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: 08-000497--16 Jan 09--rewriteOpenMr. Thomas Betzer Global Engineering Manager Keykert USA 46941 Liberty Drive Wixom, MI 48393 Dear Mr. Betzer: This responds to your email asking whether a certain theft deterring double-lock function will meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, as amended by a February 6, 2007 final rule. As discussed below, our answer is no. You did not describe the double-lock system in detail, but we assume for the purposes of this letter that the system has features described in the agencys April 10, 1987 letter to Karl-Heinz Ziwica of BMW (copy enclosed). With that system, the driver locks the doors with a key. If the key is rotated to a certain point and removed, the vehicles burglar alarm is armed and the doors are double locked, such that after the plungers move downward, the outside handle, the inside handle, and the locking plunger cannot be used to unlock a door. When double locked, the doors can only be unlocked using a key in a front door lock.[1] In your letter, you stated that the double-lock function disables the interior unlocking mechanisms to prevent car theft by reaching into the vehicle to open a locked door. The February 6, 2007 final rule amended and updated requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and harmonized with the worlds first global technical regulation (GTR) for motor vehicles (72 FR 5385). (The effective date of the final rule is September 1, 2009; there are pending petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882.) The amended door locks requirements of the current standard are located in paragraphs S4.3 (door locks), S4.3.1 (rear side doors), and S4.3.2 (back doors) of the amended standard, as follows: S4.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which, when engaged, shall prevent operation of the exterior door handle or other exterior latch release control and which has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle. S4.3.1 Rear side doors. Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control. S4.3.2 Back doors. Each back door equipped with an interior door handle or other interior latch release control, shall be equipped with at least one locking device that meets the requirements of S4.3.1. These provisions changed some requirements of current FMVSS No. 206. The new S4.3 specifies that each door have an operating means and lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle, whereas current FMVSS No. 206 door locks requirements only specify that the door locking mechanism have an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. The current requirements read as follows: S4.1.3 Door Locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. S4.1.3.1 Side Front Door Locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. S4.1.3.2 Side Rear Door Locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative. With regard to these existing requirements which the 2007 final rule changed, NHTSA had interpreted current S4.1.3, S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 to permit a double-lock system such as the one you describe (April 10, 1987 letter to Kark-Heinz Ziwica of BMW). In the BMW letter, we explained that the permissibility of the system was dependent on whether the system interfered with an aspect of performance required by FMVSS No. 206. We interpreted the requirement for an interior operating means for the door locks to require only an operating means to engage the required door locking mechanisms, and not an operating means to disengage the locking mechanism. Therefore, NHTSA concluded that FMVSS No. 206 did not prohibit an additional locking device that negated the capability of the inside operating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system. Those FMVSS No. 206 requirements changed under the new door locks requirements set forth in the February 2007 final rule. Under the amended standard, each door will require an operating means and a lock release/engagement device (a device that both releases and engages the locking mechanism) located within the interior of the vehicle (new S4.3). A secondary locking device that negates the capability of the inside operating system for the door locks to disengage the locks will not meet the requirement in S4.3 that each door have a lock release device within the interior of the vehicle. NHTSAs intent to mandate locking devices with interior means to both release and engage the lock was made clear in the preambles to the February 6, 2007 GTR final rule and to the preceding December 15, 2004 notice of proposed rulemaking. In the preambles, the agency said that it sought to require interior door locks to be capable of being unlocked from the interior of the vehicle by means of a lock release device that has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device located in the interior of the vehicle. See 72 FR at 5394-5395; 69 FR 75020, 75027. Thus, the agency at S4.3 and S4.3.1 adopted requirements for a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle. After reviewing the preambles of the GTR rulemaking and the regulatory text of current and amended FMVSS No. 206, we have determined