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: 0857Open Mr. Takashi Adachi Dear Mr. Adachi: This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1995, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a reflex reflector design that you attached. This design shows a single reflector 2 inches in height mounted behind a clear outer lens which is bisected horizontally by an opaque strip 6mm (.25 in.) wide, giving the impression from the exterior of two reflectors, one .75 in. high above the divider, and one that is 1.00 in. in height, below the divider. You have asked whether the "structure of the reflex reflector conforms to FMVSS 108," and whether photometric conformance is judged with respect to the single reflector crossed by the opaque strip, or whether both the upper and lower portions of the bisected reflector must meet the photometric specification. Standard No. 108 is a performance standard, not a design standard. The standard does not specify any requirements concerning the structure of reflectors. The applicable requirements for reflex reflectors are those of SAE Standard J594f Reflex Reflectors January 1977, which Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference. Your reflector should be tested as a single reflector according to the procedures set forth in J594f. If the reflector does not meet the photometric performance requirements of that standard, you may add sufficient reflective elements to the reflector design until conformance is achieved. There is no need to test the upper and lower portions as separate reflectors. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202) 366-5263 of this Office. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/9/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0866Open Mr. Valter Sforca Dear Mr. Sforca: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1995, asking if there is a regulation that applies to the importation of an "air equalizer for tire pressure." Although you have not described your device, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to equipment installed in motor vehicles that regulate the air pressure of tires. If you are asked by the U.S. Customs Service to execute an HS-7 Declaration Form at the port of entry, you may check Box 1, declaring that the equipment was manufactured on a date when no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard was in effect. Because this device is motor vehicle equipment, and because you apparently would be its importer, you would be responsible for notifying buyers and recalling it if either you or we decided that it contained a safety related defect. We don't understand your phrase "the system have a safety valve for the air brakes the truck, for a properly stop". However, if the "air equalizer" is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that person must not knowingly make inoperative any part of a truck's air brake system by installing the air equalizer. I am enclosing a copy of a letter concerning what appears to be a similar device, which will explain this more fully. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with whom you spoke previously (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:591 d:5/4/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0869Open Mr. Scott E. Mack Dear Mr. Mack: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1995, requesting a confirmation of your interpretation that "Philips Color Clear (TM) Halogen Headlights . . . are in compliance with FMVSS-108." The product in questions "appears to be colored when not in use" but "when lighted it produces white light as defined by J579C." You have provided a report from ETL Testing Laboratories which "indicates that the color of the light is identical to that of a standard halogen headlight." There is no definition of white light in SAE J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1978. We believe you mean SAE J578d Color Specification for Lighting Devices, September 1978 which does contain a definition expressed in chromaticity coordinates. The report you supplied indicates that the Philips lamp provides a light within the color coordinates for white when equipped with a red, black, blue, or white insert. As Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the color of glass lamp lenses or bulbs, only the light emitted from the lamp, we confirm your conclusion that the Philips Color Clear (TM) headlamp has been designed to conform to the color requirements of Standard No. 108. We appreciated your visit to NHTSA on April 26 to demonstrate the lamp with its various inserts. I understand that the light produced by the lamp, and by a standard headlamp, appeared identical to the naked eye in a side by side comparison. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/11/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0880Open Mr. Donnell W. Morrison Dear Mr. Morrison: This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1995, asking for a clarification of the letter of April 10 to you from the former Chief Counsel, Philip Recht. He explained Standard No. 108's requirements for the location of rear lighting on wide vehicles. As the letter stated, identification lamps are to be mounted "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable." You speak of having seen "semitrailers on the highway with all the rear lights at bed level" including clearance and identification lamps. As the letter also stated, the determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, to be made in its certification that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not question that determination unless it appears clearly erroneous. Without further information on the semitrailers you saw, we cannot judge whether mounting the clearance and identification lamps at bed level was a clearly erroneous determination by the trailer's manufacturer. There are some configurations where there is no header on which to mount lamps and the top of the doors approaches the top of the vehicle. In those configurations, we would not contest the manufacturer's determination that mounting the lamps at bed level was "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable." On the other hand, the semitrailers you saw might have failed to conform to Standard No. 108. I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. If you have any further questions you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Ref:108 d:5/19/95
