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: 86-5.37OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 10/24/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. Heinz Huentemann TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Heinz Huentemann Vice-President Spartan Transit Supply Corp. 325 Fairlane Drive Spartanburg, SC 29302
Dear Mr. Huentemann:
This responds to your letter dated June 17, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a convex outside mirror manufactured by your company. In your letter, you state that this convex mirror has a reflective surface of 92.5 square inches, and would be used on the curb side of a transit bus. You also state that this convex mirror has a radius of curvature of 94.5 inches. You specifically asked whether this mirror could be used on the curb side of a transit bus. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, a copy of which is enclosed, sets different requirements for buses depending on whether the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is above 10,000 pounds. I believe that the GVWR of a transit bus would exceed 10,000 pounds. Buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds must meet S7.1, which requires buses, other than school buses, to have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 50 square inches of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle. These mirrors must also be located so as to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and must be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene. Although the surface, due to the 94.5-inch radius of curvature, it is not a unit magnification or plane mirror. Therefore, it does not meet the requirements for rearview mirrors on new buses.
A manufacturer of new transit buses could use your convex mirror on the curb side of the bus in addition to a unit magnification mirror which ? all applicable requirements of Standard No. 111. However, a commercial business could not substitute your mirror for a complying mirror. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety ? prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business could not remove a unit magnification rearview mirror, installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard, and replace that mirror with a convex mirror.
The sample of your rearview mirror, #STS-0-253, is being returned to you under separate cover.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel
Legal Council - NHPSA - NHTSA Room 5219 US-Department of Transportation 407th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590
Gentlemen:
Re: Authorization for use of convex outside mirrors with convexity of approximately 94.5" radius for installation on curb side of 130 Transit Buses for SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA
We are supplying the inside- and outside mirrors for a number of 130 AD8? Transit Buses to be built by Neoplan USA Corporation, Lamar, CO for Southeastern Pennsylvania Transport Authority, Philadelphia, PA. On the curb side, these buses will be equipped with a mirror 14 x 6.6" having a mirror surface of 92.5 sq. inch. The convexity is abt.94.5" in mirror radius.
With this petition we enclose a sample of this mirror, #STS-0.253, and which we please may ask you to return to us after inspection. Having contacted by phone the National Highway Safety Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations, Harrisburg, PA, we have been advised, that in accordance with FMVSS 1011 and 49 CFR Standard 111 a convex mirror on the curb side can have a convexity between 35" minimum to 65" maximum. Since our mirror has convexity of 94.5" radius it is meeting the required standard.
As this matter is of urgency, may we please, ask to have your written authorization at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Spartan Transit Supply Corp.
Heinz Huentemann Vice-President
Encl. - 1 Sample mirror - # STS - 0.253 |
|
ID: alliance.march20OpenRobert Strassburger, Vice President Dear Mr. Strassburger: This is in response to your letter of March 18, 2003, in which you asked questions regarding our interpretation of certain provisions of the early warning reporting rules promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579. You requested prompt turn around in view of the fact that the first reporting period will soon begin. This letter provides that response. I will first paraphrase your inquiries and then provide a brief statement of our interpretation. 1. Reporting Information on the Face of a Claim/Complaint. The Alliance inquired as to whether manufacturers must report complaints/claims based on the information contained on the face of the complaint or claim, rather than reporting on the basis of the manufacturers review or analysis of the complaint/claim. The answer is yes. Reporting is to be based on the information in the complaint or claim, rather than on the manufacturers assessment. Even if the manufacturer disagrees with the assertions of the consumer/claimant after conducting its analysis, the manufacturer must still report the complaint or claim. Each of the five examples given in your letter would be reportable as a "consumer complaint" under the early warning reporting rules. 2. Marketing Survey Information. The Alliance sought NHTSAs concurrence that marketing information purchased from third-party vendors (such as J.D. Power) or supplied by third parties (such as Consumer Reports magazine), which might contain information reflecting a consumers dissatisfaction with a product, is not reportable in the early warning program as a "consumer complaint," or otherwise, even if the information contains "minimum specificity" about the make, model, and model year of a vehicle. You also asked about complaints that are included in "marketing information" solicited by a manufacturer directly from the purchasers of its products. We concur with respect to third-party submissions, since they are not "addressed to the company . . . ." and therefore do not fall within the regulatory definition of "consumer complaint" in Section 579.4(c). However, if a manufacturer collects the information directly from its consumers, by itself or through a contractor, it would have to report any "complaints" included in that information, regardless of whether the primary purpose of the activity is marketing. As you note in your letter, consumers responding to such manufacturer surveys are "likely aware that they are communicating with the manufacturer." The fact that the comments are solicited by the manufacturer is not determinative, particularly since many consumers who make a complaint about a vehicle in this context will justifiably believe that they need not repeat that complaint to a different office within the company. 