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: bright.d3OpenMr. C. B. Bright Dear Mr. Bright: On August 11, 1997, you requested blanket permission to deactivate the passenger-side air bag on vehicles that you modify for rural postal carriers and driver's education instructors. You currently modify vehicles for your clients by affixing a dual-control steering system to the right dashboard and are concerned that a deploying air bag could cause serious injury by displacing the dual control. This letter responds to your request. Air bags are installed in cars and light trucks in conformity with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, which requires automatic protection for front seat occupants. Federal law prohibits motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperable components installed to comply with motor vehicle safety standards. 49 U.S.C. section 30122. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defined under the statute as a person holding itself out to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA interprets the term "motor vehicle repair business" to include mechanics, technicians, or any other individuals or commercial entities that add, remove, replace or make modifications to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment for compensation. NHTSA's interpretation is not dependent upon whether the vehicle or component was previously "broken" or needed to be "repaired". Rather, its interpretation is based upon the commercial relationship between the vehicle owner and the individual or company performing the work on the vehicle or component. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently issued a final rule that will allow for the installation of air bag on-off switches under limited circumstances. The on-off switch does not appear to be a reasonable option for your customers since the dual-control steering system is permanently mounted to the dashboard and would always interfere with safe air bag deployment. Accordingly, your clients would need to have the passenger-side air bag permanently deactivated if they are to use a dual control. We have spoken to the United States Postal Service regarding the use of dual controls in personal vehicles by individuals contracted to serve as rural carriers. The Postal Service agrees that the use of dual controls is preferable, from a safety standpoint, to the most likely alternative, carriers straddling the seat in order to drive while delivering mail from the right side of the vehicle. The Postal Service's preference is that rural carriers purchase vehicles with a right-side steering control directly from vehicle manufacturers, but it acknowledges that cost constraints would often prevent this. Given the Postal Service's position, NHTSA has determined that the need to have dual controls in order to deliver mail as a rural carrier justifies the deactivation of the passenger-side air bag. In your letter, you indicated that you could add an "approved right side air bag in the right side steering wheel which will add at least $750.00 to the cost of dual controls." NHTSA has expressed concerns in the past about possible safety implications of after-market produced air bags, and cannot comment on the safety of any aftermarket air bag. This is because air bags are specifically designed for a particular vehicle design. Accordingly, the agency will not require you to install an air bag in the right-side steering wheel as a condition for deactivation of the passenger-side air bag. Driver's education vehicles can be, and often are, only supplied with a brake pedal on the passenger-side of the vehicle. There is no need for a dual control steering system to be installed. Accordingly, deactivation requests will not be granted for this purpose. Please have your rural carrier clients send a request for passenger-side air bag deactivation to this office. The request should state the need for deactivation. Once we have received the request, we will return an authorization letter to your client, who should bring it to you. This letter will indicate that no Federal enforcement action will be taken against you for making a vehicle safety system inoperable. Please be aware that this letter will not release you from any obligations under state law. Accordingly, you should check with your state department of motor vehicles before commencing work on the air bag system. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: brookvil.rbmOpen Mr. Steve Brookmire Dear Mr. Brookmire: This responds to your letter requesting information about the impact of brush guards and grille guards on the Nissan Pathfinder air bag assembly. Your company is a distributor of brush guards and grille guards. You indicate in your letter that Nissan has stated the installation of these products may interfere with the air bag. This letter will address the effect under Federal laws of the installation of a bumper guard or grille guard. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles; therefore, if a brush guard or grille guard is installed by the manufacturer before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle complied with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with the brush guard or grille guard installed. After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. section 30122. That section provides that:
