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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: nht87-1.94OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/04/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Ching-Hsien Huang TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Ching-Hsien Huang Branch Chief Structural Analysis Department Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan 33099 Republic of China Dear Mr. Huang: Thank you for your letter of May 4, 1987, asking several questions about Standard No. 210, Roof Crush Resistance, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether Standard No. 216 is still in effect. The answer is yes. You also asked whether Standard No. 216 can be substituted for the rollover test contained in the first, second, or third option of Standard No. 208. - The answer is that compliance with the roof crush resistance requirements of Standard No. 216 cannot b e substituted for compliance with the rollover test of Standard No. 208. I would like to clarify the applicability of the rollover test requirement of Standard No. 208 for you. The only rollover test contained in Standard No. 208 is found in 54.1.2.1 of the standard. A vehicle is subject to the test only if the vehicle's manu facturer chooses to meet it instead of an alternative requirement. 54.1. 2. l(a)- provides that a manufacturer has to meet the dynamic occupant protection requirements by automatic means in a frontal/angular crash test. In addition, a manufacturer must m eet 54.1.2.1(c). 54.1.2.1 (c ) provides a manufacturer with two options. A manufacturer can either meet the requirements of 54.1.2.1 (c)(l) and provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a literal crash test and a rollover crash test or a ma nufacturer can meet the requirements of 54. 1. 2.1 (c) ( 2) and provide a manual lap or a manual lap/shoulder below at each front designated seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to meet 54.1.2.1 (c) ( 2), the vehicle must comply with 54.1.2.1(s) a nd provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a frontal/angular test with the manual safety belt unfastened. In addition, the vehicle must provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a frontal/angular test with the manual safety belt fastened. I hope this answers your questions, if you need further information please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ERIKA Z. JONES CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION MAY 4, 1987 DEAR SIR, WE ARE THE ENGINEERING CENTER OF YUE LOONG MOTOR COMPANY IN TAIWAN. PLEASE REPLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. (1) HAD STANDARD NO. 216, ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE--PASSENGER CARS, BEEN REVOKED AFTER AUGUST 15, 1977) (2) IF THE ANSWER OF (1) IS NO, CAN STANDARD NO. 216 BE A SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ROLLOVER TEST REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST, SECOND, OR THIRD OPTION OF STANDARD NO. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION, NOWADAYS? YOUR HELP WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. SINCERELY YOURS, CHING-HSIEN HUANG BRANCH CHIEF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS DEPT. |
|
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: nht87-1.96OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 06/04/87 FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO: JEROME A. CZARNOWSKI TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/16/86 TO CARL CLARK -- NHTSA FROM JEROME A. CZARNOWSKI TEXT: Dear Mr. Czarnowski: In September 1986, you sent information concerning your Emergency Air Reserve System (EARS) to Dr. Carl Clark of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Research and Development. According to your letter, EARS is a separ ate high-pressure system intended to provide an emergency vehicle with enough air volume and pressure to charge the vehicle's integral system to operating pressure. You stated that the system does not violate the integrity of the vehicle's system, since check-valves, a relief valve and one-way regulator are present. Later, in February 1987, you asked Dr. Clark for information concerning whether EARS is permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This letter responds to that request. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipme nt comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering auxiliary devices for the quick pressurizing of air brake systems. However, since your device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121. If your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. One issue we have examined is whether your device is considered an integral part of the brake system in the sense that it would need to comply with certain of Standard No. 121's requirements, e.g., those for reservoir strength. A related issue is whether certain parts of the device are considered brake hose and therefore subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. It is our opinion that your device is not considered part of the braking system, so long as the device is separated from the vehicle's main braking system by a check valve in such a way that the main braking system will not be affected by a leakage failu re in the device. Thus, since your letter indicates that such a check valve is provided, your device itself would not be subject to the requirements of Standards No. 106 and 121. This opinion is limited to the specific factual situation raised by your letter. We note that the device is not intended to replace a vehicle's normal braking system but instead to provide auxiliary air pressure for certain emergency situations. We also note that the requirements of Standards No. 106 and 121 were not writt en to cover the high air pressures used in your system. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle con tinues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any dev ice or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(20)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Sa fety Act. In response to a request you made to Dr. Clark, Edward Glancy of my staff previously sent a general information sheet to your attorney, Ralph Rath, Esq. The information sheet identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affect ing motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. We are also sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Rath. Sincerely, |
|
