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: 2525yOpen AIR MAIL Mr. Brad G. Magor 6282 Young Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3L-1ZB Canada Dear Mr. Magor: This is in reply to your letter of May 1, l990, to the Department of Transportation with respect to your intended purchase of a Canadian truck or van which you will eventually import into the United States. You asked for information on the features required to meet the U.S. safety standards, and whether Canadian vehicles generally have these items. There is a great similarity, but not identicality, between the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS), and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Manufacturers in both countries are required to affix a label to their vehicles certifying compliance with all applicable safety standards. We understand that some Canadian manufacturers may have certified compliance of their vehicles with both the CMVSS and the FMVSS. If dual certification has occurred, it will be evident from reading the certification label on the vehicle (usually located in the driver door post area). If the vehicle bears a certification of compliance that includes the FMVSS, you should encounter no problems in importing, registering, and selling it in the United States. However, if the vehicle is certified only to the CMVSS, you will encounter some difficulty in importing it, notwithstanding the substantial similarity of the CMVSS and FMVSS. By direction of Congress, a vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the FMVSS may not be admitted into the U.S. unless two things have occurred. The vehicle must be on a list of vehicles that the Department has approved for conversion to the FMVSS. If this has occurred, then the vehicle can only be imported by a "registered importer" (i.e. converter), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to perform the conversion work. A bond equal to l50% of the entered value of the vehicle must be given to secure performance of the conversion work, which is cancelled upon satisfactory evidence that the work has been performed. The new directives of Congress were only effective on January 31, l990, and we are still working to implement them. We have tentatively proposed an approved general list of vehicles that would include all Canadian trucks and vans manufactured since January 1, l968, that were certified as meeting the CMVSS, and which are of the same make, model, and model year of any truck or van originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, or originally manufactured in the United States, and that were certified as meeting the FMVSS. For example, a l990 Chevrolet truck manufactured in Canada to the CMVSS with a U.S. manufactured and certified counterpart would be covered by this general list. We have received no objections to treating Canadian vehicles in this fashion. A final determination should be published in the near future. We have also accorded registered importer status to a number of applicants. If you choose to buy a vehicle certified to the CMVSS for importation into the United States, we will be pleased to provide the latest list of registered importers as the time draws near for your departure. The minor differences in the standards that may effect you are principally those regarding speedometer/odometers and lighting. The former must indicate miles and miles per hour (and may indicate kilometers and kilometers per hour). Vehicles must be equipped with headlamps that meet the FMVSS and not those of the ECE. Thus, once a CMVSS-certified vehicle is imported, we do not anticipate that the conversion work should be lengthy or costly. Once the work has been satisfactorily performed and the converter's label attached, you should encounter no difficulties in registering the vehicle or in selling it. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:59l d:6/28/90 |
1990 |
ID: nht93-7.47OpenDATE: November 3, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: The Honorable Phil Gramm -- United States Senate TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to Privacy Form dated 9/19/93 from Thomas J. Devon to Senator Phil Gram (OCC number illegible) TEXT: Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Devon of Longview, Texas. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) referred your inquiry to this office, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal safety standards for tires. In his communication with you, Mr. Devon expressed concern about separated treads from retreaded large truck tires. He "referred to the deaths of two young women reportedly caused when they lost control of their vehicle after striking a separated tread in the road. Mr. Devon is concerned that retreaded tires do not meet the same standards as new tires and requested data on accidents caused by separated tire tread sections on the roadway. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA has issued various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to tires: FMVSS Nos. 109 and 110 for new pneumatic passenger car tires; FMVSS Nos. 119 and 120 for new pneumatic tires for other than passenger cars; and FMVSS No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires. There is currently no standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. This is because the agency is not aware of any data suggesting a safety need for such a standard. With respect to tire tread separation, examination of actual tire scraps from the nation's highways have indicated that about 60 percent came from retreaded tires and 40 percent from original tires. Because of the many complaints about heavy truck tire tread scraps on and around the highways, the University of Michigan conducted a study in the mid-1980s' entitled "Large Truck Accidents Involving Tire Failure." That study concluded that most large truck tire failures are caused by vehicle overload and/or tire underinflation. Underinflation causes excessive flexing of the tire. The friction resulting from that flexing causes excessive heat buildup which can, in turn, result in tread separation or other tire failure. Indeed, the heat buildup has been known to be so extreme as to cause the tire to burst into flame. The findings from the Michigan study led the FHWA to prohibit the operation of commercial motor vehicles with overloaded and underinflated tires, unless the vehicle is operated pursuant to a special permit issued by a state. That permit, however, requires a reduced speed to compensate for the increased tire loading. In addition, the vehicle and the tires must be maintained in a safe operating condition at all times. FHWA conducts roadside inspection programs to ensure that such requirements are being met. While scraps of tires on the roadway could pose a safety hazard to motorists, this agency has no real world crash data to indicate what percentage of motor vehicle crashes could be attributed to separated tire treads. Our crash data are limited to the general category of tire failure. Please be assured that NHTSA and FHWA, as well as the tire industry itself, are engaged in ongoing efforts to alleviate this problem by appropriate publicity to large truck owners and operators regarding proper tire care and maintenance and by vigorous vehicle inspection programs. I hope this information is helpful. If your constituent has any further questions, he may contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 9199Open The Honorable Phil Gramm Dear Senator Gramm: Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Devon of Longview, Texas. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) referred your inquiry to this office, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal safety standards for tires. In his communication with you, Mr. Devon expressed concern about separated treads from retreaded large truck tires. He referred to the deaths of two young women reportedly caused when they lost control of their vehicle after striking a separated tread in the road. Mr. Devon is concerned that retreaded tires do not meet the same standards as new tires and requested data on accidents caused by separated tire tread sections on the roadway. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA has issued various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to tires: FMVSS Nos. 109 and 110 for new pneumatic passenger car tires; FMVSS Nos. 119 and 120 for new pneumatic tires for other than passenger cars; and FMVSS No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires. There is currently no standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. This is because the agency is not aware of any data suggesting a safety need for such a standard. With respect to tire tread separation, examination of actual tire scraps from the nation's highways have indicated that about 60 percent came from retreaded tires and 40 percent from original tires. Because of the many complaints about heavy truck tire tread scraps on and around the highways, the University of Michigan conducted a study in the mid-1980s entitled "Large Truck Accidents Involving Tire Failure." That study concluded that most large truck tire failures are caused by vehicle overload and/or tire underinflation. Underinflation causes excessive flexing of the tire. The friction resulting from that flexing causes excessive heat buildup which can, in turn, result in tread separation or other tire failure. Indeed, the heat buildup has been known to be so extreme as to cause the tire to burst into flame. The findings from the Michigan study led the FHWA to prohibit the operation of commercial motor vehicles with overloaded and underinflated tires, unless the vehicle is operated pursuant to a special permit issued by a state. That permit, however, requires a reduced speed to compensate for the increased tire loading. In addition, the vehicle and the tires must be maintained in a safe operating condition at all times. FHWA conducts roadside inspection programs to ensure that such requirements are being met. While scraps of tires on the roadway could pose a safety hazard to motorists, this agency has no real world crash data to indicate what percentage of motor vehicle crashes could be attributed to separated tire treads. Our crash data are limited to the general category of tire failure. Please be assured that NHTSA and FHWA, as well as the tire industry itself, are engaged in ongoing efforts to alleviate this problem by appropriate publicity to large truck owners and operators regarding proper tire care and maintenance and by vigorous vehicle inspection programs. I hope this information is helpful. If your constituent has any further questions, he may contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence
ref:117 d:11/3/93 |
1993 |
