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: 2503yOpen Mr. Theo Bose Dear Mr. Bose: You wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) asking about requirements for "diesel fuel burning coolant heaters and air heaters" that you import for installation in trucks, buses and school buses. According to the installation instructions for the heaters, they are connected either to the fuel tank of the vehicle or to a separate fuel tank. The FHWA forwarded us your letter with regard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for this standard. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSS's applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.) The Safety Act defines the term "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (102(5); emphasis added.) As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are responsible for compliance with the Safety Act and applicable regulations. There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the heating unit you describe. Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) applies only to completed new motor vehicles, and not to components of fuel systems. (The standard applies to trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, and to school buses.) However, Federal law may affect the installation of your product, depending on who installs the heating unit and when the work is performed. If the heating unit were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's. If the heater were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed school bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. These certification requirements apply to the vehicle manufacturer and alterer regardless of whether the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system. Of course, if the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system, the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 should be carefully scrutinized. (I have enclosed a copy of our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) for your information.) If the heater were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not be subject to the certification requirements outlined above. Instead, the installer would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. If the modification of the vehicle entailed connecting the heater to the vehicle's fuel system, compliance with Standard No. 301 would of course be especially germane to whether the modification had rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. In addition to the foregoing, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the heater is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures /ref:301 d:5/3l/90 |
1970 |
ID: nht93-3.13OpenDATE: April 22, 1993 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA TO: Larry Bluthardt -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Kansas Department of Transportation TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-19-93 from Larry Bluthardt to Patricia Breslin (OCC 8458) TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 19, 1993, concerning the use of built-up foot operated throttle controls. Your questions and the answers to each follows. 1. IS THERE A VIOLATION OF THE FMCSR'S IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FMVSS CONCERNING THE MODIFICATION OF A SCHOOL BUS FOOT OPERATED THROTTLE CONTROL OR OTHER EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS THAT MAY RELATE TO THE PHYSICAL ACCOMMODATION OF A COMMERCIALLY LICENSED DRIVER TO PERFORM HIS OR HER DUTIES BEHIND THE WHEEL? My answer is limited to a discussion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's), since NHTSA issued these under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.; Safety Act). The Federal motor carrier safety regulations (FMCSR's) are issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on the FMCSR's you should contact: Office of Motor Carrier Standards Room 3404 Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-1790 The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 124, ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEM (49 CFR S571.124). Standard No. 124 "establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control." The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new, completed school bus) prior to the new vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR S567.7.) If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business listed in S108(a)(2)(A) from modifying the foot operated throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the foot operated throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition. Please note that the render inoperative prohibition only applies to the named commercial entities. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. 2. IF WE CAN MODIFY THE FOOT OPERATED THROTTLE CONTROL TO THE VEHICLE (SCHOOL BUS), DOES THE MODIFICATION REQUIRE SPECIFIC REGISTRATION, CERTIFICATION, OR INSPECTION PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION? FOR EXAMPLE: CAN THE MODIFICATION BE MADE AND INSTALLED LOCALLY, OR SHOULD THE MODIFICATION BE PURCHASED AND INSTALLED BY A CERTIFIED COMMERCIAL VENDOR I.E., MANUFACTURER. NHTSA does not limit who may modify vehicles,and does not approve modifications or motor vehicle designs. Thus, the person making the modification does not receive any NHTSA approval prior to making the modification. If the modification is made by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, S108(a)(2)(A) would be a factor in how the modification may be performed. As explained above, those persons must not render inoperative any device or design installed pursuant to an FMVSS. State law might affect how a throttle control can be modified on a vehicle. We suggest you consult with your State as to whether its law might affect the registration or inspection of the modified vehicle. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 06-006237drnOpenMs. Julie Laplante Les Entreprises Michel Corbeil, Inc. 830, 12 ime Avenue Laurentides (Qubec) J5M 2V9 CANADA Dear Ms. Laplante: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask for guidance on affixing 1 inch retroreflective tape on the outside perimeter of the rear emergency exit door on your single rear wheel model school bus. You provided photographs showing that the top half of the rear emergency exit door is flanked by two windows, one each to the right and to the left. The windows are placed close to the doors such that there is not enough room for the 1 inch retroreflective tape outlining the rear emergency exit door to lie flat. Under these circumstances, you wish to know how to place the tape so that the bus meets requirements for identifying school bus emergency exits at S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 217. S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217 states: (c) Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a retroreflective tape with a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters [one inch] and either red, white or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of Standard No. 131 (49 CFR 571.131), meets the criteria specified in Table 1 of that section. The purposes of the retroreflective tape requirement are to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers, and to increase on-the-road visibility of the bus. As discussed below, based on our understanding of your letter and the photographs you enclosed, there are ways to apply the 1 inch-width tape to meet FMVSS No. 217. Please note, however, that you based your inquiry on the use of 1 inch tape, stating without further explanation that you are using this width tape to standardise our production. The standard requires tape of a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters (cm) (1 inch). A manufacturer cannot claim it is impracticable to meet the standard using a tape of a width greater than 2.5 cm (1 inch) if it would be practicable to mark the perimeter using 2.5 cm (1-inch) tape. Your Question. Your photographs show that the windows on each side are so close to the rear emergency exit door that the 1 inches of tape that you use cannot be placed around the outside of the door without overlapping the windows.[1] You state that you cannot move each window one inch away from the door because there is no room to move the windows. In the photographs on the page labeled #1, you show that the space around the rear emergency exit door is not wide enough to accommodate the tape. You indicate that if you were to put the tape around the outside perimeter of the door, the tape would overlap the frame of the adjacent windows, i.e., only inch of the tape would be on a flat surface on the outside perimeter of the door, and 1 inch of the tapes width would be in a fold in the curved surface of the fixed rear upper windows, resulting in what you describe as bad finishing, tear and dont [sic] stay in place. Given the close proximity of the rear emergency exit door and the two rear windows to the right and left, you ask about three approaches for outlining the rear emergency exit door. The first approach involves not applying the tape to the perimeter of the door by the rear windows, while another approach involves cutting the tape in that area to a width of -inch. The last approach involves placing the tape on the door itself. The first two suggestions would not meet the standard. Your first suggestion is to interrupt the portion of the tape (18 inches on each side [of the door]), that is, to not have any retroreflective tape for 18 inches on each side of the door. This approach would not enable the bus to meet the requirement of S5.5.3(c) that the emergency exit opening be outlined around its outside perimeter since a large portion of the perimeter would not be outlined. Your other suggestion is to cut off the portion of the tape that sticks on the curved surface of the fixed upper windows. (It would leave a width of of an inch for those two 18 inches portion of tape.) This approach would not meet S5.5.3(c) because the two 18-inch portions of the tape would not meet the minimum width requirement of 2.5 centimeters [one inch]. Your last suggestion (slightly revised) would meet the standard. Your last suggestion is to affix the tape of the whole two side perimeters on the door directly. We agree that you may apply the tape to the door itself, as near as possible to the outside perimeter of the door. This is in accordance with an interpretation letter of June 8, 1994 to Van-Con Inc., in which we addressed a situation where there was no room available for placement of retroreflective tape outside of the doors bottom edge. In the Van-Con instance, NHTSA permitted a portion of the retroreflective tape to be on the door itself, stating: Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuers ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door. Accordingly, you may affix the tape for the vertical sides of the exit directly on the door.[2] However, we do not agree that you need not have tape at the door handle, since it appears from photograph #3 that there is sufficient space on the inside perimeter of the door to accommodate a 1 tape width. NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. Occasional breaks in the tape for the hinges shown would not appear to negatively affect a rescuers ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel #ref:217 d.2/5/07 |
2007 |
