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: PACE.ztvOpen Mr. John W. Cook Dear Mr. Cook: This responds to your FAX of August 12, 1996, asking for "a clear definition in inches of the term 'as practicable' especially as it would apply to clearance lights." You explain that you have fenders that attach to the side of your trailers in widths that vary from 2 to 11 inches. You have asked whether it is acceptable for the clearance lamps "to be within 6-8" from the outer most part of the trailer including fenders." We appreciate your expressed desire to be in conformance with Standard No. 108. This standard employs practicability language in a number of its location requirements in order to afford a manufacturer maximum flexibility in designing its trailer. This flexibility would be lacking were the agency to require clearance lamp location within a specific range such as "within three inches from the top of the vehicle." Thus, the question a trailer manufacturer must determine is whether its location is as practicable as possible given the design of the trailer, where a requirement is expressed in terms of practicability. It is the enforcement policy of this agency not to contest a manufacturer's determination unless it is clearly erroneous. You have asked a specific question about the location of rear clearance lamps. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires them "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. . . and [to be located] as near the top thereof as practicable." Please note that it is the vertical location of the rear clearance lamps that is expressed in terms of practicability, and that the horizontal location is expressed only as a general requirement to indicate overall width. Paragraph S5.3.1.4 provides an exception to the vertical mounting requirement: "[w]hen the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." Thus, when rear clearance lamps are mounted on a fender, as you wish to do, the question is not whether this is a practicable location, but whether it is a location that indicates the overall width of the vehicle. The meaning of the term "overall width" is clarified in Note (1) to Standard No. 108 (which follows Table IV in the CFR text): (1) The term "overall width" refers to the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps, determined with doors and windows closed, and the wheels in the straight-ahead position. In our judgment, locating a clearance lamp within 6 to 8 inches of the outermost edges of a trailer that is 80 or more inches in overall width does not indicate "overall width" within the meaning of Standard No. 108. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:9/4/96 |
1996 |
ID: paddorOpen
Via Federal Express
Mr. Garrett Paddor General Counsel Farmers New World Life Insurance Company 4680 Wilshire Blvd, 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90010
Dear Mr. Paddor:
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. Patricia R. Hatler Chief Legal and Governance Officer Nationwide One Nationwide Plaza Columbus, OH 43215
Ms. Susan L. Lees General Counsel Allstate Insurance Company 3075 Sanders Road Northbrook, IL 60062
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: Part 574- TIN font - Weinstein-ContinentalOpenKenneth N. Weinstein Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Dear Mr. Weinstein: This letter responds to your request on behalf of Continental AG and its affiliate companies (Continental) for approval of the use of the G006 print type in tire identification numbers, pursuant to Note 3 of Figure 1 in 49 CFR 574.5. NHTSA is granting your request. Note 1 of Figure 1 of 49 CFR 574.5 states that the tire identification number, which must appear on every new and retreaded tire, will be in the following fonts: Futura Bold, Modified Condensed or Gothic. However, Note 3 states that other print types will be permitted if approved by NHTSA. On behalf of Continental, you seek approval of a print type known as G006, which you state is very close to Futura Condensed. You have provided examples of both the G006 print type and Futura Condensed for our review. In the final rule establishing Part 574 (35 FR 17257, November 10, 1970), NHTSA explained that the reason for specifying only four print types which would be acceptable without advance agency approval was to ensure that the information would be easily readable by all people. The G006 print type that you have submitted is easily readable and thus satisfies our concerns. Accordingly, NHTSA approves use of the G006 print type. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Dated: 12/19/14 Ref: Part 574 |
2014 |
ID: Part 579--EWR--AllianceOpen
Robert Strassburger, Vice President Vehicle Safety and Harmonization Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 803 7th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001-3717
Re: Request for Interpretation
Dear Mr. Strassburger:
This responds to your November 6, 2013 letter on behalf of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) requesting clarification and guidance regarding a recent amendment to the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulation, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 579, subpart C. Specifically, you seek clarification regarding the updating of manufacturer reports when required to provide updates under 49 CFR 579.28(f)(2)(i) & (ii).
