United States Department of TransportationNHTSA 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: 002523Lear_marking_flapsOpenMr. Scott Willard Dear Mr. Willard: This responds to your letter concerning the lower anchorage marking requirements in S9.5(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). FMVSS No. 225 requires vehicle manufacturers to install child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles, consisting of two lower bars and a tether anchorage. The standard contains "marking and conspicuity" requirements for the lower bars to increase the likelihood that consumers will know that a child restraint anchorage system is present in their vehicle and that they will use it. The standard requires manufacturers to mark the vehicle seat back with a small circle where the bars are located (S9.5(a)), or to install a child restraint anchorage system such that the bars are visible (S9.5(b)). S9.5(b) includes a provision that: "The bars may be covered by a removable cap or cover, provided that the cap or cover is permanently marked with words, symbols or pictograms whose meaning is explained [in] the owners manual." You ask whether S9.5(b) permits the bars to be covered by "a small fabric flap"; that is, whether such a flap could constitute a permissible "removable cover" over the lower anchorage bar. You state that, to use the lower anchorages, "the flap(s) would need to be folded out of the way, thus exposing the lower anchorages (otherwise visible per section 9.5(b))." You also state that the flaps would be permanently attached to the vehicle seat. They would be marked with words, symbols or pictograms, as required by S9.5(b), the meaning of which would be explained in writing in the vehicle owners manual. Our answer is the marked fabric flaps you describe would be permitted by S9.5(b) of FMVSS No. 225. We also note that the standard does not require the marked covers for otherwise visible lower anchorages to be permanently attached to the vehicle. In an April 19, 2004, telephone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you asked whether a strap or other means must be provided with the flaps to hold them out of the way of the anchorage bars when a consumer wants to use the bars to attach a child restraint. The answer is there is no requirement in the standard that a means must be provided to hold the covers out of the way of the bars. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:225 |
|
ID: 002661cmcOpenMs. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs: This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply. While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) provides that: 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[.] Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection; FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below. FMVSS No. 207 FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard. FMVSS No. 208 Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position. FMVSS No. 209 FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard. FMVSS No. 210 FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard. FMVSS No. 225 If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle. I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Chief Counsel [1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990. [2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints. |
|
ID: 002661cmc_newOpenMs. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs: This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply. While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) provides that:
Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection; FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below. FMVSS No. 207 FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard. FMVSS No. 208 Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position. FMVSS No. 209 FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard. FMVSS No. 210 FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard. FMVSS No. 225 If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle. I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:207 [1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990. [2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints. |
|
ID: 002721cmcOpenMr. Lane Francis Dear Mr. Francis: This responds to your e-mail letter dated April 23, 2003, and phone conversations with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, in which you ask if a diesel-powered grain vacuum (the Grain Vac) manufactured by your company would be classified as a "motor vehicle." As explained below, based on the information you provided us, we would not consider the Grain Vac a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our regulations. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations. Title 49 U. S. Code (U.S.C) Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as: [A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. In your letter you stated that the Grain Vac is manufactured primarily for use in agricultural operations, and that it "will occasionally be towed on highways and roads between its actual operation at agricultural venues." You described the Grain Vac as being permanently mounted to an undercarriage, "which is essentially a guarded hollow frame." Based on the information you provided, including the pictures enclosed with your letter, it is our opinion that the Grain Vac is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. The Grain Vac is manufactured primarily for agricultural operations, and is intended for use on public roadways only to move between job sites. Contrast this with a grain trailer, which may be used to transport grain to market. Because the Grain Vac is not a Motor vehicle, it is not subject to any of our regulations including the FMVSSs. While our initial determination is that the Grain Vac is not a "motor vehicle" for purposes of our regulations, we may revisit this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant further examination. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:VSA |
