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: malone.ztvOpenDaniel P. Malone Dear Mr. Malone: This is in reply to your e-mail of June 20, 2003, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking about the early warning reporting (EWR) responsibilities of seat manufacturers that supply integrated child seat systems. Your question arises from a statement in the preamble to the EWR final rule, which remarked:
You have asked whether "this comment regarding integrated child seat systems eliminates any responsibility of seat manufacturers [under] EWR as a child restraint system manufacturer for those products." The answer is no. This comment relates to the reporting responsibilities of manufacturers of light vehicles. The proposed rule would have had these manufacturers reporting separately for integrated child restraint systems (Code 08) and for seats (Code 17) (see 66 FR at 66222). In the final rule, as the preamble indicated, reports of light vehicle manufacturers involving integrated child seat systems are to be included as a report for seats (Code 22). As a manufacturer of original equipment, a manufacturer of seats with integrated child seat systems remains subject to the reporting requirements of 49 CFR 579.27, which oblige it to report to NHTSA any claims or notices involving death that relate to its product. Your second question was "for purposes of EWR, does that comment clarify that integrated child seat systems are to be considered as 'seats' and not child restraint systems."The answer is yes. If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:579 |
|
ID: malone_new.ztvOpenDaniel P. Malone Dear Mr. Malone: This is in reply to your e-mail of June 20, 2003, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking about the early warning reporting (EWR) responsibilities of seat manufacturers that supply integrated child seat systems. Your question arises from a statement in the preamble to the EWR final rule, which remarked:
You have asked whether "this comment regarding integrated child seat systems eliminates any responsibility of seat manufacturers [under] EWR as a child restraint system manufacturer for those products." The answer is no. This comment relates to the reporting responsibilities of manufacturers of light vehicles. The proposed rule would have had these manufacturers reporting separately for integrated child restraint systems (Code 08) and for seats (Code 17) (see 66 FR at 66222). In the final rule, as the preamble indicated, reports of light vehicle manufacturers involving integrated child seat systems are to be included as a report for seats (Code 22). As a manufacturer of original equipment, a manufacturer of seats with integrated child seat systems remains subject to the reporting requirements of 49 CFR 579.27, which oblige it to report to NHTSA any claims or notices involving death that relate to its product. Your second question was "for purposes of EWR, does that comment clarify that integrated child seat systems are to be considered as 'seats' and not child restraint systems."The answer is yes. If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263. Sincerely, Chief Counsel |
2003 |
ID: mansfieldOpen
Via Federal Express
Mr. Christopher C. Mansfield General Counsel Liberty Mutual Group 175 Berkeley Street Boston, MA 02117
Dear Mr. Mansfield:
We have received reports that certain insurance companies may be engaging in transactions that violate Federal odometer disclosure law with respect to vehicles damaged in Hurricane Sandy. Although we are not asserting that your company is engaging in such practices, we are writing to a number of auto insurance companies to remind them of the Federal odometer disclosure law requirements and ask them to review their practices regarding odometer disclosures. These letters do not accuse your company, or any other company, of violating the law.
We understand that when a flood-damaged vehicle is declared a total loss, the insurance company pays the insured the value of the vehicle, becomes the owner, and acquires control over the vehicle from the insured. However the reports we have received indicate that instead of completing the required odometer disclosure, some companies ask the insured to complete the odometer disclosure statement without listing the insurance company as the transferee. According to these reports, the insurance company will not sign the title, make an odometer disclosure, or transfer title. The insurance company then sells the vehicle at auction, keeps the proceeds from the auction, and provides the title with the odometer disclosure statement as signed by the insured to the auction buyer. The next person in the chain of title of the vehicle will be the buyer at auction. The insurance company will essentially be omitted from the chain of title.
In the circumstance described above, an insurance company is considered a transferee when it pays the insureds claim (in return it obtains ownership of the vehicle), and a transferor when it sells the vehicle at auction. See 49 C.F.R. 580.3. As a transferor, the insurance company is required to make certain disclosures.
