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: cox.ztvOpenMr. Bill Cox Dear Mr. Cox: On August 31, 1998, we received your faxed manufacturer identification information sheet sent in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, and your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions. You informed us that Monte Carlo Minis Limited, Inc., wants to build "Mk 1 and Mk II Minis." These vehicles "will have all new parts except for the chassis or subframes." You comment that "if we replace the chassis, we know we would have to meet all the DOT and EPA regs." You ask whether you can "retain the old VIN number if we use the pre 1969 donor cars and chassis." You also state that "if we only exported the Minis to Japan I assume we would have to use the new VIN numbers as described in CFR 49." The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and other agency regulations do not apply to vehicles manufactured for export, and which are so labeled between the completion of their manufacture and shipment from the United States. Therefore, the VIN on vehicles intended to export for Japan should conform with the requirements of that country, if any, for VINs, rather than those of 49 CFR Part 565 for vehicles intended for sale in the United States. You incorrectly assume that retention of the old chassis alone is sufficient to excuse a vehicle from compliance with the FMVSS. The agency's opinions over the years have been premised upon the fact situation of a vehicle in use being modified to incorporate a new body on its original chassis and one which retained its original title. We have said that the resulting vehicle would not be considered a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS . The agency did not intend the word chassis to be interpreted narrowly but meant the term to indicate an assemblage that retained the original frame and all vehicle components other than the body, including the power train, brake system, suspension, and tires and wheels. The vehicles you intend to build would have "all new parts except for the chassis or subframes, including "the new [body] shell," "new suspension," and "new engine and transmission," while "the old chassis, sub frame is retained after being sandblasted." In our view, vehicles assembled using equipment as you have described it to us would be new motor vehicles which must comply with all applicable FMVSS in effect as of the date of assembly, and be certified as complying if they are to be sold for use in the United States. Among other things, such vehicles must have a VIN meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: creativecolors.jegOpen Ms. JoAnn Foster Dear Ms. Foster: This responds to your e-mail in which you ask about the repair of the outer skins of air bag module systems. You stated that your company is a national franchiser, providing on-site mobile services to the auto industry. These services include repairing, recoloring, and restoring both new and used automobile parts consisting of leather, vinyl, plastics, and fabric. You stated that you are often asked to repair minor abrasions on the outer skin covers of air bag modules. These requested repairs may be for new or used vehicles. You indicated that it is your current policy not to do any type of repair work that is part of the air bag module, but you would like information to help define what might be safely repaired. You cited the following issues of concern: 1. What are standards or regulations for a water-based coating applied over the original skin? 2. Can the materials surrounding the air bag system be repaired (not to include the seam)? 3. What are specifications of air bag modules regarding heat sensitivity to its outer skin? With the new side seat panel, the upholstery completely covers the air bag including the front bolster and it is difficult to detect location. I would like to comment first that you are right to be concerned about the possible safety consequences of repairing the outer skins of air bag module systems. We appreciate the concerns you have about the safety of your customers. While we can provide a summary of the legal issues related to the question you asked, I regret that we cannot provide you with specific technical information in response to your questions. It is certainly possible that coating the original air bag skin, repairing the materials surrounding the air bag system, and using heat near the air bag could adversely affect air bag performance. To analyze these issues, however, one would need to know the details of the actions being taken and the design details of the vehicle and the air bag system being repaired. We believe the parties which could provide the best assistance with your technical questions would be vehicle and air bag manufacturers. I will now turn to the legal issues raised by your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install frontal air bags as part of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. Other types of air bags, including side air bags, might have been installed as part of complying with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC 30122). I note that the "make inoperative" provision applies to both new and used vehicles. To avoid violating these provisions, dealers and other entities making the kinds of repairs to the air bag skin and surrounding materials that you describe should ensure that the repairs do not result in the performance of the air bag being degraded. Repairs that might affect air bag performance could also raise potential civil liability under tort law. This would be a matter of state law, and a private attorney could advise you about that subject. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:208 |
2001 |
