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: 002661cmc_newOpenMs. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs: This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply. While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) provides that:
Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: 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. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below. FMVSS No. 207 FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard. FMVSS No. 208 Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position. FMVSS No. 209 FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard. FMVSS No. 210 FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard. FMVSS No. 225 If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle. I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:207 [1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990. [2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints. |
2003 |
ID: nht90-4.2OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: September 13, 1990 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Jonathan P. Reynolds -- Esq., Cosco Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-28-89 from J.P. Reynolds to S. Kratzke (OCC 4213); Also attached to Cosco child restraint labels and instruction sheets (graphics and text omitted) TEXT: You sent us a letter describing various aspects of the Cosco "Dream Ride" convertible infant restraint/car bed, including the labeling and printed instructions for the bed. You said in your letter that Cosco previously sent the labels and instructions t o NHTSA's enforcement office. I regret we have been unable to find them. Your description of the instructions indicates that Cosco informs the user that the bed should be installed in the right-rear or the right-front seating position only. You state that Cosco believes the bed should not be installed in the center rear seat ing position, because a child lying in the bed in that seating position might strike the left-rear door or body panel in a side impact on the driver's side. Standard 213 requires the bed to meet the requirements of the standard when installed at the cen ter seating position of the seat assembly used for child seat testing (S6.1.2.1.1). If a manufacturer can meet the requirements with the seat in that position, the manufacturer may specify the types of seating positions in which the child restraint syst em can or cannot be used (S5.6.1.2) for adequate protection to the child. Thus, Cosco's limiting instruction is permitted. Please note that Standard 213's requirements for installation instructions (S5.6.1) require the instructions to state also that, according to accident statistics, children are safer when restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions. (S5.6.1.1) The installation instructions you provide must include the statement required by S5.6.1.1. You request our comments on your product's "compliance with FMVSS 213." NHTSA does not certify or approve in advance motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and does not comment on a product's compliance with the FMVSS's outside the context of the age ncy's compliance testing. We therefore are unable to confirm whether your product complies with Standard 213. I hope this information is helpful. |
|
ID: nht80-4.16OpenDATE: 10/30/80 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Mazda TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Mr. M. Ogata Branch Manager Mazda Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075 Dear Mr. Ogata: Thank you for your July 24, 1980, letter concerning your efforts to improve defogging performance. We share your concern about providing optimum driving visibility and are pleased with your efforts to improve this safety feature. Your letter requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 103, asking whether it is permissible to designate an intermediate blower fan speed (instead of the maximum speed) as the speed to be used when defrosting, if some caution or direction about the necessity for using that intermediate speed for defrosting purposes is provided in the Owner's Manual. The purpose of taking that step would be to cause the intermediate speed instead of the maximum blower speed to be used in testing the performance of the defrosting system under the standard. If this was permis- sible, you could increase the speed of the fan at the maximum position, thereby improving performance of the defogging function, while still being able to meet the performance requirements of the defrosting function at the intermediate speed (but not at the new maximum speed). Paragraph S4.3 of the standard states that "the passenger car windshield defrosting and defogginq system shall be tested in accordance with the portions of paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recommended Practice J902, August 1964, or SAE Recommended Practice J902a, March 1967, applicable to that system," with certain exceptions not applicable to your question.
Section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902 specifies as one of the testing conditions that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high." Similarly, section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902a specifies that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high speed." We therefore conclude that it would not be permissible under the standard as currently drafted to install a defrosting system which fails to meet the standard when the blower is set to its highest speed even if the system meets the standard at a lower blower speed and that lower blower speed is labeled as the maximum defrosting position. This conclusion would not be changed by the inclusion of directions in the Owner's Manual or words or symbols on the control panel. If you are unable to resolve the problem in another way, i.e., improving the performance of the heating element, you may wish to petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an amendment to FMVSS 103. It is our inclination, however, that a defrosting system which operated optimally at a lower blower speed would cause considerable consumer confusion. Drivers would normally expect to obtain both optimum defrosting performance and optimum defogging performance at the highest blower speed. Even if the system was clearly labeled to indicate that the blower speed should be set to medium for defrosting and high for defogging, many consumers do not know the difference between defrosting and defogging. We would also have to consider the amendment's effect on Standard 101, since there is only one symbol for the defrosting and defogging system. If you should decide to petition for an amendment to Standard 103, we would like to see these issues addressed. Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel July 24, 1980 Our Ref. No.: DS-001 Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Sir, Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 103 After having a meeting with Mr. S. Oesch and Mr. G. Parker, they have requested that I should submit my questions to the chief counsel. These questions pertain to the testing condition of FMVSS 103. Your response would be appreciated before the end of August. QUESTION When we conduct the test to measure the defrosting performance which is required by FMVSS 103, is it permissible to designate the switch position of the blower fan motor to other than the maximum blower speed under the condition that we provide some caution or direction in the Owner's Manual? BACKGROUND 1. Our current defrosting and defogging systems fan switch has four positions shown below. *Insert Diagram Generally speaking, there are relations between the volume of hot air and temperature of the hot air described below. POSITION VOLUME OF AIR TEMP. OF AIR HI Maximum Lowest M less than HI higher than HI position position L Minimum Highest In addition, the defrosting performance depends on the temperature of the air rather than the volume of the air and the defogging performance depends on the volume of the air rather than the temperature of the air. Therefore, we gave the defrosting performance which complies with FMVSS 103 with the fan switch in the HI position for all current vehicles. However, we have customer complaints from the market that the defogging performance is relatively poor in the HI position. So, we are now considering to give more volume in the HI position to resolve this complaint which is very important performance while driving the car to receive the best visibility. However, unfortunately, we can not comply with the requirement if we increase the volume of the air because of the decrease of the air temperature which is mentioned above. Now we are considering to designate the position of the fan switch in the Owner's Manual such as: "Turn the FAN SWITCH on M position to get the maximum defrosting performance" This means that we increase the air volume on both the M and HI positions and we can comply the requirement in the M position instead of the HI position. 2. There are three documents concerning the testing condition for FMVSS 103. They are FMVSS 103, SAE J902 and the Laboratory Test Procedure (TP-103-09). There are some differences between these documents regarding the fan position shown below: FMVSS 103: There is no definition concerning the position SAE J903, Sec.J.4.2.7: On Full. Blower on high speed. TP-103-09, 4(g): ...in the manufacturer's designated positions for optimum defroster performance. So, please interpret this matter on whether our designation of the fan switch position is acceptable. In addition, please give us the information as to what kind of statement is acceptable in the Owner's Manual and whether we have to provide some words or symbols on the control panel from the point of FMVSS 101. Thanking you in advance, Sincerely yours, M. Ogata Branch Manager cc: Mr. G. Parker Office of Vehicle Standards Crash Avoidance Division |
|
ID: aiam5427OpenMr. David Huff Co-Chairperson, Special Transportation Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation Central Missouri State University Warrensburg, MO 64093; Mr. David Huff Co-Chairperson Special Transportation Twelfth National Conference on School Transportation Central Missouri State University Warrensburg MO 64093; "Dear Mr. Huff: This responds to your letter to Mr. Charles Hott o this agency asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222), for wheelchair securement devices. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask about the need to increase Standard 222's strength requirements for wheelchair securement devices that are part of an integrated system. In an integrated system, the occupant restraint system (lap and shoulder belts) is anchored to the wheelchair securement device. You suggest that a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system should be required to withstand twice the load that is required for a securement device that is not integrated with the occupant restraint system. While we share your belief that wheelchair securement devices should be sufficiently strong, we do not believe there is a need to increase Standard 222's present requirements for securement devices that are part of an integrated system. Rather, we believe a securement device that meets the standard's present requirements is capable of withstanding the forces imposed on that device in a crash, even when the device is part of an integrated system such as the one you described. As you point out in your letter, S5.4.1.3 of Standard 222 provides for increasing the load requirement for a wheelchair securement anchorage when that anchorage is used by more than one wheelchair securement device. Moreover, S5.4.3.2(e) of the standard specifies that When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1.3 13,344 Newtons and S5.4.3.2 13,344 Newtons shall be applied simultaneously... Stated differently, the floor anchorage used for an integrated system must withstand a load of 26,688 Newtons, which is the sum of the load specified for the wheelchair securement device and the load specified for the occupant restraint. However, Standard 222 does not require increasing the load for a wheelchair securement device that is part of an integrated system, and there is valid reason for the different approach. Under S5.4.2(a) of Standard 222, wheelchair securement devices that incorporate webbing or a strap must comply with the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Type I systems are lap belts, and are required by S4.2(b) of FMVSS 209 to have a breaking strength of not less than '6,000 pounds or 2,720 kilograms.' The 6,000 pound (2,720 kg.) requirement is equivalent to the 26,688 Newton requirement for an anchorage used for an integrated system. Thus, Standard 222 requires wheelchair securement devices to be as strong as an anchorage that secures both the wheelchair and the occupant restraint. Requiring the wheelchair securement device to be stronger than the anchorage cannot be justified by a safety need. I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: nht95-4.57OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 14, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Bob Clement -- U.S. House of Representatives TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/03/95 Letter from Bob Clement to Ricardo Martinez TEXT: Dear Congressman Clement: Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr. Pommer has been told that this cannot b e done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is not Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how t he modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts. Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are mi nimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element o f design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC @ 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disco nnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part, Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the re quirements of Standard No. 209. In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crast Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position. A "designated seating position" is defined by NHTSA regulations as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion . . . Any bench or split-bench seat . . . having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions. Since the 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts. The "make inoperative" prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt , is is possible that the existing belts and anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without "making inoperative" the compliance of th ose belts and anchorages. I hope this information has been helpful. |