ID: 001179drnOpenPierre Villeneuve, Standard Technician Dear Mr. Villeneuve: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Specifically, you wish to know "how many emergency exits" are needed on each side of a non-school bus over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) GVWR with "21 passengers" (not including the driver). Standard No. 217 requirements applicable to the bus at issue are at S5.2.2.1 and S5.2.2.2, Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. S5.2.2.1 requires that non-school buses provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits based on the number of "designated seating positions on the bus," a term which includes the drivers seat. Thus, the bus at issue has 22 designated seating positions. Standard No. 217 does not specify the number or types (i.e., doors versus windows) of emergency exits that must be provided. However, the standard specifies the total area of the unobstructed openings for emergency exits that must be provided. For the bus at issue, S5.2.2.1 specifies that the unobstructed openings for emergency exits must amount to 9,504 square centimeters (cm) (432 cm x 22 designated seating positions). At least 3,801.6 cm (40 percent) of the total required area of unobstructed openings shall be provided on each side (i.e., the right side or left side) of a bus. The following explains how the 9,504 cm is to be allocated among the right and left sides of the bus and the rear emergency exit. Emergency exits on the right side of the bus You stated that there was only one door, opposite the drivers seat, for entrance and egress. If the front door meets Standard No. 217 emergency exit requirements, it can be considered an emergency exit. See June 30, 1988, letter to Mr. Terry K. Brock (copy enclosed): "As long as the front door meets all applicable requirements for emergency exits under Standard No. 217, the door can be considered as an emergency exit. " However, as specified in S5.2.2.1, regardless of its actual area, the front door cannot be credited with more than 3,458 cm of the total area requirement. Subtracting the square centimeters of the front door (not to exceed 3,458 square centimeters) from 3,801.6 cm, the remainder (of the area representing the unobstructed openings for the right side emergency exit) may be allocated to a side exit such as a window. The combined unobstructed opening area for the front door and the right side emergency exit window must total at least 3,801.6 cm. Emergency exits on the left side of the bus The combined unobstructed openings for emergency exits for the left side of the bus must also be at least 3,801.6 cm. The emergency exits may consist of a left side emergency door and an emergency exit window, or may consist of emergency exit windows only. Rear emergency exits Although you did not ask about rear emergency exits, please note that the unobstructed opening for the rear emergency exit must total at least 1900.8 cm (9,504 cm (total unobstructed area) minus 3801.6 cm (right side) minus 3801.6 cm (left side)). S5.2.2.2 states that when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit (such as a rear exit door), a roof exit that meets the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear half of the bus. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2003 |
ID: 001280cmcOpenMr. Reginald Gray Dear Mr. Gray: This is in response to your letter in which you ask if selling custom seat belts would be affected by any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) issued by this agency. You state that you are interested in selling seat belts with various designs and logos on the seat belt webbing. However, it was unclear from your letter if the designs would be added to a vehicles existing belts or if custom belts would be manufactured to replace a vehicles existing belts. Each of these possibilities is addressed below. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301; Safety Act) to issue Federal 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. 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or the equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards and is certified as being in compliance. NHTSA has issued four safety standards that may be relevant to your custom seat belts. The first is FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. FMVSS Nos. 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. FMVSS No. 209 applies to all seat belt assemblies regardless of whether the seat belts are originally installed in the vehicle or are installed after the vehicle has been purchased. Because federal law operates differently depending on whether you manufacture, sell, or install the custom seat belts, I will discuss each possible scenario. Manufacturer and Seller Requirements The Safety Act states:
If you were to manufacture the custom seat belts, you would have to certify that the belts comply with FMVSS No. 209. As noted above, FMVSS No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Hence, any seat belt sold for installation in an existing vehicle would have to comply with, and be certified as complying with, FMVSS No. 209. If your product were not a seat belt, but a component to be attached or added to the seat belt, there would be no NHTSA standards directly applicable. However, if you were to manufacture such a product, we would urge you to evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle safety belts. For example, you should ensure that your product would not interfere with safety belt retraction, that any adhesive used with your product would not cause deterioration of the safety belt webbing, and that your product would not obscure the information required by FMVSS No. 209 to be labeled on the webbing. Safety belt webbing is designed to have some "give" to help absorb crash forces. If your product were to make the webbing too stiff, it could raise safety concerns. Finally, you should be aware that originally-installed safety belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS 302. Again, we would encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether your product would degrade the flammability performance of seat belts. In either case, as a manufacturer, you would also be subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). Installer Requirements Any commercial business that would install your product would also be subject to the provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act provides at 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) that:
This section would prohibit any of the named type of businesses from installing your product if such installation would cause the vehicle to no longer be in compliance with FMVSS Nos. 208, 209, 210, or 302. Violations of this make inoperative prohibition are subject to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation. Even if your product were simply modifications to a vehicles existing seat belts (e.g., stickers or additional stitching), any of the above businesses installing your product would still be subject to the make inoperative provision. Additionally, there may be state law considerations regarding potential liability in tort in these circumstances. I have enclosed a brochure for new manufacturers that discusses the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, including the provisions relating to manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please call Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:209 |
2003 |
ID: 001307.Bruno.cmcOpenMr. Dick Keller Dear Mr. Keller: This responds to your letter in which you ask about the application of the "make inoperative" provision to the removal of advanced air bag sensors during the installation of driver seats that accommodate individuals with disabilities. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action under the circumstances described in your letter. In your letter you discussed the installation of a product your company calls the Turning Automotive Seat (TAS) to facilitate vehicle access by individuals with disabilities. You described the TAS as being offered in two models, but you explained that both models are essentially "a swivel seat base mechanism rotating approximately 90 degrees with articulation to clear the B-pillar during entry and egress."You stated that the TAS system is used with the originally equipped (OEM) seat belts and bolts into the OEM seat mounting points. Your letter explained that with the newer air bag systems relying on seat sensors to modulate air bag deployment, replacing the OEM seat with the TAS requires removal of these sensors. You asked if such modifications were covered by the make inoperative exemption in 49 CFR 595.7(c)(14). By way of background, NHTSA has authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, NHTSA has recognized that it is appropriate to permit some modifications that could cause a vehicle to no longer comply in order to accommodate people with disabilities. 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart C, Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People with Disabilities, lists modifications of certain portions of specific FMVSSs that are exempt from the "make inoperative" provision in order to accommodate people with disabilities. On May 12, 2000, the agency published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 208 by establishing requirements to reduce the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, especially to small women and young children, and to improve safety for all occupants by means that include advanced air bag technology. (65 FR 30680; Advanced Air Bag Rule.) Motor vehicles certified as complying with the provisions of the Advanced Air Bag Rule will be required to minimize air bag risks by automatically turning off the air bag in the presence of an occupant who is a young child or deploy the air bag in a manner less likely to cause serious or fatal injury to an "out of position occupant."Among the technologies used to comply with these requirements are a variety of seat position, occupant weight, and pattern sensors incorporated into the seat structure. The advanced air bag technology requirements are being phased in beginning September 1, 2003, with full compliance required starting September 1, 2006. [1] While 49 CFR 595.7 includes some specific requirements of FMVSS No. 208 among the requirements subject to the "make inoperative" exemption, the provisions established under the Advanced Air Bag Rule are not included. As you are aware, the agency has granted a petition for rulemaking to include the provisions of the Advanced Air Bag Rule in the exemption list under Part 595. If the agency issues a final rule incorporating the advanced air bag requirements into Part 595, Subpart C, then a vehicle modifier that meets the conditions set forth in that subpart would be permitted to make such modifications as you described. Until this rulemaking is completed, the agency will use its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action in the limited instance of a vehicle not complying with the advanced air bag requirements because of the installation of a replacement seat to accommodate persons with disabilities. This is conditioned on the vehicle modifier complying with the modifier and modification requirements of Part 595, including the label and documentation requirements of 595.7(b). If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:208#595 [1] A majority of vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that a percentage of their fleet complies with these requirements according to the following phase-in schedule, with credits for early compliance: September 1, 2003 to August 31, 2004--20 percent; September 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005--65 percent; September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006--100 percent. |
2004 |
ID: 001389Klasing.drnOpenTony Klasing, Manager Dear Mr. Klasing: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Specifically, you wish to know whether in test procedures for school buses specified at S5.4.2.1(a)(1) of the standard, a parallelepiped is used or a template. The answer is the agency uses a parallelepiped, as specified in the standard, rather than simply measuring from the rear of the seat back to the exit door. As specified at S5.4.2.1(a), the rear emergency exit door must be manually extendable by a single person to a position that permits "an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 114 centimeters high, 61 centimeters wide, and 30 centimeters deep" when "keeping the 114 centimeter dimension vertical, the 61 centimeter dimension parallel to the opening, and the lower surface in contact with the floor of the bus at all times."[1]Contrary to what may be your understanding, the agency has not "approved" the use of a template that tapers at the top. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:217 [1] In some school buses, the rear of the bus may curve inward, towards the passenger compartment. In such cases, in testing, although the bottom of the parallelepiped is in contact with the floor of the bus at all times, the top part of the parallelepiped may extend outside of the bus. When it conducts its school bus compliance testing for the rear emergency exit door, NHTSA would deem the school bus to meet S5.4.2.1(a)(1) of Standard No. 217 as long as the bottom of the specified parallelepiped is in contact with the floor of the bus at all times.
