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: 09-003169 nissan.draft.dj.aug20OpenMakoto Yoshida, Senior Manager Government Affairs Office Nissan North America, Inc. 11921 Freedom Drive Two Fountain Square, Suite 550 Reston, VA 20190 Dear Mr. Yoshida: This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR 571.10(b)(1) and (2). Those paragraphs include formulas for determining the required number of designated seating positions (DSPs) in a seating surface area. In your letter, you ask us to confirm your belief that the formulas used to calculate the number of DSPs within a seating surface location prescribe the minimum number of permissible DSPs within that seating surface location, and that the manufacturer is not prohibited from designating a number of DSPs within a seating surface that is greater than the value N calculated in 571.10(b)(1) and (2). The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background, for the purpose of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA has defined a designated seating position as a location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female. On June 22, 2005, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for a revised definition of designated seating position that would be more objective. NHTSA had identified a problem of three people occupying a seat with only two DSPs. It was believed that providing a more objective definition of designated seating position would help alleviate this problem. In the October 2008 final rule, NHTSA amended the definition of designated seating position for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011.[1] The new definition states that a seat location that has a seating surface width of at least 330 mm is a designated seating position. The final rule also established a procedure, codified at 49 CFR 571.10, for measuring seating surface width and calculating the number of DSPs at a seat location. For seat locations with a seating surface width of less than 1400 mm, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 350, rounded down to the nearest whole number. For seat locations with a seating surface width of 1400 mm or greater, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 450, rounded down to the nearest whole number. In your letter, you put forth a scenario where the total width of a seating surface area, as calculated under 571.10(c)(2), is 1700 mm. You observe that, under the formula used to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating surface width of at least 1400 mm, there would be three DSPs at the seating area. You ask whether, under the new DSP definition set forth in the October 2008 final rule, you are prohibited from designating four DSPs in that seating surface area instead of the result of the calculation in 571.10(b)(2). As indicated above, we changed the definition of designated seating position because of a concern that, in certain situations, more people were occupying a seating surface area than the number of DSPs. You put forward a scenario in the opposite direction, where a manufacturer wants to designate more DSPs than the number required by the formulas in section 571.10(b), and also where the seating area is specifically designed for that greater number of occupants. However, the definition of designated seating position was also revised to be more objective. NHTSA developed a procedure, set forth in section 571.10(b)(1) and (b)(2) to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating location. Our rulemaking was not intended to limit manufacturers from designating more DSPs than specified by the formulas or to permit manufacturers to designate a smaller number of designated seating positions than the number they actually intend to be used by occupants. In light of the issue you have raised, we will consider clarifying the language of section 571.10(b) in a future rulemaking or in the responses to petitions for reconsideration of the new DSP definition. Nothing in this letter should be construed as a response to any of the petitions for reconsideration. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Std. 571 8/5/2011 [1] On December 23, 2009, NHTSA issued a partial response to petitions for reconsideration of the new DSP definition in which we allowed one year of additional lead time before the new DSP definition is applicable. See 74 FR 68185. |
|
ID: 09-003484 passenger seatOpenDavid E. Barnhart Chief Engineer The Vehicle Production Group 1355 Combermere Drive Troy, MI 48083 Dear Mr. Barnhart: This letter responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the applicability of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Standards) to a vehicle location with a wheelchair tie-down position in lieu of an installed front passenger seat. This also follows up on the meeting you had requested with agency staff, in which you explained your interpretation requests and showed us a prototype of the vehicle you plan to manufacture. Your vehicle will have numerous features designed to make it accessible to persons in wheelchairs. Pertinent to your request, the vehicle will have a wheelchair tie-down position in the front of the vehicle to the right of the driver where a front passenger seat would ordinarily be located. In your letter, you ask us to confirm two specific conclusions that you have reached regarding this feature. First, you ask us to confirm that the wheelchair tie-down position in the front passenger location is not a designated seating position, as defined by 49 CFR section 571.3, such that Standard 208, Occupant crash protection, does not require the installation of an air bag at that position. Second, you ask us to confirm that portions of Standard 214 (Side impact protection), which do not refer to designated seating positions, but instead to front and rear outboard seating positions, do not apply to the wheelchair tie-down position. See 49 CFR 571.214. We note that, in your letter, you stated your belief that the performance requirements of the Standards that apply to designated seating positions, or to seating positions in general, do not apply to vehicle locations at which there is no seat installed at that position, but only tie-downs used for securing a wheelchair. Our interpretation letter is limited to the particular Standards that you raise in your letter. You cite three interpretations letters in support of your belief that this position is not a designated seating position under both the old definition applicable to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2011 and the new definition to vehicles manufactured after that date.