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: aiam5541OpenMr. Lance Tunick Vehicle Science Corporation P.O. Box 1015 Golden, CO 80402-1015; Mr. Lance Tunick Vehicle Science Corporation P.O. Box 1015 Golden CO 80402-1015; Dear Mr. Tunick: This responds to your FAX of April 19, 1995 requesting clarification of an April 3, 1995, letter from this office. You asked for verification that the 'seat belt anchorages in the following scenario are exempt from the location requirement of Standard No. 210: A vehicle with 2 front seating positions that is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and such restraint meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the air bags alone and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested under FMVSS 208.' Your understanding is correct. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: 20789sittightlockingclipOpenMr. Cecil Creech Dear Mr. Creech: This responds to your October 13, 1999, letter concerning a product that you are seeking to develop, called "the SitTight." You ask whether the product is subject to any Federal standards. According to your letter, the SitTight is a device designed for use with vehicle belt systems, to tighten the vehicle seat belt used to attach a child restraint to the vehicle seat. From your sketches, the SitTight appears to consist of a spooling and ratchet mechanism that takes up slack in the belt system when used on a vehicle seat alongside a child restraint. It appears to be of a size that fits in the palm of a hand. The SitTight would be positioned next to the base of the child restraint, and both straps of a lap and shoulder belt would be fed through the slots in the SitTight. The consumer would move a handle on the SitTight up and down to tighten the seat belt to the correct tension. To remove the SitTight, the seat belt would be released. By way of background information, 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. NHTSA does not, however, 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. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter. There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the SitTight. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 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 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a device that is used with a child restraint to remove slack in the vehicle belt system. While no standard applies to the SitTight, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. 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. For your information, passenger vehicles manufactured since September 1, 1995, are required to have a locking mechanism for the lap belt or lap belt portion of lap and shoulder belts, to enable them "to be capable of being used to tightly secure child safety seats without the necessity of the users attaching any device to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle...." Further, we amended Standard No. 213 earlier this year to require child restraint systems manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 to be equipped with connectors that attach to an independent child restraint anchorage system in vehicles. The effect of this rule will enable child restraints to be attached to the vehicle seat without the use of seat belts. We believe that these requirements will address some of the same securement problems that you hope to address with the SitTight. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: 21489vestOpenMs. Kathy Durkin Dear Ms. Durkin: This responds to your letter concerning a "passenger support vest" for use on school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that "the vest is used during transport to insure that the child stays in the seat and in an upright position." You ask whether your product is subject to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Our answer is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. Under that authority, we issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (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 50 pounds or less. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain a copy of the standard. Your passenger support vest is a device that is designed to restrain children in motor vehicles. It is thus a "child restraint system" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. Standard No. 213 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. In addition, S5.3.1 of the standard states: "Except for components designed to attach to a child restraint anchorage system, each add-on child restraint system shall not have any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat cushion or vehicle seat back...." While you did not describe your system in detail, you stated that the "straps on the vest wrap the seat back and are independent of the seat belt." Since your restraint is designed to attach to a vehicle seat back (by means of the strap which wraps around the vehicle seat back), the restraint would not meet S5.3.1. NHTSA adopted the prohibition against attaching child restraints to vehicle seat backs because the agency was concerned that a vehicle seat back would not be able to withstand the additional load on it from an attached child seat in a crash. It appears that your vest design would add a load on the vehicle seat back in a crash, and is therefore the type of design that is intended to be prohibited by S5.3.1 of the standard. 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. For purposes of enforcement, this agency purchases and tests the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints fail any of the required tests and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213, the manufacturers of the child restraints are subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute. 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 provide a cost-free remedy. You asked for a list of laboratories that test child restraint systems. NHTSA does not endorse particular test laboratories. However, I can provide you with a list of laboratories we are aware of that conduct child restraint compliance tests (see enclosed). There may be other laboratories that can test child restraint systems. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, please note that we frequently amend Standard No. 213 to keep the standard as up-to-date as possible. Manufacturers are responsible for keeping current on the requirements of the standard. I hope this is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:213 |