ID: 11474AWKMOpen Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Dear Mr. Haenchen: This responds to your letter asking for interpretation of the September 28, 1995 amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (60 FR 50124). These amendments extended the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to the back doors of passenger cars and MPVs so equipped. Your questions referred to the applicability of paragraphs S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 of the standard, as amended, to various back door configurations. As amended, S4.4.1 provides that each back door system shall be equipped with at least one primary latch and striker assembly. A "primary latch" is defined in the amended standard as one that is equipped with both the fully latched position and a secondary latched position. As amended, S4.4.2 provides: Door Locks. Each back door system equipped with interior door handles or that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle. When the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative. Your seven questions are stated below, followed by our responses. QUESTION 1. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a trunk lid in a sedan type passenger car which has rear seats that can be folded down to enable the user to carry a larger cargo? ANSWER: S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 do not apply. The rule in question did not extend the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to trunk lids of passenger cars. Section S3, Definitions, of the amended standard defined "back door" to exclude Athe trunk lid of a passenger car whose trunk is separated from the passenger compartment by a partition." NHTSA will clarify this issue in response to petitions for reconsideration of the rule by redefining Atrunk lid.@ QUESTION 2. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a back door (tail gate) of a stationwagon in which there is no seating position in the rear cargo area behind the second row and no partition between the rearmost forward-facing seats and the back door? ANSWER: S4.4.1 applies, S4.4.2 does not. Section S3, Definitions, of the rule defines "back door" as Aa door or door system on the back end of a vehicle through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle, or cargo can be loaded or unloaded@ (with exceptions not relevant here, such as trunk lids). The back door (tail gate) described in this question clearly falls within the above definition of "back door." Therefore, its primary latch assembly is required by S4.4.1 to have both a fully latched and a secondary latched position. This is so because even though there may not be seating positions in the area contiguous to the back door, back seat passengers can nevertheless be ejected through the back door (tail gate) in a crash. On the other hand, assuming that this back door does not have an interior door handle and that it does not lead directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions, a door locking mechanism would not be required under S4.4.2. QUESTION 3. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a back door (tail gate) of a stationwagon in which there is a rearward-facing seating position behind the second row of forward- facing seats? ANSWER: Yes. S4.4.1 applies to this back door for the reasons discussed in question 2 above. S4.4.2 also applies because the door opens directly into a compartment containing passenger seating accommodations. QUESTION 4. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a hatchback passenger car where the back door is hinged above the rear glass and in which the rear seats are fixed and in which there is a removable partition behind the rear seats and over the cargo area? ANSWER: The definition of Aback door@ excludes Aa door or window composed entirely of glazing material whose latches and/or hinges are attached directly onto the glazing material.@ However, we understand you to be asking about a door that is hinged on the metal part of the door and not directly on the glazing. That door would not qualify for the glazing exception. S4.4.1 would apply, therefore, for the reasons discussed in question 2 above. S4.4.2 would not apply because this door does not open directly into a passenger seating compartment and presumably is not otherwise equipped with an interior door handle. QUESTION 4A. What is the answer for such a car where the rear seats can be folded down to expand the cargo area? ANSWER: The answer would be the same for this door, whether or not the rear seatback folded down. QUESTION 5. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van equipped with only a driver and front passenger seat? ANSWER: S4.4.1 would apply to the back door, unless the door is excepted from the definition of Aback door.@ S4.4.2 would not apply since this is a cargo vehicle in which the back door does not open directly into a passenger seating compartment. QUESTION 5A. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van equipped with multiple rows of seats such that an aisle-way is provided directly to the back door area allowing for possible passenger exit? ANSWER: Again, S4.4.1 would apply to the back door unless the door is excepted from the definition of Aback door.@ The mere presence of an aisle leading from the front or side door of a vehicle to the back door area would not necessarily mean that the door would have to meet S4.4.2. The sole test in the standard is whether the back door opens directly into a compartment that contains passenger seating accommodations. Nevertheless, if an aisle provides access to the back door and the door is equipped with an interior handle to allow occupant egress, the door would have to comply with S4.4.2 whether or not it opened directly into a passenger seating compartment. QUESTION 6. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van with multiple rows of seats such that the last row of seats is fixed and covers the entire width of the interior of the vehicle so that the only way to exit from the back door would be to climb over the fixed seat? ANSWER: S4.4.1 applies, S4.4.2 does not. The reasons are the same as those for question 2. QUESTION 7. Do S4.4.1 and S4.4.2 apply to a van with multiple rows of seats in which the last row nearest the back door is removable at the option of the user, thus leaving free access between the forward seating area and the back door? ANSWER: Assuming the rearmost seating row faces forward, this answer is similar to that of question No. 5. Presumably, the user would normally remove the rearmost seat not to install more passenger seats but to expand the size of the cargo compartment. Thus, assuming the door was not excepted from the back door definition, it would have to comply with S4.4.1. Further, since the door does not open directly into a passenger seating compartment, with or without the rearmost seating row, it would not have to comply with S4.4.2, unless otherwise equipped with an interior door handle. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Ref:206 d:3/21/96
