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: aiam0416OpenMr. Hal H. Newell, Manager-Government Relations, Eaton Corporation, Government Relations Office, Suite 838 Pennsylvania Building, 425-13th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20004; Mr. Hal H. Newell Manager-Government Relations Eaton Corporation Government Relations Office Suite 838 Pennsylvania Building 425-13th Street N.W. Washington DC 20004; Dear Mr. Newell:#In your letter of July 22 you ask if Standard No. 101 as amended, requires the illumination of controls on after market auto and truck air conditioners.#Standard No. 101 does not apply to after market equipment items. It requires that vehicles meet control location, identification, and illumination requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and places compliance responsibility upon the vehicle's manufacturer, distributor, and dealer.#Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5614OpenMr. Yoshiaki Matsui Manager Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Section Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui Manager Automotive Equipment Legal & Homologation Section Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; "Re: Headlamp System Containing Fog Lamp Dear Mr. Matsui: This replie to your letter of August 11, 1995, with reference to possible headlamp systems that produce a fog lamp beam, as well as upper and lower beams. According to your letter, 'the fog lamp is reciprocally incorporated with the high beam headlamp, using one dual-filament bulb (ex., HB2). The high beam and the fog lamp will not be lit simultaneously.' You refer to paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and conclude that 'such a combination will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.' We agree, with respect to the headlamp itself, that a fog lamp operating simultaneously with the lower beam will not impair the effectiveness of the lower beam's photometrics and ability to illuminate the roadway. We view this as a supplement to the lower beam. However, under S5.1.3, the question is whether the fog lamp, either operating alone or when the lower beam headlamp is activated, will impair the effectiveness of any front lighting equipment that is required by Standard No. 108. The responsibility for the determination of compliance with S5.1.3 is not Stanley's, but that of the manufacturer of the vehicle in which the combination headlamp is installed, who must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The other front lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 consists of parking lamps and turn signal lamps. The amber parking lamps serve to mark a vehicle, a function incidentally served by white fog lamps. Thus we do not believe that the Stanley headlamp would impair the effectiveness of parking lamps in any position in which the headlamp may be installed on the front of a vehicle. The situation differs with respect to turn signal lamps. A vehicle manufacturer must take care to ensure that a vehicle on which the combination headlamp is installed conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 108 and to paragraph 5.1.5.4 of SAE Standards J588 NOV84 or J1395 APR85, the two turn signal standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. Paragraph 5.1.5.4 treats the relationship between luminous intensity and photometrics 'where the front turn signal is mounted in close proximity to the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the low beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp.' It does this by establishing luminous intensity multipliers based upon the distance that separates the lamps. For example, if the space between the front turn signal and the lighted edge of the fog lamp is 75 mm to less than 100 mm, the photometric requirements for a front turn signal lamp are 1.5 times more than those required when the spacing is 100 mm or more (Paragraph S5.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 requires the multiplier at this distance to be 2.5 when the lamp is a lower beam headlamp rather than a fog lamp). Finally, as a cautionary note, we believe that Stanley should evaluate the glare potential of the headlamp when the fog lamp and lower beam are operating simultaneously, as it is important to safety that oncoming drivers not be distracted or discomforted in the operation of their vehicles. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4906OpenMr. Brett Reed Design Engineer Imo Industries, Inc. Morse Controls Division 21 Clinton Street Hudson, OH 44236-2899; Mr. Brett Reed Design Engineer Imo Industries Inc. Morse Controls Division 21 Clinton Street Hudson OH 44236-2899; "Dear Mr. Reed: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, as it relates to electronic transmission shift controls that operate automatic transmissions used in heavy duty trucks and RV's and on solenoid operated powershift transmissions used in various on and off highway vehicles. You asked whether 'the intent of section S3.l.3 of the standard is to render the engine starter inoperative when the transmission is in a forward or reverse drive gear or when the shift lever . . . is in such a gear.' As discussed below, Standard No. 102 expressly provides that the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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 and equipment meet applicable standards. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Section S3.l.3 of Standard No. 102 reads as follows: S3.1.