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: aiam5606OpenPatrick M. Raher, Esq. Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P. Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-1109; Patrick M. Raher Esq. Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20004-1109; "Dear Mr. Raher: This responds to your request for an interpretation o the seat position specifications of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 214, Side Impact Protection. These specifications, which are part of the test conditions for the standards' dynamic crash tests, indicate how a vehicle's seats are positioned in those tests. You asked how the specifications apply in the case of power seats which have different maximum seating locations in the forward and rearward position depending on seat height. As discussed below, the seats would be positioned midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions (with the forwardmost and rearmost positions being determined irrespective of seat height), and at the lowest possible height at that midway position. This appears to correspond to Option 1 in your letter. In your letter, you described a power seat design whose seat position potential is trapezoidal rather than rectangular, due to the mechanism utilized in the power seat operation. In particular, the seat can move further forward in its highest position than in its lowest position, and further rearward in its lowest position than in its highest position. You also indicated that a lowering of the seat from a higher position has the effect of moving the seat backward. The seat position specifications of Standards No. 208 (S8.1.2) and No. 214 (S6.3) read as follows: Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. If an adjustment position does not exist midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint is used. This provision sets forth two conditions concerning how an adjustable seat is positioned in a crash test. The first condition, for the longitudinal position of the seat, is for the seat to be in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions. The terms 'forwardmost' and 'rearmost' are not qualified by height, so the absolute forwardmost and rearmost positions would be used, irrespective of seat height at those positions. The second condition, for the vertical position of a seat which is separately adjustable in a vertical direction, is for the seat to be in the lowest position. We interpret this to refer to the lowest vertical position that can be attained at the longitudinal position described above. Therefore, in positioning a seat for a crash test, we would not change the longitudinal position of the seat merely because the mechanism was designed so that lowering the seat from a higher position had the effect of moving the seat backward. Instead, we would find the lowest vertical position that could be attained at the specified longitudinal position. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: 09-003484 passenger seatOpenDavid E. Barnhart Chief Engineer The Vehicle Production Group 1355 Combermere Drive Troy, MI 48083 Dear Mr. Barnhart: This letter responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the applicability of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards (Standards) to a vehicle location with a wheelchair tie-down position in lieu of an installed front passenger seat. This also follows up on the meeting you had requested with agency staff, in which you explained your interpretation requests and showed us a prototype of the vehicle you plan to manufacture. Your vehicle will have numerous features designed to make it accessible to persons in wheelchairs. Pertinent to your request, the vehicle will have a wheelchair tie-down position in the front of the vehicle to the right of the driver where a front passenger seat would ordinarily be located. In your letter, you ask us to confirm two specific conclusions that you have reached regarding this feature. First, you ask us to confirm that the wheelchair tie-down position in the front passenger location is not a designated seating position, as defined by 49 CFR section 571.3, such that Standard 208, Occupant crash protection, does not require the installation of an air bag at that position. Second, you ask us to confirm that portions of Standard 214 (Side impact protection), which do not refer to designated seating positions, but instead to front and rear outboard seating positions, do not apply to the wheelchair tie-down position. See 49 CFR 571.214. We note that, in your letter, you stated your belief that the performance requirements of the Standards that apply to designated seating positions, or to seating positions in general, do not apply to vehicle locations at which there is no seat installed at that position, but only tie-downs used for securing a wheelchair. Our interpretation letter is limited to the particular Standards that you raise in your letter. You cite three interpretations letters in support of your belief that this position is not a designated seating position under both the old definition applicable to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2011 and the new definition to vehicles manufactured after that date.