daimler affiliate would be considered compliance by DBNA as well. I note that a bus manufacturer is required to report early warning information only if the aggregate number of buses manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce, or imported into the United States during the calendar year of the reporting period or during either of the prior two calendar years is 100 or more . . . . 49 CFR 579.22. The aggregate number of buses includes those manufactured, sold, etc., by any parent corporation, any subsidiary or affiliate, and any subsidiary or affiliate of a parent corporation of such a person. Even if reporting of early warning information is not required under 579.22, the agency expects the relevant records to be retained for five years in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 576. Moreover, a manufacturer is required to furnish the agency with all notices, bulletins, and other communications, as specified in 579.5, regardless of whether early warning information reporting is required under 579.22.
I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me or John Piazza on my staff at the address given above or at (202) 366-8852. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Parts 573 and 579 Dated: 7/19/12 |
2012 |
ID: 86-5.30OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 10/16/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Alan Cranston TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to your letter on behalf of Mr. Raymond Kesler. He asked for this agency's response to a letter from Mr. Robert R. Phillips concerning the bi-focal mirror developed by Mr. Kesler. In his letter, Mr. Phillips asked whether an outside rearview mirror, which has both a planar surface of unit magnification and a convex surface, complies with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. I regret the delay in responding to this letter. As we understand the information supplied by Mr. Phillips, the bi-focal mirror would be installed on the driver's side of motor vehicles to give the driver a wider field of view by combining a convex mirror and a planar mirror as the outside rearview mirror on the driver's side. The convex portion would abut the planar portion and be located to the left of the planar portion. Thus, both normal and wide-angle vision would be provided at the same horizontal viewing level. By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of vehicles or their equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as rearview mirrors, comply with any applicable requirements. A manufacturer certifies that its equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Mr. Phillips asked this agency to confirm his interpretation that this bi-focal mirror meets the requirements of Standard No. 111 if its planar or unit magnification surface has an area of at least 19.5 square inches, regardless of the existence of the convex portion. The 19.5 square inch requirement is one applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses (other than schoolbuses) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Those types of vehicles are required by S6.1 of the standard either to have a set of inside and outside rearview mirrors that comply with the requirements applicable to passenger cars or to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 19.5 square inches of reflective surface, on both sides of the vehicle. If Mr. Phillips' mirror meets that size requirement, is located on a vehicle so as to provide the required view and is adjustable in the required manner, it complies with S6.1. There are no minimum size requirements for unit magnification outside rearview mirrors on passenger cars. Mr. Phillips' mirror can be installed on the driver's side of passenger cars if the mirror's unit magnification portion, independently of the convex portion, meets the field of view and mounting requirements specified in S5.2. In one drawing accompanying Mr. Phillips' letter, there appears to be a warning on the planar portion of his bi-focal mirror stating "Objects Appear Within Markers: Caution." There is no requirement in Standard No. 111 for such a warning. The agency is concerned that the message conveyed by this warning is unclear and could confuse motorists. The warning ("CAUTION When Vehicle Appears Here") in Mr. Phillips' other drawing seems more easily understood. He might consider providing purchasers with written instructions explaining that the purpose of the message is to warn drivers that the appearance of a vehicle in the convex portion of the mirror means that the vehicle is so close that a lane change would be unsafe. Unit magnification and convex mirrors on other types of vehicles must meet the specific performance and location requirements for those types of vehicles, as set out in the standard. Again, please note that a vehicle manufacturer installing a bi-focal mirror on different types of vehicles must ensure that the unit magnification portion of the mirror meets any applicable requirements of the standard independently of the convex portion. If Mr. Phillips' mirror meets the requirements of Standard No. 111 for a particular vehicle type, then it may be installed on new vehicles of that type. It may also be installed on used vehicles of that type. Conversely, if the mirror does not meet those requirements, then it may not be installed on new vehicles. Further, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses would be prohibited from installing it on used vehicles. However, the Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own used vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any product they want on their used vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's rearview mirrors with the performance or location requirements of Standard No. 111. I hope this information is helpful to you. SINCERELY United States Senate August 19, 1986 To: Congressional Laision Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Enclosure From: Mr. Ray Kesler Re: Mr. Kesler would appreciate a letter confirming his bifocal safety mirror conforms to federal safety standards. Is this possible? I forward the attached for your consideration. Your report, in duplicate, along with the return of the enclosure will be appreciated.
