NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: 15-005347 BMW Brake Transmission Shift Interlock v5Open
Mr. Samuel Campbell, III BMW of North America, LLC 200 Chestnut Ridge Road Bldg. 150 Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677-7739
Dear Mr. Campbell:
This responds to your October 5, 2015 letter asking whether BMWs Park Assistant Plus system complies with the brake transmission shift interlock requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114.[1]
Your letter describes your Park Assistant Plus system as a remote-controlled parking system that the driver operates from a location outside, but within six feet of, the vehicle. You emphasize that BMWs Park Assistant Plus system is used for only low-speed, short-distance parking maneuvers. Your letter also indicates the procedure the driver must follow to activate and use the system.
The procedure to activate the Park Assistant Plus system requires the driver to place the vehicle in park, turn the vehicle off, exit the vehicle, and press the on/off button on the left side of the key fob[2] while also depressing a safety button on the right side of the key fob, which must remain depressed throughout the remote controlled parking. After activating the feature with the button on the left and continuing to depress the button on the right, the driver will use his or her other hand to touch the key fobs display screen to start the engine and the remote controlled parking movement.[3]
The driver must continue to depress the button on the right side throughout the parking maneuver and has the opportunity to stop the maneuver at any time by releasing the button. Additionally, ultrasonic sensors and cameras automatically stop the vehicle if humans or objects are detected in the vehicles path, which is designed to reduce the risk of injury from a rollaway vehicle.
Your letter goes into detail about how the Park Assistant Plus system works and how BMW has integrated safety features into the system, but the goal of your letter is to learn whether the remote parking feature is prohibited by the brake transmission shift interlock requirement found in Section 5.3 of FMVSS No. 114. Based on your description and the information on your website, we have written this interpretation predicated on the assumption that your vehicles include a service brake foot control and that the Park Assistant Plus system will be installed in a new motor vehicle.
General Authority
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance test. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. Manufacturers are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.
NHTSA enforces compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing and testing vehicles and regulated equipment. It also investigates FMVSS noncompliances and safety-related defects.
Your letter states that you believe the Park Assistant Plus system complies with Section 5.3 of FMVSS No. 114, and you ask for NHTSAs concurrence in your interpretation. We note again that NHTSA does not make determinations as to whether a product complies with the FMVSSs outside the context of an agency compliance test. We do, however, agree that the design of the Park Assistant Plus system is not prohibited by FMVSS No. 114. To begin our discussion, keep in mind that when a feature or device, such as BMWs Park Assistant Plus, is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSSs. Discussed below is FMVSS No. 114.
FMVSS No. 114
FMVSS No. 114, Theft protection and rollaway prevention, specifies requirements for theft protection to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle.[4] It also specifies requirements to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from the rollaway of parked cars with automatic transmissions. In particular, Section 5.3, Brake transmission shift interlock, requires a brake transmission shift interlock (BTSI) that prevents the shift mechanism from being moved out of the park position unless the service brake is depressed. Section 5.3 applies to motor vehicles with an automatic transmission that includes a park position manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg) or less (excluding trailers or motorcycles). It is also important to note, as you did in your letter, that Section 5.3 was incorporated into FMVSS No. 114 in 2010 after it was required by the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (K.T. Safety Act). Section 2(d)(1) of the K.T. Safety Act specifies, in relevant part:
Each motor vehicle with an automatic transmission that includes a park position manufactured for sale after September 1, 2010, shall be equipped with a system that requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of park. This system shall function in any starting system key position in which the transmission can be shifted out of park.
(Emphasis added.) The goal of designing the BTSI system in this way is to prevent an unattended child from shifting the transmission out of the park position when the child is left unattended in a vehicle with the vehicles keys.[5] This is also aimed at preventing a rollaway vehicle from injuring bystanders that are in the vehicles path.
Your product, the Park Assistant Plus system, involves a multi-step activation process in order to use the remote-controlled parking function. As discussed earlier, the procedure to activate the system requires the driver to place the vehicle in park, turn the vehicle off, exit the vehicle, and press the on/off button on the left side of the key fob while also depressing a safety button on the right side of the key fob, which must remain depressed throughout the remote controlled parking. After activating the feature with the button on the left and continuing to depress the button on the right with one hand, the driver will need to use his or her other hand to touch the key fobs display screen to start the remote controlled parking movement. This process activates the system and initiates the pre-check function during which the electronic stability control (ESC) pump applies pressure to the service brakes, and the brake system and energy levels are also checked. Next, the ESC pump applies the service brakes before the vehicle can begin to move out of the park position.