[1] First, in a March 19, 1992 letter to Mr. Wm. Richard Alexander of the Maryland State Department of Education, we addressed a requirement in Standard 222, Schoolbus passenger seating and crash protection. We stated that Standard 222s requirement for a restraining barrier within 24 inches of a seating reference point did not apply to a wheelchair position because a wheelchair position is not technically a designated seating position. Second, in a November 13, 1992 letter to Mrs. Edna Sutlief, we addressed Standard 208, which requires safety belts to be installed at designated seating positions. In our letter, we stated that Standard 208 did not require installation of a safety belt at a wheelchair securement location because such a location would not be a designated seating position, as that term is defined in 49 CFR section 571.3. Third, in a February 4, 1999 letter to Mr. Jerry G. Sullivan, Jr., of the Braun Corporation, we addressed a requirement in Standard 208 that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles be equipped with air bags at the driver and passenger designated seating positions. We stated that a passenger side air bag would not be required in a vehicle that was modified by removing the right front passenger seat and installing a permanent ambulatory walk-through entrance door. We reasoned that, once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard 208 would not require an air bag for that location because an air bag is only required if a seating position is there. We confirm that, for the vehicle you ask about, because there would be no seat installed in the front passenger seating position, that position would not constitute a designated seating position, under both the old and new definitions of that term as defined by 49 CFR section 571.3. Under the old definition, a designated seating position exists if a position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. The new definition of designated seating position, which is intended to be more objective, is based upon seating surface width. Because the wheelchair tie-down position has no seating surface, it is not a designated seating position. Therefore, consistent with our prior interpretations, you are correct to conclude that Standard 208 would not require the installation of an air bag at the wheelchair tie-down position because that position is not a designated seating position. You also ask for confirmation that the dynamic performance requirements of Standard 214 do not apply to the wheelchair tie-down position. By way of background, a multipurpose passenger vehicle with the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 6,000 pounds must generally meet the requirements of S6 (door crush resistance) and S9 (pole test) of Standard 214. 49 CFR 571.214, S4(c). S7 of Standard 214, the moving deformable barrier test requirements, would not apply to your vehicle because it will be categorized as a multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds.[2] See also S5(b)(4). Regarding S9 of Standard 214, the vehicle-to-pole test requirements, you note that S5(c)(4) excludes from meeting the requirements of S9 vehicles in which the seat for the driver or right front passenger has been removed and wheelchair restraints installed in place of the seats. You believe that this exclusion would be applicable to your vehicle, even though you are not removing a seat but, instead, would be manufacturing the vehicle without the seat. We agree with you that the rationale supporting this exclusion would apply to the front passenger position in your vehicle, even though, strictly speaking, you have not removed the seat. The end result is the same: the right front passenger seat is nonexistent. Therefore, we interpret S5(c)(4) as excluding your vehicle from the requirement to meet S9 at the front passenger seating position. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel cc: Erika Z. Jones, Mayer Brown LLP Dated:7/19/10 [1] After receiving your letter, but before this response, we amended section 571.3 to allow an additional year of lead time for the implementation of the new designated seating position definition. See 74 FR 68190 (Dec. 23, 2009). [2] At the June 6 meeting, you stated that the GVWR of your vehicle would be over 6,000 pounds. You later stated, through your attorney, that you have decided to classify the vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Accordingly, our response is based on the understanding that you will be manufacturing a multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR over 6,000 pounds. |
2010 |
ID: aiam0669OpenMr. Louis C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Environmental Activities Staff, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI, 48090; Mr. Louis C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1972, in which you as whether, for purposes of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' you may consider the 'occupant compartment' for van and panel-type trucks to be 'the front area of the vehicle extending rearward to the rearmost point on any occupant seat.'; We would consider a reasonable interpretation of the phrase 'occupan compartment,' when applied to van and panel-type trucks which have no physical barrier between the occupant and cargo compartments, to be that area forward of a vertical plane perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle, and tangent to the rearmost point of any occupant seat in its rearmost position. This interpretation appears to be substantially the same as that expressed in your letter.