ID: crull.jegOpen Ms. Lynette Y. Crull Dear Ms. Crull: This responds to your faxed letter of August 29, 1996, requesting special permission to have the passenger air bag of your 1996 Ford Taurus station wagon deactivated or a cutoff switch placed in it. You explained that you have a five-and-a-half-month old daughter who was born three weeks premature. She had an apnea spell in the hospital and went home on an apnea monitor. You stated that you need to be able to reach her within 10 seconds if the monitor should go off. You stated that this would be impossible if she is in the back seat of the car, since it would take far longer than 10 seconds to pull off the road if you were in traffic. You also stated that your dealership is not willing to deactivate the air bag due to a law that forbids the disabling of safety equipment. As discussed below, we would consider the special needs of your child as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that either temporarily deactivates the passenger-side air bag to accommodate your child, or places a cutoff switch in the vehicle for the same purpose. Federal law now requires that new cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as a means of complying with that requirement. The law also prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. However, in very limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate a person's special physical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that we would consider violations of the "make inoperative" provision as technical, justified by public need, and that we would not institute enforcement proceedings. We would regard a temporary deactivation of the passenger-side air bag in your car, or the addition of a cutoff switch, in the same way. Infants riding in rear-facing child safety seats should never be placed in the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger-side air bag. Since you need to place your daughter in the front seat of your vehicle in order to be able to quickly respond to an possible apnea spell, we would consider your situation as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that temporarily deactivates the passenger-side air bag, or installs a cutoff switch, to accommodate your child. I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you have the air bag deactivated, we strongly encourage you to have the air bag reactivated by the dealer when your daughter can ride in the rear seat. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that passengers in your vehicle use their safety belts. I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:9/13/96 |
1996 |
ID: curtain22830Open Mr. Natale De Pasquale Dear Mr. De Pasquele: This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of United States safety standards to a "rear window curtain for cars in general." You do not mention, however, the purpose of the attachment, whether the curtain will be made available to original equipment manufacturers and/or marketed as an aftermarket product for installation on used vehicles, or provide a thorough description of the product. Further, you indicate that ITI Industriale intends to import this product into the United States. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our laws to your product based on the facts set forth in your letter. Installation in New Vehicles A manufacturer of a new vehicle must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to any safety standard is subject to civil penalties and recall action under our statute. NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, to establish performance and location requirements for glazing in each new motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26.1)." Under FMVSS No. 205 and the ANSI standard, glazing for use at levels intended for driving visibility must meet all of the requirements of the standard, including those on light transmittance. FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1 apply a 70 percent light transmittance requirement to areas of glazing that are requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows in passenger cars). Installation of your curtains as proposed would not cause a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 205 because the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test, instead they contemplate testing of only the glazing itself. Therefore, your curtain need not comply with the standard either by itself (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the windows, assuming that it is not attached to the window. However, if the curtains were installed into the glazing in any manner, e.g. between two layers of glass, the combination of curtain and glass would be considered a multiple glazed unit and would have to meet the standard. In addition, there are a number of other standards that might be affected by installation of the component. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to FMVSS No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems, FMVSS No. 212, Windshield mounting, FMVSS No. 219, Windshield zone intrusion, FMVSS No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, and FMVSS No. 302 , Flammability of interior materials. You should carefully review these and all other FMVSSs to determine how the product would affect a vehicle's conformance with these standards. As an Aftermarket Item of Equipment As far as we can tell from your letter, your product appears to be an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. (1) Your curtain is an accessory because it was presumably designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. (We make this assumption because you designed the product for rear windows in "cars"). Further, the curtain appears to be intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. While a rear window curtain is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to this product if it were sold directly to consumers for installation on used vehicles. However, the manufacturer, whether your client or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) The installation of a rear window curtain by a commercial entity is also subject to other restrictions. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the rear window curtain could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the ability of a vehicle to comply with any FMVSS. You should carefully review the FMVSSs, particularly those listed above, to determine whether installation of your rear window curtain would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards. (2) I note that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact that Administration at (202) 366-2519 for information about any requirements that may apply to your product. In addition, states have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions and may have restrictions on shade bands. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used. Also, there is a procedural regulation that you need to meet to import the curtain into the United States. 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules," requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured motor vehicle equipment to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under section 551.45: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b). For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Enclosure
1. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment," in relevant part, as any system, part, or component "sold ... as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria: a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles. 2. The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles. |
2001 |
ID: Cyr.1OpenMr. Leo M. Cyr Dear Mr. Cyr: This responds to your letter to Dr. Jeffrey Runge, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you asked a number of questions regarding NHTSAs regulations and other issues of concern to the automotive glass industry. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. In order to simplify our reply, we repeat each of the questions presented in your letter below, followed by our response. (1) We understand the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) do apply to factory installation of auto glass on vehicles destined for sale in interstate commerce. Do these same FMVSS regulations (specifically FMVSS 212, 216 and [219]) apply: a.) Once the new vehicle is purchased by a consumer? Response: By way of background, we note that NHTSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to promulgate Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Most safety standards issued by the agency apply only to new vehicles. However, certain "equipment standards" apply to new parts and equipment, whether they are installed in new vehicles or sold in the aftermarket. A manufacturer must certify that its motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment meets the requirements of all applicable FMVSS before being sold to a consumer for the first time. The primary standard related to automotive glass is FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials. As an equipment standard, a manufacturer of glazing intended for use in a motor vehicle must certify that its products meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 205. However, as your question suggests, other FMVSS also relate to glazing materials, including FMVSS No. 212, Windshield Mounting, FMVSS No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and FMVSS No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, which are vehicle standards. To address the first part of your question, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles and motor vehicle equipment after their first sale to a consumer. However, once a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment has been sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard."49 U.S.C. 30122(b). In general, this "make inoperative" prohibition requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety features installed in compliance with applicable standards. In those cases where an item of glazing is damaged and replaced, the replacement glazing must meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. This is because all replacement glazing must meet, and be certified by its manufacturer as meeting, the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, which is an equipment standard. Failure of a repair business to install replacement glazing that complies with this standard would be a violation of the prohibition on selling motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with applicable FMVSSs (see 49 U.S.C. 30112). However, the vehicle with the new replacement glazing would not have to comply with the vehicle standard requirements of FMVSS Nos. 212, 216, or 219. A manufacturer is not required to assure that a vehicle remains in compliance after it has been sold for purposes other than resale. Moreover, a repair business that replaced the damaged glazing would not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition, because the object or event that damaged the windshield in the first place had already rendered the glazing "inoperative" with respect to these standards. Repair businesses are not required to restore a damaged vehicle to its original level of performance. Finally, responsibility for enforcing the federal motor vehicle safety standards resides with this agency. NHTSA randomly purchases products and tests them in accordance with our regulations. A test failure may lead to an investigation and a recall of noncompliant equipment. States may only enact provisions relating to the same aspect of performance covered by a federal motor vehicle safety standard if the provision is identical to the federal standard. (2) What is NHTSAs specific position, if any, on the repair (as opposed to replacement) of rock chip damaged windshields? If such a position exists, does it include or, in some way limit, the repair of long cracks? Response: NHTSA is responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of performance standards to ensure the safety of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We do not specify when or how repairs are conducted on a vehicle. (3) Has the NHTSA reviewed the auto glass industrys voluntary Auto Glass Replacement Standard (www.AGRSS.com) and, if so, does the NHTSA have a position on that standard? Response: We are aware of the automotive glass industrys voluntary Auto Glass Replacement Standard, which provides detailed procedures for the proper installation of glazing. By invitation of the National Glass Association, NHTSA participated as an observer in a related Industry Code Practices/Standard meeting on September 18, 1998. However, we have not taken a position with regard to that standard, because as discussed above, we do not specify when or how repairs are conducted on a vehicle. (4) Can the NHTSA provide a citation for their internal study that stated 82 people per day were injured or killed as a result of being ejected from their motor