The essence of the issue presented by your letter is the phrase service brake to be depressed in Section 5.3. This is unusual phrasing. Given that the service brake pads themselves are not being depressed when they are moved into place and apply pressure against the disc (in the case of disc brakes) or the drum (in the case of drum brakes), it would have been more clear if the section had read either service brake to be applied or brake pedal to be depressed. The language used in the K.T. Safety Act and in S5.3 falls in between these two phrasings, borrowing a little from each. Thus, the phrase service brake to be depressed is ambiguous and leaves room for interpretation.
Depressed is not defined in FMVSS No. 114, 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions, or the K.T. Safety Act, but Merriam Webster defines the verb depress as to press (something) down.[6] Depressed is the past tense of depress, and means pressed something down in the context of FMVSS No. 114. The something that is pressed down is the service brake, which is defined in 571.3 as the primary mechanism designed to stop a motor vehicle. In the present context, we understand the term depressed, as used in the K.T. Safety Act and in S5.3, to mean simply pressed or applied.
Section 5.3 requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of park.[7] It does not, however, specify that the service brake must be pressed or applied by any particular object or function, such as a drivers foot. In your design, the service brake is pressed or applied with an ESC pump actuated by the vehicles operator before the vehicle can be shifted out of the park position. This achieves the goal of Section 5.3 by preventing an occupant, particularly a child, from inadvertently shifting the transmission out of the park position. It also fulfills the BTSI requirement in the K.T. Safety Act.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Sara Bennett of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 1/4/16 Standard No. 114
[1] 49 CFR 571.114. [2] BMW calls its key fob a Display Key. In this letter, we use the more inclusive term key fob since key is defined in FMVSS No. 114 as a physical device or an electronic code which, when inserted into the starting system (by physical or electronic means), enables the vehicle operator to activate the engine or motor. BMWs key fob contains an electronic code, but is not itself an electronic code. [3] An illustration of this feature can be found on BMWs official YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Viyt2aIOG8. [4] Letter to Norman Katz, Esq. of Saretsky, Katz, Dranoff & Glass, L.L.P. (June 6, 2006), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Katz.1.htm,. [5] Letter to Michael X. Cammissa of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (July 20, 2010), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/AIAM%20003788%20114.htm. [6] Depress Definition, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depress (last visited Nov. 11, 2015). [7] 49 CFR 571.114. |
2016 |
ID: 15079.ztvOpen Kiyoshi Narabu, General Manager Dear Mr. Narabu: This is in reply to your letter of April 21, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, the final rule allowing visually/optically aimable headlamps. Your first question is: "S7.8.2.1(c) prescribes that a visually/optically aimable lower beam headlamp shall not have horizontal adjustment mechanism other than VHAD. We consider that some kind of horizontal adjustment mechanism are necessary to align lamp axis with vehicle axis at lamp installation on the vehicle. Does horizontal adjustment mechanism that uses only at installation and can not be adjusted by vehicle owner or driver conform to requirement of S7.8.2.1(c)?" We understand that it is necessary to align properly the horizontal aim at the time the headlamp is installed on a motor vehicle. We do not understand why a horizontal adjustment mechanism has to be a permanent part of the headlamp or vehicle. However, if its design is such that it can never be used again, even with special tools, we would not consider that the installation of a horizontal adjustment mechanism of this type creates a noncompliance with paragraph S7.8.2.1(c). "S7.8.5.2(c) require permanent fixation of VHAD device calibration on or after September 1, 1998. Does calibration method that vehicle owner or driver can not calibrate using ordinary tools conform to this requirement?" Your question implies that the calibration can be adjusted by tools that are not "ordinary tools." If the calibration is capable of adjustment by any means, it is not "permanent" within the meaning of the requirement. If the calibration cannot be adjusted, by ordinary tools or otherwise, then it is permanent within the meaning of paragraph S7.8.5.2(c). If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820). Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15082.wkmOpenMr. Claude R. Beverly Dear Mr. Beverly: Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this agency in which you expressed concerns about the small space-saver spare tires with which new passenger motor vehicles are commonly equipped. We have addressed this issue in the past (see enclosed letters to Representative Paul E. Kanjorski, dated May 13, 1996; and to Senator Bob Graham dated January 11, 1993). We explained in those letters that although the space-saver spare tires are smaller than regular tires, they are nevertheless required to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to tires. Thus, although they are designed to be used only in emergencies and their service life is normally less than regular tires, they are as safe as regular tires if properly maintained and inflated and the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations are followed. Should you have any further questions, feel free to provide them to this office at this address or by fax at (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15085.mlsOpen Mr. Randall Carroll Dear Mr. Carroll: This responds to your inquiry to Mr. David Coleman of this agency's Safety Assurance Office asking whether construction equipment you manufacture, asphalt plants and soil incineration systems, are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. Before addressing your question, I would like to note that our answer is limited to the "asphalt plants" and "soil incineration systems" whose attributes you describe in your letter, and to other of your vehicles with similar attributes. We cannot ascertain whether our answer applies to all of your "other miscellaneous construction equipment" without knowing more about the equipment, such as their intended use of the highways. The 10 sketches you provided of several types of your equipment are incomplete in this respect. If you are interested in an opinion on a product other than asphalt plants or soil incineration systems, please provide a full description of the equipment. You state that the equipment is intended for off road use and has axles and king pins attached to enable the equipment to be transported between job sites. You further state that the equipment stays at one job site from a few months to several years and is thus infrequently transported over public roads. As explained below, we believe that the types of equipment you describe would not be "motor vehicles" under Federal law. As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:
In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." Based on the available information, it appears that the two types of construction equipment you describe are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter that the equipment typically spends extended periods of time at a single site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the construction equipment on the public roads to be merely incidental. Since these types of construction equipment are not motor vehicles, they would not be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that your construction equipment used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If your equipment were found to be a motor vehicle, you would be a motor vehicle manufacturer, and would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567. Please note that since a State may require an off-road vehicle to be registered, you may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which your products will be sold or used about requirements for the use of the vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15088.ztvOpen Mr. Jeff Hymer Dear Mr. Hymer: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1997, which, inexplicably, did not reach our office until April 21. I apologize for the delay. You wish to market your "Safety Hi-Lites" lamp system as an aftermarket accessory, and, eventually, as original equipment. You wish to know if there are any Federal laws or restrictions against marketing the lamps, which you say "currently meet SAE #J1395 and SAE #J1398." From the illustrations you provided, it appears that the "Safety Hi-Lites" lamp system comprises two red lamps that operate as stop lamps, plus a third amber lamp in the shape of an arrow that serves as a turn signal. The illustrations show the system mounted at the upper corners of large trucks, truck tractors, and trailers which have a rectangular configuration when viewed from the rear. The system will also flash automatically if a truck tractor separates from a trailer, and if the vehicle rolls over, jackknifes, or is impacted from the rear. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires large commercial vehicles of the types shown in your illustrations (i.e., those with an overall width of 80 inches or more) to be equipped with clearance lamps, to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and to be located as near the top as practicable. Your illustrations do not show clearance lamps (or identification lamps for that matter) on the configurations depicted. In order to conform with Standard No. 108, a truck's clearance lamps will occupy the space where the illustrations have located the Safety Hi-Lites. Thus, for sale as an aftermarket accessory, the lamp system will have to be located adjacent to the clearance lamps, that is to say, either inboard of them or under them, and far enough away as not to prevent photometric compliance of the clearance lamps. Your letter is unclear whether you wish to sell "Safety Hi-Lites" as an original equipment accessory, or as equipment fulfilling the requirements of Standard No. 108 for original equipment stop lamps and turn signal systems. We are pleased to see that the stop and turn signal functions have been designed to conform to SAE standards, however, of the two, only SAE J1395 APR85 is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. The other, SAE J1398 MAY95 is a newer version than the standard that is incorporated by reference. The correct version is SAE J1398 MAY 85. However, Table II of Standard No. 108, which applies to the vehicles you foresee using "Safety Hi-Lites," prescribes a maximum mountingheight of 72 inches from the road for stop lamps, and 83 inches for turn signal lamps. In all likelihood, the "Safety Hi-Lites" system will be mounted above 83 inches, which means that the vehicle manufacturer