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. The standard thus expressly provides that the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. You state in your letter that '(t)he interests of public safety will be best served by requiring that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission itself, not the transmission shift lever, is in a forward or reverse drive gear.' According to your letter, with the introduction of electronic shift systems and fully electronic transmissions, the connection between the shift lever and the transmission is rarely performed by direct mechanical means, and there is a possibility that the shift lever position may not match the gear currently engaged by the transmission in situations where the transmission control circuitry overrides the shift lever selection in the interest of safety, transmission protection or other criteria related to specific applications. You state that any attempt to artificially match the electronic shift lever's position to the gear currently enaged by the transmission in such override situations involves added cost and complexity, as well as safety and reliability concerns. You also argue that requiring the shift lever to be moved to neutral when the transmission itself is already in neutral due to some override condition imposes unnecessary safety hazards in some applications. You should be aware that sections S3.l.4.l and S3.l.4.2 of Standard No. 102 require identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, to be displayed in view of the driver. A design where the shift lever position displayed to the driver did not match the gear currently engaged by the transmission would not comply with this requirement, since it would not show the position selected. We believe that such a design raises obvious safety concerns, regardless of the technology used for the transmission and shift system, since it would mislead the driver concerning the gear position selected. I note that the vehicles your letter asks about include, among others, 'various on and off highway vehicles,' and that the term 'off highway vehicles' could include certain vehicles which are not considered 'motor vehicles.' Standard No. l02, as well as NHTSA's other safety standards, apply only to motor vehicles. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam5301OpenMr. Larry R. Lynch AT & D Corporation One Pasco Center San Antonio, FL 33576; Mr. Larry R. Lynch AT & D Corporation One Pasco Center San Antonio FL 33576; "Dear Mr. Lynch: This responds to your inquiry about how Federal safet standards would apply to the 'AeroCon System,' a new product being developed by your firm. You state that this product is an air deflector/fairing that provides aerodynamic braking. According to your letter, 'By opening doors on the fairing unit, the full force of the relative wind speed is redirected to strike the trailer face, greatly decreasing stopping distance. The pneumatic power required to actuate the system's doors utilizes the auxiliary air system of the tractor.' (emphasis in original) I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment 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 about air deflectors or fairings. However, since the AeroCon System 'utilizes the auxiliary air system,' it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. That standard applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. If the AeroCon System 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, including Standard No. 121. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 49 CFR Part 567.) If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then 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 continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7. If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, then 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 in part, any device 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. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). You may wish to determine whether the AeroCon System adversely affects compliance with any of the requirements in Standard No. 121. In addition, under the Safety Act, the AeroCon System would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0103OpenMr. R. J. Hart, Bugetta Inc., 3037 Enterprise Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; Mr. R. J. Hart Bugetta Inc. 3037 Enterprise Avenue Costa Mesa CA 92626; Dear Mr. Hart: With reference to your letter of August 14 and its enclose specification sheet covering the Bugetta, this vehicle appears to be a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' for purpose of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards since it is constructed with features for occasional off road use.; Your understanding of the applicability of standards to multipurpos passenger vehicles is correct. We concur with your view that compliance with Standard No. 103 (Windshield Defrosting and Defogging) is a meaningless requirement for a vehicle with no top or windows.; Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations |
|
ID: aiam2094OpenMr. J. W. Kennebeck, Manager, Emissions, Safety & Development, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. J. W. Kennebeck Manager Emissions Safety & Development Volkswagen of America Inc. Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to Volkswagen of America's August 27, 1975, request fo confirmation that a seat belt warning system that activates a 4- to 8-second warning light when the vehicle ignitions turned complies with the requirements of S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, although the warning system also activates the same warning light continuously when a separate circuit senses that the front seat belts are not fastened.; Volkswagen's understanding of S4.5.3.3 is correct. As we understan your description, the Volkswagen warning system does provide the automatic 4- to 8-second activation of a warning light called for in S4.5.3.3. This provision prohibits the use of an activation longer than the limits set forth in the standard.; The Volkswagen system provides a different and additional activation o the warning light when the seat belts are not fastened, using a separate circuit to monitor a set of conditions separate from those specified in the requirements of S4.5.3.3. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not consider this activation (which can be longer than 8 seconds) to violate the limit on activation of the automatic reminder specified by the standard.