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: 1096Open Steven B. Fisher, Esq. Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Dear Mr. Fisher: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1995, to Philip R. Recht, formerly Chief Counsel of this agency. You have asked several questions relating to use of the word "practicable" in the lamp location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your first question is "with respect to truck, trailer identification lights (red), what is meant exactly by `practicable' as used in SS5.3.1.1 and 5.3.1.4." Your second question is whose responsibility it is to make the determination of practicability. Your final question is whether there is any way for a manufacturer of "a single rear identification light" to know where a trailer manufacturer will install the product on any given trailer. We don't see the word "practicable" in S5.3.1.1. However, S5.3.1.4 does provide that rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they "be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle" when the rear identification lamps are located at the extreme height of the vehicle. Table II specifies location of lighting equipment on the vehicle, and it is therefore the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, in certifying that its vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, to determine what is practicable. As you indicate, a trailer manufacturer may make such a determination "in light of the particular design/configuration of the trailer involved." NHTSA will not contest this determination unless it is clearly erroneous. In short, "practicable" as meant by S5.3.1.4 or any other place where the word occurs, is not a term defined by Standard No. 108, and derives its meaning from specific factual contexts. We note that the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1967) defines "practicable" as "capable of being done, effected, or put into practice with the available means" (p. 1127). There is no responsibility under Standard No. 108 for the manufacturer of identification lamps to know where its products will be installed on the motor vehicle. Its responsibility under Standard No. 108 is to ensure that any identification lamp that it manufactures for replacement purposes is designed to conform to Standard No. 108's performance specifications and so certified at the time the lamp is shipped from the factory. If you have any further questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:8/30/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10975Open Helen A. Rychlewski Dear Ms. Rychlewski: This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test. In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions. The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged. The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:201 d:8/4/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10992Open Mr. John Renock Dear Mr. Renock: Mr. M. Judson Brown, the project manager for your Transit Authority's compressed natural gas (CNG) bus project, requested that I explain the Federal regulation of CNG containers to you. According to Mr. Brown's letter, the Central New York Regional Transit Authority believes that certain CNG fuel containers are required to be re-inspected and hydrostatically retested every three years. The short explanation is that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has no authority to regulate the reinspection or retesting of CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles, after the first consumer purchase. With regard to Mr. Brown's inquiry into the authority of the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) to require reinspection and retesting, we are forwarding your letter to RSPA so that officials of that agency can explain their regulations to you. NHTSA has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on or after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection or retesting of motor vehicles or such equipment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: M. Judson Brown ref:304 d:7/18/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10994Open Patrick M. Raher, Esq. Dear Mr. Raher: This responds to your request for an interpretation of the seat position specifications of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 214, Side Impact Protection. These specifications, which are part of the test conditions for the standards' dynamic crash tests, indicate how a vehicle's seats are positioned in those tests. You asked how the specifications apply in the case of power seats which have different maximum seating locations in the forward and rearward position depending on seat height. As discussed below, the seats would be positioned midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions (with the forwardmost and rearmost positions being determined irrespective of seat height), and at the lowest possible height at that midway position. This appears to correspond to Option 1 in your letter. In your letter, you described a power seat design whose seat position potential is trapezoidal rather than rectangular, due to the mechanism utilized in the power seat operation. In particular, the seat can move further forward in its highest position than in its lowest position, and further rearward in its lowest position than in its highest position. You also indicated that a lowering of the seat from a higher position has the effect of moving the seat backward. The seat position specifications of Standards No. 208 (S8.1.2) and No. 214 (S6.3) read as follows: Adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position. If an adjustment position does not exist midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions, the closest adjustment position to the rear of the midpoint is used. This provision sets forth two conditions concerning how an adjustable seat is positioned in a crash test. The first condition, for the longitudinal position of the seat, is for the seat to be in the adjustment position midway between the forwardmost and rearmost positions. The terms "forwardmost" and "rearmost" are not qualified by height, so the absolute forwardmost and rearmost positions would be used, irrespective of seat height at those positions. The second condition, for the vertical position of a seat which is separately adjustable in a vertical direction, is for the seat to be in the lowest position. We interpret this to refer to the lowest vertical position that can be attained at the longitudinal position described above. Therefore, in positioning a seat for a crash test, we would not change the longitudinal position of the seat merely because the mechanism was designed so that lowering the seat from a higher position had the effect of moving the seat backward. Instead, we would find the lowest vertical position that could be attained at the specified longitudinal position. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:8/31/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10999Open Mr. Tim Phillips Dear Mr. Phillips: This responds to your letter of June 21, 1995, in which you asked us to update your information on new tire sizing codes used in the DOT identification of tires. Please be advised that this agency no longer specifies tire size codes. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) '574.5, Tire identification requirements (copy enclosed), requires tire manufacturers to label on one sidewall of each tire it produces a tire identification number (TIN), and specifies that the TIN will be composed of four groupings, the second of which "shall be used to identify the tire size." The size requirement in the TIN was first promulgated as '574.4 on November 10, 1970 (35 FR 17257). At that time, NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) specified in Table 1 of the regulation the codes to be used to designate the various tire sizes. In the following two years, the agency amended Table 1 numerous times to add new codes to represent additional tire sizes. On November 8, 1972 NHTSA published a final rule rescinding Table 1 and the agency-specified tire codes (37 FR 23727). The agency explained that because of the many new tire sizes being introduced, available new codes had become exhausted and it was necessary to change the system to one permitting greater flexibility. Accordingly, the agency amended the regulation to permit manufacturers to assign their own two-digit code to represent tire size and to permit retreaders to use either a self-assigned matrix code or a self-assigned tire size code. The November 8, 1972 amendment also required each new tire manufacturer and retreader to maintain a record of each symbol used and provide that information to NHTSA upon written request. Those requirements remain in effect (49 CFR '574.5(b)). In summary, 49 CFR '574.5 no longer specifies tire size codes for use as the second grouping of symbols in TINs. Rather, the regulation permits manufacturers and retreaders to use their own tire size codes in that grouping of the TIN. 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,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure
ref:574 d:8/4/95
|
1995 |
ID: 11-000612 M.Edie (Part 523)OpenMark D. Edie Office of the General Counsel Ford Motor Company 1350 I Street N.W., Suite 450 Washington, D.C. 20005 Re: Request for Interpretation of 49 CFR 523.2 AND 523.5(b)(2) Dear Mr. Edie: This is a response to your letter on January 21, 2011, in which you requested an interpretation of 49 CFR 523.2 and 523.5(b)(2) as they would apply to the classification of a motor vehicle with components affixed to its undercarriage. The specific components described in your letter are tire aero deflectors, which are attached in front of the tires in order to reduce aerodynamic drag and thereby improve fuel economy. Your letter states that in order to perform as needed, some of the components may be between 20 and 15 centimeters from their lowest point to the ground. The components are made of flexible plastic and capable of bending without breaking and returning to their original position after encountering solid objects up to 20 centimeters in height at typical off-road speeds. You requested our confirmation that this type of component would be excluded from the running clearance measurement in 49 CFR 523.5(b)(2), and thus allow vehicles equipped with these components to be classified as light trucks for CAFE compliance purposes, provided that they meet all other required criteria for that classification. This letter provides the agencys opinion based on the information provided. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not endorse or approve the classification of any motor vehicle. This is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, who must also ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. In order to comply with CAFE requirements, the manufacturer must classify its vehicles according to the definitions in 49 CFR Part 523, as promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(17)-(19). Improper classification can result in NHTSA determining that a manufacturers CAFE compliance obligations for its passenger car and light truck fleets are different from those assumed by the manufacturer, and create difficulties in meeting the standards. NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR 523.5 provide two basic ways in which a vehicle can be classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes: 523.5(a) covers vehicles that the agency considers functional light trucks, that are not passenger cars because they were not manufactured primarily for transporting up to ten individuals; and 523.5(b) covers vehicles which are expressly excluded from the passenger car category due to their capability for off-highway operation.[1] Your question focuses on 523.5(b), which states that a vehicle must either: (1)(i) [Have] 4-wheel drive; or (ii) [Be] rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and (2) [Have] at least four of the following characteristics calculated when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure (i) Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees. (ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees. (iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees. (iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters. (v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each. Running clearance is defined in 49 CFR 523.2 as the distance from the surface on which an automobile is standing to the lowest point on the automobile, excluding unsprung weight. We have previously interpreted 49 CFR 523.5(b) to mean that it does not require a vehicle to meet four of the five criteria [of 523.5(b)(2)] at all ride heights; however, a vehicle must meet four out of the five criteria in at least one ride height.[2] In the situation presented in that prior interpretation, the vehicle was equipped with a driver-controllable variable ride height suspension system. In some positions, the vehicle would have had a running clearance of less than 20 centimeters, but the agency determined that it was appropriate, for CAFE classification purposes, to measure the vehicles running clearance with its adjustable suspension placed in the position(s) intended for off-road operation under real-world conditions.[3] |
|
ID: 11-000697_Trooper_Kile_205Open
Trooper James S. Kile 266 Periwinkle Lane New Market, Virginia 22844
Dear Trooper Kile:
This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials, to shade bands on windshields of passenger vehicles. You ask 1) whether Federal law permits any type of obstruction or tinting above the AS-1 line on the windshield; and 2) in the absence of an AS-1 line, is any tinting or other type of obstruction permitted near the top of the windshield. FMVSS No. 205 does not contain restrictions on tinting or opaque obstructions in the shade band area. Furthermore, the area of the windshield with a light transmittance of less than 70% must be marked by the AS-1 line.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to that authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called items), and specifies the locations in vehicles where each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference industry standards, the American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways Safety Standard (ANSI Z26.1-1996) and SAE J100, Passenger Car Glazing Shade Bands.