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0788OpenMr. Walter Sniff, Quality Control Manager, Crown Steel Products Division, 1330 North Main Street, Orrville, OH, 44667; Mr. Walter Sniff Quality Control Manager Crown Steel Products Division 1330 North Main Street Orrville OH 44667; Dear Mr. Sniff: This is in reply to your letter of June 30, 1972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' asking for a determination of the term 'passenger compartment' in a van-type vehicle that has either a partial partition behind the driver's seat or no partition at all.; We would consider a reasonable interpretation of the phrase 'occupan compartment' found in S1 of the Standard, when applied to van-type trucks which have no physical barrier between the occupant and cargo compartments, to be that area forward of a vertical plane perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle and tangent to the rearmost point of any occupant seat in its rearmost position. In the case where there is a partial partition behind the driver's seat, we would consider the 'occupant compartment' to be that area forward of a vertical plane that constitutes an extension of the partial partition and is perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The cargo areas of such vehicles would not be considered 'vehicle occupant compartments' under S4.1 of the Standard, and the materials used in the cargo area need not comply with the Standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: positioningSID_VenieroPizzagalliOpenMr. Veniero Pizzagalli Dear Mr. Pizzagalli: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, Side Impact Protection, concerning the positioning of the Side Impact Dummy (SID) for purposes of conducting the FMVSS No. 214 moving deformable barrier (MDB) test. You are having difficulty in placing the SID in a new sport seat that will be mounted in some of your future cars. S7 of FMVSS No. 214 specifies positioning procedures for the SID. S7.1.1 and S7.1.2 specify that a SID placed in a bucket seat at the drivers seating position and at the right front passenger seating position, respectively, is to be positioned such that "[t]he upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back. " The standard also specifies, at S7.2.1, that the H-point of the dummy is to coincide within inch in the vertical dimension and inch in the horizontal dimension of a point inch below the position of the H-point determined by using the equipment for the 50th percentile and procedures specified in SAE J826 (with certain exceptions). In addition, the standard specifies, at S6.4, that adjustable seat backs are placed in the manufacturers nominal design riding position in the manner specified by the manufacturer. S6.4 states that, if the position is not specified, the seat back will be set at the first detent rearward of 25 from the vertical. You state in your letter that, when the SID is placed in the sport seat, there is a space of 78 mm from the back of the dummy to the seat back. The middle of the dummys back cannot rest against the seat because the torso makes contact with the "wings" of the seatback. You suggest five different ways that the dummy could be positioned in the seat and ask if any of these are acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA would not use the first four options you suggest. The first approach you suggest involves resting the dummys torso against the wings of the seat but not having the H-point of the dummy in the zone described by S7.2.1. NHTSA would need to position the H-point as specified in S7.2.1. Your second option calls for forcing the dummy into the seat and against the seat back, possibly using tape or a harness to hold the dummy against the seat back. We would prefer not using artificial means to restrain the dummy in the test. The third option you suggest is to cut a portion of the dummys partial arms or remove them, thereby avoiding contact of the arms with the seat wings. We cannot modify the SID as you suggest other than through a rulemaking proceeding. Your fourth option involves reclining the seat back such that the dummys back is reclined at a 25 tilt angle. We would not use this fourth approach because the seat back angle will be greater than 25 degrees and the dummys back does not make contact with the seat back. Your fifth approach appears usable. This approach involves tilting the seat back such that the dummys back contacts the seat back at the wings. We would consider the wings of the seat to be part of the seat back, so contact with the wings satisfies the provision that the dummy contact the seat back. The H-point of the dummy would be maintained in the permitted tolerance zone of S7.2.1. The seat back would be positioned as specified in S6.4. The dummys back angle will be less than 25 degrees, but the test procedures do not specify that the angle of the back must be 25 degrees. I hope this answers your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or by fax at (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:214 |
2005 |
