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: 14834.mlsOpen Mr. Scott Slaughter Dear Mr. Slaughter: This responds to your inquiry about whether a logging trailer known as the "knuckle boom loader trailer" needs to comply with new regulations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that require trailers manufactured after January 26, 1998, to be equipped with rear underride protection and that require medium and heavy-duty trucks and trailers manufactured after March 1, 1998 to be equipped with antilock brakes. In a February 2, 1994 interpretation from me to you, I stated that it "appear[ed] that your trailer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act." This opinion was based on the fact that your equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. I have no new information to warrant changing this initial interpretation. Accordingly, since your trailer continues not to be a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including standards requiring rear impact underride protection and antilock brakes. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 14836.ztvOpen Mr. Paul G. Scully Dear Mr. Scully: We have received your letter of April 8, 1997, bringing to our attention the possibility that certain trailer manufacturers may not be mounting identification and clearance lamps "as close to the top as practicable" as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You sent copies of this letter to representatives of the Office of Safety Performance Standards and the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance as well. Representatives of these Offices and mine have met to consider your letter. We appreciate your informing us about this matter, and we shall look into it further. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 14891.ztvOpen Mr. Guy E. Koelling Dear Mr. Koelling: This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1997, about the Sanyo "Enacle" pedal assist bicycle. You refer to the agency's interpretation letter of February 16, 1993, to J.C. Townley in which we advised him of our conclusion, on the basis of the facts in his letter, that the Yamaha pedal assisted bicycle is not a "motor vehicle" required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You state that Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. produces a very similar product that "is operated on the same principle as the Yamaha product, i.e. a torque sensor that activates when muscular effort is applied. In other words, just as with the Yamaha product, the Enacle will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular assist." You ask for confirmation that, for the same reasons as set forth in the Townley letter, the Enacle would not be classified as a motor vehicle. We confirm that interpretation. Pedal assisted bicycles whose power assist is insufficient alone to drive the bicycle are not "motor vehicles" subject to our jurisdiction, but instead are under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Noting that your letter is headed "confidential" we asked you for a clarification. On May 14, 1997, you asked us to disregard the "Confidential" letterhead on which your letter was typed. Therefore, a copy of our response to you will be included in the agency's public interpretations file. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
|
ID: 14896-4.pjaOpenMr. Charles Jandecka Dear Mr. Jandecka: I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter requesting a reevaluation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), as it relates to tinting of windows. Specifically, you expressed concern about the increase in the number of vehicles with dark-tinted windows. As you know, Standard No. 205 requires vehicle windows that are "requisite for driving visibility" to meet a 70 percent light transmittance requirement. Darker windows are currently allowed in the rear and rear side windows on trucks, buses, and multi-purpose vehicles (MPVs) because the agency has issued an interpretation stating that these windows are not requisite for driving visibility. You would like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prohibit dark-tinted windows in light trucks, MPVs, and vans. You disagree with the conclusion of the agency's interpretation that these windows are not requisite for driving visibility. In addition, you argue that sport utility vehicles and vans should not be relieved of the light transmittance requirement by the interpretation because they do not meet the definition of an MPV. An MPV is ". . . constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." 49 CFR 571.3. I will first address your argument regarding classification of vehicles. In contending that these vehicles are not MPVs, you argued that sport utility vehicles were not "off-road vehicles," which you found defined in Executive Order No. 11644 and 16 USC 670. We note that these authorities are not relevant to our regulations. But more importantly, this argument fails to recognize the distinction between a "vehicle with features for occasional off-road operation," and a more capable "off-road vehicle." The definition for off-road vehicles, such as the Humvee, is not relevant to whether vans and sport utility vehicles are MPVs. Sport utility vehicles clearly meet the MPV definition. They have "special features for occasional off-road operation" such as four-wheel drive, large all purpose tires, large suspension excursions, and high ground clearances. The fact that they offer interior amenities and are often not driven off-road by their owners does not nullify these special features. The classifications are based on design, because ultimate use is something the manufacturer generally does not know. The presence of some of these features on vehicles certified as passenger cars also does not nullify their presence on sport utility vehicles. Some vans and minivans meet the definition of trucks. Most cargo vans are classified as "trucks" under our safety standards. A truck is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as being ". . . designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." Many full-size vans are designed on a chassis that may be fitted with any number of body