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: 86-1.10OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 01/24/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Robert Juckett -- Transglobal Industries, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. Robert Juckett Transglobal Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 98 Whitehall, New York 12887
This responds to your letter of September 9, 1985, regarding the applicability of Standard No. 121 to a partially used and partially new trailer. You asked whether your customer, who plans to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from you, is responsible for compliance with Safety Standard 121. Your customer plans to mount on his newly purchased frame his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles.
By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.
If your customer intends to use the trailer which he is assembling for his own use, then he is not governed by the Federal motor vehicles safety standards. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:
(a) No person shall:
(1) Manufacture for sale, sell or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this rule unless it is in conformity with such standard,
Section 102(5) of that Act defines "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles...for resale." Your customer is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless he is assembling the vehicle you mention for sale.
In the event that your customer is a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act, he may still be excepted from the requirements of Standard No. 121. You noted that your customer will mount a new trailer frame, air tank and air valve on his own used suspension, wheels, brakes and axles. 49 CFR Part 571.7(f) excludes from Standard No. 121 partly new and partly used trailers when the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new and was taken from an existing trailer. In addition, the reassembled vehicle must use the same vehicle identification number as the original trailer and the original trailer must be owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.
If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones
Chief Counsel
09-09-85
Mr. Jeffery Miller Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. 400 - 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Mr. Miller,
We are a new trailer manufacturer and have a question reguarding F.M.V.S.S. 121. I recently spoke to Mr. Edward Glancy of your office and he suggested writing.
We have a customer requesting to purchase a trailer frame, air tank, and air valve from us. He has told us that he is going to mount his own old suspension, wheels, brakes, and axles on this frame. Please inform me if my interpretation is correct.
As the owner is using his existing undercarriage, he is responsible for any F.M.V.S.S. 121 compliance, as with using his existing undercarriage the trailer retains its original Vehicle Identification Number.
Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours.
Robert Juckett Engineering |
|
ID: nht94-7.35OpenDATE: April 10, 1992 FROM: Larry Nunn -- President, Automotive Lighting Technologies, Inc. (ALTECH) TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/22/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Larry Nunn (A39; Std. 108; Std. 218; VSA 108 (a)(2)(A); VSA 102(4)) TEXT: LeGrand Systems Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan has contracted Automotive Lighting Technologies Inc. of Southfield, Michigan, to design and develop a helmet lighting system for use by motorcyclists, snowmobilers, moped operators, and other recreational vehicles. LeGrand applied for patent on the lighting system on February 13, 1990. LeLite, the products assumed name, is intended to improve safety in the industry by increasing rider visibility. Many motorcycle accidents result from poor visibility or failure of other motorists to see motorcyclists in time to react. The idea is consistent with reasoning for the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp introduced in 1986 to decrease rear end collisions. However, LeLite includes a wrap around rear stop/running lamp with two amber turn signals. (Enclosure) The electrical system of the unit is accomplished via a three (3) wire cord which snaps into the base of the unit and connects to a simple harness unit mounted at a location of the operator's choosing on the handlebars, fairing, or rear portion of the motorcycle. This supply harness attaches directly into the associated brake/running lamp wires feeding from the battery terminal. Since it is wired directly in the motorcycle's existing wiring harness, the LeLite works in perfect harmony with the brake/running lamps on the vehicle. Automotive Lighting Technologies is dedicated to excellence in vehicle lighting design and development and to any role it can play in the improvement of vehicle safety. We believe this product has merit and could prove effective in reducing accidents. ALTech realize that there are no SAE or FMVSS requirements for this lighting system. However, it is our opinion that this system will not interfere with the function of any other lighting component on the vehicle but rather augment their purpose. Due to size, weight, and heat limitations of mounting such a system on a helmet, it is not practical that the system can be design to meet vehicle standards. Therefore, ALTech will take every precaution insure the integrity of the product. During product development, we will keep you informed of test results on vibration, moisture, dust, heat, corrosion, photometry and any other area determined to be prudent. ALTech is asking for your comments on any legalities which we should consider and your support in bringing this product to market in a manner that does not conflict any state or federal requirements. But more important, we ask for any comments or ideas that wiless of responding to a Department of the Army draft specification for an armored security vehicle. AV Technology proposes to offer its Dragoon ASV, an armored security vehicle, with a weapon carrying capability. Your letter states that the Dragoon ASV would be built to U.S. Army specification MIL-STD-1180. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the Dragoon ASV would also be built to other applicable military specifications. The FMVSSs' applicability to vehicles manufactured for and sold to the U.S. military, is addressed at 49 CFR 571.7(c): (c) Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. You stated the Dragoon ASV would be manufactured to all applicable military specifications, specified by the Army. The Army is part of the "Armed Forces." Thus, when manufactured to Army contractual specifications, and sold to the Army, the Dragoon ASV is not subject to the FMVSSs. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht95-5.46OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: August 2, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Terrence S. Lockman -- Investigator, Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A., Attorneys-at-Law TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM TERRENCE, S. LOCKMAN TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10855) TEXT: Dear Mr. Lockman: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a Model Year (MY) 1981 Versa Sweeper road sweeper is a "motor vehicle" and therefore subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that were in effect when the vehicle was manufactured. Further, you ask whether the Versa Sweeper had to comply with requirements for an occupant restraint system or for rollover protection. You explained that you are conducting an investigation, and that "At the time in question, the vehicle was being used in a construction zone, to sweep debris off the roadway." I note, before beginning, that your letter had asked for certain information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). NHTSA separately answered your FOIA request by letter dated May 22, 1995, from Ms. Heidi Coleman of my staff, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law. Yours is an unusual interpretation request. Typically, questions concerning whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle are raised around the time of manufacture of a vehicle or its importation into the country, and by a person knowledgeable about the intended use of the vehicle, such as the vehicle's manufacturer. In contrast, your question asks about another entity's vehicle 14 years after the vehicle's manufacture, which makes our response more difficult. We cannot say for certain what principles would have applied in 1981 concerning the Versa Sweeper, and our knowledge of the vehicle is limited to the information you provided. Thus, a conclusive answer is beyond our reach. We can make the following observations, however. NHTSA applies several principles when making a determination of whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act n1 defined a motor vehicle as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . ." We are not certain, based on the information you provided, that the Versa Sweeper was manufactured for use on public highways. The literature you sent indicates that the Versa Sweeper is intended for "road maintenance sweeping and highway preparation cleaning." It appears that the vehicle might be a construction vehicle. Moreover, you indicated that the vehicle was being used in a construction zone "at the time in question." Construction-related vehicles generally are "motor vehicles" for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site for only a limited time. With regard to the 1981 Versa Sweeper, its use of the highway is unclear. n1 In 1994, the Safety Act was recodified, without substantial change, at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. The motor vehicle" definition is set forth in section 30102(a). Assuming the Versa Sweeper had regularly used the highway, NHTSA's longstanding position has been that vehicles of unusual configuration that are incapable of obtaining speeds greater than 20 miles per hour (mph) are not required to comply with the FMVSSs. It is unclear how this principle applies to a 1989 Versa Sweeper has "Indefinitely variable speeds from 0-30 miles per hour. . ." It is unclear whether this means each Versa Sweeper can attain a speed of 30 mph or whether some, but not all, can. A Versa Sweeper that had a maximum speed of less than 20 mph is excluded. One that went over 20 mph might not have been. You ask about requirements for occupant restraints and rollover protection. The agency has stated that "street sweepers" -- that are motor vehicles -- are trucks. In 1981, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208), required open-bodied light trucks to have a lap belt system. There was no rollover requirement. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: Trinkl.1OpenMs. S. Trinkl Dear Ms. Trinkl: This responds to your October 10, 2004, letter in which you requested information on how your company may obtain approval as a "DOT-registered test laboratory" in order to conduct testing for vehicles and automotive components, such as glazing materials, destined for the U.S. market. The short answer is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve independent testing facilities, and there is no requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. Instead, our regulations require manufacturers to self-certify that their products meet the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). Because testing laboratories, in practice, may play a role in this process, we would take this opportunity to further explain our certification process for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. For example, one of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. Unlike in Europe, however, the United States does not have an approval process for these products. Instead, as noted above, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must self-certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards, prior to offering such products for sale. Each of our safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment when testing for compliance with that particular standard. NHTSA follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions in effect at the time of product certification when conducting its compliance testing. However, a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards (including submission to a testing laboratory), provided that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. A manufacturer may be asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard(s). If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer. In addition, the manufacturer will be subject to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. This agency has long held that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. While one element of "reasonable care" would be the use of appropriate testing laboratories, there is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories be used or that they meet specific standards. Again, NHTSA does not approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend any particular testing center be utilized. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:205 |
2004 |
ID: 09-000707asOpenMr. Robert Lane Director of Product Development Heil Trailer International 1125 Congress Pky P.O. Box 160 Athens, TN 37371-0160 Dear Mr. Lane: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact protection. Specifically, you ask whether a pintle hook described in your letter would be considered a nonstructural protrusion for purposes of determining the rearmost point of the vehicle. Based on the information you provided, we would consider the pintle hook a nonstructural protrusion. 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. Paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 224 defines a rear extremity as: [T]he rearmost point on a vehicle that is above a horizontal plane located 560 mm [22 inches] above the ground and below a horizontal plane located 1,900 mm [75 inches] above the ground when the vehicle is configured as specified in S5.1 of this section and when the vehicle's cargo doors, tailgate, or other permanent structures are positioned as they normally are when the vehicle is in motion. Nonstructural protrusions such as taillights, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches are excluded from the determination of the rearmost point. According to the information provided in your letter, the lowest point of the pintle hook is situated 25 inches above the ground, and the hook extends 7.125 inches rearward from the (otherwise) rearmost point of the vehicle. The diagram included with your letter indicated the total area of the pintle hook attachment plate is approximately 50 square inches. We note that, as we have stated in the past, merely because something is attached to the body, as opposed to the chassis, does not mean that an object is nonstructural. The definition of rear extremity refers to the rearmost point on a vehicle, not the rearmost point of the chassis, or the rearmost point of the steel structure. The attributes that the examples of nonstructural protrusions listed in this definition have in common are that they are relatively small and localized and would not have a major impact on a colliding passenger vehicle.[1] We have previously issued several interpretations regarding rear attachments where there was a question as to whether they might be considered nonstructural. In these interpretations, several factors were considered. First, we took into account the width of the protrusion. Second, we took into account how rigid the protrusion was, as it related to the damage it could cause if it struck the occupant compartment of a vehicle in a rear impact. Finally, in two cases, we analyzed the height of the protrusion, also with regard to how likely it was to strike the occupant compartment of a vehicle. Several letters found that the protrusion did not qualify as a nonstructural protrusion. In one letter[2] we determined that a 0.19 inch thick steel deflector plate that extended across the entire width of the trailer was part of the vehicle, and thus not a nonstructural protrusion. Similarly, we found that an 18 inch deep spreader pan, located 52.75 inches above the ground and extending the width of a trailer, was not a nonstructural protrusion,[3] noting that at that height the spreader pan could penetrate the passenger compartment of a colliding passenger vehicle. Finally, NHTSA also found that a plastic rear apron extending 27 inches from the rear of the vehicle and that wraps around the tailgate was not a nonstructural protrusion.[4] In making this determination, we noted that [i]f [the writers] flexible rear apron did not contact any metal structure of the colliding passenger vehicle but instead penetrated the windshield, it could be harmful if its lower edge struck the head or neck of the front seat occupants as they are thrown forward by the force of the crash. Copies of these letters are enclosed for your convenience. The pintle hook you describe appears to be markedly different than the three examples above where NHTSA determined the protrusions to be structural. The three previous analyses all concerned devices that extended across the entire width of the trailer. Unlike them, the pintle hook attachment, according to your letter, only occupies 50 square inches of space on the rear of the trailer, and it appears that the part of the hook that extends outward occupies only a relatively small part of that area. Furthermore, we note that the pintle hook is located only 25 inches above the ground, which means it is unlikely that the hook would impact the occupant compartment of a passenger car directly. However, it is our understanding that a pintle hook is a rigid metal structure. Nonetheless, based on the totality of these facts, we would consider the pintle hook a nonstructural protrusion, similar to the taillights, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches listed in paragraph S4 of the standard. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures Dated: 7/24/09 [1] See October 7, 1999 letter to Mr. Jason Backs, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [2] October 20, 1997 letter to Michael L. Ulsh, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [3] January 25, 2001 letter to Mr. Jeff Shahan, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. [4] October 7, 1999 letter to Mr. Jason Backs, available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov. |
