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: aiam4995OpenMr. Gonshiro Miyoshi Manager, Design Administration Dept. Technical Division Ichikoh Industries, Inc. 80 Itado, Isehara-City Kanagawa, 259-11 Japan; Mr. Gonshiro Miyoshi Manager Design Administration Dept. Technical Division Ichikoh Industries Inc. 80 Itado Isehara-City Kanagawa 259-11 Japan; Dear Mr. Miyoshi: This responds to your letter of April 6, 1992, askin for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. With respect to a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing two light sources, you have asked 'Is it permissible to have the bulb center of the lower beam lower than that of the upper beam (maximum height difference is 10mm) if they are arranged horizontally?' Paragraph S7.5(d)(2) specifies the manner in which 'the lower and upper beams of a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing either one or two light sources, shall be provided . . .' In such headlamps where each light source provides a beam, the lower beam is provided 'by the outboard light source (or upper one if arranged vertically),' and the upper beam is provided 'by the inboard light source (or the lower one if arranged vertically).' Although the standard could be presumed to contemplate that two light sources within a headlamp would be located on the same horizontal or vertical plane, there is no specific requirement for light source placement. Because the difference in the horizontal mounting planes for bulb centers in your design is only 10mm, this difference is not sufficient to conclude that the light sources are vertically arranged, thus requiring that the lower beam bulb center be the 'upper' one, or on a plane that is higher. However, for your design to be permissible, the lower beam in this essentially horizontal array must be provided by the outboard light source in the headlamps as specified in S7.5(d)(2). Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0485OpenMr. E. M. Ryan, Chief Design Engineer, Ward School Bus Mfg., Inc., P. O. Box 849, Conway, AR, 72032; Mr. E. M. Ryan Chief Design Engineer Ward School Bus Mfg. Inc. P. O. Box 849 Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Ryan: Your letter of October 28, 1971, to Mr. Stan Haranski, Truck Body an Equipment Association, Inc., concerning switching arrangements for school bus red signal lamps, has been forwarded to this Office for reply.; Paragraph S4.1.4(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10 requires that the four red signal lamps be controlled by a manually actuated switch. A two-way switch, whereby all four lamps are activated when the switch is in one position, and the two rear lamps only are activated when the switch is in the opposite position, would not be in violation of this requirement of Standard No. 108.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2512OpenMr. Raymond Titsworth, Project Engineer, Ward School Bus Mfg., Inc., P. O. Box 849, Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. Raymond Titsworth Project Engineer Ward School Bus Mfg. Inc. P. O. Box 849 Highway 65 South Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Titsworth: This responds to your December 7, 1976 and January 8, 1977, question whether 53 described intersections of bus body components qualify as 'body panel joints' subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*. This also responds to your question whether the seating reference point in Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, can be located using nominal seat cushion deflection.; The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of th standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (made of homogeneous material) in a bus that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the 53 intersections of bus body components you describe, it appears that the areas corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs of your letter are bus body joints and therefore must meet the 60-percent joint strength requirements: 1 through 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 51. Additionally the joint described in your January 8, 1977, submission must comply with the standard.; The illustration accompanying paragraph 16 shows a second joint betwee a door post and exterior trim panel with the notation that this joint is 'Not Required To Meet Std.' The agency concludes that this joint also must meet the requirements of the standard, because it is a connection of a body component with a body panel that encloses occupant space.; The lower skirt section described in paragraph 35 is not a body pane that encloses occupant space, because it is located entirely below the level of the floor line and, therefore, is excluded from the standard's requirements.; In the control console area, the interior side panel described i paragraph 38 and the shoulder cap (wire cover) described in paragraph 43 are considered maintenance access panels, whose joining with the bus body is excluded from the requirements only if a wire is installed behind them.; The turn signal housings described in paragraphs 40 and 41 are no considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and are therefore not considered body components for purposes of the requirements.; The front and rear headers described in paragraphs 47 and 48 ar considered primarily structural and have only an incidental role in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, are not considered 'body panels' for purposes of the requirements.; The rubrail described in paragraph 49 is not considered to have function in enclosing the occupant space and, therefore, is not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of testing the complex joints to which it is fastened, it should be modified as necessary to prevent it from affecting testing of the underlying joint.; Because the plywood described in paragraph 50 is attached to a floo panel and is only added to some buses for insulation purposes, it is not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements.; The NHTSA concludes that parts A, E, and F of paragraph 52 describ joints between maintenance access panels and the bus body. The heater