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: 2838oOpen Rusty Mitchell Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is a response to your letter of November 11, 1987, in which you asked for information on the "application of seat belts in school buses." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds) to afford passenger crash protection by means of "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include high seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) experience greater force levels in a crash, Standard 222 requires the added protection of safety belts at each passenger position in a small school bus. School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, our regulations do not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses. I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject. You also asked whether there is an order form listing available data for safety belts in school buses. This agency does not publish "order forms" for any data. For further information on this subject, you may wish to contact individual school bus manufacturers to ask for data about safety belts in their buses. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:222 d:3/l0/88 |
1970 |
ID: nht87-2.61OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 07/31/87 FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO: RICHARD J. MAHER TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/06/88 TO ROBERT DAUGHERTY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 213; LETTER DATED 10/16/86 TO TERRY WOODMAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 02/05/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM ROBERT DAUGHERTY, OCC - 1588 TEXT: Dear Mr. Maher: Thank you for your letter requesting an investigation into the crashworthiness of belts used on wheelchairs. You explained that your son uses a motorized wheelchair that came equipped with a belt. In a crash last summer, your son was unfortunately inju red when the wheelchair belt tore loose at its anchorage point on the wheelchair. You asked that we consider the possibility of requiring wheelchair belts to provide crash protection similar to safety belts installed in vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to issue any regulations applicable to wheelchair belts. These belts are not safety belts, because they are not designed or intended to restrain the wheelchair occupant during a motor v ehicle crash. Rather, the belts you were describing are only intended to position and hold the wheelchair occupant upright during normal use of the wheelchair. Because these belts are not designed or intended for use in motor vehicles, they are outside the scope of this agency's regulatory authority. Such belts are, however, medical "devices" subject to the authority of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA does specify certain standards that wheelchair belts must satisfy. You may obtain further information on the standards for wheelchair belts by writing to: The National Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 8757 Georgia Avenue, Room 1431, Silver Spring, MD 20910. You may wish to telephone Dr. Elmar Einberg, at (301) 427-7238, for further information on these belts. I would like to call to your attention the fact that there are devices that are specifically designed to restrain wheelchair occupants in the event of a motor vehicle crash. These devices are called "tie-downs." A tie-down is attached to the vehicle its elf, while the wheelchair belt you described is attached only to the frame of the wheelchair itself. The stronger anchorage points used by a tie-down enable it to provide significantly greater occupant restraint during a crash. For further information on tie-downs, I recommend that you contact Dr. Lawrence W. Schneider, Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan, 2 2901 Baxter Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48109." Dr. Schneider's telephone number is (313) 763-3582. I was very sorry to learn of your son's injuries. I hope that this information will help reduce the chances of future injuries. Sincerely, |
|
ID: nht91-1.8OpenDATE: January 3, 1991 FROM: S.V. Kaaria TO: NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to S.V. Kaaria (A37; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 1-16-91 from Marvin A. Leach, to S.V. Kaaria (OCC 5648) TEXT: I am the designer of the taillights placed near the rear window of passenger cars. In attempting to negotiate a settlement with auto manufacturers, they all point to the law which requires these new placements of elevated brake lights (Standard 108.1.1.27). They claim since you made the requirements you should negotiate with me for 1% of replacement cost of these taillights. Would you please clarify your position in this matter, and notify me. Thank you. |
|
ID: 7066Open Mr. Kevin J. Stoll Dear Mr. Stoll: This responds to your letter of February 27, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions relating to center high-mounted stop lamps. Your questions are: "1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?" A center high-mounted stop lamp whose illumination is provided by LEDs is legal, provided that the light meets the photometric specifications for such lamp specified in Figure 10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and all other requirements. "2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake light on pickup trucks? b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer? c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?" With respect to (a), the center lamp may be installed at any point on the rear vertical centerline of pickup trucks. Because this requirement is not effective until September 1, 1993, we have no specific knowledge as to where the manufacturers of pickup trucks will locate the lamps. With respect to (b), NHTSA discussed the relationship of center high-mounted stoplamps to aftermarket slide-in campers or caps in the preamble to the final rule adopting the requirement. I enclose a copy of the rule (56 FR 16015) with our discussion highlighted on pages l6017 and 16018. After reading this material, if you have further questions regarding the effect on truck cap manufacturers and dealers, we shall be pleased to answer them. With respect to (c), we assume that the situation you envision is that a truck cap has been manufactured with a center stop lamp and the dealer is installing the cap on a pickup truck. If the cap is being permanently installed, the dealer may wire the cap's lamp directly to the existing center lamp light harness, as the cap lamp is intended as a surrogate for the original lamp. If the cap is removable, the dealer may also wire in the manner you discuss, provided that when the cap is removed (and the cap lamp disconnected) the original lamp will perform in conformance with Standard No. 108. The specific connections to be made should be done in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations. "3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck. b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationery. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved?" The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs. We can advise you as to whether designs appear to conform or not to conform with the applicable laws of our agency. Conformance with Standard No. 108 is determined with respect to the vehicle in its normal operating state. With respect to your question, this would be with the pickup cap window in its closed position. Thus, your design does not raise a question of conformance with Standard No. 108. "4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated rulings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings?" We do not maintain a mailing list of any sort. However, "rulings" are not "passed" at "committee meetings" but are published in the Federal Register, initially as proposed rules affording a minimum of 45 days in which to comment. After evaluation of comments, a final rule may be published, with an effective date no earlier than 30 days after issuance. We believe it likely that any future proposals and amendments would be publicized, and that you would be likely to hear of them. There are no current plans to amend these requirements. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d:4/27/92 |
1992 |
ID: nht92-7.28OpenDATE: April 27, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Kevin J. Stoll -- Technical Advisor, Russell Products, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/27/92 from Kevin J. Stoll to Taylor Vinson (OCC 7066) TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 27, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions relating to center high-mounted stop lamps. Your questions are: "1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?" A center high-mounted stop lamp whose illumination is provided by LEDs is legal, provided that the light meets the photometric specifications for such lamp specified in Figure 10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and all other requirements. "2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake light on pickup trucks? b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer? c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?" With respect to (a), the center lamp may be installed at any point on the rear vertical centerline of pickup trucks. Because this requirement is not effective until September 1, 1993, we have no specific knowledge as to where the manufacturers of pickup trucks will locate the lamps. With respect to (b), NHTSA discussed the relationship of center high-mounted stoplamps to aftermarket slide-in campers or caps in the preamble to the final rule adopting the requirement. I enclose a copy of the rule (56 FR 16015) with our discussion highlighted on pages 16017 and 16018. After reading this material, if you have further questions regarding the effect on truck cap manufacturers and dealers, we shall be pleased to answer them.
With respect to (c), we assume that the situation you envision is that a truck cap has been manufactured with a center stop lamp and the dealer is installing the cap on a pickup truck. If the cap is being permanently installed, the dealer may wire the cap's lamp directly to the existing center lamp light harness, as the cap lamp is intended as a surrogate for the original lamp. If the cap is removable, the dealer may also wire in the manner you discuss, provided that when the cap is removed (and the cap lamp disconnected) the original lamp will perform in conformance with Standard No. 108. The specific connections to be made should be done in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations. "3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck. b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationery. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved?" The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs. We can advise you as to whether designs appear to conform or not to conform with the applicable laws of our agency. Conformance with Standard No. 108 is determined with respect to the vehicle in its normal operating state. With respect to your question, this would be with the pickup cap window in its closed position. Thus, your design does not raise a question of conformance with Standard No. 108. "4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated rulings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings?" We do not maintain a mailing list of any sort. However, "rulings" are not "passed" at "committee meetings" but are published in the Federal Register, initially as proposed rules affording a minimum of 45 days in which to comment. After evaluation of comments, a final rule may be published, with an effective date no earlier than 30 days after issuance. We believe it likely that any future proposals and amendments would be publicized, and that you would be likely to hear of them. There are no current plans to amend these requirements. |
|
ID: 1864yOpen Ms. Melanie Turner Dear Ms. Turner: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particularly interested in the marking requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. Before I address your specific questions, it might be helpful to provide some background information on the origin and purposes of those marking requirements. Different marking requirements apply depending upon whether your company is a "prime glazing material manufacturer" or simply a manufacturer that cuts sections of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies. Section S6.1 of Standard No. 205 defines a "prime glazing material manufacturer" as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. Sections S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205 set forth marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers. Section S6.1 requires prime glazing material manufacturers to mark each item of glazing material in accordance with section 6 of American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (ANS Z-26). One of the requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26 is that a manufacturer mark its glazing with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." Section S6.2 of Standard No. 205 requires prime glazing material manufacturers to mark each item of glazing material designed to be used in a specific vehicle with the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer code mark that is assigned by this agency. Section S6.3 requires prime glazing material manufacturers to certify compliance with Standard No. 205 for each piece of its glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies that is designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Sections S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205 set forth marking requirements that apply to each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies for use in a motor vehicle or camper. Section S6.4 requires the manufacturer or distributor to mark that material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section S6.5 requires the manufacturer or distributor to certify that its product complies with Standard No. 205. The purpose of these marking requirements is to help the agency identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. The difference in the marking requirements was designed to help the agency distinguish between glazing in a motor vehicle that had been manufactured by a prime glazing material manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation. With this background, I will now address your specific questions. Your first question was whether the required markings must be located in any specified position on the glass, particularly the side door glass. No provision in either Standard No. 205 or ANS Z26 requires the manufacturer markings to appear in any specific position or area of the glazing. Hence, those required markings may appear anywhere on the glazing. Your second, third, and fourth questions were all concerned with the issue of whether the required markings must be visible after the glazing has been installed in a vehicle. The answer to this question is no. We first responded to this issue in an April 13, 1978 letter to Mr. Moe Pare, Jr. Mr. Pare had asked whether the certification markings required on glazing materials by Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation. We replied that: "There is nothing in the certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle." I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Mr. Pare for your information. We elaborated on our interpretation of this issue in an August 31, 1984 letter to Mr. K. Yamada of Toyota Motor Corporation (copy enclosed). In that letter, we said: The certification requirements of section S6 of Standard 205 do not require the markings to remain visible after installation of the glazing on a vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked its glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as the markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer, there is no prohibition against covering the markings. Your fifth question asked about specifications for the height of the lettering, point size, and dimensions for the required markings on glazing. As noted above, section S6.1 of Standard No. 205 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to mark glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section S6.4 of Standard No. 205 requires each manufacturer or distributor that cuts a section of glazing material for use in a motor vehicle or camper to mark the material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section 6 of ANS Z26 states that: ... all safety glazing materials manufactured for use in accordance with this code shall be legibly and permanently marked in letters and numerals at least 0.070 inch (1.78 mm) in height, with the words "American National Standard" or the characters AS, and, in addition, with a model number that will identify the type of construction of the glazing material. They shall also be marked with the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. Footnote 27 in Section 6 of ANS Z26 reads: "The model number shall be assigned by the manufacturer of the safety glazing material and shall be related by the manufacturer to a detailed description of a specific glazing material." Your sixth and final question asked about the required content of the manufacturer certification and marking requirements for items of glazing. As noted above, the marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers are set forth in sections S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205. The marking requirements for manufacturers and distributors that cut a section of glazing material for use in a motor vehicle or camper are set forth in sections S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:205 d:6/26/89 |
1989 |
ID: 10822Open Mr. Charles Tucker Dear Mr. Tucker: This responds to your letter of March 21, 1995, requesting a letter stating that your van can be modified by replacing "the factory installed steering wheel with the smaller ASTECH steering wheel without an air bag." Your letter explains that your range-of- motion is limited from multiple sclerosis and that the smaller steering wheel improves your ability to drive. During a March 31, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the van is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of your steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards. After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in your van is one means of complying with this requirement. As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals like yourself, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem. As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement. Under the amendment, "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. A "vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" is defined as vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat. Based on the information you provided, your van would come within this definition. Therefore, if the modifier of your van would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed. I hope this information has been helpful. I have also forwarded a copy of this letter to the modifier indicated in your letter. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Fitzpatrick Enterprises Attn: Steve Manson FAX 614/497-1863 ref:208#VSA d:5/1/95 The March 2 final rule was further amended on May 18, 1994 to allow the installation of Type 2A manual belts.