Alan Cranston Please address envelope to: Senator Alan Cranston August 6, 1986 Dear Senator Cranston, I am seeking a letter to confirm, yes it does provide the plane flat mirror (unit of manification) on the required amount because it is comformity of the standards. I would expect they would simply state it back to us so I can present it to the S.A,E, (society of automotive engineers) and the automotive industry that they have no question, it does meet the federal safety standards, but that has not happened and would appreciate a answer on this soon. This has held up this project for many monthes. I believe we can start saving lives with the new mirror concept in safety vision soon. I know you will give federal support on this matter. You have been so helpful before and I sincerely thank you. Ray Kesler enclosure. Drawings (2) Instructions on viewing bifocal safety mirror July 25, 1980 The Honorable Alan Cranston UNITED STATE SENATE Dear Senator Cranston: Your concern for public safety is well known to us, and because of your reputation as a strong-willed combatant for causes you believe in, we are soliciting your advice and support for our project. My client, Mr. Raymond Kesler, has recently developed a bifocal safety mirror for automobiles that has the potential to make a major contribution to the cause or automotive safety. You have previously been kind enough to lend support to Mr. Kesler on this project (i.e. your letter to Diane Steed at NHTSA on Feb. 5, 1985), and we are once again in need of someone to help break what appears to be a bureaucratic logjam. The enclosed letter was written to Brika Jones, Chief Counsel at NHTSA upon the advice of Dr. Carl Clark, Investor Contact Code NRD-12 in the Office of Vehicle Research. As the letter indicates, we are simply seeking interpretation of the code of federal regulations governing automotive mirrors. Our question is, we believe, specific and clear, yet to date no response from Ms. Jones was received. If you could assist us in getting some official interpretation as to how the federal regulations affect this bi-focal mirror, we would be most grateful. Robert R. Phillips Project Manager enclosure: Erika Jones Letter (March 27, 1986) P.S. We are also enclosing a copy of an article on the mirror that recently appeared in Automotive News. March 27, 1980 Erika Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ADMIN. Dear Ms. Jones: At the suggestion of Dr. Carl Clark in the Office of Vehicle Research, we are seeking from you some interpretation of existing federal regulations regarding outside rear-view mirrors for automobiles. In particular, we are concerned about a mirror that was recently developed by Mr. Raymond Kesler, a California inventor. The enclosed article in Automotive News plus the other material provides information on the mirror, but our inquiry is, I believe, specific and clear. It is our interpretation or the NHTSA regulations that this bi-focal mirror (i.e. a planar surface abutted to a convex mirror of fixed radius) does meet the requirements if its planar (unit magnification) surface has an area of at least 19.5 square inches, regardless of the existence of the convex portion. We would greatly appreciate your comments on this interpretation prior to final approval of the mirror's specific dimensions. Thank you for your assistance. Robert R. Phillips Automotive News March 24, 1986 engineering Mirror wipes out blind spot An inventor in West Hollywood, Calif., believes car mirrors have been overlooked for too long. He has taken what he calls a revolutionary approach to the subject and has eliminated the pesky -- and dangerous -- passing-car blind spot. The first auto mirror, patterned after one seen on a carriage in Chicago, was used on the winning car in the first Indianapolis 500 race in 1911. Driver Ray Harroun installed the 8-inch-by-3-inch mirror to avoid using the riding mechanic who usually kept one eye rearward in races of the era. It would appear that little change has taken place over the years, and 47-year-old inventor Raymond Kesler said his latest work will refocus attention of safety authorities on the mirror.