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4843OpenMr. Delbert N. Pier Legislation and Compliance Coordinator Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48108; Mr. Delbert N. Pier Legislation and Compliance Coordinator Hyundai America Technical Center Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor MI 48108; Dear Mr. Pier: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, l99l asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With respect to a contemplated headlamp design using a standardized replaceable light source, you have asked 'whether the bulb fixture can be rotated approximately 11 degrees', and have informed us that this will not change the 'constants . . . or the relationship of the terminals to the constants.' Standard No. 108 does not specify the orientation of replaceable light sources in headlamps, the socket in the reflector may be in any orientation. In the configuration you present, for the bulb assembly, the terminals appear to remain perpendicular to the base and parallel within plus or minus 1.5 degrees as required in Figure 3-3. The rotation of the socket (in the reflector) of Figure 3-7, is not regulated and, therefore, is acceptable under Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0553OpenMr. Thomas E. Toney, III, Fordyce, Wayne, Hartman, Renard & Stribling, Attorneys and Counselors, 818 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63101; Mr. Thomas E. Toney III Fordyce Wayne Hartman Renard & Stribling Attorneys and Counselors 818 Olive Street Saint Louis MO 63101; Dear Mr. Toney: This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1972, requestin information on requirements applicable to the trucking industry regarding the reporting of numbers of vehicles produced. You also ask whether a person who adds a fifth wheel to complete a truck is a manufacturer who is subject to the requirements.; Section 573.5(5) of NHTSA 'Defects Reports' regulation (49 CFR Par 573) requires manufacturers of motor vehicles to report, on a quarterly basis, the total number of the manufacturer's vehicles by make, model, and model year, if appropriate, produced or imported during that quarter. This requirement applies to all manufacturers of complete or incomplete motor vehicles, including manufacturers of trucks. A person who adds a fifth wheel to an incomplete vehicle and completes the vehicle is considered to be a manufacturer under section 573.3 of the regulation, and is required to report production figures as part of his quarterly reports.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4510OpenMr. Donald Friedman President Liability Research, Inc. 4448 Via Esperanza Santa Barbara, CA 93110; Mr. Donald Friedman President Liability Research Inc. 4448 Via Esperanza Santa Barbara CA 93110; "Dear Mr. Friedman: This is a response to your letter dated Novembe 17, 1987, asking whether two child restraint systems you have designed comply with certain requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 213, Child Restraint Systems. You call one system 'Cradle Safe,' and describe it as an inclined, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed to restrain new-born infants from 4.5 to 14 lbs. The second system you call 'Premie Cradle,' and describe it as a recumbent, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed for premature infants from 4 to 6 lbs. Your letter assesses the performance attributes of these systems as follows: 'In an accident the baby is oriented and cushioned to avoid injury and ejection by a deformable, energy absorbing 'bed' and 'shell' without harnessing the infant. The bed and its crushable extensions (wings) cause the infant to rotate and take acceleration forces through its back and limit those applied to the head. After rotation, the infant is cushioned by the collapsing bed.' You state your belief that both systems comply with applicable provisions of Standard 213, but ask for our comment because 'the designs are innovative and make the applicability and interpretation of certain paragraphs of the standard not entirely obvious.' To help the agency better understand your products and the methods you used to test performance, you requested that agency staff meet with you, and your colleague, Mr. David Shinn. On April 12, 1988, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Shinn, and agency staff from the following offices: Chief Counsel, Enforcement, Plans and Policy, Research and Development, Rulemaking, and Traffic Safety Programs. At that meeting, you and Mr. Shinn presented a video-film showing two sled-tests of your cradle-safe restraint system, one with a NHTSA-specified, 17 pound dummy, and one with an EEC eight pound dummy. In the video film, your child restraint system broke apart in the 30 mph test with the 17 pound dummy, but appeared to maintain its structural integrity when tested with the eight pound dummy. You did not show a sled-test with your 'Premie Cradle' product. By a letter dated June 8, 1988, you informed this agency that you had performed tests of a 'modified' Cradle-Safe restraint system, and that this system will contain the NHTSA-specified 17 pound dummy in simulated barrier-impact testing under Standard 213. You state further that a restraint system you call 'One-ride' also will contain a 17 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. (You did not address the 'One-ride' restraint in your November 17, 1987, correspondence, nor did you present it during the April 12, 1988 meeting.) Your June 8 letter also references a letter of July 22, 1987, addressed to Mr. Val Radovich of this agency, a June 3, 1988 video tape showing a simulated barrier impact test of your Cradle-Safe seat with a 17 pound dummy, and submissions of patent documents in support of a patent application for your products. As NHTSA staff understood from your November 17, 1987 letter, and the April 12, 1988 meeting, your principal question was whether you could test a Standard 213 child restraint system with an eight or 14 pound dummy (rather than the specified 17 pound dummy), if you intended to label the restraint as appropriate for children from 4.5 to 10 pounds. You briefly addressed the other matters raised in your November 17, letter, clarifying a reference to an 'unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not required in (Standard 213) testing.' You explained that the 'belt' to which you refer is a two-piece, cloth wrap that anchors at either side of the restraint, and fastens over the child with a velcro attachment. I shall respond to your comments in the order that you present them in your letter, also discussing new matters raised in the meeting, in the June 8, 1988 letter, and in your other submissions where appropriate. I will not discuss the patent materials because they are not relevant to a determination of whether your restraint systems comply with