that a double-lock system such as that described in the BMW letter will no longer be permitted under the standard because it interferes with the interior lock release device of the door. Since neither the inside nor the outside door handle can open the door, it is presumed that the lock is engaged and that the interior lock release device was unable to unlock the door. Child Safety Locks Conversely, we interpret the amended FMVSS No. 206 to continue to permit child safety locks that only disable the interior latch release (door handle) of rear side doors. When such a child safety lock is engaged on a rear side door, the interior lock release/engagement device can continue to engage and release the door lock. In addition, when the door lock is released, the door can be opened by operating the exterior door handle even when the child safety lock is engaged. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:206 d.7/24/07 [1] We note that with your system, electronic unlocking via a key fob can also deactivate the double-lock function. |
2007 | ||||||||||||
ID: 08-000763--26 Feb 08--rlsOpenMr. Jack Jay McCracken Assistant Secretary Cooper Tire and Rubber Company 701 Lima Avenue Findlay, OH 45840-2315 Dear Mr. McCracken: This responds to your letter concerning laser-etched[1] date codes in the tire identification number (TIN) required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles, and Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 574 (49 CFR Part 574), Tire identification and recordkeeping. You ask whether FMVSS No. 139 and Part 574 would permit laser-etched date codes in the TIN at a minimum depth of 0.010 inches. Based on the information you provided and the analysis below, the answer to your question is yes, as FMVSS No. 139 and 49 CFR Part 574 do not specify a minimum depth for laser-etched date codes. However, please note that the agency is considering addressing in an upcoming rulemaking whether a minimum depth should be required for laser-etched date codes. By way of background, your letter states that you currently use traditional molded date codes to comply with the TIN requirement, but that you are considering switching to laser etching for the date codes for both technician safety and time-saving reasons. You believe that a laser-etched date code at a depth of 0.010 inches is at least as legible as a traditional molded date code with a depth of 0.020 inches. Further, you note that a depth of 0.020 inches for laser etching may create an undesirable cosmetic effect for some whitewall tires, in that at this depth, the white layer of rubber inside the sidewall would sometimes show through in one or more of the date code numbers. Discussion FMVSS No. 139, at paragraph S5.5.1(b), states that each tire manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 must be labeled with the TIN required by 49 CFR Part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire. 49 CFR Part 574, at 574.5, states that the TIN must be permanently molded into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1. Figure 1 specifies at Note 1: Tire identification number shall be in Futura Bold, Modified Condensed or Gothic characters permanently molded (0.020 to 0.040) deep. Section 574.5 also states that: at the option of the manufacturer, the information contained in paragraph (d) of this section [the date code section of the TIN] may, instead of being permanently molded, be laser etched into or onto the sidewall in the location specified in Figure 1. The question you raise is whether a date code laser-etched in the location specified in Figure 1 may have a minimum depth of 0.010 inches. Our answer is yes. Section 574.5 states that molding must be done in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, but states for etching only that it must be done in the location specified in Figure 1. In addition, Note 1 of Figure 1, as written, specifies the 0.020-0.040 inch depth only for permanent molding. Because 574.5 and Note 1 do not clearly specify that laser etching must be to the same depth as molding, you may laser etch the date codes at a shallower depth than 0.020 inch. Keep in mind, however, that we believe a depth requirement for laser etching should be considered to ensure sufficient long-term legibility of the TIN and date code. We plan to address the issue in an upcoming rulemaking on Part 574. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:574 d.5/8/08 [1] You use the term engraved instead of etched. The regulation at issue, 49 CFR Part 574, uses the term etched. For purposes of this letter, we consider engraved and etched to be synonomous and will use the term etched for consistency with Part 574. |
2008 | ||||||||||||