types and is designed and used primarily for carrying cargo. Most passenger vans and minivans are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles," because they are considered by their manufacturers to be "constructed on a truck chassis." Some manufacturers may classify them as MPVs because of heavier running gear, front suspensions, and rear leaf springs, for greater load-carrying capacity. In addition, the rear seats are often removable for carrying large cargo rather than passengers, supporting a colloquial definition of "multi-purpose" vehicles. Generally speaking, designation of the vehicle type is up to the manufacturer. The definitions of trucks and MPVs overlap somewhat. NHTSA's main concern is that all vehicles meet the standards applicable to the type of vehicle as which they are certified. The agency is aware that in recent years changes in the construction of minivans and sport utility vehicles have tended to blur the line between these vehicles and passenger cars. There has been a convergence in the safety standards applicable to these vehicles and the standards applicable to passenger cars. NHTSA has not tried to create a complex distinction between these vehicle types, but has instead allowed the industry to produce innovative designs that meet the demands of the marketplace. Moreover, the manufacturers have for many years continued classifying vans and minivans as light trucks for the purpose of complying with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. The vehicle classification requirements in 49 CFR 523.5(a)(5) allow manufacturers to properly classify vans and minivans with removable seats as light trucks for that purpose. It is doubtful the industry could comply with the CAFE standards if NHTSA suddenly restricted classification capabilities. Therefore, given the industry's longstanding reliance on NHTSA's interpretation and regulation in this area, this office cannot make a such a drastic change in the context of an interpretation letter. Turning now to your question of whether the rear and rear side windows of sport utility vehicles and vans should be considered "requisite for driving visibility," we continue to believe that they should not be. You correctly identified a change in the agency's opinion between the July 16, 1973 interpretation of Richard Dyson and the April 4, 1985 interpretation of Jeffrey Miller, which first announced the conclusion that these windows were not requisite for driving visibility. However, you are incorrect to conclude that either the January 9, 1990 interpretation by Stephen Wood, or any of the subsequent interpretations you cited represent a change in the agency's position on the matter. Mr. Miller's interpretation still represents the agency's position. The reasoning behind the Miller interpretation is that these vehicles are often sold in configurations without windows or with small windows to the rear of the driver (e.g., a panel van). Even if the windows to the rear of the driver are large enough, these vehicles may frequently carry loads that block the view out of them. Logically, it is impossible to argue that these windows are requisite for driving visibility when they do not even exist on the next van on the lot. In addition, most minivans and sport utility vehicles today, (even those with larger side windows and without a vision-blocking load) have rear side windows that are too high to rely on for lane changes. Vehicle manufacturers provide right-side rear view mirrors on these vehicles which assist in lane changes. If these windows were requisite for driving visibility, one might expect that vehicle types with darker glass in those locations would be more involved in crashes, but the data do not show this to be true. Some analyses have shown that they are generally less involved in crashes than passenger cars, and that they are even under-involved in lane change crashes. This indicates that the existing window and mirror systems are meeting the minimum needs for driving visibility. On January 22, 1992, NHTSA proposed, among other things, transmittance requirements for the windows to the rear of the driver in these vehicles. The proposed requirements would permit windows darker than those in passenger cars, but would require these windows to be lighter than the "privacy glass" currently being sold on some minivans and sport utility vehicles. Comments on the proposal were overwhelmingly negative. The law enforcement community was divided on the issue. Final action on this rulemaking is anticipated soon. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 14907a.jegOpenMr. James Sanders Dear Mr. Sanders: This responds to your letter concerning modifications that your company makes to vehicles to accommodate persons with physical disabilities. I apologize for the delay in this response. You ask for clarification of a matter concerning our prohibition against making inoperative safety devices or elements of design in motor vehicles that have been sold to the end user. You explain that some of the adaptations and modifications you perform are funded by your state vocational rehabilitation agency, the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (MRC). MRC is requiring you to write to our office every time you contract with MRC to adapt a vehicle for a driver, prior to performing these adaptations or modifications, "to get a ruling on whether we are violating Federal law and whether or not we would be prosecuted under 49 U.S.C. section 30122." You state that it is your understanding that you are currently allowed to perform certain modifications to a vehicle, such as disconnecting the air bag if a person is driving from a wheelchair, or modifying the OEM lap/shoulder belt assembly to accommodate a person with physical disabilities, without having to obtain a ruling from NHTSA. You ask for help in clarifying the matter. In general, modifiers are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to do so, but are subject to certain statutory limits on the type of modifications they may make. NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards. After a vehicle is sold at retail, Federal law limits the modifications made to it