2001 |
ID: 2502yOpen Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Dear Mr. Faber: This is in response to your letter of April 19, 1990 to Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201). More specifically, you stated in your letter that future Mercedes-Benz vehicles will come equipped with new armrests between the two front and, where applicable, two rear seating position. The new design will have a built-in compartment that can accommodate car phone storage. It will be covered by a lift-up lid that will afford easy access to the phone. Your letter indicated that your company believes the lift-up lid on this armrest would not be subject to the provisions of S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 for "interior compartment doors," since those provisions do not apply to doors incorporated in center armrests. However, your letter indicated your company's belief that the new armrests would be subject to the requirements of S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, which applies to folding armrests. As explained more fully below, these beliefs appear to be correct applications of the standard. At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards would apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information. With those caveats, I agree with you that sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of Standard No. 201 do not appear to apply to the lift-up lid on your armrest design. Section S3.3 of Standard No. 201 requires that interior compartment doors "located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position" remain closed when tested in accordance with the demonstration procedures in section S3.3.1 of the Standard. It is not clear if the lift-up lid on your armrest design would qualify as an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR 571.3 ("any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects"). If the armrest is designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid on the armrest would be considered an "interior compartment door." If the armrest is not designed for storage of personal effects, the lift-up lid would not be an "interior compartment door" and S3.3 and S3.3.1 would not apply to it. Even if the lift-up lid were considered an interior compartment door, it would not appear to be subject to sections S3.3 and S3.3.1 of the Standard. This is because those sections apply only to interior compartment doors "located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position . . . ." Only interior compartment doors located in the listed components must comply with S3.3 and S3.3.1. Since an armrest is not among the listed components, interior compartment doors located in an armrest are not subject to S3.3 and S3.3.1. You also discussed the applicability of section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201 to your armrest design. Section S3.5.2 applies to armrests that folds into the seat back or between two seat backs. Based on the information supplied in your letter, we agree that your armrest design would be subject to section S3.5.2 of Standard No. 201, because it is a folding armrest between two seat backs. We also agree with your suggestion that Mercedes-Benz may comply with section S3.5.2 by ensuring that this armrest design is "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material." I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or need some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:201 d:6/l4/90 |
1970 |
ID: 15400.ztvOpen Mr. Thomas E. Derecktor Dear Mr. Derecktor: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1997, with respect to the relationship of the TracRac Overhead Rack system to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for center high-mounted stop lamps (CHMSL). Specifically, you have cited the concerns of the legal staff of General Motors (GM) that the rack may interfere with the visibility requirements for the CHMSL. The applicable requirements are those of SAE Recommended Practice J186a, September 1977, rather than of SAE J186 DEC89 as you quoted, but they are essentially the same. Paragraph 4.1 of J186a states that "Visibility of the signal shall not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle from 10U to 5D and from 10L to 10R unless the lamp is designed to comply with all requirements when the obstruction is considered." The upper rails of TracRac may be retracted when the system is not in use. You point out that the CHMSL will comply when TracRac is in its retracted position, but does not comply in a minor respect when the rails are not retracted. You propose adding a label to the driver's side base rail, advising the customer where to position the upper rack when it is not in use. Alternatively, you propose adding a second CHMSL mounted below the forward rack crossbar. You state that this configuration will meet Standard No. 108 with the rack in any position. Our opinion follows. From the literature you enclosed, we see that TracRac is an accessory promoted by GM in its product literature. We assume that this will be added by a GM dealer, either before or after sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Title 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30112(a) prohibits