3.Dealer Repair Work Orders. The Alliance sought the agencys views on whether dealer repair work orders, if received in writing by a vehicle manufacturer, are reportable as " dealer field reports." These work orders are the dealers internal records of service performed at dealerships. As described in your letter, these work orders are not requested by, or provided to, manufacturers in the ordinary course of business, but might be submitted in the context of "lemon law" proceedings, product liability litigation, or similar proceedings, often many years after the service in question was performed. As such, we would not consider them to be "field reports" under the rule, and they would not have to be reported under that category. However, if the work had been performed under warranty, it would have to be reported as a warranty claim. 4.Vehicle Inspections Conducted to Determine Eligibility for Insurance and/or Extended Warranty Coverage. Finally, the Alliance asked whether written reports of vehicle inspections conducted solely to determine eligibility for insurance and/or extended warranty coverage are reportable as "field reports." As described in your letter, these reports are not prepared in response to an assertion that a specific problem exists in a particular vehicle, which is the normal genesis of field reports. Thus, although it is possible that an inspection report might identify a problem in a vehicle, it would not be a "communication . . . regarding the failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem . . . ." As such, these inspection reports would not have to be reported to us as field reports. If you have any questions, pleas call Taylor Vinson or Lloyd Guerci of this office at (202) 366-5263. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:579 |
1970 |
ID: Copy of 05-009466drnOpenMs. Phyllis Mason 2613 Sunny Meadow McKinney, TX 75070 Dear Ms. Mason: This responds to your letter about window screens. You state that you own a vehicle that has a rear window screen that raises and lowers with the touch of a button, and that you find the screen to be very useful. You ask whether a window screen that would operate with a switch built into the car to raise and lower a screen for the front window or windshield would be permitted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The short answer is that our regulations do not prohibit a vehicle from having such a screen, but we have some safety concerns about such a device. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates reports of safety-related defects. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under the standard, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. We have interpreted FMVSS No. 205 not to prohibit a retractable built-in screen for the rear window of vehicles (September 19, 1995 letter to General Motors Corporation). The agency determined in the 1995 letter that the screen is neither glazing in itself nor in combination with the glazing in the vehicle (because it is not attached to the glazing). Similarly, we interpret the standard as not prohibiting a retractable built-in front window screen. However, we have some safety concerns about in-vehicle front windshield shades. Driving with a lowered shade would be unsafe, as the view through the windshield could be substantially impeded. We are also concerned that these devices could be purposefully or unintentionally deployed while the vehicle is in motion.[1] From this perspective, non-mechanical front windshield shade products that protect the interior while the vehicle is parked do not convey such risk. Note that States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. If you wish to know whether State law permits the installation of front windshield screens in a vehicle, you should contact State officials with your question. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:205#302 d.6/19/06 [1] Our statute limits the types of modifications that manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses can make to used vehicles (49 U.S.C. 30122). These entities cannot install a built-in sun screen if doing so would make inoperative any device or design installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. |
2006 |
ID: nht95-7.19OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 11, 1995 FROM: A.D. Fisher TO: John Womack, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to A.D. Fisher (A43; Std. 108) TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack: Enclosed are two documents covering the operation, features and highway safety attributes of a modified, rear, third signal light for private and commercial vehicles. We have been advised by Mr. Blane Laubis, of NHTSA, to forward this to you for your evaluation. Please furnish us with your interpretation and comments about this product, including its use application, as applied to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FVMSS) #108. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Enclosures THE ENLIGHTNER Update May 31, 1995 "The Enlightner" replaces the third, center, high-mounted brake light as used in most modern day vehicles. The light (or lens) has two colors, Red and Amber. The top half of the lens is Amber and the bottom half is Red. Amber signals "Caution" and the Red signals "Stop" to the driver of the vehicle following a vehicle equipped with "the Enlightner". Functions of "The Enlightner": 1. The Red portion is lighted when the brake pedal is applied, with the ignition "ON" or "OFF". This function overrides all other functions. 2. The Amber portion is lighted when the transmission selector lever is in any forward position with the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal not depressed. When the brake or accelerator pedals are depressed, the Amber light is "OFF".
