ID: 571.125 -- Warning Devices - Anderson

Ms. Vivian P. Anderson

10575 Bell Fountain Road

Dawson, IL 62520

Dear Ms. Anderson:

Thank you for your letter dated March 9, 2020, following up our February 26, 2020, Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) response about a type of warning device you are interested in producing.

You ask whether there are any Federal regulations regarding the size or reflective coloring for distress signals that may be used in the case of a vehicle emergency. In our original CAP response, we noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 125, “Warning devices,” which covers warning devices “that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds” (49 CFR §571.125). We noted that distress signals like the one described in your CAP question may be considered warning devices for the purposes of FMVSS No.125 if they are intended to be carried in buses or trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

In your follow-up letter, you provide greater detail on your product, which you call the Distress Bandana. You describe your product as a reflective flag that can be hung from a disabled vehicle’s window to signal distress. You further state that your product is intended for use only on vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, and on motorcycles. 

Discussion 

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSS. The agency tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects.

2

At this time, there are no FMVSS pertaining to your product.1 FMVSS No. 125 applies to devices designed to be carried in buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As long as the Distress Bandana is designed for use only in vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, FMVSS No. 125 would not apply to your product.2 In determining whether a warning device is designed for use in a bus or truck with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, we may look to product advertising, labels, and instructions (e.g., specifying intended use), as well as how the product is actually used by motorists.

Please be aware that even if your product is not covered by FMVSS No. 125, products like the Distress Bandana are items of “motor vehicle equipment” and subject to Safety Act requirements. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the product and remedying the problem free of charge. More information can be found in the NHTSA New Manufacturers Handbook, which can be downloaded on NHTSA’s website https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov/.

Please note that our answer above is based on our understanding of the specific information you provided. This interpretation letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law, and represents the opinion of the agency on the questions addressed in your letter at the time of signature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Connet of my office at (202) 366-5547.

Sincerely yours,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2020.10.02 09:15:13

-04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel

Date: 10/2/20

Ref: FMVSS No. 125

1 The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has requirements that commercial vehicles be equipped with warning devices and requirements related to their use. For information about FMCSA requirements, please contact www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

2 FMVSS No. 125 was issued on August 2, 1974. 39 FR 28636. The standard then applied to “devices, without self- contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle.” On September 29, 1994, NHTSA further amended the standard to be applicable only to those devices designed to be carried in buses or trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

ID: 571.108 -- Parking Lamp Activation -- Mazda 1-- 17-0655.docx_sig (003)

Mr. David Robertson

Environmental and Safety Engineering

Mazda North America Operations

1025 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 910

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Robertson,

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You ask how the steady burning requirement for parking lamps applies to an optically combined LED parking/turn signal lamp while the turn signal is activated.1

You describe in your letter an optically combined LED parking/turn signal lamp which contains two discrete LED light sources: one that is amber and one that is white. When the LED lamp operates as a parking lamp only, the amber LED is off and the white LED is steady burning.  However, you ask about the permissibility of two alternative ways in which these LEDs could possibly operate once the turning signal is activated. Under the first alternative (“Alternative A”), the amber and white LEDs flash in an alternating pattern. To an observer of Alternative A, the lamp would alternate its color between amber and white for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, then would return to steady-white. Under the second alternative (“Alternative B”), the white LED turns off for the duration of the turn signal’s activation. To an observer of Alternative B, the LED lamp would alternate between amber and “off” for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, then would return to steady-white. This interpretation assumes that your lamp’s LEDs do not fluctuate in intensity while activated.

As explained below, our answer is it would be permissible for an optically combined parking/turn signal lamp to alternate its parking lamp and turn signal lamp LEDs while the turn signal is activated (which is the case under Alternative A), but it would not be permissible for the lamp to completely deactivate the parking lamp LED while the turn signal is activated (Alternative B).

1 We note that, while you originally requested confidential treatment of portions of your interpretation request, you withdrew that request in a subsequent communication with Daniel Koblenz of my staff, so your entire interpretation request is now publicly releasable.

In addition, as explained at the end of this letter, our interpretation about the permissibility of Alternative A applies only to lamps that use LEDs, and not to vehicles using traditional incandescent lamps.

Requirements for optically combined lamps

FMVSS No. 108 governs signal lamp performance. Under S4 of the standard, “optically combined” is defined, in relevant part, as: “a lamp having… two or more separate light sources that operate in different ways, and has its optically functional lens area wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.” Because your lamp meets this definition, we consider it to be an “optically combined” lamp.2 Under S6.3 of the standard, optically combined lamps are only permissible “if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are met.”

