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: aiam0139OpenMr. Eizuke Niguma, Manager, Technical Service Department, Export Division, Toyo Kogyo Company, Limited, 6047 Fuchi-Maki, Aki-Cun, Hiroshima, Japan; Mr. Eizuke Niguma Manager Technical Service Department Export Division Toyo Kogyo Company Limited 6047 Fuchi-Maki Aki-Cun Hiroshima Japan; Dear Mr. Niguma: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 1968 (your reference No GSAE-26) requesting information to a number of questions reletod (sic) to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I regret that we did not receive your October 5, 1968 letter and that the pressure of work has delayed my answer to your most recent letter.; I am glad to send you the following information: >>>a. MVSS No. 112 - Headlight Concealment Devices. 1. It is stipulated in S.4.6 that 'each headlamp concealment devic shall, within an ambient temperature range of -20 to +120 degrees F., be capable of being fully opened in not more than three seconds after actuation of the mechanism described in S.4.3.' With regard to the temperature condition at the time of a test, if only the ambient temperature satisfies the said temperature conditions, is it all right to pay no regard to other conditions, such as the sticking of frost, ice, etc.?; ANSWER: It is only necessary that the ambient temperature condition (-20 to +120 degrees F.) be satisfied at the time of the test.; b. MVSS No. 114 - Theft Protection. 1. With regard to the stipulation in 5.4.2 that 'The prime means fo deactivating the car's engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterrent required by S.4.1(b),' we have provided the ignition switch with four stages as shown in the sketch below: our key-locking system is of the mechanism that the system does not activate at the stage 'Off', activates only at the stage, 'Lock' and satisfies S.4.4. Does this mechanism conform to S.4.2?; ANSWER: The system as you describe it appears to conform to S4.2 however, the Bureau does not issue approvals of any specific system, and the development of equipment to comply with this requirement is the responsibility of the individual manufacturer.; 2. With reference to the stipulation in S.4.1. 'Each passenger ca shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent ----.', we would like to know whether or not we must provide such a mechanism as the key can be removed only at the stage 'Lock' and cannot at the stage 'Off'.; ANSWER: A locking system having such a position that the key may b removed without activating either the cars' steering lock or its self-mobility lock would not conform to the standard in its present form, since paragraph S4.1 of the standard requires each car to have a key locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent either steering or self-mobility of the car, or both.; c. MVSS No. 201 - Occupant Protection in Interior Impact 1. With regard to the interpretation of the stipulation in S.3.1 '___ the deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80 g for more than 3 milliseconds,' when the deceleration wave -- shown in the chart below -- is obtained.; in case delta t sub 1 < 3 milliseconds, we interpret that the standard is satisfied even when delta t sub 1 delta t sub 2 + delta t sub 3 + ___ = sigma delta t sub i > 3 milliseconds.; Is our interpretation correct? (Illustration omitted) ANSWER: Your interpretation is correct. The standard permits more tha one peak that exceed 80g which, cumulatively, may add to more than 3 milliseconds. No single peak may continuously exceed 80g for more than a 3 millisecond duration.; 2. When the areas stipulated in S.3.1.1.(d) --' Areas outboard of an point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 6.5 inch diameter head form tangent to an inboard of vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the steering wheel,' -- are illustrated, which of the following hatched portions in the figures below is in conformity to the stipulation? (Illustration omitted); ANSWER: Figure (a) is correct for the inboard side. Presen requirements do not apply to the area outboard of the steering wheel on the instrument panel.; d. MVSS No. 207 - Anchorage of Seats. S.3.3 Folding and hinged seats. Except for folding auxiliary *seats an seats with backs which are adjustable for occupant comfort only*.; 1. Is it correct to interpret that the underlined part is referring t seats with backs of reclining mechanism enabling to adjust the angle of the back?; ANSWER: Yes. 2. Or, should we interpret that the seats with reclinable backs com under the hinged seats?; ANSWER: No. 3. a. In the case of car with four doors, if the front seats are thos with reclinable backs, these are presumed to be the ones corresponding to (1). Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: Yes. S.3.3.1 The release control shall be readily accessible to the occupan of that seat and *to the occupant of any seat immediately behind that seat*.; 1. The above stipulation is presumed to be laid down for the egress o the passengers on the rear seat. Therefore, when the reclining seats are installed in a four-door car, we would like to consider it unnecessary to pay regard to the underlined part. Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: Yes. 2. In the case of a two-door car, if the control which can be easil operated by passengers on the rear seat is installed only on one side (the right side), the passengers on the rear seat can operate the control by moving to the right side. Consequently, we consider it sufficient to install only on the right side the control which is easily accessible to the passengers on the rear seat. Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: In the case of a two-door car, for a split back or bucket sea arrangement, where both seat backs fold, a release control should be provided on the outboard side of each folding seat back. If the seat back is split and only one seat back folds, only one release control is required on the outboard side.; e. MVSS No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages 1. We judge that the fastening strength of the seat belt anchorage wil change, depending on the shape of the eye bolt attaching the seat belt to the seat belt anchorage point.; If an anchorage is tested by using our designed seat belt assembly an the strength of the anchorage can be assured, we understand that the anchorage fully conforms to the standard, and also understand that it is not necessary to guarantee the owners of Mazda vehicles if they attach a seat bolt assembly other than the one designated by us. Is our interpretation correct?; We, of course, will specify in our Operation Manual that the seat bel assembly designated by our company must be used.; ANSWER: Under Paragraph S.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 210, anchorages are to be tested by using a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly as defined in FMVSS No. 209. If you follow this procedure, using a belt which complies to No. 209, and your anchorages meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, then you are in compliance with this standard.<<<; I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items o equipment or on vehicle designs. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the Standards.; Sincerely, H. M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service; |