vehicles during crashes, and, if data available through your office that quantifies the number of individuals who were ejected through the windshield; through a side glass; or, through a door that opened during the crash? And, further, can your office advise (if such detail is not available in the current study) whether such detail is being considered for future studies? Response: We are not aware of the "internal study" to which this question refers. However, the statistics cited appear to approximate the number of serious injuries and fatalities that result from rollover crashes (not necessarily due to ejection). Using 1995-1999 data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS), we estimate that, on average, 253,000 light vehicles were involved in a tow-away, rollover crash each year, and that 27,000 occupants of these vehicles were seriously injured, equating to about 74 serious injuries per day (see Federal Register notice on Consumer Information Regulations; Rollover Resistance, 66 FR 3388 (Jan. 12, 2001) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8298)). Focusing more specifically on the issue of ejection, in August of 2001, NHTSA published a final report entitled, "Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing," which presented research conducted by the agency. That report again studied crashes in the 1995-1999 NASS database. The report estimated that approximately 7,800 people are killed and 7,100 people are seriously injured each year because of partial or complete occupant ejections through glazing. This document can be found on NHTSAs website at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/PDF/nrd-11/glazingreport.pdf. Specifically, Table 1.3 of the report provides statistics for ejection routes. NHTSA will continue to consider and update this information as part of our door lock and ejection mitigation research programs. (5) Does the Bush Administration have plans to encourage states that have repealed all or part of their periodic motor vehicle inspection (PMVI) programs to reinstate PMVI? a.) During the 1970s and 1980s, anti-PMVI forces argued effectively that no one could prove PMVI saved lives. Has the NHTSA conducted any studies that compare accident or personal injury rates before and after PMVIs repeal? Response: While we recognize the importance of owners maintaining the safety systems in their vehicles, NHTSA currently has no plans to encourage States to implement PMVI programs, as the data do not indicate that PMVI should be an agency priority. The agencys current priorities include:impaired driving, safety belts, rollover, crash compatibility, and traffic records and data. NHTSA has not conducted, nor are there plans to conduct, research on the effectiveness of PMVI programs. (6)Does NHTSA have any plans to revise the FMVSS regulations to more clearly reflect the materials and designs used in todays vehicles? Response: NHTSA periodically reviews our Federal motor vehicle safety standards on a 7-year cycle. As part of that review, we consider advancements in materials and designs used in current vehicles. FMVSS No. 205 is part of this periodic reassessment process. The following provides one recent example of our efforts to improve the safety of glazing used in motor vehicles. On July 25, 2003, NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 205 to incorporate the 1996 American National Standards Institute standard that deals with the safety performance of safety glass and safety glazing. (7) Does the NHTSA receive and compile consumer requests for improved auto glass performance?If so, would that information be available to the National Glass Association? Response: On occasion, NHTSA receives petitions for rulemaking to improve automotive glass performance. These petitions are made available to the public through the Department of Transportations Docket Management System (DMS), which can be accessed at http://dms.dot.gov. For example, all petitions submitted to the agency in calendar year 2004 are posted in Docket No. NHTSA-2004-16856 for public review. However, NHTSA has not received any glazing-related petitions to date in 2004. NHTSA also sometimes receives information related to automotive glass performance through consumer complaints submitted to NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). Such information is compiled in ODIs complaint database, which includes reports concerning glazing materials. These reports can be obtained from NHTSAs website at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/ by entering relevant search terms. Enclosed is a copy of a reference document entitled, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which you may find useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2004 |
ID: Davis_8129-2OpenDouglas Davis, Vice President Dear Mr. Davis: This responds to your letter in which you ask about the load requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. In your letter you suggest that there is an "overtest" condition with regard to one of the upper torso restraint components under the agencys test procedure (TP-209-05, January 17, 2003). As explained below, FMVSS No. 209 requires that a D-ring withstand the required force in the context of the test procedure specified in the standard, which is reflected in TP-209-05. As such, the procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 does not result in an "overtest". FMVSS No. 209 specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies to ensure that such assemblies provide occupants with a minimum level of protection in a crash. As noted in your letter, S4.4 of the standard establishes the performance requirements for seat belt assemblies. S4.4(b)(2) requires structural components in an upper torso restraint to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N when tested in accordance with S5.3(b) of the standard. The S5.3 test procedure applicable to S4.4(b)(2) is illustrated in Figure 10 of the laboratory test procedure, TP-209-05 (copy enclosed). We note that a revised version of the test procedure has been issued, TP-209-05 (August 22, 2005), but that no revisions have been made to Figure 10. In your letter, you stated that under the test procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 