The specific requirements that apply to turn signal lamps are found in S7.1, and the requirements that apply to parking lamps are found in S7.8. We assume for purposes of our analysis that your lamp would meet these general requirements for both its turn signal and parking lamp functions.3

According to FMVSS No. 108, parking lamps must be activated with a vehicle’s headlamps, and they must be “steady burning” at all times.4 In past interpretations, we have understood the “steady burning” requirement for vehicle lighting to be met if the lamps is “is perceived as being steady-burning” by an observer even if, as a technical matter, the lamp is not steady burning.5

Discussion

Because your parking lamp’s LEDs are not, technically, steady burning in either of the alternatives you describe, the key question is whether the parking lamp in the alternatives would appear to be “steady burning” to an observer while the turn signal is activated.

In our view, Alternative A is permissible, while Alternative B is not.  This is because only Alternative A would give an observer the perception that the parking lamp is steady burning throughout the operation of the turn signal. Under Alternative A, an observer would see the turn signal alternate between two states: amber and white.  From the observer’s standpoint, at no point is the lamp completely off; whenever the amber LED is on, the white LED is off, whenever the amber LED is off, the white LED is on. Because there is no gap in LED illumination, an observer would perceive that the white LED is on for the entire time that the turn signal is activated, and that the white light it produces is combined with the amber LED’s light while the

2 S4.

3 Please note that there are luminosity requirements for optically combined turn signal and parking lamps that are different than the luminosity requirements for turn signal lamps and parking lamps that are not optically combined. These requirements are set out in S7.1.1.12.

4 Table I-a.

5 See letter to Kiminori Hyodo (Nov. 5, 2005), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Koito.2followup.html.

amber LED flashes. Because the white LED would appear to be illuminated at all times, the lamp in Alternative A would meet the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps.6 (Please note that, because FMVSS No. 108 requires that the parking lamp be steady burning, if the lamp’s amber LED becomes inactive or is otherwise unable to meet the performance requirements for turn signals, the white LED must remain steady burning at all times, including when the turn signal is activated.)

Conversely, under Alternative B, when the amber LED is off, the lamp produces no light whatsoever. Thus, an observer would perceive that the lamp deactivates for the duration of the turn signal’s activation, which, as noted earlier would violate the “steady burning” requirement for parking lamps.

Applicability

Please note that this interpretation applies only to optically combined parking and turn signal lamps that use LEDs. This is because, unlike traditional incandescent lamps, LEDs are capable of turning on and shutting off almost instantaneously. Traditional incandescent lamps take some time to power up and shut off, which means that if an optically combined incandescent lamp were to flash according to Alternative A, there would be observable gaps in illumination while the lamp is powering up. Because an observer would be able to perceive these gaps, an observer would not perceive the lamp to be steady-burning. Therefore, Alternative A would not be permissible for an incandescent lamp.

If you have any questions, please contact Daniel Koblenz of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Date: 2020.06.11 14:16:32

-04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/11/20

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

6 It is NHTSA’s understanding that, due to the photometric differences between LEDs and incandescent light sources, if the white LED were to stay illuminated while the amber LED flashed, the combined light of the two LEDs would appear to be pink in color, rather than amber.

ID: 571.213--detachable base--crs3

Dear [                    ]:

This responds to a January 7, 2020, letter from [               ] that [      ] emailed to us on [   ]. We apologize that we were unaware of the January 7 letter prior to your contacting us. The letter asks about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213), “Child restraint systems,” as applied to a child restraint system (CRS) consisting of a “shell” 1 and a separate, detachable base. [  ] asks us to confirm that the shell and base “need only meet the requirements of FMVSS 213 when evaluated together as a system.” As explained below, we disagree with this view.

[      ] asks about a CRS design concept it calls the “Z Project.” The Z Project child restraint system has the following three components: (1) a rear-facing-only infant car seat shell (the “Z Infant Shell”); (2) a convertible2 shell that is used both rear-facing and forward-facing (the “Z Convertible Shell”); and (3) a detachable base with permanently attached components for securing it to the vehicle with either the lower anchors of the LATCH3 system or a vehicle’s Type 1 or 2 belt system (the “Z Base”).4

[      ] would like to offer the Z Project for sale in the United States in the following variations, which it calls “Sales Variations”: (1) a Z Infant Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; (2) a Z Base sold separately at retail; (3) a Z Convertible Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; and (4) the Z Convertible Shell purchased separately upon verification that the consumer is in possession of a Z Base.

[     ] asks about the permissibility of Sales Variations 3 and 4 where the “Shell” of the convertible child restraint is a separate component from the base. According to [    ], the Shell and Base are separate parts and may not even be sold together. As explained below, we believe Sales Variations 3 and 4 are not permitted by Standard 213.

Sales Variations 3 and 4
Standard 213 (section S4) defines a “child restraint system” as “any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 36 kilograms (kg) (80 lb) or less.” Standard 213 requires “child restraint systems” to meet performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury in a crash and ease-of- use requirements to increase the likelihood of consumers correctly using and installing CRSs.

Any device meeting the standard’s definition of a “child restraint system” must be certified to Standard 213’s requirements.

