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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ID: 000940 rbmOpenRobert C. Lange, Executive Director Dear Mr. Lange: This responds to your request asking whether a GM driver and passenger seat belt reminder system recently developed by General Motors Corporation (GM) violates any Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The GM system, as described, is not prohibited by any such standards. According to your letter, the GM system consists of a multi-stage chime and lamp warning cycle that lasts 75 seconds and is repeated three times per ignition cycle. Buckling the driver or passenger seat belt at any time will stop all warning systems for that seating position. Each cycle consists of three phases. The first phase lasts 8 seconds and consists of both a chime and a seat belt warning lamp. The next, 12-second phase consists of a seat belt warning lamp without a chime. The third phase lasts 55 seconds and consists of a flashing seat belt warning lamp. The first cycle begins when the ignition is turned on. The second cycle follows 30 seconds after the first cycle is completed, and the third stage follows 180 seconds after the second cycle is completed. The only safety standard that could conceivably prohibit the GM system is Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). S7.3 of that standard requires the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds," and a continuous or flashing warning light for not less than 60 seconds after the ignition switch is turned on. The 75-second cycle described in your letter meets both of these criteria. Thus, the only remaining question is whether the two additional cycles are permitted under the standard. The prohibition on any audible signal lasting longer than 8 seconds reflects a statutory requirement imposed by Congress in response to public resistance to seat belt interlock systems.[1] 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by...using...a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position." While the statute prohibits the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from requiring, or specifying as a compliance option, an audible seatbelt warning that sounds outside of the specified 8-second period, it does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from placing such systems in their vehicles. However, given FMVSS No. 208's requirement that the required seat belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means of differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. One way to differentiate between the two signals is a clearly distinguishable lapse in time between the two signals. The GM system, as described, provides a 97-second interval between the first and second audible signals and a 247-second interval between the second and third audible signals. These time lapses are sufficiently long to make the second and third audible signals clearly distinguishable from the initial, required 8-second signal. Accordingly, the two additional cycles are permitted under the standard. I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref.208 |
1970 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID: 001059GFOpenMr. David Regan Dear Mr. Reagan: This is in response to your fax of February 21, 2003, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) regulations governing vehicle certification found in 49 CFR 567. In your fax, you stated that your company manufactures trailers and intends to import them into the United States. You have enclosed a photocopy of a sample certification label that you intend to attach to your trailers. During a subsequent phone conversation, you indicated that the sample label is for a single axle trailer. You asked us to determine whether your sample certification label would be acceptable for use in the United States. By way of background, 49 CFR Part 567 specifies content, location and other requirements for the certification label or tag to be affixed to motor vehicles as required by section 49 U.S.C. 30115, 32504, and 33108. By affixing the label, the manufacturer certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards. 567.4(g) specifies the contents of the certification label or tag, which must include the following, in the order shown (emphasis added): (1) Name of manufacturer. The enclosed sample label contains all the information required by 567.4(g). However, some of the information in your label is out of order. As previously stated, 567.4(g) specifies that the information on the certification label must appear as it is listed in the standard. Therefore, the items within your sample certification label must be rearranged in order to comply with 567.4(g). An example of the appropriate arrangement of the information found on your sample label appears below:
Please be advised that your certification label need not look exactly like the example above. However, the information within your label must appear in the exact same order. Because we are unsure whether the enclosed sample label is a scaled copy or a life-size representation, we note that 567.4(g) requires that the label be lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than three thirty-seconds of an inch high. For additional information for trailer manufacturers please visit our web site at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/maninfo/trailer002.pdf. If you have any further questions regarding NHTSA's certification requirements for trailers, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:567 |