Others say that attention is overdue. They contend that because the U.S. population is aging, the left-side blind spot is growing as a danger point. (Illegible Word) one's peripheral vision diminishes with age. Kesler said he has combined the positive characteristics of two different optics -- a planar, or flat, surface connected to a curved surface of fixed radius. "This achieves a remarkably effective enhancement of the field of view without the distortion associated with variable-curvature convex mirrors," he said. "The Kesler approach uses the flat surface for 70 percent of the mirror with the remaining 30 percent devoted to the convex portion for wide-angle vision." On the convex surface, there are what Kesler calls "reflective caution arrows" which warn the driver of traffic approaching from the rear and act as a distance finder for position and size of objects. "The overall unit is rectangular to fit most 1985/86 original equipment mirror housings," Kesler said, "It also it well-suited for the aftermarket manufacturers who utilize the new rectangular design for their mirrors." A patent is pending, Kesler said. The inventor has been interested in automotive accessories and automotive phenomena for many years, said Robert R. Phillips, of the Woodland Hills (Calif.) consulting firm that bears his name. Phillips is handling inquiries about Kesler's device. In most other attempts at bifocal mirrors, distortion has been the major problem, and NHTSA regulations have kept them off the road. Hopes of other inventors have been shattered by NHTSA investigations. Small, convex anti-blind-spot mirrors that adhere to flat mirrors are sold by parts stores and are not installed as original equipment. Therefore, their distortion escapes the regulatory eye of NHTSA. Also, such mirrors stand out physically from the flat mirror and it is not likely a driver would confus, images seen in them with images in the flat mirror. A mirror manufacturer in Michigan said some drivers become nauseated from multiple radius mirrors. The eyes see differing images simultaneously, and the brain becomes confused. Several mirror makers have petitioned NHTSA for regulation changes. European regulations are reported to be similarly rigid, but Saab in 1982 introduced in Europe a mirror it says eliminates the blind spot. The Saab mirror, as does Kesler's, shows two fields of view at the same time. The mirror glass has two surfaces. One is a large plane surface closest to the driver. It is separated from the second, a narrow convex surface, by an etched line.
Together, the two surfaces enable the driver to follow a passing vehicle until it becomes visible in the driver's direct vision, even in the blind spot, Saab said. Saab said European legislation is very strict regarding the design of side mirrors and requires that the division between the two fields be clearly marked. In Saab's case, this is achieved by the etched line, the company said. Kesler said the Kesler Bi-Focal Safety Mirror meets federal safety standards. He also said there are no other similarly qualified mirrors that have normal and wide-angle vision at the same horizontal viewing level. The Kesler Bi-focal Wide Angle Automotive Safety Mirror (Meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111.) D.O.T. REFLECTIVE CAUTION ARROWS RNS DRIVER OF APPROACHING TRAFFIC (ACTS AS A DISTANCE FINDER FOR POSITION AND SIZE OF OBJECTS) PLANAR MIRROR (NORMAL VISION OF STANDARDS) D.O.T. ABUTTED JUNCTURE TANGENT TO PLANE KESLER PATENT PENDING (C) 1986 KESLER RESEARCH ENTERPRISES PICTORIAL CONCEPT OF WIDE ANGLE OPTIC (Graphics omitted) Traffic in "BLIND SPOT" Appears Here CAUTION When Vehicle Appears Here Traffic Leaves View of Planar Mirror Here Anti-Blind Spot Mirror (Graphics omitted) KESLER RESEARCH ENTERPRISES "Avoid an Accident at a Glance" SAFETY ADVANTAGES OF VIEWING BIFOCAL REARVIEW SAFETY MIRROR 1. Plane section of mirror is for normal viewing of traffic with no depth perception loss. This section complies with FMVSS III D.O.T. standards. 2. The constant radius convex section of the mirror provides an extra margin of safety with uniform vision on a horizontal level, allowing extra vision for better view of the far lane, pulling away from curbs, and backing out of driveways. 3. A conventional mirror out of adjustment can cause an accident. The fact is that a convex section of the bi-focal safety mirror provides the extra vision, even when out of adjustment. 4. The reflective caution safety markers on the convex section aid the user for judging distance, position, and size or objects. 5. Both plane and convex mirrors can be viewed to cut glance duration time to a minimum when objects (traffic) appear in the safety markers. 6. Both separate sections can be viewed as one (integrated) mirror when objects meet the transition. Copyright, 1986 KESLER RESEARCH |
|
ID: may 29 571.213--battery dependent installation--Campbell2--13-002509OpenMr. Corey Campbell David E. Campbell & Associates, Inc. 3215 Greenwich Rd. Wadsworth, OH 44281
Dear Mr. Campbell:
This responds to your letters concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, and a new child restraint system (CRS) your client, Thorley Industries, would like to manufacture. The following interpretation of FMVSS No. 213 is based on our understanding of the information provided by you, and is limited to the particular aspects of the CRS you described.