As background, the EWR regulation requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to submit quarterly reports of early warning information: production information; information on incidents involving death or injury; aggregate data on property damage claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field reports; and copies of field reports (other than dealer reports and product evaluation reports) involving specified vehicle components, a fire, or a rollover. 49 CFR Part 579, subpart C. On August 20, 2013, NHTSA published a final rule amending the EWR regulation to add new vehicle types, fuel and propulsion codes, and component codes for light vehicle reporting under 49 CFR 579.21. See 78 Fed. Reg. 51382, 51424-45. The amendments to the EWR rule are effective August 20, 2014. Section 579.28(f)(2) requires a manufacturer to submit an updated report on incidents involving death or injury when a vehicle manufacturer is not aware of the VIN at the time the incident is initially reported or when the component code 99 (system or component is unknown) is reported in its initial report, and the manufacturer becomes aware during a subsequent calendar quarter of the VIN or that one or more of the specified systems or components allegedly contributed to the incident. 49 CFR 579.28(f)(2)(i) & (ii). A manufacturer need not submit an updated report if the VIN or system or component is identified by the manufacturer in a reporting period that is more than one year later than the initial report to NHTSA. Id.
You raise several scenarios seeking guidance on the applicability of the EWR regulation's updating requirements in light of recent amendments that I repeat below, followed by NHTSAs interpretation.
1. "A manufacturer files an EWR report for the first quarter of 2014 (as a hypothetical example) that includes a death/injury claim coded as '99' because the claim does not specify the system or component allegedly contributing to the incident. During the 3rd quarter of 2014, the manufacturer becomes aware that the claimant is alleging that the death/injury claim involves a failure of a forward collision warning system. Must the manufacturer update the EWR report to include the new information regarding the forward collision warning system, even though the requirement to include such information did not apply when the initial report was filed?... Would the answer be different if the information is learned in the 4th quarter of 2014 (after the new reporting categories would be in effect)?"
Under the first scenario in your hypothetical, pursuant to 49 Part 579.28(f)(2)(ii), the manufacturer must update the death and injury claim in its quarterly report for the period in which it learns of the updated information. The manufacturer would not have to submit its updated report under the Forward Collision Warning component code because the component code would not be effective for that period. However, the manufacturer would have to update the death and injury claim with an applicable component code available in the third quarter reporting period. Under the second scenario in your hypothetical, the answer would be slightly different. If the manufacturer learns of the information in the fourth quarter of 2014, the manufacturer would have to report the updated report under the Forward Collision Warning component code.
2. "A manufacturer files an EWR report for the first quarter of 2014 that includes a death/injury claim coded as '98' because the allegation was that the death or injury was caused by a failure of the lane departure warning system .... Must the manufacturer update this EWR report to conform the report to the new reporting categories after they take effect?"
No. NHTSA will not require a manufacturer to update all death and injury EWR reports that alleged one of the new component codes and were submitted before the effective date of the new component codes.
3. "A manufacturer files an EWR report for the first quarter of 2014 that includes a death/injury claim without a VIN. The claim is coded 03 because the allegation is that the death or injury was caused by a failure of the service brake system. The manufacturer subsequently learns the VIN in the 3rd quarter of 2014, and prepares an updated EWR report to add the VIN. Must this updated report now include information about whether the service brake allegation involved foundation brakes or automatic brake controls? Must the updated report identify the vehicle type and the fuel and/or propulsion system?"
The answer to both questions is no. Pursuant to 49 Part 579.28(f)(2)(i), if a manufacturer does not know the VIN associated with an incident at the time the incident is initially reported, a manufacturer is required to submit an updated report with the VIN of such incident in the reporting period in which the VIN is identified. Under this section, no other information is required to be updated. An update is not required if the VIN is identified in a period that is one year later than the initial report to NHTSA.
4. "In addition, for these scenarios and others, it is uncertain whether updates would be provided using current templates or any new templates that may be specified by the agency. [Also], there should be flexibility for manufacturers to provide updates using any new template on a voluntary basis."
Updated reports should be submitted with the templates used when those files were first submitted. NHTSA will maintain the existing templates expressly for updated reports. We note that while the Alliance states that this is a transitional issue, there are instances where a manufacturer may need to revisit a prior EWR submission and provide an update. Accordingly, the agency will maintain the existing templates for such instances. You also ask whether manufacturers may voluntarily submit EWR reports using the new templates prior to the effective date of the amended rule. Due to the technical difficulties involved in processing and validating the huge amount of data coming in to the EWR system each quarter, NHTSA must work with only one template for the specified quarter. Manufacturers must submit reports using the template in effect for the reporting period and any subsequent revised reports must be reported with the template that was effective at the time the original report was submitted.