2003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID: 001112cm EZOnOpenMs. Lori Crouzillat Dear Ms. Crouzillat: This is in response to your letter of February 24, 2003, in which you ask for a clarification of the labeling requirement for child safety harnesses that mount to school bus seat backs. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 requires child safety harnesses [1] manufactured on or after February 1, 2003, that attach to school bus seat backs to be labeled with the warning specified in FMVSS No. 213. In your letter, you state that several states and members of the school bus industry believe that "seatmount products" in use, that were manufactured before February 1, 2003, are not in compliance with FMVSS No. 213 because they are not labeled with a warning. You ask whether the agency requires all harnesses, irrespective of manufacture date, to be labeled with the warning contained in FMVSS No. 213 in order to be in compliance with that standard. The answer is no. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30111. NHTSA has used its authority to issue FMVSS No. 213, regulating child restraint systems, in order to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. Each new child restraint system, including harnesses, must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213. FMVSS No. 213 generally prohibits a child restraint system from having any means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat back. (See S5.3.1.) However, to facilitate the safe transportation of preschool and special needs children, the agency amended FMVSS No. 213 on an interim basis to exclude from this prohibition harnesses manufactured for use on school bus seats. (67 Federal Register 64818; October 22, 2002.) The interim rule went into effect October 22, 2002, and NHTSA has decided in the exercise of its enforcement discretion, not to take enforcement action with respect to harnesses manufactured before that date. [2] For seat-mount restraints manufactured on or after February 1, 2003, the interim rule requires them to be labeled with the following warning:
The labeling requirement applies only to the restraints manufactured on or after the specified date (February 1, 2003). Furthermore, the labeling requirement applies to manufacturers of the seat-mount harnesses and does not impose any requirement on the end user to obtain labels for those harnesses manufactured before February 1, 2003. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:213 [1] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, uses the term "harness." Some manufacturers use the term "vest." We consider the terms "harness" and "vest" to be interchangeable. [2] The interim rule expires December 1, 2003. The agency is currently reviewing the interim rule to determine if it should be made permanent. (67 FR 64818.) |
2003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID: 11-000697_Trooper_Kile_205Open
Trooper James S. Kile 266 Periwinkle Lane New Market, Virginia 22844
Dear Trooper Kile:
This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials, to shade bands on windshields of passenger vehicles. You ask 1) whether Federal law permits any type of obstruction or tinting above the AS-1 line on the windshield; and 2) in the absence of an AS-1 line, is any tinting or other type of obstruction permitted near the top of the windshield. FMVSS No. 205 does not contain restrictions on tinting or opaque obstructions in the shade band area. Furthermore, the area of the windshield with a light transmittance of less than 70% must be marked by the AS-1 line.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to that authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called items), and specifies the locations in vehicles where each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference industry standards, the American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways Safety Standard (ANSI Z26.1-1996) and SAE J100, Passenger Car Glazing Shade Bands.
ANSI Z26.1-1996 requires that all glazing materials used in areas of the vehicle requisite for driving visibility have a light transmittance level of not less than 70%. FMVSS No. 205 allows a shade ban area or opaque area used to mount the rearview mirror near the top of the windshield. These areas are permitted to have a light transmittance level of less than 70%. Section 7 of ANSI Z26.1-1996 requires that glazing materials requisite for driving visibility with areas having a light transmittance level of less than 70% be permanently marked with the AS-1 line with an arrow pointed to the area that has a light transmittance level greater than 70%.
FMVSS No. 205 requires that shade bands conform to either SAE J100 or paragraph S5.3.2 which mandate the lower boundary of the shade band. Neither SAE J100 nor paragraph S5.3.2 specify a luminous transmittance level for the shade ban area. Thus, FMVSS No. 205 does not prohibit any type of tinting or opaque obstruction in the shade band area provided that the windshield will be able to meet all other performance requirements specified in ANSI Z26.1-1996. Thus, FMVSS No. 205 does not prohibit any tinting or opaque obstructions above the AS-1 line assuming that the AS-1 line is in a location specified by SAE J100 or paragraph S5.3.2.
On vehicles without a shade ban the AS-1 line must mark the lowest point of the break area, the opaque area at the top of the windshield and in the center where the rearview mirror is mounted. If no AS-1 line is present on the windshield, the entire windshield must have at least a 70% light transmittance level. A windshield with no AS-1 line would still be permitted to have shade band or other tinting at the top of the windshield provided that the light transmittance of the shade band or tinting was not less than 70%.
If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Thomas Healy of this office at 202-366-7161.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
5/10/2011 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID: 11-000699 Signature Products Group Seat Cushion 214 Interpretation LetterOpen
Mr. Dave Otis Signature Products Group 2550 South Decker Lake Blvd. Ste. #1 Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Dear Mr. Otis:
This letter responds to your letter inquiring about side air bags and their relationship to the seat covers that your company manufactures for sale directly to vehicle owners (in the aftermarket). You ask the following questions: (1) whether there are Federal regulations that regulate the deployment of side air bags in relation to seat covers; (2) whether your company should be concerned with possible liabilities of consumer installation of your products in their vehicles; (3) whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) operates a certification or testing program for seat covers; (4) whether any Federal regulations prevent seat covers from covering the air bag labels that are often found on seats; and (5) whether NHTSA is aware of any industry standards in regards to side impact air bags and seat covers.
This letter responds to your questions. Our answers are based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter.
