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: 003788_noggin_nestOpenMs. Liz Franqui Dear Ms. Franqui: This responds to your letter about a product you market called the Noggin Nest. According to your letter, the Noggin Nest is placed behind a babys head "to prevent Flat Head Syndrome." You currently market the product for use in a stroller, car seat [sic], bouncer or swing and would like to market the product for use in motor vehicle child restraint systems. You ask what regulations apply to the Noggin Nest and whether the product can be used in a child restraint without hindering the restraints performance in a crash. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(7) of our statute (40 U.S.C. Chapter 301; "the Safety Act") defines the term "motor vehicle equipment," in pertinent part, as:
NHTSA has two criteria in determining whether a device is an "accessory." The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The second is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. We believe that the Noggin Nest would meet both of these criteria when you start marketing it for use in child restraint systems. A substantial portion of the expected use of the product would be with respect to use with child restraints. The product would be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Noggin Nest. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS No. 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a pad that is used with a child restraint system. While no FMVSS applies to the Noggin Nest, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, while it is unlikely that the Noggin Nest would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Our FMVSSs require specific levels of performance for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. You state in your letter that you want to ensure that the Noggin Nest would not affect compliance with FMVSS No. 213 or otherwise interfere with the performance of the child restraint system and ask for guidance in this area. NHTSA is unable to ascertain whether and to what degree your product would affect the performance of a child restraint. However, we make the following observations for your information. The photographs you enclosed show that the product has slots through which the child restraints belts are routed. Depending on their design, some slots could restrict the belts' ability to perform in a crash. Further, padding inserted between the child restraint and the child passenger could compress in a crash and introduce slack into the belt system. In addition, FMVSS No. 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for child restraints. Any person listed in 30122 who installs a Noggin Nest must not make inoperative the flammability resistance of the child restraint system. The prohibition of 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. State or local jurisdictions might have their own requirements for products such as the Noggin Nest. For information about those requirements, you should contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:213 |
2004 |
ID: 003832rbmOpenMr. William E. Lawler Dear Mr. Lawler: This letter responds to your request for interpretation of the labeling requirements of S4.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208) as they relate to an inflatable tubular structure installed inside a fire truck. The fire truck would be within a range of 30,000-70,000 lb gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). According to your letter, the inflatable device is designed and installed to prevent the occupant's head from striking the side window or door frame during a rollover. The inflatable structure you describe is not subject to the labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 208 or any other safety standards. S4.5.1(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 208 states that "except as otherwise provided in S4.5.1(b)(2), [1] each vehicle shall have a label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint." The subparagraph then goes on to state what the required label must look like. The label requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1) are limited to vehicles with the type of inflatable restraint system defined in S4.1.5.1(b). That paragraph defines an inflatable restraint system as an air bag that is activated in a crash. S4.1.5 applies to all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996. A corollary provision, S4.2.6, applies to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997. S4.1.5.3, which applies to passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1997, and S4.2.6.2, which applies to those vehicles addressed by S4.2.6 manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, require that vehicles falling within their purview meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means of an inflatable restraint system, as defined in S4.1.5(b). These types of inflatable restraint systems are the only ones subject to the labeling requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1). The inflatable tubular restraint described in your letter does not appear to be designed to provide protection in a frontal crash. Instead, your letter states that they are designed to provide head protection in a rollover crash. As such, they are not subject to FMVSS No. 208, including its labeling requirements. Moreover, as discussed in a March 23, 1999, interpretation to Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. (copy enclosed), the labeling requirements of FMVSS No. 208 apply only to passenger cars and to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 lb or less. There are presently no other labeling requirements that would apply to these inflatable tubular structures. I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure [1] S4.5.1(b)(2) sets forth the sun visor labeling requirements for vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements adopted by NHTSA on May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30680). Those requirements are not applicable to the vehicle in question. |