|
ID: nht95-7.22OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: October 14, 1995 FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Bob Clement -- U.S. House of Representatives TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/03/95 Letter from Bob Clement to Ricardo Martinez TEXT: Dear Congressman Clement: Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr. Pommer has been told that this cannot be done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is not Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how the modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts. Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC @ 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part, Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209. In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crast Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position. A "designated seating position" is defined by NHTSA regulations as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion . . . Any bench or split-bench seat . . . having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions. Since the 1982 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts. The "make inoperative" prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt, is is possible that the existing belts and anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without "making inoperative" the compliance of those belts and anchorages. I hope this information has been helpful. |
|
ID: 11316Open The Honorable Bob Clement Dear Congressman Clement: Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr Pommer has been told that this cannot be done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how the modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts. Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC '30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209. In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position. A "designated seating position" is defined by NHTSA regulations as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion...Any bench or split- bench seat ...having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions. Since the 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts. The "make inoperative" prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt, it is possible that the existing belts and anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without "making inoperative" the compliance of those belts and anchorages. I hope this information has been helpful. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:VSA#208#209#210 d:11/14/95
|
1995 |
ID: 07-003545asOpenMr. Kiminori Hyodo Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 4-8-3, Takanawa Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan Dear Mr. Hyodo: This responds to your letter, in which you ask about the relative location of the lower and upper beam light sources under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you ask if the optical axis, as defined by the manufacturer, can be used to determine the relative location of the lower beam light source to that of the upper beam headlamp. As discussed below, our answer is yes. It is our opinion that for purposes of visual/optically aimed headlamps, the point where the optical axis intersects the lens of the headlamp (as determined by the manufacturer) is the reference point used for purposes of determining the relative location of the beams. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. The relative locations of lower and upper beam headlamps is governed under paragraphs S7.4(b) and S7.5(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 108. These paragraphs read, respectively: S7.4 * * * (b) The lower and upper beams shall be provided only as follows where each headlamp contains two light sources: (1) The lower beam shall be provided either by the most outboard light source (or the uppermost if arranged vertically), or by all light sources. (2) The upper beam shall be provided either by the most inboard light source (or the lowermost if arranged vertically), or by all light sources. * * * * S7.5(d) For a headlamp equipped with dual filament replaceable light sources, the following requirements apply: * * * * (2) The lower and upper beams of a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing either one or two replaceable light sources, shall be provided as follows: (i) The lower beam shall be provided in one of the following ways: (A) By the outboard light source (or upper one if arranged vertically) designed to conform to: (1) The lower beam requirements of Figure 27-1 or Figure 27-2, or Figure 17-1 or Figure 17-2, if the light sources in the headlamp system are any combination of dual filament replaceable light sources other than Type HB2; or (2) The lower beam requirements of Figure 17-1 or Figure 17-2, if the light sources are Type HB2, or any dual filament replaceable light sources that include Type HB2; or (B) By both light sources in the headlamp, designed to conform to the lower beam requirements specified above. (ii) The upper beam shall be provided in one of the following ways: (A) By the inboard light source (or the lower one if arranged vertically) designed to conform to: (1) The upper beam requirements of Figure 27-1 or Figure 27-2, or Figure 17-1 or Figure 17-2, if the light sources in the headlamp system are any combination of dual filament replaceable light sources other than Type HB2; or (2) The upper beam requirements of Figure 17-1 or Figure 17-2, if the light sources are Type HB2, or any dual filament replaceable light sources that include Type HB2; or (B) By both light sources in the headlamp, designed to conform to the upper beam requirements specified above. We note that the specifications described in paragraphs S7.4(b) and S7.5(d)(2) were originally adopted in the 1970s to apply to four-lamp sealed beam headlighting systems in which each lamp was identical in size and contained only a single light source. When the lamps were mounted horizontally, side by side with identical horizontal centerlines, the outboard lamps were required to be the ones providing the lower beam, which also served to mark the width of the vehicle. When the lamps were mounted vertically, one atop the other with identical vertical centerlines, the lower beam continued to mark the width of the vehicle, but it was required to be the uppermost headlamp in order to provide a greater seeing distance. This established the location priority for the lower beam, that it be the outermost beam, and uppermost beam if the vertical axes of the lamps coincided. As you are aware, in our previous letter of interpretation to you, we stated that manufacturers could use their discretion when specifying the location of the optical axis. We noted that for visual/optically aimed headlamps, the term optical axis as used in FMVSS No. 108 refers to the reference axis (a.k.a. mechanical axis) of the headlamp.