By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to both new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.[1] NHTSA does not approve or certify vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Currently there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to aftermarket seat covers. Thus, you are not subject to a certification requirement, since no FMVSS applies to your product.[2] However, seat covers are considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you must ensure that your seat covers are free of safety-related defects. Among other things, manufacturers are responsible for notifying this agency, notifying purchasers of the product, and remedying the problem free of charge when a safety defect is discovered. (1) Federal Regulations Regarding Side Air Bags and Seat Covers
You ask whether there are Federal regulations that regulate the deployment of side air bags in relation to seat covers. Vehicle manufacturers have been installing side air bags in vehicle seats for a number of years. In 2007, NHTSA issued a final rule upgrading FMVSS No. 214, Side impact protection, to provide increased head and thorax protection for occupants of vehicles that crash sideways into poles or trees or are laterally struck by higher-riding vehicles.[3] Vehicle manufacturers are installing seat-mounted, door- and roof-mounted side air bags in new vehicles to meet this new FMVSS requirement. May you sell an aftermarket seat cover that covers up the seat-mounted side air bag installed to meet FMVSS No. 214? There are several factors to consider. First, under 30122 of the Safety Act, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design that was installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with the FMVSSs. In our opinion, if a seat-mounted side air bag were installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 214, 30122 would not permit a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to install the seat cover if the entity knew that the seat cover would make the air bags inoperative. (We are aware that the persons purchasing your seat covers are typically vehicle owners who install the seat covers themselves and that it is thus unlikely that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business will install your seat covers.) Second, vehicle owners are not subject to the make inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act when installing items in their vehicles or otherwise modifying their vehicles. They may install an aftermarket product even if the product negatively affects the safety systems in their vehicles, without violating our regulations. Nonetheless, we encourage vehicle owners to avoid disabling or reducing the effectiveness of safety features on their vehicles. Further, State law may have restrictions on the modifications vehicle owners may make to their vehicles. Third, we believe it is practicable for manufacturers of seat covers to design their product such that the seat covers will not affect the proper deployment of side impact air bags. We understand that seat cover manufacturers have been producing such products for years. NHTSA regulations do not require manufacturers of seat covers to test their seat covers to see if they are compatible with the side air bags. However, generally speaking, we strongly encourage manufacturers to carefully consider how their aftermarket equipment might affect the safety systems on a vehicle.
(2) Liability Arising from Consumer Installation of Seat Covers
You ask whether your company should be concerned with possible liabilities of consumer installation of your products in their vehicles. To answer this question and to further address your questions about testing seat covers, you should consult a private attorney on this matter. As personal injury and tort litigation are generally matters of State law, such an attorney would have the best information with which to advise your company.
(3) Certification and Testing of Products
Your third question asks whether NHTSA operates a certification or testing program for seat covers. As explained above, NHTSA does not provide approvals of or certifications for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.
We suggest you contact an independent testing laboratory if you are interested in tests of seat covers. For your information, I have enclosed a list of independent test laboratories that NHTSA has used under contract to conduct compliance testing to various FMVSSs. This list is available on NHTSAs website: www.nhtsa.gov.
(4) Covering the Air Bag Label on Seats
You ask whether any Federal regulations prevent seat covers from covering the air bag labels that are often found on seats. We assume you refer to the label or tag on a vehicle seat that indicates the presence of a side air bag.
Our answer is no. Our safety standards do not require that manufacturers include a label to indicate the presence of a side air bag to the vehicle user. The label does not include safety information or warnings. We have no restrictions on a seat cover covering the tag other than those related to performance, discussed above.
(5) Industry Standards Regarding Seat Covers
You ask whether NHTSA is aware of any industry standards in regards to side impact air bags and seat covers. Our answer is no, but we suggest you try contacting the test laboratories listed in the enclosure. The Society of Automotive Engineers (telephone: 1-877-606-7323) might also have information on industry standards pertaining to your product.
We hope this information has been helpful. For your information, we have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturers responsibilities under the Safety Act and other NHTSA requirements.