[1] First, in a March 19, 1992 letter to Mr. Wm. Richard Alexander of the Maryland State Department of Education, we addressed a requirement in Standard 222, Schoolbus passenger seating and crash protection. We stated that Standard 222s requirement for a restraining barrier within 24 inches of a seating reference point did not apply to a wheelchair position because a wheelchair position is not technically a designated seating position. Second, in a November 13, 1992 letter to Mrs. Edna Sutlief, we addressed Standard 208, which requires safety belts to be installed at designated seating positions. In our letter, we stated that Standard 208 did not require installation of a safety belt at a wheelchair securement location because such a location would not be a designated seating position, as that term is defined in 49 CFR section 571.3. Third, in a February 4, 1999 letter to Mr. Jerry G. Sullivan, Jr., of the Braun Corporation, we addressed a requirement in Standard 208 that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles be equipped with air bags at the driver and passenger designated seating positions. We stated that a passenger side air bag would not be required in a vehicle that was modified by removing the right front passenger seat and installing a permanent ambulatory walk-through entrance door. We reasoned that, once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard 208 would not require an air bag for that location because an air bag is only required if a seating position is there. We confirm that, for the vehicle you ask about, because there would be no seat installed in the front passenger seating position, that position would not constitute a designated seating position, under both the old and new definitions of that term as defined by 49 CFR section 571.3. Under the old definition, a designated seating position exists if a position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. The new definition of designated seating position, which is intended to be more objective, is based upon seating surface width. Because the wheelchair tie-down position has no seating surface, it is not a designated seating position. Therefore, consistent with our prior interpretations, you are correct to conclude that Standard 208 would not require the installation of an air bag at the wheelchair tie-down position because that position is not a designated seating position. You also ask for confirmation that the dynamic performance requirements of Standard 214 do not apply to the wheelchair tie-down position. By way of background, a multipurpose passenger vehicle with the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 6,000 pounds must generally meet the requirements of S6 (door crush resistance) and S9 (pole test) of Standard 214. 49 CFR 571.214, S4(c). S7 of Standard 214, the moving deformable barrier test requirements, would not apply to your vehicle because it will be categorized as a multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds.[2] See also S5(b)(4). Regarding S9 of Standard 214, the vehicle-to-pole test requirements, you note that S5(c)(4) excludes from meeting the requirements of S9 vehicles in which the seat for the driver or right front passenger has been removed and wheelchair restraints installed in place of the seats. You believe that this exclusion would be applicable to your vehicle, even though you are not removing a seat but, instead, would be manufacturing the vehicle without the seat. We agree with you that the rationale supporting this exclusion would apply to the front passenger position in your vehicle, even though, strictly speaking, you have not removed the seat. The end result is the same: the right front passenger seat is nonexistent. Therefore, we interpret S5(c)(4) as excluding your vehicle from the requirement to meet S9 at the front passenger seating position. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel cc: Erika Z. Jones, Mayer Brown LLP Dated:7/19/10 [1] After receiving your letter, but before this response, we amended section 571.3 to allow an additional year of lead time for the implementation of the new designated seating position definition. See 74 FR 68190 (Dec. 23, 2009). [2] At the June 6 meeting, you stated that the GVWR of your vehicle would be over 6,000 pounds. You later stated, through your attorney, that you have decided to classify the vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Accordingly, our response is based on the understanding that you will be manufacturing a multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR over 6,000 pounds. |
2010 |
