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: aiam0615OpenMr. Yoshiyuki Mizuno, Engineering Representative, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Liaison Office in U.S.A., 560 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Yoshiyuki Mizuno Engineering Representative Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Liaison Office in U.S.A. 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Mizuno: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1972, in which yo requested our interpretation as to how seats with varying numbers of adjustment positions are to be adjusted to the position 'midway between the forwardmost and rear most position,' as specified in S8.1.2 of Standard 208.; The intent of the 'midway' provision in S8.1.2 is that the seat must b placed as nearly as possible at the midpoint of its fore and aft travel. Since the standard also provides that the seat is in an adjustment position -- a notch -- there is a possibility that there will not be a notch at the exact center of the range. In such cases, the seat is placed in the notch nearest the midpoint of the seat's travel. In your case A, if the notches are evenly spaced, the middle notch would probably be the nearest to the midpoint and would therefore be used. In your case B, if the two middle notches are not equidistant from the midpoint, the nearest notch would be used. If they are equidistant, the rearmost notch would be used. It is not necessary to make a special notch.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
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: aiam4677OpenMr. James A. Cowan, Jr. Director of Engineering Crown Coach Incorporated 13799 Monte Vista Avenue Chino, CA 91710-5513; Mr. James A. Cowan Jr. Director of Engineering Crown Coach Incorporated 13799 Monte Vista Avenue Chino CA 91710-5513; Dear Mr. Cowan: This is in response to your request for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217: Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. Your letter explained that Crown plans to sell one prototype school bus model which was developed but not produced, and which contains a side emergency exit which is wider than required under Standard No. 217. Because of the wider door, the seatback of the passenger seat located immediately forward of the emergency exit door intrudes into the emergency door exit opening. You have requested an interpretation as to whether this is consistent with Standard No. 217. The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 217 specifically requires that ' a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seatback shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door.' S5.4.2.1(b). This requirement prohibits the forward seat or seatback from extending into the door opening regardless of the size of the door opening. Therefore, as it is now configured, the bus you have described in your letter is not in compliance with Standard No. 217. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions concerning this issue. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: dec 11 571.213--Aftermarket built in CRS--Lt. DouglasOpenLt. Sharon Douglas Chemung County Sheriffs Office 203 William St. Elmira, NY 14901 Dear Lt. Douglas: This responds to your September 5, 2017 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and to your December 5 telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, regarding a product called a Little Passenger Seat made by a company called Little Passenger Seats (LPS). You are concerned about the safety of the product and ask whether it meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. While answering your letter, on December 18, 2017, our staff read on what had been LPSs website that LPS was closing up shop as a result of serious financial problems.[1] Notwithstanding this development, we are answering your letter since it raises important issues about child passenger safety. As explained below, based on our understanding of your letter and other information, we believe that the Little Passenger Seat is a built-in child restraint system subject to FMVSS No. 213. Further, based on available information, the product does not appear to satisfy all the requirements of the standard. Background You explain in your letter that you observed two children, ages 4 and 6, sitting on a rear facing bench seat in the cargo area of a 2017 Jeep Wranglerbut no booster or child seat supplementing the seat. You state that the driver of the Wrangler indicated that the bench seat was in fact a child restraint system that he had purchased [in the] aftermarket, and that the seat is manufactured in accordance with the build of children in mind. You state that you later saw on the products website[2] that LPS stated that the seat met requirements of several FMVSS but did not make any reference to FMVSS No. 213. From the photos you sent of the LPS products, and from what our staff saw of the website when it was live, the company was selling aftermarket one-, two-, and three-passenger seats. The one-passenger seat was shown side-facing and rear-facing, with a three-point belt system (lap and shoulder belt). The two- and three-passenger seats were on a bench seat that was rear-facing.