ID: 2890oOpen Glenn L. Duncan, Esq. Dear Mr. Duncan: This responds to your letter concerning situations in which seats tested for compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, bend or deform when subjected to the required test forces specified in the standard. You asked whether NHTSA would consider a seat as passing Standard No. 207 if the seat "gives," but does not separate or break free from the floor. I regret the delay in responding. The requirements with which you are concerned are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 207. That section provides in pertinent part: S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces. (a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction; (b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction; * * * * * (d) In its rearmost position--a force that produces a 3,300 inch-pound moment about the seating reference point for each designated seating position that the seat provides, applied to the upper cross-member of the seat back or the upper seat back, in a rearward longitudinal direction for forward-facing seats and in a forward longitudinal direction for rearward-facing seats. The agency answered similar questions in letters dated April 28, 1977 and August 30, 1979 to Mr. Gordon P. Cress and to Mr.Robert Wahls, respectively. (Copies enclosed.) In these letters, the agency stated that NHTSA allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that "structural integrity of the seats is maintained." The structural integrity of a seat is determined by the extent to which permanent deformation or separation of seat components and/or seat to floor attachments result from the applied test forces. Examples of possible noncompliances include the following occurring during the application of a forward or rearward load: (a) the seat frame releases from its adjusted position; (b) the seat frame or seat adjusters detach from the test vehicle floorpan; (c) the seat frame detaches from the seat adjuster mechanism; (d) the seat adjuster mechanism separates; or, (e) the hinged seat restraining device disengages, or detaches from the seat frame. Other examples of possible noncompliances are the rear seat back or cushion frame detaching from the test vehicle structure during the application of the specified load, or the folding seat back restraining device releasing from its preset position during application of a forward load. Further, as stated in the two enclosed letters, it has been the longstanding position of the agency that seats which displace to an extent that NHTSA determines occupant safety is threatened would not be in compliance with Standard No. 207. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:207 d:8/26/88 |
1988 |
ID: nht88-3.25OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/26/88 FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO: GLENN L. DUNCAN, -- THORNE, GRODNIK & RANSEL TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBERT J. WAHLS' FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 04/28/77 TO GORDON P. CRESS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 02/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNCAN RE UNITED TOOL AND STAMPING INC FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM; LETTER DATED 11/16/87 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNN RE FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM OCC - 1278 TEXT: Dear Mr. Duncan: This responds to your letter concerning situations in which seats tested for compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, bend or deform when subjected to the required test forces specified in the standard. You asked whether NHTSA would con sider a seat as passing Standard No. 207 if the seat "gives," but does not separate or break free from the floor. I regret the delay in responding. The requirements with which you are concerned are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 207. That section provides in pertinent part: S4.2 General performance requirements. When tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces. (a) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a forward longitudinal direction; (b) In any position to which it can be adjusted--20 times the weight on the seat applied in a rearward longitudinal direction; * * * * * (d) In its rearmost position--a force that produces a 3,300 inch-pound moment about the seating reference point for each designated seating position that the seat provides, applied to the upper cross-member of the seat back or that appear seat back, i n a rearward longitudinal direction for forward facing seats and in a forward longitudinal direction for rearward-facing seats. The agency answered similar questions in letters dated April 28, 1977 and August 30, 1979 to Mr. Gordon P. Cress and to Mr. Robert Wahls, respectively. (Copies enclosed.) In these letters, the agency stated 2 that NHTSA allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that "structural integrity of the seats is maintained." The structural integrity of a seat is determined by the extent to which permanent deformation or separation of seat components and/or seat to floor attachments result from the applied test forces. Examples of possible noncompliances include the following occurring during the application of a forward or rearward load: (a) the seat frame releases from its adjusted position; (b) the seat frame or seat adjusters detach from the test vehicle floorpan; (c) the seat frame detaches from the seat adjuster mechanism; (d) the seat adjuster mechanism separates; or, (e) the hinged seat restraining device disengages, or detaches from the seat frame. Other examples of possible noncompliances are the rear seat back or cushion frame detaching from the test vehicle structure during the application of the specified load, or the folding seat back restraining device releasing from its preset position durin g application of a forward load. Further, as stated in the two enclosed letters, it has been the longstanding position of the agency that seats which displace to an extent that NHTSA determines occupant safety is threatened would not be in compliance with Standard No. 207. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. ENCLOSURES Sincerely, |
|