|
1995 |
ID: 0897Open Mr. R. F. Tolley
Dear Mr. Tolley: This responds to your letter of April 28, 1995, asking for an interpretation of the torque deflection test specified in paragraph S7.8.5.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The second sentence of this paragraph states that "The downward force used to create the torque shall be applied parallel to the aiming reference plane, through the aiming pads, and displaced forward using a lever arm such that the force is applied on an axis that is perpendicular to the aiming reference plane and originates at the center of the aiming pad pattern." You believe that the instructions for performing the test are not sufficiently precise and can be interpreted in different ways. Specifically, you are concerned that the standard fails to adequately define the center of rotation of force, which is necessary to determine the downward force applied to the headlamp. We agree with you, and are examining ways in which the standard might be amended to address the problem you have brought to our attention. Noting that you have presented four possible answers (as well as "some other point"), our comment is that, until NHTSA clarifies the matter, a manufacturer should choose a center of rotation that appears the most appropriate for the design of mechanically aimable headlamp under consideration, in certifying that the headlamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that we could not be more helpful at this point. If you have any questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263). Sincerely
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:6/8/95
|
1995 |
ID: 08_002292-dfOpen
Mr. Greg Broemeling Idaho Tote Dolly, Inc. 27980 North Juliaetta Grd. Juliaetta, ID 83535 Dear Mr. Broemeling: This responds to your email inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the classification of your product, The Idaho Tote, under NHTSA regulations. Your email, which you originally sent to Mr. David Coleman of NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, was referred to my office for reply. We have also received a letter from U.S. Senator Michael D. Crapo on your behalf concerning The Idaho Tote, to which we are responding separately. By way of background, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes NHTSA to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which require minimum levels of safety performance. In your email communication to NHTSA, you indicated that you disagree with a recent Idaho Transportation Department classification of The Idaho Tote as a trailer and asked for our opinion on the matter. Keep in mind that State and Federal definitions of types of motor vehicles are relevant for different purposes. State law regulates, among other things, titling, licensing, and other aspects of motor vehicle use requirements. NHTSAs regulations apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and specify, among other things, the requirements of this agency that new vehicles must meet according to the vehicle type. NHTSA does not interpret the laws of the individual States, such as Idahos definitions of motor vehicle type. Under NHTSAs regulations, based on the information supplied to this agency and for the reasons explained below, The Idaho Tote would be considered a trailer. The term motor vehicle is defined in the controlling statute (49 U.S.C. 30102) as a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways. For purposes of applying the FMVSS, NHTSA defines vehicle types as set forth in 49 CFR 571.3. Trailer, which is one of those vehicle types, is defined in the agencys regulations at 49 CFR 571.3(b) as a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. In your letter to Senator Crapo, you described The Idaho Tote as an external toy hauler with its own wheels and axle, which attaches to the towing vehicle by two main frame rails that are bolted to an attachment which is, in turn, welded to the frame of a truck or other towing vehicle. You stated that because The Idaho Tote is able to articulate up and down on the bolts, it eliminates any stress to the frame from road irregularities. You further stated that because it is attached to the towing vehicle by means of the two rails, the tote cannot swerve, sway, or jackknife, as can a trailer that is attached to a towing vehicle at a single pivot point. Under NHTSAs regulations (49 CFR 571.3(b)), a unit is a trailer if it is a motor vehicle (i.e., a vehicle that is driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways) and is designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. As is evident from our definition of trailer, the manner in which a unit is attached to a towing vehicle has no bearing on the units classification as a trailer for the purpose of NHTSAs regulations. You described The Idaho Tote as having been developed as an external toy hauler. You also furnished photographs of the tote, which has a flat bed and side rails, carrying what appears to be a small off-road vehicle. Since your product meets the statutory definition of a motor vehicle and is designed for carrying property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle, we would consider The Idaho Tote to be a trailer under NHTSAs regulations.