could use the system only as an original equipment supplement to the stop and turn signal lamps required to conform with the mounting height requirements of Standard No. 108. Because "Safety Hi-Lites" are supplementary stop and turn signal lamps, Standard No. 108 prescribes no requirements for them. Original lighting equipment that supplements lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 is not permissible if it impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, and there is a prohibition of similar effect covering installation of aftermarket lighting equipment. From the information available, it does not appear that "Safety Hi-Lites" would have an impairing effect on original lighting equipment if properly located. Since it appears that some of the vehicles on which your system is placed may be subject to regulation by the Federal Highway Administration, we have asked the Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards for its opinion, and it has advised that the system is acceptable under its laws. You have also asked the requirements involved to receive DOT approval. We have no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; we simply provide interpretations as to the relationship of supplementary lighting systems to the statutes and regulations that we administer. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 11-000697_Trooper_Kile_205Open
Trooper James S. Kile 266 Periwinkle Lane New Market, Virginia 22844
Dear Trooper Kile:
This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials, to shade bands on windshields of passenger vehicles. You ask 1) whether Federal law permits any type of obstruction or tinting above the AS-1 line on the windshield; and 2) in the absence of an AS-1 line, is any tinting or other type of obstruction permitted near the top of the windshield. FMVSS No. 205 does not contain restrictions on tinting or opaque obstructions in the shade band area. Furthermore, the area of the windshield with a light transmittance of less than 70% must be marked by the AS-1 line.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to that authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called items), and specifies the locations in vehicles where each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference industry standards, the American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways Safety Standard (ANSI Z26.1-1996) and SAE J100, Passenger Car Glazing Shade Bands.
ANSI Z26.1-1996 requires that all glazing materials used in areas of the vehicle requisite for driving visibility have a light transmittance level of not less than 70%. FMVSS No. 205 allows a shade ban area or opaque area used to mount the rearview mirror near the top of the windshield. These areas are permitted to have a light transmittance level of less than 70%. Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1-1996 requires that glazing materials requisite for driving visibility with areas having a light transmittance level of less than 70% be permanently marked with the AS-1 line with an arrow pointed to the area that has a light transmittance level greater than 70%.
FMVSS No. 205 requires that shade bands conform to either SAE J100 or paragraph S5.3.2 which mandate the lower boundary of the shade band. Neither SAE J100 nor paragraph S5.3.2 specify a luminous transmittance level for the shade ban area. Thus, FMVSS No. 205 does not prohibit any type of tinting or opaque obstruction in the shade band area provided that the windshield will be able to meet all other performance requirements specified in ANSI Z26.1-1996. Thus, FMVSS No. 205 does not prohibit any tinting or opaque obstructions above the AS-1 line assuming that the AS-1 line is in a location specified by SAE J100 or paragraph S5.3.2.
On vehicles without a shade ban the AS-1 line must mark the lowest point of the break area, the opaque area at the top of the windshield and in the center where the rearview mirror is mounted. If no AS-1 line is present on the windshield, the entire windshield must have at least a 70% light transmittance level. A windshield with no AS-1 line would still be permitted to have shade band or other tinting at the top of the windshield provided that the light transmittance of the shade band or tinting was not less than 70%.
If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Thomas Healy of this office at 202-366-7161.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
5/10/2011 |
|
ID: 11-000699 Signature Products Group Seat Cushion 214 Interpretation LetterOpen
Mr. Dave Otis Signature Products Group 2550 South Decker Lake Blvd. Ste. #1 Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Dear Mr. Otis:
This letter responds to your letter inquiring about side air bags and their relationship to the seat covers that your company manufactures for sale directly to vehicle owners (in the aftermarket). You ask the following questions: (1) whether there are Federal regulations that regulate the deployment of side air bags in relation to seat covers; (2) whether your company should be concerned with possible liabilities of consumer installation of your products in their vehicles; (3) whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) operates a certification or testing program for seat covers; (4) whether any Federal regulations prevent seat covers from covering the air bag labels that are often found on seats; and (5) whether NHTSA is aware of any industry standards in regards to side impact air bags and seat covers.
This letter responds to your questions. Our answers are based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter.