ID: 08-001245 belly padOpenMs. Diana D. Smith Belly Pad Buddies 1795 N. Fry Rd., #148 Katy, TX 77449 Dear Ms. Smith: This responds to your letter about a product you market called the Belly Pad Buddy, which you describe as a type of pad designed for use with an infant child restraint (infant seat) with a 5-point harness restraint. You ask for information about Federal and state requirements that apply to your product. According to your letter, the Belly Pad Buddy was designed to help prevent pinching caused by the 5-point harness buckle when securing the infant in the car seat carrier. Other benefits can be that it helps prevent against a hot buckle and provides a cushion to protect the infant from the hard buckle. The pad is attached to the infant seat by strapping a part of it around the infant seat crotch strap. The Belly Pad Buddy consists of a 4- by 6-inch pad that is about to 1 inches thick.[1] You state that the product is sold in the aftermarket for installation by the owner of the infant seat in his or her own vehicle. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (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. There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Belly Pad Buddy. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS No. 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less." (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds.) The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pad that is used with a child restraint system. While no FMVSS applies to the Belly Pad Buddy, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, while it is unlikely that the Belly Pad Buddy would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. You state in your letter that you believe that the Belly Pad Buddy does not interfere with the infant seats buckle restraint system. Because we do not approve or certify products, we cannot agree or disagree with your assessment. Instead, we note for your consideration that FMVSS No. 213 requires specific levels of performance for infant seats as a system and also for seat webbing and buckles as components of the child restraint system, whose performance could be affected by aftermarket accessory pads. Further, an aftermarket pad inserted between the webbing and the child passenger could compress in a crash and degrade the ability of the belt system to properly restrain the infant in a crash. In addition, FMVSS No. 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for child restraints. Any person listed in 30122 who installs a Belly Pad Buddy must not make inoperative the flammability resistance of the child restraint system. The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. State or local jurisdictions might have their own requirements for products such as the Belly Pad Buddy. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:213 d.4/17/08 [1] This description is based on your letter and on a photograph of your product shown on your website: www.bellypadbuddies.com. |
2008 | ||||||||||||
ID: 08-001297OpenWilliam E. Otto, Esq. Sebring & Associates 2735 Mosside Boulevard Monroeville, PA 15146 Dear Mr. Otto: This responds to your letter asking two questions about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, regarding outside rearview mirrors. 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 also investigates safety-related defects. The agency 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 ask about an outside drivers side rearview mirror that would contain two parts. You state that on the right portion of the mirror, a section of the mirror would contain a FMVSS No. 111-compliant flat mirror, while the left portion of the mirror would contain a curved or aspheric component. You also suggested that this additional section may cause the mirror to extend farther than the widest part of the vehicle body. You ask two questions relating to this design, which are restated below. Q1. You ask whether a single drivers side mirror containing both a flat portion and curved or aspherical portion located to the left of said flat portion would be permitted by S5.2.1 of Standard No. 111, provided that the flat portion of the mirror otherwise complies with Section S5.2.1. Our answer is yes. FMVSS No. 111, S5.2.1, Field of view, states that [e]ach passenger car shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification, which requires a flat mirror. However, if this requirement is met, there is no specific prohibition on additional mirrored surfaces, which can be convex or aspheric. In a previous letter of interpretation from 1995, NHTSA answered a similar question in the affirmative. In that letter, we stated, [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine a portion of the mirror with a straight angle with a portion of the mirror that is at a slight variance, provided that the straight mirror portion by itself complies with the requirements in FMVSS No. 111 that are applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.[1] Similarly, in a 1998 letter, NHTSA stated that [v]ehicle manufacturers may install mirror systems that combine flat and convex mirrors on their new vehicles, provided that the flat mirror portion by itself meets FMVSS No. 111 requirements applicable to the vehicle on which the mirror system is installed.