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: 15851.drnOpenMr. Dale Thornsberry Dear Mr. Thornsberry: This responds to your request for our views on using fifteen-passenger vans to transport school children for activities sponsored by your school district. As explained below, we strongly urge that you use school buses when transporting school children for school activities. Some background information may be helpful. More than an "advisory group," the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and to apply those standards to all school buses. Such standards became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to every school bus manufactured on or after that date. The standards are at 49 CFR Part 571. Under Federal law, a vehicle, including a van designed for carrying 11 or more persons is a bus. A bus is a school bus if used or intended for use in transporting students to and from school or school-related activities. NHTSA's statute requires each person selling a new school bus to ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards. Thus, a person may sell a new bus, including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons (including the driver), to a school or school district only if the vehicle is certified as complying with our school bus safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the bus. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus and the vehicle is not certified as such. Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Under Federal law, school districts are not prohibited from using vans to transport school children, whether or not such vans meet school bus safety standards. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses. Under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, NHTSA has issued guidelines for States to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations on various operational aspects of State school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 (copy enclosed) recommends that any vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus meet all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. Each State determines the extent to which it adopts the recommendations in Guideline 17. For information on Idaho's requirements on transportation of school children, please contact Idaho's State Director of Pupil Transportation: Rodney McKnight, Coordinator Mr. McKnight's telephone number is: (208) 334-2203. Finally, it is NHTSA's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards have proven to be the safest way to transport school children. Use of noncomplying vehicles to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since liability would likely be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on this issue. I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." 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, ref:VSA#571.3 d.9/22/97 |
1997 |
ID: 15877.ztvOpenMr. Wayne Glenn Dear Mr. Glenn: This is in reply to your letter of August 8, 1997, to Donald Trilling of the Office of the Secretary. You wrote asking for DOT approval of your lighting kit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the unit of the Department of Transportation that is responsible for the issuance of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These include standards for motor vehicle lighting. You have told us that your small business involves the occasional towing of equipment. Since "it is not feasible to wire lights on each piece of equipment," you developed a light kit. Your kit appears to consist of lamps that are intended for temporary use on vehicles that are intended to be towed and which otherwise lack lighting equipment. The examples you cite are a trailer used for a hayride, "farm equipment, house trailers, modular homes, or any piece of equipment that needs to be towed." All trailers that are manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways are "motor vehicles" subject to our jurisdiction, and must be equipped with lamps and reflectors that comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflectors and Associated Equipment. Because the equipment that your business tows appears to lack lighting equipment, we surmise that these are trailers whose use of the public roads is only incidental to their primary use as farm implements or mobile homes, and hence not "motor vehicles." Under this circumstance, your light kit would not be "motor vehicle equipment" because it is not intended for use on a "motor vehicle," and therefore not subject to our regulation. Even if the kit were considered to be "motor vehicle equipment," NHTSA has no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, we could not grant your request for approval. We do advise, however, as to the relationship of motor vehicle equipment to our regulations. In your case, NHTSA has no safety standards that apply to temporary lighting kits of the nature you have described. The acceptability of these kits is determined by local laws, the laws of the places where the kit is being used. We are unable to tell you how local laws might affect the use of your kit, but local Departments of Motor Vehicles might be able to help. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack ref:108 |
1997 |