Because the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) consists of a molded frame structure that also has the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional convertible CRS, the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) is a device designed to “restrain, seat or position children who weigh 36 kg (80 lb) or less” in motor vehicles. Based on this information, we believe the Z Convertible Shell meets the definition of a “child restraint system” and is a child restraint system in and of itself, without the Z Base. As a CRS, the Z Convertible Shell must meet the applicable requirements of Standard 213 standing alone, without use of a separate part or accessory like the Z Base.

Apparent Non-Compliances
It does not appear that the Z Convertible Shell would meet all applicable requirements of Standard 213. We discuss two apparent non-compliances below.

a.    S5.3.2 of Standard 213 requires each convertible CRS to meet the requirements of the standard when installed solely by each of the following means: (1) a Type 1 seat belt assembly (lap belt);5 (2) a Type 1 seat belt assembly plus a tether anchorage, if needed; and (3) the child restraint anchorage system specified by FMVSS No. 225 (LATCH system).

As [       ] describes the Z Convertible Shell (p. 3 of your letter), “there is no belt path for vehicle belt installation and there are no lower anchor LATCH attachment mechanisms.” As such, it appears the Z Convertible Shell would not meet S5.3.2 as it has no means of attaching to a vehicle by a seat belt or by the child restraint anchorage system. The Z Convertible Shell depends on the Z Base for vehicle attachment, but the Z Base is wholly separate from the Z Convertible Shell. A CRS that cannot be installed solely by a belt and by a child restraint anchorage system will not meet S5.3.2.6

[    ] believes that Standard 213’s requirements apply to the “entire system” and not to the Z Convertible Shell alone. This view does not accord with the language of the standard. The Z Convertible Shell alone restrains, seats or positions children weighing 36 kg (80 lb) or less in motor vehicles and thus is a “child restraint system” in and of itself. It must meet S5.3.2 solely by the belt and LATCH system without having to depend on an added separate part.

[     ] view is also at odds with the purposes of S5.3.2, which is to standardize the means of vehicle attachment and increase the likelihood of a correct and safe installation. The standard requires CRSs to provide at least a minimum level of safety without use of additional parts, to ensure that the restraint will provide an adequate level of protection in the event the additional parts are not used.7 A CRS design whose minimal crash protection is dependent on a consumer’s using supplemental parts is contrary to this purpose and is not permitted unless explicitly provided for by the standard.

b.    S5.9(a) of Standard 213 requires each child restraint system to have permanently attached components that enable the CRS to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system.8 The Z Convertible Shell attaches to the Z Base and the Z base is equipped with said components, but the Z Base is not a permanent part of the Z Convertible Shell. S5.9(a) states: “The components must be attached by use of a tool, such as a screwdriver.” The Z Convertible Shell does not have the child restraint anchorage system components attached to it by use of a tool like a screwdriver and so does not meet the requirements of S5.9(a).

One of NHTSA’s goals in establishing a child restraint anchorage system is to increase correct CRS use by ensuring that child restraint systems are convenient to install and use and are accepted by consumers.9 NHTSA adopted the “permanently attached” requirement in S5.9(a) to better ensure that the components on a CRS that attach to the child restraint anchorage system will be present and available for use by consumers through the life of the CRS.10 This is especially important with regard to child restraints, as it is common for child restraint systems to be handed down to others or otherwise re-used.

This interpretation is consistent with an April 26, 2007, interpretation addressing whether a CRS could be designed so that it attached to the child restraint anchorage system using a part that was called an “ISOFIX platform.”11 The ISOFIX platform appears similar to the Z Base: it alone had the child restraint anchorage system attachment and the CRS would attach to the ISOFIX platform. NHTSA stated the CRS design would not meet the requirements of Standard 213 because, although the CRS was designed to attach to the ISOFIX platform, FMVSS 213 requires the components attaching to the child restraint anchorage system to be permanently attached to the CRS. The agency did not regard the CRS and the ISOFIX platform as together comprising the “child restraint system.” Accordingly, NHTSA determined that the sale or importation of the CRS into the U.S. would be prohibited.

[    ] believes that the aforementioned Mercedes-Benz (MB) letter (footnote 7, supra) supports its view that NHTSA should apply FMVSS No. 213 to the Z Convertible Shell and the Z Base “together as a system.” The letter related to MB’s built-in12 booster seat that had a separate, non- integral “impact shield” and whether NHTSA would test the booster seat together with the impact shield. NHTSA said no, the booster seat must meet Standard 213’s requirements without use of the shield, because the impact shield was not part of the built-in CRS. We believe this outcome is consistent with our view in this letter that the Z Convertible Shell is a CRS unto itself and must meet Standard 213 without use of a separate part like the Z Base.