ID: Mills.1OpenRobert G. Mills, Supervisor, Homologation Dear Mr. Mills: This responds to your March 22, 2005, letter in which you requested clarification regarding the proper method for measuring the required edge-to-edge separation distance between a motorcycles front turn signal lamps and headlamp under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, your letter asked whether the minimum edge-to-edge separation distance is measured: (1) "In a 2-dimensional plane, viewed directly from the front of the motorcycle, that would only take account of the visible, vertical edge-to-edge distance between the two lamps" or (2) "In a tangential plane that would take account of the upward/downward or forward/rearward separation distance". As discussed below, our interpretation differs from the two you suggest. We interpret Standard No. 108s requirement for the separation distance between a motorcycles front turn signal lamps and headlamp as being the shortest distance between the edges of each lamps effective light-emitting surface as projected onto a two-dimensional vertical plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the motorcycle (i.e. , the view that would be perceived by oncoming drivers). This projection is defined within FMVSS No. 108 as the "effective projected luminous lens area". By way of background, Table IV, Location of Required Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 requires motorcycle front turn signal lamps to have a minimum edge-to-edge separation distance of four inches between these lamps and the headlamp. Our interpretation that the distance is measured with a two-dimensional frame of reference is consistent with both the purpose of the standards separation requirement and at least one prior interpretation. Standard No. 108 specifies a minimum separation distance between headlamps and turn signal lamps to minimize the possibility that an observer will not see the turn signal. A motorist approaching the motorcycle in oncoming traffic will perceive the required four-inch edge-to-edge separation distance in a two-dimensional plane. If measurement along a tangential plane were substituted, as in the second method identified in your letter, the perceived separation distance in this scenario may be reduced to less than four inches, as seen by the driver, and a situation could arise in which the conspicuity of the turn signal is masked by the headlamp beam. If the oncoming driver does not perceive the important information provided by the turn signal, traffic safety could be compromised. The minimum edge-to-edge separation distance is the shortest distance between the edges of the effective projected luminous lens areas of the two lamps. "Effective projected luminous lens area" is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 108 as "the area of the orthogonal projection of the effective light-emitting surface of a lamp on a plane perpendicular to a defined direction relative to the axis of reference". In this case, the defined direction is the longitudinal axis of the motorcycle. This same reasoning and result were applied in our interpretation letter of April 23, 1986 to a party whose identity was kept confidential (see enclosure). That letter dealt with the plane of reference for measuring the separation distance between a motorcycles rear turn signals and stop/tail lamp and the view provided to traffic approaching from the rear. However, the principles and reasoning are otherwise identical to the forward-facing situation. We would also point out an important additional requirement for motorcycle turn signal lamp placement contained in Table IV. That requirement is that the turn signal lamps must not be closer than 16 inches, as measured from their centers. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
|
ID: nht88-2.77OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/20/88 FROM: C. S. ALLEN -- COMMANDER-DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA RULEMAKING DIVISION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO ALLEN TEXT: This letter is to request an interpretation of the meaning of one sentence contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 (FMVSS 102). This sentence, found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) Part 571, Section 571.102 S3.1.3, states, "Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive positio n". The California Highway Patrol has become aware that a major manufacturer of school buses, Crown Coach Incorporated, of 13799 Monte Vista Avenue, Chino, California 91710-5513, has been building vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions which, althoug h equipped with the interlock required by 49 CFR 571.102 S3.1.3, are also equipped, at the driver's position, with a momentary contact push-button switch, the purpose of which is to bypass the transmission neutral safety switch. Mr. Greg Alvarez of my staff discussed the legality of this device with Mr. James Cowan, Director of Engineering at Crown Coach, Inc., by telephone on June 24, 1988. At that time Mr. Cowan stated his opinion that the bypass switch complied with FMVSS 10 2 because it was only an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts. He stated that the only way the bus could be started with the transmission shift level in a forward or reverse drive position would be if the driver used both hands, one to operate the bypass switch to the right of