ID: 09-003935 217OpenMr. Jonathan Weisheit Project Engineering J.K. Technologies, L.L.C. 3500 Sweet Air Street Baltimore, MD 21211 Dear Mr. Weisheit: This responds to your question asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You ask about S5.2.3.2(b) of that standard, as it applies to an open top double decked bus that your client Ensign Bus, a bus importer, wishes to import into the United States. As explained below, it appears that the bus does not comply with certain provisions of FMVSS No. 217.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue and enforce safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Description of the Double Decker Bus In your letter, you write that the double decker bus that Ensign Bus wishes to import has two stairways that access the open top upper deck of the bus. You describe one stairway as midway between the center of the bus and the front of the bus, to the left of center. You describe the other stairway as midway between the center of the bus and the rear of the vehicle to the right of center.[1] Because of the engines location, there is neither a rear emergency window exit nor a rear emergency door exit on the lower deck. You provided schematics, showing the seating positions on both the upper and lower decks of the bus, and the locations of the stairways in relation to the seating positions. The schematic of the bus states that the lower deck has 30 seating positions (apparently not counting the drivers seat) and that the upper deck has 46 seating positions. You also provided photographs of the interior of the lower deck. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the double decker bus is over 10,000 pounds (lb) gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). S5.2.3.2(b) Requirements Under S5.2.1 of the standard, manufacturers of buses other than school buses may meet FMVSS No. 217 requirements for the provision of emergency exits by meeting either S5.2.2, Buses other than school buses, or S5.2.3, School buses. You seek confirmation that the bus at issue would satisfy the requirements of S5.2.3.2(b) of FMVSS No. 217 (the school bus requirements) with the two stairway exits to the roof/upper deck. S5.2.3.2(b), Emergency roof exit, states, in relevant part: (1) Each emergency roof exit shall be hinged on its forward side, and shall be operable from both inside and outside the vehicle. (2) (3) In a bus equipped with two emergency roof exits, one shall be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the foremost limit of the passenger compartment and the other shall be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the rearmost point of the passenger compartment. (4) (5) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, each emergency roof exit shall be installed with its longitudinal centerline coinciding with a longitudinal vertical plane passing through the longitudinal centerline of the school bus. (6) In a bus equipped with two or more emergency roof exits, for each roof exit offset from the longitudinal vertical plane specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, there shall be another roof exit offset from that plane an equal distance to the other side. A question presented by your inquiry is whether S5.2.3.2(b) requires a cover or hatch of some sort for the roof exit. If these school bus roof emergency exit requirements require a cover, your exits (the staircases) would not meet the requirements, since they are not covered.
After consideration of the standard and its history, our conclusion is that S5.2.3.2(b) does not contemplate this particular kind of roof exit (uncovered stairways to the roof of a double decker bus). In stating that the roof exit shall be hinged on its forward side, and shall be operable from both inside and outside the vehicle, S5.2.3.2(b)(1) assumes the existence of a cover or hatch. We do not construe the language of S5.2.3.2(b)(1) as an indirect requirement that a roof exit consisting of a staircase to the upper level of a double decker bus be covered. Covering the staircase poses challenges for a double decker bus, given how passengers are intended to move between the lower and upper levels of the vehicle. (If the staircase had a cover, the cover must meet the requirements in the standard for emergency exit covers, including their release.) With regard to other provisions in S5.2.3.2(b), it appears from your enclosures that the roof exits would meet them. One roof exit appears to be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the foremost limit of the passenger compartment and the other appears to be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant between the midpoint of the passenger compartment and the rearmost point of the passenger compartment, as specified in S5.2.3.2(b)(3). From your enclosures, it also appears that for each of the roof exits offset from the longitudinal vertical plane specified in paragraph S5.2.3.2(b)(5), the other roof exit is offset from that plane an equal distance to the other side. Thus, S5.2.3.2(b)(6) appears satisfied. However, there are other requirements in S5.2.3 with which it appears the bus does not comply. These are discussed below. Other Requirements in S5.2.3
S5.2.3, the section of the standard you have elected to meet, states: S5.2.3 School buses. Except as provided in S5.2.3.4, each school bus shall comply with S5.2.3.1 through S5.2.3.3. S5.2.3.1. Each school bus shall be equipped with the exits specified in either S5.2.3.1(a) or S5.2.3.1(b), chosen at the option of the manufacturer. (a) One rear emergency door that opens outward and is hinged on the right side (either side in the case of a bus with a GVWR or 10,000 pounds or less), and the additional exits, if any, specified in Table 1 [of Standard No. 217]. (b) One emergency door on the vehicles left side that is hinged on its forward side and meets the requirements of S5.2.3.2(a), and a push-out rear window that provides a minimum opening clearance 41 centimeters high and 122 centimeters wide and meets the requirements of S5.2.3.2(c), and the additional exits, if any, specified by Table 2 [of Standard No. 217]. * * * * * In order to comply with S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, the bus must meet either all of the requirements in S5.2.2 or all of the requirements in S5.2.3. Based on the schematics of the bus you have provided, it appears that the bus does not have a rear emergency door or an emergency door on the vehicles left side. Thus, the bus does not appear to comply with S5.2.3.1 and, as a result, would not satisfy S5.2.3. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 4/27/10 [1] Based on the photographs and schematics provided, the staircase at the front of the bus appears to be flush with the left side of the bus and the staircase at the rear of the bus appears to be flush with the right side of the bus. |