[1] An informational brochure for new trailer manufacturers is posted on our website at www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/maninfo. This brochure identifies and describes the FMVSS that apply to trailers, and certain procedural requirements that a motor vehicle manufacturer must meet under NHTSAs regulations. Those requirements include the need to obtain from the Society of Automotive Engineers a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) to be incorporated into the vehicle identification numbers (VINs) that a manufacturer must assign to motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. A manufacturer must also submit VIN deciphering information to NHTSA at least 60 days before offering for sale a motor vehicle with the manufacturers VIN, as required by NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements.[2] A manufacturer must also submit to NHTSA identifying information on itself and the vehicles that it manufactures, as required under NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. Finally, a manufacturer must permanently affix to each motor vehicle it manufactures for sale in the United States a label that, among other things, identifies the manufacturer and the vehicles date of manufacture, and states that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS in effect on that date. This requirement is reflected in NHTSAs regulations at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Finally, you noted in the letter you sent to Senator Crapo that you believed that Mr. Coleman of NHTSA, with whom you also communicated by telephone about your product, supported your views and recommended that you plead your case to the Idaho State Senate. In a follow-up conversation with NHTSAs Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Coleman recalled expressing a view that The Idaho Tote would be a trailer under NHTSAs regulations, and that he had only suggested that you discuss matters relating to licensing, titling, and registration requirements with state administrators. We regret any confusion or inconvenience the conversation may have caused. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571 d.9/25/08 [1] You indicated in your letter to Senator Crapo that a July 25, 1995 letter from NHTSA to David Lowell supported a determination that your product was not a trailer. The letter does not support such a view. The letter addressed the issue of whether a vehicle was a truck or truck tractor under 49 CFR 571.3(b). Under 49 CFR 571.3(b), both trucks and truck tractors are defined as vehicles with motive power, among other characteristics. The Idaho Tote does not have its own engine and is not a truck or truck tractor under NHTSA regulations. [2] NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register of April 30, 2008, (73 FR 23367; NHTSA Docket 2008-0022), corrected 73 FR 28370, that made certain changes to the VIN regulation, effective October 27, 2008. A copy of these final rule documents is enclosed. |
2008 |
ID: 08_003193 Martini--14 Nov 08--saOpenMr. Gianni Martini Superauto F.lli Biondi Srl, Homologation Department Via Ponte a Giogoli 21 50019 Sesto F.no (FI) Italy Dear Mr. Martini: This responds to your letter asking about the obligations of a foreign motorcycle windshield manufacturer under the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I appreciate this opportunity to respond. Your letter explains that you purchase plane sheets of a polycarbonate material produced by General Electric (GE), then thermoform the material and sell the pieces in Italy to a motorcycle manufacturer which exports motorcycles to the United States. We assume you mean that you purchase large sheets of GE polycarbonate and then use heat to form or mold the polycarbonate into motorcycle windshields which you sell to your customer. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and regulated equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects. For your information, we are enclosing a fact sheet entitled, Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, which directs you to the FMVSSs and regulations. Pursuant to NHTSAs statutory authority, we established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies strength and light transmittance performance requirements for various types of glazing used in motor vehicles, including motorcycle windshields (copy enclosed). FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (ANSI Z26.1).[1] FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26.1 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing (called Items), and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. Section S6 of FMVSS No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing material. Different marking and certification requirements apply depending on whether a person is a prime glazing manufacturer, which is defined in S4 of the standard as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers glazing materials, or a manufacturer cutting sections of glazing originally produced by someone else. NHTSA would consider you to be a prime glazing manufacturer because forming or molding polycarbonate is considered fabricating. Section S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 specifies that prime glazing manufacturers certify that their products comply with FMVSS No. 205 by marking the glazing in accordance with section 7 of ANSI Z26.1, and adding to those markings in letters and numerals of the same size, the symbol DOT and a manufacturers code mark that NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer. Under S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205, NHTSA will assign a code mark to a manufacturer after the manufacturer submits a written request to the NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. You can submit your request for a code mark to the following address: NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. The above certification requirements essentially apply to you as follows. Even though GE certified its polycarbonate sheets as complying with FMVSS No. 205, after forming the polycarbonate into the shape of the windshield you are selling, you as a prime glazing manufacturer must certify that the glazing continues to meet all applicable requirements of the standard. Each of NHTSAs safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. To provide a basis for its certification of compliance, a prime glazing manufacturer may choose any valid means of evaluating its procedures to determine whether the glazing complies with FMVSS No. 205 (e.g., through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means). However, the manufacturer must ensure that the product will meet FMVSS No. 205 when tested by NHTSA using the test procedures and conditions specified in the standard. Further, NHTSA may require a manufacturer to provide the data it used to determine whether the glazing material met FMVSS No. 205 requirements. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your glazing is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) In addition, a manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that the equipment did not comply. What constitutes reasonable care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts. In addition to the requirements described above, please note that your manufacture of glazing materials may also be affected by NHTSA's longstanding interpretation of our regulation on manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566; copy enclosed), if the motorcycle manufacturer sells motorcycles equipped with your windshields in this country. We require a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (covered equipment, e.g., glazing products) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of the equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which the equipment manufacturer supplies its products. NHTSA has interpreted Part 566 to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplying their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the United States. Please note that you are not required to designate an agent for service of process under 49 CFR Part 551 (Subpart D), if you supply your products only to a foreign vehicle manufacturer. This is the case even if the foreign vehicle manufacturer installs your products on vehicles that will be sold in the United States. However, please keep in mind that you must designate an agent under Part 551 if you decide to offer your equipment for importation into the United States. Last, you ask about a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) form MCS-150. FMCSA is the agency in the Department of Transportation that is responsible for regulations concerning the operation of commercial motor vehicles. Companies that operate commercial vehicles transporting passengers or hauling cargo in interstate commerce must be registered with FMCSA and must have a US DOT Number, and form MCS-150 is an application form for a US DOT number. If you want further information about the form, please contact FMCSA at 1-800-832-5660 or www.fmcsa.dot.gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:205 d.1/16/09 [1] You can obtain a copy of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096. |
2009 |
ID: 08_003235--sa--08 June 24OpenKazuo Higuchi, Senior Vice President TK Holdings, Inc. 601 13th Street, NW Suite 350 South Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Higuchi: This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as they relate to an inflatable seat belt you are developing. You request confirmation of your interpretation that during compliance testing, the inflatable portion of the device would be tested as a unit (not disassembled) when it is tested in accordance with S4.2(b). You also request confirmation of your interpretation that compliance with S4.1(d) would be evaluated in the pre-crash condition of your inflatable seat belt. Based on the information supplied to this agency and for the reasons explained below, we confirm both of your suggested interpretations. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes NHTSA to develop and enforce FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which require minimum levels of safety performance for motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 209 prescribes requirements for seat belt assemblies. In your letter, you described an upper torso restraint that is intended to inflate in crashes above a specified severity. You stated that this inflatable seat belt assembly deploys in conjunction with a vehicles air bags and is intended for use in the front outboard seating positions of motor vehicles. Your letter stated that the inflatable portion of the upper torso restraint has a section of the assembly that crosses the upper torso consisting of an inflatable bladder enclosed in an internal fabric tube that is encased in an external fabric cover. In your letter you explained that, when deployed, one side of the external fabric cover tears open, allowing the internal bladder to inflate. Your letter further stated that upon inflation, the length of this section of the assembly is reduced with results similar to the pretensioning function of a conventional torso belt. Paragraph S4.2 of FMVSS No. 209 specifies requirements for webbing. Under S4.2(b) webbing must withstand minimum force requirements without breaking, when tested pursuant to the procedures specified in S5.1(b). In your letter, you seek to confirm that during compliance testing, the inflatable portion of the seat belt would not be disassembled, i.e., that the inflatable portion of your inflatable seat belt assembly would be tested as a unit when it is tested in accordance with S4.2(b). We confirm that when conducting testing for compliance with FMVSS No. 209 S4.2(b), the agency would test the inflatable portion of the seat belt assembly as a single unit, and not disassemble it. S4.1(d) specifies the following requirement: All hardware parts which contact under normal usage a person, clothing, or webbing shall be free from burrs and sharp edges. In your letter you stated that after the belt has inflated during a crash, and after the buckle is disengaged to permit egress from the vehicle, there may