Under federal odometer disclosure law, 49 U.S.C. 32705, a person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle shall give the transferee written disclosure of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer. More specifically, under 49 C.F.R. 580.5, each transferor shall disclose the mileage to the transferee in writing on the title or on the document being used to reassign the title [t]his written disclosure must be signed by the transferor, including the printed name. The transferee must sign the disclosure statement, print his name, and return a copy to his transferor.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Marie Choi of my staff at (202) 366-1738 or via email at marie.choi@dot.gov.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
d: 12/20/12
Identical letters sent to:
Mr. Dana Proulx General Counsel GEICO Corporation One Geico Plaza Washington, DC 20076
Mr. Charles E. Jarrett Chief Legal Officer The Progressive Corporation 300 North Commons Blvd., OHF 11 Mayfield Village, OH 44143
Mr. Christopher C. Mansfield General Counsel Liberty Mutual Group 175 Berkeley Street Boston, MA 02117
Ms. Patricia R. Hatler Chief Legal and Governance Officer Nationwide One Nationwide Plaza Columbus, OH 43215
Ms. Susan L. Lees General Counsel Allstate Insurance Company 3075 Sanders Road Northbrook, IL 60062
Mr. Garrett Paddor General Counsel Farmers New World Life Insurance Company 4680 Wilshire Blvd, 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90010 Mr. Steven A. Bennett General Counsel United Services Automobile Association (USAA) 9800 Fredericksburg Road San Antonio, TX 78288
Mr. Jeffrey W. Jackson General Counsel State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company One State Farm Plaza Bloomington, IL 61710
|
|
ID: markowskiOpenMr. Norbert P. Markowski Dear Mr. Markowski: This responds to your recent letter requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's assistance to enable you to seek alteration of your Model Year 2000 Buick LeSabre to accommodate your needs. You explain that you need a left side foot accelerator in order to assist your driving. You cannot drive safely with a right foot accelerator because your right leg is fused at the knee and ankle. You state that your right foot rests on the right accelerator and that, while driving, you do not dare move your right leg lest you unintentionally press on the right accelerator. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your LeSabre has already been modified to include a left side foot accelerator pedal. You ask us for written permission that would permit you to go to a dealership or other business to remove the right accelerator pedal. This letter should provide the relief you seek. We do not prohibit modifiers from removing the pedal, as long as the work is done without negating the safety of a required component or element of design. Section 30122(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code (the title under which Standard No. 124 was issued) provides in part that--
Our safety standards do not require that an accelerator pedal be provided on a motor vehicle, or that the accelerator pedal be placed to the right of the brake pedal. Since our standards do not require the accelerator pedal to be on the right, moving the pedal position from the right to the left would not "make inoperative" the compliance of your vehicle with Standard No. 124. However, Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, requires that a vehicle's throttle must return to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control or in the event of a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. Your LeSabre must meet this safety requirement with the accelerator pedal on the left. Further, after the right accelerator pedal has been removed from your LeSabre, I would strongly urge you to inform all potential drivers of your LeSabre that the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal in your vehicle are reversed from their usual positions. In addition, if you should decide to sell your LeSabre in the future, I would suggest that the right foot accelerator pedal is replaced before the vehicle is sold. Showing this letter to your dealer or repair business when you take your car to have the right accelerator pedal removed should provide the assurance they seek to perform the modification. If the dealer or repair business wishes to verify the authenticity of this letter, they may call the telephone number below. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: matsumoto-2.ztvOpenMr. Todd Matsumoto Dear Mr. Matsumoto: This responds to your letter concerning your 1964 and 1968 "dune buggy" kit cars. You informed us that the "local government" requires you "to provide the state with a design plan certified by a professional engineer that meets all federal safety standards in order for my car to be legally registered." Subsequently, you faxed us a copy of a letter to you, dated June 30, 2003, from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation, which indicates that your vehicles are considered "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law. You asked whether your cars have to meet any specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS or standards) or other regulations. I will address the applicability of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to this issue. This law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must meet the FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. We have previously provided the following explanation [1] how our regulations apply to kit cars:
In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing. Assuming that the construction of a kit car does not involve the use of so many new parts as to make it a new motor vehicle, we do not consider it to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSSs in effect on the date of completion of the kit car. Based on the information you provided with your letter and in telephone conversations with Taylor Vinson of my staff, it appears that this is the case with your 1964 and 1968 dune buggy kit cars. However, the States may regulate the reconstruction of vehicles. The letter you provided to us from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation indicates that it considers your vehicles to be "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law, and subject to its requirements for the approval of reconstructed vehicles. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:571 |
2002 |
ID: Maxon9759OpenS.Lafferty, Manager, Engineering Dear Mr.Lafferty: This responds to your letter in which you raised several questions regarding Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No.403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles.Your letter raised issues with the control illumination, attachment hardware, and interlock requirements of the standard.I have addressed each issue below. By way of background, the agency established FMVSS Nos.403 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle.FMVSS No.403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles.The agency also established the companion standard FMVSS No.404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, which specifies requirements for vehicles equipped with platform lifts. Illumination of Lift Controls S6.7.6.2 of FMVSS No.403 requires that platform lift controls on a public use lift must be illuminated according S5.3 of FMVSS No.101, Controls and displays.In part FMVSS No.101 requires that the illumination of controls must be adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions.The low level of illumination is to minimize the impact of the illumination on a drivers night vision. In your letter, you stated that the controls on the lifts manufactured by your company, Maxon, are not located in the driver compartment.As such, you stated that there is no need for a dual level of illumination as specified in FMVSS No.101. The illumination requirement in FMVSS No.403 is applicable to all controls, regardless of location.An amendment to this requirement would have to be accomplished through the agencys rulemaking procedure. Attachment Hardware S6.3.1 of FMVSS No.403 requires that a lift manufacturer provide all of the attachment hardware necessary to install a lift on a vehicle.In your letter you stated that some installations may require longer bolts than that provided or that bolts may be lost during installation.You asked if Maxon would be permitted to specify attachment hardware by "grade, size, plating etc and allow substitute hardware" in those instances. S6.13.1 requires a lift manufacturer to specify, either by make and model or by design elements, the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed.The attachment hardware provided must permit the installation of a lift on these vehicles.If a vehicle is listed under S6.13.1 that requires a longer bolt, then a longer bolt must be provided. With regard to hardware lost during the installation process, we recognize that lift installers may need to obtain replacement hardware.Nothing in the standard prohibits a lift manufacturer from providing the hardware specifications in conjunction with the actual hardware. Interlock requirements Your letter correctly states that under S6.10.2.2 of FMVSS No.403, an interlock must prevent operation of a platform lift from a stowed position until forward and rearward motion of a vehicle is inhibited.You then asked what is required if during lift operation there is a failure of the interlock: should lift operation cease or continue in the event of such a failure? FMVSS No.403 does not specify how a lift must operate in the event of an interlock failure.Therefore, it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine an appropriate default status. I hope you find this helpful.If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr.Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:403#404 |
2005 |
ID: maxon_threshold7346OpenS. Lafferty, Manager, Engineering Dear Ms. Lafferty: This responds to you letter in which you asked about the threshold warning requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles. You stated that there is an apparent discrepancy between the threshold warning system requirement and the associated test procedure, and asked which takes precedent. As explained below, the specified test procedure for the threshold warning system requirement is consistent with that requirement. As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency established a threshold warning signal requirement for platform lifts in part to minimize the risk of a lift user backing off a vehicle before a lift is properly positioned. S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires an appropriate threshold warning signal to be activated when any portion of a passengers body or mobility aid occupies the platform threshold area defined in S4 of that standard, and the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch) below the vehicle floor reference plane. A platform lift must meet this requirement when tested in accordance with S7.4 of the standard. In your letter you stated that it is possible to design a threshold warning system that "will pass a test that is performed as described in S7.4 and not completely fulfill the requirements of S6.1.3". You described a threshold warning system designed with an optical sensor at the interior boundary of the platform threshold area. You stated that such a system would activate the warning signal only when a passenger is crossing the boundary of the threshold at the same time as the platform is lower than 25 mm from the vehicle floor. You further stated that such a system would not activate a signal if a passenger were completely within the threshold area when the platform reached the specified distance from the vehicle floor. Your letter indicated that you believe that such a system would "pass" the test procedure, but not comply fully with the requirement. A system as you described would not comply with the requirements of S6.1.3 when tested as specified in S7.4. As stated above, S6.1 requires the appropriate warning signal to activate when tested in accordance with S7.4. S7.4.2 specifies that, with the platform lift at the vehicle floor loading position:
Thus, S7.4.2 specifies placing the front wheel of the test device on any portion of the threshold area. As explained in 49 CFR 571.4, the use of the term "any" in connection with a range of values or set of items means generally, "the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the [agency] for testing". Accordingly, the procedure specified in S7.4.2 includes placement of the front wheel that could result in the entire test device being within the threshold area prior to the platform being lowered. This also includes placement that results in a portion of the test device being on the platform. Given the discussion above, a system such as you described would not comply when tested under S7.4.2. As such, there is no discrepancy between the requirement of S6.1.3 and the test procedure specified in S7.4. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:403#404 |
2005 |
ID: maxzonenewOpenMr. Galen Chen Dear Mr. Chen: This is in reply to your email (copy enclosed) concerning replacement lighting equipment. We apologize for the delay in our response. You reported that your company is developing "a new headlamp" for 1998-2001 model Honda Accord passenger cars (we shall refer to this as the "Maxzone headlamp"). You informed us that the original equipment (OE) headlamp for these vehicles consists of "High Beam (9005 bulb), Low Beam (9006 bulb), Park Signal and reflector. No fog lamp function." (We would also note that the OE headlamp on this model Honda Accord appears to incorporate the required front turn signal and side marker lamp as well.) The Maxzone headlamp consists of "High Beam (H1 bulb), Low Beam (H3 bulb), Park Signal and weve added Fog Lamp (H3 bulb) to this headlamp assembly. It also comes with reflector." You informed us "the numbers of different functions after tests all pass SAE/DOT requirements." You asked whether the Maxzone headlamp could be certified and sold as legal replacements for the 1998-2001 Honda Accord models. As discussed below, the answer to this question is no. Under S5.8, Replacement equipment, of Standard No. 108, "Each lamp . . . manufactured to replace any lamp . . . on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform to this standard." (S5.8.1) S7.1 of Standard No. 108 requires a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, to "be equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3, S7.4, S7.5, or S7.6." Maxzone stated that the OE headlighting system on the 1998-2001 Honda Accord consists of headlamps with HB3 (9005) and HB4 (9006) replaceable light sources. Thus, a replacement headlamp for this vehicle must be evaluated according to the requirements of S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems. S7.5(b) requires that each headlamp in the system be designed to conform to the photometrics as specified in S7.5(c) through (e) using any light source of the type intended for use in such system.Considering that this particular vehicle incorporates HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources in its OE headlighting system, we view S5.8.1 and S7.5(b) as requiring each replacement headlamp for this vehicle to be designed to conform to the specified photometry when using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources. Because replaceable light sources are, by regulation, designed to be non-interchangeable, it would not be possible for the Maxzone replacement headlamp to comply with the applicable photometry using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources when the Maxzone headlamp is designed to use replaceable light sources other than HB3 and HB4. Therefore, the Maxzone headlamp could not be certified and sold as a replacement for a 1998-2001 Honda Accord headlamp. This also means that a headlamp dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not remove the original headlamp and install the Maxzone headlamp as a replacement without violating 49 U.S.C. 30122. This section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You also informed us that the Maxzone headlamp "comes with reflector." We are unsure of your meaning. We interpret S5.8.1 as requiring replacement lighting equipment designed for specific motor vehicles to incorporate, at a minimum, the same required functionality as included on the original equipment lamp it is intended to replace. If the original Accord headlamp incorporated an amber side reflex reflector in compliance with Standard No. 108, each replacement headlamp for that Accord must also incorporate an amber side reflex reflector if we are to regard it being "designed to conform to this standard" within the meaning of S5.8.1. I hope that this information is useful to you. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2003 |
ID: may 29 571.213--battery dependent installation--Campbell2--13-002509OpenMr. Corey Campbell David E. Campbell & Associates, Inc. 3215 Greenwich Rd. Wadsworth, OH 44281
Dear Mr. Campbell:
This responds to your letters concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, and a new child restraint system (CRS) your client, Thorley Industries, would like to manufacture. The following interpretation of FMVSS No. 213 is based on our understanding of the information provided by you, and is limited to the particular aspects of the CRS you described.