2010 |
ID: 09-004022 -- immediate answer for GM re WMIs -- 6 Jul 09 rsyOpenBrian Latouf, Director Global Structure and Safety Integration Center General Motors North America 30200 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9010 Dear Mr. Latouf: This responds to your June 9, 2009, letter to Mr. Claude Harris of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regarding the plans of General Motors (GM) for World Manufacturer Identifiers (WMIs) in light of GMs Chapter 11 filing for bankruptcy protection and pending Section 363 sale. Your colleague, Mr. Steve Gehring, requested in a follow-up phone call on July 6, 2009, that NHTSA officially confirm that it approves of GMs proposed approach, described below. Based on the information you have provided and our analysis below, we confirm that the proposed approach is acceptable under our regulations. In your letter, you state that after the Section 363 sale, GM intends to transfer its currently allocated WMIs to the new corporate entity replacing GM (for purposes of this letter, New GM). You further state that GM will utilize the appropriate process working through SAE. With regard to particular vehicles lines currently produced by GM, you state that GM anticipates the sale of the Hummer, Saturn and Saab businesses, and that you anticipate New GM will maintain the current WMIs if New GM continues to produce the vehicles as part of contractual agreements. We agree that the approach to use the currently allocated WMIs is reasonable. When NHTSA addressed such issues previously, we focused on the language in what is now 49 CFR 565.15(a) (previously 565.4(a)), which states that the section of the vehicle identification number that contains the manufacturer identifier shall uniquely identify the manufacturer. We have previously interpreted that phrase to preclude any other manufacturer from using a WMI assigned to another manufacturer; our primary concern has been avoiding confusion regarding the identity of a vehicles manufacturer. Where there is no reason to anticipate confusion, we have not objected to a manufacturer continuing to use WMIs assigned to the prior corporate entity.[1] We recognize that the new GM is not the same entity or manufacturer as the old GM. However, we do not believe that there will be substantial and legitimate confusion between General Motors Corporation (the Old GM) and the new General Motors Company (the new GM). With regard to the anticipated sale of the Hummer, Saturn and Saab businesses, your letter only mentions that we anticipate New GM will maintain the current WMIs if New GM continues to produce the vehicles as part of contractual agreements. Generally we concur that if Manufacturer A were manufacturing vehicles for Manufacturer B, the appropriate WMI would be the one used by Manufacturer A. However, given that you did not provide information about the entities that will be producing the Hummer, Saturn, and Saab vehicles at various times in the future, we have to reserve opinion at this time on whether it would be permissible for those newly-separated businesses to continue to use the GM WMI. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:565 d.7/8/09 [1] See, e.g., letter to Mr. Steven Sinkez, August 2, 1995; letter to Mr. Timothy D. McDonnell, April 18, 1997, copies enclosed. In the Sinkez letter, an entity was permitted to continue to use the WMI assigned to it prior to the entitys name change. In the McDonnell letter, an entity could continue to use the WMI that had been assigned to it prior to a change in ownership and later name change. |
2009 |
ID: 09-004697 213OpenMr. Glenn Aaron Infant Product Engineer 3226 Quitman Street Denver, CO 80212 Dear Mr. Aaron: This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking our approval of a front-facing and a rear-facing harness restraint system you would like to sell to transport children in motor vehicles. You state that the harnesses are designed to attach to a vehicle seat by way of tethers attaching to the anchors of a child restraint anchorage system[1] and not by the vehicles belt system. You state that you ceased offering your harnesses for sale after being contacted by Mr. Zack Fraser of NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). Mr. Fraser informed you that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, requires harnesses to meet the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when attached to a vehicle seat assembly using a vehicle lap belt. You ask whether Mr. Frasers statement about FMVSS No. 213 is correct. As explained below, we confirm Mr. Frasers statement. FMVSS No. 213 requires harnesses to attach to a vehicle seat by way of the vehicle lap (Type 1) belt. It appears from the information available to us that your harnesses can not be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213 since, among other reasons, the restraint systems are attached by a tether system and not by the vehicle lap belt. NHTSA prohibits persons from offering for sale or selling new child restraint systems that are not certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213. Background NHTSA administers Federal safety requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards under 49 U.S.C. Sections 30101, et seq. (the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)). Under the authority of the Safety Act, we issued FMVSS No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213), which establishes requirements for child restraint systems, i.e., any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less. (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds. Notice of proposed rulemaking, August 31, 2005, 70 FR 51720; supplemental