In answering MB, NHTSA also analyzed the applicability of the standard to various components of the MB system. [    ] focuses on the part of the MB letter that discusses whether the impact shield would be subject to the standard as an “add-on” child restraint system but, in doing so, [ ] appears to have misunderstood the context of and reasons for the agency’s statements. NHTSA’s statements related to its determination that the impact shield was not an add-on CRS due to the shield design and MB’s intention to sell the shield as part of the vehicle’s built-in system. NHTSA’s statement that the MB shield is “merely a component of a child restraint system and is not intended to be used separately from the other parts of the restraint system” was among those explaining why we concluded that the shield was not an add-on CRS that had to meet FMVSS 213 in its own right. The statements you quoted pertained to our decision that the MB shield was not an add-on CRS, and do not relate to how NHTSA would test an add-on system that had a separate part.

There are circumstances in which Standard 213 permits a child restraint to meet a requirement by way of a detachable base, but those situations are explicitly recognized in the standard and do not apply to your situation. For example, Standard 213 recognizes that some installation information may be on a detachable base (see, S5.5.3, which refers to the installation diagrams that must be visible when the CRS is installed).13 Another provision, discussed in a section below and one you ask about, relates to the last sentence of S5.9(a).

Your Question about the Last Sentence of S5.9(a)
The last sentence of S5.9(a) states: “In the case of rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases, only the base is required to have the components [that are permanently attached to the CRS that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system].” You believe this provision would permit the Z Convertible Shell to have the anchorage system components attached only to the detachable base (the Z Base).

Your understanding is incorrect. The provision only applies to rear-facing child restraints and does not apply to a convertible child restraint system like the Z Convertible Shell, because a convertible CRS is also a forward-facing child restraint system. If a child restraint could also be used forward-facing, the provision does not apply. NHTSA drafted the last sentence of S5.9(a) envisioning the provision as applying to “infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”14 The provision was adopted out of a concern at the time about the cost impacts of the rule on infant carriers (i.e., CRSs that are used rear-facing only).

Sales Variation 1
Please note that it appears the Z Infant Shell described in Sales Variation 1 must have a belt path for a vehicle belt installation (S5.3.2). The Z Infant Shell is a “child restraint system” under FMVSS No. 213 and, unless excepted by the standard,15 must meet the requirements of the standard standing alone without use of a separate part like the Z base. We cannot tell from materials whether there is a belt path on the Z Infant Shell itself. Please ensure that the Z Infant Shell in Sales Variation 1 has the required means of attaching by way of a vehicle seat belt assembly without the detachable base (Z base), as required by FMVSS No. 213 S5.3.2.

If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Digitally signed by ANN ELIZABETH CARLSON

Date: 2022.05.31

11:46:31 -04'00'

Ann Carlson

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/22

Ref: FMVSS No. 213

1 Based on your letter and submissions, the shell consists of a molded plastic frame structure and the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional child restraint.

2 As defined on NHTSA’s website, a “convertible” CRS is a type of CRS that “converts from rear-facing for babies and smaller children to forward-facing for older and larger children.” https://www.nhtsa.gov/car-seats-and-booster- seats/car-seat-glossary. [Footnote added.]

3 “LATCH” refers to the child restraint anchorage system that FMVSS 225, “Child restraint anchorage systems,” requires to be installed in motor vehicles. Industry and advocates have developed the term “LATCH” to refer to Standard 225’s child restraint anchorage system.

4 According to [   ] letter: “The Z Infant Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 35 lbs. The Z Convertible Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 50 lbs. rear-facing and 22 to 65 lbs. forward-facing.”

5 NHTSA has proposed to amend Standard 213 to refer instead to a Type II belt (lap-shoulder belt). Notice of proposed rulemaking, 85 FR 69388, November 2, 2020. This proposal does not affect our determination here that the Z Convertible Shell must have a means to attach to the vehicle seat by way of the belt system.

6 The Z Convertible Shell would have to meet other performance requirements of FMVSS 213 without use of the Z Base. For instance, the Z Convertible Shell would have to meet the head and knee excursion requirements without the use of a tether strap.

7 Mercedes-Benz letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/17513mer.b-i.htm. “Add-on, nonpermanent components can be lost or misplaced and may not be accessible when the restraint has to be used.” This interpretation concerns an “impact shield” that was not “formed as a unit” with the built-in CRS.

8 FMVSS 213 S5.9(a) inadvertently refers to a child restraint “anchorage” system instead of a “child restraint

system.” As indicated by the context of S5.9(a) and by the final rule adopting S5.9(a) (64 FR 10786, 10816; March 5, 1999), reference to “anchorage” is incorrect. NHTSA plans to correct the word soon.