By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to both new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.[1] NHTSA does not approve or certify vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Currently there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to aftermarket seat covers. Thus, you are not subject to a certification requirement, since no FMVSS applies to your product.[2] However, seat covers are considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you must ensure that your seat covers are free of safety-related defects. Among other things, manufacturers are responsible for notifying this agency, notifying purchasers of the product, and remedying the problem free of charge when a safety defect is discovered. (1) Federal Regulations Regarding Side Air Bags and Seat Covers
You ask whether there are Federal regulations that regulate the deployment of side air bags in relation to seat covers. Vehicle manufacturers have been installing side air bags in vehicle seats for a number of years. In 2007, NHTSA issued a final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, to provide increased head and thorax protection for occupants of vehicles that crash sideways into poles or trees or are laterally struck by higher-riding vehicles.[3] Vehicle manufacturers are installing seat-mounted, door- and roof-mounted side air bags in new vehicles to meet this new FMVSS requirement. May you sell an aftermarket seat cover that covers up the seat-mounted side air bag installed to meet FMVSS No. 214? There are several factors to consider. First, under 30122 of the Safety Act, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design that was installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with the FMVSSs. In our opinion, if a seat-mounted side air bag were installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 214, 30122 would not permit a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to install the seat cover if the entity knew that the seat cover would make the air bags inoperative. (We are aware that the persons purchasing your seat covers are typically vehicle owners who install the seat covers themselves and that it is thus unlikely that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business will install your seat covers.) Second, vehicle owners are not subject to the make inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act when installing items in their vehicles or otherwise modifying their vehicles. They may install an aftermarket product even if the product negatively affects the safety systems in their vehicles, without violating our regulations. Nonetheless, we encourage vehicle owners to avoid disabling or reducing the effectiveness of safety features on their vehicles. Further, State law may have restrictions on the modifications vehicle owners may make to their vehicles. Third, we believe it is practicable for manufacturers of seat covers to design their product such that the seat covers will not affect the proper deployment of side impact air bags. We understand that seat cover manufacturers have been producing such products for years. NHTSA regulations do not require manufacturers of seat covers to test their seat covers to see if they are compatible with the side air bags. However, generally speaking, we strongly encourage manufacturers to carefully consider how their aftermarket equipment might affect the safety systems on a vehicle.
(2) Liability Arising from Consumer Installation of Seat Covers
You ask whether your company should be concerned with possible liabilities of consumer installation of your products in their vehicles. To answer this question and to further address your questions about testing seat covers, you should consult a private attorney on this matter. As personal injury and tort litigation are generally matters of State law, such an attorney would have the best information with which to advise your company.
(3) Certification and Testing of Products
Your third question asks whether NHTSA operates a certification or testing program for seat covers. As explained above, NHTSA does not provide approvals of or certifications for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.
We suggest you contact an independent testing laboratory if you are interested in tests of seat covers. For your information, I have enclosed a list of independent test laboratories that NHTSA has used under contract to conduct compliance testing to various FMVSSs. This list is available on NHTSAs website: www.nhtsa.gov.
(4) Covering the Air Bag Label on Seats
You ask whether any Federal regulations prevent seat covers from covering the air bag labels that are often found on seats. We assume you refer to the label or tag on a vehicle seat that indicates the presence of a side air bag.
Our answer is no. Our safety standards do not require that manufacturers include a label to indicate the presence of a side air bag to the vehicle user. The label does not include safety information or warnings. We have no restrictions on a seat cover covering the tag other than those related to performance, discussed above.
(5) Industry Standards Regarding Seat Covers
You ask whether NHTSA is aware of any industry standards in regards to side impact air bags and seat covers. Our answer is no, but we suggest you try contacting the test laboratories listed in the enclosure. The Society of Automotive Engineers (telephone: 1-877-606-7323) might also have information on industry standards pertaining to your product.
We hope this information has been helpful. For your information, we have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturers responsibilities under the Safety Act and other NHTSA requirements.