ducts in parts B, C, and D are the type of ventilation space that is not subject to requirements for joint strength.; In response to your question concerning the effect of seat cushio deflection on the location of the seating reference point, the NHTSA has determined that the definition of seating reference point contemplates some deflection of seat cushions to simulate compression of padding material under the weight of a human torso and thigh. As noted in the preamble of the second proposal for a school bus seating standard (39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974), 'It can be seen that the manufacturer's freedom to locate the point is sharply restricted by the definition which specifies that it actually simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh, following SAE placement procedures.' However, since the seating reference point is an approximation of the pivot center, the NHTSA permits the manufacturer to locate the point based upon nominal seat cushion deflection.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5238OpenMr. Sam C. Nigro Bus Product Manager Webasto Thermosystems 1598 E. Lincoln Madison Heights, MI 48071; Mr. Sam C. Nigro Bus Product Manager Webasto Thermosystems 1598 E. Lincoln Madison Heights MI 48071; "Dear Mr. Nigro: This responds to your letter about auxiliary heater fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid natural gas (LNG) for installation on buses using those alternative fuels. You stated that your company currently manufactures auxiliary heaters for diesel fueled buses, and is interested in developing heaters that would 'burn CNG and LNG same as the engine.' In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you would like information about NHTSA's current requirements for auxiliary heaters on alternative fueled buses and the agency's future plans in this area. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering auxiliary heaters of any kind, and I am not aware of any plans to issue standards in this area. Nevertheless, an auxiliary heater is an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the heater is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. As Mr. Shaw informed you on the telephone, earlier this year NHTSA proposed to issue a safety standard that would apply to CNG tanks (i.e., containers designed to store CNG as motor vehicle fuel on-board a motor vehicle) and vehicles using CNG as a fuel (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If this proposed standard is adopted, it would affect your product in the following manner. If your heater were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required by our certification regulations to certify that the entire vehicle (with your product installed) satisfies the requirements of all applicable FMVSS's, including the CNG fuel system standard. If the heater were added to a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new completed bus), the person who adds the system would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. These certification requirements apply to the vehicle manufacturer and alterer regardless of whether the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system. Of course, if the heater is connected to the vehicle's fuel system, the vehicle's compliance with the CNG standard should be carefully scrutinized. If the heater were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not be subject to the certification requirements outlined above. Instead, the installer would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including the CNG standard. This is required by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. If the modification of the vehicle entailed connecting the heater to the vehicle's fuel system, compliance with the CNG standard would be especially germane to whether 108(a)(2)(A) were violated. The prohibition of 108(a(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. The certification responsibilities discussed above would affect vehicle manufacturers even if the proposed CNG standard is not adopted or is not yet effective when you market your product. Except for FMVSS 301, which sets fuel system integrity requirements for gasoline and diesel-powered buses under 10,000 pounds GVWR, all of the FMVSS's that apply to a diesel- or gasoline-powered vehicle now apply to a CNG-powered vehicle. A manufacturer of a CNG-powered vehicle who installs your heater as original equipment must certify the vehicle to those standards, regardless if the CNG FMVSS is among them. Similarly, a vehicle alterer would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS's. The 'render inoperative' prohibition would also apply even in the absence of a CNG FMVSS. The commercial entity listed in 108(a)(2)(A) who installs the heater on a CNG-powered vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any FMVSS that applies to the vehicle, even if a CNG standard is not among them. I am enclosing for your information a copy of NHTSA's proposed FMVSS for CNG tanks and vehicles. Also enclosed is a fact sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. As you are aware, the Federal Highway Administration has issued a regulation applicable to heaters on commercial vehicles. (49 CFR 393.77). You can contact the FHWA for an interpretation of its regulations at the following address: Theodore McConnell Chief Counsel Federal Highway Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590 I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2007OpenMr. Fred Long, South Texas Tire Test Fleet, Drawer J, Devine, TX 78016; Mr. Fred Long South Texas Tire Test Fleet Drawer J Devine TX 78016; Dear Mr. Long: This is to confirm your telephone conversation of July 31, 1975, wit Mark Schwimmer concerning the treadwear test procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* (UTQGS).; You had previously pointed out that the A78-13 and other tires ar available neither as original equipment nor as recommended replacement options on any 1975 model passenger cars, although they are available as replacement options for the 1974 Ford Pinto. You had asked whether it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to conduct