9 LATCH final rule, 64 FR at 10797, col. 2.

10 In the rulemaking establishing FMVSS 225, NHTSA considered the merits of allowing vehicle manufacturers the option of installing an anchorage system that some CRSs could use only through an adapter that interfaced between the CRS and the anchorage system. Commenters overwhelmingly opposed an adapter, believing that the adapter would likely be lost or misused by consumers. The agency agreed and decided to adopt an anchorage system that would be universal to all vehicles and all CRSs. The Z Convertible Shell is contrary to NHTSA’s purpose in developing FMVSS 225 and the related requirements of FMVSS 213 S5.3.2 and S5.9(a), as the Z Base acts as an adapter that must be used for the CRS to attach to the anchorage system.

11 Gazza letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/005431rls.htm.

12 FMVSS No. 213 (S4) defines a “built-in child restraint system” as “a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle.” An “add-on” system is a portable child restraint system (S4).

13 In a January 16, 2003, letter (Meyer letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/00070cmc.html), the agency addressed whether a CRS with a detachable base must have information labeled on the base if the seating portion of the CRS was already properly labeled. The agency said no, “a detachable base is part of a child restraint system” so “[a]s

long as the labeling requirements are met by the system as a whole, the base is not required to be labeled.” We do not give weight to this letter as it was narrowly focused on labeling, did not analyze S4’s CRS definition, S5.3.2, and S5.9(a), and was overtaken by the April 26, 2007 Gazza letter, supra, that found an ISOFIX platform not to be part of the child restraint. To the extent the Meyer letter is inconsistent with this and the Gazza letter, we consider the Meyer letter superseded.

14 Final rule preamble, 64 FR at 10806 (col.3). The discussion of the provision begins with: “Several commenters addressed the requirements that would apply to infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”

15 E.g., as noted above, the last sentence of S5.9(a) permits the rear-facing child restraint to use the Z Base to attach to the child restraint anchorage system, and S5.5.3 provides for some labeling to be on a detachable base.

ID: 571.205--Low Speed Windshield Clarification --Burgess

October 28, 2022

Mr. Dave Burgess
Burgess Consulting
Unit 6, Benford Court
Warwick CV34 5DA
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Burgess,

I write in response to your email to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about federal requirements for windshields in low-speed vehicles (LSVs). Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your initial and subsequent email correspondence.

Background

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

Your email correspondence, dated June 17, 2022, laid out several questions relating to LSVs and FMVSS 500, including: (1) whether LSVs must be fitted with a windshield; (2) if fitted with a windshield, whether LSVs must comply with 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

§ 571.500; and (3) if a fitted windshield is required, what, if any, are the size and position requirements for the windshield?

In response, on July 25, 2022, NHTSA asked via email for further clarification on the number of wheels and maximum capable speed for the specific vehicle referenced in your correspondence. You provided written confirmation to NHTSA that the vehicle at issue has four wheels, is capable of a maximum speed of no more than 25 miles per hour, and subsequently confirmed that the vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) that is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds).

Discussion

49 CFR § 571.3 defines an LSV as a motor vehicle that: (1) is four wheeled; (2) has a speed attainable in 1.6 kilometers (1 mile)1 that is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface; and (3) has a GVWR that is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds). A vehicle must meet all three criteria to qualify as an LSV.

A vehicle that meets the definition of an LSV must be manufactured to conform to 49 CFR § 571.500, which, among other things, requires LSVs to be equipped with a windshield that conforms to paragraph S5.4 of FMVSS No. 205 on glazing materials. Specifically, FMVSS No. 205 applies to glazing installed in motor vehicles prior to first purchase and also to aftermarket glazing for use in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference an industry standard, the “American National Standards Institute 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). FMVSS 205 S5.4 specifically notes that windshields of LSVs must meet the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifications for either AS-1 or AS-4 glazing.

In summary, if a vehicle qualifies as an LSV under the definition laid out in 49 CFR § 571.3, it must meet the requirements outlined in 49 CFR § 571.500, which include a windshield that conforms to paragraph S5.4 of FMVSS No. 205. Specifically, LSV windshields must meet the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifications for either AS-1 or AS-4 glazing. No specific federal requirements exist concerning the size or position of windshields for LSVs.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Natasha Reed of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Donaldson
Acting Chief Counsel

Dated: 10/28/22

Ref: FMVSS No. 205

1 See 49 CFR 571.500 S7. Test Procedure, stating that “[e]ach vehicle must meet the performance limit specified in S5(a) under the following test procedure. The maximum speed performance is determined by measuring the maximum attainable vehicle speed at any point in a distance of 1.6 km (1.0 mile) from a standing start and repeated in the opposite direction within 30 minutes.”

ID: 571.108--Convertible CHMSL Beam Angle--Magna

April 3, 2023

Doris C. Schaller 

Homologation

Magna Steyr Engineering AG & Co KG

Liebenauer Hauptstrasse 317

8041 Graz Austria 

Dear Ms. Schaller:

This responds to your request for an interpretation regarding the permissibility, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, of two proposed variants for mounting the center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) on a soft top convertible. Based on the information you provided in your letter, as explained in more detail below, we have concluded that mounting the CHMSL on the “service lid” is permissible under FMVSS No. 108, whereas mounting the CHMSL on the “soft top cover” is not.