|
ID: 004598asOpenMr. Brian J. Conaway 1771 Locust Street Denver, CO 80220 Dear Mr. Conaway: This responds to your letter asking for reconsideration of an interpretation regarding whether your Hip Hugger device is a child restraint system (CRS) under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. In that previous interpretation (dated June 1, 2001), we determined that the Hip Hugger was not a CRS. We have examined the sample Hip Hugger that you sent, as well as the videotape regarding installation of the product, and also considered your arguments for classifying the device as a CRS. We regret to inform you that we still cannot classify the Hip Hugger as a child restraint system, for the reasons discussed below. Background
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). The following is our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter. FMVSS No. 213, paragraph S4, defines a child restraint system as: Any device, except Type I and Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 30 kilograms (kg) or less. The Hip Hugger, as demonstrated by your videotape, is used to position the seat belt on children and small adults. Its function is to hold the seat belt in place so that the lap belt tightly holds the childs lap and the torso belt does not go across the child occupants neck. The Hip Hugger does not, in itself, restrain the occupant and it does not serve as a seat for the occupant. In our previous letter to you, we determined that your device was not a child restraint system. We stated: The Hip Hugger positions a seat belt on children and small adults; it does not restrain, seat, or position children. We do not consider the Hip Hugger to position children in a manner that a booster seat positions children to better use a vehicles belt system. The Hip Hugger simply locks the belt. The device alone cannot place or arrange the location of a child on a vehicle seat. Discussion In your letter, you lay out specific arguments as to why the Hip Hugger should be considered a CRS, despite our previous analysis that determined that it was not. These arguments are addressed below. Your first argument refers to our previous analysis that the Hip Hugger was not a child restraint system, in which we stated that [w]e do not consider the Hip Hugger to position children in a manner that a booster seat positions children to better use a vehicles belt system. You believe that according to this reasoning, no other device except a Booster seat could be classified as a Child Restraint System. You state that, although rear-facing restraints and harnesses are CRSs, they differ from booster seats: rear-facing child restraints do not use the vehicles belts system to position the child, and harnesses do not place or arrange the location of a child on the vehicle seat. Thus, you believe we were incorrect in determining that the Hip Hugger was not a CRS. We regret if you found our response to be unclear. We will clarify it here. It is helpful to remember that a child restraint system 1) restrains, 2) seats, or 3) positions children who weigh 30 kilograms or less. To us, it was clear that the Hip Hugger did not restrain or seat children, so our earlier letter did not discuss whether the Hip Hugger would be considered a CRS under those two aspects of the CRS definition. To us, the only issue was whether the Hip Hugger positioned children under the third aspect of the definition. Accordingly, we proceeded to interpret that aspect of the definition as applied to your product. In stating that, We do not consider the Hip Hugger to position children in a manner that a booster seat positions children to better use a vehicles belt system, we did not mean that a device could be classified as a CRS only by positioning children as booster seats position children. Immediately preceding the sentence, we had stated that the Hip Hugger does not restrain, seat, or position children. Instead, the reference to booster seats was meant to be illustrative of what is meant by the term positioning of a child. That is to say, we did not consider the Hip Hugger to position children, such as, for example, the manner in which a booster seat adjusts the position of a child to better use a vehicles belt system. With regard to your point about rear-facing child restraints and harnesses, these devices are child restraint systems because they 1) restrain, 2) seat, or 3) position children who weigh 30 kilograms or less. The devices consist of webbing and other materials that restrain a child occupant in a crash. The Hip Hugger, on the other hand, holds the seat belt in place, but does not itself restrain, seat or position the occupant. With regard to your point that the Hip Hugger meets the definition of a belt positioning seat, a belt positioning seat is defined in paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 213. By its definition, a belt positioning seat is a type of child restraint system. Because the Hip Hugger does not meet the definition of a CRS, it does not meet the definition of a belt positioning seat. As to the portability of the Hip Hugger, a point that you find relevant, that feature has no bearing on whether the device is a child restraint system. In sum, we have reevaluated our previous interpretation to you as you requested, and have found it to be correct that the Hip Hugger is not a child restraint system. Before closing, I would like to point out, as did our 2001 letter to you, that the Hip Hugger is a type of device that NHTSA once described as a seat belt positioner in a 1999 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM; 64 FR 44164). In the NPRM, NHTSA considered issuing a consumer information regulation for seat belt positioners, which were proposed to be defined as a device, other than a belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles. The proposed rulemaking was withdrawn in 2004 (69 FR 13503 at 13504).