|
1996 |
ID: 24394_Gen_TestingLabsOpenMr. Alan Aylor Dear Mr. Aylor: This responds to your letter dated May 1, 2002, which you e-mailed to our office on May 7, asking six questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). This letter also follows up on a May 22, 2002 telephone conversation between you and Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff. Each of your questions is restated below, followed by our response. BACKGROUND On March 5, 1999, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule establishing Standard No. 225. The rule required vehicle manufacturers to equip vehicles with new child restraint anchorage systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle seat belts. Each new system has two lower anchorages and one tether anchorage. A number of manufacturers submitted petitions for reconsideration of various aspects of the new standard, including the strength requirements for the anchorage system. In response to concerns of several of the petitioners about leadtime for and the stringency of the anchorage strength and other requirements in the March 1999 final rule, NHTSA permitted vehicle manufacturers to meet alternative requirements during an interim period (64 FR 47566). Manufacturers were permitted to meet either: (a) the requirements in the March 1999 final rule; or (b) alternative Canadian requirements for tether anchorages and, for lower anchorages, requirements in a draft standard developed by a working group of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). NHTSA later extended that period until September 1, 2004 (65 FR 46628).[1] RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS Question 1. S4.1 states: "Each tether anchorage and each child restraint anchorage system installed, either voluntarily or pursuant to this standard, in any new vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, shall comply with the configuration, location and strength requirements of this standard. " Does the phrase "any new vehicle" refer to all vehicles regardless of type and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)? Answer: The answer is Standard No. 225 does not apply to tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems installed in vehicles not listed in the Application section of the standard (S2). (This issue was discussed in the agencys August 31, 1999 response to petitions for reconsideration. 64 FR at 47578.) Anchorage systems voluntarily installed in vehicles not listed in S2 are not subject to the standard=s requirements. They will, of course, be subject to our defect authority. Question 2. If tether anchorages and/or child restraint anchorage systems are voluntarily installed in side facing or rear facing designated seating positions, do the requirements in S4.1 apply? If so, in what directions should the test loads be applied? Answer: Our answer is the requirements of Standard No. 225 would apply to anchorages installed in side- or rear-facing seating positions in vehicles subject to the standard. The standard requires only forward-facing rear designated seating positions to have the anchorage systems (S4). Side- or rear-facing seating positions are not factored into the determination of how many anchorage systems a vehicle must have. However, if a manufacturer voluntarily installs a tether anchorage or a child restraint anchorage system in a side- or rear-facing designated seating position in a vehicle subject to the standard, the configuration, location, marking, and strength requirements apply (S4.1). The loads for the strength test would be applied (1) along a longitudinal axis toward the front of the vehicle for LATCH anchorages installed in side-facing seating positions, and (2) along a longitudinal axis toward the rear of the vehicle for LATCH anchorages installed in rear-facing seating positions. The loads would be applied in this manner to side-facing seats to replicate loads likely to be imposed on the anchorages in a frontal crash. For rear-facing seats, testing in this manner ensures that the anchorages will be able to sustain loads from rear impacts. The installation of LATCH in side- and rear-facing seats should be carefully considered, however. As far as we know, all child restraint manufacturers recommend against use of child restraints in side- or rear-facing seating positions. Question 3. Which certification options are available for voluntarily installed tether and/or child restraint anchorage systems for vehicles built before September 1, 2004? Answer: There are several options available to manufacturers of vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2004. These are outlined below. Manufacturers must select the option prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle. (See answer to question 6 for further discussion.) --As noted above, manufacturers are permitted to meet (a) either the tether anchorage strength requirements in the March 1999 final rule or alternative strength requirements that are based on Canadian requirements (S6.3); and (b) for lower anchorages, either the strength requirements in the March 1999 final rule or the strength requirements developed by the ISO working group (see introductory paragraph of S9). --There is also an option available to manufacturers of passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2004 