ANSI Z26.1-1996 requires that all glazing materials used in areas of the vehicle requisite for driving visibility have a light transmittance level of not less than 70%. FMVSS No. 205 allows a shade ban area or opaque area used to mount the rearview mirror near the top of the windshield. These areas are permitted to have a light transmittance level of less than 70%. Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1-1996 requires that glazing materials requisite for driving visibility with areas having a light transmittance level of less than 70% be permanently marked with the AS-1 line with an arrow pointed to the area that has a light transmittance level greater than 70%.
FMVSS No. 205 requires that shade bands conform to either SAE J100 or paragraph S5.3.2 which mandate the lower boundary of the shade band. Neither SAE J100 nor paragraph S5.3.2 specify a luminous transmittance level for the shade ban area. Thus, FMVSS No. 205 does not prohibit any type of tinting or opaque obstruction in the shade band area provided that the windshield will be able to meet all other performance requirements specified in ANSI Z26.1-1996. Thus, FMVSS No. 205 does not prohibit any tinting or opaque obstructions above the AS-1 line assuming that the AS-1 line is in a location specified by SAE J100 or paragraph S5.3.2.
On vehicles without a shade ban the AS-1 line must mark the lowest point of the break area, the opaque area at the top of the windshield and in the center where the rearview mirror is mounted. If no AS-1 line is present on the windshield, the entire windshield must have at least a 70% light transmittance level. A windshield with no AS-1 line would still be permitted to have shade band or other tinting at the top of the windshield provided that the light transmittance of the shade band or tinting was not less than 70%.
If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Thomas Healy of this office at 202-366-7161.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
5/10/2011 |
|
ID: 11-000699 Signature Products Group Seat Cushion 214 Interpretation LetterOpen
Mr. Dave Otis Signature Products Group 2550 South Decker Lake Blvd. Ste. #1 Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Dear Mr. Otis:
This letter responds to your letter inquiring about side air bags and their relationship to the seat covers that your company manufactures for sale directly to vehicle owners (in the aftermarket). You ask the following questions: (1) whether there are Federal regulations that regulate the deployment of side air bags in relation to seat covers; (2) whether your company should be concerned with possible liabilities of consumer installation of your products in their vehicles; (3) whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) operates a certification or testing program for seat covers; (4) whether any Federal regulations prevent seat covers from covering the air bag labels that are often found on seats; and (5) whether NHTSA is aware of any industry standards in regards to side impact air bags and seat covers.
This letter responds to your questions. Our answers are based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter.