[3] There were three-point belts on the outboard positions of the bench, and a lap belt in the center position. There were statements on the website that the seats were meant to be installed in the cargo space, and that, The Federal Safety Standards we tested for were for regular car seats, not child seats. Answer The FMVSSs that apply to seats differ depending on when the seat is installed, and for whom it is sold. A seat intended for general occupancy (i.e., not for children specifically) that is installed as original equipment (installed in a new vehicle prior to the first purchase of the vehicle other than for resale) must meet, or has a critical role in the vehicle meeting, a number of safety standards, including: FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.[4] However, except for FMVSS No. 209 (which is an equipment standard applying to new items of equipment), these standards are vehicle standards that apply to new, complete vehicles and the systems in those new vehicles, and not to individual items of equipment sold separately from the vehicle, like a new bench seat sold for installation in a used vehicle. Thus, only FMVSS No. 209 applies to such new aftermarket seats, assuming there are seat belt assemblies on the seat.[5] The situation is different, however, for new aftermarket seats intended for children, like the Little Passenger Seat. New aftermarket seats intended for children are subject to FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 213 (section S4) defines a child restraint system (CRS) as: any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 36 kilograms (kg) (80 lb) or less. FMVSS No. 213 applies to both add-on (portable) and built-in CRSs. A built-in CRS is a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle (see S4). NHTSA intended the definition to include new built-in CRSs sold for installation in new and used vehicles.[6] After reviewing the available material on the Little Passenger Seat, we believe that the product is a child restraint system. The seat is a device intended for use in motor vehicles to restrain and seat children who weigh 36 kg (80 lb) or less, as evidenced by the materials and the manufacturers statements that the product is intended for children.[7] Further, the product is a built-in child restraint system, since it is a child restraint system designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 213 applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. For built-in CRSs, FMVSS No. 213 specifies performance requirements that must be met when the CRS is tested with a test dummy in a 48-kilometers per hour (km/h) (30 miles per hour) (mph) dynamic test.[8] Among other things, in the 48 km/h (30 mph) test, an aftermarket built-in CRS must meet structural integrity requirements to reduce the likelihood that a child will be injured by a collapse or disintegration of the CRS, injury criteria to limit the accelerations imparted to a childs head and chest, and excursion requirements so the child is retained in the system. FMVSS No. 213 also requires aftermarket built-in CRSs to be labeled with safety information (S5.5.4), and for manufacturers to provide consumer information to the owner (S5.6.2), including the types of vehicles and the seating positions into which the restraint can or cannot be installed (S5.6.2.4). There are also requirements (S5.4.3.3) that child restraints provide specified upper torso, lower torso, and pelvic restraints. It does not appear that LPS certified the Little Passenger Seat as meeting FMVSS No. 213. This is indicated by LPSs statement on its website that The Federal Safety Standards we tested for were for regular car seats, not child seats, and by the absence of any mention of FMVSS No. 213 on the website. The photos of the seats did not show the labeling and other features required by the standard. We appreciate your bringing this product to our attention. NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting LPS for information about the product, the conformance of the seats with FMVSS No. 213 and other matters.
If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Jonathan Morrison Chief Counsel Dated: 2/12/18 Ref: FMVSS No. 213 [1] LPSs website was Littlepassengerseats.com. Currently the site cannot be reached. (Todays date is February 9, 2018.) [2] The website is now offline. [3] Most of the images show the seat rear-facing. There was one that may have shown the product forward-facing but the image was not clear. [4] In addition, the new vehicle must meet all applicable FMVSSs the compliance with which can be affected by installation of vehicle seats. E.g., the new vehicle must meet stopping distance requirements, and post-crash fuel system integrity requirements, with the seat installed. [5] See past letters on this subject, such as https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/7809.html, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/86/86-5.50.html. As discussed in those letters, NHTSA requires new and aftermarket seats to be free of safety-related defects. Further, commercial entities installing an aftermarket seat are subject to NHTSAs prohibition against knowing making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. [6] See, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to expand the built-in child restraint system definition (57 FR 870, 871 col. 1; January 9, 1992). In the NPRM, NHTSA stated: NHTSA proposes to clarify the definition of a built-in child restraint system to make clear that the definition includes both restraints that are integral parts of new vehicles as well as restraints that are designed to be integral parts of a motor vehicle, such as aftermarket restraint systems. [7] E.g., LPS stated on the Little Passenger Seats website, Our seating is made for children. (Accessed September 26, 2017; site currently offline.) LPS also stated, If youre running out of space in your vehicle, add one of our safe custom seats to accommodate your little ones! LittlePassengerSeats.com, Facebook Updates, entry 4. November 2, 2017. Page retrieved February 9, 2018. [https://web.archive.org/web/20171102141057/https://littlepassengerseats.com/] [8] The built-in CRS is tested in a specific vehicle shell in a frontal barrier impact simulation at a velocity change of 48 km/h (30 mph) or in an actual vehicle in a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal barrier crash. (See FMVSS No. 213 S6.1.1(a)(2).) |