relating to the strength of tether anchorages and how they are tested (a load of 5,300 N may be applied by way of a belt strap)(S6.3.2). --Until September 1, 2004, manufacturers may meet alternative requirements as to the number of tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems they have to install in a vehicle, and where those systems must be located within a vehicle (S4.5). There are some options concerning the location of the tether anchorage relative to the seating reference point of a designated seating position (S6.2). Question 4. Paragraph S6.3.3(b) states: A tether anchorage of a particular child restraint anchorage system will not be tested with the lower anchorages of that anchorage system if one or both of those lower anchorages have been previously tested under this standard. Paragraph S9.4.2(b) states: The lower anchorages of a particular child restraint anchorage system will not be tested if one or both of the anchorages have been previously tested under this standard. [Emphases added.] Do these paragraphs mean that for a given designated seating position, a manufacturer certifies compliance with the tether anchorage requirements of FMVSS 225 in accordance with paragraph S6.3.4(a)(2), which specifies testing with SFAD-2 to apply the test loads to both the tether and lower anchorages, that he has satisfied all of the strength requirements for the child restraint anchorage systems at that designated seating position? Answer: No. The child restraint anchorage system must be capable of meeting both the requirements of S6.3.4 (strength of tether anchorage) and those of S9.4 (strength of lower anchorages alone). NHTSA has the option of choosing which test to conduct. Any tether anchorage could be tested, and must meet the requirements of S6.3.4 if and when the anchorage is tested. Any pair of lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system could be tested to the requirements of S9.4. Manufacturers must ensure that their anchorages comply with both requirements of the standard. Question 5. Does "this standard" as used in paragraph S6.3.3(b) and S9.4.2(b) refer to the entire standard or to the individual paragraphs S6 and S9 respectively? Answer: I believe our answer to question 4 responds to this question. Question 6. What interactions with NHTSA, if any, are required by a manufacturer to irrevocably select the various compliance options in FMVSS 225? Answer: Manufacturers must select an option prior to, or at the time of certification of the vehicle. Manufacturers are required to identify the option to which a particular vehicle has been certified. In practice, prior to conducting a compliance test on a vehicle, NHTSA will ask the manufacturer which option was selected for that vehicle and will test the vehicle in accordance with the manufacturers response. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:225 [1] NHTSA was petitioned to reconsider other aspects of the rule as well. We will be responding to those petitions in the near future. |
2002 |
ID: Std. No. 202(a)OpenKenneth N. Weinstein, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 Dear Mr. Weinstein: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a, Head Restraints. You asked about how vehicles are tested to the rear seat dimensional and static performance requirements of S4.2 in situations where, as a result of limited rear seat legroom, the front seat structure interferes with the positioning of the legs of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J826 manikin even when the front seat is in its full-forward position. As discussed below, and consistent with your expressed understanding, the front seat would be removed in such a situation to permit proper positioning of the SAE J826 manikin. As you note in your letter, S5.2 of FMVSS No. 202a states that, as part of the dimensional and static performance procedures, the SAE J826 (July 1995) manikin is positioned according to the seating procedure found in SAE J826 (July 1995). Section 6 of SAE J826 (July 1995), titled Second Seat Installation Procedure for Short-Coupled Vehicles, cites special procedures for situations where the leg interferes with the front seat back when the front seat is in the rearmost normal driving and riding position. These procedures are set forth in Appendix A, which provides two alternative methods. One of the methods includes the language Move the front seat forward out of the way. The other includes the language Move the front seat forward as indicated on the seating arrangement drawing; or the amount required to clear the foot and leg assembly and, later in the procedure, if there is interference from the front seat back to the knee and/or leg clearance, the language: move the front seat forward as much as may be necessary (one seat adjuster position at a time) repositioning the feet under the front seat cushion frame. You state that although neither of the methods in Appendix A explicitly authorizes the removal of the front seat, it appears that such removal is implicitly authorized by Method A, which states: move the front seat forward out of the way. You also argue that if the standard were interpreted so as to not permit the removal of the front seat, there are vehicles whose rear seats could not be tested for compliance with S4.2, since the manikin could not be properly positioned in the rear seat. After considering the language of S5.2 and SAE J826 (1995), and also the purposes of the rear seat dimensional and static performance requirements, it is our opinion that in a situation where, as a result of limited rear seat legroom, the front seat structure interferes with the positioning of the legs of the SAE J826 manikin even when the front seat is in its full-forward position, the front seat is removed for purposes of testing to those requirements. The basic approach of the relevant seating procedure in SAE J826 (July 1995) is to move the front seat to avoid interfering with the positioning of the manikin in the rear seat. The removal of the front seat in the situation described above is a continuation of that approach to avoid such interference, and thereby permits proper positioning of the SAE J826 manikin. We note that since this interpretation reflects consideration of the specific language and purposes of the relevant portions of FMVSS No. 202a, it should not be read as necessarily applying in other contexts. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Ref: Standard No. 202(a) Dated: 5/18/2012 |