Your questions relate to an infant seat. You state that the product requires disposable batteries to accomplish correct installation using one of the required means of installation per the table for 5.3.2.[1] The product has an automated installation system for attaching to a child restraint anchorage system.[2] If there is sufficient power in the CRSs batteries, the child restraint releases the LATCH belt to allow it to spool out.[3] The consumer attaches the LATCH connectors and presses a button on the CRS base to tell [the] system that the connectors are attachedThe system automatically tensions the LATCH lower anchor belt to a present tension.[4] If the batteries are depleted, the CRS notifies the consumer that an automated installation is not possible because the batteries are depleted. The consumer would have to manually install the CRS using the vehicle lap belt (Type 1 belt) or lap/shoulder belt (Type 2 belt).
Question 1
The first question you ask in the May 2013 letter is whether it is acceptable under FMVSS No. 213 if the users ability to install a child restraint using the LATCH lower anchor belt becomes inaccessible should the batteries become depleted. You state that the batteries are needed to accomplish correct installation using one of the required means of installation per the table for 5.3.2. As explained below, the answer is no.
Response to Question 1
S5.9(a) of FMVSS No. 213 specifies that CRSs such as infant seats shall have components permanently attached to the system that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 (571.225)
The battery-dependent design of the CRS would not meet S5.9(a). One of NHTSAs goals for a universal child restraint anchorage system is that the system ensure correct child restraint system use by ensuring that the child restraint systems are convenient to install and use, and will be accepted by consumers. 64 FR 10786, 10797, col. 2 (March 5, 1999). NHTSA adopted the permanently attached requirement in S5.9(a) to help ensure that the components on a CRS that attach to the child restraint anchorage system lower bars (LATCH components) will be present and available for use by consumers through the life of the CRS.
With the battery-dependent design you describe, the batteries will deplete with regular use of the CRS during the life of the CRS. If the batteries deplete and the consumer does not replace them, at some point an automated battery-dependent CRS will have insufficient power to release the LATCH components for the consumers use. Your client recognizes this possibility by designing the CRS to inform the consumer, in the event the batteries are depleted, to refer to the instruction manual for instructions on how to perform a manual (non-automated) installation with the vehicle belt. In other words, the consumer will not be able to use the child restraint anchorage system.
In our opinion, such a battery-dependent design would not meet S5.9(a) since it is foreseeable that some consumers would be faced with depleted batteries. Without the batteries, the child restraint would fail to have components that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system.
Another requirement of FMVSS No. 213 is S5.3.2, which specifies that Each add-on child restraint system shall be capable of meeting the requirements of this standard when installed solely by each of the means indicated in the following table. For infant seats, the table specifies that the means of installation must include means to attach to a child restraint anchorage system. The Thorley CRS would not meet S5.3.2 because, without the batteries, the CRS would not be capable of meeting the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when attached by way of a child restraint anchorage system.
In your December 2013 letter, you state that Thorley is considering adding a feature to the CRS to provide a means of manual installation for attaching to the LATCH anchorages if the batteries are depleted. You did not provide details about this feature, so we cannot comment extensively on it. We note, however, that having a means of manual installation to the LATCH anchorages, in addition to the battery-operated installation method, would meet S5.9(a) and S5.3.2.
Question 2
You ask about the way in which NHTSA would tighten the belts used to attach the automated battery-operated infant seat to the test seat assembly in a compliance test. You ask: If the process of LATCH lower anchor belt tensioning is automated in such a way that the user could not manually modify its level of tension, would it be acceptable for the level of tension to exceed the 67N [sic] specified in FMVSS 213 for the purposes of compliance testing? You state that after tensioning, the belt tensioning system is mechanically locked and no batteries are needed to maintain tension. You also state: Before the system will perform an automated installation and tensioning process, it verifies that the batteries have sufficient power to complete the cycle to minimize the risk of the batteries dying during the tensioning process which could result in unpredictable tension levels.[5]
Answer to Question 2
Paragraph S6.1.2(d)(1)(iii) of FMVSS No. 213 states: When attaching a child restraint system to the tether anchorage and the child restraint anchorage system on the standard seat assembly, tighten all belt systems used to attach the restraint to the standard seat assembly to a tension of not less than 53.5 [Newtons (N)] and not more than 67 N
Generally speaking, S6.1.2(d)(1)(iii) specifies the amount of tension on the LATCH belts (not less than 53.5 N to not more than 67 N) to control the means of attaching each child restraint, thereby reducing variability, and to better assess the performance of the restraint. Further, the provision helps ensure that all child restraints can provide a minimum level of safety when attached in a standardized manner.