2018 |
ID: nht78-3.13OpenDATE: 02/13/78 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA TO: Emil M. Mrak TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1977, to Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Brock Adams, concerning the seat belts in your automobile. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that the distance between the lap-shoulder belt intersection and the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile (164 pounds, 5 feet 8 inches) adult male occupant must be at least six inches when the seat is in its rearmost position. The purpose of this requirement is to reduce the risk of the occupant "submarining" out from under the belt and to reduce the possibility of the shoulder belt pulling the lap belt up onto the abdomen where it could cause serious injury in a crash. The possibility of submarining increases as the intersection of the lap-shoulder belt is moved toward the occupant's center-line and/or as seat cushion rigidity is reduced. In other words, the closer the intersection of the lap-shoulder belt is to the centerline of the occupant, and the softer the seat, the more the danger of "submarining" in a crash. The standard does not limit the maximum distance from the occupant's centerline to the lap-shoulder belt intersection because of varying degrees of seat rigidity and installation configurations. Thus, contrary to what you may have been told, manufacturers who provide belt systems with distances greater than six inches do so by choice and not because they are required to do so by Federal standards. Thank you for informing us of your problem. SINCERELY, December 12, 1977 The Honorable Brockman Adams The Secretary of Transportation Dear Mr. Adams: Sometime ago I wrote the Ford Company complaining about the inaccessibility of the short portion of the seat belt to a person who is up in years. I pointed out that because of the extreme difficulty of hitching these up, more and more people are failing to use seat belts. Furthermore, the twisting and squirming required could very well result in backbone injuries to elderly people. I was astounded to receive a letter from the Ford Company indicating that the Federal Standards required such a belt. This is hard for me to believe. In any event, I would appreciate knowing if what they told me is the truth, and if it is, then, the truth, I would strongly recommend that this requirement be revised. If it is not a requirement, then I think the Ford Company should be told to take the blame off the Department of Transportation. If Congressional help is needed to make such a change, I would be glad to pursue it. I am enclosing copies of my letter to Mr. Wilson of the Ford Company and also his reply, which as indicated above, astonished me. Emil M. Mrak ENCLS. December 12, 1977 A. S. Wilson Ford Parts and Service Division Ford Motor Company Dear Mr. Wilson: I am enclosing a copy of a letter I have written to the Secretary of Transportation, Brockman Adams, which is self-explanatory. I feel so strongly in this matter that I would go to certain of my friends in Congress, if need be, and as much as I dislike most of the things that Nader does, I would even be willing to go to him. Emil M. Mrak ENC. Ford Parts and Service Division Ford Motor Company November 23, 1977 Emil M. Mrak Dear Mr. Mrak: We are sorry to learn of the problem you are experiencing using the seat belts in your Cougar Brougham. As you probably know, the Ford Motor Company has been an active proponent of the use of seat belt systems for many years. Ford does not have complete freedom, however, in selecting the design of the seat belt system since the Federal government does impose requirements that seat belt systems must meet. An explanation of certain of these requirements may be helpful in giving you a better understanding of why present seat belt systems are different than those you may have been accustomed to using. For all passenger vehicles built after January 1, 1972, Federal safety standards require the installation of a three-point seat belt system; that is, a combination lap belt and shoulder harness. The Federal standard also requires that the intersection or attaching point of the shoulder harness to the lap belt be at least six inches from the centerline of an average size adult male. In the opinion of the Federal authorities, this intersection point offers the best protection to occupants using the shoulder harness. In order for Ford to satisfy this requirement, it is necessary to limit the length of the buckle portion of the lap belt. It is clear from your letter that shortening the buckle portion of the lap belt has created a problem for some people. We regret the inconvenience but hope that it will not deter you from continuing to use the seat belt system when operating your vehicle. We appreciate the interest you have shown