[2] Therefore, assuming your drivers side flat mirror meets the field of view requirements, we can confirm that an additional aspheric portion would not be prohibited. Q2. You ask whether a drivers side mirror which protrudes farther than the widest part of the vehicle body is permitted under S5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 111, if the extent of the protrusion is limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate a mirror which exceeds the requirements of Section S5.2.1 by the following characteristics: (1) the flat portion of the mirror complies with the requirements of Section S5.2.1 and (b) a curved or aspheric portion of the mirror located to the left of the flat portion of the mirror results in an increase in the field of view. Assuming that the aspheric portion of your mirror produces a field of view that exceeds S5.2.1, our answer is yes. Paragraph S5.2.2 reads, in part, neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1. (Emphasis added.) S5.2.2 as originally adopted (then S3.2.1.2) specified that neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body, except to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the field view requirements (32 FR 2408, 2413). Shortly thereafter, the exception was expanded to include the words meeting or exceeding in an early amendment to the standard (32 FR 5498, April 4, 1967, copy enclosed). Since the exception was revised to accommodate mirrors and mountings that produce a field of view exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1, we believe a protrusion to accommodate that part of the mirror is permitted. However, this exception does not extend to protrusions beyond the widest part of the body to accommodate items such as decorations or lights near that part of the mirror. Moreover, the mirror and mounting must be free of sharp points or edges that could contribute to pedestrian injury, as specified elsewhere in S5.2.2. I hope this answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:111 d.1/16/09 |
2009 | ||||||||||||
ID: 08-001603drn bus driver compartmentOpenMr. Paul Witkowski VCA North America 41000 West Seven Mile Road Suite 140 Northville, MI 48167-2664 Dear Mr. Witkowski: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask for guidance on 50 articulated hybrid-driveline buses that a United Kingdom bus manufacturer is manufacturing for sale in Nevada. These buses will be used as transit buses and will include a separate, lockable compartment for the bus driver that is partitioned off from the rest of the vehicle. You wish to know whether FMVSS No. 217 permits the design, i.e., whether under the standard the driver would have adequate access to the buss emergency exits. As explained below, FMVSS No. 217 does not prohibit the separate, lockable compartment specifically described in your letter. However, there are other requirements and safety considerations of which you should be aware. 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. The following is an interpretation of our requirements based on the information you provided. You describe the drivers compartment as having: a full height tinted glass partition that separates the driver from the main passenger compartment. Access to the drivers compartment is gained from the main passenger compartment through a centrally mounted full depth tinted glass door, that when opened, allows the driver to ascend the two steps to his elevated workplace. You explain that the cab door is spring loaded and will close behind the driver entering the compartment. The driver has two ways of locking the door. The first way is by manually operating a handle on the door to lock the door. To release the lock and open the door, the driver rotates the handle 90 degrees clockwise. The second way is by pushing a button from the drivers seat that electrically operates a shoot bolt which mechanically extends a steel bar into a mating hole in the door. To release the lock, the button is pressed again. You state that the electronic locking feature requires constant electrical power to remain locked, and will open upon loss of electrical power. You also state that the drivers compartment has one side window to the left of the driver that has a sliding portion that can open for ventilation and to allow the driver to adjust the exterior mirror. The glass on the right side of the drivers compartment does not open.[1] We assume that neither of these two side windows meets the requirements for emergency window exits of FMVSS No. 217. Discussion FMVSS No. 217 applies to buses, except buses manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons under physical restraint. (See S3.) Among other purposes, FMVSS No. 217 is intended to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. (See S2.) FMVSS No. 217 states in part at S5.2.2.1: Buses other than school buses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus. The main question presented by your letter is whether the bus provides the driver unobstructed openings for emergency exit. In your design, the driver is separated from the passenger compartment that has the emergency exits but still is able to readily access those exits. The driver can manually unlock and open the door in one or two motions, and the lock will also automatically disengage the locking mechanism in the event of an electrical failure. Because of these features, in our opinion FMVSS No. 217 does not prohibit your design. Keep in mind that the bus drivers seating position must be counted in the S5.2.2.1 calculation of required unobstructed openings for emergency exit. There are other requirements and safety considerations of which you should be aware. Because you describe the compartment as made of tinted glass, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the compartment meets all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials. FMVSS No. 205 applies to buses and to glazing materials used in those vehicles. (See S3.1(a).) States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles and may have laws pertaining to the drivers access to an emergency exit or to other aspects relating to your vehicle. You should check State law to see how they affect your vehicles. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:217 d.11/20/08 [1] You enclosed photographs of a bus that was manufactured for use in the U.K. To clarify the photographs, based on a telephone conversation between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, we note that the window you say is to Drivers LH Side (page 4 of your letter) is actually, in the photograph, to the drivers right hand side of that bus. The same is noted for the window to drivers right hand side. It is actually to the drivers left side in the photograph. |
2008 | ||||||||||||
ID: 08-001744 TPMS 4 questions (Wacker)--22 Jan 09 rsyOpenVice President of Marketing and Sales Schrader Electronics Ltd. 3255 West Hamlin Road Rochester Hills, MI 48309 Dear Mr. Wacker: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation clarifying specific issues with respect to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. Specifically, you asked whether a tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) must warn drivers of low tire pressure in particular circumstances, such as up to the maximum speed of the vehicle, and under all road surfaces and road conditions (including ice, snow, rain, gravel, dirt, and so forth). You also asked whether a TPMS must comply with FMVSS No. 138 if a vehicle dealer changes the tire and wheel combination prior to first sale. Additionally, you asked whether a TPMS must warn a driver if a tire begins a journey underinflated, but within 20 minutes passes the under-inflation threshold by warming up while traveling. Based on the information you have provided and our analysis below, our answers are as follows. 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. Whether FMVSS No. 138s requirements must be met under various operating conditions: Two questions in your letter addressed the issue of whether FMVSS No. 138s requirements must be met under various vehicle operating conditions. First, you asked whether TPMS must be able to warn a driver of low tire pressure up to the maximum speed of the vehicle. The test procedures of FMVSS No. 138 specify that a vehicles TPMS may be tested at speeds between 50 km/h (31.1 mph) and 100 km/h (62.2 mph), and that the vehicle must meet the applicable requirements when tested at any point within the range. See S5.3.2 and S5.3.6 of FMVSS No. 138. We note, however, that while vehicles are not required to meet requirements beyond those specified in the standard, it is the agencys expectation that TPMS will function normally over a wide range of operating conditions. The same would be true regarding your second question, whether TPMS must be able to warn a driver of low tire pressure on all road surfaces and road conditions. (For Example: Ice, Snow, Rain, Gravel, Dirt, etc) S5.2 of FMVSS No. 138 specifies that the road surface is dry during testing. Again, however, we would expect a TPMS to function normally over a wide range of roadway surface conditions beyond the dry conditions specified for compliance testing. The applicability of FMVSS No. 138 to dealer-altered vehicles: You also asked in your letter whether a TPMS must comply with FMVSS No. 138 if a new vehicle dealer upgrades a Tire and Wheel Combination prior to the original sale of the vehicle. The answer is yes. S5.3.7 of the standard states: The vehicle is tested with the tires installed on the vehicle at the time of initial vehicle sale, excluding the spare tire (if provided). . . . In the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 138, NHTSA stated that After considering these comments related to TPMS functionality with replacement tires, we have decided to adopt the approach presented in the NPRM to require the TPMS-equipped vehicle to be certified with the tires originally installed on the vehicle at the time of initial vehicle sale. We emphasize that it would not be permissible for dealers to install tires on a new vehicle that would take it out of compliance with the TPMS standard, and to do so would violate the prohibition on manufacturing, selling, and importing noncomplying motor vehicles and equipment in 49 U.S.C. 30112. 70 Fed. Reg. 18159 (Apr. 8, 2005). NHTSA explained that If the consumer cannot expect to acquire a vehicle that meets all applicable safety standards at the time of first purchase, the purpose of Standard No. 138, and in fact all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, would be severely undermined.