Your questions relate to an infant seat. You state that the product requires disposable batteries to accomplish correct installation using one of the required means of installation per the table for 5.3.2.[1] The product has an automated installation system for attaching to a child restraint anchorage system.[2] If there is sufficient power in the CRSs batteries, the child restraint releases the LATCH belt to allow it to spool out.[3] The consumer attaches the LATCH connectors and presses a button on the CRS base to tell [the] system that the connectors are attachedThe system automatically tensions the LATCH lower anchor belt to a present tension.[4] If the batteries are depleted, the CRS notifies the consumer that an automated installation is not possible because the batteries are depleted. The consumer would have to manually install the CRS using the vehicle lap belt (Type 1 belt) or lap/shoulder belt (Type 2 belt).
Question 1
The first question you ask in the May 2013 letter is whether it is acceptable under FMVSS No. 213 if the users ability to install a child restraint using the LATCH lower anchor belt becomes inaccessible should the batteries become depleted. You state that the batteries are needed to accomplish correct installation using one of the required means of installation per the table for 5.3.2. As explained below, the answer is no.
Response to Question 1
S5.9(a) of FMVSS No. 213 specifies that CRSs such as infant seats shall have components permanently attached to the system that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 (571.225)
The battery-dependent design of the CRS would not meet S5.9(a). One of NHTSAs goals for a universal child restraint anchorage system is that the system ensure correct child restraint system use by ensuring that the child restraint systems are convenient to install and use, and will be accepted by consumers. 64 FR 10786, 10797, col. 2 (March 5, 1999). NHTSA adopted the permanently attached requirement in S5.9(a) to help ensure that the components on a CRS that attach to the child restraint anchorage system lower bars (LATCH components) will be present and available for use by consumers through the life of the CRS.
With the battery-dependent design you describe, the batteries will deplete with regular use of the CRS during the life of the CRS. If the batteries deplete and the consumer does not replace them, at some point an automated battery-dependent CRS will have insufficient power to release the LATCH components for the consumers use. Your client recognizes this possibility by designing the CRS to inform the consumer, in the event the batteries are depleted, to refer to the instruction manual for instructions on how to perform a manual (non-automated) installation with the vehicle belt. In other words, the consumer will not be able to use the child restraint anchorage system.
In our opinion, such a battery-dependent design would not meet S5.9(a) since it is foreseeable that some consumers would be faced with depleted batteries. Without the batteries, the child restraint would fail to have components that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system.
Another requirement of FMVSS No. 213 is S5.3.2, which specifies that Each add-on child restraint system shall be capable of meeting the requirements of this standard when installed solely by each of the means indicated in the following table. For infant seats, the table specifies that the means of installation must include means to attach to a child restraint anchorage system. The Thorley CRS would not meet S5.3.2 because, without the batteries, the CRS would not be capable of meeting the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when attached by way of a child restraint anchorage system.
In your December 2013 letter, you state that Thorley is considering adding a feature to the CRS to provide a means of manual installation for attaching to the LATCH anchorages if the batteries are depleted. You did not provide details about this feature, so we cannot comment extensively on it. We note, however, that having a means of manual installation to the LATCH anchorages, in addition to the battery-operated installation method, would meet S5.9(a) and S5.3.2.