We are returning your sample Hip Hugger and video under separate cover. If you have any additional questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Anthony M. Cooke
ref:213 d.10/26/06 |
2006 |
ID: nht72-1.45OpenDATE: 03/10/72 FROM: JAMES E. WILSON FOR CHARLES H. HARTMAN--NHTSA TO: Rose Manufacturing Co. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1972, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pamphlet, "What to Buy in Child Restraint Systems." While you approve generally of the pamphlet, you state that you consider certain statements in it to be incorrect. Particularly, you disagree with two statements appearing on the page of the pamphlet discussing child harnesses. Those statements were: "Give preference to those which attach under the seat back, not over it."; and, "Give preference to those which either attach directly to the vehicle floor, or to the vehicle seat belt, not to the seat back." We do not agree that either of these statements is incorrect. The NHTSA position is that child harnesses that attach over or directly to the vehicle seat back increase the chance of seat back failure, a hazard which you recognize in your letter. Our dynamic test data have shown that affixing a child harness in either of these ways can cause the inertial load of the child to be applied to the seat back excessively deforming or failing the seat back, thereby allowing excesive occupant excursion and increasing the chance of injury to the child. In short, these configurations increase rather than, as you seem to argue, decrease the chance of seat back failure. With regard to the statements concerning compressive forces being applied to the child during a crash, while we agree in principle that such forces are undersirable, it is not clear from your letter how their application is prevented by having the child harness attach over the top of the vehicle seat. In any event, it is preferable, in our view, for some force to be applied to the child's torso, as long as it is evenly distributed, than to have the child flung into hostile surfaces within the vehicle. We also do not agree with the statement on page 2 of your letter that harnesses can safely be attached to a vehicle seat back, as the seat back is ". . . in turn securely attached to the car floor." Our experience has been quite the opposite; vehicle seat backs are merely attached to the seat frame and are quite susceptible to collapse in crash situations. Finally, we do believe the pamphlet, in its recommendation that a child should not stand on the front seat of the vehicle when the harness is attached, is consistent with the design of your harness in that both seek to reduce the danger of whiplash injury, I hope this clarifies our position for you. SINCERELY, rose manufacturing co. February 1, 1972 Douglas W. Toms Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Dear Mr. Toms: Please permit us to congratulate you on the excellent pamphlet, entitled "What to buy in Child Restraint Systems". Also, however, please permit us to question some statements in this pamphlet which we consider to be, in effect, erroneous and dangerous. We refer to the next-to-the-last page regarding child restraint harnesses. The first drawing on this page illustrates a restraint harness essentially similar to the one we manufacture, and market under the "Sears" and other trade names. Your first statement in red ink states: "Give preference to those which attach under the seat back, not over it". We submit that any such harness which is attached solely under the seat back, and not also over it, is subject to two vicious hazards. First, it would in case of a crash permit the seat back to move forward to crush the child against the seat cushion. This might result from the folding forward of a hinged seat back or the breaking loose of a fixed one. The second hazard is more prevalent and just as vicious. An adult lap belt is normally attached under the seat back, and is safe when thus attached. In a crash it puts the impact loading on the hips and pelvic region--the strongest parts of the body with no vital organs to be affected. This is positively not true of any belt or harness which places any restraint on the shoulders or upper torso. All adult 3-point belts are required to have the upper torso restraint attached at some point above the shoulder. Some such safety should also be required in the child harness. It must not be permitted to apply any compressive pressure to the shoulders and downward along the spine, in case of a crash. Your second statement in red reads: "Give preference to those which either attach directly to the vehicle floor, or to the vehicle seat belt, not to the seat back". This, again provides the same two hazards, the crushing, forward-moving seat back, and the linear forces compressing the spine. We wish to emphasize that these two hazards are definitely and completely eliminated in the belt which we make, and which is partially indicated in your drawing, but without explanation or comment. Our harness is not attached directly to the car floor. It is attached directly to the seat back, which in turn is securely attached to the car floor. This holds the seat back securely in its place in a crash, and it also eliminates the linear spinal pressure. The child harness is free to slide up and down along the anchor strap which extends vertically at the front of the seat back. This provides two important safety features. First, it assures that the impact force will always be restrained from a point horizontal to the position of the body at the instant of impact, whether this position is standing, sitting or lying down. Not only will this restraining force be applied directly linear to the impact force but the construction and attachments of our harness assures that such restraint force will be applied to the front of the child and never at the side or rear which might cause neck or spinal injury. The other, and very important safety feature of our harness is the complete and instantaneous freedom of movement of the child. A child of 2 or 3 years cannot be forcibly restricted to a single sitting position during a long ride without venement and justifiable protest, and consequent distraction of the driver's attention. This brings us to the last of your statements on that page, viz. "Caution: Parents are warned not to allow a child to stand on the front seat of the vehicle when utilizing a harness restraint, or this may happen". The accompanying drawing indicates a typical whiplash injury situation. To eliminate this hazard, and still provide the maximum safe freedom of movement, our harness includes a positive but adult-adjustible stop on the vertical anchorage strap, and our instructions include a positive warning to keep this stop adjusted to a point which will not permit the child to stand in any seat, front or rear, under any conditions which permits his head to extend to a point higher than the top of the seat back. We very strongly feel that, in your sincere efforts to educate the public and save the lives of children, you should see to it that these erroneous implications are promptly corrected and that such corrections be given as wide publicity as the original pamphlet. We shall be awaiting your reply with interest. C. W. Rose Chairman of the Board
|
|
ID: nht79-4.7OpenDATE: 04/11/79 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 15, 1979, concerning the definition of "forward control" vehicle contained in 49 CFR 571.3. Your specific concern is how to measure a vehicle's length to determine if "the steering wheel hub is in the forward quarter of the vehicle length." Overall vehicle length should be determined by measuring the maximum longitudinal distance between the foremost point on the front bumper face bar and the rearmost point on the rear bumper face bar. In the context of the Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR 581), the agency considers bumper guards to be part of the bumper face bar if they are contacted by the impact ridge of the pendulum test device used in compliance testing (43 F.R. 20804, May, 15, 1978). For the purposes of determining vehicle length, the agency will consider bumper guards as a part of the vehicle bumper face bar and thus included in the measurement of vehicle length. Components such as a permanent or fold-down step which are not associated with the bumper system's function are not considered part of the bumper face bar for the purposes of Part 581 Bumper Standard (43 F.R. 40230, Sept. 11, 1978). Therefore, the agency will not consider a permanent or fold-down step as a part of the bumper face bar for the purposes of determining vehicle length. I have enclosed for your information a notice of proposed rule-making which would extend Standards No. 201, 203 and 204 to forward control vehicles. The notice also states the agency's intention to eliminate the forward control exemption found in other Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any further questions, please let me know. SINCERELY, SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center February 15, 1979 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Sir: The purpose of this letter is to request interpretation relating to the NHTSA definition of "forward control." In determining the front quarter of the vehicle length we need to know what is included in the measurement. Example would be if the bumper guards on the front bumper are included in the measurement. Although the vehicle we receive from the manufacturer as a completed vehicle is not certified as a forward control, if we add a step either permanent or fold-up behind the original rear bumper, can this increase in length dimension be used to determine the front quarter of the vehicle? Your prompt reply will be appreciated. R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities |
|
ID: 08-002983 slip on seat coverOpenMs. Ramona Hutton 167 Deep Woods Way Ormond Beach, FL 32174 Dear Ms. Hutton: This responds to your letter asking about requirements applying to aftermarket slip-on seat covers for motor vehicles. In particular, you were interested in flammability requirements that would be applicable to the product. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding, if necessary, to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to aftermarket slip-on seat covers. There are a number of FMVSSs that apply to vehicle seating systems. However, these apply to new complete motor vehicles and not to aftermarket slip-on seat covers. Nonetheless, there are Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would have to ensure that your product is free of safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your seat cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, 30122 of the Safety Act specifies: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard ... The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 302. Further, some motor vehicles have sensing systems in front seats installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and seat-mounted side air bags in compliance with FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection. While it appears unlikely that persons in the aforementioned categories would be installing your product, installation of an item that made inoperative the vehicles compliance with flammability resistance, side or frontal impact protection requirements may subject the commercial entity to penalties for violating 30122. The make inoperative prohibition of 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your seat cover were installed in vehicles by the vehicle owners, your product need not meet any FMVSSs. Nevertheless, we urge consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Further, for information on private tort liability, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier. State or local jurisdictions have their own traffic safety laws which could affect the flammability resistance of certain items. For information about those requirements, you should contact the State departments of motor vehicles. In your letter, you provided data sheets of a product you are considering using to fire-retard the seat covers. As explained above, we regret to inform you that NHTSA is not able to approve or make any recommendations about the use of the product. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:302 d.11/20/08 |
2008 |
ID: nht90-2.99OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: APRIL 16, 1990 FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA TO: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MGR., REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE, VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTERS DATED 4-18-89 AND 7-11-88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM SHAPIRO ATTACHED; (OCC-3422). TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. Specifically, you indicated that Volvo is currently designing a Type 2 seat belt assembly (lap/shoulder belt) that has an anchorage for the upper end of the shoulder belt located within the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. Volvo also would like to install an additional anchorage for the upper end of the shoulder belt outside of the area specified in S4.3.2. The purpose of this additional anchorage was said to be to "increase the stability of the mounting." You stated your belief that this additional anchorage would be permitted even though it does not satisfy the location requirements specified in S4.3.2, because the additional anchorage "is not required for the seat belt assembly to comply with the strength requirements" of Standard No. 210. The answer to your question depends upon whether the lap/shoulder safety belt is required to be installed at the particular seating position. My response assumes that this additional anchorage is not an anchorage for an automatic or dynamically tested manual safety belt that meets the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Anchorages for those belts are explicitly exempted from the anchorage location requirements by S4.3 of Standard No. 210. If the seating position in question is one that is required by Standard No. 208 to be equipped with a lap/shoulder belt, the additional anchorage described in your letter would appear not to comply with Standard No. 210. Section S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." As I understand your letter, both the anchorage that satisfies the location requirements of Standard No. 210 and the addi- tional anchorage would transfer seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure. Therefore, both of these points would be the "seat belt anchorage," per S3 of Standard No. 210, and both points would have to comply with the location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. Since your letter states that the additional anchorage would not comply with the anchorage location requirements of standard No. 210, each vehicle that used this additional anchorage point at seating positions required to be equipped with a lap/shoulder safety belt would appear not to comply with Standard No. 210. On the other hand, if the seating position is one that is not required by Standard No. 208 to be equipped with a lap/shoulder safety belt (such as the rear center seating position in passenger cars), Standard No. 210 might not prohibit the use of an additional anchorage point that did not comply with the location requirements of the standard. At seating positions where a lap/shoulder safety belt is not required, section S4.1.2 of standard No. 210 gives manufacturers the option of installing either anchorages for a Type I (lap-only) or Type 2 seat belt assembly. Hence, at these seating positions, Volvo could satisfy all requirements of the safety standards by installing lap-only belts at these seating positions. Accordingly, Volvo's decision to install lap/shoulder belts and an additional anchorage point at these seating positions would be purely voluntary, not a response to any regulatory requirement. NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis, this agency stated that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorages for voluntarily installed lap-only belts outside of the area specified in Standard No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap-only belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, if Standard No. 208 does not require a lap/shoulder belt to be installed at a seating position, the upper anchorage for a shoulder belt (in Volvo's case, both anchorage points for the upper end of the shoulder belt) may be located outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed anchorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages for lap-only belts and the lap-only belts themselves to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. I would like to note, however, that NHTSA believes that shoulder belt anchorages located within the area specified in S4.3.2 of standard No. 210 offer the greatest safety benefits, even though the anchorages of voluntarily-installed shoulder belts are not required to be located within that area. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions or need further information, please let me know. |
|
ID: 18805.drnOpenMs. Barbara Goodman Dear Ms. Goodman: This responds to your request for an interpretation of school bus seat back height requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. I regret the delay in this response. I understand that you explained to Mr. Charles Hott of our agency that the C. E. White Company manufactures school bus seats that are integrated with child restraints, and which have 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat backs. While you are interested in having some of these seats installed in school buses along with standard school bus seats with 508 millimeters (20 inch) high seat backs, you ask about Standard 222's requirements that apply to a 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat back. You pose five questions, which we answer below.