ID: 003064 Spain inflatable seatOpenMs. Susana Mate Market Analyst Trade Commission of Spain, Embassy of Spain 500 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60611 Dear Ms. Mate: This responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking for information about the Federal requirements that would apply to an inflatable seat for children from 9 months to 7 years of age manufactured by an overseas company you represent. At this time, you are unable to provide much information about the product, but you state that the restraint has been certified as complying with European ECE Regulation 44. By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal safety requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.). Under that authority, we issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), which sets forth requirements which must be met by any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less. (We currently are considering a proposal to increase this weight limit to 80 pounds. See the enclosed August 31, 2005 Federal Register document (70 FR 51720).) The inflatable car seat is a child restraint system subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. The standard requires, among other things, that child restraints provide protection in a 30 mile-per-hour (mph) crash, that the restraint meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, that the belts and buckles meet certain performance requirements, and that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on the proper use of the restraint. (The standards are available online at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/). Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. The United States does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that the child restraint system fully satisfies all requirements of Standard No. 213. Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests. Although we recommend that a manufacturer selling child restraint systems in the United States test the systems according to the test procedures specified in the standard, it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to validly certify that its child restraint systems comply with Standard No. 213. Once a manufacturer determines that its child restraints meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by labeling that certification onto the child restraint, as specified in Standard No. 213. For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts validation checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with Standard No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30120). Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Our statute specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety‑related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers and either: l. repair the child restraint, so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or 2. replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy. The manufacturer is also subject to civil penalties. There are also two procedural regulations that your client must meet to import child restraints into the United States. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This regulation requires a manufacturer (including an importer) of motor vehicle equipment to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufactures (or imports) to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured (imported into the United States). The second regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign‑manufactured child restraints to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under 551.45: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by‑laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b). I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, enclosed for your convenience is a copy of a June 7, 2006 final rule that amended the webbing strength requirements of Standard No. 213 (71 FR 32855), and a copy of a June 21, 2006 technical amendment relating to the standards labeling requirements. Standard No. 213 is frequently amended and manufacturers are responsible for keeping current on its requirements. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:213 d.8/9/06 |
2006 |
ID: 19825-1.pjaOpenJason Backs, Vice President Dear Mr. Backs: This responds to your letter asking whether a flexible rear apron on the rear of a trailer that your company is interested in building constitutes a "nonstructural protrusion" within the meaning of our rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Our answer is no. You provided a drawing and a description of a trailer your company is thinking about manufacturing. The steel body of this trailer extends eight inches behind the rear most point of the rear tires. However, bolted on to the rear of the steel body is a flexible rear apron extending 27 inches behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires. The apron's purpose is to support asphalt as it is transferred backward out of the trailer body and into a paving machine. You state that the apron could be composed of inch thick plastic. You state that the apron would be "substantial enough to support the asphalt load, yet would be extremely flexible in a rear impact." As explained below, the flexible rear apron would not be considered a nonstructural protrusion. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard complying with Standard No. 223. Paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard specifies that "the rearmost surface of the horizontal member of the guard shall be located as close as practical to a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle, but no more than 305 mm [about 12 inches] forward of that plane." S4 defines the rearmost extremity, in pertinent part, as