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns. If you need any further assistance in this matter, please contact Andrew J. DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263 or by email at andrew.dimarsico@dot.gov.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Dated: 3/12/14 Ref: Part 579
|
2014 |
ID: pedlok.ogmOpenMr. Chris Webre Dear Mr. Webre: This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal standards to a product you have developed. You stated that your company produces a product known as the PED-Lok. According to your letter, the PED-Lok automatically applies service brake pressure to the rear brakes of a school bus when the loading and unloading warning lights are flashing and the passenger door is opened. You asked if Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) apply to this product. By way of background information, Congress has authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. A review of Standard No. 121 indicates that this standard does not contain any provisions directly applicable to your product. However, I note that as your product is directly connected to the air brake system, a leak or malfunction in the device could have an effect on brake performance. If an auxiliary device such as the PED-Lok is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 121. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122). Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" prohibition does not require manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses to certify that vehicles continue to comply with the safety standards after any aftermarket modifications are made. Instead, "make inoperative" prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. Please note that the "make inoperative" prohibition 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 your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. In addition, as the manufacturer of the PED-Lok, Safety Systems and Controls would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer. Safety Systems and Controls would be subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). A "defect" includes "any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle safety" is defined as "the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance." 49 U.S.C. 30102. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either: 1. Repair the product so that the defect is removed; or 2. Replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect. The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the determination that defect existed. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
2000 |
ID: pereaOpenGilbert A. Perea, State Transportation Director Dear Mr. Perea: This responds to your letter asking about the modification of your large school buses (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds) by the installation of a new seating system that has an integral lap and shoulder belt system. I regret the delay in responding. You explain that an equipment manufacturer, Busbelts Development Corporation (BDC), has been promoting its seating systems for school buses in New Mexico. You enclose photographs of the BDC product and copies of material provided by BDC. The seating systems appear to be standard school bus bench seats that have been modified to incorporate an integrated lap and shoulder belt system. The shoulder belt portion of the system attaches to the top of the school bus seat back. You state that Mr. Gary H. Murphy of BDC has informed you that "all of the required tests have been completed to conform to applicable [FMVSSs] in a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration certified and approved testing Lab." (1) Further, a BDC brochure states that its system "enhances and complies with compartmentalization . . . ." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you asked that we respond to four questions. Each question concerns the safety of the BDC system and whether a school bus that has had its original seats replaced with the BDC seating systems would continue to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Our answers are provided below. In addressing those questions, it might be helpful to have some background information concerning seat belts on school buses. In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued a number of safety standards under our Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to improve protection to school bus passengers during crashes. One of these standards was Standard No. 222, which provides for passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Prior to issuance of Standard No. 222, we found that the school bus seat was a significant factor contributing to injury. We found that seats failed the passengers in three principal respects: by being too weak; too low; and too hostile. In response, we developed requirements to improve the performance of school bus seats and the overall crash protection of school buses. Those requirements comprise the "compartmentalization" approach we adopted for providing high levels of crash protection to school bus passengers. Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. If a seat is not compartmentalized by a seat back in front of it, compartmentalization must be provided by a restraining barrier. The seats and restraining barriers must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant. They must meet specified height requirements and be constructed, by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger. It is helpful to bear in mind the following highlights about compartmentalization:
With this background in mind, we now turn to your questions.
Because the BDC system is an item of equipment that is sold separately from a school bus, there are almost no safety standards that directly apply to it. Our safety standards for school buses apply to new, completed vehicles, not to separate components systems such as the bench seat and integrated belt system. As such, Standard No. 222 does not apply to the BDC product, assuming the product is sold in the aftermarket and is not sold as part of a new school bus. Our standard for seat belt anchorage strength (Standard No. 210) also applies to new, completed vehicles. A representation that a product meets crash protection standards that do not apply is misleading.(2) The only safety standard that applies to the aftermarket product is Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Standard No. 209 specifies strength, ease-of-use and other requirements for seat belt webbing, buckles, and other components. Section S4.1(c) of Standard No. 209 requires that a lap-and-shoulder belt system (a "Type 2 seat belt assembly") must provide upper torso restraint without shifting the pelvic restraint into the abdominal region. Some of the photographs you provided depict children wearing the Type 2 seat belt with the lap portion in the middle of their bodies, above the pelvic region. Placement of the lap portion of the seat belt in the abdominal area of a passenger is prohibited by S4.1(c). A belt positioned over the abdominal area will load the abdomen in a crash, resulting in a greater likelihood of injury to the abdomen and surrounding organs. It appears from some of the photographs that the lap belt is pulled on to the abdominal area of some of the children by a device that adjusts the positioning of the lap and the shoulder belts on small children. We refer to these types of devices as "belt positioning devices." Due in part to our concerns about positioning a lap belt over a child's abdominal area and about how some devices introduce excessive slack into the shoulder belt, we recently began a rulemaking action to regulate these devices. We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to require belt positioning devices to be labeled with a warning not to use them with children under a certain size (e.g., a child smaller than the average 6-year-old), and not to have the lap belt positioned over the child's abdomen. A copy of our NPRM is enclosed for your information. If the BDC system were installed on new school buses, the vehicle would have to meet Standard No. 222 and the other school bus standards with the product installed. Without testing a vehicle, we cannot make a positive determination of whether the standard could be met with the product installed. However, as explained below, we believe that a new school bus may not be able to meet the standard with the seating system. We have other safety concerns as well, apart from whether the requirements of Standard No. 222 could be met.