[1] We said that because we believe, given the asymmetric nature of modern headlighting systems, the output of a lamp comprised of multiple sources is not in a pre-defined position (such as at the geometric center of the lens), as it is with symmetrical lamps such as turn signals. In these cases, the manufacturer is the entity best positioned to locate the reference axis from which photometric output of the the beam will be measured. NHTSA stated that it will use that reference axis when doing its own testing. For similar reasons, with these kinds of lamps, we believe that the same reference axis (i.e., the optical axis) that is used to align the beam when measuring the photometric output of the lamp is also useful for determining the reference point for the physical location of the lens. As stated above, the purpose of the specifications at issue is to establish the location priority of the lower beam. The optical axis, as defined by the manufacturer, is already used to determine the optical center of the light beam produced. Therefore, as long as the reference axis of the lower beam headlamp is located farther outboard than the reference axis of the upper beam (or uppermost if arranged vertically), such alignment would be permissible under Standard No. 108. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.11/21/07 |
2007 |
ID: aiam1828OpenMr. C. Henderson, Director of Engineering, American Safety Equipment Corporation, 500 Library Street, San Fernando, CA 91340; Mr. C. Henderson Director of Engineering American Safety Equipment Corporation 500 Library Street San Fernando CA 91340; Dear Mr. Henderson: This is in reply to your letter of January 22, 1975, which formall petitioned for a change to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems. Your petition requested an exception to the padding requirement for hardware which serves as a torso load distribution pad and which is attached only to the child seat belt system.; Based on a further review of your design, we have reconsidered th position stated in our December 20, 1974, letter to you. We now consider this device to be belt adjustment hardware, even though it is also used to distribute loads, and have determined that no padding is therefore required. We consider that the safety of your child seat would not be appreciably improved by padding this torso load distribution pad. This is further confirmed by the primate test films and data which you presented to us in our meeting of January 21, 1975. We would suggest that this item, nonetheless, provide a radius in accordance with S4.10.1(a).; We presume that this interpretation will eliminate the need for formal response to your petition. If that is the case we would appreciate a letter from you to that effect.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht73-2.2OpenDATE: 08/30/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc. TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1973, concerning the conformity of certain designs of type III seat belt assemblies with Standard No. 209. The first feature which you describe is a restraint consisting of a waist band with a single shoulder strap. The shoulder strap is attached to the buckle in front and is looped around the waist band in back. Unless this restraint has more elements then you describe, we haver serious questions about its conformity with the requirements for type III seat belts under Standard 209. Section S4.1(c) provides that the assembly must restrain the upper torso without shifting the pelvic restraint into the abdominal region and that the upper torso restraint shall be designed to minimize its vertical forces on the shoulders and spine. It appears doubtful that the described assembly meets either of these requirements. The second feature you described is a strap through the harness assembly that passes around the seat back and is anchored to the floor by means of the vehicle's seat belt assembly anchorage. Your question appears to be whether such a restraint is a seat back retainer as required by Section S4.1(h). The attachment you describe would not be a seat back retainer under Section S4.1(h). The third feature described, a closed loop strap without floor attachment would also violate the requirements of S4.1(h), unless it is designed and labelled for use only in specific models having adequate seat back restraints, as specified in that paragraph. The fourth feature is the ability of a harness to move freely up and down on the restraint strap. This feature is the ability of harness to move freely up and down on the restraint strap. This feature is allowable under Standard 209. Yours truly, ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORISE, INC. June 18, 1973 Richard Dyson -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Subject: Type 3 Seat Belt Assemblies. Dear Mr. Dyson: We have recently been asked to perform tests on type III seat belt assemblies, the design of which has caused us some doubt as to their meeting some of the requirements of FMVSS 209. What we would like to know is whether or not the following design features are acceptable under the requirements for type III seat belt assemblies as outlined in FMVSS 209. 1. Upper torso restraint: Restraint consists of single strap starting at the midpoint of the pelvic band (strap around the waist). The anchor point is the buckle tongue hardware. The strap then passes over on shoulder of the child and is terminated in a loop through which the pelvic belt passes freely. 2. Seat Back Retainer: Strap passes through harness assembly around seat in a closed loop and is anchored to the vehicle by a narrow anchor plate using the same bolt as used to secure the seat belt assembly. This installation is performed by the purchaser. 3. Strap: The harness assembly is secured to the seat back by a closed loop strap. No seat back restraint provided. 4. Harness assembly: The harness assembly is secured by either the seat back retainer or strap and is free to move up or down on this section of webbing. The specimens we have in for test are combinations of the above features and as such we would appreciate knowing what features are acceptable and which are not. Should you require any additional information on this subject, in relation to the descriptions, please contact either Mr. H. D. Pomponio or myself. Very truly yours, C. F. Robb -- Manager, Automotive/Mechanical Division |
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.