Merely because something is attached to the body does not mean that an object is nonstructural. The definition of rear extremity refers to the "rearmost point on the vehicle" (emphasis added), 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 S5.1.3 have in common are that they are relatively small and localized and would not have a major impact on a colliding passenger vehicle. We do not consider your apron design to be nonstructural. We have previously determined that "[a] 0.19 inch thick aluminum (or 7 gauge steel) [deflector] plate extending across the entire width of the trailer is part of the vehicle, and is not a "nonstructural protrusion." (1) We believe that your proposed plastic apron is indistinguishable from a deflector plate, for the purposes of the regulation. As with the deflector plate, your apron is rigidly attached to the rear of the trailer. It seems to wrap around the tailgate, so it is probably full-width and could not be considered relatively small or localized. The distinction that you seem to be urging upon us, that an apron constructed of inch thick plastic is more flexible than steel and thus not harmful if impacted by a colliding vehicle, is not likely to be true in most highway crashes. Plastics can vary greatly in their rigidity and strength. If your 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. We conclude that the rear edge of the apron would be considered the rear extremity of the vehicle, and an underride guard would have to be mounted no more than 12 inches forward from it. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, 1. Letter of October 20, 1997 to Mr. Michael L. Ulsh. That letter addressed a similar situation in which a full width deflector plate helped to transfer the trailer's load outboard from the vehicle. |
1999 |
ID: 571.208--Center seat--Glickenhaus--19-1007OpenMr. Jesse Glickenhaus Managing Director Scuderia Cameron Glickenhaus LLC 8 Kendall Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Dear Mr. Glickenhaus: This responds to your March 25, 2019 request for interpretation asking how the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208; Occupant crash protection, apply to a passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) with centrally located front seating positions. Specifically, you ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require air bags for the central front seat(s) if they are not “outboard designated seating positions” as defined in 49 CFR § 571.3(b). As we explain below, based on the information and representations provided in your request, FMVSS No. 208 does not require front air bags for the front seat(s) in these vehicles. Description of your vehicle designs and request for interpretation Your request concerns two different vehicle designs. The first is a passenger car with the driver’s seat located at or near the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. You state that the driver’s seat will not meet the definition of an “outboard designated seating position” as defined in 49 CFR § 571.3(b).[1] In the illustrations in your letter, the driver’s seat is depicted as the only front seat; there are two rear seats. You state that the images accurately reflect the placement of the front driver’s seat, but that the shape and final placement of the rear passenger seats are not finalized. You ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require a front air bag for the driver’s seat. The second vehicle you describe is an MPV.[2] In a subsequent conversation with my staff, you indicated that this vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 8,500 pounds (lb) (and/or an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 lb) but not greater than 10,000 lb. The MPV has a driver and front passenger seat, both of which are centrally located. The accompanying illustrations also depict two rear seating positions. You state that neither the driver’s seat nor the front passenger seat will meet the definition of an “outboard designated seating position.” You ask us to confirm that FMVSS No. 208 does not require a front air bag for either of these seating positions. Requirements under FMVSS No. 208 for the front seats in these vehicles FMVSS No. 208 sets out vehicle-level occupant protection requirements. These include requirements or compliance options for seat belts, air bags, frontal crash tests, and static air bag tests. Passenger Cars Whether or not the passenger car you describe is required to have a front air bag for the driver’s seat depends on whether that seat is an “outboard designated seating position.” FMVSS No. 208 requires that each “[front] outboard designated seating position” be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt[3] and an air bag and certified to meet advanced air bag requirements.[4] For example, passenger cars are required to certify, among other things, that they will meet injury criteria specifications when subject to a rigid barrier belted crash test with a 50th percentile adult male dummy,[5] but this requirement applies only to “each front outboard designated seating position[.]”[6] We note that the standard is not completely consistent in using the term “front outboard designated seating position” to apply the advanced air bag requirements; the requirements referring to an out-of-position 5th percentile female dummy are specified in terms of the “driver position.”