in this matter and thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to your questions. A. S. Wilson Owner Relations November 10, 1977 A. S. Wilson Ford Parts and Service Division Ford Motor Company Dear Mr. Wilson: In May I wrote to you concerning problems with my seat belts in the new Cougar Brougham we had just purchased. You replied on May 17 indicating that I should return to the selling dealer with the complaint. First of all, I thought I made it clear in my letter that I was not complaining. I was asking for an improvement. In any event, I had the dealer refer to Ford Technical Service Bulletin 100, Article 1290, as indicated in your letter, and this advice was completely useless, and the dealer, as far as I'm concerned, was helpless. The real problem with the seat belt is that the part attached to the seat is so short that a person of my age finds it literally impossible, or at least very difficult, to squirm around and get it attached. I am taking the liberty of writing this second letter to you because I have read that fewer and fewer people are using seat belts. I am certain it is because of the fact that it is so difficult to use them. In order to use the belt I must squirm and fuss and work and finally I get it attached. Some day I may well injure a spinal disk. I think this is a problem for the Ford engineers. When I wrote to you I was asking for an extension so it would be easier to attach them, but I did not get an iota of help from you. I feel that if anyone not using the belt because of this difficulty should get into an accident and be injured, that person would have a case for suit against the Ford Company because of the inadequacy of the belt hook-ups. I have felt like writing to the Transportation Department and also to Senator Eagleton, but since I am a stockholder in Ford, I thought I had better wait until I get another reply from you. Emil M. Mrak cc: BRUCE WILLIAMS |
|
ID: aiam2333OpenMr. W. G. Milby, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's May 29, 1976, questio whether safety chains are prohibited across the opening of a side or rear emergency door that is provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. You note that the State of Washington plans to require a seat guard' at side emergency doors to prevent students from accidentally falling through these openings.; The requirements of Standard No. 217 for school buses manufactured o or after October 26, 1976, specify that each school bus shall be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window (S5.2.3.1). Unobstructed passage through these exits from the interior of the bus is required by S5.4. A parallelepiped of specified dimensions must be capable of unobstructed passage through rear doors, and the rearmost point of a seat back must coincide with the forward edge of a side emergency door, so that unobstructed passage from the vehicle interior is preserved.; The agency's intent in specifying these emergency exit provisions is t assure unimpeded egress from school buses in the event of accident. Small children are often transported in school buses, and provisions for emergency exits should be as simple as possible to assist their exit. For these reasons, sections S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 prohibit the installation of safety chains across any emergency exit provided in satisfaction of S5.2.3.1.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac provides:; S103 * * * * * >>>(d) Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; It is the opinion of this agency that the State of Washington' requirement would be preempted as of the effective date of the new school bus requirements of Standard No. 217, with regard to emergency doors that are installed in compliance with S5.2.3.1. The agency does not believe that the requirement for safety chains constitutes a higher level of protection, and has concluded that it would cause the vehicle to be in non-compliance with the requirements of S5.2.3.1 and S5.4.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3647OpenMr. H. Nakaya, Mazda (North America), Inc., 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter asking about the definition of occupan compartment air space for purposes of determining the application of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. You asked whether the cargo areas of two cars must comply with the standard if these areas always or sometimes open into the occupant compartment.; The term 'occupant compartment air space' is defined in the standard a 'the space within the occupant compartment that normally contains refreshable air.' In previous interpretations regarding the applicability of the standard to a particular area of a vehicle, the question has turned upon whether people can and do ride in the area in question. In letters regarding vans, the agency has taken the position that the space to the rear of the rearmost seat was not part of the occupant compartment. The reasoning underlying those interpretations was that that area was not typically occupied by passengers. However, the agency came to a different conclusion regarding the space behind the rear seat in station wagons. Since passengers can and do ride in that area, the agency concluded that it was part of the occupant compartment. For this interpretation, see the last page of the enclosed letter.; The Case I car in your letter presents a situation seemingly similar t that of station wagons. The Case I car appears to be a liftback car with a cargo carrying area behind the rear seat. If passengers can ride in the area behind the rear seat, then that area would be part of the occupant compartment and would be subject to the standard. As to the Case II car, which appears to be a sedan with internal access to the trunk by means of the folding backs of the rear seats, the agency does not regard the trunk area as part of the occupant compartment. It does not appear from your diagrams that people would ride in that area.