We believe it is possible that the incorporation of a shoulder belt into existing school bus seats would reduce the benefits of compartmentalization. As we explained in the background section, Standard No. 222's compartmentalization requirements rely on the school bus seat backs to help cushion and contain the occupants in a crash. Each seat back protects not only the occupant of that seating position, but also the occupant seated rearward of that seating position. If a shoulder belt were attached to a school bus seat back, the belt may prevent the seat back from deflecting forward in the manner required by S5.1.3 of Standard No. 222 to protect the rearward passenger. In other words, in a crash the seat back will not perform in a manner that would provide protection to an unrestrained passenger. Even if the seat back deflects as required by Standard No. 222, it is possible that compartmentalization could be compromised by the attachment of a shoulder belt to a school bus seat back. These relate to possible problems resulting from a load application of two different forces on the school bus seat in a severe crash. In a forward collision, a passenger restrained by the shoulder belt would load the belt at an earlier point in time than the point at which the seat back is impacted by an unbelted occupant seated directly rearward of the seat. The forward force on the seat back from the shoulder belt would tilt the seat back forward prior to the impact of the rearward unbelted occupant against the seat back. The unbelted occupant would ramp up the tilted seat back in the crash, rather than be contained in what had been a compartmentalized space. That occupant not contained in the compartment would be at greater risk of injury due to possible ejection and/or impacts against hard or unforgiving surfaces.(3) Both the head of the unrestrained passenger and the head of the restrained passenger could impact, possibly injuring both children. The head of the unrestrained passenger could impact the head of the restrained passenger, resulting in possible injury to the two passengers. Compartmentalization could be compromised in other ways as well. The seat backs of school buses must meet head protection requirements specified in S5.3.1. The performance requirements in S5.3.1 generally lead manufacturers to pad their seat backs with energy-absorbing foam and to ensure that there are no hard structures in the seat back that can cause head injuries to the passenger rearward of the seat back in a crash. Anchoring a shoulder belt to the seat back may require the installation of rigid components, which may cause the seat back to no longer meet S5.3.1. The seat backs must also meet leg protection requirements specified in S5.3.2 of Standard No. 222. The requirements are generally met by padding and other measures to protect passengers' knees as they impact seat backs in a crash. Apparently BDC modifies the school bus seat by installing a cross bar and D-ring structure to mount the belts and by installing a steel lap and shoulder belt retraction system within the seat back. The knee and leg protection requirements of the standard must continue to be met with the retrofitted components in the seat back. In addition to the issues discussed above, care should be taken to ensure that passengers will not be entangled in the shoulder belt webbing material in a crash. Shoulder belts that have a considerable amount of webbing around the head and neck area of children pose a risk of strangulation or other neck injuries. For the above reasons, we believe that a school bus seating system with an integrated lap and shoulder belt system might reduce the crash protection provided by compartmentalization. (4) There is limited information about how an integrated lap and shoulder belt system on a school bus seat would perform in a crash or affect the current safety of school buses. We are undertaking a comprehensive school bus safety research program to evaluate better ways of retaining occupants in the seating compartment. As part of that program, we will be looking into possible ways of redesigning the school bus seat as well as integrating a lap and shoulder belt into the seat that is compatible with compartmentalization. Also, we plan on conducting some research on extra padding, not only for the seat itself but also for the bus side wall. Information from this research program will help researchers better understand and develop the next generation of occupant protection systems for school buses.
Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from installing any modification that "make[s] inoperative 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 . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on the vehicle would be subject to fines of up to $1,100 per violation and to injunctive relief. The compartmentalization requirements of Standard No. 222 include requirements that a protective seat back must be provided to protect an unrestrained passenger. We believe that replacing a school bus seat with a seating system that has a torso belt is likely to make inoperative an element of design installed as part of the compartmentalization concept. We are concerned about the continued compliance of the bus with Standard No. 222's seat deflection and head and leg protection requirements. We are concerned about the ability of the bus to continue to provide required crash protection to children regardless of whether a belt is used.