Should you have any further questions, please contact Jesse Chang of my staff at 202-366-2992.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Enclosures
Ref: FMVSS No. 214 8/17/2011 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID: 11-000700 J.Hoffrichter (Std No. 207)OpenJames Hofrichter Vice President of Engineering Seats Incorporated 1515 Industrial Street Reedsburg, WI 53959 Dear Mr. Hofrichter: This responds to your January 11, 2011 letter concerning whether a new seating application for trucks meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, which governs vehicle seating systems. Specifically, you ask several questions about vertical movement of a seating system during testing and whether such movement would mean that the seat was not compliant with the requirements of S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207. As explained below, we believe that the movement you describe may constitute a test failure under FMVSS No. 207. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Safety Act) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. 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 is our interpretation of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs based on the description contained in your letter. S4.2.1, Seat Adjustment, states, Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, each seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in S5. You describe your application as an upper seat on a motor-powered seat adjuster with both horizontal and vertical adjustment. You indicate that when you perform the pull test specified by FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210 and apply the specified forces to the seat through the lap belt, shoulder belt, and seat center of gravity, with the seat riser initially set in the lowest position, the rear linkage of the riser rotates up about 1.5 inches to the highest position. You ask several questions regarding the requirements of S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207 and whether this movement violates the requirements of that paragraph. You first ask whether paragraph S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 207 applies to vertical movement of a motor-powered seat adjuster. S4.2.1 contains only one exception to its requirement that a seat shall remain in its adjusted position when tested. The exception is for the vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses. Our understanding is that your seat is not a nonlocking suspension type occupant seat. It appears to adjust and lock in a manner similar to the seat described in a letter we sent to Paul Wagner (See enclosed March 21, 1995 letter). The standard does not provide an exception encompassing vertical movement in other types of seats. You next ask, If the seat power riser vertical movement was due to rotation of the motorized parts beyond that due to backlash, would it be compliant if the seat is able to withstand the required FMVSS [No.] 207 forces? We have interpreted FMVSS No. 207 to allow some deformation of the seats (e.g., bending or twisting) during the force test, provided that the structural integrity of the seats is maintained. We do not consider such deformation, by itself, to constitute a change in adjustment position. However, if deformation allows the seat to move from one adjustment position to another, that movement would violate S4.2.1s requirement that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested. In a previous interpretation letter, we discussed movement due to backlash, which typically refers to the gap between mechanical elements such as mating gears used to drive or move a device (See enclosed November 13, 2007 letter to Dick Sabath). We do not consider movement of a seat strictly due to backlash, regardless of whether the mechanism of adjustment is an electric motor, to be a change in adjustment position. Thus, such movement would not violate the requirement in S4.2.1 that the seat remain in its adjusted position when tested. However, movement beyond backlash may violate S4.2.1. For example, if any of the seat movement is due to movement of the driving mechanism, such as rotation of the gear providing the seat adjustment, we would consider such movement to be a change in adjustment position and thus to be in violation of S4.2.1. In addition, if a change in the adjusted position is caused by the gear mechanism being destroyed, the seat would not comply with S4.2.1 (See enclosed December 23, 1994 letter to Paul N. Wagner). You next ask, If the seat power riser vertical movement was due to adjustment teeth shearing, misaligning or slipping and moving from one position to another, would it be compliant if it is able to withstand the required FMVSS [No.] 207 forces? As stated above, movement of the seat from one adjustment position to another during testing violates the requirements of S4.2.1. Accordingly, we would consider the seat movement described in your second question to be a test failure under FMVSS No. 207. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact William Shakely of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosures Ref: Standard No. 207 Dated: 6/22/12 |
2012 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID: 11-001987 nelson.may18OpenMr. Brian Nelson Michigan Association of Timbermen 7350 M 123 Newberry, MI 49868 Dear Mr. Nelson: This letter responds to your letter asking whether a product commonly known in the logging industry as a slasher saw table would be considered a motor vehicle within the laws and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, our answer is no. You explain that a slasher saw table is a large saw permanently mounted to a bundling carriage that has two wheels and is pulled behind another trailer or truck. It is used for cutting logs to a uniform length for loading onto a logging truck. Although a slasher saw table is equipped with wheels, you state that it is intended to remain in extreme off-road conditions for months at a time, as a logging site is harvested. You also state that, when transferred between sites, a slasher saw table is pulled behind a mobile log loader, which is equipped with brakes. By way of background, NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). The FMVSSs are applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. That is, NHTSA regulates the manufacture of new motor vehicles. You state that an issue has arisen whether the slasher saw table is subject to regulations administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). We note that questions about the applicability of FMCSAs regulations should be directed to that agency. We do not consider the slasher saw table to be a motor vehicle. The term motor vehicle is defined in section 30102(a)(6) of the Safety Act as a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles. For example, vehicles that frequently travel between job sites using highways are considered motor vehicles because the on-highway use is more than incidental. In a November 5, 2004 letter to Ms. Robin C. DesCamp of Blount International, Inc., we opined on whether certain types of logging equipment would be considered a motor vehicle. Among the logging equipment discussed in that letter were logging cranes. We stated that, because logging cranes were intended to remain at a single location for long periods of time and are moved only infrequently between logging sites, we concluded that the logging cranes are not motor vehicles. A slasher saw table, as you have described it, appears to be akin to items of mobile construction equipment and logging cranes that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the slasher saw table described in your letter is not a motor vehicle. Because a slasher saw table is not a motor vehicle, it is not subject to the FMVSSs. 