notice, January 23, 2008, 73 FR 3901.) Child restraint system manufacturers must certify that each of their new child restraints satisfies all requirements of FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not approve or certify child restraints. OVSC enforces manufacturers compliance with the Safety Act and with the FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 213. Among other activities, OVSC purchases and tests child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the child restraint fails the test and is determined not to comply with FMVSS No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30120). NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects. Discussion In your letter to us, you do not describe your harnesses in detail or include photographs of the restraint systems. You instead generally state that your Rear-facing system is designed to attach to three rearward child restraint anchorage systems and, the evidently approved Swedish System (Britex) [sic] under the front seat. From your description, we believe your harnesses do not meet FMVSS No. 213. Section 5.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213 requires each child restraint system to comply with the standards performance requirements when installed solely by each of the means indicated in the following table for the particular type of child restraint system. The table for S5.3.2 shows that for the type of harness you wish to produce, the harnesses must be capable of meeting the requirements of the standard when installed with a Type 1 seat belt assembly (i.e., a vehicle lap belt). (The table indicates that, for harnesses, a top tether may be used, if needed.) Your harnesses are not capable of being installed on a vehicle seat by the lap belt system. As such, they do not meet the requirements of the standard, and can not be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 213. It appears that your harnesses would not meet other requirements of FMVSS No. 213.[2] You refer to a Britex [sic] anchor under the front seat. Note that the requirement in S5.3.2 that harnesses must meet FMVSS No. 213 performance criteria when installed solely by the Type 1 belt system also means that, in our compliance test, we will not use a supplementary anchoring system forward of the child restraint. Your restraint must meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when attached to the test seat assembly as specified in the standard. OVSC will use only a lap belt and the top tether of the standard seat assembly specified in FMVSS No. 213 to attach your harness to the assembly (see S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) of the standard). We would like to comment on some additional matters. At one time, you had a website (www.grandmaknows.org or www.grandmaknows.com, both presently defunct) that showed a rear-facing child restraint system positioned in a vehicles rear seat. It appeared to NHTSA staff viewing the website that the top of the rear-facing restraint was slung like a hammock from the head restraint of the front passenger seat to a ceiling anchor in the rear. Anchoring a restraint to or hanging it from the head restraint is not permitted by FMVSS No. 213. S5.3.1 of the standard specifies that each add-on child restraint system (including a harness) must not have any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat cushion or vehicle seat back. This requirement is intended to ensure that a child restraint is easy to install and does not impose excessive force on the seat in front of it. We are also concerned about the crash protection afforded a child when suspended from the head restraint of the vehicle seat in front of it. Forces imposed by the seat and/or by an occupant of the seat could degrade the safety of the child in a crash.
There appear to be a number of potential problems with this rear-facing restraint meeting FMVSS No. 213. For instance, NHTSA would not test a rear-facing restraint by suspending it from a ceiling anchor; a ceiling anchor does not exist on our test seat assembly. Further, it does not appear that the rear-facing system meets S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 213, which limits the angle between the systems back support surface and the vertical. You as the manufacturer are responsible for ensuring compliance of your product with each of the applicable requirements of the Safety Act and FMVSS No. 213. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 2/16/10 [1] 49 CFR 571.225. [2] We take this opportunity to bring these issues to your attention, but this letter can not and does not assess your products conformance with each requirement of FMVSS No. 213. It is your responsibility as the child restraint manufacturer to assess your products conformance with the standard. |
2010 |
ID: 09-004766 302OpenMr. Louis Siegel VP Dometic Automotive, USA P.O. Box 15299 Richmond, VA 23227-0699 Dear Mr. Siegel: This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to a refrigerator mounted in a cabinet in the sleeper of a Class 8 truck (a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,969 kilograms (33,000 pounds)). You ask whether the standard would have to be met by just the front of the refrigerator door, and not the other exterior surfaces of the refrigerator. As explained below, our answer is yes. Background By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. You provide the following description of the refrigerator. [T]he refrigerator is mounted in such a manner such that the front door is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space; the other surfaces are contained within a cabinet whose outer surfaces are in the refreshable air space, and the other surfaces of the refrigerator are greater than 13 mm from the cabinets inner surface. You ask: Does the standard apply only to the front door? Does the standard apply to the other five surfaces (not in the refreshable air space)?