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht88-3.55OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/21/88 FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO: HIROSHI KATO -- MMC SERVICES INC. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/18/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM HEROSHI KATO, OCC-2048 TEXT: Dear Mr. Kato: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, as it applies to so-called "one-piece" instrument panels and console assemblies. Your request for confidential treatment of the photographs and diagrams you enclosed with your letter of vehicle models "A" and "B" was granted by the agency on June 21. The areas of the vehicle interior to which your question relates are the instrument panel, which generally speaking, is subject to the standard, and the console assembly, which is not. Most of our letters relating to these areas dealt with vehicles whos e console assemblies were separate structures distinguished by "gaps," or indentations. However, you ask about a vehicle interior that has no obvious gaps or separation between the dashboard and the console assembly (hence its "one-piece" appellation). Instead, the longitudinal floor-mounted structure that lies between the front seats of the vehicle rises gradually at an upward slant towards the vehicle's dashboard, and joins with the vehicle's dashboard without any obvious gaps or spaces, as though t he dashboard and center console were of one piece. At the top of the instrument panel is an overhanging surface above a setback area. This overhanging surface protrudes rearward in such a way that a vertical line tangent to the surface strikes the bott om of the one-piece structure at a point near the floor of the vehicle, between the front seats. Paragraph S3.1 of Standard No. 201 sets the head impact protection requirements for instrument panels. These requirements apply primarily to the upper portions of the instrument panel. Paragraph S3.1 states, "Except as provided in S3.1.1, when that are a of the instrument panel that is within the head impact area is impacted" by a head form, the deceleration of the head form shall be within specified limits. S3.1.1 sets out five exceptions to the instrument panel performance requirements, two of which (S3.1.1(a) and S3.1.1(e)) are relevant to your design. The first of these, S3.1.1(a), provides that the requirements of S3.1 do not apply to console assemblies.
We believe your letter raises two primary issues. The first is whether a console assembly in effect ceases to be a console assembly for the purposes of the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 201, and as a consequence becomes subject to those requirements, when it is part of a one-piece design and adjoined with the dashboard. While we concur with your assessment that the answer to this question is no, we note that determining the dividing line between a dashboard and an adjoining conso le is difficult where there is no intervening gap or indentation. That brings us to the second issue, which is how to determine the rearmost surface of the instrument panel in a vehicle using a one-piece design such as yours. S3.1.1(e) of the standard provides that "(a)reas below any point at which a vertical line is tangent to the rearmost surface of the panel" are not subject to the head impact protection requirements of the standard. You suggest that the rearmost surface is the overhanging surface at the top of the instrument panels on your two vehicles and that the console is the area below that overhanging surface. While we are not prepared to pick the dividing line between the instrument panel and the console, we agree that those overhanging surfaces are the rearmost points of the instrument panel. A vertic al line tangent to those overhanging surfaces strikes the one-piece structure at a point that is clearly part of the longitudinal structure running between the seats, i.e., that is clearly part of the console, and therefore excluded by S3.1.1(a) from the head impact protection performance requirements of Standard No. 201. Notwithstanding the direct reference in S3.1.1(a) to console assemblies, the agency has not defined the term either in Standard No. 201 or elsewhere. In the October 27, 1986 letter to which you refer in your letter, we told your associate, Mr. Shimizu, that we regarded a "low-lying structure mounted on the floor and [lying] primarily between the vehicle seats" to be a console assembly. However, no attempt was made to define what was meant by "low-lying" or "console assembly" or to apply the latter term to structures such as yours that join with the vehicle's dashboard without any obvious gaps or spaces. Given that console assemblies are excluded from the requirement in S3.1 for instrument panels, it is important to determine the boundaries of the instrument panel. S3.1.1(e) is helpful in this regard. S3.1.1(e) has the effect of limiting the head impac t protection requirements of the standard to the upper portions of the instrument panel. With respect