|
1995 |
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: 16-1289 (GM hazard innovative) -- 28 Apr 16 rsyOpenBrian Latouf, Executive Director Global Safety & Field Investigations, Regulations & Certification General Motors LLC, Mail Code: 480 210 2V 30001 Van Dyke Warren, MI 48093-2350 Dear Mr. Latouf, This responds to your letter dated March 18, 2016 requesting an interpretation with respect to the meaning of vehicle hazard warning signal operating unit in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, as applied to a new cruise control system General Motors (GM) is developing. You state that GM is developing a new adaptive cruise control system with lane following (which GM has referred to as Super Cruise) that controls steering, braking, and acceleration in certain freeway environments. When Super Cruise is in use, the driver must always remain attentive to the road, supervise Super Cruises performance, and be ready to steer and brake at all times. In some situations, Super Cruise will alert the driver to resume steeringfor example, when the system detects a limit or fault. If the driver is unable or unwilling to take control of the wheel (if, for example, the driver is incapacitated or unresponsive), Super Cruise may determine that the safest thing to do is to bring the vehicle slowly to a stop in or near the roadway, and the vehicles brakes will hold the vehicle until overridden by the driver. You indicate that GM plans to develop Super Cruise so that, in this situation, once Super Cruise has brought the vehicle to a stop, the vehicles automated system will activate the vehicles hazard lights. You state that you believe that this automatic activation of the hazard lights complies with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for several reasons. You state that the systems activation of the hazard lights in this situation alerts other drivers that the vehicle is stopped and ensures overall traffic safety. Your letter cites and discusses several past agency interpretations, and asserts that automatic activation of the hazard lights in the situation GM describes is similar to at least one situation in which NHTSA has previously interpreted the standard to permit automatic activation of the hazard lightsimmediately following a crash event. You state that you believe that there would be no ambiguity about the meaning of the hazard lights in this situation, and it would be the safe thing to do. You ask NHTSA to confirm that activation of the hazard lights by the vehicles automated system in the unresponsive/incapacitated driver situation described above complies with FMVSS No. 108. As we explain below, we interpret FMVSS No. 108 to allow the type of automatic hazard activation described in GMs letter.
FMVSS No. 108 requires that all vehicles to which the standard applies, except trailers and motorcycles, be equipped with, among other things, a vehicular hazard warning operating unit and a vehicular hazard warning signal flasher.[1] A vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is a driver controlled device which causes all required turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard.[2] A vehicular hazard warning signal flasher is a device which, as long as it is turned on, causes all the required turn signal lamps to flash.[3] These requirements for hazard lights have been in the standard, largely unchanged, since it was first enacted in 1967.[4] The purpose of the hazard warning is to indicate to approaching drivers that the vehicle is stopped or is proceeding at a slower rate than surrounding traffic.[5] As an initial matter, although not explicitly stated in GMs letter, we assume for purposes of this interpretation that the vehicle GM describes has a manually-activated hazard warning control that satisfies the requirements in S6.6.2 and S4 for a driver controlled hazard warning operating unit, and also satisfies the requirements in FMVSS No. 101 for a hazard warning signal control and telltale. Nothing in GMs letter indicates otherwise. Moreover, this is consistent with the vehicle having, as GM describes, a Level 2 automated system.[6] Past agency interpretations of automatic activation of hazard lights have reached different conclusions about their permissibility. FMVSS No. 108 defines the hazard warning operating unit as a driver controlled device which causes all required turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard. Some past agency interpretations have construed this language to preclude automatic operation of the hazard warning lights, on the basis that automatic activation would not be driver controlled.[7] However, since those interpretations were issued, NHTSA has clarified that automatic activation is permissible in certain circumstances. In a 2002 interpretation letter issued to Bartlett Industries, Inc., NHTSA explained that the hazard lights may be automatically actuated following a vehicle crash: [A] series of . . . letters reflect our opinion that hazard warning system lamps must be activated and deactivated by the driver. This conclusion was based upon the definition of hazard warning systems by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) as driver actuated. The one exception to driver actuation that our recent letters reflect is automatic activation of the hazard warning system in the aftermath of a vehicle crash. As we informed Mr. Steele, we would not view automatic activation of the hazard signals in the event of a crash as a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 since there can be no ambiguity about the signal's meaning at that point.