We believe you are asking whether the height of the seat back or barrier in front of the tall seat has to be at least 508 millimeters (20 inches) or at least 711 millimeters (28 inches). As explained below, assuming the width of the seat bench in front of the C.E. White type seat is 990 millimeters (39 inches), the seat back or restraining barrier in front of the C.E. White type seat has to be at least 508 millimeters (20 inches), not 711 millimeters (28 inches). Seat back height. The minimum height required of seat backs is specified in S5.1.2 of Standard 222. S5.1.2 states: "Each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has a front surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 508 mm [20 inches] above the seating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in millimeters multiplied by 508." Simply stated, this section requires seat back heights of at least 508 millimeters (20 inches) above the seating reference point.(1) Standard 222 does not require the seat back to be taller if it is in front of a school bus seat that has a 711 millimeter (28 inch) high seat back. Restraining barrier height. Paragraph S5.2 of Standard 222 requires each vehicle to be equipped with a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 610 mm (24 inches) of its seating reference point. The minimum height for restraining barriers is specified in S5.2.2 of Standard 222. That section states: "The position and rear surface area of the restraining barrier shall be such that, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required." In an interpretation letter of April 8, 1977, to Wayne Corporation (copy provided), this agency interpreted the restraining barrier requirement to mean that a restraining barrier must only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. Thus, in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter would have to coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of a seat back with a height of 508 millimeters (20 inches) (assuming the width of the bench seat for which the seat back is required is 990 millimeters (39 inches)).
As answered above, the seat backs in front of the tall C.E. White type seat do not have to be 711 millimeters (28 inches) in height simply because they are positioned in front of a seat that has a 711 millimeter (28 inch) seat back. The size of a seat back depends on the width of the seat for which it provides a back.
By "in a single unit," I will assume you mean "in one school bus." Alternatively, you might mean "in one row of seats." Our answer is that nothing in Standard 222 specifies that in a school bus or row of seats, each seat back must be of the same height. However, each passenger seating position must have a seat back that meets S5.1.2 and have in front of it a seat back that meets S5.1.2, or a restraining barrier that meets S5.2.2.
As previously stated, the area and height of any seat back depends on the width of the seat bench for which it provides a back, not on the height of other seat backs. Each passenger seating position must have a seat back that meets S5.1.2, and must be faced with a seat back or a restraining barrier.(2)
You explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that this question asks about the situation where the first row of seats has a 762 millimeter (30 inch) width and the second row directly behind the first row has a 990 millimeter (39 inch) width. There is a restraining barrier in front of the first row. You are concerned about how a child sitting in the second row in the 228 millimeter (9 inch) section not faced by a seat back is to be protected. The child sitting in the 228 millimeter (9 inch) section in the second row must be protected in part by a restraining barrier. Referring again to the letter of April 8, 1977 to Wayne Corporation, the combination of the restraining barrier and the seat back of the first row seat must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the second row's required seat back surface. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, 1. For a 990 millimeter (39 inch) bench seat, the seat back must have a front surface area at least .9(990) multiplied by 508, or 452,628 square millimeters (702 square inches). 2. An issue that may be implicit in your question is whether States may require a seat back height greater than 508 millimeters (20 inches). Our position is that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 508 millimeters (20 inches), is preempted under 49 USC 30103(b) of our statute. However, our statute does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, for public school buses, a State may specify a seat back higher than 508 millimeters (20 inches). See March 23, 1976 to Mr. Martin V. Chauvin, copy enclosed. |
1999 |
ID: aiam4171OpenFrederick B. Locker, Esq., Locker Greenberg & Brainin, P.C., One Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10001; Frederick B. Locker Esq. Locker Greenberg & Brainin P.C. One Penn Plaza New York NY 10001; Dear Mr. Locker: This responds to your June 4, 1986 letter to Mr. Francis Armstrong, th former Director of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. In that letter, you referred to the preliminary compliance test data sheet showing that the Kolcraft 'Flip N Go' booster seat failed to comply with section S5.2.4 of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213). You stated that this preliminary noncompliance finding was based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of section S5.2.4. I conclude that Mr. Armstrong was acting on a correct interpretation of that section and properly applied it to the Kolcraft 'Flip N Go' booster seat.; For your information, section S5.2.4 reads as follows: >>>*Protrusion limitation*. Any portion of a rigid structural componen within or underlying a contactable surface, or any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject to the requirements of S5.2.3 shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 3/8 inch and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch.<<<; You asserted that S5.2.4 does not apply to the 'Flip N Go' Seat. As yo read S5.2.4, it applies only to child restraint systems that are also subject to S5.2.3. You note that the 'Flip N Go' seat is not recommended for children weighing less than 20 pounds, so the requirements of S5.2.3 are not applicable to it. You then conclude that the requirements of S5.2.4 should also not be applicable to that seat.; Your assertion is, however, based upon the misplacing of the firs comma in your quotation of S5.2.4. As S5.2.4 was quoted in your letter, the comma appeared as follows 'restraint system surface, that is subject.' In fact, there is no comma in that location. One does appear earlier: 'contactable surface, or any portion.' As you see from the correct version of S5.2.4 set forth above, it applies to both--; >>>(1) any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlyin a contactable surface, *AND; (2) any portion of a child restraint system surface that is subject t the requirements of S5.2.3.<<<; Since we both agree that the 'Flip N Go' seat is not subject to th requirements of S5.2.3, the question is whether all portions of its rigid structural components within or underlying a contactable surface satisfy the requirements of S5.2.4. Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a 'contactable surface' as 'any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment hardware that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1.' The preliminary compliance test data sheet for the 'Flip N Go' seat indicates that four different surfaces on the shield and shield support arms appear to fail to comply with the requirements of S5.2.4.; The first surface listed as not appearing to comply with S5.2.4 was th horizontal upper-forward edge of the shield, which has a radius of less than 1/4 inch. Your response is that this surface is not capable of being contacted by the child's head or neck. We disagree with you. However, even if the test dummy's head and neck failed to contact this edge, the dummy's torso *would* contact that surface. The torso contact would make the edge a contactable surface under S5.2.4, which prohibits the edge from having a radius of less than 1/4 inch. Accordingly, this edge does not appear to comply with S5.2.4, regardless of whether it is contacted by a child's head, neck, or torso.; The outboard left and right vertical edges of the shield support arm appear not to comply with two requirements of S5.2.4. First, the edges have radii of less than 1/4 inch. Second, the edges protrude more than 3/8 inch above the immediately adjacent shield surface. Your response to this was that the entire shield surface is integral and must be considered as a whole. When consider in this way, you stated that the edges of the shield support arms comply with S5.2.4. We cannot agree with your interpretation.; There is no basis in Standard No. 213 for your position that 'integral shields are considered as a whole for the purposes of S5.2.4. The only question under S5.2.4 is whether a contactable surface incorporates projections or narrow edges that could subject the child occupant to pressure point loading in the event of a crash. If the contactable surface incorporates such projections or narrow edges, it does not comply with S5.2.4. Since the edges of the shield support arms on the 'Flip N Go' seat are contactable surfaces which incorporate projections and have edge radii that are prohibited by S5.2.4, the edges of the shield support arms do not appear to comply with S5.2.4.; The third surfaces noted as not appearing to comply with S5.2.4 wer the inboard vertical surfaces of the shield support arms, because those surfaces have edges with radii of less than 1/4 inch. Your response to this was to repeat your integral shield argument and to state that Standard No. 213 does not require oblique crash simulations. This latter point was in response to the following statement in the preliminary compliance test data report: 'These edges and those described in (2) above could be contacted by the occupant in oblique crashes.'; This statement is not the reason for the preliminary determination tha those edges do not comply with S5.2.4 of Standard No. 213. It was included only to point out the actual safety hazard that could be presented to occupants of the 'Flip N Go' seat in a crash. The reason for the preliminary determination is that these edges appear to be contactable surfaces within the meaning of S4, and the edges have radii of less than 1/4 inch. I apologize for any confusion the statement about oblique crashes may have caused.; The fourth surface noted as not appearing to comply with S5.2.4 was th extreme bottom horizontal surface of the shield, with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. Additionally, that surface is supported by seven smaller vertical ribs, five of which are contactable and have edge radii of less than 1/4 inch. The data sheet concluded, 'All of these edges may be contacted by the occupant's thighs or lower abdomen.'; You responded to this by repeating your integral shield argument, an stating that the requirements of S5.2.4 are applicable only to situations involving head impact protection. Accordingly, you stated that S5.2.4 was not intended to address contact with the shield by an occupant's thighs or lower abdomen.; As noted above, section S5.2.4 requires all portions of the shiel within or underlying a 'contactable surface' to have no protrusions. A contactable surface refers to portions of the restraint that may contact any part of the head or *torso*. Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines the term 'torso' as 'the portion of the body of a seated anthropomorphic test dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies between the top of the child restraint seating surface and the top of the shoulders of the test dummy.' Thus, the thighs would not be considered part of the torso, but the lower abdomen would. Section S5.2.4 is intended to prevent or reduce injuries to the torso, including the lower abdomen. Thus, any edge contactable by the test dummy's lower abdomen must have a radius of at least 1/4 inch to comply with S5.2.4. Since these edges have smaller radii, they do not appear to comply with that section.; Please contact our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance if you have an further responses or comments on the preliminary noncompliance determination.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht92-9.54OpenDATE: January 13, 1992 FROM: Phil Gray -- Inventor, Westech U.S.A. Inc. TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA COPYEE: Ed Jettner TITLE: Re: Child Shoulder Belt Positioning Device ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/25/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Phil Gray (A39; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)) TEXT: Firstly I would like to thank your staff especially Deirdre Fujita for all her help and the faxed letter she forwarded to me, I have enclosed a copy for your reference. Its nice to know that the little guy can still be heard in Washington. I read through the faxed letter and all the points that were brought up have been addressed and solved by my invention. If you would be so kind I would like to take a minute to give you a little background about myself. My name is Phil Gray and I am an inventor, I have started a company Westech U.S.A. Inc. in Vermont to market my inventions. One of my Inventions is a device that positions the car's Shoulder Belt in the correct position for children between 38 and 60 inches in height. Prior to the conception of the "CHILD-SAVER" there was no method for children to ride in a car using the Factory Installed Lap/Shoulder Seat Belt System in a safe and legal manner. Please refer to the accompanying product information. The "CHILD-SAVER" has been designed to ensure the correct position of the Shoulder Belt up to the point of Impact. At the point of Impact the full weight of the child loads the Shoulder Belt holding it in the preset (correct) position during the Impact and Post Impact Stages of a collision. The designed "Break Away" Shoulder Belt Feeder Slot Section located at the top of the "CHILD-SAVER" is detached by the forces exerted on it at the point of impact thus allowing the "CHILD-SAVER" to rotate away from the child therefore preventing any possibility of contact with the child's head during the collision. With the position of the child's body at the point that the Shoulder Belt Feeder Slot "Breaks Away" there is no chance that the piece could possibly strike the child. This design has been proven effective with repeated Impact Crash Tests. I have enclosed a VHS tape of the Impact Test and some Test Results as well as some product samples. With the "CHILD-SAVER" left unusable after a severe impact it is assured that it will be replaced as recommended by the manufacturer. As the "CHILD-SAVER" is new technology that addresses and solves a Child Restraint problem that until now has not been dealt with, the only Standards that