Question 2
You ask about the way in which NHTSA would tighten the belts used to attach the automated battery-operated infant seat to the test seat assembly in a compliance test. You ask: If the process of LATCH lower anchor belt tensioning is automated in such a way that the user could not manually modify its level of tension, would it be acceptable for the level of tension to exceed the 67N [sic] specified in FMVSS 213 for the purposes of compliance testing? You state that after tensioning, the belt tensioning system is mechanically locked and no batteries are needed to maintain tension. You also state: Before the system will perform an automated installation and tensioning process, it verifies that the batteries have sufficient power to complete the cycle to minimize the risk of the batteries dying during the tensioning process which could result in unpredictable tension levels.[5]
Answer to Question 2
Paragraph S6.1.2(d)(1)(iii) of FMVSS No. 213 states: When attaching a child restraint system to the tether anchorage and the child restraint anchorage system on the standard seat assembly, tighten all belt systems used to attach the restraint to the standard seat assembly to a tension of not less than 53.5 [Newtons (N)] and not more than 67 N
Generally speaking, S6.1.2(d)(1)(iii) specifies the amount of tension on the LATCH belts (not less than 53.5 N to not more than 67 N) to control the means of attaching each child restraint, thereby reducing variability, and to better assess the performance of the restraint. Further, the provision helps ensure that all child restraints can provide a minimum level of safety when attached in a standardized manner.
However, with regard to your May 2013 letter about the LATCH lower anchorage belt which automatically tightens without any input from the consumer, we agree it is acceptable for the level of tension to exceed 67 N, as discussed below.
The situation you ask about was indirectly addressed in an October 17, 2000 interpretation of FMVSS No. 213 to Mr. William Shapiro (copy enclosed). In that letter, NHTSA did not agree with tensioning the belt used to attach a CRS to the vehicle seat to a higher tension than 67 N because a consumer had to use a tension bracket to manually adjust the tension. The agency was concerned that if a consumer did not use the tension bracket or used the bracket incorrectly, the belt might not achieve a tension greater than 67 N. Yet, in that letter, NHTSA also stated: We note that the child restraint requires action on the part of the consumer to increase the belt tension. It does not do so automatically. If the tension adjustment in the seat operated automatically, such that it was impossible to install the seat at a tension below 67 N, we would test at the higher tension. After considering FMVSS No. 213 and the agencys interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the level of tension may exceed 67 N, subject to the following caveats. First, for the reasons provided in the 2000 letter, the tension adjustment in the CRS must operate automatically to tension the belts, i.e., it is not dependent on consumer input in tensioning the belts. Second, also as noted in the 2000 letter, we will tension the belts using the automatic tensioning system to a tension exceeding 67 N if it is impossible to tension the belts to a value below 67 N using the automatic tensioning system. Assuming these conditions are met, we would conduct a FMVSS No. 213 dynamic test with the CRS belts automatically tightened to a tension greater than 67 N.
Question 3
Your December 2013 letter asks about tightening the manual belt that would be used for attaching the CRS to the LATCH anchorages in the event the batteries are depleted. You ask for confirmation that NHTSA would tighten the belt to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N, as specified in S6.1.2(d)(1)(iii) of FMVSS No. 213..
Answer to Question 3
Your understanding is correct. We would tighten the belt as we would other manually-adjustable belts. To ensure that the CRS performs well when installed using the manual belt, we would conduct the compliance test with belt tension at the FMVSS No. 213-specified tension of 53.5 N to 67 N.