2009 |
ID: 004598asOpenMr. Brian J. Conaway 1771 Locust Street Denver, CO 80220 Dear Mr. Conaway: This responds to your letter asking for reconsideration of an interpretation regarding whether your Hip Hugger device is a child restraint system (CRS) under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. In that previous interpretation (dated June 1, 2001), we determined that the Hip Hugger was not a CRS. We have examined the sample Hip Hugger that you sent, as well as the videotape regarding installation of the product, and also considered your arguments for classifying the device as a CRS. We regret to inform you that we still cannot classify the Hip Hugger as a child restraint system, for the reasons discussed below. Background
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). The following is our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter. FMVSS No. 213, paragraph S4, defines a child restraint system as: Any device, except Type I and Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 30 kilograms (kg) or less. The Hip Hugger, as demonstrated by your videotape, is used to position the seat belt on children and small adults. Its function is to hold the seat belt in place so that the lap belt tightly holds the childs lap and the torso belt does not go across the child occupants neck. The Hip Hugger does not, in itself, restrain the occupant and it does not serve as a seat for the occupant. In our previous letter to you, we determined that your device was not a child restraint system. We stated: The Hip Hugger positions a seat belt on children and small adults; it does not restrain, seat, or position children. We do not consider the Hip Hugger to position children in a manner that a booster seat positions children to better use a vehicles belt system. The Hip Hugger simply locks the belt. The device alone cannot place or arrange the location of a child on a vehicle seat. Discussion In your letter, you lay out specific arguments as to why the Hip Hugger should be considered a CRS, despite our previous analysis that determined that it was not. These arguments are addressed below. Your first argument refers to our previous analysis that the Hip Hugger was not a child restraint system, in which we stated that [w]e do not consider the Hip Hugger to position children in a manner that a booster seat positions children to better use a vehicles belt system. You believe that according to this reasoning, no other device except a Booster seat could be classified as a Child Restraint System. You state that, although rear-facing restraints and harnesses are CRSs, they differ from booster seats: rear-facing child restraints do not use the vehicles belts system to position the child, and harnesses do not place or arrange the location of a child on the vehicle seat. Thus, you believe we were incorrect in determining that the Hip Hugger was not a CRS. We regret if you found our response to be unclear. We will clarify it here. It is helpful to remember that a child restraint system 1) restrains, 2) seats, or 3) positions children who weigh 30 kilograms or less. To us, it was clear that the Hip Hugger did not restrain or seat children, so our earlier letter did not discuss whether the Hip Hugger would be considered a CRS under those two aspects of the CRS definition. To us, the only issue was whether the Hip Hugger positioned children under the third aspect of the definition. Accordingly, we proceeded to interpret that aspect of the definition as applied to your product. In stating that, We do not consider the Hip Hugger to position children in a manner that a booster seat positions children to better use a vehicles belt system, we did not mean that a device could be classified as a CRS only by positioning children as booster seats position children. Immediately preceding the sentence, we had stated that the Hip Hugger does not restrain, seat, or position children. Instead, the reference to booster seats was meant to be illustrative of what is meant by the term positioning of a child. That is to say, we did not consider the Hip Hugger to position children, such as, for example, the manner in which a booster seat adjusts the position of a child to better use a vehicles belt system. With regard to your point about rear-facing child restraints and harnesses, these devices are child restraint systems because they 1) restrain, 2) seat, or 3) position children who weigh 30 kilograms or less. The devices consist of webbing and other materials that restrain a child occupant in a crash. The Hip Hugger, on the other hand, holds the seat belt in place, but does not itself restrain, seat or position the occupant. With regard to your point that the Hip Hugger meets the definition of a belt positioning seat, a belt positioning seat is defined in paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 213. By its definition, a belt positioning seat is a type of child restraint system. Because the Hip Hugger does not meet the definition of a CRS, it does not meet the definition of a belt positioning seat. As to the portability of the Hip Hugger, a point that you find relevant, that feature has no bearing on whether the device is a child restraint system. In sum, we have reevaluated our previous interpretation to you as you requested, and have found it to be correct that the Hip Hugger is not a child restraint system. Before closing, I would like to point out, as did our 2001 letter to you, that the Hip Hugger is a type of device that NHTSA once described as a seat belt positioner in a 1999 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM; 64 FR 44164). In the NPRM, NHTSA considered issuing a consumer information regulation for seat belt positioners, which were proposed to be defined as a device, other than a belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles. The proposed rulemaking was withdrawn in 2004 (69 FR 13503 at 13504).