Should you have any further questions, please contact Jesse Chang of my staff at 202-366-2992.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Enclosures
Ref: FMVSS No. 214 8/17/2011 |
|
ID: 11-000700 J.Hoffrichter (Std No. 207)OpenJames Hofrichter Vice President of Engineering Seats Incorporated 1515 Industrial Street Reedsburg, WI 53959 Dear Mr. Hofrichter: This responds to your January 11, 2011 letter concerning whether a new seating application for trucks meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, which governs vehicle seating systems. Specifically, you ask several questions about vertical movement of a seating system during testing and whether such movement would mean that the seat was not compliant with the requirements of S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207. As explained below, we believe that the movement you describe may constitute a test failure under FMVSS No. 207. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following is our interpretation of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs based on the description contained in your letter. S4.2.1, Seat Adjustment, states, Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, each seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in S5. You describe your application as an upper seat on a motor-powered seat adjuster with both horizontal and vertical adjustment. You indicate that when you perform the pull test specified by FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210 and apply the specified forces to the seat through the lap belt, shoulder belt, and seat center of gravity, with the seat riser initially set in the lowest position, the rear linkage of the riser rotates up about 1.5 inches to the highest position. You ask several questions regarding the requirements of S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207 and whether this movement violates the requirements of that paragraph. You first ask whether paragraph S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207 applies to vertical movement of a motor-powered seat adjuster. S4.2.1 contains only one exception to its requirement that a seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested. The exception is for the vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses. Our understanding is that your seat is not a nonlocking suspension type occupant seat. It appears to adjust and lock in a manner similar to the seat described in a letter we sent to Paul Wagner (See enclosed March 21, 1995 letter). The standard does not provide an exception encompassing vertical movement in other types of seats. You next ask, If the seat power riser vertical movement was due to rotation of the motorized parts beyond that due to backlash, would it be compliant if the seat is able to withstand the required FMVSS [No.] 207 forces? We have interpreted FMVSS No. 207 to allow some deformation of the seats (e.g., bending or twisting) during the force test, provided that the structural integrity of the seats is maintained. We do not consider such deformation, by itself, to constitute a change in adjustment position. However, if deformation allows the seat to move from one adjustment position to another, that movement would violate S4.2.1s requirement that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested. In a previous interpretation letter, we discussed movement due to backlash, which typically refers to the gap between mechanical elements such as mating gears used to drive or move a device (See enclosed November 13, 2007 letter to Dick Sabath). We do not consider movement of a seat strictly due to backlash, regardless of whether the mechanism of adjustment is an electric motor, to be a change in adjustment position. Thus, such movement would not violate the requirement in S4.2.1 that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested. However, movement beyond backlash may violate S4.2.1. For example, if any of the seat movement is due to movement of the driving mechanism, such as rotation of the gear providing the seat adjustment, we would consider such movement to be a change in adjustment position and thus to be in violation of S4.2.1. In addition, if a change in the adjusted position is caused by the gear mechanism being destroyed, the seat would not comply with S4.2.1 (See enclosed December 23, 1994 letter to Paul N. Wagner). You next ask, If the seat power riser vertical movement was due to adjustment teeth shearing, misaligning or slipping and moving from one position to another, would it be compliant if it is able to withstand the required FMVSS [No.] 207 forces? As stated above, movement of the seat from one adjustment position to another during testing violates the requirements of S4.2.1. Accordingly, we would consider the seat movement described in your second question to be a test failure under FMVSS No. 207. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact William Shakely of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosures Ref: Standard No. 207 Dated: 6/22/12 |
2012 |
ID: 11-001987 nelson.may18OpenMr. Brian Nelson Michigan Association of Timbermen 7350 M 123 Newberry, MI 49868 Dear Mr. Nelson: This letter responds to your letter asking whether a product commonly known in the logging industry as a slasher saw table would be considered a motor vehicle within the laws and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, our answer is no. You explain that a slasher saw table is a large saw permanently mounted to a bundling carriage that has two wheels and is pulled behind another trailer or truck. It is used for cutting logs to a uniform length for loading onto a logging truck. Although a slasher saw table is equipped with wheels, you state that it is intended to remain in extreme off-road conditions for months at a time, as a logging site is harvested. You also state that, when transferred between sites, a slasher saw table is pulled behind a mobile log loader, which is equipped with brakes. By way of background, NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The FMVSSs are applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. That is, NHTSA regulates the manufacture of new motor vehicles. You state that an issue has arisen whether the slasher saw table is subject to regulations administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). We note that questions about the applicability of FMCSAs regulations should be directed to that agency. We do not consider the slasher saw table to be a motor vehicle. The term motor vehicle is defined in section 30102(a)(6) of the Safety Act as a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles. For example, vehicles that frequently travel between job sites using highways are considered motor vehicles because the on-highway use is more than incidental. In a November 5, 2004 letter to Ms. Robin C. DesCamp of Blount International, Inc., we opined on whether certain types of logging equipment would be considered a motor vehicle. Among the logging equipment discussed in that letter were logging cranes. We stated that, because logging cranes were intended to remain at a single location for long periods of time and are moved only infrequently between logging sites, we concluded that the logging cranes are not motor vehicles. A slasher saw table, as you have described it, appears to be akin to items of mobile construction equipment and logging cranes that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the slasher saw table described in your letter is not a motor vehicle. Because a slasher saw table is not a motor vehicle, it is not subject to the FMVSSs. 