|
ID: 002727rbmOpenDavid Robertson, Manager Dear Mr. Robertson: This responds to your request asking whether a driver and passenger seat belt reminder system under development by Mazda would violate any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Our understanding of the Mazda system, based on a meeting between staff from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Mazda, is that the contemplated system is designed to meet the new European New Car Assessment Program criteria for belt minders. The Mazda system, as described, is not prohibited by any FMVSS. According to your letter, the Mazda system would consist of a reminder system that would trigger if either the driver or front passenger fails to buckle his or her seat belt by the time the vehicle reaches a forward speed of 20 km/h (12.5 mph). The reminder will not sound when the vehicle transmission is in reverse. Once triggered, the reminder system will produce an audible warning signal that will continue for 90 seconds or until the seat belts are fastened, whichever occurs first. This audible signal is indistinguishable in tone from the warning signal used by Mazda to meet the mandatory seat belt warning system required by S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. S7.3 of that standard requires the driver's seating position to be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances when the seat belt is not buckled, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds," and a continuous or flashing warning light for not less than 60 seconds after the ignition switch is turned on. The prohibition on any audible signal lasting longer than 8 seconds reflects a statutory requirement imposed by Congress in response to public resistance to seat belt interlock systems. [1] 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard By using...a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position." While the statute prohibits NHTSA from requiring, or specifying as a compliance option, an audible seat belt warning that sounds outside of the specified 8-second period, it does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from placing such systems in their vehicles. However, given FMVSS No. 208's requirement that the required seat belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means of differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Differentiation is required so that NHTSA can definitively determine whether the warning signal meets the requirements of the standard in a compliance test. One way to differentiate between the two signals is to utilize different sounds for each warning signal. The Mazda system, as contemplated, would not do this. Another way to differentiate between the two signals is a clearly distinguishable lapse in time between the two signals. While generally speaking, the Mazda system would provide a distinguishable lapse in time, there are instances where there may not be such a lapse under real world operating conditions. According to your letter, the warning signal used by Mazda to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 continues for six seconds from the time the ignition is turned on or until the driver's seat belt has been engaged, while the non-mandatory belt reminder system would trigger once the vehicle had reached a forward speed of approximately 12.5 mph. Under most circumstances, it is unlikely that this 12.5 mph forward speed would occur within six seconds of engaging the ignition. However, in some circumstances it would be possible to achieve this speed quickly enough to preclude a vehicle occupant from distinguishing between the two, separate warning signals. Nevertheless, we have determined that the Mazda system would not violate S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208. The fact that, under limited circumstances, a particular vehicle occupant may be unable to distinguish between the two warning signals is not determinative. As noted above, the distinction between the two signals is needed to determine whether the mandatory signal complies with FMVSS No. 208. The Mazda system, as contemplated, will comply with S7.3 when tested in accordance with the applicable laboratory test procedure for FMVSS No. 208, TP208-12. Under that test procedure, the transmission is never moved from "park" once the ignition is engaged. Accordingly, the second, voluntary warning signal will not sound because it is only engaged once the vehicle achieves a particular forward speed. Accordingly, the system will not prevent NHTSA from clearly determining whether the requirements of S7.3 have been met. I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:208 [1]See H.R. Rep. No. 93-1452 (to accompany S355), at pp. 44-45 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6108. |
|