Any violation of this provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation. This provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing a brush guard or grille guard on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. Please note that this provision would apply to a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing the product and not to the company that manufactures or distributes the product. Also note that this provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install a brush guard or grille guard on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. You should also note that a brush guard or grille guard would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the guard manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. It is not possible for NHTSA to provide an unequivocal opinion as to whether brush guards or grille guards will interfere with air bag performance. This is because any answer would depend on the designs of the guards, the air bag, and the vehicle as a whole. The discussion which follows illustrates possible problems, identified by our technical staff, which brush guards or grille guards could cause with respect to air bags. Please understand that these examples do not represent the universe of possible problems. First, a guard attached to the bumper could possibly induce unwarranted air bag deployments if the guard extended vertically below the car bumper. Such a guard could snag on travel surface irregularities, sharp inclines, or sharp incline departure angles which might otherwise not engage the vehicle structure. Second, if a guard were attached to the vehicle structure, rather than the bumper, it too could possibly produce deployments that are not intended. Such a system might impose direct loading into the vehicle frame without the energy absorption of the bumper moderating the impulse experienced by the crash sensor system which is calibrated to measure crash severity. Third, if a guard were added to the front bumper of a vehicle in such a manner as to change the load path through the bumper of the car structure behind the bumper, it is possible that the crash impulse arriving at the crash sensor location might be different from the impulse that would be present without the guard, causing air bag deployment to occur either above or below the original manufacturer's deployment threshold, and at a different time during the crash. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: Bruno 2954OpenMr. Dick Keller Director of Business Development Bruno Independent Living Aids 1780 Executive Drive PO Box 84 Oconomowoc, WI 53066 Dear Mr. Keller: This responds to your letter in which you asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, is applicable to a mobility device manufactured by your company. Based on the information you provided and the analysis below, Ive concluded that FMVSS No. 403 is not applicable to the devices as you have described. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA adopted FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, which establish minimum performance standards for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles and motor vehicles installed with platform lifts, respectively. The purpose of the standards is to protect individuals who may be aided by canes or walkers as well as persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility aids, when entering and exiting a motor vehicle. The standards were established December 27, 2002. Compliance with FMVSS No. 403 has been required as of April 1, 2005. Compliance with FMVSS No. 404 has been required as of July 1, 2005. In your letter, you ask whether FMVSS No. 403 is applicable to a mobility device manufactured by your company, the Turning Automotive Seating system. You explain that the Turning Automotive Seating is manufactured in three basic models known as the Turny, the Turnout, and the Lift-Up Power Mobility Seat. You state that all three models are essentially a swivel seat base mechanism that rotates approximately 90 degrees with articulation to clear the B-pillar during vehicle entry and exit. You further stated that the Turny and Lift-Up add an elevating feature allowing access to taller vehicles. Under all three models the Turning Automotive Seating user is seated in the automotive vehicle seat during operation. In a final rule published in the Federal Register (69 FR 58843) on October 1, 2004, the agency clarified that FMVSS No. 403 applies only to platform lifts that are designed to transport standing passengers as well as passengers in mobility aids. The application section was revised to read as follows: This standard applies to platform lifts designed to carry standing passengers, who may be aided by canes or walkers, as well as, persons seated in wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility aids, into and out of the vehicle. (S3 of FMVSS No. 403). This clarification (along with a corresponding one in the application section of FMVSS No. 404) was in response to comments from manufacturers of lifts and lift equipped vehicles in which the lifts were designed to transport occupants in gurneys and incubators. The commenters stated that such lifts could not accommodate a standing individual or an individual aided by a mobility device, such as a wheelchair or scooter. In the October 2004 final rule, we emphasized that the intent of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 is to protect lift users that occupy lifts while aided by canes or walkers, as well as lift users seated in wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility devices (69 FR 58844).
We note that we have discovered that due to a drafting error in a subsequent rule concerning the compliance dates for FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404, the clarifying language in the application sections of the two standards was inadvertently removed. We plan to correct this error and, in the meantime, continue to interpret the standards consistent with that clarification.
The mobility devices described in your letter rely on the motor vehicle seat to accommodate a vehicle occupant. You stated that the Turning Automotive Seating system does transport occupants into and out of motor vehicles, but that the system cannot accommodate a standing individual, or an individual while he or she remained in his or her mobility device. Given that the system as you described transports individuals while they are seated in the motor vehicle seat and is unable to accommodate standing individuals or permit individuals to remain in a wheelchair or other mobility device, your system would not be subject to FMVSS No. 403.