|
2003 |
ID: 001402rlsOpenMr. Robert M. Clarke President Truck Manufacturers Association 225 New York Ave. NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Clarke: This responds to your letter, co-signed by Mr. Timothy Kraus of the Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers Council, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. We are sending an identical letter to Mr. Kraus. You asked that we confirm your interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 as they relate to the check of lamp function for the in-cab indicator lamp used to signal an antilock brake system malfunction in a towed unit. For reasons discussed below, we agree that S5.1.6.2(b) of the standard does not require a check of lamp function for the in-cab trailer ABS malfunction lamp when there is no post-2001 trailer or towed unit attached to the tractor. (As with your letter, we refer for purposes of convenience to trailers subject to the relevant ABS requirements as post-2001 trailers and ones built before those requirements applied as pre-2001 trailers.) 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 approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer must self-certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards prior to sale. Paragraph S5.1.6.2(b) of FMVSS No. 121 requires truck tractors and single unit trucks that are equipped to tow another air braked vehicle to be equipped with an in-cab indicator lamp (separate from the lamp for the tractor or truck required by S5.1.6.2(a)) which is to be activated whenever the malfunction signal circuit detects an ABS malfunction on a towed vehicle. The indicator lamp must also be activated as a check of lamp function whenever the ignition is turned to the on (run) position, and deactivated at the end of the function unless a trailer ABS malfunction signal is present. In your letter, you stated that the members of HDBMC and TMA generally agree that the best interpretation of S5.1.6.2(b) is that there is no requirement to perform a check of lamp function for the in-cab trailer ABS malfunction indicator lamp when there is no post-2001 trailer or towed unit attached to the tractor. In support of this view, you made several arguments, including the following: . . . the requirements of S5.1.6.2(b) as a whole make sense only in the context of the presence of a post-2001 trailer that is connected to the tractor. . . . the first sentence of the section clearly states that the tractor electrical circuit must be capable of transmitting an ABS malfunction signal from the antilock brake system(s) on one or more towed vehicle(s). The second sentence of the section clearly states that the in-cab lamp shall be activated whenever the malfunction signal circuit described above receives a signal indicating ABS malfunction. The last sentence of the section requires deactivation of the indicator lamp after the check of lamp function unless a trailer ABS malfunction signal is present. These requirements clearly envision a tractor that is connected to a post-2001 trailer. (All emphasis added by HDBMC/TMA) You stated that consistent with this understanding, SAE Recommended Practice J2497 (October 2002) states that the logical control of the in-cab trailer ABS indicator lamp shall be made by a device on the trailer. You stated further that according to SAE J2497, the trailer ABS device initiates the power up (bulb check) logic sequence when power is applied and the trailer ABS device becomes active, and [i]f no lamp control messages are received [from the ABS device on the trailer], then the tractor device will not perform a bulb check [on the in-cab trailer ABS indicator lamp]. You indicated that SAE J2497 was issued upon the recommendation of the SAE Truck and Bus Power Line Carrier Task Force. According to your letter, records from those deliberations indicate that there was concern among human factors experts working on the proposal that having the in-cab trailer ABS malfunction indicator activate as a check of lamp function when either a pre-2001 trailer was present or when no trailer was present at all would, at a minimum, confuse drivers or, worse, incorrectly lead them to believe the trailer they were towing was equipped with functioning ABS. In this regard, you noted that, as explained by NHTSA in the preamble to the final rule establishing these requirements, NHTSA has decided to require the malfunction indicator lamp to activate when a problem exists and not activate when the system is functioning properly. Thus, extinguishing the malfunction lamp at the end of the check of lamp function signals proper functioning of the trailer ABS system, which would not be the case if there was no post-2001 trailer connected to the tractor (or single unit truck that is equipped to tow another air-braked vehicle). After considering the overall language of S5.1.6.2(b) and its purposes, and the arguments presented in your letter, we confirm that this paragraph does not require a check of lamp function for the in-cab trailer ABS malfunction lamp when there is no post-2001 trailer or towed unit attached to the tractor. S5.1.6.2(b) states, in relevant part: Each . . . truck tractor and single unit vehicle shall also be equipped with an indicator lamp, separate from the lamp required in S5.1.6.2(a), mounted in front of and in clear view of the driver, which is activated whenever the malfunction signal circuit described above receives a signal indicating an ABS malfunction on one or more towed vehicle(s). The indicator lamp shall remain activated as long as an ABS malfunction signal from one or more towed vehicle(s) is present, whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the on (run) position, whether or not the engine is running. The indicator lamp shall also be activated as a check of lamp function whenever the ignition is turned to the on (run) position. The indicator lamp shall be deactivated at the end of the check of lamp function unless a trailer ABS malfunction signal is present. 