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: nht91-3.20OpenDATE: April 15, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Richard F. Land -- Bureau of Manpower and Facilities, Tennessee Department of Health and Environment TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-12-91 from Richard F. Land to Deidre Fujita (OCC 5745) TEXT: This responds to your February 12, 1991 letter to Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning the ambulance fleet you recently inspected. Each ambulance had a wooden block mounted under the accelerator pedal to limit the driver's ability to accelerate the vehicle. You state that Tennessee law does not prohibit installation of these "makeshift speed governors." However, you would like to know whether NHTSA's requirements would prohibit installation of the blocks. The answer to your question is no. In a March 26 telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita, you said that the blocks were installed by the ambulance owner. Our standards do not regulate in any manner how a vehicle owner can modify his or her vehicle. If the blocks were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, certain requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any person in the aforementioned categories from knowingly "render(ing) inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with an FMVSS. However, there would be no rendering inoperative of compliance with the FMVSS for accelerator control systems (FMVSS 124) in the situation you described, because that FMVSS does not establish requirements for accelerator pedal actuation. Of course, the installation of the block must not have rendered inoperative compliant equipment or designs on the vehicle that were installed pursuant to other safety standards. For example, the block must not interfere with the vehicle's braking ability. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Attachment NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 titled, WHERE TO OBTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. (Text omitted) |
|
ID: 000808ogmOpen
Mr. Warren Howard Dear Mr. Howard: This responds to your telephone calls asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as they relate to a device you have developed. According to your calls, the device would prevent the radio or sound system of a vehicle from emitting any sound unless the occupants of all designated seating positions have their seat belts fastened. You ask if the statutes and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would prohibit the sale or use of such a device. By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle or item of equipment stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs. Requirements for audible and visual warnings for seat belts are established in S7 of FMVSS No. 208. S7.3 specifies that the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds." In a letter dated June 7, 2001, to Mr. Bob Archer of Longacre Associates, we indicated that a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal that sounds after the 8 second period specified in S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208 may do so, but must provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. We suggested that such differentiation could be provided in various ways; e.g., by time (the voluntarily provided signal begins well after the required signal ends) or sound (the voluntarily provided signal has a different sound than the required signal). It is our position that a device such as you have described, which would disable a vehicles radio or sound system if occupants are not belted, may be installed in addition to, but not in place of, the warning system required by S7.3. Such a device may be offered either as an original equipment option or an aftermarket item, but it must be configured such that it can be differentiated from the warning system required by S7.3. You should assure that the installation of your device does not negatively impact any required safety system. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in that vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. In addition, the device you describe would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the vehicle safety act. Therefore, if the device contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. I hope this information answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman cc: Greg Smith ref:208 |
2003 |
ID: 06-006676asOpenMr. Eike Krochmann Schefenacker Vision Systems Germany GmbH Alfred-Schefenacker-Str. 1 71409 Schwaikheim Germany Dear Mr. Krochmann: This responds to your letter regarding the placement of rear lamps and reflectors under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (FMVSS No. 108). You asked several questions regarding the placement of the rear side reflex reflector and side marker lamp, as well as the necessity of using additional lamps when rear lamps are placed on a tailgate. We are pleased to provide responses to your questions. By way of 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). 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. Your first question asked whether it would be in compliance with FMVSS No. 108 to mount a rear red side marker lamp on a tailgate without installing an additional similar lamp on the body of the car. Our answer is that it would be acceptable. Paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 108, Location of required equipment, states that Table IV contains the location for lighting equipment for multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks. Table IV specifies that a red side marker lamp must be located as far to the rear as practicable. Thus, if the tailgate extends to the edge of the vehicle, a side marker lamp located on the tailgate would meet that requirement, and require no additional rear side marker lamp. Your question also brings up the issue of whether the tailgate constitutes a rigid part of the vehicle, as required by paragraph S5.3. It is our opinion that it does. We would consider the tailgate to be a rigid part of the vehicle, and note that this specification was adopted primarily to forestall installation of rear reflex reflectors on mud flaps.[1] In your other question, you note that for the same car design, the tailgate covers the complete rear and there is no possibility to mount the rear lamps on the car body. You indicate that the rear lamps meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 when the tailgate is closed, and ask if you are required to install another set of compliant rear lamps for use when the tailgate is open. The answer is that this is not necessary. With regard to tailgates, when we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The normal driving position of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. As long as your lamps are compliant while the tailgate is in the closed position, we would consider that compliant with Standard No. 108. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d.10/19/07 |
