NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: GRAMMLT.ogmOpen The Honorable Phil Gramm Dear Senator Gramm: Thank you for your letter of June 21, 1996, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Milton C. Beveridge. Mr. Beveridge apparently wishes to modify the rear seats of a 1996 Chrysler 15 passenger van to create better access for elderly passengers who, in order to reach seats in the rear of the van, must pass through the limited space between the edges of the seats and the rear wheel housing. In order to provide better access, Mr. Beveridge wishes to have these seats made narrower so that they would seat two passengers rather than three and create a wider opening between the seats and the wheel housing. However, Mr. Beveridge is unable to find a facility that will perform this work because of an existing state requirement that any work on the van, which was purchased through a state grant, be performed by a "certified" repair facility. In addition, in speaking with the dealer who sold the van and representatives of Chrysler, Mr. Beveridge has been told that the seats in the van cannot be modified without violating federal law. As discussed below, there is no blanket Federal prohibition against modifying seats. However, Federal law does specify that dealers and repair businesses making such modifications must do so in a way that does not compromise the occupant protection provided by the vehicle manufacturer in accordance with Federal standards. Some background information about our agency may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motorvehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design that were installed in your constituent's van in compliance with applicable standards, none of these businesses may modify the vehicle in such a manner that it no longer complies with a safety standard. Accordingly, such a business should examine the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards in these areas, e.g., Standards Nos. 207, Seating Systems, 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to determine how modifications can be made in a manner that does not adversely affect compliance. The foregoing standards may be found in Sections 571.207, 571.208, 571.209, 571.210 and 571.302 of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations ,(49 CFR 571.207 et.seq.). We are providing Mr. Beveridge with copies of these standards under seperate cover. As noted above, Mr. Beveridge's letter indicates that he is having difficulty finding a "certified" repair facility to modify his vehicle. NHTSA does not "certify" repair shops or approve modifications to privately owned vehicles. As Mr. Beveridge indicates that the requirement that any modification be performed by a "certified" facility is imposed by the state, I suggest that he contact an appropriate state government official for assistance in how to find such a facility. I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact me or Mr. Otto Matheke of the Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-5253. Sincerely John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence ref:208 d:9/20/96 |
1996 |
ID: GRUMMANOLSON.CRSOpen Mr. David White Dear Mr. White: This responds to your letter of May 7, 2001, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to approve an alternate location for placement of the certification label on delivery trucks that Grumman Olson Industries is manufacturing for the U.S. Postal Service. NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(c) prescribe specific locations for the installation of vehicle certification labels, and provide that if none of those locations are practicable, the manufacturer may suggest an alternate location for the agency's approval. Your letter states that during the first article inspection, the Postal Service requested that Grumman Olson Industries relocate the certification label to the dash shelf extension to the right of the instrument panel so that the driver can see the label from a seated position. Your letter further notes that because these vehicles are walk-in vans with removable sliding doors, placement of the label on the inward-facing surface of the door next to the driver's seating position would not be practicable. Your letter observes that the "[t]he proposed location is visible from almost all locations in the cab," and that the certification label can be easily found at this position in the event that any information that it contains is needed. In specifying locations for the placement of vehicle certification labels, NHTSA's objective is to ensure that those labels may be easily read. The location that you have proposed for the delivery trucks that Grumman Olson Industries is manufacturing for the U.S. Postal Service would meet this objective. NHTSA therefore approves your request. If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238. Sincerely, John Womack ref:567 |
2001 |
ID: guam.ztvOpen Lt. James W. Cruz FAX (671) 475-6219 Dear Lt. Cruz: This is in reply to your fax of September 5, 2001, asking whether fog lamps made in Taiwan must comply with" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, in order to be imported into Guam. A fog lamp is a "lamp" and not an item of "associated equipment." However, Standard No. 108 does not prescribe any requirements for fog, driving, and other aftermarket accessory lamps. Therefore, there are no requirements of this agency that they must meet in order to be imported into Guam. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, John Womack Ref:591 |
2001 |
ID: gustback_doorlatchOpenDr. Peter Gust Dear Dr. Gust: This letter responds to your e-mail and fax inquiries into the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. You asked a question about how a specific back door latch configuration is tested under the procedures specified in the standard. We have addressed your question below. Your letter describes a back door that opens upward, with a single latch at the bottom of the door with a single striker on the back door sill. According to the diagrams sent with your letter, the latch is comprised of two sections. When the latch is engaged, (1) the portion of the latch that is attached to the door is oriented perpendicular to the vehicle floor plane (the "upper section"), and (2) the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker is oriented along a plane that is roughly 45 degrees to the vehicle floor plane (the "lower section"). The diagrams also show that the striker plate is parallel to the lower section, with the striker oriented perpendicular to the striker plate. You asked how the test procedures in Load Test One and Load Test Two of FMVSS No. 206 apply to your latch assembly. FMVSS No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components including latches, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from their vehicle as a result of an impact. Under FMVSS No. 206, hinged back doors must comply with several load requirements, including:
As indicated in S4.4.1.1 and S4.4.1.2, the orientation of the latch face dictates the direction of the loads. FMVSS No. 206 does not define latch face, but we have stated that SAE J839, Passenger car side door latch systems (JUN91), provides guidance on its meaning (see 60 FR 50124, 50128; September 28, 1995). While SAE J839 does not define latch face, it defines "latch plate" as "the main body or frame for supporting working components, appendages and transmitting or distributing loads to the door structure" (S3.1.1). Based on the specifications in S4.4.1.1, Load Test One would be oriented with the lower section of the latch face in question. While S4.4.1.1 does not specifically address testing a latch face that aligns with more than one plane, the section does specify that the latch and striker anchorage should not compress upon application of the load. The intent of Load Test One is to apply the load such that there is no engagement of the latch face by the striker. This is accomplished with your latch assembly by applying the test load in a direction perpendicular to the lower portion of the latch face. By contrast, application of the test load perpendicular to the upper portion of the test face would result in some compression; i.e. , the striker would engage the latch face to some extent, and would thus not test the latch as specified by the standard. Regarding the application of Load Test Two to your latch system, again the standard indicates that the direction of force should be oriented with the lower section of the latch face. Load Test Two specifies application of the load in the direction of the fork-bolt opening, parallel to the face of the latch. Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 206 illustrates that Load Test Two is applied in a direction that is parallel to the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker. On the latch face in question, this corresponds to the lower section. Testing in this manner is consistent with the intent of the standard to test the latch in a manner representative of opening the door. Further, applying Load Test One and Two as described would test your latch in a manner consistent with the longitudinal and transverse testing specified for side door latches, respectively. Additionally, orienting the test loads to the lower portion of the latch face would permit testing in accordance with SAE J934, as intended by the agency (see 60 FR 50128). I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:206 |
2004 |
ID: HARMER.ZTVOpen John L. Harmer, Esq. FAX 801-299-0523 Dear Mr. Harmer: This is in reply to your letter of June 4, 1996, asking the following question: "Whether or not certification of an automobile for sale in Puerto Rico as being in compliance with Federal safety standards would allow that automobile to be imported into the fifty states insofar as compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is concerned?" The answer is yes, as you have represented to Daewoo. 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits the importation into the "United States" of a motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless the vehicle complies with the standard and is covered by the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the standard. Although the term "United States" is not defined, we view it as comprising all States, and "State" is a defined term. Under 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(10), a "State" means "a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands." This means that a motor vehicle that Daewoo manufactures to conform, and that it certifies as conforming, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, may be freely imported into Puerto Rico or into any other "State" as defined above as in compliance with DOT safety regulations. I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:591 d:6/6/96 |
1996 |
ID: Harness_and_LATCHOpenMr. Terry Emerson Dear Mr. Emerson: This responds to your letter of July 12, 2001, asking "Is the Cosco Travel Vest required to be LATCH compatible by September 1, 2002?" Stated differently, you ask whether child restraint vest systems are required by Standard No. 213 to have attachments that enable the restraint to connect to a child restraint anchorage system on a vehicle (49 CFR 571.225). (1) The answer to your question is no. According to the marketing literature you enclosed with your letter, the Travel Vest is a 5-point harness restraint. Section 5.9(a) of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213) excludes harnesses from the requirement in the standard that child restraints must have components that attach to the lower anchorages of a LATCH system. We excluded harnesses out of practicability concerns. We did not know whether harnesses had a structural member that was strong enough to withstand the forces that would be imposed on it by the LATCH connectors. (See LATCH final rule, 64 FR 10786, 10808; March 5, 1999.) I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:213
1. 1 "LATCH" is a term used by industry and retail groups referring to the child restraint anchorage system required by Standard No. 225. LATCH stands for "lower anchorages and tethers for children." For convenience, we will use the term in this letter. |
2001 |
ID: hatlerOpen
Via Federal Express
Ms. Patricia R. Hatler Chief Legal and Governance Officer Nationwide One Nationwide Plaza Columbus, OH 43215
Dear Ms. Hatler:
We have received reports that certain insurance companies may be engaging in transactions that violate Federal odometer disclosure law with respect to vehicles damaged in Hurricane Sandy. Although we are not asserting that your company is engaging in such practices, we are writing to a number of auto insurance companies to remind them of the Federal odometer disclosure law requirements and ask them to review their practices regarding odometer disclosures. These letters do not accuse your company, or any other company, of violating the law.