When the transmission lever is in Reverse position, the Amber light flashes constantly at the rate of 90 flashes per minute. The flashing is continuous regardless of accelerator pedal and brake pedal positions as long as the transmission selector lever is in Reverse position. This give a warning to everyone behind the vehicle that it is in Reverse and it about to back up or is backing up. When the accelerator pedal is released ("OFF"), the Amber portion comes "ON", giving a "Caution" signal to the driver of the vehicle behind the vehicle equipped with "The Enlightner" that deceleration is taking place. When the accelerator and brake are not in use, the Amber portion is lighted. When power is reapplied by depressing the accelerator, the Amber light goes "OFF". When deceleration is taking place, Amber is "ON". When the brakes are applied, Amber goes "OFF" and Red comes "ON". The advantages of "The Enlightener" over similar products is that it keeps the driver following behind totally informed (enlightened) as to the functions of the vehicle ahead. "The Enlightener" will reduce rear-end collisions (one of the most common accidents) and reduce highway traffic injuries and fatalities. Signed by Alfred D. Fisher Date June 1, 1995 Witnessed by Debra A. Thompson Date June 1, 1995 "The Enlightener" According to U.S. Government statistics, there are over 10,000,000 highway accidents annually costing Americans $98,100,000,000 with an average cost per accident of over $9,800. Of the 10 million accidents, 25.3%, or approximately 2 1/2 million, are rear-end collisions. The average reaction time, from the instant the brake signal on a vehicle is seen until the brakes on the vehicle following it are applied, is 3/4 of a second. At 60 miles per hour, a vehicle travels 66 feet in 3/4 of a second. After the brakes are applied, the stopping distance for a car travelling at 60 MPH is a minimum of 146 feet. Therefore, the total distance from seeing the brake signal to a full stop is at least 212 feet. Introducing "The Enlightener"......... featuring a Deceleration Caution Signal (DCS) in addition to the traditional third brake light. The instant the vehicle accelerator pedal is released and before the brake is applied, "The Enlightener" signals deceleration or a change of vehicle operation. It is estimated that the use of "The Enlightener" will reduce rear-end collisions over 41% and prevent thousands of highway injuries and fatalities. The reduction in costs to Americans would exceed $10.1 Billion annually. In addition to the Deceleration Caution Signal (DCS), other features of "The Enlightener" include the DCS being illuminated when the vehicle is in any mode other than stopping or normal forward motion, and a flashing caution light when the vehicle transmission selector lever is in reverse position. "The Enlightener" is truly a unique innovation for improving highway safety that will save hundreds of lives, prevent thousands of injuries and save Americans billions of dollars annually. |
|
ID: nht95-4.53OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 11, 1995 FROM: A.D. Fisher TO: John Womack, NHTSA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to A.D. Fisher (A43; Std. 108) TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack: Enclosed are two documents covering the operation, features and highway safety attributes of a modified, rear, third signal light for private and commercial vehicles. We have been advised by Mr. Blane Laubis, of NHTSA, to forward this to you for your evaluation. Please furnish us with your interpretation and comments about this product, including its use application, as applied to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar d (FVMSS) #108. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Enclosures THE ENLIGHTNER Update May 31, 1995 "The Enlightner" replaces the third, center, high-mounted brake light as used in most modern day vehicles. The light (or lens) has two colors, Red and Amber. The top half of the lens is Amber and the bottom half is Red. Amber signals "Caution" and the Red signals "Stop" to the driver of the vehicle following a vehicle equipped with "the Enlightner". Functions of "The Enlightner": 1. The Red portion is lighted when the brake pedal is applied, with the ignition "ON" or "OFF". This function overrides all other functions. 2. The Amber portion is lighted when the transmission selector lever is in any forward position with the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal not depressed. When the brake or accelerator pedals are depressed, the Amber light is "OFF". When the transmission lever is in Reverse position, the Amber light flashes constantly at the rate of 90 flashes per minute. The flashing is continuous regardless of accelerator pedal and brake pedal positions as long as the transmission selector lev er is in Reverse position. This give a warning to everyone behind the vehicle that it is in Reverse and it about to back up or is backing up. When the accelerator pedal is released ("OFF"), the Amber portion comes "ON", giving a "Caution" signal to the driver of the vehicle behind the vehicle equipped with "The Enlightner" that deceleration is taking place. When the accelerator and brake are not in use, the Amber portion is lighted. When power is reapplied by depressing the accelerator, the Amber light goes "OFF". When deceleration is taking place, Amber is "ON". When the brakes are applied, Amber goes "OFF" and Red comes "ON". The advantages of "The Enlightener" over similar products is that it keeps the driver following behind totally informed (enlightened) as to the functions of the vehicle ahead. "The Enlightener" will reduce rear-end collisions (one of the most common acc idents) and reduce highway traffic injuries and fatalities. Signed by Alfred D. Fisher Date June 