2007 |
ID: 571-110--placard--CHPOpenCullen Sisskind Commercial Vehicle Section; Location 062 California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001 Dear Mr. Sisskind: This letter responds to an email from Clint Hightower of the California Highway Patrol to Louis Molino requesting a written interpretation concerning the definition of the term occupant, as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110. Specifically, you would like to know whether the driver is considered an occupant for the purpose of the vehicle placard required by S4.3. To respond to your question, we would consider the driver to be an occupant of a vehicle for the purpose of stating the vehicles seating capacity on the placard required by FMVSS No. 110. FMVSS No. 110 requires that a placard bearing information about vehicle capacity weight, designated seating capacity, and information regarding the tires and loading be permanently affixed to each new motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less .[1] For the purpose of determining designated seating capacity, S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 110 requires that the capacity of a vehicle be expressed in terms of the total number of occupants. The term designated seating capacity is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 for the purposes of the FMVSSs as the number of designated seating positions provided. Section 571.3 also defines the term driver as the occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system. Thus, by definition, the driver is considered an occupant of a motor vehicle. Because the drivers seating position is considered a designated seating position, it follows directly from the definition of the designated seating capacity that the drivers seating position is included in the calculation of a vehicles seating capacity.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Ref: Standard No. 110 |
2014 |
ID: 002148drnOpenJanice Eret, Program Specialist Dear Ms. Eret: This responds to your March 26, 2003, letter to Dorothy Nakama of my staff requesting our views about proposed changes to the Nebraska Department of Educations pupil transportation rules that would create a multi-function activity bus classification that your State would permit to be used to transport pupils on school activity trips. In essence, the multi-function activity bus is a school bus without the school bus stop arm and the rear flashing lamps. You ask if the proposed changes would be permitted under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSAs) regulations. As you know, NHTSA is considering creating a new school bus vehicle subcategory that can be sold for school activity purposes. On November 5, 2002, (67 FR 67373) NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish a new school bus subcategory, the Multifunction School Activity Bus (MFSAB). As proposed, an MFSAB would be a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,804 kilograms (15,000 pounds) or less that meets all school bus Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), except for those requiring the stop arm and the flashing lights of a school bus. If NHTSA issues a final rule establishing the MFSAB subcategory, school bus manufacturers and dealers will be permitted to sell new MFSABs to schools and school districts for activity purposes. At present, school buses must have the stop arm required by FMVSS No. 131 and the rear flashing lamps required by FMVSS No. 108. Because multi-function activity buses would not have the stop arms and flashing lights, they could not be certified as meeting all school bus FMVSSs and thus cannot be sold to transport pupils to or from school or on school activities. If NHTSA makes the changes proposed by the November 2002 NPRM, then Nebraskas change to its regulation that permits the sale of the activity buses for school activity trips would be permitted. The agency is presently reviewing the comments responding to the NPRM and anticipates issuing a decision shortly. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Chief Counsel |
2003 |
ID: 05-007567drnOpenMr. Stuart McKenzie Dear Mr. McKenzie: This responds to your request for our legal opinion concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems. You have a client that is manufacturing an electric vehicle for sale in the United States. This vehicle "will be fitted with an electrically heated front windshield that will solely provide the defrosting and defogging functions required by FMVSS 103". You ask about test procedures under S4.3(a) and (b) of the standard, as they apply to electric vehicles. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs, which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured for sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction in interstate commerce or imported into, the United States of America. (See Title 49 of the United States Code Section 30112.) NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. In a final rule of March 9, 1994 (59 FR 11004, copy enclosed), we amended FMVSS No. 103 to make the standard more appropriate for electric powered motor vehicles. As amended, S4.3(a)(1) and (b)(1) provide that for a passenger car equipped with a heating system other than a heat exchanger type that uses the engines coolant as a means to supply the heat to the heat exchanger, the warm-up procedure is that specified by the manufacturer for cold weather starting, except that connection to a power or heat source external to the vehicle is not permitted. You suggested the following procedure: switch the ignition switch to "run" and set the defrosting and defogging control to maximum. If this procedure is "the warm up procedure that is specified by the manufacturer for cold weather starting", it would be the one used pursuant to S4.3(a) and (b). 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, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure |
2005 |
ID: nht78-2.16OpenDATE: 06/02/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA TO: State of Delaware TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 18, 1978 which asks the following questions: "Is there a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which requires all motorcycles to be equipped with turn signals, other than those expressly exempted under FMVSS 108 (whose speed atainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less) S4.1.1.26?" Yes. Paragraph S4.1.1 of Standard No. 108 requires, in part, that motor vehicles be equipped with the lamps specified in Table III. Turn signal lamps are required for motorcycles under Table III. "Does the standard apply to only highway-use vehicles with trail-bikes exempted?" Yes. The motorcycles covered by Standard No. 108 must be "motor vehicles" in the first instance, in order to be subject to the regulatory authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A "motor vehicle" is one "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways". This would exclude a trail bike unless its manufacturer had certified it to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, indicating his intent that it be used on-road as well as off-road. We are enclosing a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested. SINCERELY, STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY May 18, 1978 Joseph J. Levin, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Levin: The Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles would appreciate your assistance in determining the following: Is there a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which requires all motorcycles to be equipped with turn signals, other than those expressly exempted under FMVSS108 (whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less) S.4.1.1.26? We would appreciate a copy if such a standard exists. Also, does the standard apply to only highway-use vehicles with trail-bikes exempted? Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Robert J. Voshell Director, Motor Vehicle Division |
|
ID: 000804cmc_a_harness_labelOpenMabel Moist, Transportation Supervisor Dear Ms. Moist: This is in response responds to your January 30, 2003, letter and to your phone conversation with Chris Calamita of my staff, concerning the use of a safety vest (harness[1]) on a school bus. You stated that your school district is considering the use of harnesses that attach to school bus seat backs. You ask if school bus occupants must be restrained by a harness if they are seated directly behind a harness-restrained passenger. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued guidelines for the safe transport of children in school buses, it is the State that determines how school buses are to be used. We do require labels for seat-mounted harnesses sold for use on school buses to warn against unrestrained occupants sitting directly behind passengers restrained with this type of harness. As explained below, the term restrained refers to the use of any type of occupant restraint, not just a harness system. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Generally, child restraint systems are prohibited by S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 213 from having any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat back. However, to facilitate the safe transportation of pre-school and special needs children, the agency issued an interim final rule excluding from this prohibition harnesses that are manufactured for use exclusively on school buses.[2] See 67 Federal Register 64818; October 22, 2002 (copy enclosed). We were concerned in this rulemaking, however, that a school bus seat back could be overloaded during a frontal crash by unrestrained passengers sitting in the seat immediately behind harness-restrained passengers. This overloading could result in injury to a harness-restrained passenger. To address this potential, the interim final rule amended FMVSS No. 213 to require harnesses designed for attachment to a vehicle seat back to be labeled with the following statement:
The warning informs users that the occupants seated directly behind a harness-restrained occupant must be restrained to prevent overloading the seat back. The means of restraining the rearward occupant could include Type 1 and Type 2 seat belt assemblies and child restraint systems; it is not limited to harness systems. Any properly used occupant restraint will help prevent a passenger seated directly behind a harness-restrained child from overloading the seat back in a frontal crash and help reduce the likelihood of the associated injury. I hope you find this information helpful. For your further information, I have also included a copy of two NHTSA publications: Guideline for the Safe Transport of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses and Choosing the Correct School Bus for Transporting Pre-school Age Children. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-0536. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosures [1] Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems, a harness is a combination pelvic and upper torso child restraint system that consists primarily of flexible material such as straps, webbing or similar material, and that does not include a rigid seating structure for the child. (49 CFR 571.213 S4.) [2] The exclusion terminates on December 1, 2003. The agency is considering permanently amending FMVSS No. 213 to allow for the exclusion.
|
2003 |
ID: 1983-2.15OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/06/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Fiat Motors of America Inc. -- Alberto Negro, Fiat Research and Development TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Alberto Negro Fiat Research & Development - USA Branch Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. Parklane Towers West, Suite 1210 Dearborn, Michigan 48126
Dear Mr. Negro:
This is in reply to your letter of May 9, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of my staff with respect to conformance of a planned stop lamp design with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.