the steering column, and the other to operate the regular starter key-type switch to the left of the steering column. Mr. Cowan stated to this Department that this starter interlock bypass switch is regarded by Crown Coach as a safety feature, intended for emergency use in the event that the bus engine dies at an inopportune moment, as when crossing a set of railroad tracks, or in case the neutral safety switch contacts fail to close upon selection of neutral range. Pending your reply it is our position that the bypass switch renders buses equipped with automatic transmissions in violation of FMVSS 102 (and of an identical California state regulation). Crown Coach appears to be interpreting FMVSS 102 as meaning tha t the starter shall not be capable of being started from the driver's position with the transmission in gear unless the driver intends to do that. As for the argument that the bypass switch allows for quick restarts on rail crossings or other dangerous locations, we feel that if the amount of time required to select neutral range, restart the engine and return to drive range is anticipated to be ex cessive, why not eliminate the neutral safety switch altogether? The driver would then be able to keep one hand on the steering wheel while restarting the engine with the transmission in gear. With Crown's present arrangement, a bus can be restarted in gear only by removing both hands from the steering wheel. It is our belief that 49 CFR 571.102 S3.1.3 is intended to prevent motor vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions from being started in gear at any time. We would appreciate your earliest possible response to our request for an interpretation on t his matter, so that our inspectors and the engineering staff at Crown Coach, Inc. will have authoritative information on which to act. |
|
ID: nht89-1.88OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: May 12, 1989 FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association TO: Billy Mohr -- Commander, Support Section, Motor Carrier Division, Department of State Police TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/1/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (VSA S103(a)), letter dated 8/9/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack and letter dated 5/16/89 from Billy Mohr to Donald W. Vierimaa TEXT: Please advise us as to whether he attached sketches properly interpret the Michigan bumper, trailer "wheelbase", and side marker lamp requirements for the length of trailers shown. We would appreciate a copy of the actual regulations or law for referenc e purposes describing the bumper, lighting, and kingpin to center of tandem/single axle requirements. Regarding the lighting requirements for trailers longer than 50 feet as described in your letter of March 27, 1989, we assume that the "two clearance lamps" described in (8)(c) of the regulations describes the "intermediate side marker lamps" regulated b y NHTSA in FMVSS 108. If indeed Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps to those required by FMVSS 108, then it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ. Please see excerpts from NHTSA legal interpretations on this subject in the attachment to TTMA RP No. 9, section 1.0. Thank you in advance for further clarifying your regulations for our member trailer manufacturers. |
|
ID: 21899.ztvOpen Mr. Noburu Fujii Dear Mr. Fujii: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 2000, with respect to "whether a sliding door system for use in a passenger motor vehicle meets certain requirements of FMVSS 108." Specifically, you ask "whether the potential obstruction of the rear sidemarker lamp, rear side reflex reflector, and rearward signals/markers when the sliding door is fully opened would violate any provisions of FMVSS 108." You have referred to our letter of April 8, 1998, to Pat Riebalkin, informing him that "compliance is judged with a motor vehicle in its normal operating configuration (e.g., doors and decklid closed.)" We are pleased to inform you that the Riebalkin interpretation applies to Nissan as well. The lighting equipment in question will not be obstructed when the Nissan vehicle is in its normal on-road operating configuration (e.g., sliding door closed.) There is no need to provide auxiliary lighting equipment under FMVSS 108. However, this interpretation does not apply in Canada. We believe that Canada has a different interpretation, and recommend that Nissan consult Transport Canada for its views. Sincerely, Frank Seales, Jr. ref:108 |
2001 |
ID: nht94-4.82OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: November 15, 1994 FROM: Steve Anthony -- Product Manager, NgvFuel Tanks, Structural Composites Industries TO: Marvin Shaw -- U.S. Dept. Of Transportation ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO STEVE ANTHONY (REDBOOK (2)); PART 303) TEXT: I have been referred to you by Mr. Gary Woodford of NHTSA. Structural Composites Industries, (SCI) is a manufacturer of compressed natural gas fuel tanks for Detroit OEM's and other OEM transit bus manufacturers. We are also the oldest and largest comm ercial composite tank manufacturer in the world. Some of our customers have requested new tank models to be introduced on vehicles in January and February 1995, which is one to two months before the March 27, 1995 effective date of FMVSS 304. These cust omers wish to reference a qualification standard on the label. Our problem is that footnote 8 on the bottom of page 49020 of the 9/26/94 Federal Register clearly states that until March 27, 1995, the effective date of FMVSS 304, "cylinder manufacturers may not certify compliance with it". Yet on the same Federal Register page, the manufacturers are "free to advertise containers as meeting the CNG equipment standard." What language can we use? Possible examples: 1. "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS 304 effective March 27, 1995." 2. "DOT effective March 27, 1995." We would very much appreciate your counsel. |