By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to both new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.[1] NHTSA does not approve or certify vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Currently there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to aftermarket seat covers. Thus, you are not subject to a certification requirement, since no FMVSS applies to your product.[2] However, seat covers are considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you must ensure that your seat covers are free of safety-related defects. Among other things, manufacturers are responsible for notifying this agency, notifying purchasers of the product, and remedying the problem free of charge when a safety defect is discovered. (1) Federal Regulations Regarding Side Air Bags and Seat Covers
You ask whether there are Federal regulations that regulate the deployment of side air bags in relation to seat covers. Vehicle manufacturers have been installing side air bags in vehicle seats for a number of years. In 2007, NHTSA issued a final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, to provide increased head and thorax protection for occupants of vehicles that crash sideways into poles or trees or are laterally struck by higher-riding vehicles.[3] Vehicle manufacturers are installing seat-mounted, door- and roof-mounted side air bags in new vehicles to meet this new FMVSS requirement. May you sell an aftermarket seat cover that covers up the seat-mounted side air bag installed to meet FMVSS No. 214? There are several factors to consider. First, under 30122 of the Safety Act, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design that was installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with the FMVSSs. In our opinion, if a seat-mounted side air bag were installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 214, 30122 would not permit a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to install the seat cover if the entity knew that the seat cover would make the air bags inoperative. (We are aware that the persons purchasing your seat covers are typically vehicle owners who install the seat covers themselves and that it is thus unlikely that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business will install your seat covers.) Second, vehicle owners are not subject to the make inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act when installing items in their vehicles or otherwise modifying their vehicles. They may install an aftermarket product even if the product negatively affects the safety systems in their vehicles, without violating our regulations. Nonetheless, we encourage vehicle owners to avoid disabling or reducing the effectiveness of safety features on their vehicles. Further, State law may have restrictions on the modifications vehicle owners may make to their vehicles. Third, we believe it is practicable for manufacturers of seat covers to design their product such that the seat covers will not affect the proper deployment of side impact air bags. We understand that seat cover manufacturers have been producing such products for years. NHTSA regulations do not require manufacturers of seat covers to test their seat covers to see if they are compatible with the side air bags. However, generally speaking, we strongly encourage manufacturers to carefully consider how their aftermarket equipment might affect the safety systems on a vehicle.
(2) Liability Arising from Consumer Installation of Seat Covers
You ask whether your company should be concerned with possible liabilities of consumer installation of your products in their vehicles. To answer this question and to further address your questions about testing seat covers, you should consult a private attorney on this matter. As personal injury and tort litigation are generally matters of State law, such an attorney would have the best information with which to advise your company.
(3) Certification and Testing of Products
Your third question asks whether NHTSA operates a certification or testing program for seat covers. As explained above, NHTSA does not provide approvals of or certifications for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.
We suggest you contact an independent testing laboratory if you are interested in tests of seat covers. For your information, I have enclosed a list of independent test laboratories that NHTSA has used under contract to conduct compliance testing to various FMVSSs. This list is available on NHTSAs website: www.nhtsa.gov.
(4) Covering the Air Bag Label on Seats
You ask whether any Federal regulations prevent seat covers from covering the air bag labels that are often found on seats. We assume you refer to the label or tag on a vehicle seat that indicates the presence of a side air bag.
Our answer is no. Our safety standards do not require that manufacturers include a label to indicate the presence of a side air bag to the vehicle user. The label does not include safety information or warnings. We have no restrictions on a seat cover covering the tag other than those related to performance, discussed above.
(5) Industry Standards Regarding Seat Covers
You ask whether NHTSA is aware of any industry standards in regards to side impact air bags and seat covers. Our answer is no, but we suggest you try contacting the test laboratories listed in the enclosure. The Society of Automotive Engineers (telephone: 1-877-606-7323) might also have information on industry standards pertaining to your product.
We hope this information has been helpful. For your information, we have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturers responsibilities under the Safety Act and other NHTSA requirements.