Standard 213. In responding to your comments, I assume that we are discussing only those child restraint systems designed for children weighing less than 20 pounds (infant restraints). Your First Comment. Paragraph 5.1.1.a dealing with Child Restraint System Integrity specifies 'no complete...and no partial separation' of surfaces. Our design is deformable and involves materials of 1/4' thickness which in deforming, tear slightly. However when torn these materials are not lacerating and not likely to come into contact with the infant. Response. Paragraph S5.1.1(a) states that when a child restraint is tested as specified in the Standard, the system shall: Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system. If the system failure you describe as tearing of materials at the system surface does not result in a failure of the load-bearing structure of the system, then paragraph S5.1.1(a) is inapplicable. In 1978, NHTSA proposed adding this language to 213 as one of a number of amendments to the Standard that would upgrade performance requirements, improve performance criteria, and require dynamic testing of child restraint systems using anthropomorphic test dummies. (43 FR 21470, 21473, May 18, 1978.) In the preamble of that document, we stated that our objectives in promulgating the system integrity requirements were to prevent a child's excessive excursion or ejection from the system, and to ensure that the system does not fracture or separate in such a way as to harm the child. (43 FR 21470, 21473.) To accomplish this objective, Standard 213 requires that in dynamic testing, any load-bearing, structural element of a child restraint system must not separate completely, and that any partial separation must not expose surfaces with sharp edges that may contact the child. Id. Your letter states that some materials at the surface of your system may tear during an impact. In promulgating S5.1.1(a), the agency intended to minimize dangers resulting from failures in the structural integrity of the system, rather than failures in the materials. The agency did not intend to preclude a manufacturer from designing some deformation into a child restraint system to improve the system's energy absorption performance. Your Second Comment. Paragraph 5.2.3.2.b The system surface in contact with the infant's head shall be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. Although our system surfaces are not covered, they are fabricated out of such material. The system surface in contact with the infants head (the bed) is 3/16' woodfiber separated by air from a similar material in the shell. The system complies with the requirement and when dynamically tested exhibits deformation much better than a 25% compression-deflection, but there is no appropriate ASTM Test Standard such as for open or closed cell foam. Response. As I read your comment, you raise three issues which I shall address separately. The first is whether the material from which you fabricate your system can meet the S5.2.3.2(b) requirement that a child restraint system must be 'covered' with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. The agency's long-standing position is that a given type of surface material is an acceptable 'covering' if it is a flexible material that would meet the thickness and performance requirements for energy-absorbing padding set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.2. The surface needn't have a separate layer of energy-absorbing padding. The second issue is whether 3/16 inch woodfiber is a sufficient thickness for a system surface. This thickness would not comply with S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard 213. That subparagraph requires thicknesses of at least 1/2 or 3/4 inch, depending on the material's compression-deflection performance as measured in the static testing specified in S6.3 of Standard 213. You assert that the 3/16 inch thickness material used in your systems exceeds a 25% compression-deflection measurement in dynamic testing. In the preamble to the final rule amending Standard 213, NHTSA responded to commenters who suggested that specifying a minimum thickness for the infant restraint surface was design-restrictive. (44 FR 72131, 72135, December 13, 1979.) We explained in that document that we set these minimum thickness requirements because there was no available test device to measure the energy absorption properties of either the surface or underlying structure of an infant restraint in dynamic testing. Consequently, the agency specified 'long-established static tests' of the surface material, and established minimum thickness requirements based on the results of those static tests. Therefore, a compression-deflection measurement derived from dynamic testing is not an acceptable test of compliance with paragraph S5.2.3.2. The third issue is whether the compression-deflection measurement for this system must be derived from tests under one of the ASTM standards in S6.3, even though none of the ASTM titles expressly states that the test is for woodfiber, and all three procedures are for static tests. Paragraph S5.2.3.2(b) requires that when one tests the energy absorption properties of child restraint materials, those tests must be conducted under one of three ASTM static test procedures set out in paragraph S6.3 of Standard 213. Your restraint systems are made of woodfiber. Woodfiber - or any material that meets the Standard's requirements - can be an acceptable substance out of which to fabricate a child restraint. As NHTSA stated in the final rule preamble cited earlier, the agency wishes to allow restraint manufacturers to use a wide range of materials, provided that the material exhibits acceptable energy absorption properties. You may use any ASTM title specified in paragraph S6.3 to test your surface material, and the material is acceptable if it displays the required energy absorption properties when tested under one of those titles. Your Third Comment. Paragraph 5.4.3.1 'Each belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system...' is interpreted to mean that a soft unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not required in testing, need not conform to this paragraph. Response. As you explained in the April 12, meeting, the 'belt' to which you refer is the