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 Ref: VSA 571.3 7/25/11 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID: 11-002613 drn.docOpenLawrence A. Beyer, Esq. 674 Lake Road Webster, NY 14580 Dear Mr. Beyer: This responds to your letter asking us whether the Goldhofer Modular Trailer Model THP SL (Model THP SL) is a motor vehicle within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. As explained below, the answer is no. By way of background information, NHTSA interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSAs statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30102(a)(6) defines the term motor vehicle as follows: a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. Further, if a vehicle is a motor vehicle, it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be sold or imported into the United States (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)). Description of the Goldhofer Modular Trailer Model THP SL In your letter, you state that the Model THP SL is designed for ultra heavy duty applications for short distance transportation of goods from 80 to 10,000 tons (160,000 to 20,000,000 pounds) on uneven and/or constricted locations. The Model THP SL is described as being 9 feet 10 inches (118 inches or 3 meters) wide. Each module has six or eight independently controlled axles with four tires per axle. Each axle is controlled for steering, height and angle. Each axle can be raised by 16 inches and tilted 60 degrees independently, in order to ensure load stability. These actions can be either automatic or controlled by a Tillerman who monitors the movement of the unit. The units are designed to be operated singly or in combination with other units, either following each other or side to side, depending on the material being transported. We note that two units transported side by side take up a width of at least 236 inches, or almost 20 feet. You state that when loaded, the maximum speed of the trailers is 20 miles per hour. You included a series of photographs depicting the Model THP SL by itself, and showing the types of loads the Model THP SL carries in an open field, and in what appear to be shipyards or ports. Intended Uses of the Goldhofer Modular Trailer Model THP SL You state that your clients use for the Model THP SL is short distance transport of unusually large cargo on job sites such as petrochemical refineries, power plants, utility substations, shipping ports and rail sidings. Your client estimates that well over 90 percent of the use will be at those locations. You stated that those uses will be limited due to logistics and expense. In order to travel on the public roads, permits must be issued, there must be road closures, police escorts, utility equipment (power lines) must be relocated, and there are weight restrictions. You state that even crossing a street requires road closing and permits and can take most of a day. You state that the payloads are typically located at large facilities located adjacent to locations engaged in long distance shipping such as ship yards and rail-heads. As an example, you provide the situation where a new steam turbine is delivered via ship. The turbine itself is too heavy and cumbersome to be lifted out of the hold of the ship with a crane. However, the Model THP SLs specialized design allows it to be positioned on the ship to take on and transport a load that no other equipment can. The turbine is then transported to another means of transport such as rail or a barge. The Model THP SL is then used to move the turbine from the intermediate transporter to the final destination, the generator. Due to its design, the Model THP SL is able to be placed directly adjacent to the turbine for relatively easy loading. The Model THP SL is able to be maneuvered to the desired location for its placement at the generator facility. You state that this sort of job would take well over a week to complete. You state that when the Model THP SL is not in use (presumably, when it is not carrying a load), it is typically transported to and from the job site on a semi-trailer. Finally, you state that the Model THP SL can also be used as a mobile construction platform. The Model THP SL can locate a temporary electric generator or substation near a unit which requires service, thus minimizing service disruption. The Model THP SL can also be used to remove broken equipment from one area to be repaired on site. NHTSAs Analysis As we have stated in other interpretation letters, whether the agency will consider vehicles, including vehicles that can be used in construction, or similar equipment, to be motor vehicles depends on their use.[1] It is the agency's position that the statutory definition of motor vehicle does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. Even if the Model THP SL may, on occasion, travel on public roads, such on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. There are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." Clearly the intended uses of the Model THP SL are not analogous to how dump trucks are used. Based on the information provided with your letter, we believe that the on-highway use of your clients product to be merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Therefore, we do not consider the Goldhofer Modular Trailer Model THP SL to be a motor vehicle. Please note that the views expressed in this letter are limited to the Goldhofer Modular Trailer Model THP SL. This letter is not generally applicable to all Goldhofer vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Part 571 8/17/2011
[1] See, for example, the interpretation letter of October 20, 2003 to Schiller International Corp, signed by Jacqueline Glassman, NHTSA Chief Counsel. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID: 11-003978 TIA.jun09 (Std 138)OpenMr. Paul Fiore Director of Government and Business Relations Tire Industry Association 1532 Pointer Ridge Place, Suite G Bowie, MD 20716 Dear Mr. Fiore: This letter responds to your letter to the Administrator on behalf of the Tire Industry Association (TIA) raising concerns that the tire industry has with the agencys tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) regulations. Because your letter raises legal questions, I have been asked to respond. Your letter states that the TIA represents all segments of the tire industry, including manufacturers, repair businesses, dealers, recyclers, retreaders, and suppliers. You state that your members have encountered concerns with TPMS malfunction indicator lamps illuminating after the performance of certain services and repairs on vehicles. You raise issues confronted by your members when encountering TPMS systems and ask whether actions by service providers violate the make inoperative provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The make inoperative provision (49 USC 30122(b)) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative, in whole or in part, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. You put forth four scenarios faced by your membership. You request clarification from NHTSA on the applicability of the make inoperative provision. We address each scenario in turn below. For each scenario, we address only the applicability of the make inoperative provision in the context of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. We have stated in the past that TPMS requires special consideration because TPMS itself is analogous to a malfunction indicator.[1] Thus, our response to all of the scenarios you raise regarding the make inoperative provision may not be applicable to all FMVSSs.