49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.6.2(b) (2006). In interpreting the relevant language, we note that the requirement specifying that the indicator lamp must be activated as a check of lamp function whenever the ignition is turned to the on (run) position does not expressly state whether it applies in situations where there is no post-2001 trailer attached. This is relevant in the context of S5.1.6.2(b) because the in-cab trailer ABS malfunction lamp itself only indicates malfunctions when a post-2001 trailer is attached. Moreover, the sentences immediately preceding the specific one at issue contemplate a post-2001 trailer being attached to the tractor. Given this, we believe that it is reasonable to read the requirement for check of the in-cab trailer ABS lamp function as applying only when a post-2001 trailer is attached. In providing this interpretation, we have considered the issues you raise concerning avoiding potential confusion. Of particular concern is the possibility of drivers mistakenly believing they are towing a functioning ABS-equipped trailer when they are not as a result of observing an in-cab trailer ABS malfunction lamp activating and then extinguishing when no ABS-equipped trailer is connected to the tractor. Please bear in mind, however, that the purpose of the check of lamp function is to alert drivers to problems with the bulb or the electrical system. We note that under this interpretation, the requirement that the in-cab trailer ABS indicator lamp must be activated as a check of lamp function whenever the ignition is turned to the on (run) position applies whenever the vehicle is towing a post-2001 trailer, i.e., the situations where the in-cab trailer ABS malfunction lamp will operate. We note that this interpretation reflects the very specific language and policy concerns discussed in this letter. This interpretation applies only to this particular situation, and should not be read as an interpretation of how we would interpret requirements for check of lamp function in any other situation.
If you have any further questions, please contact Rebecca Schade of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel d.3/5/07 ref:121 |
2007 |
ID: 001646drnOpenTeresa Stillwell, Public Relations Director Dear Ms. Stillwell: This responds to your request for an interpretation of how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, applies to used school buses that your company wishes to carry forest fire-fighters and fire-fighting equipment. In your letter, you write that the used school "buses in our fleet range from 1980 to 1992" as the dates of manufacture. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated the used school buses range from 45 to 63 in passenger capacity, and thus are over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) in gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You will modify the buses to carry 22 passengers (including the driver). The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to used motor vehicles. That is, persons selling a used vehicle are not required to sell vehicles that meet the FMVSSs. Thus, there is no NHTSA requirement that the modified buses meet FMVSS No. 217. There is a limit in Federal law on the modifications that certain commercial businesses may make to vehicles for compensation. This "make inoperative" provision is discussed below. Making Safety Devices and Elements Inoperative
In general, this section prohibits the entities listed in 30122 from removing, disabling or otherwise "making inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, with regard to modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from school bus to bus [1] ), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has interpreted the provision to hold that the modifications do not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition as long as the converted vehicle complies with the safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type. Applied to the situation you present, and assuming that ACF is modifying the buses for compensation, this means that ACF would have to ensure that the buses meet the "bus" emergency exit requirements to preclude a violation of 30122. The emergency exit requirements that apply to "buses" are explained in an enclosure to this letter. As you requested, the enclosure also explains the requirements for "school buses." The make inoperative provision does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, if ACF is modifying used school buses for its own use, there is no NHTSA requirement not to make inoperative the safety systems or devices installed in the vehicle. However, NHTSA urges owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Storing Fire-Fighting EquipmentYou told Ms. Nakama that fire-fighting equipment (such as axes, shovels, and chain saws) would weigh between 2,300 to 3,000 pounds and would be secured in the bus by storage in cages. Separate cages can be designed for opposite sides of the bus, leaving a clear aisle to the rear emergency exit door. You stated that it was also proposed to put one large storage cage in such a way as to block the rear emergency exit door. In your letter, you ask whether, if