the sale of a nonconforming vehicle to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Once a vehicle is sold, 49 U.S.C. 30122 forbids a dealer (as well as a manufacturer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business) from making inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This would apply to the aftermarket installation of racks that create a noncompliance with CHMSL visibility specifications. Your alternative solution is to provide an additional lamp below the forward rack crossbar which "complements the original CHMSL, by blanketing the narrow blind spot caused by the rear rack", and that "this configuration likewise passes FMVSS 108." This language can be interpreted as meaning that neither lamp complies on its own but requirements are met by the array of two CHMSLs. This would not be acceptable. Paragraph S5.3.1.1(b) of Standard No. 108 states that if motor vehicle equipment prevents compliance with any visibility or photometric requirements of a required lamp, an auxiliary lamp shall be provided that meets all applicable visibility and photometric requirements. This means that your additional lamp must itself comply with Standard No. 108 when TracRac is installed on the vehicle. In a recent telephone call to Taylor Vinson of this Office, you asked whether the CHMSL could be vertical rather than horizontal. Standard No. 108 does not specify the shape of a CHMSL. Most are rectangular but some have been circular (Cadillac Allante), or "string bean" in shape (Cadillac Seville). Thus, any shape may be chosen as long as photometric and visibility requirements are met. With respect to your "Primary Solution", to add a warning label, we do not view the addition of a warning label as satisfying Standard No. 108. A noncompliance will exist when the rack is not retracted. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 10-003161 Honda 110 label march 16 dfOpenJay Joseph, Senior Manager Product Regulatory Office American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 1919 Torrance Boulevard Torrance, CA 90501-2746 Dear Mr. Joseph: This responds to your letter asking whether your method of presenting the designated seated capacity of a vehicle meets a labeling requirement in S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110.[1] Our answer is yes. S4.3 of the standard requires each vehicle to show certain information, specified in S4.3(a) through (g) of the standard, on a placard permanently affixed to the vehicle at a specified location. Your question pertains to the information specified by S4.3(b). That section states: (b) Designated seated capacity (expressed in terms of total number of occupants and number of occupants for each front and rear seat location)[.] In addition, among other things S4.3 states: This information shall be in the English language and conform in color and format, not including the border surrounding the entire placard, as shown in the example set forth in Figure 1 in this standard. Figure 1 of the standard shows that for SEATING CAPACITY, the terms set forth on the depicted label are: TOTAL, FRONT, AND REAR. Hondas Placard
You ask about the placard from a Model Year 2010 Odyssey LX, which has one front row and two rear rows. For this vehicle, the placard sets forth SEATING CAPACITY information for the TOTAL capacity, and for the FRONT, SECOND, and THIRD rows. Unlike the example placard shown in Figure 1 of the standard, your placard for this vehicle does not provide a single number for rear seats. The question you present is whether presenting the seating capacity information for the second and third rows in the vehicle, rather than for the entire rear, meets S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. You believe that presenting the Odysseys rear seating capacity information by rows meets S4.3(b) and is the most beneficial method of providing this information to consumers due to variations in rear seating capacity and configuration among a vehicles models and trim levels. You explain that a vehicle such as the Honda Odyssey minivan has different trim levels, including LX, EX, EX-L, and Touring models. The LX model has a seating capacity of 7 occupants, with two designated seating positions each in the front and second rows, and three in the third row. The EX, EX-L, and Touring models are configured for 8 occupants, two in the front row and three designated seating positions each in the second and third rows. You believe that providing the maximum seating capacity per row of seating gives the consumer valuable information about the safe operation of the vehicle. Response
Our response is that your method of providing the vehicles designated seated capacity, expressing the number of occupants for each of the two rear rows rather than for the entire rear, meets S4.3. Under S4.3(b), the placard must provide the designated seated capacity, expressed in terms of total number of occupants and number of occupants for each front and rear seat location. We believe that the Odysseys placard, specifying the seating capacity for each row of seats, satisfies the requirement to express the vehicles designated seating capacity in terms of the number of occupants for each front and rear seat location. In this instance, specifying the number of seats in each rear row will help a consumer determine whether the second row of seats has either two or three designated seating position depending on the vehicles trim level. We recognize that in a preamble responding to a petition for reconsideration, NHTSA interpreted S4.3(b) as not permitting the placard to indicate the rear seating capacity by row.