1, 1995 Witnessed by Debra A. Thompson Date June 1, 1995 "The Enlightener" According to U.S. Government statistics, there are over 10,000,000 highway accidents annually costing Americans $98,100,000,000 with an average cost per accident of over $9,800. Of the 10 million accidents, 25.3%, or approximately 2 1/2 million, are re ar-end collisions. The average reaction time, from the instant the brake signal on a vehicle is seen until the brakes on the vehicle following it are applied, is 3/4 of a second. At 60 miles per hour, a vehicle travels 66 feet in 3/4 of a second. After the brakes are appl ied, the stopping distance for a car travelling at 60 MPH is a minimum of 146 feet. Therefore, the total distance from seeing the brake signal to a full stop is at least 212 feet. Introducing "The Enlightener"......... featuring a Deceleration Caution Signal (DCS) in addition to the traditional third brake light. The instant the vehicle accelerator pedal is released and before the brake is applied, "The Enlightener" signals deceleration or a change of vehicle operatio n. It is estimated that the use of "The Enlightener" will reduce rear-end collisions over 41% and prevent thousands of highway injuries and fatalities. The reduction in costs to Americans would exceed $10.1 Billion annually. In addition to the Deceleration Caution Signal (DCS), other features of "The Enlightener" include the DCS being illuminated when the vehicle is in any mode other than stopping or normal forward motion, and a flashing caution light when the vehicle transm ission selector lever is in reverse position. "The Enlightener" is truly a unique innovation for improving highway safety that will save hundreds of lives, prevent thousands of injuries and save Americans billions of dollars annually. |
|
ID: WRL3229OpenBryce Pfister, P.E. Dear Mr. Pfister: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components."Specifically, you ask whether a door configuration used in your school buses is a "folding door" excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 206. As discussed below, we believe the door you describe in your letter is a folding door for purposes of Standard No. 206. You explain in your letter that the Collins Bus Corporation manufacturers school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) ranging from 9,500 to 19,500 pounds.One of your customers needs a vehicle with a passenger capacity of nine passengers, for the purposes of transporting pre-schoolers.You plan to sell the same basic vehicle you ordinarily would sell as a school bus, but with a reduced passenger capacity. Because the vehicle will only accommodate nine passengers, you will have to classify these vehicles as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) rather than as school buses. [1]However, in a telephone conversation with Rebecca MacPherson of this office, you stated that, with the exception of the requirements for flashing lights and stop arms, these vehicles meet all Federal requirements for school buses. You describe the door used in these vehicles as follows: The typical passenger entrance door configuration of the Collins school bus includes two door leafs, each pivoting along its outer edge, and each attached to the door jamb at one upper and one lower pivot point.Both door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger, and the door opening is formed between the two door leaves in their outward position.A hand-operated linkage extending from the drivers seating position opens and closes the forward door.An overhead linkage connecting to the forward door controls the rear door motion.The doors are latched in the closed position by a device attached to the door operating linkage near the drivers seat. Standard No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle in the event of a crash.The standard applies to passenger cars, trucks, and MPVs, but not to school buses.S4(c) of Standard No. 206 specifically excludes "folding doors" from the standard's requirements.The door described in your letter is a type of door typically used in school buses rather than MPVs. As to whether the door is a "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206, we note that the standard does not include a definition of that term. Unlike some of the doors typically used for the same purpose in school buses, your door does not consist of two leaves that are hinged together and "fold" in on themselves.Rather, the two leaves in your door are separate.Each pivots outward. Nonetheless, considering the total design of your door as described above, including (but not limited to) the facts that both door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger to form an opening, and both leaves operate together (through a linkage) by means of the same hand-operated control, we believe your door comes within the meaning of "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206. I hope you find this information helpful.If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson in my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:206
[1] 49 CFR 571.3 defines a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." |
2002 |