The issue of the intent of Standard No. 403 is further evidenced by the specific requirements of the standard. As Standard No. 403 was developed to address platform lifts designed to carry standing individuals and persons seated in wheelchairs or other mobility aids, many of the requirements are not relevant to a device such as the Turning Automotive Seating system. For example, Standard No. 403 contains requirements and test procedures for Threshold Warning Systems that warn passengers in mobility devices and standing passengers when they are near the edge of the vehicle floor and the lift platform is not at vehicle floor level. FMVSS No. 403 also contains requirements and test procedures for edge guards, wheelchair retention devices, surface protrusions, platform gaps, platform size, and platform handrails. These requirements and test procedures help assure that the platform has ample room to accommodate mobility devices and that passengers in mobility devices and standing passengers are retained and stabilized on the platform during operation. Also, the requirements and test procedures prevent excessive gaps and protrusions that must be traversed by passengers in mobility aids and standing passengers as they move onto the platform and into the vehicle. As we interpret the functionality of your system, these requirements are not relevant to your product. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Ed Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:403&404 d.1/18/07 |
2007 |
ID: BrunoOpenMr. Dick Keller Dear Mr. Keller: This is in response to your letter requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567. You state that Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc. ("Bruno") is "the manufacturer and distributor of a motor vehicle occupant transfer device called the Turning Automotive Seating (TAS) system." You describe the TAS product as being "used to facilitate the transfer of a mobility-impaired . . . passenger or driver between a motor vehicle and a mobility aid such as a cane, walker, or wheelchair." You state that the TAS is designed to replace seats that are supplied with a vehicle as original (OEM) equipment, and that "[i]t is installed by removing the OEM seat assembly and bolting the TAS into the motor vehicle using the same seat structural mounting as the original." You state that it should take the average mechanic less than two hours to install the TAS and that the only tools required for the installation are those typically found in a motor vehicle maintenance shop. You state that "when a person decides to purchase a new motor vehicle using the motor vehicle manufacturer's Mobility Program and/or new vehicle finance program . . . the Bruno TAS will likely be installed in a motor vehicle prior to first sale to meet the program requirements and also as a convenience to the purchaser." As you are aware, the certification regulations require a person who alters a previously certified motor vehicle, before the vehicle is first purchased for purposes other than resale, to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration. See 49 CFR 567.7. The regulations provide, however, that a person
See 49 CFR 567.6. You have asked what constitutes "a readily attachable component" for the purpose of this provision. You note that in a prior interpretation letter, to Katzkin Leather Interiors, Inc., we stated that because the leather interiors there at issue "require several hours to install by professional installers and require specialized tools for their installation, we would not consider [them] to be readily attachable." From this you have drawn the conclusion that "if persons having average mechanical ability using normally available tools, such as wrenches and screwdrivers, can install the Buno TAS in less that two hours with the Bruno-supplied installation kit and instructions, it could reasonably be considered a readily attachable component," precluding the need for the vehicle to be certified under 49 CFR 567.7 as conforming to all applicable FMVSS affected by the installation of the TAS. As we have stated in a number of past interpretation letters, a determination of whether a modification involves the addition of "readily attachable components" depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching the components. In assessing this issue, the agency has identified the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise as factors that must be taken into consideration. The agency has taken the position that absent extraordinary ease of installation, it would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve "readily attachable components." See, e.g., letter to Terry Rowe dated March 7, 1991 and letter to Samuel Albury dated July 12, 1991. Based on the information you have provided, we have concluded that the Bruno TAS cannot be installed with sufficient ease for it to be regarded as a "readily attachable component." From the literature that accompanied your letter, we note that the installation of this equipment would require the removal of seating originally supplied with the vehicle and the installation of a seat base that allows the seat to be automatically raised and lowered, and swiveled so that it extends outside the vehicle. We would not regard this task as one that can be performed with "extraordinary ease." Your statement that it would take "less than two hours" to install the Bruno TAS confirms that this cannot be characterized as an extraordinarily easy task. Based on this conclusion, if the Bruno TAS is installed in a vehicle before the vehicle is first purchased for purposes other than resale, the installer will have to affix a label certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS affected by the alteration, as required by 49 CFR 567.7. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an interpretation letter to B&D Independence Co. Inc. dated August 21, 2001, which identifies the standards that are impacted by the installation of an adjustable seat pedestal device that appears to serve a similar function as the Bruno TAS, and addresses a number of compliance issues that are raised by the installation of such a device. If the Bruno TAS is installed after the vehicle's first retail sale, the installation of the device would not constitute an alteration. In this circumstance, the installer would not be required to certify that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS, but would be prohibited, under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), from "knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [the] motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .." On February 27, 2001, NHTSA issued a final rule (at 66 FR 12628) that creates an exemption from this prohibition for motor vehicle repair businesses that modify a motor vehicle to enable persons with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger in the vehicle. A copy of the final rule is enclosed. In the preamble of the final rule, the agency stated that it intended to define the phrase "first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail (sic)," for the purposes of the rule, "as the point at which the seller and the end user enter into a sales contract that identifies a specific vehicle to be delivered." See final rule at p. 12644. The agency explained that "[t]his definition will reduce the risk of a business being deemed an alterer because it is unable to transfer title at the time the modifications are made." Id. The agency further observed that "[i]f a dealer or manufacturer adds or removes features to or from a vehicle, or otherwise customizes a vehicle after the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail (sic), then the dealer or manufacturer may utilize" the exemption established under the rule. Id. Applying this exemption, if the Bruno TAS were to be installed in a vehicle after a sales contract is entered for the delivery of that vehicle, but prior to the actual transfer of title, the installation of the device would not constitute an alteration that would trigger the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7, and the installer would not be subject to the "making inoperative" prohibitions of 49 U.S.C. 30112(b). If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238. Sincerely, |
2002 |
ID: CA_HMMVOpenMs. Leah Kelly Dear Ms. Kelly: This responds to your e-mail inquiry in which you ask if California may refuse to register surplus military vehicles that might not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) and that do not have vehicle identification numbers. You state that the California Department of Motor Vehicles has:
You indicate that some Humvees have already been registered in California, and you are attempting to determine if California has legal authority to cancel existing registrations and to refuse any new registration requests for lack of compliance with the Federal safety standards. In our opinion, Californias refusal to register these vehicles is not prohibited by this agency. By way of background, the FMVSSs apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. 30112). The express preemption of State standards by the FMVSSs is established by 49 U.S.C. 30103(b):
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), California could not establish a standard that applied to the manufacture or sale of new vehicles in California on an aspect of performance regulated by an FMVSS unless the State standard is identical to the FMVSS. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the states. A state is not required to impose operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on state operational requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State. In the situation you present, there was no FMVSS that applied to the vehicles in question. Having recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, the agency established a limited exemption for military vehicles. Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles manufactured pursuant to military specifications and sold directly to the US military are exempted from the requirement to comply with the FMVSSs. This exclusion was based on a determination that compliance with safety standards could affect the capability of a vehicle to fulfill its military mission. In establishing this exemption, the agency also anticipated that surplus military vehicles would not be sold to civilians. While NHTSA has no authority over the disposal of surplus military vehicles, we have advised the Department of Defense against the sale of surplus military vehicles, including the Humvee, to civilians. [1] Since there was no FMVSS applicable to the vehicles in question, there is no conflict between the FMVSSs and a California requirement that the vehicles meet safety standards. As such, a state would not be preempted from requiring surplus military vehicles sold to civilians to meet FMVSS requirements as a condition of state registration. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure [1] See, letter to the Honorable Charles H. Taylor; June 29, 1993 (Enclosed). |
2004 |