Please note that in those circumstances in which Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning TPMS system, NHTSA nevertheless strongly encourages such repair so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We note that State tort, contract, or other laws governing motor vehicle repair businesses may impose additional requirements upon your members. Scenario #1: If a motorist is made aware of an inoperative TPMS sensor and declines to purchase a new one, does the service provider knowingly make the system inoperative and violate 49 USC 30122(b) by removing the dead or damaged sensor and replacing it with a standard snap-in rubber valve stem? Our response: For the purpose of this response, we assume that you are referring solely to TPMS sensors that are integrated with the valve stem. Moreover, we assume that the sensor was inoperative before a customer brought the vehicle to the repair business. An illuminated malfunction indicator lamp could be an indication of an inoperative sensor. We also assume that you are describing a part within the TPMS system that cannot be repaired. In that event, a motor vehicle repair business would not be violating 49 USC 30122(b) by removing an inoperative or damaged TPMS sensor and replacing it with a standard snap-in rubber valve stem. The removal of a malfunctioning TPMS sensor that is integrated with a valve stem would not violate the make inoperative provision because the element of the system was already inoperative. However, a motor vehicle repair business that goes on to make any other element of the TPMS system inoperative, for example, by disabling the malfunction indicator lamp, would violate the make inoperative provision. Scenario #2: If a motorist purchases a set of aftermarket winter tires and wheels and declines to purchase new TPMS sensors, does the service provider violate 49 USC 30122(b) because they would be installing assemblies that knowingly make the system inoperative? Our response: In this scenario, we assume that the vehicle has a functioning TPMS system at the time he or she purchases aftermarket tires and wheels. In that case, a service provider would violate the make inoperative prohibition of 49 USC 30122(b) by installing new tires and wheels that do not have a functioning TPMS system. To avoid a make inoperative violation, the service provider would need to decline to install the new tires and rims, use the TPMS sensors from the original wheels (if they are compatible), or convince the motorist to purchase new TPMS sensors and ensure that the sensors are properly integrated with the vehicles TPMS system.
You suggest that, if the installer does not disable the malfunction indicator lamp, the driver would still be warned that the TPMS system is inoperative and there would be no violation of 49 USC 30122(b). However, the illumination of the malfunction indicator lamp is inapposite to this scenario. By removing tires and wheels with functioning TPMS sensors and replacing them with tires and wheels without TPMS sensors, the repair business has knowingly removed an essential part of the TPMS system. This is precisely the type of action that the make inoperative provision of 49 USC 30122(b) is intended to prohibit. Scenario #3: If a service provider inadvertently breaks a non-defective sensor and is unable to locate a replacement part immediately, is it a violation of 49 USC 30122(b) to allow the vehicle to return to service if the service provider makes arrangements to obtain a replacement part and install it at a future date? And does the answer change if the service provider damages a sensor and then does nothing to replace it or if the customer specifically directs the service provider to finish service without replacing the damaged part (i.e., the customer is in a hurry or wants to have the work done somewhere else)? Our response: In this scenario, we again presume that you are referring solely to TPMS systems that are integrated with a valve stem.
Your question raises two issues. First, to fully analyze how the make inoperative prohibition relates to inadvertent damage would depend on the specific factual circumstances. We note that the make inoperative provision prohibits a motor vehicle repair business from knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with the applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Generally, we would not consider inadvertent actions to violate the make inoperative prohibition. However, without more specific facts concerning whether the TPMS was knowingly made inoperative, we cannot provide a more complete response to your question. To address the second issue raised by your question, the applicability of the make inoperative prohibition to the arrangement of repairs at a future date, we note that the make inoperative prohibition contains an exception for when the repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. Therefore, as a general matter, a violation of the make inoperative prohibition does not occur until a repair business allows or intends a vehicle to be returned to use. A motor vehicle repair business would violate 49 USC 30122(b) if it has knowingly made inoperative any part of a device and allowed the vehicle to be used (other than for testing or a similar purpose). This would be true regardless of whether arrangements have been made for future repair, as there are no other exceptions to the make inoperative prohibition in the statute. Of course, if the repair business has not knowingly made a device or element inoperative, there would be no need to use this exception, and the motor vehicle repair business would be able to release the vehicle to the customer, with or without making arrangements to complete a repair, without violating 49 USC 30122(b). We stress that our response relates solely to the applicability of the make inoperative prohibition in 49 USC 30122(b), and does not address whether state or local laws or regulations would impose obligations upon a service provider.