2003 |
ID: 003917rbmOpen[ ] Dear [ ]: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). You specifically ask whether the telltale requirements of S19.2.2 would prohibit a design that would cause the telltale to flash for five seconds to inform vehicle occupants that the status of the air bag has changed. You have also requested that the name of your company be kept confidential due to the confidential business nature of the contemplated design. That request is granted. I am pleased to provide a response to your request for interpretation. The design discussed in your letter would not be prohibited by S19.2.2. On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) 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. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. 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 protection of small and mid-size adults. Under S19.2.2, any air bag system that uses automatic suppression technology to satisfy the requirements of the standard must have a telltale that illuminates whenever the air bag is suppressed and that does not illuminate whenever the air bag is active, except that the telltale need not illuminate when the passenger seat is unoccupied. S19.2.2 is silent as to how the telltale must operate while the status of the air bag is in transition. Nor does the provision address flashing, as opposed to continuous, illumination. S20.2 tests the air bag suppression system by placing a child restraint, test dummy, or human in the passenger seat, starting the engine and then waiting 10 seconds before determining the status of the air bag. Under the design contemplated by your company, the required telltale would flash for five seconds to notify the vehicle occupants that the status of the air bag has changed. You state that you believe this feature will better alert both drivers and front seat passengers when the status of the air bag has changed than simply turning the telltale on or off. Under your design, the five seconds of flashing would be triggered by a change in status from "active" to "inactive" and vice versa. After the five-second flashing period has ended, the telltale would either illuminate steadily or go out, depending on the activation status of the air bag. Nothing in S19.2.2 prohibits a telltale that flashes to inform vehicle occupants that the air bag has transitioned from an active to inactive status. While S19.2.2(h) prohibits telltale illumination other than when the air bag has been turned off (except during a bulb check), the intention behind S19.2.2(h) is to let vehicle occupants know whether or not their air bag is suppressed without requiring them to discern varying light intensities or other potentially confusing designs. Accordingly, we interpret the standard to permit a system that transitions from continually burning to flashing for a brief period of time, no more than 10 seconds, after the air bag has been reactivated. Thus, your contemplated design would be permissible under S19.2.2 as long as the telltale only flashes when the air bag is actually suppressed or for a brief period of time after the air bag has been reactivated. Please note that while nothing in the standard would prohibit the telltale from continuously flashing whenever the air bag is suppressed, such designs could be unduly annoying and could lead a vehicle owner to disconnect the telltale. Likewise, an occupant detection system that regularly turned the air bag on and off because the status of the air bag was constantly in transition would be problematic. Finally, we note that while a flashing design is not prohibited, any vehicle manufacturer choosing to incorporate such a design in its telltale would need to either provide an alternative means of determining whether the air bag is active or suppressed consistent with S19.2.3 or limit the flash to less than 10 seconds. This is because the test procedure set forth in S20.2, and its corollaries in S22.2 and S26.2, require the manufacturer to provide a mechanism that NHTSA can use to determine whether the automatic suppression system is, in fact, able to reliably classify the front passenger seat occupant. For a continually flashing system, the alternative means is necessary to differentiate between a properly functioning system and a problematic system that is continually transitioning between suppression and activation. I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:208 |
2003 |