Compartmentalization is intended to restrain passengers in a crash regardless of whether they buckle up. A torso belt may reduce that level of safety to an unbelted passenger. As previously stated, we have concerns about a product that might interfere with the ability of a school bus to protect unbelted occupants. We will be evaluating integrated lap and shoulder belt systems in our school bus research program. The program will provide information that will help us better assess the merits, costs and feasibility of having integrated seat belts on school buses. Before closing, we wish to address a statement that BDC made in its marketing literature in support of seat belts on large school buses. BDC states that its "dynamic test data" shows that in a 30 mile per hour (mph) school bus crash, an unbelted occupant "suffered fatal head injuries (2000 HIC level) when his/her head came in contact with a standard school bus seat." These test data apparently result from computer simulations conducted for BDC. The data do not reflect the data we have obtained in actual crash testing of school buses. Actual crash test data from a 30 mph barrier crash conducted by NHTSA indicate that HIC measurements recorded by calibrated test dummies are all well below the 1,000 threshold level. On a final note, we would like to point out that many of your newer school buses may still be under the school bus manufacturer's warranty. Before you decide to retrofit any school bus with any seat belt, it may be prudent for you to share BDC's information with the school bus manufacturer, and request a determination whether the school bus manufacturer will continue to honor warranties if the BDC seat belts are placed on school buses. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
1. We note that this statement is misleading. NHTSA does not "certify" or "approve" test laboratories or facilities to conduct compliance testing or for any other purpose. 2. Regardless of whether a safety standard applies to the product, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30120 requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment to provide remedies if it is determined their products have safety-related defects. If it were determined that the seating systems had a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers and repair or replace the defective item without charge. 3. Another concern associated generally to the use of lap and lap and shoulder belts on large school buses relates to the potential for seat failure resulting from combined stresses exerted simultaneously or in close succession on a school bus seat by: (1) the belted occupant of the seat, where the seat belt is attached to the seat frame; and (2) an unbelted occupant, seated directly rearward of the seat, impacting the seat back. In a severe crash, the combined force applications on a particular seat resulting from a belted occupant and an unbelted occupant in the rearward seat could increase the likelihood of seat failure or seat deformation. We do not believe that school buses are frequently involved in the type of severe frontal crashes where this phenomenon is likely to occur. However, there is a risk that compartmentalization could be compromised in this circumstance. 4. The concerns discussed above relating to the compatibility of compartmentalization with existing designs of lap and shoulder belts also apply to the situation where a belt system is retrofitted to existing school bus seats (i.e., where the original bench seat is modified but not replaced).
|
1999 |
ID: PFTF142.TMPOpen Mr. Tim Peffley Dear Mr. Peffley: This responds to your January 23, 2001, letter regarding the use of laminated glass for AS2 and AS3 locations. You state in your letter that you are writing on behalf of your company, SpecTemp, Inc. (SpecTemp) which is a glass fabricator and temperer servicing an array of different industries. You ask about a lamination technique developed by UCB Chemical Corp. which creates a laminated unit by using a liquid resin application technique. More specifically, the glazing produced by this technique consists of two sheets of glass held together by a liquid resin which, when cured, will provide adhesive strength as a glass laminate. SpecTemp is seeking from this office a letter that "interprets and condones using laminated, fully tempered safety glass lites, as a unit, in AS2 and AS3 vehicle locations." Further you ask 1) whether there are special tests that must be conducted, outside of your normal DOT testing, for laminated glass that will be used in AS2 and AS3 vehicle locations, 2) whether you must designate any special markings when using laminated glass in side lite installations, and 3) whether you can use your current DOT etch designation. As explained below, outside of the performance, location, labeling, and certification requirements contained in this agency's glazing standard for the type and location of glazing described above, no "special tests" or "special markings" exist. Furthermore, you may use your current DOT etch designation for this glazing provided that it was assigned by this agency pursuant to the glazing standard requirements. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither endorses, approves, nor conducts testing of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects. I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter. First you ask whether there are special tests that must be conducted outside of your normal testing for laminated glass that will be used in AS2 and AS3 locations. The answer is no. Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. FMVSS No. 205 and ANS Z26 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "Items"), and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. (In your letter, you incorrectly identified the codes AS2 and AS3 as "vehicle locations." Those designations are codes required on glazing materials by section 6 of ANS Z26.) Your company's product, a laminated glass, may be used in the vehicle areas designated for Item 2 and/or Item 3 glazing subject to its meeting the prescribed tests for those Items contained in FMVSS No. 205. Your second and third questions ask whether you must designate any special markings when using laminated glass in side lite installations, and whether you can use your current DOT etch designation. No "special markings" requirements exist for the glazing you describe, and you may continue to use your manufacturer code mark assigned by DOT. (In your letter, you incorrectly refer to the manufacturers code mark as a "DOT designation.") However, you must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6 of FMVSS No. 205. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. 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, Enclosure |