to the instrument panel for model A, we conclude that the rearmost surface of the instrument panel is the overhanging surface that is above the setback area. Any area that is rearward of a vertical line tangent to the overhanging surface on the one-piece instrument panel and console assembly is located on a "low-lying structure mounted on the floor and lying primarily between the vehicle seats"--i.e., it is located on a console assembly. Since, for the purposes of S3.1.1(e), the relevant area is the rearmost surface of the instrument panel, areas of the instrument panel on model A that are below this rearmost surface are excluded from the head impact protectio n requirements of the standard. Similarly, with respect to model B, the rearmost surface of the instrument panel is the overhang at the top of the panel. Any area rearward of this surface would be part of the "console assembly," as we have used that term in our letter to Mr. Shimizu. Accordingly, areas of the panel lying below the point at which a vertical line is tangent to this surface are excluded from S3.1. Generally speaking, the upper portions of the instrument panel of both models A and B are subject to S3.1 and would theref ore have to meet the head impact protection requirements of the standard. In conclusion, we concur with your belief that there should be a reasonable way to distinguish a console assembly from an instrument panel. Your letter has highlighted a possible need to clearly define either "instrument panel" or "console assembly" in Standard No. 201, and also an issue as to whether there is a continued need for the exemption for console assemblies found in S3.1.1(a) of the standard. We will further consider these issues and may initiate rulemaking to possibly define console assembl y or to remove the current exemption in S3.1.1(a) of the standard. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, |
|
ID: nht87-1.95OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/04/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. L. T. Mitchell TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. L. T. Mitchell, Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses, L.P. P.O. Box 2450 1408 Courtesy Road High Point, NC 27261 Dear Mr. Mitchell: This responds to your letter to me regarding the questions you share with the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) about paragraph @5.1. 2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our respons e. As you know, your letter has supplemented by information we received in a letter from Mr. Harry Gough of the DMV. We have also incorporated into your inquiry information you provided on February 26 to Mr. Paliokas of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety C ompliance concerning the dimensions of the seat back in question. I regret the delay in this response. The first question you ask is whether @5.1.2 applies to the last row "davenport" type seat found in a rear engine school bus. The answer is yes. By its terms, @5.1.2 applies to "each school bus passenger seat" and makes no exception for the rearmost seat . The second question you ask relates to the concerns you and the DMV have about the requirements in @5.1.2 for seat back surface area. Because Connecticut prohibits the top of rear divan seats to be higher than the lower edge of rear emergency windows, th e state wishes to reduce the height of the seat back on a seat located in the last row of the school bus and reduce the width of the seat cushion (to 29 inches) by use of "spacers." You enclosed a diagram of the seating design to illustrate how the propo sal compares with your standard school bus seat and called the new seat "cushion 2" and the area of its seat back "area 2. " The DMV sent us a diagram showing the location of the spacers on cushion 2. You believe that the DMV's desired seat back design would not comply with Standard No. 222 and ask us whether you have made a correct determination. As explained below, the answer is yes. Paragraph @5.1.2 of Standard No. 222 regulates the height and surface area of seat backs on school buses. It states: Each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that, in the front projected view, has a front surface area above the horizontal plane that passes through the seating reference point, and below the horizontal plane 20 inches above the s eating reference point, of not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in inches multiplied by 20. In order to ascertain the compliance with @5.1.2 of the seat back in question, the area of the seat back (in the front projected view) between the two horizontal planes referenced in @5.1.2 is calculated. To calculate this, dimensions are needed for the height of the seat back above the seating reference point (SRP) and the width of the seat back. The information you provided to Mr. Paliokas concerned the SRP and seat back height. According to that information and the diagram you enclosed, the seat back for cushion 2 is five inches lower than your standard school bus seat back. Thus, the height above the SRP of the seat back for cushion 2 is approximately 14.25 inches. As to the width of the seat back, the question arises whether it should be considered to be 29 or 39 inches wide. While the seat back appears to be 39 inches wide in your illustration, the "spacers" located on each end of the seat in front of the seat ba ck reduce the seat width to 29 inches. The use of the spacers brings up two related issues. First, are they adequate in rendering portions of the bench seat inappropriate for use as seating surface areas? You as the manufacturer must make a good faith determination of their adequacy. We do no t have enough information at this time to answer this question: however, we will assume for the purposes of this discussion that the answer is yes. Second, assuming that the spacers are adequate in making portions of the bench seat unlikely to be used for seating, should the surface of the seat back behind the spacers be considered part of cushion 2's seat back surface area for purposes of @5. 