by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses. These entities are prohibited under 49 U.S.C. section 30122 from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation. As to your understanding that "we are currently allowed to perform certain modifications such as disconnecting the air bag if a person is driving from a wheelchair, or modifying the OEM lap/shoulder belt assembly to accommodate a person with physical disabilities," we believe you are referring to the effect of an exclusion(1) from the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, for light trucks and vans "manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities." Instead of meeting the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements, these vehicles may instead be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (separate lap and shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions. You do not need to write to NHTSA for a determination that the modification qualifies for this exclusion. However, to qualify for this exclusion, the vehicle must:
If you modify a used light truck or van originally certified to Standard No. 208's dynamic test and automatic protection requirements, and do so in a manner that it would have qualified for the exclusion cited above, it would not be a violation of the "make inoperative" provision if you disconnected the air bag or modified the OEM lap and shoulder belts within the scope of that exclusion. In other words, at the end of such modification, instead of meeting the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements, such a vehicle may instead be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (separate lap and shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions. Because Standard No. 208 would have permitted the vehicle to be manufactured in this manner when new, there would neither be a violation of the 30122 "make inoperative" provision or any need for this agency to consider granting an exception from that provision. In situations involving a potential violation of 30122, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. If you believe that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, you may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why you cannot avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate the that proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances. For your information, NHTSA is considering proposing a regulation establishing conditions under which a vehicle may be modified to accommodate a person's disability so that the modifier will not be subjected to the make inoperative requirements of 30122. Enclosed is a copy of page 22101 of the agency's April 25, 1997 regulatory agenda where this possible rulemaking is described (entry number 2266). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, 1. This exclusion is only available for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1997. |
1997 |
ID: 14937.ztvOpen The Honorable Ted Stevens Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter to the Department on behalf of your constituent, Brad Brown of Anchorage. Mr. Brown ordered a Chevy Suburban and discovered that it was made in Mexico. He believes that the law on motor vehicle content labeling should be amended to require dealers to disclose the country of origin when a vehicle is ordered. I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations on motor vehicle content labeling were issued pursuant to the American Automobile Labeling Act. This Act has been codified at 49 U.S.C. section 32304. The law requires that new Chevy Suburbans and other passenger motor vehicles have affixed an informational label that includes, among other things, the city and country of the final assembly plant of the vehicle (49 CFR 583(a)(3)). Thus, in the case of a vehicle which is ordered, the purchaser would not see the label until delivery of the vehicle. While we appreciate Mr. Brown's concern, we do not believe it would be practicable to change the law to require dealers to disclose the country of origin when a vehicle is ordered, since many vehicle models today are assembled in more than one location. The Chevy Suburban, for instance, is also produced in Janesville, Wisconsin. It is our understanding that dealers do not place orders with specific assembly plants. Unless a vehicle model is assembled in a single location, the dealer would not know from which assembly plant the ordered vehicle will be delivered. It is probable that the most a dealer could do is to inform a prospective purchaser of the location of the assembly plants for the model desired, and that the vehicle will come from one of these. However, a prospective purchaser could likely obtain this information now from a dealer simply by asking. I note that although the prospective purchaser might be able to examine the domestic content label on similar new vehicles on the dealer's lot to determine their country of origin, this would not necessarily mean that his or her vehicle would be assembled in the same location. I hope this information is helpful. If you or your staff have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-5265. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15-004254 WayRay Glazing_sb_3Open
Mr. Philippe D. Monnier WayRay SA Ch. Des Vignes 37 CH-1299 Crans-pres-Celigny Switzerland
Dear Mr. Monnier:
This responds to your August 12, 2015 letter asking whether your product complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) and FMVSS No. 205 in particular.
Your letter describes your product as a holographic car navigation system that projects navigation information on a transparent film in the windshields. Based on your description, we assume that your product might be installed on a new motor vehicle or as an aftermarket item.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance test. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. Manufacturers are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.
NHTSA enforces compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing and testing vehicles and regulated equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. For your information, I have enclosed a brief information sheet for new manufacturers.