be a sharp edge that is isolated from the occupant, the occupants clothing and from any seat belt webbing. However, you also stated that prior to the inflatable portion of the belt inflating during a crash, there are no burrs or sharp edges on any parts of the hardware that can contact a vehicle occupant, clothing or the seat belt webbing. In your letter you stated your belief that it is this latter condition of the seat belt assembly that should be considered normal usage for purposes of compliance testing with S4.1(d). Normal usage is not defined in FMVSS No. 209, or any other FMVSS. Because the entire seat belt assembly must be replaced after deployment, and the inflatable seat belt is designed to deploy in conjunction with the air bag, NHTSA agrees that use of the uninflated, pre-deployment seat belt assembly is the normal usage of your inflatable seat belt assembly. Accordingly, when conducting testing for compliance with FMVSS No. 209 S4.1(d) the agency would test the seat belt assembly in its uninflated (pre-deployment) state. We note that in preparing this interpretation, we have considered a number of issues related to FMVSS No. 209 and testing of inflatable seat belts, including issues specific to the inflatable seat belt design you described. It should not be considered as precedent for how we would address requests for interpretation with any differing facts. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:209 d.11/20/08 |
2008 |
ID: 08_004614 209OpenKazuo Higuchi, Senior Vice President TK Holdings, Inc. 888 16th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Dear Mr. Higuchi: This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of the abrasion resistance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as they relate to an inflatable seat belt your company is developing. You request confirmation of your interpretation that since the inflatable portion of your seat belt assembly never contacts any hardware in the system, it need not meet the abrasion resistance test requirements for that portion of the seat belt assembly. Based on the information supplied to this agency and for the reasons explained below, it is our opinion that the inflatable portion of the seat belt assembly must meet the abrasion requirements of S4.2(d) of the standard after being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) but not S5.3(c) of the standard. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes NHTSA to develop and enforce FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, which require minimum levels of safety performance for motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 209 prescribes requirements for seat belt assemblies. In your letter, you described an upper torso restraint that is intended to inflate in crashes above a specified severity. You stated that this inflatable seat belt assembly deploys in conjunction with a vehicles air bags and is intended for use in the front outboard seating positions of motor vehicles. Your letter stated that the inflatable portion of the upper torso restraint has a section of the assembly that crosses the upper torso consisting of an inflatable bladder enclosed in an internal fabric tube that is encased in an external fabric cover. In your letter you explained that, when deployed, one side of the external fabric cover tears open, allowing the internal bladder to inflate. Your letter further stated that upon inflation, the length of this section of the assembly is reduced with results similar to the pretensioning function of a conventional torso belt. The abrasion resistance requirements of FMVSS No. 209 are specified in S4.2(d), which reads as follows: d) Resistance to abrasion. The webbing of a seat belt assembly, after being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or S5.3(c), shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75 percent of the breaking strength listed in S4.2(b) for that type of belt assembly. S5.1(d) specifies a hex-bar abrasion test, in which the webbing is repeatedly passed over a hexagon bar. S5.3(c) specifies a test in which the webbing is abraded by repeatedly passing it through the assembly buckle or manual adjustment device. NHTSA added the latter test in 1971 because it was concerned that the hex-bar abrasion test does not adequately simulate the type of webbing abrasion caused by some buckles. The agency noted that the standard as amended retained the hex-bar test, but supplemented it with an additional abrasion requirement. See 36 Fed. Reg. 4607 (March 10, 1971). In your letter, you argue that since the inflatable portion of the seat belt assembly never contacts any hardware in the system, it would serve no purpose to demonstrate compliance with S4.2(d) for that portion of the assembly. You ask that we interpret the standard not to require such compliance. We decline to provide such an interpretation. We recognize, however, that the S5.3(c) test may not be appropriate for the type of design you describe. As noted above, the agency specifically added that test requirement because of concern about the type of abrasion caused by some buckles, and in that test, the webbing is abraded by repeatedly passing it through the assembly buckle or manual adjustment device. The inflatable portion of the seat belt assembly you described in your letter never goes through assembly hardware, and it appears unlikely that it would fit through the assembly hardware. Given these considerations, we would not apply the S5.3(c) test but would apply the S5.1(d) hex-bar abrasion test. The standard does not provide an exclusion for the type of design you describe, and there does not appear to be any reason why the S5.1(d) test could not be conducted for such a design. In your letter, you suggest, as an alternative interpretation, that the inflatable portion of your seat belt assembly falls outside the definitions of webbing and strap, and therefore this portion of the assembly need not demonstrate compliance with any of the