ID: calendarwk23070OpenDae-Ki Min Dear Mr. Min: This responds to your April 27, 2001, letter seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, on behalf of your client, Hankook Tire Co., Ltd. Specifically, you asked whether, for the purpose of section 574.5 (d) of this regulation, a tire manufacturer may be allowed to define "calender week" as 00:00 hour of Monday through 23:59 hour of the following Sunday. As explained below, the answer is no. Motor vehicle tires are required by 49 CFR 574.5 to be labeled with a tire identification number (TIN) containing certain information. The last four digits of this number indicate the week and year of manufacture of the tire as follows: The final two digits are the last two digits of the year and the preceding two digits represent the week within that year. The numbering of the weeks begins with a"01" for the first full calendar week in each year and the agency has long held that the calendar week for the purposes of this regulation is defined as running from Sunday through the following Saturday. For example, "0101" indicates that a tire was manufactured during the week beginning Sunday, January 7, 2001, and ending Saturday, January 13, 2001. The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. To allow an alternative definition of calendar week could obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. Therefore, marking a tire with a calendar week defined as 00:00 hour of Monday through 23:59 of the following Sunday is prohibited. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:574 |
2001 |
ID: Campbell_petitionOpenMr. David E. Campbell Dear Mr. Campbell: This letter responds to your phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning a child restraint system (CRS) labeling issue you raised in a petition for reconsideration. You noted a potential conflict between the language required generally for CRS labels and the language required specifically for booster seats. On October 1, 2002, the agency amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems, changing some of the format, location, and content requirements for labels. (67 FR 61523, effective October 1, 2003.) Under S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) of FMVSS No. 213, labels will have to state, "Secure this child restraint with the vehicles child restraint anchorage system if available or with a vehicle belt." You note, however, that the reference to the vehicles child restraint anchorage system is not appropriate for belt-positioning booster seats because these seats are not designed to attach to a child restraint anchorage system. You further note that this statement may cause confusion with the labeling statement required specifically for booster seats under S5.5.2(i). [1] The agency agrees that there was an error in requiring both the S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii) and S5.5.2(i) statements on belt-positioning booster seat labels. Booster seats should have been excluded from the required language in S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii). We intend to publish a correction prior to the October 1, 2003 effective date of the requirement.At that time, will also address the other issues raised in your petition for reconsideration. If you have any questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:213 [1] The language in S5.5.2(i) states that only the vehicles lap and shoulder belt, or lap belt part only, is used to secure the booster seat, as appropriate. |
2003 |
ID: Cardinali1OpenMr. Alex Cardinali Office of Government Affairs Nissan North America, Inc. 196 Van Buren Street, Suite 450 Herndon, VA 20170 Dear Mr. Cardinali: This responds to your e-mail requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. Specifically, you asked which version of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J941, Motor Vehicle Drivers Eye Locations, is applicable for compliance purposes. As you correctly observed, S3.2(c) of FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference SAE J100 (rev. June 1995), Class A Vehicle Glazing Shade Bands, which in turn subreferences SAE J941 without mentioning any specific version. Accordingly, you stated that you are unsure whether you should use the latest version of SAE J941 (rev. September 2002) or the earlier version (rev. June 1997). As explained below, because a specific revision of that SAE standard is not cited or otherwise discussed in the rulemaking, the applicable version of SAE J941 for compliance purposes would be the version in effect at the time the comment period closed on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to incorporate SAE J100 into the standard (i.e., rev. June 1997). 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. One of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. We further note that under 49 CFR 571.5(a), our regulations provide, in pertinent part, For materials subject to change, only the specific version approved by the Director of the Federal Register and specified in the standard are incorporated. Once approved, copies of such materials are kept on file by the Office of the Federal Register. In the present case, the agency published an NPRM in the Federal Register on August 4, 1999, that proposed to upgrade Standard No. 205, one aspect of which involved incorporation by reference of SAE J100 (rev. June 1995)(see 64 FR 42330, 42335). The comment period on that NPRM lasted until October 4, 1999. Subsequently, a final rule was published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2003, which included the amendment incorporating SAE J100 (rev. June 1995) into the standard (see 68 FR 43964, 43972). Again, SAE J100 subreferences SAE J941 without a specific revision date. No public comments were received on this issue. As you are aware, NHTSA routinely draws upon the technical expertise of SAE and other standards, as appropriate. SAE (a group comprised of technical experts, including ones from industry) develops and maintains a system of standards which are constantly being revised and updated to reflect changing technologies and scientific understanding. We note, however, that compliance with an SAE standard is voluntary, unless the standard is adopted by a government agency. Furthermore, it is our understanding that, in light of that organizations procedures for regular updates of its standards, SAE decided not to cite specific revision dates for subreferenced standards, instead intending the most