[2] The agency sought to limit information that could overcrowd the placards rich content. For example, a vehicle with many rows of seating would make the placard difficult to read if it had text describing the vehicles seating capacity for individual rows. However, with regard to the Odysseys placard, we believe that your manner of expressing the number of occupants for each rear row expresses the number of occupants for each rear seat location, in accordance with S4.3(b). Further, the sample Odyssey placard you provide in your letter shows the information for the seating capacity in a single line of legible text. This is important because S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 states that This information [set forth in S4.3(a) through (g)] shall be in the English language and conform in color and format, not including the border surrounding the entire placard, as shown in the example set forth in Figure 1 in this standard. We believe format as used in this context refers to features such as the size, shape, layout and arrangement of the information. Your placard appears to preserve the format and relative size of the information shown in the example placard shown in Figure 1. The rear capacity of the Odyssey is shown in a single line of text in the location where Figure 1 shows the REAR capacity. We conclude that your placards seating capacity information conforms to the format provided in Figure 1. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel 5/31/2011 |
|
ID: nht78-1.4OpenDATE: 12/06/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: Saab-Scania of America, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: NOA-30 Mr. Ralph T. Millet Director, Governmental Relations Saab-Scania of America, Inc. Saab Drive, P. O. Box 697 Orange, Connecticut 06477 Dear Mr. Millet: This is in response to your letter of 25 October 1978 concerning the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201 as it applies to the instrument panel compartment door in the Saab 900. Your specific concern is the portion of S3.3 that provides, "Additionally, any interior compartment door located in an instrument panel or seat back shall remain closed when the instrument panel or seat back is tested in accordance with S3.1 and S3.2." According to your letter, the hinges on the Saab 900 instru- ment panel compartment door are designed to deform to keep the compartment door closed if deformation resulting from the head impact requirements of S3.1 is great enough to open the compartment latch. If the instrument panel compartment door remains closed during the head impact tests of S3.1, the vehicle complies with that aspect of the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201. The standard does not specify that the latch mechanism remain closed, only that the door "shall remain closed." This interpretation should not be construed as an approval of Saab's instrument panel compartment door hinge system. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are written primarily in terms of performance requirements which must be met in specified tests, and a manufacturer is free to use any design it wishes to meet those performance requirements. Thus, this agency does not grant approval of specific systems or components in the vehicle. The manufacturer must exercise due care to assure that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel Chief Counsel October 25, 1978 Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590 Subject: Interpretation of Paragraph S3.3 of FMVSS 201 Dear Sir: Paragraph S3.3 of Federl Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #201 states: "Interior compartment doors. Each interior compartment door assembly located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position shall remain closed when tested in accordance with either S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(b) or S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(c). Additionaly, any interior compartment door located in an instrument panel or seat back shall remain closed when the instrument panel or seat back is tested in accordance with S3.1 and S3.2. All interior compartment door assemblies with a locking device must be tested with the locking device in an unlocked position. When the Saab 900 instrument panel and compartment door is so tested, the compartment door remains in a closed position. However, in certain head form impact directions, it may occur that the latch disengages and no longer keeps the door closed. The only acceptable solution we could find to this problem was to design the hinges of the compartment door so that if the deformation after impact is large enough to open the latch, the hinges will deform in such a way that the door thereby remains closed. We would appreciate your opinion as to whether or not the door remaining closed by the designed locking action of the hinges is considered to be in compliance with Paragraph S3.3 of the Standard. Very truly yours, SAAB-SCANIA OF AMERICA, INC. Ralph T. Millet Director, Governmental Relations RTM:s |
|
ID: nht67-1.14OpenDATE: 05/10/67 FROM: LOWELL K. BRIDWELL -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR TO: HAROLD T. HALFPENNY -- LEGAL COUNSEL AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/13/87, TO WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30 (2), STD 211; LETTER DATED 05/08/67 TO EARL K KINTNER, FROM WILLIAM HADDON; LETTER DATED 04/10/87 TO WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER FROM EDWARD J. BABBITT; LETTER DATED 03/30/87 TO ED BABBITT, FROM WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER; LETTER DATED 11/06/86, TO LARRY THUNDERBIRD AND MUSTANG FROM JOHN H HEINRICH AND J. MICHAEL ZEHNER TEXT: Dear Mr. Halfpenny: This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1967, seeking clarification as to the effect of the recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on the aftermarket repair automotive industry. In your letter you have expressed the opinion that vehicle parts sold after the effective date of the standard must conform to such standards only when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard. You