We understand that when a flood-damaged vehicle is declared a total loss, the insurance company pays the insured the value of the vehicle, becomes the owner, and acquires control over the vehicle from the insured. However the reports we have received indicate that instead of completing the required odometer disclosure, some companies ask the insured to complete the odometer disclosure statement without listing the insurance company as the transferee. According to these reports, the insurance company will not sign the title, make an odometer disclosure, or transfer title. The insurance company then sells the vehicle at auction, keeps the proceeds from the auction, and provides the title with the odometer disclosure statement as signed by the insured to the auction buyer. The next person in the chain of title of the vehicle will be the buyer at auction. The insurance company will essentially be omitted from the chain of title.
In the circumstance described above, an insurance company is considered a transferee when it pays the insureds claim (in return it obtains ownership of the vehicle), and a transferor when it sells the vehicle at auction. See 49 C.F.R. 580.3. As a transferor, the insurance company is required to make certain disclosures.
Under federal odometer disclosure law, 49 U.S.C. 32705, a person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle shall give the transferee written disclosure of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer. More specifically, under 49 C.F.R. 580.5, each transferor shall disclose the mileage to the transferee in writing on the title or on the document being used to reassign the title [t]his written disclosure must be signed by the transferor, including the printed name. The transferee must sign the disclosure statement, print his name, and return a copy to his transferor.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Marie Choi of my staff at (202) 366-1738 or via email at marie.choi@dot.gov.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
d: 12/20/12
Identical letters sent to:
Mr. Dana Proulx General Counsel GEICO Corporation One Geico Plaza Washington, DC 20076
Mr. Charles E. Jarrett Chief Legal Officer The Progressive Corporation 300 North Commons Blvd., OHF 11 Mayfield Village, OH 44143
Mr. Christopher C. Mansfield General Counsel Liberty Mutual Group 175 Berkeley Street Boston, MA 02117
Ms. Susan L. Lees General Counsel Allstate Insurance Company 3075 Sanders Road Northbrook, IL 60062
Mr. Garrett Paddor General Counsel Farmers New World Life Insurance Company 4680 Wilshire Blvd, 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90010
Mr. Steven A. Bennett General Counsel United Services Automobile Association (USAA) 9800 Fredericksburg Road San Antonio, TX 78288
Mr. Jeffrey W. Jackson General Counsel State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company One State Farm Plaza Bloomington, IL 61710
|
|
ID: headstart3OpenHelen H. Taylor, Associate Commissioner Dear Ms. Taylor: This responds to your request that this agency revise its interpretation of the term "school" to exclude Head Start Programs. This would allow the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement a rule requiring that Head Start children be transported in vehicles that meet the Federal school bus safety standards other than those requiring traffic control devices. I regret the delay in responding to your request. You based your request on the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998. In that Act, Congress amended section 636 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831) to provide that "[i]t is the purpose of this subchapter to promote school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of low-income children through the provision, to low-income families, of health, educational, nutritional, social, and other services that are determined, based on family needs assessments, to be necessary." You believe that by employing the term "school readiness," Congress was distinguishing Head Start programs from school programs. In considering your request, we reviewed the basis for our existing interpretation of Head Start as a "school." That interpretation was based on the former National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ("the Vehicle Safety Act")). The Vehicle Safety Act defines "schoolbus" to mean a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school. (49 U.S.C. 30125(a)(1)) In applying the term to Head Start, we equated the provision of educational services with the status of being a school, and concluded that Head Start programs were functioning as preprimary schools. On December 29, 1977, NHTSA issued an opinion that Head Start facilities are functioning as preprimary schools, and that buses transporting children to and from those schools are functioning as school buses, under the Vehicle Safety Act and accordingly are subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Specifically, the letter stated: NHTSA interprets the term "school" broadly, because the agency believes that this is the intent of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) which directed the creation of the school bus safety standards. Since the Head Start program is basically an educational program for preprimary students, the agency had determined that those facilities are schools and buses transporting children to and from them must comply with the Federal school bus safety requirements if they transport 10 or more passengers. Subsequently, in a May 10, 1982, opinion, we distinguished day care centers from Head Start facilities on the basis that "facilities which are essentially custodial, even though they have some educational components, are not considered to be schools." In light of the 1998 amendment to section 636 of the Head Start Act, we have concluded that the linkage we have made in the case of Head Start between educational services and schools is no longer valid. We believe that it is clear from the language of that section that Congress has made a distinction between Head Start programs and school programs. Accordingly, we are revising our interpretation of "school" to exclude Head Start. Consistent with the evident intent of section 636, we conclude that a Head Start agency is not operating a "school" for the purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. This means that buses sold to transport children to and from a Head Start site will no longer be required under the Vehicle Safety Act to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. In revising our interpretation, we act with the knowledge that HHS intends to implement a rule requiring that Head Start children be transported in vehicles meeting the Federal school bus safety standards other than those for traffic control devices. This will serve to ensure the children's safety. Sincerely, Frank Seales, Jr. ref:VSA |