2012 |
ID: Dhiman1OpenMs. Savitri Dhiman Wheel to Wheel, LLC 570 Executive Drive Troy, MI 48083 Dear Ms. Dhiman: This responds to your letter regarding the certification requirements for alterers under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS). As you correctly pointed out in your letter, final stage manufacturers and alterers must comply with the standard beginning on September 1, 2008, a date one year after the mandatory compliance date for large manufacturers. Specifically, you asked whether, prior to the mandatory compliance date applicable to it, an alterer may disable the TPMS that is already installed on the vehicle as part of the alteration process. If so, you inquired about what effect, if any, taking the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 138 would have on vehicle original equipment manufacturer (OEM) in terms of the credit it claimed under the phase-in for the standard. As discussed in further detail below, pursuant to a February 2005 final rule, alterers are permitted to make modifications to a certified vehicle that would take it out of compliance with a new safety requirement, until such time as compliance is mandatory for those entities. Such action would not impact the OEMs calculations in terms of meeting the standards phase-in requirements, unless the OEM has established an authorized conversion program, through which it would be deemed to have consented to the alterations which it knows would take the vehicle out of compliance. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. Generally, alterers are entities that modify completed vehicles prior to first retail sale. Alterers must determine whether those modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturers certification of compliance, and if so, must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with those safety standards that were affected by the modification. Turning to the matters raised in your letter, we note that FMVSS No. 138 sets forth the requirements for tire pressure monitoring systems. Under paragraph S7, Phase-in schedule, the standard provides that not less than 20 percent of covered vehicles manufactured during the period from October 5, 2005, to August 31, 2006, must be equipped with a TPMS that meets the requirements of the standard. For the period from September 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007, manufacturers must certify 70 percent of applicable vehicle production. All vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2007, must meet the requirements of the standard. Paragraph S7 of the standard also includes provisions for carry-forward and carry-backward credits, which provide manufacturers with additional flexibility in terms of implementation. Furthermore, paragraph S7.7, Final-stage manufacturers and alterers, excludes those named entities from the phase-in and sets a separate, later compliance date, providing: Vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that are altered (within the meaning of 49 CFR 567.7) after having previously been certified in accordance with Part 567 of this chapter are not subject to the requirements of S7.1 through S7.4. Instead, vehicles that are manufactured in two or more stages or that are altered must comply with this standard beginning on September 1, 2008. This extended compliance date for final-stage manufacturers and alterers is consistent with agency policy expressed in a final rule published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2005, which provides an automatic one year of additional lead time for new safety requirements for intermediate and final-stage manufacturers and alterers, unless the agency determines with respect to a particular requirement that a longer or shorter time period is appropriate (70 FR 7414). This provision was incorporated through an amendment at 49 CFR 571.8(b). In the final rule, the agency acknowledged that prior to the compliance deadline, in certain circumstances, alterers may find it necessary as part of their operations to make modifications to a vehicle that may take it out of compliance with one or more safety standards, stating: NHTSA noted in the SNPRM [supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking] that incomplete vehicle manufacturers often do not provide final-stage manufacturers with information necessary to certify their vehicles until shortly before, and in some cases even after, the effective date of the standard in question. The same problem arises when an incomplete vehicle is substantively changed as the result of a model year changeover. The agency stated that giving alterers an additional year allows alterers to take certified vehicles out of compliance, an action typically disfavored by NHTSA. However, the problems faced by final-stage manufacturers also are applicable to alterers. If a vehicle manufacturer waits until the last possible moment to certify vehicles, alterers will not have the ability to conduct any engineering analysis to determine if the alterations affect compliance. (70 FR 7414, 7418) Thus, this new rule acknowledges that, in some cases, alterers may require additional time to conform their manufacturing operations in order to be able to maintain compliance with the requirements of new safety standards while continuing to produce the types of vehicles needed by their customers. With that said, we encourage final-stage manufacturers and