ID: 004-003063OpenMr. David Hutton Dear Mr. Hutton: This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between U.S. Federal laws and State laws. You indicated that you have been involved for many years with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations regarding the equipment installed in motor vehicles, mainly the safety and associated standards under 49 CFR Part 571. You stated that you understand that "no US state can enforce a regulation which is different to the Federal regulation, however, they can make rules where no federal rule exists."You asked whether this position is "laid down in any laws." NHTSA is an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation. Congress has authorized the Secretary of Transportation to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which is now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. The Secretary has delegated that responsibility to NHTSA. Chapter 301 includes a section addressing the relationship to other laws ( 30103, copy enclosed). Paragraph (b) of that section addresses the issue you asked about: (b) Preemption (1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. However, the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the otherwise applicable standard under this chapter. (2) A State may enforce a standard that is identical to a standard prescribed underthis chapter. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2004 |
ID: 00433.ztvOpenMr. Randy W. McGuire Dear Mr. McGuire: This is in reply to your letter of September 17, 2002, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You requested this interpretation in the context of rear lighting equipment on three flatbed trailers depicted in its manufacturers sales brochure, which you enclosed. The aspect of the rear lighting that is the basis of your first question is the array of five identical lamps that appear in the center of the rear of two trailers below the uppermost of the two horizontal conspicuity treatments extending across the width of the trailer. You asked whether this arrangement is considered to comply with Standard No. 108. The answer is no. Tables I and II of Standard No. 108 requires that motor vehicles including trailers with an overall width of 2032 mm (80 inches) or more be equipped with systems of front and rear identification lamps. Each system consists of three amber or red lamps with lamp centers spaced not less than 6 nor more than 12 inches apart. Thus, an identification lamp system complying with Standard No. 108 cannot have more than three lamps. You have correctly interpreted Standard No. 108 to your prospective customers who have expressed an interest in having an array of more than three such lamps. Even if we were to regard the center three lamps as a conforming system of identification lamps, the two lamps on each side of the three-lamp array would be considered additional lighting equipment and prohibited by S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. S5.1.3 allows additional lighting equipment only if it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. In this instance, the two additional lamps would impair the effectiveness of the three-lamp identification system, which is intended to provide an unambiguous indication of the presence of a wide vehicle on the roadway. You have asked several questions relating to S5.7, Conspicuity Systems. The first that we shall answer is: "Would the lights all along the horizontal be deemed as a suitable alternative to having full-length reflective tape." S5.7 provides only two alternatives for compliance: the use of either retroreflective tape or reflex reflectors. The use of lamps alone on the horizontal member would be a noncompliance with S5.7.1.4.1(c). Although you stated that "in some instances the lights are all along the horizontal member," in none of the three rear end configurations shown in the sales brochure are lamps deployed across the rear underride protection device. As a foundation for the remaining two questions, you stated your understanding that S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires "a piece of reflective sheeting full width across the horizontal member of a rear underride protection device." This is correct; however the requirement is in S5.7.1.4.1(c), not (a). You first asked "Would . . . use of lights on the horizontal member be deemed a noncompliance?" Standard No. 108 is very specific about the types of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment that may be used as original equipment on a motor vehicle. It specifies location, color, and, in the case of conspicuity treatment, the dimensions of the retroreflective sheeting. S5.7.1.4.1(c) requires that conspicuity treatment be applied "full width across the horizontal member of a rear underride protection device."The interruption of the conspicuity treatment by the array of five lamps, in our view, would create a noncompliance with S5.7.1.4,1(c). In addition, each of the three trailers is equipped with two vertical metal strips, each of which bisects a segment of white retroreflective sheeting. This also, we believe, creates a noncompliance with S5.7.1.4.1(c). It is also your understanding that S5.7.1.3(b) "requires that no white sheeting shall be located closer than 75 mm to the edge of any luminous lens area of any red or amber lamp that is required by the standard." Your understanding is correct, but the requirement appears in S5.7.1.4(b). You also asked:"Would the lights used in combination with the reflective sheeting be compliant even though the white sheeting is directly adjacent to the red lamps?" The restriction of S5.7.1.4(b) applies only if the red or amber lamp is required by Standard No. 108. The lower array of five lamps is not lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. As noted above, the array interrupts the conspicuity sheeting, and, in our view, would create a noncompliance with S5.7.1.4.1(c). I hope that this responds to your questions. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref.108 |