2001 |
ID: Phillips.jegOpen Mrs. Pam Phillips Dear Mrs. Phillips: The State of Indiana Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division, referred to this agency your complaint regarding the purchase of a used 1991 Mercury Sable from a local Lincoln Mercury dealer. According to your letter, before you purchased the car, you noticed that the air bag light stayed on. You stated that an employee of the dealer told you "he would fix the air bag light that was staying on, that it would not be a problem for [you] just to bring the car back in and it would be taken care of." You stated that he did not tell you at the time of purchase that it was a great expense to correct the problem. You also stated that when you brought the car back in to get the light fixed, you were told they could not fix it, that "it was against federal law." You stated that you were never told that the light was on because the air bags were not working. You stated that you found out that the air bags did not work when your daughter was in a crash and the air bags never went off. You stated that you are very upset that the dealership sold a car that in your opinion should never have been sold to the public. I am sorry to hear about the experiences you have had with your car. I am pleased to hear that your daughter was wearing her safety belt. The laws we administer do not enable us to help you with the problem you identify. You may wish to consult with a private attorney to determine whether any remedies may be available to you under any other laws, including state laws. It might be helpful to provide you with some background information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and our requirements for air bag warning lights. NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. One of the standards we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Manufacturers install air bags in their vehicles to meet the requirement of this standard. Moreover, with regard to air bag indicator lights, paragraph S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. The purpose of the readiness indicator is to advise vehicle occupants of problems in the air bag system. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to used vehicles. There is a provision of Federal law that prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This provision would prohibit a dealer from disabling a readiness indicator on a used vehicle that shows a problem with the air bag system. However, it would not have the effect of requiring a dealer to repair a used vehicle with an air bag system that has a problem. I note that the "make inoperative" provision would not prohibit a dealer from repairing the air bag system, including a problem with the readiness indicator, on a used vehicle. NHTSA, in fact, recommends that all safety systems on used vehicles be in good working order. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack cc: State of Indiana ref:208 |
2001 |
ID: PonzianiOpenMr. Richard L. Ponziani President RLP Engineering 1958 Home Path Court Centerville, OH 45459 Dear Mr. Ponziani: 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 product, which is referred to as an Electronic Intelligent Turn Signal System in the technical paper accompanying your letter. You described your product as a turn signal system that uses existing vehicle computers and wheel speed sensors to determine a situation appropriate shut off point, which you believe offers a safety improvement over current, mechanical turn signal operating units on passenger vehicles. Your letter stated that by combining steering wheel angle and steering wheel rotation data with other measures such as vehicle yaw and travel distance, your system may prevent instances of turn signal miscommunication, thereby increasing safety. Specifically, you cited examples in which the driver jars the steering wheel and the turn signal shuts off prematurely or lane change maneuvers where the steering wheel rotation is not sufficient to trigger turn signal cancellation. Although we have not examined your product, based on the information you have provided to the agency and the analysis below, we have concluded that your product would comply with the standard, provided that all of the other requirements of FMVSS No. 108 related to turn signals continue to also be met. 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). 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, 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. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) prohibits any person from selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal safety standards (see 49 U.S.C. 30112). After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the make inoperative prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with applicable standards. The make inoperative provision does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles, but we urge owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Turning to the specific issues raised by your letter, FMVSS No. 108 sets forth requirements for turn signal lamps in light vehicles. First, Table 3, Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment, of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that each passenger car, motorcycle, multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), truck, bus, and trailer of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) in overall width must be equipped with two amber turn signals at or near the front of the vehicle and two red or amber turn signals at or near the rear of the vehicle (note that trailers only require two red or amber turn signals to the rear); Table 3 also requires those vehicles (other than trailers) to be equipped with a turn signal operating unit[1] and a turn signal flasher. Standard No. 108 also specifies other turn signal lamp requirements, including ones pertaining to location, dimensions, and photometric output. However, we will not discuss those provisions in detail, because your submissions do not suggest that your product would impact these characteristics of the turn signals, but would instead be limited to their operation (i.e., the point at which the turn signal would be switched off in the course of a turning maneuver). The provision of particular relevance here is paragraph S5.1.