[8] GM states that in the event that a human driver fails to respond to Super Cruises request that the human retake control of the vehicle, and Super Cruise consequently determines that the safest thing to do is to bring the vehicle slowly to a stop in or near the roadway, Super Cruise-equipped vehicles will activate the vehicles hazard lights automatically once the vehicle is stopped. We agree with GM that the situation it describes is similar to the situation in which the Steele (and Bartlett) letters that interpreted FMVSS No. 108 to permit automatic actuation of the hazard lights. Although GMs system does not activate the hazard warning signal after a crash has occurred, it does activate the hazard lights when the vehicle has already stopped. This is the prototypical situation in which the hazard lights are intended to be used, and it is one of the situations that other motorists have come to expect when they see the hazard signal. There would appear to be no ambiguity about the signals meaning in this situation, and we believe that it is unlikely that the use of the hazard lights would confuse other motorists.[9] Therefore, the automatic activation of the hazard lights in the circumstances described by GM would be permissible.[10] Any other automatic activation of hazard warning lights would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. NHTSA may also consider amending the relevant provisions of FMVSS No. 108 at some point in the future in order to clarify situations when hazard lights may activate automatically. We note that GM indicates that when the driver is unable or unwilling to take control of the vehicle the system will bring the vehicle to a stop in or near the roadway. A vehicle system that stops a vehicle directly in a roadway might depending on the circumstances be considered to contain a safety-related defecti.e., it may present an unreasonable risk of an accident occurring or of death and injury in an accident.[11] Federal law requires the recall of a vehicle that contains a safety-related defect.[12] We urge GM to fully consider the likely operation of the system it is contemplating and ensure that it will not present such a risk. If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel Dated: 11/18/16 Ref: Standard No. 108
[1] S6.6.2. [2] S4. [3] S4. [4] See 32 FR 2408, 2411-2412 (Feb. 3, 1967). Before 2012, the hazard warning requirements were largely incorporated by reference to standards promulgated by SAE (formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers), specifically, SAE J910, Jan. 1966 (hazard warning signal operating unit), and SAE J945, Feb. 1966 (hazard warning signal flasher). In a 2007 final rule NHTSA reorganized FMVSS No. 108 by streamlining the regulatory text and clarifying the standards requirements. 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). The final rule, among other things, reduced reliance on third-party documents incorporated by reference by incorporating those requirements directly into the regulatory text. This final rule, which incorporated the hazard warning requirements directly into the regulatory text, became effective on December 1, 2012. 76 FR 48009 (Aug. 8, 2011). [5] 61 FR at 2,865 (Jan. 29, 1996) (quoting Letter from Stephen Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, to Larry Egley (Aug. 8, 1989)) (stopped vehicle); Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Sen. Richard Lugar (May 9, 2000) (vehicle stopped or proceeding at slower rate), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21478.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016). See also SAE J910, Jan. 1966 (A vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is a driver controlled device which causes all turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to the approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard.). [6] NHTSA defines Level 2 automation consistent with the SAE J3016 levels of automation, as the driving mode-specific execution by one or more driver assistance systems of both steering and acceleration/deceleration using information about the driving environment and with the expectation that the human driver perform all remaining aspects of the dynamic driving task. See NHTSAs September 2016 Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/AV (last accessed Sept. 28, 2016), and http://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf (last accessed Sept. 28, 2016). [7] Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Mark Steele, Steele Enterprises (Dec. 6, 1999) (This means that the hazard warning signal unit must be activated by the driver and not automatically.), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20856.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016); Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Eric Reed (Feb. 29, 2000) (An automatic activation of the hazard warning unit would not be driver controlled and is therefore not permitted.), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/reed.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016); Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to Ted Gaston, Muncie Indiana Transit System (Apr. 25, 2005) (We have previously interpreted driver controlled to mean that the hazard warning signal system must be activated and deactivated by the driver and not by automatic means . . . .), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF002470.