|
ID: nht95-2.38OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: April 14, 1995 FROM: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Science Corporation TO: Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Re: Request for interpretation of FMVSS 108 ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/3/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LANCE TUNICK (A43; Std. 108) TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson: This letter requests an interpretation of a portion of SAE J586 (Feb. 84) installation requirements for rear stop lamps (section 5.4.1), as incorporated by reference in FMVSS 108, Table III. More specifically, this request concerns the visibility requirements for rear stop lamps. The referenced SAE section states that "to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface of at least 12.5 square cent imeters measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." (Emphasis added.) "Outer lens surface", however, is not defined either in the SAE materials or in FMVSS 108. We believe that "outer lens surface" when used in the above section of J586 means "light emitting surface" as defined in SAE J387. Please confirm the agency's definition of "outer lens surface" as used in the visibility requirement in SAE J586 (Feb. 84). Given testing and production deadlines, we kindly request as prompt an answer as possible. Thank you for your kind attention. |
|
ID: 06-002617asOpenMr. Lance Tunick Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc. PO Box 23078 Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078 Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, with regard to the procedure for positioning the 5th percentile adult female dummy in the drivers seating position for the rigid barrier crash test. You ask five questions regarding the standards provisions for positioning of the test dummys foot. Your questions are phrased as though you were asking whether we would allow manufacturers to conduct Standard No. 208s compliance tests in a certain manner. While manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles comply with the standard, they are not required to specifically perform the tests set forth in the FMVSSs. Manufacturers may base their certification upon procedures other than those specified in the FMVSSs, such as computer simulation, engineering studies, and mathematical calculations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), however, will perform its own compliance testing in accordance with the procedures in the FMVSSs. In the event of a noncompliance, the reasonableness of the manufacturers basis for its certification will have a bearing on the enforcement action that the agency will pursue. Thus, in answering your questions, when you ask what a manufacturer is permitted to do in certain circumstances, we understood you to ask what actions NHTSA would take if we were testing your product under similar circumstances. 1) Your first question concerns S16.3.2.1.8 of FMVSS No. 208, which specifies the procedure for positioning the 5th percentile female dummys thighs, legs, and feet so that the torso can be properly positioned for the test. You ask if, during the S16.3.2.1.8 set up, the dummys left foot contacts the wheel-well while moving the seat forward, NHTSA would rotate the dummys left leg inward to avoid contact with the wheel-well. As explained below, our answer is no. However, we would not cease to move the seat forward because of the foot contact, as you suggest. The relevant portion of S16.3.2.1.8 reads, Proceed with moving the seat forward until either the leg contacts the vehicle interior or the seat reaches the full forward position. (The right foot may contact and depress the accelerator and/or change the angle of the foot with respect to the leg during seat movement.) If necessary to avoid contact with the vehicles brake or clutch pedal, rotate the test dummys left foot about the leg. If there is still interference, rotate the left thigh outboard about the hip the minimum distance necessary to avoid pedal interference. If a dummy leg contacts the vehicle interior before the full forward position is attained, position the seat at the next detent where there is no contact. In no portion of S16.3.2.1.8 does the standard state that the leg is rotated inward. According to S16.3.2.1.8, only the foot and thigh can be rotated and only for the purpose of avoiding pedal interference. Thus, we would not move the leg inward to avoid contact with the wheel-well. However, in the background portion of your letter, you indicate that you are stopping the forward movement of the dummy because, as you state, the driver dummys LEFT foot contacts the wheel-well and blocks the movement of the seat forward. We note that S16.3.2.1.8 states that one should [p]roceed with moving the seat forward until either the leg contacts the vehicle interior or the seat reaches the full forward position. [Emphasis added][1] The term leg is defined in S16.3.1.8 as the lower part of the entire leg, including the knee, as distinguished from the definition of foot given in S16.3.1.9, which is the foot, including the ankle. As long as only the foot, and not the leg, is in contact with the wheel-well, NHTSA would continue to move the seat forward until the seat reaches the full forward position. We are aware that, in certain situations such as where the foot strikes the wheel-well at an angle, continued forward motion may result in movement of the foot, leg, and/or hip, until the leg contacts the vehicle interior or the seat is in the full forward position. This resulting movement would be acceptable, but the leg should not be deliberately rotated inboard. We also note that our method is in accordance with the intent of the May 12, 2000 final rule on dummy positioning, which is to move the 5th percentile female dummy to the full frontal position. In that rulemaking, we stated that:
[T]his rule transforms unbelted rigid barrier testing under Standard No. 208 through the adoption of new and more stringent injury criteria, a new small adult female dummy seated far forward of where the existing mid-sized adult male dummy is placed in compliance testing.[2]
Therefore, we would follow the procedure outlined above, as it both conforms to the language of S16.3.2.1.8 and achieves the desired result, which is to position the dummy in the forward position. We would reposition the dummys feet in the proper position for the test later in the positioning process, using the procedures in paragraph S16.3.2.2, Driver foot positioning. 2) Your second question asks if the provisions for foot positioning set forth in S16.3.2.2.7 should be permitted under S16.3.2.1.8 in order to avoid a situation in which the dummy is so far rearward that it does not have its hands or feet on the controls. Our answer is two-fold. First, recall that as explained in our answer to question 1, we would continue to move the dummy forward until it reached the full forward position. In that position, the hands and feet would reach the vehicle controls. Therefore, we do not believe that there would be a situation where the dummy is so far rearward that its hands or feet do not reach the controls. Second, the provisions of S16.3.2.2.7 do not apply to S16.3.2.1.8. The movements described in S16.3.2.2.7 pertain to positioning the test dummy under S16.3.2.2.4, S16.3.2.2.5, and S16.3.2.2.6 of the standard, not to dummy positioning under S16.3.2.1.8. S16.3.2.1.8 describes a different part of the positioning process and is written to be performed before the procedures in paragraph S16.3.2.2, Driver foot positioning. 3) In your third question, you ask for confirmation that S16.3.2.2.7 sets the proper criteria for positioning of the dummys foot, as opposed to Item 34.2 of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS 208, Appendix G (TP208-13). The answer is yes. We begin by noting that the procedures you refer to are currently listed as Item 31.2 of TP208-13. The Test Procedures are guidance for NHTSA contractors to perform compliance testing under the Federal standards. You are correct that there is a discrepancy between S16.3.2.2.7(c), which reads, rotate the left leg about the hip in either an outboard or inboard direction, [emphasis added] and TP208-13, Appendix G, Item 31.2, which reads, in relevant part, rotate the leg outboard about the hip. The procedure set forth in the FMVSS supersedes any discrepancy in TP208-13. 4) Your fourth question asks for confirmation of whether it would be permissible to have the dummys left foot rest on the foot rest if, after performing the procedures described in S16.3.2.2.7(a)-(c), the dummys foot still rests on the foot rest. The fifth sentence of S16.3.2.2.7 reads If it is not possible to avoid all prohibited foot contact, give priority to avoiding brake or clutch pedal contact. This sentence indicates that if, after the procedures in S16.3.2.2.7(a)-(c) are performed, there is contact between the left foot and the foot rest, then that contact is acceptable. 5) Finally, your fifth question asks if the agency could define the terms floor pan, foot rest, and toe-board. While we have not defined these terms, they are commonly used terms to describe portions of the area where the drivers feet are set while operating the vehicle. If you have a question as to whether some component of a specific design would be identified as any of these parts, NHTSA would be pleased to provide further clarification. I hope this information answers your questions satisfactorily. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:208 d.1/18/07 [1] We also note that you claim there is a portion of paragraph S16.3.2.1.8 that permits movement of the dummys leg in an OUTBOARD direction. We were unable to find any such language. Perhaps you are referencing the sentence that says rotate the left thigh outboard about the hip, [emphasis added]. This sentence is inapplicable as it is prefaced with the statement [i]f necessary to avoid contact with the vehicles brake or clutch pedal, [emphasis added]. Here, the left foot comes in contact with the wheel-well only. [2] 55 FR 30684. |
2007 |
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.