The following response is based on our understanding of your letter and the description you provided. Discussion FMVSS No. 302 applies to particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, on new completed motor vehicles, including trucks of all GVWRs. The following components are listed in S4.1: Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Of these components, any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 millimeters (mm) of the occupant compartment air space shall meet the flammability resistance requirements (S4.2). A component such as a refrigerator door is not specifically enumerated in S4.1 of FMVSS No. 302. However, there are several considerations to bear in mind when answering your question. NHTSA has previously determined that a glove box door is not a component included in S4.1, unless it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash[1] or describes a component that closely resembles an enumerated component.[2] Further, a component that is incorporated into an enumerated component could be considered part of the enumerated component.[3] We understand from your letter that the refrigerator is stored in a built-in cabinet, such that the front door [of the refrigerator] is the only surface actually in the refreshable air space. Applying the above considerations, the refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is incorporated into a listed component. The built-in cabinet and refrigerator face could be considered part of the vehicles trim panels, which is enumerated in S4.1. The refrigerator door could be subject to the flammability resistance requirements if it is designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. We are unable to be more specific with our answer without more detailed information about the configuration and appearance of the refrigerator and cabinet.
Even if the standard applies to the front door, it does not appear that the standard would apply to the other five surfaces of the refrigerator. According to your letter, those surfaces are more than 13 mm from the occupant compartment air space. Under S4.2 of the standard, only portions of material that are within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space are subject to FMVSS No. 302. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosures Dated: 2/15/2010 [1] See, e.g., letters to Mr. Yasunobu Mitoya, September 24, 1971, and to Mr. F.A. Stewart, June 9, 1972 (copies enclosed). [2] Letter to Mr. J.C. Eckhold, July 19, 1971 (glove box door subject to the standard if glove box door is merely a different description of an enumerated component)(copy enclosed). [3] See, e.g., letter to Mr. F.A. Stewart, supra (stereo speaker grills and cones would be considered part of a trim panel and compartment shelf, respectively). |
2010 |
ID: 003011cmcOpenMs. Patricia Cunningham Dear Ms. Cunningham, This is in response to your interpretation request via e-mail dated December 13, 2002, and your conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. In your letter, you state that your company intends to import taxi vehicles that have an "integrated" (built-in) child booster seat in the rear. You further state that "[t]he dummy size we tested with and designated for use in our [built-in] booster seat is the 6 year old" and that the seat is recommended only for children 49 to 80 pounds (22 36 kg). You ask if the booster seat must comply with the seat back requirements of FMVSS No. 213, even though only the 6-year-old dummy is used to test the booster seat. As explained below, the answer to your question is no. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" This compliance requirement includes child restraint systems, which are subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems, including built-in child restraint systems, in order to reduce injuries to children in motor vehicles. S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS No. 213 states:
S5.2.1.1 specifies seat back height requirements, seat back width requirements, and rearward rotation limits of test dummies. S5.2.1.2 requires that conformance to the requirements of S5.2.1.1 is determined using the dummy that corresponds to the heaviest weight for which the system is recommended. Under S7.1, a system recommended for use by a child with a weight of 40 pounds (18 kg) or greater would use the 6-year-old dummy described in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart I for compliance testing. However, S5.2.1.2 states that the 6-year-old dummy is not to be used to determine the applicability of or compliance with S5.2.1.1. The built-in booster seats in the vehicles you intend to import are recommended for children in the weight range of 49 to 80 pounds (22 to 36 kg), and therefore would require use of the 6-year-old-dummy to determine compliance with S5.2.1.1. Because under S5.2.1.2 the 6-year-old dummy is not used for this determination and the built-in booster seats are not recommended for use by children of a weight that would be tested with a different dummy, the taxi booster seats do not have to comply with S5.2.1.1. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, ref:213 |
2003 |
ID: 003059 btsOpenMr. Joe Masci Dear Mr. Masci: This responds to your May 2, 2003, faxed letter and your telephone conversations with Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to a seat belt tension sensor (BTS). You stated that the BTS is used in conjunction with a passenger weight classification system to prevent misclassification of children seated in child safety seats. Your letter asked several questions as to how a seat belt assembly using a seat belt tension sensor would be tested for compliance with Federal standards. Each of your questions is addressed below. 1. General Applicability of FMVSS No. 209. You asked if the BTS would be considered part of the seat belt assembly under FMVSS No. 209, or if it would be considered an anchorage under FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, which is a vehicle standard. S3 of FMVSS No. 210 defines a seat belt anchorage as:
Accordingly, FMVSS No. 210 applies to fixed attachment points on the vehicle structure and the associated hardware. FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies, defined as:
In your phone conversation, you stated that the BTS is sold to manufacturers of seat belt assemblies and may be placed in a variety of positions on the assembly. As a component of the seat belt assembly, the BTS would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 209. However, because the BTS may be incorporated into a seat belt system in a variety of ways, we are unable to determine whether the BTS could ever be considered a seat belt anchorage under FMVSS No. 210. 2. FMVSS No. 209 Strength requirements In your letter you included a diagram properly identifying the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly and asked for verification of the strength requirements for each labeled component. The strength requirements for FMVSS No. 209 are contained in: S4.2, webbing; S4.3, hardware; and S4.4, assembly performance. Under S4.2(b), webbing in the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a breaking strength of not less than 22,241 N (5,000 pounds). The upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a minimum breaking strength of 17,793 N (4,000 pounds). The testing procedure for both portions of webbing is contained in S5.1(b). S4.3(c) requires that attachment hardware bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly must be able to withstand a force of at least 40,034 N (9,000 pounds) when testing in accordance with S5.2(c)(1). Other attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 26,689 N (6,000 pounds) when tested under S5.2(c)(2). S4.4 sets forth the strength requirements of a Type 2 seat belt assembly in subsection (b). Under S4.4(b)(1), each structural component in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds). This includes the BTS, if it is located along the pelvic portion of the pelvic restraint. S4.4(b)(2) requires that each structural component in the upper torso restraint portion of the seat belt assembly be able to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds). This includes a torso guide loop and retractor if the design permits only upper torso restraint forces on the restraint. Under S4.4(b)(3), any structural component that is common to both the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). This would include any buckle or portion of the BTS that would be subject to forces from both the pelvic and upper torso restraints. The seat belt assembly performance for a Type 2 seat belt assembly is tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b). 3. Procedure for Testing Assembly Performance In your letter you asked what would be the proper method of attaching and orienting an assembly with a BTS under the test procedures in S5.3. Under S5.3, each end of the pelvic or torso portion of the belt assembly is attached to an anchorage bar to form a loop over rollers on a testing machine. (See FMVSS No. 209 Figure 5, enclosed.) The anchor points are such that the webbing is parallel in two sides of the loop. The attaching bolts are either aligned with or at an angle of 45 or 90 degrees to the webbing, whichever results in an angle nearest to 90 degrees between webbing and attachment hardware. You stated that you believe the appropriate testing method for an assembly with the "BTS installed between the fixed anchor on the pelvic-only side of the belt and the belt webbing" would be to utilize the procedure in S5.3(a)(2) for a "nonthreaded anchorage." Such a determination would be governed by the specific application of the belt assembly and not by the presence of a BTS. S5.3(a)(2) declares that testing will be performed in accordance with the installation instructions provided with belts designated for use in specific models of vehicles. In such an instance, the anchorages of the vehicle-specific assembly would be installed for testing so as to produce the maximum angle in use indicated by the installation instructions. From your letter and phone conversations, the BTS is sold to seat belt assembly manufacturers for eventual use in a variety of vehicle models. As such, the "nonthreaded anchorage" procedure would only be appropriate in those instances where the BTS is incorporated into a seat belt assembly that is designed for a specific vehicle and is accompanied by instructions for installation specific to that vehicle. For the assembly you specified, compliance testing would require the attaching bolts to be set according to the general set-up procedure. The attaching bolts would be positioned under S5.3(a)(2) such that the angle between the webbing and the attachment hardware is as close to 90 degrees as possible. 4. Minimum Force Requirements for Assembly Performance In your letter you asked if the force minimums listed for the Type 2 belt component strength requirements apply to each component individually or to the test loop as a whole. The answer is that these force requirements apply to the components and not to the test loop. Under S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 209, for a Type 2 belt, the structural components in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds), the structural components in the upper torso restraint must withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds), and structural components that are common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). The test procedure for Type 2 belt assembly components requires a tensile force equal to that of the appropriate minimum be applied to the components (S5.3(b)). Therefore, in compliance testing of the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly, a force of 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be applied to the test loop. The application of the 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be required so that the components would experience a tensile force of 11,120 N (2,500 pounds); the minimum required. We note that in a letter to Mr. Douglas Kubehl, dated March 16, 1992, we took the position that under S4.4(b) and the corresponding procedure in S5.3(b), the minimum force requirement would be applied to the test loop. However, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect. The previous interpretation would result in Type 2 seat belt assembly components being tested to much lower force requirements than components in a Type 1 seat belt assembly. However, it is our understanding that all manufacturers of Type 2 seat belt assemblies have built and tested their products in a manner consistent with this revised interpretation, so this revision will not cause any seat belt assemblies (or the vehicles in which they are installed) to become noncompliant. To the extent a manufacturer has relied upon our previous interpretation, we will only pursue an enforcement action for noncompliance with the standard prospectively. 5. Manual Belts Subject to the Requirements of FMVSS No. 208 In your letter, you ask if you are correct in understanding that the strength requirements of S4.4 do not apply if the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208 are met instead. Your understanding is correct. Under S4.6 of FMVSS No. 209, manual seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, would not be required to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of FMVSS No. 209. [1] This includes the FMVSS No. 209 strength requirements for seat belt assembly components. You further ask, "how frequently do vehicle manufacturers opt for the 208 test option over the static component strength tests in 209?" A seat belt assembly subject to FMVSS No. 209 must comply with that standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to that standard. We do not collect or maintain data on how vehicle manufacturers certify with respect to their seat belt assemblies, although NHTSA may examine a manufacturer's certification in connection with any prospective or pending enforcement action. As such, we do not know with what frequency manufacturers opt for the FMVSS No. 208 compliance option. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure [1] Excepted from this provision are seat belts that are subject to S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 208, which cross references FMVSS No. 209. S4.1.2.1(c)(2) does not apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1986. |