2003 |
ID: 004593-asOpenMr. Mac M. Yousry Managing Director Global Vehicle Services Corp. 1892 North Main Street Orange, CA 92865 Dear Mr. Yousry: This responds to your letter asking whether the GV11, a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less, mounted on a truck chassis, and containing certain special features that enable off-road operation, qualifies as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). Based upon the information supplied to this agency and for the reasons explained below, we would consider the GV11 to be an MPV under 49 CFR 571.3. You have requested confidentiality of some information regarding the specifications of your vehicle, and we have granted that confidentiality. As the confidential information was not required to answer your question, we will not discuss it in this letter. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe the vehicle would be classified for the purposes of our safety standards. The term multipurpose passenger vehicle is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 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. You state that the GV11 is designed to carry 10 persons or less, thus meeting the first part of the definition. You also state that the GV11 is mounted on a truck chassis, thus fulfilling the second part. Based upon this description, it appears to us that this vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. We note that while your letter also described certain confidential features that you believe would enable off-road operation, it was not necessary to analyze those features to make our determination. Thus, we make no opinion in this letter as to whether those features would impact the classification of the GV11 under the FMVSS. If you have any additional questions, contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:571 d.12/18/06 |
2006 |
ID: 004597drnOpenMichael E. Ogle, Sales Manager Dear Mr. Ogle: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a Liebherr mobile construction crane that your company has imported into the United States is a "motor vehicle." This letter confirms that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider the mobile construction crane to be a "motor vehicle." You have enclosed brochures (with a photograph and diagrams) describing the crane at issue, the Liebherr LTM 1090/2, 110 ton mobile crane. By way of background information, NHTSA interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:
Further, if a vehicle is a "motor vehicle," it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported into the United States (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)). The question is whether the Liebherr LTM 1090/2 is a "motor vehicle." Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." Based on the literature provided in your letter, we believe the on-highway use of your equipment is merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Therefore, we do not consider it to be a "motor vehicle." We note that our interpretations in this area are based on a court decision issued in 1978. Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain mobile construction equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:VSA 102(3) |
2003 |
ID: 004598asOpenMr. Brian J. Conaway 1771 Locust Street Denver, CO 80220 Dear Mr. Conaway: This responds to your letter asking for reconsideration of an interpretation regarding whether your Hip Hugger device is a child restraint system (CRS) under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. In that previous interpretation (dated June 1, 2001), we determined that the Hip Hugger was not a CRS. We have examined the sample Hip Hugger that you sent, as well as the videotape regarding installation of the product, and also considered your arguments for classifying the device as a CRS. We regret to inform you that we still cannot classify the Hip Hugger as a child restraint system, for the reasons discussed below. Background
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). The following is our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter. FMVSS No. 213, paragraph S4, defines a child restraint system as: Any device, except Type I and Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 30 kilograms (kg) or less. The Hip Hugger, as demonstrated by your videotape, is used to position the seat belt on children and small adults. Its function is to hold the seat belt in place so that the lap belt tightly holds the childs lap and the torso belt does not go across the child occupants neck. The Hip Hugger does not, in itself, restrain the occupant and it does not serve as a seat for the occupant. In our previous letter to you, we determined that your device was not a child restraint system. We stated: The Hip Hugger positions a seat belt on children and small adults; it does not restrain, seat, or position children. We do not consider the Hip Hugger to position children in a manner that a booster seat positions children to better use a vehicles belt system. The Hip Hugger simply locks the belt. The device alone cannot place or arrange the location of a child on a vehicle seat. Discussion In your letter, you lay out specific arguments as to why the Hip Hugger should be considered a CRS, despite our previous analysis that determined that it was not. These arguments are addressed below. Your first argument refers to