Figure 10, a D-ring would experience a resultant force greater than 6,672 N. You stated that this resultant force created "an over test condition". We disagree that the test procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 results in "an over test condition". As indicated above, S4.4(b) specifies that, with certain exceptions not relevant to your question, the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must meet specified requirements "when tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b)". (Emphasis added. ) While S4.4(b) requires certain components (including a D-ring) in the upper torso restraint to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N, the procedure with respect to how that force is applied is specified in S5.3(b). S5.3(b)(2) specifies that the 6,672 N force is applied as a tensile force in the manner prescribed in S5.3(b)(1). Through referencing S5.3(a)(2), S5.3(b)(1) specifies that the assemblys attaching bolts are attached to an anchorage bar in a manner that results in the angle nearest to 90 degrees between webbing and attachment hardware, except that eye-bolts are vertical. This procedure is represented in Figure 10 of TP-209-05. We recognize that the resultant force exerted on a D-ring is greater than the tensile force applied to the seat belt assembly. However, S4.4(b)s performance requirement is written in the context of a specified test procedure for the entire seat belt assembly. The higher force experienced by a D-ring is the result of the specified test procedure. As such, the illustrated test procedure does not result in an "overtest". If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure |
2005 |
ID: Dear [blank] latch in non-DSP 2Open[ ] Dear [ ]: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems (49 CFR 571.225). The agency has granted your request for confidential treatment of information contained in your letter. However, we asked for and you agreed to our including in this letter the following general description of your vehicle, to help make this interpretation of FMVSS No. 225 clearly understood. You ask about a two-door vehicle that has only two front designated seating positions. You would like to install two LATCH-equipped child seat attachment positions behind the front seats in an area that you do not consider a seating area.[1] That rear area has two configurations. In one configuration, the rear area forms a flat cargo area similar to that of a 2-seat hatchback vehicle. In the other configuration, part of the rear area folds to form a surface where two LATCH-equipped child restraints could be placed to attach to LATCH anchors. You state that there are no seat belts or head restraints in the rear area, and that the area is configured with rigid protrusions, contoured surfaces, and lack of legroom clearance so as to discourage misuse of the area as a seating area. You ask whether you are permitted to install the LATCH-compatible child seat mounting locations in rear locations that are not designated seating positions. You state that the child seat anchorages will comply with the requirements of FMVSS 225, with some accommodation for the lack of an H-Point, seat cushion or seatback as reference points. The question we answer in this letter is whether FMVSS No. 225 prohibits a child seat mounting location from being installed at a place that is not a designated seating position. To answer your question, we will assume for now there are no designated seating positions in the rear area. However, this does not mean that we have agreed that there are no designated seating positions in the rear area. We simply cannot make a determination on this matter based on the limited information available to us at this time, nor do we need to make that determination in order to provide the interpretation you seek.[2] With that understanding in mind, our answer is FMVSS No. 225 does not prohibit you from installing the child seat mounting location in areas that are not designated seating positions (non-designated seating positions). FMVSS No. 225 specifies the location and number of LATCH systems that must be installed in a vehicle (S4.4). Under S4.4(c), a vehicle, such as yours, without any forward-facing rear designated seating position shall be equipped with a tether anchorage at each front forward-facing passenger seating position. If there are no forward-facing designated seating positions in the rear area of your vehicle, you are not required to have a child restraint anchorage system in the rear area. With one exception, the standard is silent on prohibiting LATCH or any other type of anchorage system in locations not required to have a LATCH system. The exception is a prohibition in FMVSS No. 225 that does not permit the installation of a LATCH system in front designated seating positions that do not have an on-off switch for the air bag system (S5(d)). That is the only express prohibition in the standard regarding where a LATCH system must not be installed. In the absence of a general prohibition, the agency has not interpreted broad restrictions in the standard. In past interpretations of FMVSS No. 225, the agency has not prohibited manufacturers from designating ISO-compatible anchorage systems in the center rear designated seating position.[3] Similarly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not prohibited the installation of LATCH systems in side- or rear-facing designated seating positions, even though the standard requires the systems in forward-facing designated seating positions only (December 9, 2002 letter to Alan Aylor). Those LATCH systems in the side- and rear-facing positions had to meet FMVSS No. 225, however, since they met the definition (S3), discussed below, of a child restraint anchorage system, and S4.1 of the standard specifies that all child restraint anchorage systems installed in a subject vehicle, either voluntarily or pursuant to the standard, must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 225. We would not consider your child seat attachment position to be a child restraint anchorage system (LATCH). FMVSS No. 225 defines (S3) a child restraint anchorage system as a vehicle system that is designed for attaching a child restraint system to a vehicle at a particular