current revised version to be used. In contrast, NHTSA adopts binding regulatory requirements, which may include all or parts of standards incorporated by reference from other sources. The agency adopts requirements only after an opportunity for public notice and comment. Consistent with the requirement of 49 CFR 571.5(a) mentioned above, the agency cites the specific version of the materials to be incorporated by reference into our standards in order to provide certainty to regulated parties regarding applicable regulatory requirements. Otherwise, subsequent revisions to SAE standards (or similar standards) would impermissibly allow outside organizations to modify our FMVSSs through changes in their documents. With that said, we now turn to the specific issue raised in your letter. In the case where a subreferenced SAE standard does not identify a specific, relevant version, we conclude that the correct version for compliance purposes would be the most recent version of that standard in effect at the close of the comment period of the NPRM proposing the incorporation by reference. Our reasoning is as follows. In light of the ambiguity surrounding which version of a subreferenced SAE standard is to be used, it is logical to expect the agency and the public to have consulted the latest version of the subreferenced standard as they respectively develop and comment on the NPRM. This principle recognizes both SAEs intention for stakeholders to use the most recent version of its standards, and the agencys need to avoid incorporation of any subsequent version which would not have been available to receive the benefit of public comment (e.g., one adopted in the time period between publication of the NPRM and the final rule, or thereafter). We note, however, that if public commenters did raise the issue of the revision date of any standard incorporated by reference (e.g., either an earlier version, or a soon-to-be-published version available in draft), the agency could choose a different version in the final rule, although it would likely do so explicitly. In light of the above, the June 1997 revision of SAE J941 is the applicable version for purposes of FMVSS No. 205, because it was the one in effect at the end of the comment period for the proposal to incorporate SAE J100 by reference into that standard. As a related matter, we note that in analyzing the issues presented in your e-mail, we discovered an inconsistency in the version of SAE J100 incorporated by reference under S3.2(c) (i.e., rev. June 1995) and the version recited in the requirements of S5.3.1 (i.e., rev. November 1999). We understand that these two versions are substantively identical, with the latter version simply being a reaffirmation of the earlier standard pursuant to SAEs periodic review process. The agency plans to issue a correcting amendment in the near future to resolve this discrepancy. If you have any 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:205 d.11/13/06 |
2006 |
ID: Carlsson.1OpenMr. Erik Carlsson Dear Mr. Carlsson: This responds to your august 28, 2004, and september 4, 2004, letters in which you seek clarification as to whether a three-wheeled vehicle equipped with a "dump basket" would be classified as a truck or a motorcycle under our federal motor vehicle safety standards (fmvsss).Your letter stated that this vehicle is intended for on-road application, and you expressed your belief that the vehicle is "obviously designed for transport of cargo, specifically (household) garbage". Your letter also asked questions about the impact of the vehicles classification on certain requirements under fmvss no. 122, motorcycle brake systems, and fmvss no. 102, transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to our regulations. 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.If a manufacturer determines that its product is covered by one or more of our safety standards, it must certify compliance of the product with all applicable fmvsss prior to offering such product for sale. Pursuant to the definition of "motorcycle" set forth in 49 cfr 571.3, all three-wheeled motor vehicles are classified as motorcycles, regardless of their nature.Tthe pertinent portion of that section reads as follows:
Any three-wheeled vehicle that conforms to the above definition must meet all standards applicable to motorcycles. Because the vehicle in question appears to conform to the definition of a "motorcycle" under our regulations, we believe that it would be classified as a motorcycle and would be subject to all fmvsss applicable to motorcycles.We note that this definition of "motorcycle" is broader in scope than the everyday usage of that term.Accordingly, it would be expected to cover a variety of vehicle designs that look and are employed differently. As your letter suggests, the classification of a vehicle is important because it affects the fmvsss with which the vehicle must comply.Once classified as a motorcycle, we look to the fmvsss to determine requirements applicable to the vehicle in question.In terms of the specific safety standards mentioned in your letter, the requirements of fmvss no. 102 would not apply, because that standard is limited to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.However, the vehicle would need to comply with the requirements of fmvss no. 122, including those in paragraph s6.1 specifying that the vehicle be tested at its unloaded vehicle weight plus 200 pounds. 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, Jacqueline Glassman ref:571 |
2004 |