our previous analysis that the Hip Hugger was not a child restraint system, in which we stated that [w]e do not consider the Hip Hugger to position children in a manner that a booster seat positions children to better use a vehicles belt system. You believe that according to this reasoning, no other device except a Booster seat could be classified as a Child Restraint System. You state that, although rear-facing restraints and harnesses are CRSs, they differ from booster seats: rear-facing child restraints do not use the vehicles belts system to position the child, and harnesses do not place or arrange the location of a child on the vehicle seat. Thus, you believe we were incorrect in determining that the Hip Hugger was not a CRS. We regret if you found our response to be unclear. We will clarify it here. It is helpful to remember that a child restraint system 1) restrains, 2) seats, or 3) positions children who weigh 30 kilograms or less. To us, it was clear that the Hip Hugger did not restrain or seat children, so our earlier letter did not discuss whether the Hip Hugger would be considered a CRS under those two aspects of the CRS definition. To us, the only issue was whether the Hip Hugger positioned children under the third aspect of the definition. Accordingly, we proceeded to interpret that aspect of the definition as applied to your product. In stating that, We do not consider the Hip Hugger to position children in a manner that a booster seat positions children to better use a vehicles belt system, we did not mean that a device could be classified as a CRS only by positioning children as booster seats position children. Immediately preceding the sentence, we had stated that the Hip Hugger does not restrain, seat, or position children. Instead, the reference to booster seats was meant to be illustrative of what is meant by the term positioning of a child. That is to say, we did not consider the Hip Hugger to position children, such as, for example, the manner in which a booster seat adjusts the position of a child to better use a vehicles belt system. With regard to your point about rear-facing child restraints and harnesses, these devices are child restraint systems because they 1) restrain, 2) seat, or 3) position children who weigh 30 kilograms or less. The devices consist of webbing and other materials that restrain a child occupant in a crash. The Hip Hugger, on the other hand, holds the seat belt in place, but does not itself restrain, seat or position the occupant. With regard to your point that the Hip Hugger meets the definition of a belt positioning seat, a belt positioning seat is defined in paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 213. By its definition, a belt positioning seat is a type of child restraint system. Because the Hip Hugger does not meet the definition of a CRS, it does not meet the definition of a belt positioning seat. As to the portability of the Hip Hugger, a point that you find relevant, that feature has no bearing on whether the device is a child restraint system. In sum, we have reevaluated our previous interpretation to you as you requested, and have found it to be correct that the Hip Hugger is not a child restraint system. Before closing, I would like to point out, as did our 2001 letter to you, that the Hip Hugger is a type of device that NHTSA once described as a seat belt positioner in a 1999 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM; 64 FR 44164). In the NPRM, NHTSA considered issuing a consumer information regulation for seat belt positioners, which were proposed to be defined as a device, other than a belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles. The proposed rulemaking was withdrawn in 2004 (69 FR 13503 at 13504).
We are returning your sample Hip Hugger and video under separate cover. If you have any additional questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Anthony M. Cooke
ref:213 d.10/26/06 |
2006 |
ID: 004609-asOpenMr. Dennis J. Tualej Nu-Way Intermodal Services, Inc. 220 Roger Avenue Westfield, NJ 07090 Dear Mr. Tualej: This responds to your letter seeking clarification as to the appropriate maximum load markings and inflation pressures on the sidewall of truck tires. You asked if differing markings on similar tires provided to you by different suppliers are acceptable. As discussed below, our review of the sample markings set forth in your letter leads us to conclude that the first marking you cited conforms to the requirements of our tire safety standards, while the second marking does not conform. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, each manufacturer must self-certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards prior to sale. FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars sets forth, among other things, labeling requirements for tires for use on trucks. Of relevance here, the maximum load rating and corresponding cold tire inflation pressure marking requirements are provided in FMVSS No. 119 paragraphs S6.5(d) and S6.6, as described below. Paragraph S6.5(d) of the standard requires that the truck tires be marked on each sidewall with, among other things, the maximum load rating and corresponding cold inflation pressure for the particular tire. This information must be shown as follows: (Mark on tires rated for single and dual load): Max load single __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. (Mark on tires rated only for single load): Max load __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Paragraph S6.6 of the standard sets forth requirements concerning how to determine the numerical values for the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure. That provision directs the manufacturer to use a maximum load not lower than the lowest maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure for the particular tire size contained in a current publication from one of the following entities: (a) The Tire and Rim Association; (b) The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation; (c) Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association, Inc.; (d) Deutsche Industrie Norm; (e) British Standards Institution; (f) Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization, and (g) The Tyre and Rim Association of Australia Turning to the specific examples cited in your letter, you asked which of two maximum load ratings and corresponding inflation pressures for 10.00-20 14 Bias Ply Tires is accurate. These markings, supplied by two tire manufacturers, differed in two ways: (1) they employed different syntaxes, and (2) the maximum load rating values were different. We have restated the content of these two tire markings below: (1) Max load single 2800 kg (6175 lb) at 690 kPa (100 psi) cold. Max load dual 2430 kg (5355 lb) at 620 kPa (90 psi) cold; (2) Max load single 6040 lb at 105 psi cold. Max load dual 5300 lb at 95 psi cold. In terms of format, because the tires you ask about are dual load tires, they must be marked so as to be consistent with the format specified in S6.5(d) of FMVSS No. 119 (i.e., Max load single __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold. Max load dual __kg (__lb) at __kPa (__psi) cold.). Thus, in terms of syntax, marking #1 is consistent with the applicable requirement, whereas marking #2 is not. In terms of content, the values recited in marking #1 correspond to the maximum load ratings for a 10.00-20 14 Bias Ply Tire assigned by the Tire and Rim Association, one of the tire industry organizations whose tire-load tables is incorporated by reference in our standard. Therefore, the values provided in marking #1 would be appropriate for inclusion in the required marking on the tire sidewall. As to marking #2, in order to conform to paragraph S6.6, the maximum load rating values must not be lower than the lowest maximum load and corresponding inflation pressure for the particular tire size in one of the specified publications. The lowest such maximum load rating for 10.00-20 14 Bias Ply Tires for single tire application is 5842 lbs, as listed in the Scandinavian Tire and Rim Organization 2006 Year Book, and the lowest such maximum load rating for dual tire application is 5346 lbs, as listed by the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association (JATMA). While the single tire application rating in marking #2 (6040 lbs) is not lower than the lowest allowable single tire load rating, the dual tire application rating (5300 lbs) is lower than the lowest allowed rating. As both the single and the dual maximum load rating values must comply with paragraph S6.6, marking #2 is not in conformity with that paragraph. We hope that the above information will assist you in advising your customers. If you have any additional questions about this matter, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel d.3/8/07 ref:119 |
2007 |
ID: 0047Open Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa Dear Mr. Vierimaa: This responds to your letter of June 1, 1994, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked whether the term "underride protection device" as used in S5.7.1.4.1 in Standard No. 108 "only include the device yet to be required by NHTSA or would it include the device described in TTMA RP No. 92?" At present, the term "rear underride protection device" as used in Standard No. 108 means the common "ICC bumper" described by the Federal Highway Administration in 49 CFR 393.86, or a similar device that the manufacturer of a trailer has provided regardless of whether it is required by 49 CFR 393.86. Thus, it presently includes the device described in TTMA RP No. 92. You have informed us that some manufacturers are installing guards with round cross sections, and some with square cross sections rotated 45 degrees which results in a "diamond" shape orientation. In addition, on some trash trailers, a curved hook grabs and holds the round cross section guard while trash is loaded into the trailers. You have asked whether a 38 mm wide retroreflective strip of sheeting applied to these guards will comply with Standard No. 108. S5.7.1.4.1(c) of Standard No. 108 specifies only that the strip shall be applied "across the full width of the horizontal member of the rear underride protection device." Although the reflective material is certified by its manufacturer for photometric conformance in the vertical position, Standard No. 108 has not been interpreted to require structural changes in trailers for the sole purpose of enhancing the conspicuity installation. The agency's decision to avoid exceptions for trailers with unusual configurations was based on the expectation that manufacturers would use
their available structures for conspicuity material, rather than re-engineer them. Thus, we believe that the application of 38 mm wide sheeting to either of these guards would comply with S5.7.1.4.1(c). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:7/14/94
|
1994 |
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.