requirements for webbing in S4.2 (which straps must also meet). We also disagree with this suggested interpretation. Even if the inflatable portion of the seat belt assembly does not fit within the definition of webbing, we believe the definition of strap is sufficiently broad to include the product. You ask that if we do not agree with your suggested interpretations that we provide additional information as to how the provisions of S4.2(d) would be applied, and how the portion of the inflatable belt assembly would be selected for evaluation. As discussed earlier, we would not apply the S5.3(c) test but would apply the S5.1(d) hex-bar abrasion test. Moreover, we would conduct that test without disassembling the inflatable portion of the seat belt assembly. We note that in preparing this interpretation, we have considered a number of issues related to FMVSS No. 209 and testing of inflatable seat belts, including issues specific to the inflatable seat belt design you described. It should not be considered as precedent for how we would address requests for interpretation with any differing facts. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sarah Alves of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 5/7/2010 |
2010 |
ID: 09-000571.Yamazaki.aug10OpenYoshinao Yamazaki, Technical Manager Industrial/Packaging MKT Tape Technical Dept. Tape and Adhesive Division Technical Sumitomo 3M Limited 3-8-8, Minami Hashimoto, Sagamihara-shi Kanagawa 229-1185, Japan Dear Mr. Yamazaki: This letter responds to your e-mail asking questions regarding compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). You stated that your company has been developing a new laser marking label for motor vehicles. You stated that the label has two features to prevent forgery: (1) It is made of a brittle film that makes it impossible to remove the label without blemishing or scratching it, and (2) the logo of the car company appears on the label to authenticate the brand. You then ask three questions. First, you ask whether this label meets the requirements of Part 541. Second, you ask if there are any specifications for evaluating this type of label. Third, you ask whether three types of logos would satisfy the labeling requirement. The three types of logos you describe include a logo that is printed on the labels surface and is covered with a protective transparent top layer, a logo that is indented in the transparent top layer, and a logo that is imbedded in the transparent top layer. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. NHTSA does not provide approvals or endorsements of specific labels. Our opinion is based on the facts provided in your e-mail, which have been outlined above, and on the analysis presented below. By way of background, Part 541 requires that certain passenger motor vehicles have identifying numbers affixed or inscribed on certain specified parts. See 541.5(a). Part 541 also sets forth a number of labeling requirements for affixing the identifying number to a part. See 541.5(d) and (d)(1). These requirements are also generally applicable to the labeling of replacement parts. See 541.6(a). Pertinent to your inquiry, section 541.5(d)(1)(v)-(viii) requires: (v) Removal of the label must (A) Cause the label to self-destruct by tearing or rendering the number on the label illegible, and (B) Discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present. (vi) Alteration of the number on the label must leave traces of the original number or otherwise visibly alter the appearance of the label material. (vii) The label and the number shall be resistant to counterfeiting. (viii) The logo or some other unique identifier of the vehicle manufacturer must be placed in the material of the label in a manner such that alteration or removal of the logo visibly alters the appearance of the label. In response to your first inquiry regarding whether your new laser marking label satisfies the requirements of Part 541, our general answer is that we do not provide approvals of motor vehicle equipment. However, your description of the fragility of the label appears to indicate that it would comply with the requirements in section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(A) regarding destruction of the label. Your description provides no information regarding the requirements in section 541.5(d)(1)(v)(B) regarding whether removal of the label discernibly alters the appearance of the area of the part where the label was affixed and section 541.5(d)(1)(vi) regarding whether alteration of the label leaves traces of the original number or otherwise visibly alters the appearance of the label. Finally, although you claim that the fragility of the label makes it resistant to reuse for counterfeiting, section 541.5(d)(1)(vii), the provision concerning counterfeiting, addresses more than the ability to reuse the label. Under section 541.5(d)(1)(vii), the label must also be designed in a manner that makes it extremely difficult for an unauthorized person to systematically duplicate it. In response to your second inquiry, all of the specifications for evaluating these type of labels appear in Part 541, particularly in section 541.5(d). We have stated that these general criteria are sufficient to alert label manufacturers what is required. See 50 FR 43174 (Oct. 24, 1985). In response to your third inquiry regarding the placement of the logo on the label, again we note that we do not provide approvals of motor vehicle equipment. Moreover, section 541.5(d)(1)(viii) does not set forth any requirements regarding the manner in which the logo must be placed in the material of the label. As long as the logo is placed in the material of the label in such a manner that alteration or removal of the logo would visibly alter the appearance of the label, it does not matter how the logo is placed in the material. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Dated: 8/18/09 |
2009 |
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.