ID: 002769drnOpenJ. Adam Krugh IV Dear Mr. Krugh: This responds to your request for an interpretation of how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations apply to a device you have invented, a red lamp to be placed on school bus roofs, that you believe would enhance safety for children getting on and off school buses. Our answer is provided below. You write that your device, the ALLSTOP, is "designed to overcome the line of sight problems created by todays taller vehicles and wider roadways." You believe that with the ALLSTOP, other drivers in all directions of the bus will have adequate visible warning that the bus is loading or unloading children. A brochure accompanying your letter depicts the ALLSTOP as a red lamp attached to a metal rod in the middle of the school bus roof that stands upright perpendicular to the roof. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the ALLSTOP would only stand upright when the school bus door is open. When upright, the device would flash, similar to a "police light" with a rotating halogen lamp, or would flash by a red LED strobe light. At all other times (i.e., when the door is closed and the school bus is in motion), the ALLSTOP is not illuminated and lies flat, parallel to the school bus roof. You state that a motorized base moves the ALLSTOP up and down. You further state that the device can be manually overridden by the school bus driver to not deploy. You state that details about the ALLSTOP, such as the length of the metal rod, the type of lamp used in the device, and its flash rate, are yet to be finalized. You also stated that it is your hope that the ALLSTOP, a patented product, will be used on both new school buses and as aftermarket equipment on school buses that are already owned by schools and school districts. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards. Under Standard No. 108, non-standard lighting devices are prohibited on new vehicles if they impair the effectiveness of lighting devices required by Standard No. 108. See S5.1.3. It is our opinion that a device such as the ALLSTOP would impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to meet SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. As we have said before, traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly and unhesitatingly recognize the meaning lamps convey and respond to them. The required school bus signal lamp system provides an important and standardized message. It is our opinion that the addition of a novel signal lamp such as the ALLSTOP that rises from the middle of the school bus roof at the same time as the school bus signal lamp system activates would divert a driver's attention from the required signal lamps and cause confusion with respect to their meaning, and thereby impair the effectiveness of the required lamps. [1] , [2] With respect to the aftermarket, 49 U.S.C. 30122 has the effect of requiring that the installation of any aftermarket vehicle lamp, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, must not "make inoperative" any element of design or device installed on a vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 108. As with original equipment, we regard the addition of a novel signal lamp such as the ALLSTOP to make inoperative a vehicle's original required lighting equipment by diverting a driver's attention from the required signal lamps, and causing confusion with respect to their meaning. Modifications made by a school bus owner itself are not prohibited by our statute. However, we urge owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about lighting issues, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson. Questions about school bus issues may be addressed to Ms. Dorothy Nakama. Both attorneys may be reached at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108#VSA#571.3 [1] We note that Standard No. 131 requires school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm on the left side of the bus. This required device also provides a standardized message to drivers. [2] Our opinion is not affected by whether a device such as the ALLSTOP would flash or not. I note, however, that Standard No. 108 only permits certain types of lamps to flash. |
|
ID: 002775cmc_phonenoOpenMr. David E. Campbell Dear Mr. Campbell, This responds to your December 4, 2002, letter and conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff concerning the labeling requirements for a child restraint system (CRS). You stated that a foreign manufacturer is planning to import CRSs into the U.S. and would like to use a non-U.S. telephone number to comply with the labeling requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. The answer to your question is that use of a non-U.S. number is not prohibited under the labeling requirement, but we do have concerns about using it. One of the most effective ways to ensure that owners of CRSs obtain the free remedy provided under a recall is through direct notification of the customer. By providing convenient methods for purchasers to register their name and address with the manufacturer, manufacturers can increase the number of customers that receive direct notification of safety related defects or noncompliances with FMVSSs. To provide convenient methods to register, FMVSS No. 213 requires that each add-on child restraint system have a postage-paid registration form and be permanently labeled with the following statement, inserting an address and telephone number:
The labeling requirement in conjunction with the postage-paid registration card requirement encourages CRS owners to register for direct notification of a possible recall. Under 49 U.S.C. 30118, a manufacturer is required to notify owners and purchasers of a noncompliance or safety-related defect in vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, including CRS. As we noted at the time this provision was adopted, requiring both an address and a telephone number on the label "make[s] it easier for a person to register" and "get the information they need." See 57 FR at 41432. Inclusion of a telephone number is particularly important for subsequent owners, who most probably would not have the postage-paid registration card. While use of a non-U.S. telephone number is not prohibited under the FMVSS No. 213 labeling requirement, it could reduce the percentage of recalled seats returned to the manufacturer to remedy a defect or non-compliance. The cost of a long distance, out-of-country phone call could create a financial burden on CRS owners, possibly reducing the number of systems registered for recall notification, particularly by subsequent owners. By increasing the costs and inconvenience for registering a