treadwear testing for such tires on a 1975 Pinto, in light of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) statement that; >>>tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which the are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. (40 FR 23076, May 28, 1975)<<<; As Mr. Schwimmer explained to you, the UTQGS rules does not dictate th method by which a tire manufacturer must conduct his testing to assign grades. It merely specifies the procedures which the NHTSA will follow when testing tires for compliance with the rule. While the surest way for the tire manufacturer to be confident of compliance would be to follow these procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. His obligation is simply to ensure that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the specified procedures, his tires are capable of achieving the grades which he has assigned to them. He may fulfill this obligation by whatever means he believes reliable and necessary. Thus, for example, he might choose a 1975 Pinto to test an A78-13 tire, if he is confident that the model year change in the Pinto will have no effect on the tire's treadwear performance. This decision is his, however. The NHTSA, in its compliance testing, would test such a tire on a 1974 Pinto or on some other passenger car for which it is original equipment or a recommended replacement option.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0190OpenMr. J. C. Eckhold, Automotive Safety Director, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, MI 48121; Mr. J. C. Eckhold Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn MI 48121; >>>Re: Consumer Information<<< Dear Mr. Eckhold: This is in response to your telegram of December 15 concerning th submission of consumer information on passenger cars produced by your associated company in England. You stated, 'This data will be submitted to the Bureau thirty (30) or more days in advance of any of these cars being offered for sale in the United States as required by section 375.6 as published on October 22, 1969.'; The regulation (49 CFR S 375.6(b))requires information to be mad available to prospective purchasers, on or after January 1, 1970, on 'each of the vehicles offered for sale' at the dealer showroom. The general applicability of the information is to vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1970. The intent of the regulation is to provide prospective vehicle buyers with information on all the various types of vehicles currently being manufactured and available for purchase after that date.; You apparently are assuming that, within the meaning of the regulation no vehicles are 'offered for sale' to prospective purchasers except those that are physically present in the dealer showroom. This certainly does not reflect the practice of most manufacturers, whose dealers, while keeping a representative stock of vehicles on hand, offer for sale (and enter into contracts for sale of) the manufacturer's complete line of vehicles. This interpretation would, furthermore, tend to defeat the main reason for providing information to prospective purchasers, since a dealer would never be obligated to provide information on vehicles other than those that happened to be in his possession at a given moment.; We advise you, therefore, that the term 'vehicles offered for sale' i the prospective purchaser requirement, 49 CFR S 375.6(b), refers to all the types of vehicles that a manufacturer represents, or the dealer represents with the permission of the manufacturer, as being available for purchase by the general public at a particular dealer location. The regulation requires that consumer information be provided to prospective purchasers on each of there (sic) vehicles on or after January 1, 1970, and to the Administrator 30 days in advance of its availability to prospective purchasers.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations; |
|
ID: aiam5392OpenMr. Dan Neaga and Ms. Dianna Sabo Johnson Controls, Inc. 49200 Halyard Dr. P.O. Box 8010 Plymouth, MI 48170; Mr. Dan Neaga and Ms. Dianna Sabo Johnson Controls Inc. 49200 Halyard Dr. P.O. Box 8010 Plymouth MI 48170; Dear Mr. Neaga and Ms. Sabo: This responds to your letter asking abou a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, 'Child Restraint Systems,' for built- in child restraints that use 'the same seat back surface as the adult occupant.' I apologize for the delay in responding. Before I begin, I would like to reference a May 26, 1994 telephone call to you from Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, about your letter's statement that the information you sent us is confidential. Ms. Fujita explained that letters requesting interpretations of our FMVSSs are public information, but suggested that we could return your sketches to you and make publicly available only your cover letter. You agreed this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts. Accordingly, Ms. Fujita has mailed your sketches to you. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for 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, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter. You ask if your understanding is correct that 'lateral support of the side of the child's torso is not required by FMVSS 213.' The answer is yes. The torso impact protection requirement of S5.2.2.1(b) of Standard 213 specifies requirements for ' e ach system surface provided for support of the side of the child's torso' (emphasis added). The preamble for the final rule adopting S5.2.2.1(b) explains: 'The specifications do not require manufacturers to incorporate side supports in their restraints, they only regulate the surfaces that the manufacturer decides to provide so that they distribute crash forces over the child's torso.' 44 FR 72131, 72135, December 13, 1979. Please note that NHTSA determines independently from the manufacturer whether a particular surface is provided for side support. The determination is based on factors such as the design and intended use of the restraint, and the advertising literature for the restraint. Accordingly, a manufacturer cannot avoid complying with S5.2.2.1(b) simply by asserting that a side surface was not provided for side support. However, with regard to a built-in restraint such as yours that uses the same seat back surface as the adult occupant and where 'no lateral support other than the one offered to the adult occupant is provided,' it does not appear that the child restraint incorporates side supports subject to S5.2.2.1(b). If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure; |