1.2? We believe the answer to this question is no. Since non-seating areas are not required to be compartmentalized between high seat backs or restraining barriers, we do not consider portions of a seat back behind non-seating positions as part of the seat ba ck surf ace area required by @5.1.2 to be provided for school bus seats. Hence, if the spacers render cushion 2 into a 29 inch seat, we conclude that the width of the corresponding seat back is 29 inches. Under @5. 1.2, the front surface area of the seat back between the two referenced planes must be not less than 90 percent of the seat bench width in inches multiplied by 20. The required surface area for a seat back of a 29 inch bench seat thus must be a t least 522 square inches. Since the seat back for cushion 2 has a height above the SRP of 14.25 inches and a width of 29 inches, its area is only 413.25 square inches. Therefore, the seat back does not meet @5. 1.2 of Standard No. 222. In his letter to us, Mr. Gough argues that the proposed design would not violate the purpose of Standard No. 222 since the seat back in question would be located in the rear of the school bus and no person would be sitting or standing behind it. We canno t accept this argument. Paragraph 52 of Standard No. 222 states: "The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number of deaths and the severity of injuries that result from the impact of school bus occupants against structures within the vehicle during crashes and sudden driving maneuvers." In accordance with this intent, Standard No. 222 requires school buses to comply with "compartmentalization" requirements to provide passenger crash protection. To achieve the benefits of compartmentalization, it i s important that passengers be protected and confined in the event of a crash within an area of sturdy, well-padded seats. The seat back area required by @5.1.2 is necessary, therefore, not only to provide protection to passengers seated behind the seat back, but also to ensure that the protective compartment is provided for occupants of the seat. I hope this letter is helpful. I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Gough for his Information. Please contact my office if you or he have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel December 17, 1986 Ms. Erika Z. Jones Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590 Ref: FMVSS #222 Section @5.1.2 - Seat Back Height and Surface Area. Dear Ms. Jones: One of our customers has requested an interpretation of FMVSS #222 @5.1.2 - "Seat Back Height and Surface Area". 1)Does @5.1.2 apply to the last row "Davenport" type seat that is found in a rear engine school bus? 2) The Davenport seat back width is 90 inches. Each cushion is 39" wide. If the answer to question number 1 is yes, what seat backs surface area may be used to meet the requirements of @5.1.2 for the total cushion width? The enclosed illustration shows area number 1 and 2 respectively located above cushion number 1 and 2. Thomas Built Buses interprets @5.1.2 to mean that area 1 must meet the area requirement of @5.1.2 for cushion 1. Thus area 2 with its reduce seat back height does not meet @5.1.2 for cushion 2. Is the Thomas interpretation correct? Thank you for your help in this matter. We are looking forward to your response. Sincerely, Thomas Built Buses, L.P. L. T. MITCHELL, Specification Engineer LTH/jw Enclosure cc: Matt Mathieson Ron Marion Howard Smith, Connecticutt Distributor |
|
ID: aiam0264OpenMr. John J. Trotsky, President, Juno Industries, Inc., Cassopolis Road, Cassopolis, MI 49031; Mr. John J. Trotsky President Juno Industries Inc. Cassopolis Road Cassopolis MI 49031; Dear Mr. Trotsky: Your letter of August 26, 1970, concerning the compliance of you cut-van motor home with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components has been forwarded to this office for reply.; You state that the door in the camper body is located so that n portion of a manikin in any designated seating position would project into the door opening in the side view. If, as it appears, you are correct, the door locks and door retention components on that door are not required to comply with Standard No. 206.; You also state that you believe that the doors on the cab comply wit Standard No. 206. As a manufacturer of multipurpose passenger vehicles, you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for the compliance of the cab doors with Standard No. 206. Although the van may have been manufactured as a truck, it must, when subsequently converted to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, comply with all multipurpose passenger vehicle standards in effect on the date of manufacture of your motor home. Therefore, you should ascertain, either from the van manufacturer or by your own tests, that the cab doors comply with Standard No. 206.; Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
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.