2003 |
ID: 003064 Spain inflatable seatOpenMs. Susana Mate Market Analyst Trade Commission of Spain, Embassy of Spain 500 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60611 Dear Ms. Mate: This responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking for information about the Federal requirements that would apply to an inflatable seat for children from 9 months to 7 years of age manufactured by an overseas company you represent. At this time, you are unable to provide much information about the product, but you state that the restraint has been certified as complying with European ECE Regulation 44. By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal safety requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.). Under that authority, we issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), which sets forth requirements which must be met by any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less. (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds. See the enclosed August 31, 2005 Federal Register document (70 FR 51720).) The inflatable car seat is a child restraint system subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. The standard requires, among other things, that child restraints provide protection in a 30 mile-per-hour (mph) crash, that the restraint meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, that the belts and buckles meet certain performance requirements, and that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on the proper use of the restraint. (The standards are available online at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/). Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. The United States does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that the child restraint system fully satisfies all requirements of Standard No. 213. Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests. Although we recommend that a manufacturer selling child restraint systems in the United States test the systems according to the test procedures specified in the standard, it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to validly certify that its child restraint systems comply with Standard No. 213. Once a manufacturer determines that its child restraints meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by labeling that certification onto the child restraint, as specified in Standard No. 213. For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts validation checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with Standard No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30120). Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Our statute specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety‑related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers and either: l. repair the child restraint, so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or 2. replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy. The manufacturer is also subject to civil penalties. There are also two procedural regulations that your client must meet to import child restraints into the United States. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This regulation requires a manufacturer (including an importer) of motor vehicle equipment to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufactures (or imports) to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured (imported into the United States). The second regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign‑manufactured child restraints to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under 551.45: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by‑laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, enclosed for your convenience is a copy of a June 7, 2006 final rule that amended the webbing strength requirements of Standard No. 213 (71 FR 32855), and a copy of a June 21, 2006 technical amendment relating to the standards labeling requirements. Standard No. 213 is frequently amended and manufacturers are responsible for keeping current on its requirements. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:213 d.8/9/06 |
2006 |
ID: 003066drnOpenRon Love, State Director of Pupil Transportation
Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with agency staff in this office and in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance about the sale, for pupil transportation, of a new vehicle whose seating capacity you believe may have been reduced from that of a bus (seating 11 persons or more). As to your general inquiry, if a buss seating capacity were permanently reduced to less than 11 before the vehicles sale, the vehicle would no longer be a "bus" and thus would not be subject to our school bus standards. The modified vehicle would instead be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV). While a dealer may sell or lease a new MPV to a school (provided there are no local regulations that would prohibit the sale), the entity altering the vehicle from a bus to an MPV must certify the vehicle as an MPV and ensure that it complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to MPVs. I have enclosed a copy of an April 2, 1996, letter to Sgt. Stephan C. Turner that provides a helpful discussion of this issue. As to the particular vehicle you ask about, information available to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) has indicated that the van was originally manufactured as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. According to this information, the vehicles classification had not been changed from a bus to an MPV. Thus, the vehicle, as originally manufactured, would have had to have been certified as meeting the FMVSSs that apply to MPVs. If you have further questions about NHTSAs school bus laws, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Questions you might have about the van you saw may be directed to Mr. James Jones, OVSC, at (202) 366-5294. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure
|
2003 |
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.