If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure Dated 6/4/15 Standard No. 213 [1] Your May 29, 2013 letter to NHTSA, p. 1. [2] You use the term LATCH to refer to a child restraint anchorage system. LATCH refers to Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, an acronym developed by manufacturers and retailers to refer to the child restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225 for installation in motor vehicles. [3] Description of Installation Process, p. 1, April 23, 2014. [4] Id. [5] Description of Installation Process, p. 2, April 23, 2014. |
2015 |
ID: 001307.Bruno.cmcOpenMr. Dick Keller Dear Mr. Keller: This responds to your letter in which you ask about the application of the "make inoperative" provision to the removal of advanced air bag sensors during the installation of driver seats that accommodate individuals with disabilities. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action under the circumstances described in your letter. In your letter you discussed the installation of a product your company calls the Turning Automotive Seat (TAS) to facilitate vehicle access by individuals with disabilities. You described the TAS as being offered in two models, but you explained that both models are essentially "a swivel seat base mechanism rotating approximately 90 degrees with articulation to clear the B-pillar during entry and egress."You stated that the TAS system is used with the originally equipped (OEM) seat belts and bolts into the OEM seat mounting points. Your letter explained that with the newer air bag systems relying on seat sensors to modulate air bag deployment, replacing the OEM seat with the TAS requires removal of these sensors. You asked if such modifications were covered by the make inoperative exemption in 49 CFR 595.7(c)(14). By way of background, NHTSA has authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, NHTSA has recognized that it is appropriate to permit some modifications that could cause a vehicle to no longer comply in order to accommodate people with disabilities. 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart C, Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People with Disabilities, lists modifications of certain portions of specific FMVSSs that are exempt from the "make inoperative" provision in order to accommodate people with disabilities. On May 12, 2000, the agency published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 208 by establishing requirements to reduce the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, especially to small women and young children, and to improve safety for all occupants by means that include advanced air bag technology. (65 FR 30680; Advanced Air Bag Rule.) Motor vehicles certified as complying with the provisions of the Advanced Air Bag Rule will be required to minimize air bag risks by automatically turning off the air bag in the presence of an occupant who is a young child or deploy the air bag in a manner less likely to cause serious or fatal injury to an "out of position occupant."Among the technologies used to comply with these requirements are a variety of seat position, occupant weight, and pattern sensors incorporated into the seat structure. The advanced air bag technology requirements are being phased in beginning September 1, 2003, with full compliance required starting September 1, 2006. [1] While 49 CFR 595.7 includes some specific requirements of FMVSS No. 208 among the requirements subject to the "make inoperative" exemption, the provisions established under the Advanced Air Bag Rule are not included. As you are aware, the agency has granted a petition for rulemaking to include the provisions of the Advanced Air Bag Rule in the exemption list under Part 595. If the agency issues a final rule incorporating the advanced air bag requirements into Part 595, Subpart C, then a vehicle modifier that meets the conditions set forth in that subpart would be permitted to make such modifications as you described. Until this rulemaking is completed, the agency will use its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action in the limited instance of a vehicle not complying with the advanced air bag requirements because of the installation of a replacement seat to accommodate persons with disabilities. This is conditioned on the vehicle modifier complying with the modifier and modification requirements of Part 595, including the label and documentation requirements of 595.7(b). If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:208#595 [1] A majority of vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that a percentage of their fleet complies with these requirements according to the following phase-in schedule, with credits for early compliance: September 1, 2003 to August 31, 2004--20 percent; September 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005--65 percent; September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006--100 percent. |
2004 |
ID: 08-002439asOpenMr. James D. Carroll 4608 Oakwood Circle Gastonia, NC 28056 Dear Mr. Carroll: This responds to your letter regarding the permissibility of an owner removing a label required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, from a certified motorcycle helmet. Specifically, you ask us to confirm whether certain statements made by the agency in a 1988 letter are still current. Our answer is yes. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. 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 quote a statement we made in a December 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Wayne Ivie regarding the removal of the helmet label, and ask if that statement still reflected NHTSAs view. The statement is as follows: Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmets owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label. The relevant Federal prohibition on the modification of vehicles or items of equipment is 49 U.S.C. 30112, Making safety devices and elements inoperative.[1] This section reads, in part: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. Because the certification label is an element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218 (specifically, paragraph S5.6 of FMVSS No. 218), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair businesses are prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 from removing the label. However, this prohibition does not apply to an individual owner modifying his or her own equipment. Nonetheless, NHTSA discourages owners from reducing the safety effectiveness of their vehicles or items of equipment by, for example, removing required labeling. The labeling is an indication to consumers, including secondhand purchasers, that the helmet provides a minimum level of safety protection. Generally, uncertified helmets provide a lesser level of head protection for riders involved in crashes. Furthermore, as stated in the Ivie letter, individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and are free to prohibit an owner from removing the label from his or her own helmet. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:218 d.11/20/08 [1] The provision discussed in the Ivie letter was set forth at 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) was recodified in July 1994 and 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) became 49 U.S.C. 30112. No substantive change was made to the provision. |
2008 |