The design comprises two compartments separated by a reflex reflector. One of the compartments will meet the photometric requirements for a stop lamp, in your judgement. The other will not, but in conjunction with the first compartment "the requirements can be met." You have asked if this arrangement is acceptable pursuant to paragraph S4.1.1.6 which allows photometric requirements to be met by a combination of compartments or lamps. Paragraph S4.1.1.6 is intended to cover replacement stop lamps for vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1973, and September 1, 1978, when the SAE J586b, September 1966. As such, its requirements are not relevant to your concerns.
However, SAE J586c, August 1970, whose requirements do apply to stop lamps, appears to permit your design. Under paragraph 3.1, where the distance between filament centers of two stop lamps does not exceed 22 inches (presumably your design) the photometric readings of both lamps must be combined to meet the photometric requirements of Table 1 of J586c applicable to two lighted sections. However, the combined candela must not exceed the specified total of 360 for two lighted sections.
I hope this answers your questions.
Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
May 9, 1983
Mr. Taylor Vincent Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Subject: FMVSS 108 Combination Tail Light Assembly
Dear Mr. Vinson:
Please find enclosed a drawing of a combination rear taillamp assembly that Ferrari would like to use on a model to be imported into the United States beginning with model year 1985 or 1986. Since this assembly is a departure from the round light assemblies customarily seen on the rear of the Ferrari vehicles, there is some minor concerns regarding the stop light portion of this assembly. The lower left compartment of the assembly which is labeled "Sector II" and outlined in red is a stop light with a 32 candle power lamp. This sector by itself will meet the photometric requirements for a stoplamp. The lower right compartment which is labeled "Sector I" and having a 4 candlepower lamp while the second lamp is a dual filament lamp used as a parking/stop light. The parking light has a 32 candlepower rating. This sector of the assembly will not meet the photometric requirements by itself but in conjunction with "Sector II" the requirements can be met.
We have reviewed paragraph S4.1.1.6 of FMVSS 108 which states impart "the photometric requirements may be met by a combination of compartments or lamps" (emphasis added) and, therefore, we have concluded that Ferrari would be in compliance with the stop light requirements of Standard 108.
We are kindly requesting that NHTSA review the drawing and our interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.6 and notify us if our conclusions that Ferrari would be in compliance with the stop light requirements of Standard 108.
We are kindly requesting that NHTSA review the drawing and our interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.6 and notify us if our conclusion that Ferrari would be in compliance with Standard 108 is correct. Sincerely yours, Alberto Negro |
|
ID: 24740GMF_width_of_latchbeltOpen
Mr. Agus The Dear Mr. The: This responds to your August 8, 2002, letter concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, permits the use of 1-inch webbing for use in "Lower Anchor and Upper Tether assemblies." [1] We understand you to ask whether you may use 1-inch webbing to permanently attach the components to a child restraint that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225. Our answer is yes, provided that the webbing meets the applicable performance requirements. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requires at S5.9 that "Each add-on child restraint system manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, other than a car bed, harness and belt-positioning seat, shall have components permanently attached to the system that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 (571.225)." S5.4 of the standard addresses belts, belt buckles and belt webbing of child restraint systems. S5.4.1 states:
Based on your letter, it is our understanding that you are exploring the use of 1-inch wide webbing only for use in attaching the "LATCH" components to a child restraint. Therefore, we assume that the proposed webbing would not be "contactable by the test dummy torso." If it is so, the requirements of S5.4.1(c) are inapplicable to the webbing in question and do not prohibit you from using 1-inch-wide webbing. While Standard No. 213 does not expressly restrict the use of webbing for the LATCH components on the basis of width, each child restraint must meet Standard No. 213s performance requirements in a dynamic test. Therefore, in making your decision on whether to provide slimmer webbing to child restraint system manufacturers, you should ensure that the restraints can comply with the dynamic testing requirements in the standard. Finally, you ask whether 1-inch webbing would violate any future Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Please be advised that this interpretation letter pertains to current requirements and makes no representations about any future or proposed rule changes. Although we do not have any pending rulemakings pertaining to the width of webbing used to attach LATCH components, manufacturers bear the responsibility to keep abreast of all developments with the Federal standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:213 [1] We believe that you are referring to the term "Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH)," which was developed by child restraint manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child restraint anchorage system specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems (49 CFR 571.225). |
2003 |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.