We are returning your sample Hip Hugger and video under separate cover. If you have any additional questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Anthony M. Cooke
ref:213 d.10/26/06 |
2006 |
ID: 1017Open Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui Dear Mr. Matsui: This responds to your letter of June 23, 1995, asking questions about neon high mounted stop lamps. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration answered these questions in the preamble to a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published on June 19, 1995. We assume that you had not received it by the 23rd, and enclose a copy for your information. You will see (center column, page 31940) that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 allows neon tubes as light sources for the center highmounted lamp. Under our interpretation of paragraph S5.1.1.16, FMVSS No. 108 also allows testing of a neon lamp with or without its ballast, in accordance with the directions of that paragraph. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:7/18/95
|
1995 |
ID: nht95-3.47OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 18, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/23/95 LETTER FROM YOSHIAKI MATSUI TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 11017) TEXT: Dear Mr. Matsui: This responds to your letter of June 23, 1995, asking questions about neon high mounted stop lamps. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration answered these questions in the preamble to a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published on June 19, 1995. We assume that you had not received it by the 23rd, and enclose a copy for your informati on. You will see (center column, page 31940) that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 allows neon tubes as light sources for the center highmounted lamp. Under our interpretation of paragraph S5.1.1.16, FMVSS No. 108 also allows testing of a neon lamp with or without its ballast, in accordance with the directions of that paragraph. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office. |
|
ID: nht95-5.26OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 18, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Yoshiaki Matsui -- Manager, Automotive Equipment, Legal & Homologation Section, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/23/95 LETTER FROM YOSHIAKI MATSUI TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 11017) TEXT: Dear Mr. Matsui: This responds to your letter of June 23, 1995, asking questions about neon high mounted stop lamps. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration answered these questions in the preamble to a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published on June 19, 1995. We assume that you had not received it by the 23rd, and enclose a copy for your information. You will see (center column, page 31940) that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 allows neon tubes as light sources for the center highmounted lamp. Under our interpretation of paragraph S5.1.1.16, FMVSS No. 108 also allows testing of a neon lamp with or without its ballast, in accordance with the directions of that paragraph. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office. |
|
ID: nht87-2.11OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/15/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Farrel L. Krall -- Manager, Technical Legislation, Navistar International TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION ATTACHMT: 6/15/72 letter from R.L. Carter to Frank and Frank (Std. 113) TEXT: Mr. Farrel L. Krall Manager, Technical Legislation Navistar International 2911 Meyer Road P.O. Box 1109 Fort Wayne, IN 46801 This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 113, Hood Latch Systems. You asked whether a design for a front-opening hood you are considering for production would comply with section 54.2 of the standard. According to your letter, the front-opening hood would be a service access feature integrated into the overall design of a rear opening hood system. The latch system would consist of two separate latches, one on each size at the front corner of the access hood. A s discussed below, a front-opening hood with two secondary latch systems would meet the requirements of section S4.2. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ((NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standard;. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section 54.2 states: A front opening hood which, in any open position, partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system.
You cited an interpretation letter issued in 1972, which stated that while the agency favors a system in which two complete operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard. You stated that since your design incorporates two separate latches and requires two complete operations to latch the hood, you believe the system meets both the intent and the legal requirements of the standard. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, section 54.2 permits the following types of installation; a single latch system with two positions, two separate primary latch systems, or separate primarily and secondary latches. 33 FR 6470-71, April 27, 1968 ( copy enclosed). Thus, designs for front-opening hoods with two separate latch systems were specifically contemplated by the agency in establishing section 54.2 and would comply with that requirement. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 March 6, 1987 Dear Ms. Jones: Navistar International Corporation is considering the design and production of a new front opening hood and requests your interpretation as to compliance of the hood latching mechanism with FMVSS-113, Hood Latch Systems. As shown in the attached photogra phs, the front-opening hood in question is a service access feature integrated into the overall design of a rear opening hood system. Section 4.2 of FMVSS-113 states, "A front opening hood, which in any open position, partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield, must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system." The latch system design for our new front opening hood consists of two separate latches, one on each side at the front corner of the access hood, see example of the latch in the enclosed pictures. We have researched the interpretation file on Standard 113 and find only one letter from the Agency that seems to be relative, copy enclosed. This letter dated June 15, 1972, concerns a Chevrolet hood latch system wherein the Agency stated that "While... we favor a system in which two complete operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard." Our design incorporates two separate latches and requires two complete operations to latch the hood. We therefore believe this system meets both the intent and legal requirements of Standard 113 and would appreciate receiving your formal concurrence. Sin ce this is a priority design issue, we would appreciate an expeditious reply. Please call me if additional information is needed. Very truly yours, Farrel L. Krall Manager, Technical Legislation 219/461-1008 |
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.