Background
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does  not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and NHTSA does not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following represents NHTSA’s opinion regarding the applicability FMVSS No. 108 requirements to your CHMSL designs based on the information you have provided.

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Paragraph S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 contains requirements for the mounting location of all required lamps, including CHMSLs, and states specifically that:

Each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be

removed except for repair, within the mounting location and height limits as specified in Table 1, and in a location where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all obstructions considered.

You ask how S6.1.3.1 applies to two possible lighting design variations. Although you ask that certain information in your interpretation request be treated as confidential, we do not need to reveal or reference the information other than in general descriptive terms in order to answer your questions. What follows is our interpretation based on our understanding of the facts you provided.

Variant 1: CHMSL mounted on the “service lid”
The first variant you describe places the CHMSL on the vehicle’s “service lid,” which we understand to be an access panel that is fixed in place during normal vehicle operation and that can be opened only with a specialized tool by technicians at certified repair shops. From the illustrations provided with your request, it appears that the service lid is located between the trunk and the passenger cabin at the rear of the vehicle.

You state that you believe that a configuration in which the CHMSL is located on the vehicle’s service lid complies with the mounting location requirement in S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108. We agree. As noted above, S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 states that required lamps “must be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle, other than glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair.” NHTSA believes that the service lid is “a rigid part of the vehicle,” based on the information that you have provided, which suggests that the service lid is similar (albeit adjacent) to a trunk lid. NHTSA has previously interpreted a vehicle’s “deck lid” (i.e., trunk lid) as a rigid part of the vehicle,[1] and while the service lid you describe is not a trunk lid, we believe that interpretation covers other similar lids on a vehicle, such as the service lid, that are solid and cannot be easily removed. Additionally, you expressly describe the service lid as “only [able to] be moved with special tools in qualified garages,” which is consistent with the “not designed to be removed except for repair” requirement.  Therefore, so long as the CHMSL meets all photometric and other requirements, NHTSA believes that it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108 to mount the CHMSL on the vehicle’s service lid.

Variant 2: CHMSL mounted on the “soft top cover”
The second variant you describe places the CHMSL on the “soft top cover,” which we understand to be the lid that covers the compartment at the rear of the vehicle in which the convertible soft top is stored while it is open (i.e., retracted). In this variant, the CHMSL would comply with all applicable photometric requirements while the soft top cover is fully open or closed.  However, for the approximately 20-second duration of the soft top opening or closing process, the soft top cover tips backward, causing the CHMSL to be temporarily out of compliance with photometric requirements. The driver can initiate the opening or closing process when the vehicle is traveling at speeds of up to 50 kilometers per hour. From your description, there is no auxiliary CHMSL in operation while the soft top cover is in the process of opening or closing.

Based on the information you have provided, this second variant is not permissible. As noted above, S6.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 108 states that a required lamp must be mounted “in a location where it complies with all applicable photometric requirements, effective projected luminous lens area requirements, and visibility requirements with all obstructions considered.” If there are obstructions that would cause the lamp to fail to meet photometric and visibility requirements, S6.2.2 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that “the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp or device of the same type which meet[s] all applicable requirements of this standard, including photometry and visibility.”

In a past interpretation request, a vehicle manufacturer sought to install a CHMSL on a movable rear spoiler, such that it would occasionally not comply with the photometric requirements for CHMSLs. The manufacturer stated that it would employ an additional CHMSL that met the requirements when the “primary” CHMSL on the movable spoiler did not. NHTSA responded[2] that this approach to compliance would be permissible under what is now S6.2.23 of FMVSS No. 108, which states that “If any required lamp…is obstructed by motor vehicle equipment…, and cannot meet the applicable photometry and visibility requirements, the vehicle must be equipped with an additional lamp … which meet[s] all applicable requirements of the standard, including photometry and visibility.”4 The situation you describe, where the CHMSL on the soft top will occasionally not comply with FMVSS No. 108, is similar to the one described above, except that it does not appear that your vehicle is equipped with an auxiliary CHMSL. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that the “soft top cover” CHMSL mounting variant is not permissible under FMVSS No. 108.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Eli Wachtel of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Ann Carlson

Chief Counsel

Dated: 4/3/23

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

[1] See letter to M. Iwase (Sept. 15, 1988), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/2954o

[2] Letter to Michael Love (July 7, 1992), available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht92-528. 3 The original reference was to S5.3.1.1.

ID: 000036drn

[ ]

Dear [ ] :

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Specifically, you wish to know whether a front entrance door on the curb side of a non-school bus (over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating) may count towards the emergency exit requirement and can be credited the maximum allowable area of 3458 cm per exit. The answer is yes.