[7] However, this “driver position” reference is most sensibly understood as applying to the driver’s side front outboard designated seating, consistent with the framework specified in the rest of the standard.[8] If the front seat is not an “outboard designated seating position” then it is required to have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly.[9] MPVs with a GVWR greater than 8,500 lb (or with an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 lb) but not greater than 10,000 lb FMVSS No. 208 (in S4.2.3 and S4.1.2) specifies several different compliance options for front seats in MPVs in this weight class. These vehicles are not required to have air bags, and may provide protection with only a seat belt.[10] Discussion Based on the information and representations provided in your interpretation request, FMVSS No. 208 does not require front air bags for the front seats in the vehicles you describe.[11] If the centrally-located driver’s seat in your passenger car is not an outboard designated seating position, FMVSS No. 208 requires a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, and not an air bag. With respect to MPVs in the referenced weight class, FMVSS No. 208 does not require air bags for any front seats. For example, the compliance option at S4.1.2.3 specifies only a belt and a seat belt warning for both front outboard and center seats. More specifically, if the centrally-located driver’s and front passenger seats in the MPV are not outboard designated seating positions, then S4.2.3 requires that they be equipped with a Type 1 or Type 2 belt and, depending on the compliance option selected, a seat belt warning system. In your letter, you indicate that you have “every intention of installing airbags [sic] as soon as possible” in your vehicles. NHTSA strongly encourages that an air bag be provided for the driver’s designated seating position. In establishing Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements and later amending the standard to require air bags, NHTSA anticipated that applying the requirements to the front outboard positions would result in the driver's seating position being covered. The agency did not apply the requirements to the center seating position largely because that seating position is rarely used. However, that would not be true if that position were also the driver's seating position. Thus, we support your intention to install air bags in future models. This interpretation is limited to the facts and representations stated in your request. In particular, this response assumes that the centrally-located front seat(s) are not “outboard designated seating position(s)” as defined in § 571.3(b) and that the rear seats depicted in the illustrations of the vehicles would in fact be classified as rear seats (and not front seats) under our regulations. We also note that this letter is limited to answering your question about FMVSS No. 208. Other FMVSS might necessitate use of air bag technologies, e.g., FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection mitigation,” which manufacturers typically meet by way of ejection mitigation side curtain air bags. It would be your responsibility as a vehicle manufacturer to certify that your vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs, including those not discussed in this letter. If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel Dated: 12/30/19 Ref: FMVSS No. 209 [1] “Outboard designated seating position means a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point (as shown in fig. 1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210) and longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion” (emphasis in original). [2] An MPV is defined as “a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.” § 571.3(b). [3] S4.1.5.1(a)(3). A Type 1 seat belt is a lap belt, and a Type 2 seat belt is a combination lap/shoulder belt. FMVSS 209; Seat belt assemblies, S3. [4] See S14 (“Advanced air bag requirements for passenger cars and for trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,855 kg (8500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kg (5500 pounds) or less, except for walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles designed to be sold exclusively to the U.S. Postal Service[]”) and S4.1.5.4 (“Each passenger car certified to S14 shall, at each front outboard designated seating position, meet the applicable frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1.2(b) by means of an inflatable restraint system that requires no action by vehicle occupants.”). See also the advanced air bag requirements specified in S14 through S29. [5] S14.4 and S14.5.1(b). [6] S14.5.1(b). [7] See S25.1-25.4. [8] Cf. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-240, § 2508(a)(1), 105 Stat. 1914 (1991) (requiring the Department of Transportation to amend FMVSS No. 208 to require air bags at the “front outboard designated seating positions” in passenger cars and trucks, buses, and MPVs with a GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and an unloaded weight of 5,500 lb or less). [9] S4.1.5.1(a)(2). [10] See S4.1.2.3 (option of equipping the front outboard seats with Type 2 belts and a belt warning system, and any center front seat with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt and a belt warning system). [11] See also Letter from Philip Recht, Chief Counsel, to Trevor Buttle, McLaren Cars Limited (Oct. 31, 1994) (opining that a driver’s seat located at least 12 inches from the side of the vehicle is not an “outboard designated seating position”). |
2019 |
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.