are available to test against are those for Child Safety Seats. It is expected that new standards will be written as this device proves it's worth in the market place. All Impact Tests were run at 30 mph which is the accepted standard. The force of Impact in each test was equal to 20 G's, meaning the weight of a 501b child would be equal to 1000lbs during the collision. Impact Crash Testing has clearly shown the Life Saving benefits of a Shoulder Belt that is correctly positioned prior to a collision. The same tests have also illustrated in dramatic fashion the Fatal Injuries inflicted upon the child when the Shoulder Belt is incorrectly positioned around the neck area. Pertaining to the letter that was to faxed me by Deirdre. i. Now that the technology exists it would be logical to develop a safety Standard that would require that the Seat Belt System to be operationally safe for children who are to large for Car Safety Seats or Booster Seats but to small for the present Shoulder Belts. ii. I assure you that Westech U.S.A. will comply with Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act. iii. Under normal operating conditions the Factory Installed Lap/Shoulder Seat Belts do not comply with Section S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208. However with the installation of the CHILD- SAVER compliance is achieved. iv. With the installation of the CHILD-SAVER the length of Shoulder Belt used is increased by only one inch. It should be pointed out that the increased length is not in the form of loose belt, but used to tightly traverse the length of the CHILD-SAVER. v. It is unknown if the CHILD-SAVER violates Section 108(a)(2)(A) for it does modify the position of the Shoulder Belt but by doing so enhances its performance by eliminating a fatal injury to the child which would normally occur Could you please give me an interpretation of the Safety Standards as they apply to the CHILD-SAVER. Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. |
|
ID: 16-2706 (GM load limiters on buses Aug 8)_v2 incorporating circulation commentsOpenMr. Brian 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 letter responds to a letter from M. Carmen Benavides, dated March 7, 2013, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. We unfortunately did not receive the letter until it was subsequently emailed to us by your staff on May 24, 2016. GM asks about section S4.5(b) of FMVSS No. 209 as applied to twelve- and fifteen-passenger buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds (lb) and less than or equal to 10,000 lb (subject buses). GM indicates that it is considering installing seat belts with load limiters (load-limiting belts) in the front outboard seating positions in the subject buses; the seat belts do not comply with the elongation requirements of FMVSS No. 209. GM requests an interpretation that would permit it to take advantage of a provision in S4.5 that permits the installation of load-limiting belts that do not comply with the elongation requirements in vehicles other than the subject buses. As we explain below, we decline to issue such an interpretation. By way of background, FMVSS No. 209 specifies performance requirements for seat belts. Some of these requirements specify the maximum amount the webbing of a seat belt assembly is permitted to extend or elongate when subjected to certain specified forces.[1] The purpose of the elongation requirements is to help ensure that the webbing will not stretch so much that the belt provides a lesser level of protection. A load limiter is a seat belt assembly component that controls tension on the seat belt and modulates or limits the forces that are imparted to a restrained vehicle occupant during a crash. Load limiters are intended to reduce head and upper torso injuries through increased energy management. They usually work in concert with an air bag system to optimize occupant protection in a crash. Under S4.5(a) of FMVSS No. 209, load-limiting belts are not required to meet the elongation requirements. However, S4.5(b) in turn specifies where such load-limiting belts (i.e., those that do not meet the elongation requirements) may be installed: A seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles at any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 ( 571.208). S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, establishes the minimum performance standards for occupant protection as measured in a frontal crash test. Section S4.5 of Standard No. 209 thus permits load-limiting seat belts that do not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 to be installed at any seating position that is subject to the frontal crash test requirements. The reason for allowing such load-limiting belts at those seating positions is that crash testing helps to ensure the load-limiting devices work in combination with an automatic restraint system (air bag) to provide occupants with protection from overly injurious contact with vehicle interior hard points.[2] Stated differently, an air bag would mitigate the negative effect of the belt stretching beyond that allowed by the elongation limits of FMVSS No. 209. GM asks if the front outboard designated seating positions in the subject buses can be fitted with load-limiting belts that do not comply with the elongation requirements. Our answer is no. Section S4.5(b) of FMVSS No. 209 allows such seat belts to be installed only at a designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208[.] The issue is thus whether the front outboard seating positions in the subject buses are subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. As we explain below, they are not. There are two bases for this conclusion. First, as GM observes in its letter, FMVSS No. 208 S5.1 is not a compliance requirement or option for the front outboard seats in the subject buses. The relevant occupant protection compliance options in FMVSS No. 208 for front outboard seats in current production buses in the 8,500 10,000 lb GVWR range are specified in S4.4.5 of FMVSS No. 208. This section requires that front outboard seating positions be equipped with Type 2 seat belts, but does not specify that these seating positions may or must comply with FMVSS No. 208 S5.1.[3] (I note that NHTSA has amended the occupant protection requirements that apply to buses.[4] These amendments became effective November 28, 2016. The amended requirements for the subject vehicles likewise do not specify S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208 as a compliance requirement or option.[5]) Accordingly, the subject vehicles are not subject to S5.1; i.e., they are not required to comply with it. Second, we decline to interpret subject to in FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) to include vehicles that a manufacturer voluntarily produces in accordance with S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208. The plain meaning of the phrase subject to, as well as the agencys prior interpretations (discussed below), indicate that the phrase may not be read to refer to voluntary compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 S5.1. The ordinary definition of the adjectival form of subject includes liable to receive; exposed (to) [subject to censure].[6] This suggests that in order for a vehicle to be subject to the requirements of an FMVSS provision, the vehicle manufacturer must be exposed to some legal liability if it manufactures a vehicle that does not comply with that provision. A manufacturer, however, can be exposed to legal liability for violating an FMVSS provision only if that provision is a requirement or compliance option for the vehicle.