Before addressing the substantive question that you raised, I note that in a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you requested confidential treatment of the identity of your company. In order to save time, I agree to keep confidential the name of your company and all other identifying information in this letter. The enclosed copy of your redacted incoming letter will be placed in the public docket. We will make available to the public only the enclosed version of your letter to me that is purged of all references to your identity. [1]

You asked Ms. Nakama to address whether, for a non-school bus over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR, Standard No. 217 permits manufacturers to designate the front entrance door as an emergency exit. If the door meets the standards emergency exit requirements, the answer is yes. We answered this question in the affirmative in a June 30, 1988, interpretation letter to Mr. Terry K. Brock of Coons Manufacturing Inc. (copy enclosed). In that letter, we stated that: "As long as the front door meets all applicable requirements for emergency exits under Standard No. 217, the door can be considered as an emergency exit. [I]t has never been this agencys position that only push-out window and roof exits may be used to satisfy Standard No. 217 requirements."

Standard No. 217 requirements for non-school bus emergency exits have been amended since the issuance of the interpretation letter to Coons Manufacturing. However, the agencys interpretation that a front door that meets Standard No. 217 emergency exit requirements can be considered an emergency exit has not changed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:212
d.5/8/03





---

[1] In the future, if you want to submit information that you consider confidential you need to follow the procedure set forth in 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business Information.

ID: 000180cmc

Mr. James W. Gilchrist
5200 NW Green Hills Road
Topeka, KS 66618-1707

Dear Mr. Gilchrist:

This responds to your letter of August 25, 2002, requesting a waiver allowing a drivers seat to be moved in order to accommodate your son.In your letter you state that because of your sons tremendous size,

" he does not fit in the drivers seat of any cars we can find. The drivers seat of the cars we have looked at need to be moved back several inches to gain the extra legroom he needs."

You further state that dealerships will not move the drivers seat back because they claim relocation of the seat "is prohibited by federal regulations." As explained below, federal regulations do not prevent qualified dealers or repair businesses from moving the drivers seat rearward.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicable laws and regulations to you.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.; Vehicle Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing motor vehicles or equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) (49 U.S.C. 30122).NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.Several such exemptions have been promulgated in 49 CFR Part 595, but only portions of some FMVSSs are covered.

Two standards are directly relevant to moving a drivers seat: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, may also be relevant if the sensor for the airbag is located under the drivers seat. Under Part 595, there is no exemption available from FMVSSs No. 207 and 210 in order to move a drivers seat as in your situation.This is because it may be possible for a repair business to move a seat in a manner that preserves compliance with those standards.There is an available exemption for FMVSS No. 208 under part 595 if the modifier cannot move the seat without taking the vehicle out of compliance with that standard.This exemption is only available to a repair business that has registered with NHTSA that it intends to use the Part 595 make inoperative exemption in modifying vehicles.

As a practical matter, as long as the new holes drilled in the floor are of the same size as the original holes, the same bolts are used, and the floor is the same thickness (or compensation is made in that regard) the modifier can be confident that the vehicle still complies with FMVSS No. 207.If the upper anchorage for the shoulder belt must be moved after the seat is moved rearward, compliance with FMVSS No. 210 can be preserved by keeping the anchorage within the "acceptable range" shown in Figure 1 in the standard.We have included a copy of this figure along with the brochure, "Adapting Motor Vehicles for People with Disabilities," which explains this approach.This may be more problematic than preserving the FMVSS No. 207 compliance, depending on the vehicle chosen to be modified; therefore, you should consult the vehicle modifier before choosing the vehicle to modify.

We caution that the work should be done by a business that is experienced in making vehicle modifications and that has registered to use the make inoperative exemptions.The vehicle to be modified should be chosen after consulting with that modifier to ensure that there is enough room to move the seat the amount required and that the upper anchorage for the shoulder belt can be relocated if necessary.

I hope this information is helpful.If you have any other questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.11/18/02

ID: 000182cmc

Mr. Jeremy Karmel
Account Executive
Agar Truck Sales, Inc.
2 Agar Street
Yonkers, NY 10701

Dear Mr. Karmel:

This responds to your letter of August 13, 2002, requesting information on regulations concerning the installation of passenger seats in a van.In yourletter you stated that a customer would like to purchase a van from your company.You indicated that the customer would then like "to install an extra row of seating, himself, using factory equipment, to carry two more passengers." As you further explained in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff, either the customer would perform the installation or a third party repair business would install the extra seating. As explained below, there are different Federal requirements depending on the timing of the installation and the person installing the seating.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.; Vehicle Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised authority to establish five Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), which could be relevant to installation of a seat in a vehicle: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Standard Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to this situation, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacement belts.Thus, if new seat belts are installed on an already certified vehicle, the manufacturer of the seat belts is required to certify that the seat belts comply with standard No. 209.

If additional seats are installed in an already certified vehicle prior to its first retail sale, the person modifying the vehicle would be considered an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be subject to certification requirements.Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified ... other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale ....