Should you have any further questions, please contact Jesse Chang of my staff at 202-366-2992.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Enclosures
Ref: FMVSS No. 214 8/17/2011 |
|
ID: 11-000700 J.Hoffrichter (Std No. 207)OpenJames Hofrichter Vice President of Engineering Seats Incorporated 1515 Industrial Street Reedsburg, WI 53959 Dear Mr. Hofrichter: This responds to your January 11, 2011 letter concerning whether a new seating application for trucks meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, which governs vehicle seating systems. Specifically, you ask several questions about vertical movement of a seating system during testing and whether such movement would mean that the seat was not compliant with the requirements of S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207. As explained below, we believe that the movement you describe may constitute a test failure under FMVSS No. 207. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 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. The following is our interpretation of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs based on the description contained in your letter. S4.2.1, Seat Adjustment, states, Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, each seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in S5. You describe your application as an upper seat on a motor-powered seat adjuster with both horizontal and vertical adjustment. You indicate that when you perform the pull test specified by FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210 and apply the specified forces to the seat through the lap belt, shoulder belt, and seat center of gravity, with the seat riser initially set in the lowest position, the rear linkage of the riser rotates up about 1.5 inches to the highest position. You ask several questions regarding the requirements of S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207 and whether this movement violates the requirements of that paragraph. You first ask whether paragraph S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207 applies to vertical movement of a motor-powered seat adjuster. S4.2.1 contains only one exception to its requirement that a seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested. The exception is for the vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses. Our understanding is that your seat is not a nonlocking suspension type occupant seat. It appears to adjust and lock in a manner similar to the seat described in a letter we sent to Paul Wagner (See enclosed March 21, 1995 letter). The standard does not provide an exception encompassing vertical movement in other types of seats. You next ask, If the seat power riser vertical movement was due to rotation of the motorized parts beyond that due to backlash, would it be compliant if the seat is able to withstand the required FMVSS [No.] 207 forces? We have interpreted FMVSS No. 207 to allow some deformation of the seats (e.g., bending or twisting) during the force test, provided that the structural integrity of the seats is maintained. We do not consider such deformation, by itself, to constitute a change in adjustment position. However, if deformation allows the seat to move from one adjustment position to another, that movement would violate S4.2.1s requirement that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested. In a previous interpretation letter, we discussed movement due to backlash, which typically refers to the gap between mechanical elements such as mating gears used to drive or move a device (See enclosed November 13, 2007 letter to Dick Sabath). We do not consider movement of a seat strictly due to backlash, regardless of whether the mechanism of adjustment is an electric motor, to be a change in adjustment position. Thus, such movement would not violate the requirement in S4.2.1 that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested. However, movement beyond backlash may violate S4.2.1. For example, if any of the seat movement is due to movement of the driving mechanism, such as rotation of the gear providing the seat adjustment, we would consider such movement to be a change in adjustment position and thus to be in violation of S4.2.1. In addition, if a change in the adjusted position is caused by the gear mechanism being destroyed, the seat would not comply with S4.2.1 (See enclosed December 23, 1994 letter to Paul N. Wagner). You next ask, If the seat power riser vertical movement was due to adjustment teeth shearing, misaligning or slipping and moving from one position to another, would it be compliant if it is able to withstand the required FMVSS [No.] 207 forces? As stated above, movement of the seat from one adjustment position to another during testing violates the requirements of S4.2.1. Accordingly, we would consider the seat movement described in your second question to be a test failure under FMVSS No. 207. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact William Shakely of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosures Ref: Standard No. 207 Dated: 6/22/12 |
2012 |
ID: 11-001987 nelson.may18OpenMr. Brian Nelson Michigan Association of Timbermen 7350 M 123 Newberry, MI 49868 Dear Mr. Nelson: This letter responds to your letter asking whether a product commonly known in the logging industry as a slasher saw table would be considered a motor vehicle within the laws and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, our answer is no. You explain that a slasher saw table is a large saw permanently mounted to a bundling carriage that has two wheels and is pulled behind another trailer or truck. It is used for cutting logs to a uniform length for loading onto a logging truck. Although a slasher saw table is equipped with wheels, you state that it is intended to remain in extreme off-road conditions for months at a time, as a logging site is harvested. You also state that, when transferred between sites, a slasher saw table is pulled behind a mobile log loader, which is equipped with brakes. By way of background, NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The FMVSSs are applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. That is, NHTSA regulates the manufacture of new motor vehicles. You state that an issue has arisen whether the slasher saw table is subject to regulations administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). We note that questions about the applicability of FMCSAs regulations should be directed to that agency. We do not consider the slasher saw table to be a motor vehicle. The term motor vehicle is defined in section 30102(a)(6) of the Safety Act as a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles. For example, vehicles that frequently travel between job sites using highways are considered motor vehicles because the on-highway use is more than incidental. In a November 5, 2004 letter to Ms. Robin C. DesCamp of Blount International, Inc., we opined on whether certain types of logging equipment would be considered a motor vehicle. Among the logging equipment discussed in that letter were logging cranes. We stated that, because logging cranes were intended to remain at a single location for long periods of time and are moved only infrequently between logging sites, we concluded that the logging cranes are not motor vehicles. A slasher saw table, as you have described it, appears to be akin to items of mobile construction equipment and logging cranes that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the slasher saw table described in your letter is not a motor vehicle. Because a slasher saw table is not a motor vehicle, it is not subject to the FMVSSs. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: VSA 571.3 7/25/11 |
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.