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: VSA 571.3 7/25/11 |
|
ID: 11-002613 drn.docOpenLawrence A. Beyer, Esq. 674 Lake Road Webster, NY 14580 Dear Mr. Beyer: This responds to your letter asking us whether the Goldhofer Modular Trailer Model THP SL (Model THP SL) is a motor vehicle within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. As explained below, the answer is no. By way of background information, NHTSA interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term motor vehicle as follows: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. Further, if a vehicle is a motor vehicle, it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be sold or imported into the United States (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)). Description of the Goldhofer Modular Trailer Model THP SL In your letter, you state that the Model THP SL is designed for ultra heavy duty applications for short distance transportation of goods from 80 to 10,000 tons (160,000 to 20,000,000 pounds) on uneven and/or constricted locations. The Model THP SL is described as being 9 feet 10 inches (118 inches or 3 meters) wide. Each module has six or eight independently controlled axles with four tires per axle. Each axle is controlled for steering, height and angle. Each axle can be raised by 16 inches and tilted 60 degrees independently, in order to ensure load stability. These actions can be either automatic or controlled by a Tillerman who monitors the movement of the unit. The units are designed to be operated singly or in combination with other units, either following each other or side to side, depending on the material being transported. We note that two units transported side by side take up a width of at least 236 inches, or almost 20 feet. You state that when loaded, the maximum speed of the trailers is 20 miles per hour. You included a series of photographs depicting the Model THP SL by itself, and showing the types of loads the Model THP SL carries in an open field, and in what appear to be shipyards or ports. Intended Uses of the Goldhofer Modular Trailer Model THP SL You state that your clients use for the Model THP SL is short distance transport of unusually large cargo on job sites such as petrochemical refineries, power plants, utility substations, shipping ports and rail sidings. Your client estimates that well over 90 percent of the use will be at those locations. You stated that those uses will be limited due to logistics and expense. In order to travel on the public roads, permits must be issued, there must be road closures, police escorts, utility equipment (power lines) must be relocated, and there are weight restrictions. You state that even crossing a street requires road closing and permits and can take most of a day. You state that the payloads are typically located at large facilities located adjacent to locations engaged in long distance shipping such as ship yards and rail-heads. As an example, you provide the situation where a new steam turbine is delivered via ship. The turbine itself is too heavy and cumbersome to be lifted out of the hold of the ship with a crane. However, the Model THP SLs specialized design allows it to be positioned on the ship to take on and transport a load that no other equipment can. The turbine is then transported to another means of transport such as rail or a barge. The Model THP SL is then used to move the turbine from the intermediate transporter to the final destination, the generator. Due to its design, the Model THP SL is able to be placed directly adjacent to the turbine for relatively easy loading. The Model THP SL is able to be maneuvered to the desired location for its placement at the generator facility. You state that this sort of job would take well over a week to complete. You state that when the Model THP SL is not in use (presumably, when it is not carrying a load), it is typically transported to and from the job site on a semi-trailer. Finally, you state that the Model THP SL can also be used as a mobile construction platform. The Model THP SL can locate a temporary electric generator or substation near a unit which requires service, thus minimizing service disruption. The Model THP SL can also be used to remove broken equipment from one area to be repaired on site. NHTSAs Analysis As we have stated in other interpretation letters, whether the agency will consider vehicles, including vehicles that can be used in construction, or similar equipment, to be motor vehicles depends on their use.[1] It is the agency's position that the statutory definition of motor vehicle does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. Even if the Model THP SL may, on occasion, travel on public roads, such on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. There are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." Clearly the intended uses of the Model THP SL are not analogous to how dump trucks are used. Based on the information provided with your letter, we believe that the on-highway use of your clients product to be merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Therefore, we do not consider the Goldhofer Modular Trailer Model THP SL to be a motor vehicle. Please note that the views expressed in this letter are limited to the Goldhofer Modular Trailer Model THP SL. This letter is not generally applicable to all Goldhofer vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Part 571 8/17/2011
[1] See, for example, the interpretation letter of October 20, 2003 to Schiller International Corp, signed by Jacqueline Glassman, NHTSA Chief Counsel. |
|
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.