child restraint system, the number of systems registered would decrease, in turn decreasing the number of owners directly contacted in the event of a recall. The net effect of this could be that a larger number of defective or non-compliant CRSs would remain in use. For these reasons we believe a U.S. phone number should be used, and we would prefer (but do not require) manufacturers to provide a toll-free number. A manufacturers decision not to use a U.S. phone number could have a bearing on the type of notification activities that the agency would require the manufacturer to undertake. Under 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(2), the agency can require a manufacturer of equipment to provide public notice to effectuate the recall of a defective or noncompliant CRS. In the past, CRS manufacturers have provided notice through a variety of means including, but not limited to, retailers, child safety centers, pediatricians, and the media. In recalls of a product with an out-of-country telephone registration number, the agency could require more extensive public notice efforts in order to ensure notification of owners unable to be reached directly because of an inconvenient and burdensome registration process. Please note that foreign manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are required to designate an agent in the United States. 49 CFR 551.45, Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers, states that importers of motor vehicle equipment, including CRSs, are required to designate a permanent resident of the United States as an agent for service of process. If you have any further questions please contact Christopher Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
|
ID: 003011cmcOpenMs. Patricia Cunningham Dear Ms. Cunningham, This is in response to your interpretation request via e-mail dated December 13, 2002, and your conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. In your letter, you state that your company intends to import taxi vehicles that have an "integrated" (built-in) child booster seat in the rear. You further state that "[t]he dummy size we tested with and designated for use in our [built-in] booster seat is the 6 year old" and that the seat is recommended only for children 49 to 80 pounds (22 36 kg). You ask if the booster seat must comply with the seat back requirements of FMVSS No. 213, even though only the 6-year-old dummy is used to test the booster seat. As explained below, the answer to your question is no. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" This compliance requirement includes child restraint systems, which are subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems, including built-in child restraint systems, in order to reduce injuries to children in motor vehicles. S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS No. 213 states:
S5.2.1.1 specifies seat back height requirements, seat back width requirements, and rearward rotation limits of test dummies. S5.2.1.2 requires that conformance to the requirements of S5.2.1.1 is determined using the dummy that corresponds to the heaviest weight for which the system is recommended. Under S7.1, a system recommended for use by a child with a weight of 40 pounds (18 kg) or greater would use the 6-year-old dummy described in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart I for compliance testing. However, S5.2.1.2 states that the 6-year-old dummy is not to be used to determine the applicability of or compliance with S5.2.1.1. The built-in booster seats in the vehicles you intend to import are recommended for children in the weight range of 49 to 80 pounds (22 to 36 kg), and therefore would require use of the 6-year-old-dummy to determine compliance with S5.2.1.1. Because under S5.2.1.2 the 6-year-old dummy is not used for this determination and the built-in booster seats are not recommended for use by children of a weight that would be tested with a different dummy, the taxi booster seats do not have to comply with S5.2.1.1. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, ref:213 |
|
ID: 003059 btsOpenMr. Joe Masci Dear Mr. Masci: This responds to your May 2, 2003, faxed letter and your telephone conversations with Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to a seat belt tension sensor (BTS). You stated that the BTS is used in conjunction with a passenger weight classification system to prevent misclassification of children seated in child safety seats. Your letter asked several questions as to how a seat belt assembly using a seat belt tension sensor would be tested for compliance with Federal standards. Each of your questions is addressed below. 1. General Applicability of FMVSS No. 209. You asked if the BTS would be considered part of the seat belt assembly under FMVSS No. 209, or if it would be considered an anchorage under FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, which is a vehicle standard. S3 of FMVSS No. 210 defines a seat belt anchorage as:
Accordingly, FMVSS No. 210 applies to fixed attachment points on the vehicle structure and the associated hardware. FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies, defined as:
In your phone conversation, you stated that the BTS is sold to manufacturers of seat belt assemblies and may be placed in a variety of positions on the assembly. As a component of the seat belt assembly, the BTS would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 209. However, because the BTS may be incorporated into a seat belt system in a variety of ways, we are unable to determine whether the BTS could ever be considered a seat belt anchorage under FMVSS No. 210. 2. FMVSS No. 209 Strength requirements In your letter you included a diagram properly identifying the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly and asked for verification of the strength requirements for each labeled component. The strength requirements for FMVSS No. 209 are contained in: S4.2, webbing; S4.3, hardware; and S4.4, assembly performance. Under S4.2(b), webbing in the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a breaking strength of not less than 22,241 N (5,000 pounds). The upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a minimum breaking strength of 17,793 N (4,000 pounds). The testing procedure for both portions of webbing is contained in S5.1(b). S4.3(c) requires that attachment hardware bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly must be able to withstand a force of at least 40,034 N (9,000 pounds) when testing in accordance with S5.2(c)(1). Other attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 26,689 N (6,000 pounds) when tested under S5.2(c)(2). S4.4 sets forth the strength requirements of a Type 2 seat belt assembly in subsection (b). Under S4.4(b)(1), each structural component in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds). This includes the BTS, if it is located along the pelvic portion of the pelvic restraint. S4.4(b)(2) requires that each structural component in the upper torso restraint portion of the seat belt assembly be able to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds). This includes a torso guide loop and retractor if the design permits only upper torso restraint forces on the restraint. Under S4.4(b)(3), any structural component that is common to both the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). This would include any buckle or portion of the BTS that would be subject to forces from both the pelvic and upper torso restraints. The seat belt assembly performance for a Type 2 seat belt assembly is tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b). 3. Procedure for Testing Assembly Performance In your letter you asked what would be the proper method of attaching and orienting an assembly with a BTS under the test procedures in S5.3. Under S5.3, each end of the pelvic or torso portion of the belt assembly is attached to an anchorage bar to form a loop over rollers on a testing machine. (See FMVSS No. 209 Figure 5, enclosed.) The anchor points are such that the webbing is parallel in two sides of the loop. The attaching bolts are either aligned with or at an angle of 45 or 90 degrees to the webbing, whichever results in an angle nearest to 90 degrees between webbing and attachment hardware. You stated that you believe the appropriate testing method for an assembly with the "BTS installed between the fixed anchor on the pelvic-only side of the belt and the belt webbing" would be to utilize the procedure in S5.3(a)(2) for a "nonthreaded anchorage." Such a determination would be governed by the specific application of the belt assembly and not by the presence of a BTS. S5.3(a)(2) declares that testing will be performed in accordance with the installation instructions provided with belts designated for use in specific models of vehicles. In such an instance, the anchorages of the vehicle-specific assembly would be installed for testing so as to produce the maximum angle in use indicated by the installation instructions. From your letter and phone conversations, the BTS is sold to seat belt assembly manufacturers for eventual use in a variety of vehicle models. As such, the "nonthreaded anchorage" procedure would only be appropriate in those instances where the BTS is incorporated into a seat belt assembly that is designed for a specific vehicle and is accompanied by instructions for installation specific to that vehicle. For the assembly you specified, compliance testing would require the attaching bolts to be set according to the general set-up procedure. The attaching bolts would be positioned under S5.3(a)(2) such that the angle between the webbing and the attachment hardware is as close to 90 degrees as possible. 4. Minimum Force Requirements for Assembly Performance In your letter you asked if the force minimums listed for the Type 2 belt component strength requirements apply to each component individually or to the test loop as a whole. The answer is that these force requirements apply to the components and not to the test loop. Under S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 209, for a Type 2 belt, the structural components in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds), the structural components in the upper torso restraint must withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds), and structural components that are common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). The test procedure for Type 2 belt assembly components requires a tensile force equal to that of the appropriate minimum be applied to the components (S5.3(b)). Therefore, in compliance testing of the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly, a force of 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be applied to the test loop. The application of the 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be required so that the components would experience a tensile force of 11,120 N (2,500 pounds); the minimum required. We note that in a letter to Mr. Douglas Kubehl, dated March 16, 1992, we took the position that under S4.4(b) and the corresponding procedure in S5.3(b), the minimum force requirement would be applied to the test loop. However, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect. The previous interpretation would result in Type 2 seat belt assembly components being tested to much lower force requirements than components in a Type 1 seat belt assembly. However, it is our understanding that all manufacturers of Type 2 seat belt assemblies have built and tested their products in a manner consistent with this revised interpretation, so this revision will not cause any seat belt assemblies (or the vehicles in which they are installed) to become noncompliant. To the extent a manufacturer has relied upon our previous interpretation, we will only pursue an enforcement action for noncompliance with the standard prospectively. 