designated seating position, consisting of: (a) Two lower anchorages meeting the requirements of S9; and (b) A tether anchorage meeting the requirements of S6. Since your system is not installed at a designated seating position, it is not a child restraint anchorage system and is thus not subject to S4.1. Please note that since it is not a child restraint anchorage system as defined in the standard, you must not refer to it as such or refer to it as a LATCH system. LATCH is a term used to refer to the anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225. We have determined that FMVSS No. 225 sets forth no prohibition against the installation of a child seat attachment position at a non-designated seating position. However, as a practical matter, we are concerned about how well a child would be protected in a non-designated seating position, in an environment with rigid protrusions and contoured surfaces and very limited room for head and knee excursion. The padding on the backs of the front passenger seats should be designed keeping in mind the potential presence of the child occupant in the rear area. In addition, you state that the attachment position meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 225. We agree that a manufacturer should ensure that the anchorages will perform adequately in a crash. Further, the position is subject to NHTSAs defect authority. Finally, you ask for insight as to how you should express the passenger capacity of the vehicle, given that there would be two designated seating positions and two child seat mounting locations. Designated seating capacity is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as the number of designated seating positions provided. The passenger capacity of the vehicle would be determined by the designated seating positions in the vehicle. As noted earlier, we do not have enough information at this point to make a determination as to how many designated seating positions there are in the vehicle. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:225 d.7/24/09 [1] LATCH stands for Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, a term that was developed by industry to refer to the standardized child restraint anchorage system required to be installed vehicles by FMVSS No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems (49 CFR 571.225). Child restraint manufacturers are required by FMVSS No. 213 to ensure that their child restraints are able to attach to the LATCH system. [2] We recognize that this letter to you does raise an implication that having a child seat mounting location in a particular area does not by definition transform that area into a designated seating position. We are prepared to accept that for now. If information arises in the future that indicates that this implication is unacceptable, we will take appropriate action to address it. [3] An ISO-compatible system consists of lower anchorage bars from adjacent, properly-designed child restraint anchorage systems and the top tether anchorage at the center rear designated seating position. An ISO-compatible anchorage system does not meet the lateral spacing of anchors required by FMVSS No. 225. NHTSA does not consider an ISO-compatible anchorage system to be a child restraint anchorage system under FMVSS No. 225 because the system does not have lower anchorages of its own. 64 FR 47566, 47578 (August 31, 1999). |
2009 |
ID: dec 11 571.213--Aftermarket built in CRS--Lt. DouglasOpenLt. Sharon Douglas Chemung County Sheriffs Office 203 William St. Elmira, NY 14901 Dear Lt. Douglas: This responds to your September 5, 2017 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and to your December 5 telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, regarding a product called a Little Passenger Seat made by a company called Little Passenger Seats (LPS). You are concerned about the safety of the product and ask whether it meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. While answering your letter, on December 18, 2017, our staff read on what had been LPSs website that LPS was closing up shop as a result of serious financial problems.[1] Notwithstanding this development, we are answering your letter since it raises important issues about child passenger safety. As explained below, based on our understanding of your letter and other information, we believe that the Little Passenger Seat is a built-in child restraint system subject to FMVSS No. 213. Further, based on available information, the product does not appear to satisfy all the requirements of the standard. Background You explain in your letter that you observed two children, ages 4 and 6, sitting on a rear facing bench seat in the cargo area of a 2017 Jeep Wranglerbut no booster or child seat supplementing the seat. You state that the driver of the Wrangler indicated that the bench seat was in fact a child restraint system that he had purchased [in the] aftermarket, and that the seat is manufactured in accordance with the build of children in mind. You state that you later saw on the products website[2] that LPS stated that the seat met requirements of several FMVSS but did not make any reference to FMVSS No. 213. From the photos you sent of the LPS products, and from what our staff saw of the website when it was live, the company was selling aftermarket one-, two-, and three-passenger seats. The one-passenger seat was shown side-facing and rear-facing, with a three-point belt system (lap and shoulder belt). The two- and three-passenger seats were on a bench seat that was rear-facing.[3] There were three-point belts on the outboard positions of the bench, and a lap belt in the center position. There were statements on the website that the seats were meant to be installed in the cargo space, and that, The Federal Safety Standards we tested for were for regular car seats, not child seats. Answer The FMVSSs that apply to seats differ depending on when the seat is installed, and for whom it is sold. A seat intended for general occupancy (i.e., not for children specifically) that is installed as original equipment (installed in a new vehicle prior to the first purchase of the vehicle other than for resale) must meet, or has a critical role in the vehicle meeting, a number of safety standards, including: FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.