alterers to maintain compliance with the new safety requirements, if possible, even prior to the mandatory compliance date. We next turn to the issue of the impact that alterers actions taking vehicles out of compliance with a safety standard would have on the OEMs calculations under the standards phase-in schedule. In general, we will not presume that OEMs have control over or even knowledge of all modifications to be performed by their alterer-customers. We also do not believe that the number of altered vehicles in question will have a significant impact on the overall phase-in for TPMS. Accordingly, under normal circumstances, there would not be a reduction in an OEMs phase-in calculations to account for altered vehicles that are taken out of compliance with Standard No. 138. However, an exception may be the case where an OEM vehicle manufacturer enters into an agreement with a particular converter, which the OEM knows will routinely be taking vehicles out of compliance with FMVSS No. 138. We believe that this situation is distinguishable from one where the OEM makes a routine, arms-length transaction for the sale of vehicles to a company performing alterations. This approach is consistent with our March 2, 1987, interpretation letter to Mr. Douglas Fairhurst (see enclosure), in which we analyzed Jaguars contractual arrangement with a company that specialized in converting hard-top vehicles into convertible models, in which case newly-required automatic safety belts were removed from the vehicle. A copy of letter enclosed. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure
ref:138 d.12/27/06 |
2006 |
ID: 1982-2.9OpenDATE: 04/30/82 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Sure-View Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. M.W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203
Dear Mr. Urban:
This responds to your letter of April 5, 1982. I believe that the copy which I recently sent you of my May 14, 1980, letter to Mr. Seashores clearly and carefully explains the agency's statutory authority to regulate design elements such as size and dimension. As my letter of March 25, 1983 to you noted S9.1 of Standard No. 111 is consistent with that statutory authority.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
April 5, 1982 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel This in reference to your response to my letter dated 8 Feb. 1982 including a copy of a letter Mr. Seashore date 14 May 1980. I cannot agree your response to my letter is in accord with your letter to Mr. Seashore. It is my belief and as I read your letter to Mr. Seashore, that our U.S. Congress has delegated and LIMITED to the NHTSA, through their Parent Department of Transportation, the determining and defining of a type of Standard designated as "Performance Requirement". It is also my belief Congress intentionally withheld from the NHTSA the requiring of "Design Requirements", rightfully the Responsibility, and Authority, of industry.
Section S9.1 of FMVSS 111 requires rearview mirrors of unit magnification on each side of School Buses, each having a minimum of 50 square inches of reflective surface, mounted in such a position that if any portion of each mirror is visible to the driver, it meets the requirement of the NHTSA in accordance with Section 102(2) that reads, "a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria".
School children are entitled to safe transportation and I believe our efforts should be in that direction. The Fourth Circuit Court stated: "If an article my be made safer, and the hard of harm may be made safer, and the hazard of harm may be mitigated by an alternate design or device, at no substantial increase in price, the Manufacturer has a duty to adopt such a design."
The Mirror systems for School Buses, Superior in Safety Performance, specified by the State of Texas, had to be returned by the School Bus Safety Performance. I cannot agree this to be in accord with the intent of our U.S. Congress.
Sincerely,
SURE VIEWS, Inc. M.W. Urban
MMU/hl cc: Congressman Dan Glickman
SA20ARDESGNELEMENT4C
Mr. M.W. Urban Sure-View, Inc. 1337 N. Meridian Street Wichita, Kansas 67203
Dear Mr. Urban:
This responds to your letter of April 5, 1982. I believe that the copy which I recently sent you of my May 14, 1980, letter to Mr. Seashores clearly and carefully explains the agency's statutory authority to regulate design elements such as size and dimension. As my letter of March 25, 1982, to you noted S9.1 of Standard No. 111 is consistent with that statutory authority.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 1983-2.8OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 05/17/83 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Sylvania GTE Products Corporation -- Ken Alexander, Engineering Manager TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Ken Alexander Engineering Manager Sylvania GTE products Corporation 1231 "A" Avenue North Seymour, Indiana 47274
Dear Mr. Alexander:
This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1983, following a conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office, with reference to Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.
You are concerned with the "design to conform" language as it relates to headlamps, and have asked for an interpretation that it "does not mean that every lamp produced is required to have every photometric point in."
I am not certain what you mean by "every photometric point in." However, a manufacturer is expected to design his headlamps so that each will meet the minimum photometric output in candela set for the by SAE J579C for each test point. The agency does not pursue random occasional photometric failures at individual test points. But if a manufacturer's products show a pattern of failures to meet the minimum at any individual test point, the agency could consider this as an indication that the headlamp was, in fact, not "designed to conform".