Your letter broadly asks about laws and legislation that could prevent the sale of your product in the United States, yet provides little information about it. In this letter we discuss portions of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs that might apply to your product. However, we note that our answers to your question are limited by the breadth of your question and the minimal description of your product. Please note that our answer could change if information becomes available that indicates that the information upon which this letter is based is not as we had understood. Also, if we do not comment on an aspect of performance of your product, this does not mean we believe no requirement applies or that your product would meet all affected requirements.
To begin our discussion, keep in mind that what NHTSA laws apply depends on when your product is installed. If the device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSSs. To determine how installation of your product could affect compliance with applicable FMVSSs, you should carefully review each FMVSS, available online at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ECFR?page=browse . Discussed below are two FMVSSs of which you should be particularly aware. FMVSS
First, FMVSS No. 205 Glazing Materials applies if your product is installed on a new motor vehicle or if it is part of replacement equipment, such as a replacement windshield. FMVSS No. 205 establishes the performance and location requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles, including glazing intended for aftermarket replacement.
FMVSS No. 205 incorporates an industry standard, the American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 include, among other things, specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance and require 70 percent light transmittance in areas of glazing that are requisite for driving visibility. Such areas of glazing include the windshields of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and low speed vehicles.
Your product is a transparent film that would be applied to windshields. If your product will be applied to windshields on new motor vehicles or replacement glazing, it must meet all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 205, including the 70 percent light transmittance requirement. There are also other performance requirements glazing must meet, such as for abrasion resistance.
Second, a projection system integrated into the vehicle might be considered a control, telltale, or indicators as defined in FMVSS Nos. 101 and 123.
S5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, specifies operational requirements on sources of illumination within the passenger compartment in order to prevent illuminated controls from distracting a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions. Also, S5.2, Identification, specifies certain symbols, words, or abbreviations to identify each control, telltale and indicator listed in column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2. An example of one of the indicators listed in Table 1 is the speedometer. Although your letter provides little description of your device, any monitor or display must identify telltales and indicators appropriately.
S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 123, Control location and operation, specifies location and operational requirements for any equipment listed in column 1 of Table 1. S5.2.2, Display illumination and operation, specifies operational requirements on sources of illumination in column 1 of Table 2. Also, S5.2.3, Control and display identification, specifies certain symbols, words, or abbreviations to identify each control, telltale and indicator listed column 1 of Table 3.
Safety Acts Make Inoperative Provision
In addition, if your product is installed in a new or used motor vehicle, you need to take into consideration the make inoperative provision of the Safety Act, which states that:
A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter.[1]
The make inoperative prohibition requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.
If one of the entities named in the make inoperative provision were to install this film as an aftermarket modification, it would need to ensure that its installation does not make inoperative any safety equipment with an applicable safety standard. For example, a manufacturer could not knowingly place a film on windshields that reduces the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the glazing material or reduces the ability of the glazing to meet any other applicable requirement of FMVSS No. 205.
State Laws
In the U.S., States have the authority to regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, and many limit how darkly tinted the glazing may be in vehicles or whether car navigation may be projected in the windshields of vehicles operating in their jurisdictions. Thus, we recommend that manufacturers check with the States to see if there are any requirements of which they should be aware.
Additional Information
I would like to draw your attention to a procedural regulation of which manufacturers should be aware. 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Section 551.45 requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturers agent for service of process in this country. The regulation specifies the items needed for a valid designation.
One final noteplease be aware that NHTSA has visual-manual distraction guidelines that could be relevant to products such as yours. The agencys Phase 1 distraction guidelines apply to original equipment, and the agency is working on its Phase 2 distraction guidelines, which would apply to portable and aftermarket devices. Phase 1 distraction guidelines and other information is available at: http://www.distraction.gov/dot-activities/regulations.html .
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Sara Bennett of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Dated: 1/19/17 Ref: FMVSS No. 101, FMVSS No. 205
[1] 49 U.S.C. 30122 |
2017 |
ID: 15-005347 BMW Brake Transmission Shift Interlock v5Open
Mr. Samuel Campbell, III BMW of North America, LLC 200 Chestnut Ridge Road Bldg. 150 Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677-7739
Dear Mr. Campbell:
This responds to your October 5, 2015 letter asking whether BMWs Park Assistant Plus system complies with the brake transmission shift interlock requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114.[1]
Your letter describes your Park Assistant Plus system as a remote-controlled parking system that the driver operates from a location outside, but within six feet of, the vehicle. You emphasize that BMWs Park Assistant Plus system is used for only low-speed, short-distance parking maneuvers. Your letter also indicates the procedure the driver must follow to activate and use the system.