cloth device described in the beginning of this letter. By its express terms, paragraph S5.4.3.1 is inapplicable to belts that are (1) not part of the child restraint system and (2) not designed to restrain a child using the system. On the other hand, I note that in the June 8, video tape, the narrative refers to a belt within the Cradle-Safe system as a belt for restraining the child. If you do intend any belt in the system to be used for restraining the child, then various provisions of paragraph S5.4.3, Belt Restraint, will apply, depending on the design configuration of the belt assembly. In the preamble to the May 1978 proposal cited earlier in this letter, the agency expressed its continuing concern that child restraint system designs minimize the prospect of system misuse. (43 FR 21470, 21471.) If there are belts in any of your child restraint systems that you do not intend as restraints for the child, then I hope you will consider whether these additional belts unreasonably increase the risk that some users will mistake the additional belt assembly as a Standard 213 belt intended for use in restraining a child. Your Fourth Comment. Paragraph 6. This paragraph requires the CRADLE SAFE to be tested with a paragraph 7 dummy (17 lb.) for which it was not designed and which cannot be physically accommodated. We would prefer to use available 7.8 lb. and/or 14 lb. non-specified dummies. The PREMIE CRADLE falls in the car bed 'travel crib' category and does not require dynamic testing. Response. Paragraph S7.1 of Standard 213 requires testing an infant restraint system with the 6-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR 572.25. (An infant restraint system is one that is recommended 'for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing not more than 20 pounds.') That test device is 17.4 pounds. Because your child safety system meets the definition of infant restraint, it must be capable of meeting Standard 213 performance requirements when tested with the specified 17.4 pound dummy. If an infant restraint can not accommodate this test device, then it can not be certified as complying with Standard 213. I understand from your June 8, 1988, letter that the Cradle-Safe and One-Ride systems will accommodate the specified 17.4 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. Further, your restraint systems must meet head excursions limits with the 17.4 pound dummy under paragraph S5.1.3.2, Rear-facing Child Restraint Systems. The dummy specified in Part 572 is based on a simple design that represents a 6-month-old infant in dimensional, mass distribution, and dynamic response characteristics. NHTSA chose to use this test dummy after conducting extensive testing and evaluation of the dummy's responses. The testing, conducted by NHTSA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), showed that the specified dummy provided a consistent and repeatable measure of the structural integrity and confinement properties of a child restraint system, and was superior to a previous test version. (43 FR 21490, May 18, 1978, 44 FR 76527, December 27, 1979.) Before we can sanction use of another device to test an infant restraint system, the agency would have to determine that the dummy is a reliable surrogate for measuring a system's performance in an actual crash. NHTSA can not now make that statement with respect to any unspecified dummy, instrumented or non-instrumented. The agency can make this kind of finding only through a rulemaking process. Further, contrary to what you believe, infant car beds are subject to dynamic testing to ensure that the test dummy stays within the confines of the restraint system during impact. (Standard 213, S6.1.2.3.3.) While you believe you have identified some potential problems with Standard 213, I am sure that you can appreciate the need to follow established procedures when considering any change to a safety standard. Following established practices helps ensure that child restraint systems which comply with Federal standards continue to offer satisfactory crash protection for children. The agency has scheduled two public meetings this summer in order to explore the need for changes to Standard 213. I enclose a copy of the notice announcing these meetings, and invite you to participate in the forum. Based on the information you provided, it appears that you would have to modify your systems, or the agency would have to amend Standard 213 in order for you to be able to certify your child restraint system as satisfying all the applicable requirements of that Standard. Title 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) sets out a procedure for petitioning the agency to amend a safety standard, and you have a right to file such a petition. If NHTSA grants your petition, the agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard 213. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1712OpenMr. William D. Stokes, Laurence, Stokes & Neilan, Suite 805, Crystal Plaza 1, 2001 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202; Mr. William D. Stokes Laurence Stokes & Neilan Suite 805 Crystal Plaza 1 2001 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington VA 22202; Dear Mr. Stokes: This is in reply to your letter of November 8, 1974, asking whethe manufacturers of pickup caps are required to certify these equipment items under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; There is no requirement at present that pickup caps be certified. Th certification label is a manufacturer's representation that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and there are no standards that presently apply to pickup caps.; Your client should be aware of a related requirement. Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing materials' (49 CFR S 571.205), specifies requirements for glazing materials (glass and plastics for windows, doors, and interior partitions) used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including pickup covers (essentially pickup caps as you describe them). Although applicable to the glazing material, the standard's effect under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is that pickup caps must contain only glazing materials that meet the requirements of the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.