Scenario #4: If the service provider releases the vehicle to the driver without an illuminated malfunction indicator lamp and then it illuminates after the vehicle has been driven, does that become a violation of 49 USC 30122(b)? TIA believes that in this situation, the service provider did not knowingly make the system inoperative so there would be no violation. Our response: We discussed this scenario in the April 2005 final rule.[2] The mere illumination of the malfunction indicator lamp after the vehicle has been released by a motor vehicle repair business to the driver would not itself be a violation of the make inoperative provision. FMVSS No. 138 requires that the malfunction telltale illuminate not more than 20 minutes after the occurrence of a malfunction, meaning that the system may not detect a malfunction that occurred while the car was at the motor vehicle repair business until the car has been released to the owner and driven for some time. Whether or not a make inoperative violation has occurred would depend only upon whether the motor vehicle repair business knowingly made inoperative an element of the TPMS system that caused the malfunction indicator lamp to illuminate. 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 11/22/2011 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID: 11-004197 Kiddy USA belt guide -shield cracks -atd lift (Std 213)OpenMs. Katherine Hubanks Director of Sales Kiddy USA 2420 Wild Iris Lane Dacula, GA 30019 Dear Ms. Hubanks: This responds to your May 31, 2011 letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You explain that Kiddy USA (Kiddy) is a new manufacturer from Germany of childrens car seats setting up distribution in the United States. We understand from your letter that the manufacturer has had one or more of its child restraint systems (CRSs) tested at a U.S. test laboratory according to the test procedures of FMVSS No. 213. You enclose correspondence from an associate who asks whether eight test outcomes conform to FMVSS No. 213. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including child restraints, and does not make determination as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance test. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) sets forth a self-certification process, in which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying the compliance of its products. Manufacturers are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects. The following interpretation of FMVSS No. 213 is based on the information provided in your letter, and could change if information becomes available that indicates that the information upon which this letter is based is not as we had understood. Also, we do not affirm that the test you conducted conforms to FMVSS No. 213s procedures. Please note that, if we do not comment on an aspect of performance of your CRS shown in your letter, this does not mean we believe a requirement does not apply or that your product would meet the requirement. Further, we note also that our answers to your questions are somewhat limited by the fact that your questions consisted mainly of photographs and almost no discussion. 1. Kiddys first question asks: Cracks on screw anchorage of torso shield belt guide --is this conform [sic]? One of the photographs appears to show a 3-year-old child test dummy in a CRS with a torso shield. A Type 1 belt is routed over the shield. Another photograph shows a close-up of the cracks, which are on the underside of the shield, the side not facing the test dummy. Answer: S5.1.1 and S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 213 apply to this situation. S5.1.1 and S5.1.1(a) state: S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. (a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system. * * * * *
S5.1.1(a) prohibits any complete separation of any load bearing structural element, which would include the torso shield. In the photographs you provided, it is difficult to see the cracks, but it does not appear that the cracks constitute a complete separation. Also, the cracks do not appear to be on a contactable surface,[1] so the prohibitions of S5.1.1(a) against sharp edges or protrusions does not appear to apply. Accordingly, it appears that the cracks do not violate S5.1.1(a). 2. Kiddy asks: Lifting of headrest during crash test by top tether because of cracking of head rest adjust area--is this conform [sic]? A 12-month-old child test dummy was used in the test. A Type 1 belt and top tether were used with the CRS.