The procedure to activate the Park Assistant Plus system requires the driver to place the vehicle in park, turn the vehicle off, exit the vehicle, and press the on/off button on the left side of the key fob[2] while also depressing a safety button on the right side of the key fob, which must remain depressed throughout the remote controlled parking. After activating the feature with the button on the left and continuing to depress the button on the right, the driver will use his or her other hand to touch the key fobs display screen to start the engine and the remote controlled parking movement.[3]
The driver must continue to depress the button on the right side throughout the parking maneuver and has the opportunity to stop the maneuver at any time by releasing the button. Additionally, ultrasonic sensors and cameras automatically stop the vehicle if humans or objects are detected in the vehicles path, which is designed to reduce the risk of injury from a rollaway vehicle.
Your letter goes into detail about how the Park Assistant Plus system works and how BMW has integrated safety features into the system, but the goal of your letter is to learn whether the remote parking feature is prohibited by the brake transmission shift interlock requirement found in Section 5.3 of FMVSS No. 114. Based on your description and the information on your website, we have written this interpretation predicated on the assumption that your vehicles include a service brake foot control and that the Park Assistant Plus system will be installed in a new motor vehicle.
General Authority
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance test. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. Manufacturers are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.
NHTSA enforces compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing and testing vehicles and regulated equipment. It also investigates FMVSS noncompliances and safety-related defects.
Your letter states that you believe the Park Assistant Plus system complies with Section 5.3 of FMVSS No. 114, and you ask for NHTSAs concurrence in your interpretation. We note again that NHTSA does not make determinations as to whether a product complies with the FMVSSs outside the context of an agency compliance test. We do, however, agree that the design of the Park Assistant Plus system is not prohibited by FMVSS No. 114. To begin our discussion, keep in mind that when a feature or device, such as BMWs Park Assistant Plus, is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSSs. Discussed below is FMVSS No. 114.
FMVSS No. 114
FMVSS No. 114, Theft protection and rollaway prevention, specifies requirements for theft protection to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle.[4] It also specifies requirements to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from the rollaway of parked cars with automatic transmissions. In particular, Section 5.3, Brake transmission shift interlock, requires a brake transmission shift interlock (BTSI) that prevents the shift mechanism from being moved out of the park position unless the service brake is depressed. Section 5.3 applies to motor vehicles with an automatic transmission that includes a park position manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds (4,536 kg) or less (excluding trailers or motorcycles). It is also important to note, as you did in your letter, that Section 5.3 was incorporated into FMVSS No. 114 in 2010 after it was required by the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (K.T. Safety Act). Section 2(d)(1) of the K.T. Safety Act specifies, in relevant part:
Each motor vehicle with an automatic transmission that includes a park position manufactured for sale after September 1, 2010, shall be equipped with a system that requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of park. This system shall function in any starting system key position in which the transmission can be shifted out of park.
(Emphasis added.) The goal of designing the BTSI system in this way is to prevent an unattended child from shifting the transmission out of the park position when the child is left unattended in a vehicle with the vehicles keys.[5] This is also aimed at preventing a rollaway vehicle from injuring bystanders that are in the vehicles path.
Your product, the Park Assistant Plus system, involves a multi-step activation process in order to use the remote-controlled parking function. As discussed earlier, the procedure to activate the system requires the driver to place the vehicle in park, turn the vehicle off, exit the vehicle, and press the on/off button on the left side of the key fob while also depressing a safety button on the right side of the key fob, which must remain depressed throughout the remote controlled parking. After activating the feature with the button on the left and continuing to depress the button on the right with one hand, the driver will need to use his or her other hand to touch the key fobs display screen to start the remote controlled parking movement. This process activates the system and initiates the pre-check function during which the electronic stability control (ESC) pump applies pressure to the service brakes, and the brake system and energy levels are also checked. Next, the ESC pump applies the service brakes before the vehicle can begin to move out of the park position.