ID: ToyotaLSA_cmcv2OpenChris Tinto, Director, Technical & Regulatory Affairs Dear Mr. Tinto: This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the proper positioning of a leg support system during a crash test specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. As explained below, Toyota is correct in its understanding that the leg support system described in your letter is to be adjusted as an "other seat adjustment" under FMVSS No. 208. On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less (65 FR 30680; Advanced air bag rule). That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance the protection of small and mid-size adults. The advanced air bag rule established a rigid barrier dynamic crash test using a 5th percentile adult female test dummy. Since the advanced air bag rule was established, the agency has amended FMVSS No. 208 on several occasions, in part to provide clearer and more objective test procedures for use of the 5th percentile adult female in testing. In your letter, you explained that the Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) has developed a "leg support adjustment system (LSA)," which extends the forward edge of a seat cushion to provide additional support to the thighs of taller occupants. As further described in a conversation between Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff and Ms. Christina Mullen of Toyota, the system extends the front trim of the seat by mechanical means. As additionally explained in your letter, the LSA is engaged by an occupant through an adjustment switch on the side of a seat. Your letter then asked if the LSA would be adjusted according to S16.2.10.2, Other seat adjustments, under the FMVSS No. 208 test procedure for the rigid barrier 5th percentile female crash test. S16.2.10 of FMVSS No. 208 provides the specifications for the driver and passenger seat set-up conditions for the rigid barrier 5th percentile female crash test. S16.2.10.1, Lumbar support adjustment, specifies the proper position for lumbar support adjustments. S16.2.10.2 specifies the proper positioning of seat adjustments that provide additional support, other than a lumbar support adjustment. As originally adopted in the advanced air bag rule, this provision specifically referred to seat cushion and seat back side bolster adjustments. In response to the advanced air bag rule, a manufacturer asked what would be required for vehicles with seat cushions that could be lengthened or shortened. In response, the agency amended the seat positioning procedure to specify the position for adjustable seat parts that provide the occupant additional support (66 FR 65376; December 18, 2001). The December 2001 final rule amended S16.2.10.2 to read:
The LSA, as described in your letter, performs the same type of function as the seat cushion which gave rise to the amended S16.2.10.2. Therefore, that section specifies the position of the LSA. Based on the diagrams you provided, it appears that the forwardmost edge of the seat cushion is higher in relation to the floor pan when the LSA is extended as opposed to when the LSA is fully retracted. S16.2.10.2 specifies that a vehicle equipped with an LSA would be tested with the LSA in the lowest position. Therefore, if we were to test a vehicle equipped with a LSA, we would place the LSA in its shortest and lowest position. I hope you find this helpful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:208 |
2004 |
ID: 13193.drnOpen Mr. Jir Misk Dear Mr. Misk: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Area "A" to be wiped on motor vehicle windshields, as specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems, and 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems. Your question is answered below. Your letter states your understanding of two ways in which Area A is to be measured, and asks which of the two is correct:
Statement One is correct. Area A is that portion of the total area bounded by the angles in Tables I through IV of Standard No. 104 that is also within a perimeter 25 mm within the daylight opening of the windshield frame. It is not necessary that the windshield be large enough to contain the whole area bounded by the angles (of which 16 to 18 is the left border) as indicated by Statement Two. S.4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 states the following:
Area A of the windshield is described at S3.1 of SAE Standard J903a. S3.1 states:
S3.1's description means that Area A is not a fixed, predetermined area for all windshields, but is an area that varies from windshield to windshield. The variables are the angle of measurement and the width of the car. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 adds another variable by describing Area A as within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the daylight opening. Furthermore, not all of Area A must be wiped. In Standard No. 104, Tables I, II, III, and IV all specify that after the test is conducted, a minimum of 80% of Area A must be wiped. Please note that since Standard No. 103 references Standard No. 104 in specifying Area A as the applicable cleared area, the above description of Area A also applies to Standard No. 103. 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. Our FAX number is (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15091.ogmOpen Mr. Jerry Roberts Dear Mr. Roberts: This responds to your letter of April 21, 1997, concerning a seat belt system you have designed. You asked us to evaluate whether the design would comply with S7.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The opinion provided below is based on the facts provided in your letter. As described in your letter, the seat belt assembly at issue is a Type 2 assembly intended for use in forward-facing rear seats in conversion vans. The lower end of the belt is attached to the vehicle floor and the upper end is attached to a retractor mounted on the roof support. The belt itself is fed through a crescent shaped slot in a mounting plate fixed to the roof rail. This crescent shaped slot allows the belt to assume different positions relative to a seat occupant depending on the height at which the belt is latched when fastened. The arc described by the crescent shaped slot is "preferably at least 5 cm longer than the width of the webbing." Standard No. 208 was amended in a final rule published on August 3, 1994, (59 FR 39472) to improve the fit and increase the comfort of safety belts for a variety of different sized occupants. S7.1.2.1 of Standard 208 reads as follows:
According to your letter, the crescent-shaped slot located in the guide plate near the upper anchorage automatically moves the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage when the belt is latched around different sized users. This guide plate, which attaches to vehicle structure at the roof rail, is also an anchorage. S3 of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, defines a seat belt anchorage as "...any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, attachment hardware ..." If the distance, measured linearly, between the midpoint of the webbing at the contact point with the guide plate at the extreme adjustment positions is greater than five centimeters, it appears that your design would meet the requirement of S7.1.2.1. However, as an alternative means of providing the adjustment specified in S7.1.2, S7.1.2.1 requires that a Type 2 assembly shall provide a means of automatically moving the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso and lap belts. If, in operation, the system you have designed does not automatically move the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage to accommodate occupants, the system you have designed would not meet S7.1.2.1. I note, however, that NHTSA is not able to make such a determination from looking at your drawings. Any determination of compliance would require testing of the system as installed in a vehicle. NHTSA compliance testing has also revealed that guide plates, d-rings and other guiding devices can tear or sever webbing under the severe loads experienced in an impact. The guide plates incorporated in your design should therefore be constructed in a fashion which will minimize this risk. You should also be aware that under 49 U.S.C. 30118-30122, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge. Compliance with applicable standards does not relieve the manufacturer of responsibility in the event a defect exists. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 18019.ogmOpenMr. Christopher J. Roberts Dear Mr. Roberts: This is in response to your letter requesting information about standards for motorcycle helmets, particularly those manufactured after 1980. In addition to information relating to standards for motorcycle helmets, you have also asked if the agency maintains records of helmets that have been recalled and how you might obtain copies of these records. By delegation from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), NHTSA is the Federal Government agency responsible for improving safety on our Nation's highways. As part of our efforts to achieve that goal, we are authorized, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These standards require minimum levels of performance for new vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has promulgated FMVSS No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets," which applies to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. Pursuant to 30012(a) of Title 49, it is unlawful to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 218. I have enclosed a copy of the current version of Standard 218 for your use. The Standard is also available in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR 571.218. If you have access to the World Wide Web, the Code of Federal Regulations can be found at http://www.nara.gov. Standard 218 was first promulgated in 1973 and amended in 1974, 1980, and 1988. The performance requirements of Standard 218 remained unchanged from 1973 until 1988. The original version of the Standard applied to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. However, through a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 28, 1974 (39 FR 3554), the Standard was amended to restrict its application only to helmets that fit on a specific headform, known as the size "C" headform. This amendment was necessitated by difficulties in developing appropriate different sized headforms for testing. However, as these difficulties continued, the agency concluded that a precise fit was not as critical for testing purposes as had previously been thought and the "C" headform could be used more widely. Therefore, Standard 218 was again amended on March 10, 1980 (45 FR 151181) to apply to all helmets that could be placed on the "C" headform even if the helmet did not precisely fit that headform. After other difficulties with test headforms were finally resolved, the Standard was amended again on April 6, 1988 (53 FR 11280) to apply to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. The 1988 amendments also modified the performance requirements of Standard 218 in regard to the areas of the helmet subject to penetration and impact testing, temperature conditioning prior to testing and the properties of the test devices used to perform testing. Copies of each of the notices implementing these amendments are enclosed. Information related to helmet recalls may be obtained from NHTSA's office of Technical Information Services (TIS). You may contact TIS at this address: Technical Information Services (NAD-40) The telephone number for TIS is: (800-445-0197); this number is answered between 1:00 and 3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, by TIS staff in order to provide general assistance; however, reference requests must be made in writing. The FAX number, (202-493-2833), may be used to submit requests to TIS, however TIS will respond by mail or courier service (at the requestor's expense). Information about the services offered by TIS is also available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/trd/. I hope that this responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253. Sincerely, |
1998 |
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.