As an alterer, the person installing the seats would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label must also state the name of the alterer, the month and the year in which the alterations were completed, and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), if changed by the vehicle alteration.

If additional seats are installed after the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale (i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle), a vehicle modifier or repair business could not install additional seats in your customers van if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards.The only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30122(b)).That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard

If, for example, a third party repair facility installs the extra passenger seat, then the "render inoperative" prohibition would mean that it must be done is such a way as to not affect the vehicles compliance with all applicable FMVSS.This would require, among other things, that installation of the new seat be done such that the attachment of the original seats and seat belts to the vehicle must not be compromised.

In addition, the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, if the customer, as an individual vehicle owner, were to install the seats himself in his own vehicle, Federal law would not apply.

While Federal law would not apply to a modification if it were made by your customer to his own vehicle, I would urge him to exercise care in installing the seat bench and to install seat belts on the seats. The seats and seat belts will not provide any protection to occupants if they separate from the vehicle frame in a crash. Additionally, you and your customer should be aware that States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.Also, your customer may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the New York State regarding potential liability in tort for his business in these circumstances.

I hope this information is helpful.If you have any other questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.10/23/02

ID: 000191

ID: 000322cmc

Mr. Gerald Plante
Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America, Inc.
PO Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your September 17, 2002, e-mail concerning the telltale requirement for vehicles equipped with automatic suppression features for passenger air bags under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208. You ask whether you may use a telltale design that would illuminate "PASS AIR BAG ON" when the passenger air bag is activated and "PASS AIR BAG OFF" when it is not activated. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the illumination you have described is permissible under FMVSS No. 208.

You state in your e-mail that Subaru is interested in using a telltale for which:

With the ignition on, the words PASS AIR BAG will always be illuminated . With the ignition on, if the passenger air bag is deactivated, then the word OFF is illuminated. If the passenger air bag is activated, then illumination of OFF is turned off and illumination of a separate box area with the word ON in black is illuminated.

Subaru's proposed design meets the specific requirement of a telltale using the identifying words "PASS AIR BAG OFF" when the air bag is deactivated, but it also includes the illuminated display "PASS AIR BAG ON" when the passenger air bag is activated.

On May 12, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule requiring all light passenger vehicles to be equipped with advanced air bag systems. These requirements are codified in FMVSS No. 208. The rule also established a phase-in schedule, starting September 1, 2003, under which vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles meet these new advanced air bag requirements. The amended safety standard provides alternative methods of compliance with the advanced air bag requirements. One of the advanced systems contemplated for the passenger side air bag is an automatic suppression system, whereby the air bag is turned off when a small child is present in the front passenger seat. One of the required elements of such a system is a telltale that informs the vehicle occupants that the air bag has been suppressed when the passenger seat is occupied by a person that the suppression system identifies as a child. The final rule was amended in response to various petitions for reconsideration. Those amendments were published on December 18, 2001.

The requirements for the telltale are specified in S19.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208. One of the requirements is that the telltale, a yellow light, emits light whenever the passenger air bag is deactivated and does not emit light whenever the air bag system is activated (except that it need not emit light when the passenger seat is unoccupied). Another requirement is that the telltale have the identifying words "PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF" or "PASS AIR BAG OFF" either on the telltale or within 25 mm (1 inch) of the telltale. There is no requirement that the identifying language be placed directly over the telltale or be otherwise illuminated. While the December 2001 amendments did make some minor changes to S19.2.2, the only change affecting the required wording was the allowance of the words "PASS AIR BAG OFF."

Since the telltale requirements of the advanced air bag rule were based in large part on the requirements of an earlier NHTSA rule governing the installation of air bag on-off switches as original vehicle equipment, I believe it is useful to note that the earlier rule, published in the Federal Register on January 6, 1997 (62 FR 798), directly addressed the issue you have raised. In that final rule, NHTSA addressed Volvo's request that the telltale indicate the air bag status at all times. While deciding against adopting such a requirement, NHTSA noted that with respect to telltales for manual air bag on-off switches, manufacturers can voluntarily provide additional features "such as audible signals or extra lights as long as the Standards specific requirements are met." 62 FR 798, 805. NHTSA believes the same rationale applies to the telltale requirement for vehicles with automatic suppression systems, and the additional wording would be allowed under S19.2.2.

Subaru's design appears to differ from the type of design contemplated by Volvo only in that the words "PASS AIR BAG," which are constantly illuminated when the vehicle ignition is on, are backlit by a yellow light. The pertinent issue under the regulation is not the backlighting of the words "passenger air bag." Rather, the telltale requirements are designed to clearly notify vehicle occupants when the air bag has been turned off. Accordingly, no illumination of the word "off" is allowed when the air bag has been activated. While Subaru's proposed telltale design appears to meet this requirement, you may consider using a different color backlight to illuminate the words "PASS AIR BAG."

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.11/18/02