[1] Thus, it would be impermissible for a dealer to sell a vehicle at first sale with tires and rims that are incompatible with the vehicles TPMS. After first sale, the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) would be applicable. We note that the agency discussed this provision in the context of TPMS and replacement tires and rims, including concerns that a small population of replacement tires and rims may be incompatible with a vehicles TPMS, at 70 Fed. Reg. 18160-61 (Apr. 8, 2005) and 70 Fed. Reg. 53086 (Sept. 7, 2005). Essentially, NHTSA explained that in such a situation, as long as the TPMS malfunction indicator light illuminated to warn the vehicle operator that the tires and/or rims were preventing the TPMS from functioning properly, we would consider the TPMS to be functioning properly. However, we noted that this result might be different where it could be shown that the installer of the aftermarket or replacement tires or rims knew of the incompatibility beforehand or took some other action to disable a functioning TPMS unit. NHTSA will consider whether these situations result in violations of the make inoperative provision on a case-by-case basis. Whether the low tire pressure warning telltale must illuminate if the low-pressure situation is remedied within 20 minutes of starting to drive: You further asked whether a TPMS must warn the driver (i.e., illuminate the low tire pressure warning telltale) if a tire is 25% below cold placard pressure at the beginning of a journey and within 20 minutes of that journey the air in the tire warms and pressure increases to above the 25% threshold for warning. FMVSS No. 138 requires a TPMS both to calibrate and to be able to detect low tire pressure (and illuminate the low tire pressure warning telltale) within 20 minutes of commencing driving under the specified test conditions. See S6 and S4.2 of FMVSS No. 138. From a safety standpoint, it is desirable to have a low tire pressure warning activate as soon as possible. The 20-minute time period was developed based on the agencys careful balancing of safety and practicability concerns, given the data that we had at the time. There would, however, be no requirement to illuminate the telltale once the air in the tire warms and pressure increases above the low-pressure threshold. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 11/13/09 [1] Id. These safety standards include, among other things, requirements for the vehicles braking system and, if so equipped, electronic stability control system. |
|||||||||||||
ID: 08-002061 chen date of manufactureOpenJames C. Chen, Esq. Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. Chen: This responds to your letter asking about requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, that manufacturers label their products with a date of manufacture. A date of manufacture is required to be labeled on add-on child restraints (S5.5.2(c)), built-in child restraints (S5.5.5(c)), and on the child restraint registration card required by S5.8.1(c) of the standard. When describing the date of manufacture that manufacturers must provide, the standard refers to month and year (S5.5.2(c) and S5.5.5(c)), month, year (S5.8.1(c) and S5.8.2(a)(2)), or ZZ-ZZ-20ZZ (Figure 9a depicting registration form). You ask whether your client, Graco Childrens Products, Inc., may depict the date of manufacture as:
You state that Graco would include the clarifying text that explains the meaning of the numerals. For instance, a typical label would appear as follows in the shaded area of the registration form (the area outside of the space for the consumer to fill in) (you provided this example in a letter to us dated May 16, 2008):
Our answer is yes, Graco may use the above format to provide the date of manufacture on the child restraints and on the registration card. Discussion FMVSS No. 213 requires that the month and year of manufacture be identified. It is our opinion that Gracos year-month-day format satisfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 213, provided that the words year, month, and day accompany the numerals. The words are important to explain the meaning of the numerals, since the U.S. typically uses a month, day, year format. With the accompanying text your clients format is readily understood as providing the month and year of manufacture. Accordingly, Gracos labeling would satisfy the standards requirement that a date of manufacture be provided. We would like to make the following observations about use of the format on the registration form. FMVSS No. 213 strictly controls the appearance of the form. We have found that the appearance of the form affects the likelihood that a consumer will participate in the owner registration program. S5.8(b)(2) requires that the registration form conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard. Each form must be preprinted with the restraints model name or number and its date of manufacture. Under S5.8 no other information is permitted to appear on the postcard, except information that distinguishes a particular restraint from another restraint system may be preprinted in the shaded area of the postcard, as shown in figure 9a. (S5.8.1(b)(3)). Gracos year-month-day format does not affect the overall appearance of the registration form. It provides the month and year of manufacture, and distinguishes a particular restraint from another restraint system. According to the example you provided, the year-month-day grid will be placed on the shaded area of the postcard. All of these factors lead us to conclude that the year-month-day format would satisfy S5.8.1(b)(3) of the standard. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:213 d.11/20/08 |