have asked if this opinion is correct and specifically whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold. The answer to your question, as you have correctly noted, requires an examination of section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This section prohibits the manufacture or sale of any "item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date of any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect ... unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." (emphasis supplied). It should be noted that this provision of the law makes no distinction between systems, parts or components, nor does it distinguish between original equipment manufactured for replacement, improvement, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. Any such distinctions would depend in each instances upon the terms of the "applicable" standard. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 23 CFR 255.21, each contain a paragraph designated S.2 and entitled "Application." This paragraph establishes the coverage of that particular standard by identifying the motor vehicle and/or motor vehicle equipment to which the standard applies. Where the application paragraph refers only to vehicles, the person responsible for compliance is the manufacturer of such motor vehicles. As example of this type coverage is found in Standard No. 107 - REFLECTING SURFACES, which provides in paragraph 3.2: "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses." Since this standard does not apply to motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturers of equipment otherwise referred to in the standard, e.g., windshield wiper blades and arms, have my legal obligation to conform to the standard. This is true notwithstanding the fact that equipment manufacturers will be furnishing such equipment to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment. Where, however, the application paragraph refers to equipment for use in specified motor vehicles, both the manufacturer of such equipment and the manufacturer of the specified vehicles are responsible for compliance. An example of this type coverage is Standard No. 106 - HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars and multipurpose passenger equipment." All hydraulic brake hoses manufactured and sold on or after january 1, 1968, must conform with this standard whether such brake hoses are manufactured as original equipment or as replacement for either prestandard or poststandard motor vehicles. There were six of the twenty Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued on January 31, 1967 (32 F.R. 2408) applicable to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment Standards Nos. 106, 111, 205, 206, 209, and 211. Two of these standards, No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors, and No. 206 - Door Latches and Door Supports, were amended on March 29, 1967 (32 F.R. 5498), to exclude coverage of equipment and are now applicable only to certain specified vehicles. This mean that manufacturers of rearview mirrors, door latches and door supports will not be required to comply with these standards. Therefore, only the following four initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are now applicable to motor vehicle equipment: Standard No. 106 - Hydraulic Brake Hoses--Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles. Standard No. 205 - Glazing Materials--Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses. Standard No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies--Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses. Standard No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps--Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles. Pursuant to each of the above standards equipment manufacturers of the specified motor vehicle equipment must manufacture such equipment in conformance with the standard whether it is to be used as original equipment on new vehicles, as a replacement part, an accessory, or an addition to the motor vehicles specified in the standard. None of the above standards except from coverage equipment manufactured and sold for replacement or as an accessory to prestandard vehicles. In summary, your opinion to the effect that motor vehicle parts manufactured and sold "after the effective date of the standard must conform to such standards when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard, and not otherwise" is incorrect. Your question as to "whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold" must be answered in the negative with regard to Standards Nos. 106, 205, 209, 211, for the reasons I have outlined above. I trust that this response clarifies the issues you have raised in behalf of Automotive Service Industry Association. If I can be of further assistance to you or numbers of your association, please do not hesitate to call upon me. Sincerely, |
|
ID: 12-000762 W.Thompson III 9 Std. No. 108Open
William H. Thompson III 146 N. 58 St., Philadelphia, PA 19139
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This responds to your letter dated September 21, 2011. In that letter, you made inquiries regarding two subjects. First, you requested that NHTSA revisit its position in its previous letter to you (dated July 29, 2011).[1] That letter responded to your original request for an interpretation of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. In that letter, we explained our opinion that your invention, which alters the sequence in which school bus signal lamps will flash, would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. Second, you state that you are requesting the phase out of the four lamp system and the addition of the equivalent of the yellow traffic light function (as described in [your original request for interpretation]). We will address each of these requests in the following paragraphs.