Answer: S5.1.1(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213 states: S5.1.1(b)(1) If adjustable to different positions, remain in the same adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately before the testing, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2). This requirement is intended to prevent a childs fingers or limbs from being caught between shifting parts of the CRS, and to prevent a childs sliding too far forward and downward (submarining) during a crash. In a September 4, 1996 letter to Mr. C. Scott Talbot, NHTSA interpreted the requirement as intending to prevent injuries caused by the repositioning of the seating surface of the restraint (i.e., the reclining feature). In view of these considerations, we conclude that S5.1.1(b)(1) does not prohibit the head restraint from moving up. However, on a different matter, it is not clear from your letter where the cracking of the head rest adjust area occurred, i.e., whether the cracking was to a load bearing structural element or to a contactable surface. Under S5.1.1(a), if the cracking was to a load bearing structural element--and we believe this area could qualify as such--there must not be any complete separation of the load bearing structural element. It was difficult to see the cracks in the photograph so we were unable to tell from the photograph if there was a complete separation. If the cracking was to a contactable surface, there must not be any cracks exposing sharp edges or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface. It appears from the photograph that a screw may have been protruding above the surrounding area. We cannot determine from the photograph whether this area was a contactable surface, or the height of the protrusion. 3. Kiddy asks: [R]etainment of 12 month Crabby [sic] (Dummy stood up slightly)--is this conform [sic]? The dummy was in a forward-facing child seat. Answer: S5.1.3 and S5.1.3.1 of FMVSS No. 213 state: S5.1.3 Occupant excursion. When tested in accordance with S6.1 and the requirements specified in this section, each child restraint system shall meet the applicable excursion requirements specified in S5.1.3.1-S5.1.3.3. S5.1.3.1 Child restraint systems other than rear-facing ones and car beds. Each child restraint system, other than a rear-facing child restraint system or a car bed, shall retain the test dummys torso within the system. * * * * * Torso is defined (S4) in FMVSS No. 213 as: the portion of the body of a seated anthropomorphic test dummy, excluding the thighs, that lies between the top of the child restraint system seating surface and the top of the shoulders of the test dummy. From the photograph you provided, we cannot determine the location of the dummys shoulders relative to the child restraint when the dummy stood up slightly. 4. Kiddy asks: Cracks at torso shield belt guide--is this conform [sic]? This test involved a CRS tested with a 3-year-old child test dummy. Answer: Our answer is similar to our answer to question 1. S5.1.1(a) prohibits any complete separation of any load bearing structural element, which would include the torso shield. It is difficult to see the photographs you provided, and we cannot determine if the cracks constitute a complete separation. The cracks do not appear to be on a contactable surface since they are on the underside of the shield. 5. Kiddy asks: Belt guide connection to the head rest breaks/but belt guide remains at head rest because of screw contact to metal support inside--is this conform [sic]? This was a test of the CRS in a booster mode with a 6-year-old child test dummy in a Type II belt. Answer: Is the belt guide a load bearing structural element? We cannot tell from the photograph you sent. Generally, webbing guides that only position the seat belt webbing for the users comfort and that do not have structural benefit for the performance of the CRS or vehicle belt performance are not considered a structural part of the seat. As such, the prohibition of S5.1.1(a) would not apply. If the belt guide is a load bearing structural element, S5.1.1(a) would prohibit the breaking you describe. 6. Kiddy asks: [B]elt guide has damaged the safety belt--is this conform [sic]? The photograph shows a substantial rip in the shoulder belt webbing. We assume the damage occurred in the dynamic test. Answer: Manufacturers must ensure that their child restraints are free of safety-related defects. The ripping of the seat belt by the belt guide raises a concern about a possible safety-related defect of the CRS. If data indicated that the damaged seat belt exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, NHTSA might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall. 7. Kiddy asks: Opening and cracking on belt guide hook located on the head rest--is this conform [sic]? The photograph shows the buckle position clip broken off. Answer: Our answer is the same as our answer to question 5. If the belt guide is a load bearing structural element, S5.1.1(a) would prohibit the breaking you describe. 8. Kiddy asks: Belt guide connection to the head rest breaks/but belt guide remains at head rest because of screw contact to metal support inside--is this conform [sic]? Notations indicate that this test is with the HIII 5th Female.
Answer: FMVSS No. 213 does not specify testing with the Hybrid III 5th percentile adult female, so we are not sure of the context of your question. If you are asking whether the belt guides breaking is permitted under FMVSS No. 213 in an FMVSS No. 213 test, see our answer to question 5.
Procedural Regulations I would like to draw your attention to two procedural regulations of which manufacturers should be aware to import child restraints into the United States. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This regulation requires a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment subject to the FMVSSs to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the equipment is first manufactured. The second regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Section 551.45 requires the manufacturer of foreign‑manufactured child restraints to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The regulation specifies the items needed for a valid designation. I hope this information is helpful. For your information, I have enclosed a brief information sheet for new manufacturers. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Enclosure 11/28/2011
[1] FMVSS No. 213 (S4) defines contactable surface as: any child restraint system surface (other than that of a belt, belt buckle, or belt adjustment hardware) that may contact any part of the head or torso of the appropriate test dummy, specified in S7, when a child restraint system is tested in accordance with S6.1. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.