ID: 09-003169 nissan.draft.dj.aug20OpenMakoto Yoshida, Senior Manager Government Affairs Office Nissan North America, Inc. 11921 Freedom Drive Two Fountain Square, Suite 550 Reston, VA 20190 Dear Mr. Yoshida: This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR 571.10(b)(1) and (2). Those paragraphs include formulas for determining the required number of designated seating positions (DSPs) in a seating surface area. In your letter, you ask us to confirm your belief that the formulas used to calculate the number of DSPs within a seating surface location prescribe the minimum number of permissible DSPs within that seating surface location, and that the manufacturer is not prohibited from designating a number of DSPs within a seating surface that is greater than the value N calculated in 571.10(b)(1) and (2). The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background, for the purpose of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA has defined a designated seating position as a location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female. On June 22, 2005, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for a revised definition of designated seating position that would be more objective. NHTSA had identified a problem of three people occupying a seat with only two DSPs. It was believed that providing a more objective definition of designated seating position would help alleviate this problem. In the October 2008 final rule, NHTSA amended the definition of designated seating position for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011.[1] The new definition states that a seat location that has a seating surface width of at least 330 mm is a designated seating position. The final rule also established a procedure, codified at 49 CFR 571.10, for measuring seating surface width and calculating the number of DSPs at a seat location. For seat locations with a seating surface width of less than 1400 mm, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 350, rounded down to the nearest whole number. For seat locations with a seating surface width of 1400 mm or greater, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 450, rounded down to the nearest whole number. In your letter, you put forth a scenario where the total width of a seating surface area, as calculated under 571.10(c)(2), is 1700 mm. You observe that, under the formula used to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating surface width of at least 1400 mm, there would be three DSPs at the seating area. You ask whether, under the new DSP definition set forth in the October 2008 final rule, you are prohibited from designating four DSPs in that seating surface area instead of the result of the calculation in 571.10(b)(2). As indicated above, we changed the definition of designated seating position because of a concern that, in certain situations, more people were occupying a seating surface area than the number of DSPs. You put forward a scenario in the opposite direction, where a manufacturer wants to designate more DSPs than the number required by the formulas in section 571.10(b), and also where the seating area is specifically designed for that greater number of occupants. However, the definition of designated seating position was also revised to be more objective. NHTSA developed a procedure, set forth in section 571.10(b)(1) and (b)(2) to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating location. Our rulemaking was not intended to limit manufacturers from designating more DSPs than specified by the formulas or to permit manufacturers to designate a smaller number of designated seating positions than the number they actually intend to be used by occupants. In light of the issue you have raised, we will consider clarifying the language of section 571.10(b) in a future rulemaking or in the responses to petitions for reconsideration of the new DSP definition. Nothing in this letter should be construed as a response to any of the petitions for reconsideration. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Std. 571 8/5/2011 [1] On December 23, 2009, NHTSA issued a partial response to petitions for reconsideration of the new DSP definition in which we allowed one year of additional lead time before the new DSP definition is applicable. See 74 FR 68185. |
|
ID: 10407Open Mr. Larry W. Overbay Dear Mr. Overbay: This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems, and NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02. You stated that your organization recently tested a vehicle's compliance to the emergency stopping distance requirements in FMVSS No. 121 by disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. You further stated that this action "essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops" making the vehicle totally reliant on the front brakes for stopping. According to your letter, the vehicle manufacturer contends that the manner in which you conducted the test is invalid since it was not done in accordance with NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02, which specifies rapid bleeding of the vehicle's air reservoirs. In addition to general questions about FMVSS No. 121 and the NHTSA Test Procedure, you asked whether the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No. 121. After providing background information that responds to your general questions about testing of motor vehicles, I will respond to your specific question about test conditions applicable to the emergency stopping requirements. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (Formerly, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30303) NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies performance requirements for the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA has provided instructions, known as "compliance test procedures," to the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests for the agency. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between various testing facilities. The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, provide additional detail beyond what is set forth in the relevant FMVSS. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. The agency has generally stated that the test procedures are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s) and that in some cases the test procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. With this background in mind, let me respond to your specific questions. As for your first question, the requirements in FMVSS No. 121 take precedence over the TP 121-02. As noted above, TP 121-02 contains instructions issued by NHTSA to provide information to agency contractors about how to conduct compliance tests. In contrast, the law requires manufacturers to certify their vehicles to Standard No. 121. As for your question about FMVSS No. 121's emergency stopping test requirements, those requirements are set forth in section S5.7.1. However, those requirements are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers, as the result of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in PACCAR v. DOT, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978). (see S3 of 49 CFR 571.121). The agency retained the language in S5.7.1 so that those manufacturers that wish to construct their vehicles in accordance with the non-mandatory sections of the standard will have the necessary information to do so.