2008 | ||||||||||||
ID: 08-002063asOpenInternational & Regulatory Affairs Valeo Lighting Systems 34, rue Saint-Andr 93 012 Bobigny Cedex France Dear Mr. Dorleans: This responds to your letter, in which you ask about the activation of daytime running lamps (DRLs) under the administrative rewrite version of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you ask whether various LED (light-emitting diode) lamp designs, incorporating a parking lamp function in addition to other functions, can be used as DRLs under the new version standard. Our answer is that the new version of FMVSS No. 108 does not affect that opinion we provided in our April 29, 2008 letter to you. 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. On December 4, 2007, NHTSA published an administrative rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 (72 FR 68234). This rewrite was intended to present the existing regulatory requirements in a simpler, more straightforward manner, and to reduce the need to consult outside documentation. As we stated in the summary of the notice: This document amends the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 on lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment by reorganizing the regulatory text so that it provides a more straightforward and logical presentation of the applicable regulatory requirements, which includes the agencys interpretation of the existing requirements. This final rule does not impose any new substantive requirements on manufacturers. In a letter of interpretation we mailed to you on April 29, 2008, we stated: For the purpose of S5.5.11(a) [of the current version of FMVSS No. 108], the array of LEDs that you described in your letter, which can serve the function of parking lamps or other lamps depending on how they are activated, would not be considered parking lamps in either of the scenarios that you described. In DRL mode, the lamps would be substantially brighter than the parking lamps, and according to your letter, their photometric output would comply with the requirements of S5.5.11(a)(1), which sets minimum and maximum output for DRLs. This would result in effective DRLs, which is the intent of the requirement in FMVSS No. 108. This relayed our opinion that your lighting system was permissible under FMVSS No. 108. This opinion is not changed by the fact that the standard has been reworded. For reference, as you stated in your letter, the rewritten language (now in paragraph S6.1.1.4) reads: Daytime running lamps. A passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, or bus may be equipped with a pair of daytime running lamps (DRLs) as specified in Table I and S7.10 of this standard. DRLs may be any pair of lamps on the front of the vehicle, whether or not required by this standard, other than parking lamps or fog lamps. Therefore, the opinion expressed in our previous letter, that the lighting system that you propose is permissible under the standard, will still hold true when the new language for FMVSS No. 108 comes into effect. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel
d.1/16/09 |
2009 | ||||||||||||
ID: 08-002064drnOpenRobert Babcock, Senior Manager Regulation and Certification Department Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center Inc. 6800 Geddes Road Superior Township, MI 48198 Dear Mr. Babcock: This responds to your letter asking about an exemption from vehicle parts marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. As we understand your letter, you ask about optional antitheft device equipment for a car line that has received an exemption for standard equipment where the optional equipment is equivalent in capability to the standard equipment that received the exemption. Our answer is we cannot provide the exemption you request. 49 U.S.C. Section 33106, Exemption for passenger motor vehicles equipped with anti-theft devices, permits manufacturers to petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for an exemption for a line of passenger motor vehicles equipped as standard equipment with an anti-theft device that [NHTSA] decides is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. (Emphasis added.) (See 49 U.S.C. Section 30166(b)(2)). Your letter states that: HATCI [Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc.] requests the consideration of the agency to the extension of this [exemption] provision to optional equipment where the option would be concluded to be as likely to be effective in reducing and deterring vehicle theft as would the standard equipment that the agency had previously provided an exemption where all vehicles in the car line would employ one or the other equivalent system. We are unable to comply with your request. By statute, the exemptions are to apply only to motor vehicle lines with antitheft devices as standard equipment. Standard equipment is defined at 49 U.S.C. Section 33106(a)(2) as: equipment already