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016). [8] Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, to Timothy Bartlett, Bartlett Industries, Inc. (Jan. 28, 2002) (Bartlett letter) (citations omitted), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/23695.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016) (quoting Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Steele Enterprises (Feb. 25, 2000) (Steele letter), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21171.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016)). As noted above, see supra n.4, the referenced SAE document is now incorporated into the text of FMVSS No. 108. [9] Automatic activation of hazard lights may also be permissible under the theory that the automatic-activation function represents supplemental lighting in addition to the driver- (manually-)controlled hazard lights. Supplemental lighting is not permitted to impair the effectiveness of required lighting; see S6.2.1. In recent years, NHTSA has generally concluded that the use of required lighting equipment for other than its original purpose would impair the effectiveness of the required lighting because it would compromise and reduce its safety and effectiveness. See, e.g., Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch (Aug. 5, 1999), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20180.ztv.html (last accessed Sept. 28, 2016). Regardless of whether automatic activation of hazard lights was construed as supplemental lighting, NHTSA would still look to whether the automatic activation of the hazard lights was consistent with the purpose of hazards and whether it would create ambiguity or risk confusing other motorists. [10] Since the mid-1990s, several interpretations have addressed situations in which automatic activation of hazard lights would not be permissible because the message that the hazard lights would convey in those instances would not be consistent with the purpose of hazards, i.e., to indicate to approaching drivers that the vehicle is stopped or is proceeding at a slower rate than surrounding traffic. See, e.g., Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to David Coburn, Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Aug. 6, 1999) (We believe that a hazard warning system should not be used for the auxiliary purpose of indicating sudden accelerator release, a signal that bears no relationship to a hazard warning signal and one which could create confusion were the hazard warning signal used for an unrelated purpose.), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/19886.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016); Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Mark Steele, Steele Enterprises (Oct. 7, 1999) (FMVSS No. 108 does not permit the hazard lights to signal the activation of the anti-lock brake system because that could result in confusing signals), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20662.ztv.htm (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016). NHTSA would continue to consider automatic activation of hazard lights in such situations to be inconsistent with FMVSS No. 108. [11] 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30118. [12] 49 U.S.C. 30118. |
2016 |
ID: aiam4050OpenMr. R. C. Attwood, ASE (UK) Ltd., Norfolk Street, Carlisle, Cumbria, ENGLAND CA2 5HX; Mr. R. C. Attwood ASE (UK) Ltd. Norfolk Street Carlisle Cumbria ENGLAND CA2 5HX; Dear Mr. Attwood: Thank you for your letter of October 8, 1985, concerning the safet belt anchorage requirements of Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You asked a question about the anchorage requirements that would apply to a two point automatic safety belt, which has a separate manual lap belt. You asked if it is permissible for the two anchorages of the automatic belt and the two anchorages of the manual lap belt to be located outside of the zones specified in Standard No. 210, if three additional anchorages are located within Standard No. 210's zones. As explained below, the design you described would be permissible, assuming that you are voluntarily providing the manual lap belt.; Section S4.1.1 of the standard requires anchorages for a Type 2 safet belt to be provided at each front outboard seating position. Sections S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 set out the location requirements for Type 2 belts. However, S4.3 provides that the anchorages for automatic restraints which meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, do not have to meet the location requirements of the standard.; In interpreting the location requirement, the agency has said that al of the anchorages for an automatic belt may be located outside of the zones specified in Standard No. 210, as long as there are the three anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt located within the zone. Since your design for the automatic belt would provide three anchorages within the required zone, it would be permissible as long as the anchorages meet the strength requirements of the standard.; If you are voluntarily providing the manual lap belt, then it anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210 as long as the use of the lap belt would not degrade the ability of the automatic lap belt to comply with Standard No. 208. However, if you are providing the lap belt to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208, then the lap belt would have to have anchorages complying with Standard No. 210.; I hope this information is of assistance. If you have any furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
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.