|
ID: aiam2457OpenMr. John F. McCuen, Kelsey-Hayes Company, Romulus, Michigan 48174; Mr. John F. McCuen Kelsey-Hayes Company Romulus Michigan 48174; Dear Mr. McCuen: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes' April 21, 1976, question whether moto vehicle rims that are labeled in conformity with the requirements of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, May be installed on passenger cars.; The requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 120 for labeling of rims fo use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, busses, trailers, and motorcycles do not affect the use of those rims on passenger cars. This situation would change if Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims*, is modified in the future to prohibit one or more of the items required by S5.2, but such an eventuality is considered to be unlikely.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4429OpenMr. Paul Utans Vice President, Governmental Affairs Subaru of America Subaru Plaza P.O. Box 6000 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000; Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Governmental Affairs Subaru of America Subaru Plaza P.O. Box 6000 Cherry Hill NJ 08034-6000; "Dear Mr. Utans: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210). Specifically, you stated that Subaru would like to offer lap/shoulder belts at the rear outboard seating positions on mid-1989 model year station wagons sold in the United States. Standard No. 210 requires these station wagons to be equipped with an anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder belt assembly at each forward-facing outboard seating position (S4.1.1) and requires such anchorages to be located within a specified range (S4.3.2). You stated that the subject station wagons would have such an anchorage located in the specified area. However, the upper torso portion of the lap/shoulder belt assemblies would not be attached to the required anchorages in the subject vehicles. Instead, Subaru would provide another anchorage outside of the range specified in Standard No. 210, and the upper torso portion of the rear seat lap/shoulder belt assemblies would be attached to these additional anchorages. You stated your belief that, since Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) does not require manufacturers to install lap/shoulder belts in rear seating positions of passenger cars, Subaru's voluntary installation of rear seat lap/shoulder belts and additional anchorages for those belts is not subject to any of this agency's regulations, provided that the voluntarily installed items do not impair the functioning of any devices or elements of design required to be installed in the vehicles. Your belief is correct. The anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210 apply to all anchorages required by the safety standards, except for those anchorages explicitly exempted by S4.3 of Standard No. 210 (anchorages for automatic and dynamically tested manual belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208). The question then becomes whether the upper anchorage to which the rear seat shoulder belts will actually be attached in these vehicles is required by the safety standards. If that upper anchorage were required by the safety standards, it would have to comply with the location requirements set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. However, we conclude that that anchorage is not required by any safety standard. If Standard No. 208 required rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts, it would require that the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt was actually attached to the vehicles comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. This is because S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a 'seat belt anchorage' as 'the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure.' The point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle is necessarily a part of the 'provision' for transferring belt loads to the vehicle structure. Thus, the attachment point of the upper end of the shoulder belt to the vehicle would have to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 210, if the shoulder belt were required to be provided at that seating position by Standard No. 208. However, Standard No. 208 does not currently require rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts. Instead, section S4.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 208 requires that rear seating positions in passenger cars be equipped with either Type 1 (lap belts) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder belts) belt assemblies. Even though Standard No. 208 does not require lap/shoulder belts to be installed at rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars, section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires shoulder belt anchorages to be installed for each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in passenger cars. When lap belts only are installed at these seating positions, the shoulder belt anchorage required by S4.1.1 is not, strictly speaking, a provision for transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, since there are no shoulder belt loads to transfer to the vehicle structure. Accordingly, the requirement of S4.1.1 was interpreted as meaning that an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure had to be provided for such seating positions, and that anchorage point had to comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 210. According to your letter, your station wagons would be equipped with an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, and that point would comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. Accepting this as true, we believe that Subaru could satisfy all the requirements of the safety standards by installing lap belts only at the rear outboard seating positions in these cars. Subaru's decision to install lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions and an additional anchorage point for the shoulder belts is a voluntary choice, not a response to any regulatory requirement. NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis (copy enclosed), I said that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorages for voluntarily-installed lap belts outside of the area specified in Standard No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for the upper end of voluntarily installed shoulder belts outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed anchorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages and lap belts to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. There is no reason to believe that shoulder belts and the additional anchorages would in any way impair the ability of required equipment to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. You are already aware of the fact that NHTSA has initiated a rulemaking to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, 52 FR 22818, June 16, 1987. You should note that if the agency adopts a final rule requiring rear seat lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, the shoulder belts that are the subject of this interpretation would no longer be voluntarily installed. If such a final rule were issued, the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle would have to comply with both the anchorage location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210 and the anchorage strength requirements of S4.2.2 of Standard No. 210, as explained above. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3616OpenMr. J. L. Campbell, Jr., 12813 95th Avenue, N.E., Kirkland, WA 98033; Mr. J. L. Campbell Jr. 12813 95th Avenue N.E. Kirkland WA 98033; Dear Mr. Campbell: I have recently received a copy of your letter to Senator Gorto concerning the difficulties small manufacturers of motor vehicles have in complying with Federal standards. To alleviate these difficulties, you suggested that blanket exemptions from the bumper regulations and the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on side door strength be granted to all 4-wheel vehicles under 800 pounds dry weight.; As explained more fully below, this agency does not have authority fro Congress to grant an exemption from the bumper standard for the ultra-lightweight vehicles you describe. Such authority would require new legislation. However, we do have authority either to exclude all of those vehicles from the side door strength standard or to exempt particular manufacturers of those vehicles from that standard.; Congress set forth the guidelines under which this agency could issu exemptions from the bumper standards in section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1912(c)(1). Exemptions may be granted only to passenger motor vehicles manufactured for a special use. While neither the Cost Savings Act nor this agency has defined 'special use', the Cost Savings Act is explicit that a vehicle can be exempted only if two conditions are met: (1) the vehicle is manufactured for a special use, (2) compliance with the bumper standard would unreasonably interfere with that use. The example Congress cited for such a vehicle was a Jeep with snow removal equipment on the front. The agency believes that the purpose of an ultra-lightweight passenger vehicle is essentially the same as that of a lightweight vwehicle such as the Toyota Starlet, Honda Civic or Ford Escort, i.e., to carry passengers. The agency does not view that purpose to be a special use within the meaning of section 102. Further, even if the first condition could be met, it is not clear that the second one could be. Hence, an amendment to the Cost Savings Act would have to be made by the Congress before we could grant an exemption from the bumper standard to your ultra-lightweight passenger motor vehicles.; Concerning your request regarding Standard No. 214, side door strength NHTSA formerly excepted motor vehicles (other than trailers and motorcycles) of 1,000 pounds or less curb weight from all safety standards. However, that exception was eliminated in 1973 (38 F.R. 12808, May 16, 1973). At that time, the agency stated that manufacturers seeking relief from compliance problems peculiar to these vehicles could either petition for amendments to individual standards or petition for an exemption under section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).; These options remain the ones available to manufacturers o ultra-lightweight vehicles. Thus, one option is to submit a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552 requesting the agency to amend Standard No. 214 to exclude those vehicles from that standard's applicability provision. I should point out that few, if any, petitions of this type have been submitted since the agency's May 1973 notice and none have been granted. Also, you should be aware that the rulemaking process is often a lengthy one.; The other option is for a manufacturer to submit a petition for th exemption of his vehicles from a particular standard. I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets forth the information that a manufacturer must include in its petition. Exemption petitions are not uncommon and are often granted at least in part. Also, because fewer procedural steps are necessary, the exemption process is typically much faster than the amendment process. Should you wish to submit an exemption petition, you may find useful the enclosed copies of section 123 of the Safety Act and Standard No. 214, *Side Door Strength* (49 CFR S 571.214).; If you need any further assistance or information on either of thes subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me. We try to minimize the regulatory difficulties experienced by small manufacturers to the extent we can do so consistent with our legislative authority.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.