[7] The agency could find it unreasonably complicated to pursue a noncompliance enforcement action for a compliance requirement or option that is not applicable to that vehicle. To illustrate, if NHTSA were to conduct a frontal crash test of a subject bus and the test dummy readings were greater than the allowed injury assessment reference values of FMVSS No. 208, would that be a failure to comply with the standard? Might a manufacturer argue that the test is invalid since FMVSS No. 208 S5.1 did not strictly apply to the vehicle? We note that this usage of the phrase subject to is consistent with other NHTSA regulations, which similarly use the phrase subject to to refer to regulatory provisions that are compliance requirements or options.[8] In sum, since S5.1 is neither a requirement nor a compliance option with respect to the front outboard seating positions in the subject buses, the buses cannot be said to be subject to S5.1. Accordingly, they fail to qualify for the S4.5 load-limiting belt exemption. Past Interpretations This interpretation of FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) is consistent with prior agency interpretations of the provision. We reached a similar result in an interpretation to Magna Steyr. [9] There, the agency was asked to interpret S4.5(b) of FMVSS No. 209 to permit load-limiting belts that did not comply with the elongation requirements in the rear outboard seating positions of passenger vehicles. We found that this was not permissible. We examined FMVSS No. 208 and determined that S5.1 applies only to front outboard seating positions. Accordingly, we concluded that belts with load limiters installed at rear outboard seating positions must meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209. We further explained that the manufacturer could not take advantage of the FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) exemption for the rear seating positions by voluntarily complying with S5.1 with respect to the rear seating positions. NHTSA stated: Your message also asks if a manufacturer wishing to install belts with load limiters in a rear outboard seating position may comply with S4.5 of Standard No. 209 by verifying the performance of the belts through testing the belts by performing testing as set forth in S5.1 on the rear outboard seats. The answer is that belts installed at rear seating positions are subject to the elongation requirements and must meet them. The issue we addressed in the Magna Steyr letter is similar to the issue raised by GMs letter. Just as we there interpreted FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) to not apply to rear seating positions in passenger cars because those were not required to comply with FMVSS No. 208 S5.1, here we similarly find that FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) does not apply to the front outboard seating position in the subject vehicles because they are not required to comply with FMVSS No. 208 S5.1. We reached a similar result in an interpretation to Ford.[10] Ford submitted an interpretation request asserting that load limiters on dynamically-tested manual belts should be exempt from the elongation requirements. At the time of Fords request, FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) specified that a seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system.[11] That is, the express terms of S4.5(b) at the time did not permit load-limiting manual belts that did not meet the elongation requirements. Ford sought an interpretation that S4.5(b) permitted load-limiting manual belts that did not meet the elongation requirements to be installed in seating positions that were subjected to dynamic tests. Ford argued that the reasoning that led the agency to exclude manual belts from the exemption was outmoded because dynamic testing requirements had, in the interim, been established for certain manual belts. The agency did not concur with Fords proposed interpretation because it would add a requirement that was not contained in the standard. NHTSA stated: [S]ection S4.5 expressly provides that a belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in a motor vehicle only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system . . . it is not possible to interpret the term automatic restraint system, as used in S4.5, to mean automatic restraint system or dynamically tested manual restraint system. An interpretation cannot add or delete requirements that are not contained in the language of the standard itself.[12] In short, prior interpretations are consistent with our interpretation today of FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) that the phrase designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 includes only seating positions for which S5.1 is a requirement or compliance option.
Conclusion As GM points out in its letter, passenger cars, trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles under 10,000 lb can take advantage of the FMVSS No. 209 S4.5 load-limiting belt exemption because a manufacturer may certify compliance of the front outboard seating positions in these vehicles with FMVSS No. 208 using S5.1.[13] Further as GM also points out there well may be safety benefits to extending the FMVSS No. 209 S4.5 provision to the front outboard seating positions in the subject buses. Nevertheless, we cannot interpret the existing text of S4.5(b) in a way that would permit this. If you would like NHTSA to consider rulemaking to amend the language of the standard, you may submit a petition for rulemaking. If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Dated: 1/19/17 Ref: FMVSS 209 [1] See S4.2(c), S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4), and S4.4(b)(5). [2] See 45 FR 51626 (Aug. 4, 1980). [3] See also FMVSS 208, S4.6 (dynamic testing for manual belts on buses not required); 52 FR 44898, 44899 (Nov. 23, 1987) (explaining decision not to apply a dynamic test requirement to buses at this time). [4] 78 FR 70416 (Nov. 25, 2013). [5] See id. at 70472. [6] Websters New World Dictionary, Fourth College Edition 1425 (2008) (italics in original). [7] See 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1) ([ A] person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]) (emphasis added). A manufacturer that sells vehicles or equipment that do not comply with an applicable standard, must notify owners of the noncompliance and recall the vehicles. If a manufacturer does not comply with these requirements, the agency may issue a recall order. The agency may enforce that order in court, as well as seek civil penalties. [8] See, e.g., 49 C.F.R. 565.26(b) (Manufacturers of vehicles subject to this part shall . . . .). [9] Letter to Doris Schaller-Schnedl, Magna Steyr Engineering (Sept. 19, 2001). [10] Letter to Robert H. Munson, Ford Motor Co. (Mar. 28, 1989). [11] 49 C.F.R. 571.209, S4.5(b) (1989) (A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system.). Section S4.5 was subsequently amended to include load-limited manual belts. See 56 FR 15295 (Apr. 16, 1991). [12] Id. [13] See FMVSS No. 208 S4.1.5.1 (passenger cars); S4.2.6 (trucks, MPVs, and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 lb or less); S4.2.3 (trucks and MPVs with GVWR greater than 8,500 lb and not more than 10,000 lb, or an unloaded weight greater than 5,500 lb and a GVWR not more than 10,000 lb). |
2017 |
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.