The essence of the issue presented by your letter is the phrase service brake to be depressed in Section 5.3. This is unusual phrasing. Given that the service brake pads themselves are not being depressed when they are moved into place and apply pressure against the disc (in the case of disc brakes) or the drum (in the case of drum brakes), it would have been more clear if the section had read either service brake to be applied or brake pedal to be depressed. The language used in the K.T. Safety Act and in S5.3 falls in between these two phrasings, borrowing a little from each. Thus, the phrase service brake to be depressed is ambiguous and leaves room for interpretation.
Depressed is not defined in FMVSS No. 114, 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions, or the K.T. Safety Act, but Merriam Webster defines the verb depress as to press (something) down.[6] Depressed is the past tense of depress, and means pressed something down in the context of FMVSS No. 114. The something that is pressed down is the service brake, which is defined in 571.3 as the primary mechanism designed to stop a motor vehicle. In the present context, we understand the term depressed, as used in the K.T. Safety Act and in S5.3, to mean simply pressed or applied.
Section 5.3 requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of park.[7] It does not, however, specify that the service brake must be pressed or applied by any particular object or function, such as a drivers foot. In your design, the service brake is pressed or applied with an ESC pump actuated by the vehicles operator before the vehicle can be shifted out of the park position. This achieves the goal of Section 5.3 by preventing an occupant, particularly a child, from inadvertently shifting the transmission out of the park position. It also fulfills the BTSI requirement in the K.T. Safety Act.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Sara Bennett of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 1/4/16 Standard No. 114
[1] 49 CFR 571.114. [2] BMW calls its key fob a Display Key. In this letter, we use the more inclusive term key fob since key is defined in FMVSS No. 114 as a physical device or an electronic code which, when inserted into the starting system (by physical or electronic means), enables the vehicle operator to activate the engine or motor. BMWs key fob contains an electronic code, but is not itself an electronic code. [3] An illustration of this feature can be found on BMWs official YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Viyt2aIOG8. [4] Letter to Norman Katz, Esq. of Saretsky, Katz, Dranoff & Glass, L.L.P. (June 6, 2006), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Katz.1.htm,. [5] Letter to Michael X. Cammissa of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (July 20, 2010), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/AIAM%20003788%20114.htm. [6] Depress Definition, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depress (last visited Nov. 11, 2015). [7] 49 CFR 571.114. |
2016 |
ID: 15079.ztvOpen Kiyoshi Narabu, General Manager Dear Mr. Narabu: This is in reply to your letter of April 21, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, the final rule allowing visually/optically aimable headlamps. Your first question is: "S7.8.2.1(c) prescribes that a visually/optically aimable lower beam headlamp shall not have horizontal adjustment mechanism other than VHAD. We consider that some kind of horizontal adjustment mechanism are necessary to align lamp axis with vehicle axis at lamp installation on the vehicle. Does horizontal adjustment mechanism that uses only at installation and can not be adjusted by vehicle owner or driver conform to requirement of S7.8.2.1(c)?" We understand that it is necessary to align properly the horizontal aim at the time the headlamp is installed on a motor vehicle. We do not understand why a horizontal adjustment mechanism has to be a permanent part of the headlamp or vehicle. However, if its design is such that it can never be used again, even with special tools, we would not consider that the installation of a horizontal adjustment mechanism of this type creates a noncompliance with paragraph S7.8.2.1(c). "S7.8.5.2(c) require permanent fixation of VHAD device calibration on or after September 1, 1998. Does calibration method that vehicle owner or driver can not calibrate using ordinary tools conform to this requirement?" Your question implies that the calibration can be adjusted by tools that are not "ordinary tools." If the calibration is capable of adjustment by any means, it is not "permanent" within the meaning of the requirement. If the calibration cannot be adjusted, by ordinary tools or otherwise, then it is permanent within the meaning of paragraph S7.8.5.2(c). If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (FAX 202-366-3820). Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15082.wkmOpenMr. Claude R. Beverly Dear Mr. Beverly: Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this agency in which you expressed concerns about the small space-saver spare tires with which new passenger motor vehicles are commonly equipped. We have addressed this issue in the past (see enclosed letters to Representative Paul E. Kanjorski, dated May 13, 1996; and to Senator Bob Graham dated January 11, 1993). We explained in those letters that although the space-saver spare tires are smaller than regular tires, they are nevertheless required to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to tires. Thus, although they are designed to be used only in emergencies and their service life is normally less than regular tires, they are as safe as regular tires if properly maintained and inflated and the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations are followed. Should you have any further questions, feel free to provide them to this office at this address or by fax at (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, |
1997 |
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.