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108, which provides: The turn signal operating unit on each passenger car, and multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus less than 80 inches in overall width shall be self-canceling by steering wheel rotation and capable of cancellation by a manually operated control. As we pointed out in an April 2, 1986 letter of interpretation to Mr. Jacques Delphin, there are no performance requirements for the self-cancelling feature, so the agency concluded that the aftermarket device in question which cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn would not impair the effectiveness of the turn signal operating unit or create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. However, in a May 30, 1997 letter of interpretation to Mr. Reggie Lawrence, we concluded that an aftermarket Blinker Delay System that would prevent the automatic cancellation of the turn signal system for three to four seconds after the front wheels of a towing vehicle have been straightened (to indicate that a turn has not been completed) would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, by defeating the vehicles attempt to self-cancel the turn signals operation by steering wheel rotation. These letters are consistent in light of the provision in paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard, which provides, No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard. Thus, an aftermarket device which accelerates self-cancellation of turn signal operation immediately after a turn is consistent with the standard, but one which delays self-cancellation is not. However, if your product is an original equipment (OE) turn signal system, which provides a control unit with a complete logic for self-cancelling turn signal operation (as compared to a supplemental system which changes the operation of an existing system), we conclude that it would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. As described, your system evaluates driver steering inputs, as well as a variety of other information provided by vehicle wheel speed sensors, to determine the appropriate point for turning off the turn signal. (We note that your technical paper also states that your system would include a button allowing the driver to cancel the turn signal event at any time, thereby meeting the second requirement of paragraph S5.1.1.5.) Therefore, because the standard does not specify precisely when cancellation must occur (and based on our understanding that steering wheel rotation would be a triggering element each time the system does cancel the turn signal), we conclude that an OE Electronic Intelligent Turn Signal System as you have described would meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, provided that all of the standards other relevant requirements for turns signal are met. 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.3/22/07 [1] A turn signal operating unit is defined as that part of a turn signal system by which the operator of a vehicle causes the signal units to function (see Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard SAE J589, Turn Signal Operating Units (rev. April 1964). Table 3 of FMVSS No. 108 incorporates SAE J589 (rev. April 1964) by reference, which includes a durability test for the turn signal system. |
2007 |
ID: PORSCH3.wpdOpen Michael Love, Manager, Compliance Dear Mr. Love: On April 25, 1996, I issued an interpretation to Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche), concerning the readiness indicator requirement in S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. In that letter, I interpreted that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standard to mean that a readiness indicator was not required for either voluntarily-installed inflatable restraints (air bags), i.e., those installed in addition to required safety systems, or for air bags installed for compliance with a standard other than Standard No. 208. The interpretation also stated: [I]f you voluntarily provide a readiness indicator, and decide to combine it with the required readiness indicator, the information provided by the former must not confuse or obscure the information provided by the latter about the required air bag. The indicator must distinguish between the different air bag systems, such as by having dissimilar signals for the different systems. We have received substantial feedback from you and other motor vehicle manufacturers disagreeing with the conclusion prohibiting a combined indicator that gives nondistinguishing messages. We also received a written request from the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), dated June 25, 1996, asking that we reconsider the interpretation. Upon reconsideration, this letter replaces and supersedes my interpretation of April 25, 1996 to Porsche. In addition, as part of the reconsideration process, we have reconsidered that portion of a November 27, 1991 interpretation which concludes that an indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with the S4.5.2 indicator unless a distinguishable message is provided. That portion of the November 27, 1991 interpretation is also superseded by this letter. Porsche asked whether the S4.5.2 indicator requirement applies (1) to a voluntarily-installed inflatable restraint (not needed to comply with Standard No. 208), or (2) to an inflatable restraint installed to meet the requirements of another standard (such as Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection). You stated that Porsche believed that in both of these situations the manufacturer could install:
As explained below, we agree. Moreover, we also conclude that a voluntarily-provided indicator for pretensioners may be combined with the required Standard No. 208 indicator without providing a distinguishable message. S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 states: An occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash shall have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own readiness and shall be clearly visible from the driver's designated seating position. We believe that this provision, in the overall context of Standard No. 208, could be interpreted in more than one way. In particular, the requirement could be interpreted as applying to all occupant protection systems that deploy in the event of a crash, or just to those provided to comply with Standard No. 208. On the one hand, one might conclude that an indicator is required for all air bags because the language of S4.5.2 does not limit its application to systems provided to comply with Standard No. 208, and because Standard No. 208 has historically addressed occupant protection broadly, i.e., its requirements are not limited to frontal protection. Conversely, one could reach the opposite result, i.e., that an indicator is required only for air bags used to comply with Standard No. 208, because the standard's dynamic test requirements have, over time and as a practical matter, become limited to frontal protection. After all, an indicator's purpose is to ensure that an air bag or other crash deployed system will provide benefits for the life of the vehicle by warning the driver when repairs are needed. So it would be logical to conclude from the overall context of Standard No. 208 that the indicator requirements are there to ensure that the air bags provided to comply with the standard will provide benefits for the life of the vehicle. Viewed from that context, the indicator requirements do not address air bags installed for other purposes. Under the first interpretation, i.e. that an indicator is required for all air bags, a single indicator could clearly be used for all air bags, without providing distinguishing messages, because nothing in Standard No. 208 suggests that separate indicators or messages are required. The second interpretation, i.e. that an indicator is required only for air bags used to comply with Standard No. 208 raises the issue whether a single indicator without distinguishing messages could be used for required and non-required air bags. As suggested in my April 25 letter, it is arguable that the requirement in S4.5.2 would not be satisfied by an indicator providing non-distinguishable messages which may relate either to air bags required by Standard No. 208 or to other systems. After considering the language of Standard No. 208 and its purposes, we conclude that it is appropriate to interpret Standard No. 208, S4.5.2, not to require an indicator for air bags other than those required to comply with that standard. While the agency is stopping short of interpreting the standard as requiring an indicator for such voluntarily-installed air bags, however, we nonetheless encourage such indicators. Consistent with that encouragement, and considering the ambiguity of S4.5.2, we believe it is appropriate to interpret the standard as permitting a single indicator, without distinguishing messages, for all air bags. The reason for this conclusion is that the message of the readiness indicator is that a component of an air bag system (or other occupant protection system which deploys in the event of a crash) needs the attention of an automotive expert such as a dealer. Regardless of which system is causing the indicator to signal the existence of a malfunction, we believe that when vehicle owners see the indicator provide a warning, they will understand that there is a problem with an air bag (or other occupant protection system which deploys in the event of a crash) and will take the vehicle to a dealer or repair business. Since the dealer or repair business can inform the owner which system is malfunctioning, it does not matter that the indicator does not make that distinction. This result is, as noted above, consistent with the view that S4.5.2 applies to non-required air bags. As indicated above, NHTSA has also reconsidered that portion of a November 27, 1991 interpretation which concludes that an indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with the S4.5.2 indicator unless a distinguishable message is provided. The rationale for that interpretation had some similarities to the April 25, 1996 interpretation to Porsche about air bags other than those used to comply with Standard No. 208. First, NHTSA concluded that S4.5.2 does not require an indicator for pretensioners. Second, the agency concluded that a voluntarily provided indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with the S4.5.2 indicator unless a distinguishable message is provided. In concluding that S4.5.2 does not require an indicator for pretensioners, the agency considered whether pretensioners are "an occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash." The agency noted that even though pretensioners are designed to activate in the event of a crash, they will not "deploy" the belts if the belts have not been manually fastened. NHTSA stated that it does not view the pretensioners as "deploying" the belts but instead providing a final, albeit important, adjustment to belts which have already been deployed. Just as there is some ambiguity with respect to whether S4.5.2 covers air bags other than those used to comply with Standard No. 208, there is ambiguity with respect to whether it covers pretensioners. The word "deploy" is defined in the dictionary and in common usage as "to arrange, place, or move strategically or appropriately." While it is certainly true that pretensioners will not "deploy" unfastened safety belts, pretensioners can be seen as "deploying" fastened safety belts in the event of a crash, i.e., moving them into position to provide better occupant protection. NHTSA believes that this ambiguity should be resolved in the same manner as for air bags other than those used to comply with Standard No. 208. That is, the agency will not interpret the standard as requiring an indicator for pretensioners, but nonetheless encourages such indicators. As part of that encouragement, and given the ambiguity of S4.5.2, we interpret the standard as permitting a single indicator, without distinguishing messages, for all air bags and pretensioners. I note that we are not interpreting S4.5.2 as permitting indicators for devices other than deploying occupant crash protection systems to be combined with the required indicator without distinguishing messages. I also note that, should the agency in the future receive information demonstrating that indicators for multiple air bag systems without distinguishing messages are creating confusion for drivers, we may revisit this subject in rulemaking. Finally, because this interpretation reflects consideration of the unique history of Standard No. 208, I caution against using it for precedent concerning how the agency might interpret other standards. If you have any other questions or need some additional information, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:208#214 d:7/30/96 |
1996 |
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.