However, with regard to your May 2013 letter about the LATCH lower anchorage belt which automatically tightens without any input from the consumer, we agree it is acceptable for the level of tension to exceed 67 N, as discussed below.
The situation you ask about was indirectly addressed in an October 17, 2000 interpretation of FMVSS No. 213 to Mr. William Shapiro (copy enclosed). In that letter, NHTSA did not agree with tensioning the belt used to attach a CRS to the vehicle seat to a higher tension than 67 N because a consumer had to use a tension bracket to manually adjust the tension. The agency was concerned that if a consumer did not use the tension bracket or used the bracket incorrectly, the belt might not achieve a tension greater than 67 N. Yet, in that letter, NHTSA also stated: We note that the child restraint requires action on the part of the consumer to increase the belt tension. It does not do so automatically. If the tension adjustment in the seat operated automatically, such that it was impossible to install the seat at a tension below 67 N, we would test at the higher tension. After considering FMVSS No. 213 and the agencys interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the level of tension may exceed 67 N, subject to the following caveats. First, for the reasons provided in the 2000 letter, the tension adjustment in the CRS must operate automatically to tension the belts, i.e., it is not dependent on consumer input in tensioning the belts. Second, also as noted in the 2000 letter, we will tension the belts using the automatic tensioning system to a tension exceeding 67 N if it is impossible to tension the belts to a value below 67 N using the automatic tensioning system. Assuming these conditions are met, we would conduct a FMVSS No. 213 dynamic test with the CRS belts automatically tightened to a tension greater than 67 N.
Question 3
Your December 2013 letter asks about tightening the manual belt that would be used for attaching the CRS to the LATCH anchorages in the event the batteries are depleted. You ask for confirmation that NHTSA would tighten the belt to a tension of not less than 53.5 N and not more than 67 N, as specified in S6.1.2(d)(1)(iii) of FMVSS No. 213..
Answer to Question 3
Your understanding is correct. We would tighten the belt as we would other manually-adjustable belts. To ensure that the CRS performs well when installed using the manual belt, we would conduct the compliance test with belt tension at the FMVSS No. 213-specified tension of 53.5 N to 67 N.
If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure Dated 6/4/15 Standard No. 213 [1] Your May 29, 2013 letter to NHTSA, p. 1. [2] You use the term LATCH to refer to a child restraint anchorage system. LATCH refers to Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children, an acronym developed by manufacturers and retailers to refer to the child restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225 for installation in motor vehicles. [3] Description of Installation Process, p. 1, April 23, 2014. [4] Id. [5] Description of Installation Process, p. 2, April 23, 2014. |
2015 |
ID: MBWletter10702OpenMr. Frank Multerer Dear Mr. Multerer: This responds to your letter of September 18, 2002, concerning requirements for mortar mixers manufactured by MBW Inc., which are used by the masonry trade to process the binding material for the installation of brick, block, and stone at various construction sites. These mortar mixers may be wheel-mounted and towed to a jobsite, or alternatively they may be transported on a truck or trailer. You asked for our interpretation as to whether mortar mixers are subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements. For the reasons that follow, the answer is no. By way of background, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the NHTSA to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.The Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it must comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then it need not comply with the agencys safety standards because such vehicle falls outside the agencys scope of authority. Whether the agency will consider construction equipment, such as a mortar mixer, to be a motor vehicle depends upon its use. It is the agencys position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, in those cases where certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways, the agency has determined such equipment to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than "incidental." Your letter states that mortar mixers can be wheel-mounted so that they may be towed from jobsite to jobsite. Your letter goes on to state that the duration of mortar mixers use on jobsites is variable, ranging from roughly a week at small, residential jobs to many months at large, commercial projects. Based upon the information and literature you have provided, we do not believe that your mortar mixers are "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by section 102(3) of the Act. This conclusion is based upon the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to travel between jobsites. Accordingly, your mortar mixers would not be subject to the FMVSS. However, that if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that the mortar mixers use the road more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding NHTSAs safety standards, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:VSA |
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.