2000 |
ID: Heller2OpenMr. Peter E. Heller Logo Brake Light 216 Redwood Road Sag Harbor, NY 11963 Dear Mr. Heller: This responds to your letter requesting clarification regarding how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, applies to your patented product, the Logo Brake Light. Your letter described the Logo Brake Light as the merger of the center high mounted stop lamp with the automobile manufacturers logo, symbol or trademark. On a vehicle equipped with your product, when the service brake pedal is depressed, the lighted portion of the center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) will illuminate in a shape representing the vehicle manufacturer or its brand. You enclosed three product samples (two in red and one in a combination of red and yellow). Based on the information you have provided to the agency and the analysis below, we have concluded that your product would not comply with Standard No. 108. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. 30111 and 49 CFR Part 571). It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567). FMVSS No. 108 sets forth the requirements for both new and replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment. Turning to the specific issues raised by your letter, FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for CHMSLs in light vehicles. First, paragraph S5.1.1.27(a) of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that each CHMSL shall: (1) have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 2903 square mm (4.5 square inches); (2) meet the visibility requirements such that a signal is visible from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle; and (3) have minimum photometric values in the amount and location listed in Figure 10 of the standard. In addition, Table III, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, specifies that the CHMSL must be red.[1] (A CHMSL produced using a combination of red and another color, such as yellow or silver, would not comply with the color requirement set forth in Table III.) Because we have not had the opportunity to examine your product in use, we cannot offer an opinion as to whether your product would meet the applicable area, visibility, and photometric requirements of Standard No. 108. However, we note that your product appears to violate the color restrictions set forth in Table III. Furthermore, in discussing your request with the agency in phone conversations, you directed us to your website, www.logobrakelight.com. Upon review of this site, we saw examples of your product mounted below the rear glass (one on a trunk lid and another on an SUV liftgate). We note that your product apparently would not comply with paragraph S5.3.1.8(a)(2), which requires that no portion of the lens [CHMSL] shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars. Thus, the applications of your Logo Brake Light CHMSL currently shown would likely violate this location requirement. Finally, we should also observe that a lighting standard is premised upon consistency of the message intended to warn or alert other drivers or pedestrians. We are concerned that the presence of both regular red and multicolor stop lamps with logos on them could result in confusion of other drivers or pedestrians. Please note that we are returning your product samples to you under separate cover. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:108 d.2/7/07
[1] We note that there is a separate provision under S5.1.1.27(b) of Standard No. 108 that allows two CHMSLs (with specifications different from those above) on light vehicles other than passenger cars which have a vertical centerline that, when the vehicle is viewed from the rear, is not located on a fixed body panel but separates one or two movable body sections, such as doors, which lacks sufficient space to install a single CHMSL. Our analysis, however, would not differ for either version of the CHMSL. |
2007 |
ID: hen2.jegOpenLawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Dear Mr. Henneberger: This letter follows up a meeting between you, your client, William A. Leasure, Jr., Executive Director of the Truck Manufacturers Association, and members of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) staff. In the meeting, you and Mr. Leasure raised concerns about our September 22, 1997, interpretation letter, addressed to Mr. Leasure, concerning Standard No. 208's air bag labeling requirements. The requirements at issue were established in a final rule published on November 27, 1996. In our interpretation letter, we recognized that the rulemaking establishing the requirements focused on light vehicles. However, based on the regulatory text and purpose of the requirements, we concluded that the requirements also apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags. You and Mr. Leasure raised several concerns about our conclusion. Among other things, it was argued that the air bags used on these vehicles are very different than the ones used on light vehicles, and that the specific attention-getting warning labels developed for light vehicles are not needed for medium and heavy vehicles. It was also noted that the "DATES" section of the final rule establishing the labeling requirements identified a compliance date for light vehicles but not for medium or heavy vehicles. Upon reconsideration, we have decided to revise our previous position and instead interpret the labeling requirements established in the November 27, 1996, final rule as applying only to passenger cars and to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. These are the vehicles that are required to have air bags under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-40), and they are the ones that NHTSA intended to address in the rulemaking at issue. We believe that this is supported by the preamble and by the DATES section of the final rule. We agree with your view that different labels may be appropriate for different types of vehicles than the ones addressed in the rulemaking at issue. However, given our revised interpretation, we do not, at this time, see a need to address this subject in rulemaking. Under our interpretation, the labeling of these other vehicles is at the option of the manufacturer. Thus, if a manufacturer believes that the labels specified in Standard No. 208 are appropriate for other vehicles as well, it is free to use those labels. However, if the manufacturer believes that a different label is more appropriate, it is free to use that label. If you have any further questions about this subject, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
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.