I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:121 d:2/17/95
|
1995 |
ID: 003917rbmOpen[ ] Dear [ ]: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). You specifically ask whether the telltale requirements of S19.2.2 would prohibit a design that would cause the telltale to flash for five seconds to inform vehicle occupants that the status of the air bag has changed. You have also requested that the name of your company be kept confidential due to the confidential business nature of the contemplated design. That request is granted. I am pleased to provide a response to your request for interpretation. The design discussed in your letter would not be prohibited by S19.2.2. On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-size adults. Under S19.2.2, any air bag system that uses automatic suppression technology to satisfy the requirements of the standard must have a telltale that illuminates whenever the air bag is suppressed and that does not illuminate whenever the air bag is active, except that the telltale need not illuminate when the passenger seat is unoccupied. S19.2.2 is silent as to how the telltale must operate while the status of the air bag is in transition. Nor does the provision address flashing, as opposed to continuous, illumination. S20.2 tests the air bag suppression system by placing a child restraint, test dummy, or human in the passenger seat, starting the engine and then waiting 10 seconds before determining the status of the air bag. Under the design contemplated by your company, the required telltale would flash for five seconds to notify the vehicle occupants that the status of the air bag has changed. You state that you believe this feature will better alert both drivers and front seat passengers when the status of the air bag has changed than simply turning the telltale on or off. Under your design, the five seconds of flashing would be triggered by a change in status from "active" to "inactive" and vice versa. After the five-second flashing period has ended, the telltale would either illuminate steadily or go out, depending on the activation status of the air bag. Nothing in S19.2.2 prohibits a telltale that flashes to inform vehicle occupants that the air bag has transitioned from an active to inactive status. While S19.2.2(h) prohibits telltale illumination other than when the air bag has been turned off (except during a bulb check), the intention behind S19.2.2(h) is to let vehicle occupants know whether or not their air bag is suppressed without requiring them to discern varying light intensities or other potentially confusing designs. Accordingly, we interpret the standard to permit a system that transitions from continually burning to flashing for a brief period of time, no more than 10 seconds, after the air bag has been reactivated. Thus, your contemplated design would be permissible under S19.2.2 as long as the telltale only flashes when the air bag is actually suppressed or for a brief period of time after the air bag has been reactivated. Please note that while nothing in the standard would prohibit the telltale from continuously flashing whenever the air bag is suppressed, such designs could be unduly annoying and could lead a vehicle owner to disconnect the telltale. Likewise, an occupant detection system that regularly turned the air bag on and off because the status of the air bag was constantly in transition would be problematic. Finally, we note that while a flashing design is not prohibited, any vehicle manufacturer choosing to incorporate such a design in its telltale would need to either provide an alternative means of determining whether the air bag is active or suppressed consistent with S19.2.3 or limit the flash to less than 10 seconds. This is because the test procedure set forth in S20.2, and its corollaries in S22.2 and S26.2, require the manufacturer to provide a mechanism that NHTSA can use to determine whether the automatic suppression system is, in fact, able to reliably classify the front passenger seat occupant. For a continually flashing system, the alternative means is necessary to differentiate between a properly functioning system and a problematic system that is continually transitioning between suppression and activation. I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:208 |
2003 |
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.