[4] However, except for FMVSS No. 209 (which is an equipment standard applying to new items of equipment), these standards are vehicle standards that apply to new, complete vehicles and the systems in those new vehicles, and not to individual items of equipment sold separately from the vehicle, like a new bench seat sold for installation in a used vehicle. Thus, only FMVSS No. 209 applies to such new aftermarket seats, assuming there are seat belt assemblies on the seat.[5] The situation is different, however, for new aftermarket seats intended for children, like the Little Passenger Seat. New aftermarket seats intended for children are subject to FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS No. 213 (section S4) defines a child restraint system (CRS) as: any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 36 kilograms (kg) (80 lb) or less. FMVSS No. 213 applies to both add-on (portable) and built-in CRSs. A built-in CRS is a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle (see S4). NHTSA intended the definition to include new built-in CRSs sold for installation in new and used vehicles.[6] After reviewing the available material on the Little Passenger Seat, we believe that the product is a child restraint system. The seat is a device intended for use in motor vehicles to restrain and seat children who weigh 36 kg (80 lb) or less, as evidenced by the materials and the manufacturers statements that the product is intended for children.[7] Further, the product is a built-in child restraint system, since it is a child restraint system designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 213 applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. For built-in CRSs, FMVSS No. 213 specifies performance requirements that must be met when the CRS is tested with a test dummy in a 48-kilometers per hour (km/h) (30 miles per hour) (mph) dynamic test.[8] Among other things, in the 48 km/h (30 mph) test, an aftermarket built-in CRS must meet structural integrity requirements to reduce the likelihood that a child will be injured by a collapse or disintegration of the CRS, injury criteria to limit the accelerations imparted to a childs head and chest, and excursion requirements so the child is retained in the system. FMVSS No. 213 also requires aftermarket built-in CRSs to be labeled with safety information (S5.5.4), and for manufacturers to provide consumer information to the owner (S5.6.2), including the types of vehicles and the seating positions into which the restraint can or cannot be installed (S5.6.2.4). There are also requirements (S5.4.3.3) that child restraints provide specified upper torso, lower torso, and pelvic restraints. It does not appear that LPS certified the Little Passenger Seat as meeting FMVSS No. 213. This is indicated by LPSs statement on its website that The Federal Safety Standards we tested for were for regular car seats, not child seats, and by the absence of any mention of FMVSS No. 213 on the website. The photos of the seats did not show the labeling and other features required by the standard. We appreciate your bringing this product to our attention. NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting LPS for information about the product, the conformance of the seats with FMVSS No. 213 and other matters.
If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Jonathan Morrison Chief Counsel Dated: 2/12/18 Ref: FMVSS No. 213 [1] LPSs website was Littlepassengerseats.com. Currently the site cannot be reached. (Todays date is February 9, 2018.) [2] The website is now offline. [3] Most of the images show the seat rear-facing. There was one that may have shown the product forward-facing but the image was not clear. [4] In addition, the new vehicle must meet all applicable FMVSSs the compliance with which can be affected by installation of vehicle seats. E.g., the new vehicle must meet stopping distance requirements, and post-crash fuel system integrity requirements, with the seat installed. [5] See past letters on this subject, such as https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/7809.html, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/86/86-5.50.html. As discussed in those letters, NHTSA requires new and aftermarket seats to be free of safety-related defects. Further, commercial entities installing an aftermarket seat are subject to NHTSAs prohibition against knowing making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. [6] See, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to expand the built-in child restraint system definition (57 FR 870, 871 col. 1; January 9, 1992). In the NPRM, NHTSA stated: NHTSA proposes to clarify the definition of a built-in child restraint system to make clear that the definition includes both restraints that are integral parts of new vehicles as well as restraints that are designed to be integral parts of a motor vehicle, such as aftermarket restraint systems. [7] E.g., LPS stated on the Little Passenger Seats website, Our seating is made for children. (Accessed September 26, 2017; site currently offline.) LPS also stated, If youre running out of space in your vehicle, add one of our safe custom seats to accommodate your little ones! LittlePassengerSeats.com, Facebook Updates, entry 4. November 2, 2017. Page retrieved February 9, 2018. [https://web.archive.org/web/20171102141057/https://littlepassengerseats.com/] [8] The built-in CRS is tested in a specific vehicle shell in a frontal barrier impact simulation at a velocity change of 48 km/h (30 mph) or in an actual vehicle in a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal barrier crash. (See FMVSS No. 213 S6.1.1(a)(2).) |
2018 |
ID: dedecker.ztvOpenMr. Dan DeDecker Dear Mr. DeDecker: This is in reply to your e-mail of April 21, 2003, asking for an interpretation of the amendment to 49 CFR 579.28(c) published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2003 (68 FR 18136 at 18143). This provision of the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation pertains to the one-time submission of historical information. We amended Section 579.28(c) to require reports of only "the number of warranty claims recorded in the manufacturers warranty system." You asked the following question:
The term "the manufacturers warranty system" is a broad one, and generally encompasses any system that a manufacturer uses to record its warranty claims. However, for the limited purposes of the one-time historical report, we focused on electronically-stored information. Thus, a manufacturer need not provide electronic summaries of warranty records that are stored in a manner other than electronically (i.e., paper). Such records would represent a three-year accumulation of claims and it might be difficult and time-consuming for a manufacturer to develop summaries for electronic transmission. If a manufacturers warranty record system is paper-based, it should so indicate in its historical report as an explanation of why it is not furnishing a report of the number of warranty claims. However, all manufacturers have to provide warranty data in electronic form, as specified in Section 579.29(a), for all future quarterly reports, even if they continue to maintain a paper-based warranty record system. If you have any questions, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:679 |
2003 |
ID: deetz.ztvOpenMr. Jeff Deetz Dear Mr. Deetz: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 2002, to John Womack of this office with respect to a High Intensity Discharge (HID) light source conversion kit that you wish to sell for replaceable bulb headlamps in the United States.On August 15, Taylor Vinson of this office e-mailed you to request a sample of the kit so that we might be better able to advise you.The kit arrived on September 12. Your specific request was "for guidance in how to begin the process of obtaining D.O.T. approval" for your kit.We have no authority either to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.We do advise correspondents of the relationship of their products to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and other regulations that we administer.If a manufacturer determines that its product is covered by one or more of the FMVSS, and that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS, it must certify compliance of the product when the product is offered for sale. The symbol "DOT" on replacement lighting equipment is often mistaken for "DOT approval" of the equipment but, in fact, it is the manufacturers own certification of compliance. Because your HID conversion kit is intended to replace certain original headlighting equipment, the kit is subject to paragraph S5.8, Replacement Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, 49 CFR 571.108.Paragraph S5.8 requires that any motor vehicle replacement replaceable light source that is offered for sale in the United States comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108.The Federal specifications for replaceable light sources used in original equipment motor vehicle headlighting systems are located in 49 CFR Part 564, Replaceable Light Source Information.The purpose for storing the specifications in Part 564 is two fold:(1) to ensure the availability to replacement light source manufacturers of the specifications of original equipment light sources such that replacement light sources are interchangeable with original equipment light sources and provide equivalent performance, and (2) that redesigned or newly developed light sources are designated as distinct, different, and noninterchangeable with previously existing light sources. Paragraph S7.7, Replaceable light sources, of FMVSS No. 108, requires in part that each replaceable light source be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to Part 564.Thus, in order to use a replaceable light source in a replaceable bulb headlamp, a manufacturer must first have submitted certain information with respect to it (and its ballast if required) in Part 564, or it may use a light source (and ballast if required) if its specifications are already filed in Part 564. The kit that you furnished us appears to be designed to replace an H1 replaceable light source, and consists of two parts marketed under the name "Thunder Beam."The first part is labeled "HID Bulb Set" and contains two replaceable light sources, identified on the packaging as "WB-H1."The second part is labeled "HID Driver UnitTD-5000," and contains a ballast, an ignitor, a relay, and adapters to convert the motor vehicles wiring harness to be compatible with the HID conversion kit. Based on a review of the H1 light source specification filed in the Part 564 docket (#3397), it is apparent that the Thunder Beam HID Conversion kit is a significant redesign of the H1 light source.At the most basic level, an H1 light source incorporates an incandescent filament in which light is produced by a metallic wire coil heated to incandescence by an electrical current, whereas the HID conversion kits light source incorporates a discharge arc to produce the light and requires a ballast for operation.Thus, in order to comply with paragraph S7.7 of FMVSS No. 108,the Thunder Beam light source must comply with, inter alia, the dimensional specifications for the metallic wire coil filament size and location, the electrical connector size and location, and the ballast would need to be a design currently on file for use with an H1 light source.Complying with the dimensional aspects of the H1 light source appears to be an impossibility considering that the wire coil filament and the electrical connector are not a part of your design. Furthermore, there are no ballast designs on file for use with an H1 light source.Thus, your companys HID conversion kit is not a design that conforms to the Standard and could not be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 108, nor imported into or sold in the United States. This interpretation would apply to any HID replaceable light source whose base was modified or manufactured to be interchangeable with any regulated headlamp replaceable light source that incorporates an incandescent filament design. If you have any questions regarding how a manufacturer may submit information to Part 564, you may contact Michael Cole of our Office of Rulemaking (202-366-5276).For legal questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:108 |
2002 |
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.