5. Manual Belts Subject to the Requirements of FMVSS No. 208 In your letter, you ask if you are correct in understanding that the strength requirements of S4.4 do not apply if the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208 are met instead. Your understanding is correct. Under S4.6 of FMVSS No. 209, manual seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, would not be required to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of FMVSS No. 209. [1] This includes the FMVSS No. 209 strength requirements for seat belt assembly components. You further ask, "how frequently do vehicle manufacturers opt for the 208 test option over the static component strength tests in 209?" A seat belt assembly subject to FMVSS No. 209 must comply with that standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to that standard. We do not collect or maintain data on how vehicle manufacturers certify with respect to their seat belt assemblies, although NHTSA may examine a manufacturer's certification in connection with any prospective or pending enforcement action. As such, we do not know with what frequency manufacturers opt for the FMVSS No. 208 compliance option. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure [1] Excepted from this provision are seat belts that are subject to S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 208, which cross references FMVSS No. 209. S4.1.2.1(c)(2) does not apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1986. |
|
ID: 003064 Spain inflatable seatOpenMs. Susana Mate Market Analyst Trade Commission of Spain, Embassy of Spain 500 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60611 Dear Ms. Mate: This responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking for information about the Federal requirements that would apply to an inflatable seat for children from 9 months to 7 years of age manufactured by an overseas company you represent. At this time, you are unable to provide much information about the product, but you state that the restraint has been certified as complying with European ECE Regulation 44. By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal safety requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.). Under that authority, we issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), which sets forth requirements which must be met by any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less. (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds. See the enclosed August 31, 2005 Federal Register document (70 FR 51720).) The inflatable car seat is a child restraint system subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. The standard requires, among other things, that child restraints provide protection in a 30 mile-per-hour (mph) crash, that the restraint meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, that the belts and buckles meet certain performance requirements, and that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on the proper use of the restraint. (The standards are available online at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/). Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. The United States does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that the child restraint system fully satisfies all requirements of Standard No. 213. Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests. Although we recommend that a manufacturer selling child restraint systems in the United States test the systems according to the test procedures specified in the standard, it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to validly certify that its child restraint systems comply with Standard No. 213. Once a manufacturer determines that its child restraints meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by labeling that certification onto the child restraint, as specified in Standard No. 213. For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts validation checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with Standard No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30120). Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Our statute specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety‑related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers and either: l. repair the child restraint, so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or 2. replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy. The manufacturer is also subject to civil penalties. There are also two procedural regulations that your client must meet to import child restraints into the United States. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This regulation requires a manufacturer (including an importer) of motor vehicle equipment to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufactures (or imports) to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured (imported into the United States). The second regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign‑manufactured child restraints to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under 551.45: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by‑laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, enclosed for your convenience is a copy of a June 7, 2006 final rule that amended the webbing strength requirements of Standard No. 213 (71 FR 32855), and a copy of a June 21, 2006 technical amendment relating to the standards labeling requirements. Standard No. 213 is frequently amended and manufacturers are responsible for keeping current on its requirements. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:213 d.8/9/06 |
|
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.