the rear exit is blocked, installing a roof exit in front of the cage door fulfills the required number of exits. You asked Ms. Nakama whether Federal law permits blockage of the emergency exit door. We assume for this answer that you are regulated by the "make inoperative" provision of 30122. Because your company would change the vehicle type (i.e., from school bus to bus), and there is no requirement for rear emergency exit doors for buses, NHTSA law would not prohibit the blockage of the rear emergency exit door with a permanent structure such as the cage, as long as a roof emergency exit is provided. If you are modifying your own vehicles and are thus not regulated by the make inoperative provision, you are not required by NHTSA to install an exit. If an exit is not provided, we strongly recommend that the emergency exit label be removed from the rear door. Your final question to Ms. Nakama was whether it would be permissible to transport gasoline on the buses for fueling forest fire-fighting equipment such as chain saws. The Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA) of the Department of Transportation has regulations that may apply to transport of gasoline. You can contact RSPAs Office of Hazardous Materials Standards toll free at 1-800-467-4922 for information about RSPA regulations. We also suggest that you contact your State motor vehicle administration for information about any State regulations in this area. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosures [1] By NHTSAs definition, a bus is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." (See 49 CFR 571.3, "Definitions.") |
2003 |
ID: 001688cmc_DC_acc releaseOpenMr. Robert E. Norton II Dear Mr. Norton: This responds to your letter dated March 12, 2003, in which you inquire about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. You ask if there are objective criteria to evaluate compliance with the requirement under the second sentence of S4.1(e) of FMVSS No. 209 that a "[b]uckle release mechanism shall be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release." As explained below, compliance with S4.1(e) requires viewing that provision of the standard in the context of FMVSS No. 209 as a whole. In your letter, you question how the agency would evaluate compliance with this provision of S4.1(e). You state that if the provision is read in the context of the entirety of FMVSS No. 209, then compliance with the "accidental release" requirement could be demonstrated by satisfying the performance requirements of S4.3(d)(3) of FMVSS No. 209, which refers to a test procedure set out in S5.2(d)(3). In the alternative, you contend that if compliance with S4.1(e) cannot be ascertained using this test procedure, then this provision of S4.1(e) would be invalid for lack of objective test procedures. The S4.1(e) requirement that a seat belt buckle be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release during an impact must be viewed as part of FMVSS No. 209 as a whole. FMVSS No. 209 requires, among other things, that seat belt buckles meet minimum performance and material requirements. S4.3(d)(3) establishes criteria to address accidental release, stating that:
Under the test procedure in S5.2(d)(3), a curved cylindrical bar is used to apply the compressive force to the buckle. S4.3(d)(3) was added to FMVSS No. 209 to "eliminate buckle designs that are prone to accidental damage, or that release during the initial phase of the accident." 36 Federal Register 4607; March 10, 1971. S4.3(d)(3) provides an objective standard for minimizing accidental release during an impact, thus providing objective criteria for the requirement under S4.1(e). S4.3(d)(3) does not address accidental release not associated with a crash. Although we recognize that the "accidental release language of S4.1(e) could be read broadly to cover various scenarios, for compliance purpose, we interpret it to only refer to accidental releases that might occur during a crash. Non-crash accidental releases are not regulated by FMVSS No. 209, notwithstanding the arguably broader language of S4.1(e), as the only test procedure designed to address accidental release utilizes a force level much greater than would be contemplated in a non-crash environment. In an August 31, 1976, letter to Volvo, the agency stated that for buckles unlikely to be damaged by compressive forces in a crash, the requirements of S4.3(d)(3) would not be applicable. While the Volvo letter stated that the original motivation for adopting this requirement was to guard against possible damage to a buckle caused by the steering wheel in a crash situation, the language of the requirement is broad enough to guard against other potential compressive forces as well, as evidenced by the fact that the requirement is not limited to buckles in the seating position with a steering wheel. In response to the notice that proposed extending the crush release requirements to all Type 1 and Type 2 seat belts, commentors did request that the requirement only be made applicable to buckles that could contact the steering wheel. (See comments from Britax and Irvin Industries, Inc. at Docket No. 69-23.) However, the agency did not amend the requirement to limit it to that narrower purpose. Accordingly, any current or future buckle with the likely potential to experience any compressive force during an impact would be required to comply with S4.1(e) and S4.3(d)(3), as tested under S5.2(d)(3). I hope this addresses your concern. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:209 |
2003 |
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.