ID: cavallo.ztvOpenMr. Jason J. Cavallo Dear Mr. Cavallo: This is in reply to your e-mail of June 18, 2003, and your letter of June 20, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of certain provisions of the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulation, found in 49 CFR Part 579. You reported in your e-mail that Horton Emergency Vehicles (Horton) is a subsidiary of Halcore Group which also "owns two other emergency vehicle manufacturers," and that you have been told that "we need to combine our overall production between all three companies and report as a Group 1 manufacturer." This statement formed the basis of the first question in your letter of June 20:
Halcore was formed in 1998 through the combination of Horton Emergency Vehicle Company (Horton), American Emergency Vehicles (AEV) and Leader Industries (Leader), each of which makes ambulances. Halcore is regarded as the largest ambulance manufacturing corporation in North America. (see, www.aev.com). Halcores website (www. Halcore.com) refers to Horton, AEV and Leader. AEV refers to itself as a division of the Halcore Group, Inc. In legal proceedings, Leader has referred to itself as Leader Industries, a Division of Halcore Group, Inc. Leader is the California distributor for Horton and AEV. (www.Leader.com). Under the EWR regulation, the definition of "manufacturer" at 49 CFR 579.4(c) includes parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates. For purposes of determining whether the production of vehicles meets or exceeds the 500 vehicles per year threshold in Section 579.21 et seq., the production of the divisions, parent, subsidiaries and affiliates must be aggregated. However, under section 579.3(b), the parent may report collectively or the incorporated entities may report separately, provided that all vehicles are covered by the reporting. You related that Horton is a final stage manufacturer that does "not warrant the chassis," and that "if a user has a chassis problem we dont usually hear about it."Typically, if there is a problem with the chassis, the vehicles are taken to their "local chassis dealers for warranty and repair issues." You asked about Hortons EWR reporting responsibilities on chassis-related warranty matters, commenting that you believed "the chassis manufacturer would have to report the warranty claim" because Horton is not paying the claim. This issue formed the basis of the first part of your second question. Our reply is that, as to the narrow question posed, you are correct. Hortons responsibility is to report warranty claims that are submitted to it and that it pays. As the second part of your second question, you also asked (as phrased in the e-mail) that "if an end user contacted us with a chassis issue and we advised them to contact their local chassis dealer does that constitute a reportable complaint?" The answer is yes; Horton would have to include this incident in its numerical count of consumer complaints if the substance was within the scope of matters covered by the definition of "consumer complaint" in Section 579.4. The term "consumer complaint" is a broad one; it covers "a communication of any kind made by a consumer (or other person) to or with a manufacturer . . . expressing dissatisfaction with a product, or relating the unsatisfactory performance of a product . . . ." Your third question concerned reportable components on emergency vehicles. You related in your e-mail that you have been informed that "certain items on an emergency vehicle, specifically emergency lighting, interior lighting, and interior cabinetry, are not reportable items for TREAD purposes." However, it is your understanding that all items are reportable; i.e., "an exterior light was reportable as an exterior light regardless of whether it was an emergency light or headlamp." Your understanding is correct. The term for reporting that covers emergency lights and headlamps is "exterior lighting," defined in the EWR to mean "all the exterior lamps." You have also asked in your e-mail "how would one categorize interior lighting and interior cabinetry? Would that be electrical and structure respectively?"You are correct in surmising that interior lighting is covered under the EWRs term "electrical system." That term is defined to mean "any electrical or electronic component of a motor vehicle that is not included in any one of the other reporting categories enumerated" in the EWR regulation. This includes interior lighting.Without having a description of the interior cabinetry that is the subject of your question, it would be considered "structure" only to the extent that it "serves to maintain the shape and size of the vehicle, including the frame, the floorpan, the body, bumpers doors, tailgate, hatchback, trunk lid, hood, and roof." Ordinarily, interior cabinetry does not serve that function. Interior cabinetry does not fall within any of the other defined components and system. Accordingly, it would be a component of a motor vehicle that is not covered by the EWR regulation. However, if an incident involving a death or injury results in Hortons receiving a claim, or a notice alleging or proving that the death or injury was caused by a possible defect in the interior cabinetry, or any other reportable information involving interior cabinetry, Horton would have to report that claim or notice and utilize Code 98 as the system or component involved. Your letter asked, in its third question, "Is there a set of criteria that an item must meet in order to be reportable?" The EWR specifies certain defined components and systems for which information is required, and assigns them code numbers for reporting purposes. As indicated above, in compiling reportable information under the EWR regulation, a manufacturer must report under Code 98 for items of equipment not covered by the other Codes. Thus, all items of motor vehicle equipment are covered by a reporting Code, either under those pertaining to specified components or systems, or under Code 98 for those that are not covered by one of the other Codes. If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:579 |
2003 |
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.