I hope this answers you question.
Sincerely,
Frank Berndt Chief Counsel
April 8, 1983
Dear Sirs:
This letter is a follow-up to a conversation that I had with Mr. Taylor Vincent of your office.
As I explained in my conversation, we are a major supplier of halogen headlamps to the automotive industry, both domestic and overseas. We are currently engaged in discussions with one of the major auto makers in Japan, with purpose of us supplying headlamps for the cars that they export into the U.S. The Japanese have a lot of trouble in understanding your rules and regulations, and I have spent a lot of in trying to explain them. What I need the help of your office in is the following. I have gone over in detail with them the parts of FMVSS 108 that relate to photometrics of headlamps. I have explained that the references to SAE J579 is to a "design to conform" standard and does not mean that every headlamp produced has to have every photometric point in. I continued that the headlamp suppliers are reputable companies that have shown due regard in making their headlamps the best possible product, give the constraints of manufacturability; and that this is recognized and accepted by the federal government. Although they seem to understand what I am saying, they have asked me to obtain a supportive statement to this effect form someone within the regulatory agencies.
I understand the most acceptable way of doing this is to send you a brief statement of the above interpretation, from which your office can give a formal note of acceptance and agreement. I have attached same, and would appreciate very much the above mentioned action by your office in as short of time as possible.
I realize these are busy times and am sorry to have to add to your schedule, but our potential Japanese customers are insistent on us getting this not of agreement.
Thank you very much for your help and consideration. Ken Alexander Engineering Manager KA/rb Attachment |
|
ID: 1984-3.50OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/10/84 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA TO: Lufkin Industries, Inc. -- LaVan Watts, Chief Engineer, Trailer Div. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1984, concerning the permissibility of additional lighting equipment to the fronts of closed van and flat bed-type trailers, specifically the "additional amber reflectors" shown on the sheet you enclosed. You have asked whether you may manufacture trailers with "additional lamps or reflectors . . . in the manner shown . . . and a customer not be cited in violation of present standards." As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires wide trailers to be equipped with two clearance lamps at the front, but does not require them either to have identification lamps, as are required on the other wide motor vehicle, or front amber reflex reflectors, which are not required on any motor vehicle. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 precludes the addition of non-required motor vehicle equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Your addition of these reflectors would not appear to impair the effectiveness of other lamps and reflectors and therefore would be permitted by Standard No. 108. Although your drawing does not indicate it, your question indicates that you are considering supplementary front amber clearance lamps, instead of the reflectors depicted. Thus, the question is whether they would impair the effectiveness of the required clearance lamps, or front side marker lamps and reflectors. We assume that these additional lamps would have the same or less candela as the required front clearance lamps, and in that event they too would appear not to impair the other lighting equipment mentioned. You have expressed concern that customers not be cited for violation of "the standard." Local enforcement officers, of course have no authority to interpret Federal lighting requirements. Those who add supplementary lighting equipment risk running afoul of State prohibitions. The preemptive provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibit a State from having safety standards that differ from Federal ones covering "the same aspect of performance." Thus, a State could not require four front clearance lamps when Standard No. 108 requires only two. Whether it could prohibit four front clearance lamps or two front reflectors is another question. Because of the possibility that a court could narrowly construe the preemption provisions of the Act in favor of a State prohibition against front reflex reflectors or supplementary clearance lamps, even if permitted by Standard No. 108, we suggest that you contact local officials in the areas where your trailers will be operated to obtain their views. Sincerely, OCC-1513 November 12, 1984 Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Subject: Low Mounted Reflectors On The Front Of Highway Type Trailers Dear Mr. Berndt: A question has arisen to which an opinion is needed regarding the placing of amber reflex reflectors on the lower front corners of all highway-type trailers regardless of whether there is clearance lamps present or not. Particularly on a closed van trailer where the clearance lamps are required to be placed "as near the top as practicable." These lamps can be as high as 13' from the ground. So the question: can additional lamps or reflectors be placed in the manner shown on the attached drawing and a customer not be cited in violation of present standards? Your earliest response is certainly appreciated. LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC. Trailer Division LaVan Watts Chief Engineer BY ELW DATE 11/12/84 SUBJECT FMVSS 108 ADDITIONAL REFLECTORS (Graphics omitted)
|
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.