(1) The July 29, 2011 Interpretation Letter In our July 2011 interpretation letter, we explained that because your invention would alter the standard lighting scheme of school bus signal lamps, it would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps. As we have explained on many occasions, traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with standardized lighting signals. In your letter requesting reconsideration of our interpretation, you made arguments specifically in regards to whether or not there is a standard message for the red school bus lamps. You noted that FMVSS No. 108 permits either an eight-lamp signal system (four red and four amber signal lamps) or a four-lamp signal system (four red signal lamps). You stated that, given the way that some states utilize the four-lamp signal system (e.g. the red lamps being activated prior to the stop location), there does not seem to be a standard message from the red warning lamps. You also asserted that your invention does not impair the effectiveness of the required lamps because the two original messages [of the required lamps] are now expanded to three distinct and complementary statements. While we have reviewed your arguments, they do not provide a basis for us to change our interpretation. The option for school buses to have either an eight-lamp or four-lamp signal system goes back to the 1960s. While motorists may, in light of this option, potentially encounter two types of school bus signal systems, school bus signal lamps are standardized to that extent and we believe that motorists are familiar with the messages imparted by these systems. Further, while the manner in which school bus owners utilize their vehicle lamps is a matter of state law, the message that the red lamps are intended to convey is clear and is specified in our regulations. The red lamps on school buses are required to conform with Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J887, July 1964 (incorporated by reference as part of FMVSS No. 108, S5.1.4(b)) which states that [s]chool bus red signal lamps are . . . intended to identify a vehicle as school bus and to inform other users of highway that such vehicle is stopped on highway to take on or discharge school children (emphasis added). According to your letter, your invention would alter the sequence in which school bus signal lamps flash (by including a stage of lighting where red and amber lights flash concurrently) for the purpose of providing a new kind of signal. It continues to be our opinion that this would, at the very least, impair the effectiveness of the red signal lamps by changing the standardized meaning of those lamps to mean something other than the meaning specified in SAE Standard J887. (2) Requested Changes to FMVSS No. 108
In your letter, you also recommended various changes to FMVSS No. 108s requirements for school bus signal lamps.
If you wish to petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 108, you should submit a petition for rulemaking pursuant to the requirements specified in 49 CFR Part 552. However, you should also be aware of the agencys Statement of Policy regarding petitions for rulemaking on signal lamps.[2] I am enclosing a copy of that document. Before submitting a petition to the agency, we recommend that you carefully review that Statement of Policy and make sure that you are submitting the kind of data necessary for us to evaluate your petition.
We thank you for your interest in improving safety for school children riding in school buses and the surrounding road users. If you have any further questions, please contact Jesse Chang (202-366-2992) of this office.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref: 108 Dated:5/31/12
[1] The agencys original response dated July 29, 2011 is available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/10-007285 S5-1-4 William H Thompson III 108 School Bus Lighting Interp Letter.htm. [2] This Statement of Policy was published in the Federal Register on November 4, 1998. See 63 FR 59482, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-11-04/pdf/98-29520.pdf. |
2012 |
ID: 9832Open Mr. Michael E. Klima Dear Mr. Klima: This responds to your letter of March 29, 1994, to Mr. Edward Jettner of this agency concerning the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions concern the application of this standard to a pickup truck manufactured in April 1988 with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,400 pounds. You asked whether the injury criteria in S6 apply to this truck, whether a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test is required, and which sections of Standard No. 208 apply to this truck. The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208. Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after January 1, 1976 and before September 1, 1991. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. According to your letter, the manufacturer installed Type 2 seat belt assemblies at the front outboard seating positions. This suggests that the manufacturer chose to comply with Option 3. Under this option, the only requirements in Standard No. 208 that those belts were required to comply with were S7.1, S7.2, and S7.3. The belts were also required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The manufacturer was not required to certify that the vehicle complied with the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208. The injury criteria in S6 of the standard are applicable only to vehicles which must comply with the dynamic testing requirements. Standard No. 208 does not include a 35 mph fixed barrier crash test requirement. The dynamic crash test in Standard No. 208 is barrier crash test at any speed up to 30 mph. NHTSA does perform some 35 mph barrier crash tests as part of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is a consumer information program, not a safety compliance test. NHTSA does not test every vehicle under this program. In the 1993 model year program, NHTSA tested 37 new vehicles and released results on 68 additional vehicles which had been tested previously and had not changed significantly in model year 1993. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:4/26/94 |
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.