installed in a motor vehicle when it is delivered from the manufacturer and not an accessory or other item that the first purchaser customarily has the option to have installed. Your letter states that: HATCI believes that section 543.9(ii) provides the appropriate mechanism for this extension 49 CFR Part 543 establishes procedures for filing and processing petitions to exempt lines of vehicles from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. Section 543.2 specifies that the purpose of Part 543 is to specify the content and format of petitions for vehicle lines which include certain antitheft devices as standard requirement. Section 543.9 establishes procedures for NHTSA to terminate or modify an exemption provided under Part 543. There is no section 543.9(ii) in Part 543; we believe that you meant section 543.9(c)(2)(ii). At any rate, section 543.9 applies to procedures to terminate or modify an exemption for high theft motor vehicles lines that include antitheft devices as standard equipment. If you have questions about this or related issues, please feel free to contact my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:543 d.11/20/08 |
2008 | ||||||||||||
ID: 08-002289asOpenDamian J. Pelegrino, President Top Cargo Inc. 9869 NW 79th Avenue Miami, FL 33016 Dear Mr. Pelegrino: This responds to your letter, in which you inquired about the classification of vehicles. Specifically, you requested this agencys opinion of whether certain electric scooters would be considered motor vehicles and subject to the regulatory requirements of this agency. Our answer is that, based on the information you provided in your letter and subject to the caveats included below, none of the vehicles you described would appear to be classified as a motor vehicle. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (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. To begin, the definition of a motor vehicle is provided in 49 U.S.C. 30102, and reads: [M]otor vehicle means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. All six of the vehicles that you described in your letter are two-wheeled, electric scooters that, according to your letter, have a rated speed of less than 20 mph. Congress has created a special category of vehicles called low-speed electric bicycles that is relevant to the classification of one of your vehicles. In the Consumer Product Safety Act (Pub. L. 107-319, December 4, 2002; codified at 15 U.S.C. 2085), Congress defined a low speed electric bicycle as a: [T]wo- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 HP), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph. Based on the information in your letter, one of the vehicles you described (the Model TDR48k41) would likely be classified as a low speed electric bicycle under this statute. Your letter stated that this vehicle has a 350 watt electric motor and a rated speed of 19.8 mph. While you did not indicate exactly how you calculated the rated speed, if its top speed was attained using the method indicated by Congress, it would be classified as a low speed electric bicycle, and therefore not a motor vehicle. The other vehicles you described do not have pedals, and so would not be classified as low speed electric bicycles. However, based on your descriptions, we do not believe that any of those vehicles would be considered motor vehicles either. In a draft notice of interpretation (70 FR 34810, copy enclosed) addressing low speed two- and three-wheeled vehicles, NHTSA articulated a method to distinguish those vehicles that fall under the statutory definition of motor vehicle from other vehicles. In that notice, we stated: Consistent with the Congressional definition of low speed electric bicycle, we have tentatively concluded that if a two- or three-wheeled vehicle were to have a maximum speed capability of less than 20 mph (32 km/h), regardless of on-road capabilities, it would not be a motor vehicle, except in very limited circumstances[1]. We have examined the information you sent us regarding the other five vehicles. All of them appear to be electric two-wheeled vehicles, with top speeds ranging from 18.64-19.8 mph (30-32 km/h). Therefore, based on our draft notice of interpretation referenced above, we would likely not consider any of them to be motor vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30102, and therefore not subject to regulation by NHTSA (this assumes that the rated speed you identified is consistent with the method we described in our draft notice of interpretation). We note, however, that all six of these vehicles would be regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Furthermore, the vehicles are subject to State laws. 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:571 d.1/16/09 [1] Those circumstances include instances in which the maximum speed has been lowered through use of a speed-governing device. We note that you did not provide any information as to whether the vehicles were equipped with such devices. If they are, then the vehicles may be considered motor vehicles. You may review the notice of interpretation at 70 FR 34812 for more information. |
2009 |
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.