ID: 15899.ztvOpenMr. Gary Starr Dear Mr. Starr: This is in reply to your letters of August 27, 1997, to Secretary Slater and to myself, seeking a determination that the ZAP electric bicycle is not a "motor vehicle." We deferred responding to your letter in order to receive additional information from Dale Kardos, who provided it to us on September 30, 1997. This letter, then, responds to the arguments you raised in your letters of August 27 and September 30. Your first argument and third arguments, in essence, are that the agency should exclude from regulation the ZAP, which has a maximum speed of 18 miles per hour, because NHTSA does not regulate vehicles with a top speed of less than 20 miles per hour with "abnormal" configurations. These arguments are based upon the agency's interpretative policy under which motor vehicles with a top speed of 20 miles per hour or less and with an abnormal configuration have been excluded from regulation. Under this policy, as you note, NHTSA has excluded the TWIP electric scooter (letter of October 6, 1993), and the Trans2 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (letter of April 1, 1994), but included a "super golf car" (letter of January 4, 1995). You also say, without identifying the source, that on April 16, 1995, NHTSA said that the policy would apply to on-road golf carts. You are correct that NHTSA, by interpretation, has excluded "motor vehicles" from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards if they had an "abnormal" configuration and if their maximum speed was no greater than 20 miles per hour. However, NHTSA stated in 1996 that it considered the "abnormal" test subjective and arbitrary, and announced its intent to abandon this line of interpretations. In its place, the agency has proposed a regulation that would apply to all four-wheeled motor vehicles with a maximum speed of up to 25 miles per hour, and for faster golf vehicles with a maximum speed between 15 and 25 miles per hour. As you note, this rulemaking does not cover two-wheeled vehicles. We have reviewed our letter of October 6, 1997, to Peer Enterprises which you cited. This letter concluded that the TWIP electric scooter was not a motor vehicle because it was not intended to be used on the public roads (i.e., in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes). However, the letter further opined that the TWIP would not be a motor vehicle if the interpretative test was applied to it. It had a maximum speed of 9 miles per hour and the scooter could be folded to make it portable. Thus, the agency concluded that "this configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles." The ZAP with a top speed of 18 miles per hour and a configuration similar to that of small motorcycles and mopeds is not "abnormal" under these interpretations. Therefore, the agency cannot apply this interpretation to excuse the ZAP from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We do not believe that the low-speed vehicle rulemaking unfairly discriminates between two and four-wheeled vehicles. NHTSA has always considered bicycles with full time motors to be "motor vehicles," (specifically, a two-wheeled motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less), regardless of their maximum speed, and required their compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to motor driven cycles. To grant your request would be to deregulate a category of motor vehicle which to all intents and purposes has had no difficulties in complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your second argument is that, if a state does not license a vehicle for on-road use the vehicle should not be considered a "motor vehicle," in accordance with a NHTSA remark of May 17, 1993 (source not cited). Mr. Kardos informs us that 22 states now do not define motorized bicycles as "motor vehicles" and that 21 of these do not require registration of the operator. Similar legislation is said to be pending in New York and six additional states. You also cite NHTSA's exclusion from regulation of mini-bikes as pertinent to your argument, saying that "it must be presumed . . . that this exclusion was based on the fact that many states do not require licenses for mini-bikes and that they travel at speeds less than 20 mph, and not primarily manufactured for highways." We do not find this argument persuasive. You cited the State of California as one of those that does not consider a motorized bicycle to be a motor vehicle. For whatever purpose California may have decided to exclude motorized bicycles from registration and licensing requirements (perhaps to be used on trails forbidden to motor vehicles), it does not prohibit their use on the public roads. In fact Cal. Veh, Code Sec. 21200 makes motorized bicycles subject to the rules of the road. Most importantly, motorized bicycles must conform to NHTSA's requirements for motor driven cycles (or those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for bicycles). Cal. Veh. Code Sec. 24016(a)(1) requires a motorized bicycle to
Under the Safety Act's preemption provisions (49 U.S.C. 30103(b)), a state may not establish or continue in effect a state standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. Thus, California law is consistent with NHTSA's present line of interpretations that distinguish between bicycles with a power assist, which are not motor vehicles under Federal law but subject to the regulations of the CPSC, and motorized bicycles which are motor vehicles under Federal law and subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Although Sec. 24016(a)(1) is expressed in the disjunctive, it cannot be read as affording manufacturers of motorized bicycles the option of meeting either NHTSA or CPSC standards, since this is inconsistent with NHTSA interpretations of Federal law and is therefore preempted by Sec. 30103(b). This state law must be interpreted as following Federal law, and as requiring motorized bicycles (but not bicycles with power assists) to meet Federal standards applicable to motor driven cycles if they are to be used on California roads, even if they are not motor vehicles for purposes of other California laws. Further, we do not consider mini-bike safety apposite to the question of the safety of motorized bicycles. Mini-bikes are smaller vehicles driven by younger operators. The agency has cogently expressed its concerns, in a letter of February 23, 1971 to Thomas Ferlito:
Your fourth argument is that the ZAP is not a motor vehicle because it is not manufactured for use on highways. According to your letter "they are allowed on some public roads but not highways. And the definition clearly says primarily for public streets, roads and highways." We do not agree with this argument either. It would be contrary to the mission of NHTSA to reduce crashes, deaths, and injuries if NHTSA parsed the statutory definition to exclude from regulation those motor vehicles manufactured primarily for use on the "public streets and roads," but which were not allowed on "highways", particularly since the definition of these terms may vary among the states. There are other aspects of your letter that deserve a reply. You believe that "it is important to note that most prior sales were ZAP kits, that is motor systems, that the user applied to their own bikes and not complete vehicles." Under the agency's kit car interpretations, if the kit supplier provides all parts necessary for the vehicle, and all parts are new, the kit supplier is regarded as the manufacturer of the kit car and required to ensure that, when assembled, it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Similarly, if ZAP is providing the engine to a purchaser of a bicycle at the time of its sale, for later installation by the purchaser, we would regard ZAP as the manufacturer of a motor driven cycle that must meet Federal requirements. However, if ZAP sells the motor alone and not as part of a transaction involving the sale of a new bicycle, there would be no compliance responsibility imposed by Federal law on ZAP. You have also commented that the CPSC specifies that bicycles have the rear brake control on the right handlebar "yet motor vehicle standards require the front brake control by the left-hand control." You have been misinformed. If a motorcycle has a front brake control, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 "Motorcycle Controls and Displays" requires it to be on the right handlebar (Item 10, Table 1). Finally, you argue that "if the government requires pedaling, this will clearly be discrimination against the disabled," in contravention of "The American Disability Act." What the government is requiring is that motorized bicycles be provided the same level of safety performance as motor driven cycles. This protects all citizens, regardless of whether they are or are not disabled. While this letter was being prepared, we also received your letter of November 3, 1997, to Taylor Vinson, titled "Supplemental information for ZAP indicating that ZAP should not be a motor vehicle." We were interested to learn of the requirements of the CPSC for bicycles but we continue to believe that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are more appropriate for bicycles that are motor driven. We appreciate the offer of Mr. Kardos to provide a ZAP for our inspection, but it will not be required at this time. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson 202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack cc: Senator Feinstein Rep. Lynn Woolsey Dale Kardos ref:123#VSA |
1997 |
ID: 15926.drnOpenMr. Jacques Schalckens Dear Mr. Schalckens: This responds to your request for information on registering as an agent for service of process for a foreign manufacturer that wishes to import motorcycles and buses. You also wish to know about Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements for the imported vehicles. The information you seek is provided below. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the buses to be imported are designed to seat at least nineteen persons. Your letter requested information on "manufacturer status from D.O.T. under the small Volume Manufacturer program," which you explained refers to low volume manufacturers' exemptions from generally applicable CAFE standards. NHTSA has established CAFE standards only for passenger cars and light trucks. Since there are no CAFE standards for motorcycles or for buses, manufacturers of motorcycles or buses need not meet CAFE standards. I will now describe how to register as an agent for service of process for a foreign manufacturer. Prior to the assignment of a DOT identification number, the manufacturer must designate in writing, an agent who is a permanent resident of the United States upon whom all processes, notices, orders, decisions and requirements may be made. This designation and its acceptance must comply with 49 C.F.R. 551.45. The required designation should be mailed to the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590, and must include, in addition to the information already submitted, the following: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which must be a permanent resident of the United States and may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent; and 7. The signature of one with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath the signature. I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 551.45 and a sample of a properly executed designation of agent for your reference. Also included is information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any questions about the requirements for the appointment of an agent, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Sharon Vaughn of my staff at (202) 366-1834. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions on motor vehicle matters other than the appointment of an agent, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15928.drnOpenMr. Robert W. Hawkinson Dear Mr. Hawkinson: This responds to your August 28, 1997, request for an interpretation of organizations that are "schools" to which you must not sell buses that are not certified as school buses. As explained below, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider the YMCA or Salvation Army to be "schools," the buses you sell to these organizations need not meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to school buses. In your letter, you explain that the YMCA and Salvation Army are interested in purchasing 15-passenger Ford Econoline Club Wagons. You are unsure whether NHTSA would consider either organization to be a school. You note that the YMCA may offer classes in basket weaving or wood working to school age children. The Salvation Army uses 15-passenger vehicles to transport school age children to summer camp, which offers classes in archery and swimming. NHTSA's statute at 49 U.S.C. Section 30125 defines "schoolbus" as "a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school." By regulation (49 CFR Part 571.3), NHTSA has defined "bus" and "school bus." A bus is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." A school bus is "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." In interpreting "school," NHTSA has always looked at the nature of the particular institution purchasing the vehicles. If the central purpose is the education of primary, preprimary, or secondary students, NHTSA has determined that the buses sold must meet the FMVSSs applicable to school buses. If the institution serves a function that is custodial rather than educational, NHTSA has said that the buses need not meet the school bus standards. In an interpretation letter of November 20, 1978 to DeKalb Rental/Leasing, Inc. (copy enclosed), NHTSA determined that YMCAs are not schools. Similarly, because we consider the Salvation Army's function to be custodial rather than educational, we would not consider the Salvation Army summer camp to be a school. Since neither organization is a school, under Federal law the buses you sell to the YMCA or the Salvation Army summer camp need not be school buses. I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealers' Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." 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, |
1997 |
ID: 15938.ztvOpenTadashi Suzuki, Manager Dear Mr. Suzuki: This is in reply to your letter of August 29, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to two possible arrangements of a motorcycle tail and stop lamp, which has more than three lighted sections. Attachment 1 to your letter depicts the two rear lamp configurations. Attachments 2 and 3 are copies of correspondence in 1985 between Stanley and this Office asking similar questions about a combination rear motorcycle lamp with more than three lighted sections. Since Chief Counsel Berndt's letter to Stanley, dated March 1, 1985, SAE Standard J586 FEB84 has replaced SAE Standard J586c, August 1970, as Standard No. 108's specifications for stop lamps for motorcycles. However, there is no substantive change between the two standards that affect the 1985 interpretation. SAE Standard J585e, September 1977, remains the Federal specification for motorcycle taillamps. As before, both standards prescribe requirements for lamps with three lighted sections but are silent as to requirements for lighted sections greater than three. We have reviewed the paragraphs 3.1 and 4 of SAE Standard J585e, paragraphs 5.1.5.2 and 5.4.1 of SAE Standard J586, and S5.1.1.6 and S5.1.1.26(b) of Standard No. 108. These are the appropriate references cited in your letter that apply to this interpretations. In 1985, we informed you that Stanley's design for a lamp with four lighted sections "would be acceptable provided that each of the four compartments meets the minimum value specified for test points in a section when there are three lighted sections." We affirm that that 1985 interpretation remains our interpretation in 1997. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 15951-1.pjaOpenMr. Mike Laws Dear Mr. Laws: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the tilt bed trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. The answer is no, therefore a guard is required. As shown in the drawings you enclosed with your letter, your trailers are essentially of a flatbed design, equipped with a bed that hydraulically tilts to a 13 degree angle so that construction equipment may be loaded. At the back of the bed is a long triangular full width "approach plate" that allows construction equipment to transition from the ground up onto the bed without encountering the "bump" of the edge of the bed. When the bed is lowered into the horizontal position, for transit, the approach plate is hydraulically lowered to droop down slightly, to a position in which the lower edge of the plate is 19 inches off the ground. You state that installing an underride guard would make this trailer useless and you ask if a guard is required. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are low chassis vehicles and special purpose vehicles. Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your vehicle that may meet these configuration requirements is the approach plate itself, so the question becomes whether the approach plate is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicle. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure." To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit. To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load. Applying these principles to your approach plate, the agency concludes that it is not part of the chassis. First, the approach plate does not meet the "load supporting" aspect of the chassis definition because it approach ramp does not contribute to supporting cargo load. Further, the approach plate is not frame structure. It does not define the shape of the trailer. Instead, it hangs down from the rear end of the trailer, forming a protrusion from the outline of the trailer bed. The approach plate is not locked into another frame structural member in any manner. Neither the approach plate nor the steel plate arms attaching the approach plate to the sides of the trailer bed are of a similar size or strength to the other frame components. In consideration of these factors, we conclude that the approach plate is not part of the chassis, and the trailer is not a low chassis vehicle. We turn now to the question of whether your trailer is excluded as a special purpose vehicle. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."(1) Again, the approach plate is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied be the rear underride guard. Therefore, the approach plate would have to be considered work-performing equipment for the trailer to be excluded. There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971. Taken together, NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Approach plates do not perform work in this sense because they merely form a ramp between the ground and the vehicle driving onto the tilt bed.(2) Therefore, the approach plate is not work-performing equipment, and the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. Since your trailer does not meet the definition of an excluded category, it would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting our standards. We cannot provide specific guidance on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that other manufacturers of tilt bed trailers have told us that they have found engineering solutions that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of their vehicles. Some of them are using guard designs that deploy when in the flatbed configuration and automatically retract when in the tilted configuration. Another option to consider is whether your approach plate could "be" the guard. The approach plate already appears to meet the configurational requirements for an underride guard. If it does not currently meet the strength and energy absorption requirements, you might be able to reinforce or otherwise modify the approach plate sufficiently so that it would pass these requirements. If you can do this, the approach plate itself could be labeled and certified as a guard under Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards. Perhaps some of these solutions would work for you. We emphasize that you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for the vehicle's compliance. The agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential. Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, 1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998). 2. To the extent that this interpretation is inconsistent with interpretation letters to Mr. Thomas M. Joyce and Mr. R. H. Anderson of Landoll Corporation, interpreting the frame rails of tilt bed trailers as work-performing equipment, those prior interpretations are superceded. The basic answer in those letters did not depend on this point, and the analysis in this letter is more thorough. |
1998 |
ID: 16-000385 -- 49 CFR Part 581 - Response to Alliance GlobalOpen
Mr. Robert Strassburger Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. 80 7th St., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20001
Mr. Michael X. Cammisa Association of Global Automakers, Inc. 1050 K St., N.W., Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20001
Dear Mr. Strassburger and Mr. Cammisa:
This responds to your January 28, 2016 letter requesting an interpretation as to whether sensors mounted in a bumper for purposes of crash mitigation qualify for the exception to the no damage provision of 49 CFR Part 581 (the bumper standard). Based on the information you have provided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider these sensors to be components of the bumper system. These sensors would therefore be subject to the no damage provision of Part 581. If, as an interim measure, an automaker wishes to deploy an AEB system that does not comply with Part 581, it may seek an exemption from that standard under 49 CFR Part 555.
Background
On May 13, 2015, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced that in order to ensure that the Departments regulatory framework accelerates safety innovations, the Department would work to identify obstacles to safety innovations in its regulations to better understand where problems can be addressed internally and where we will need Congressional action.[1] Secretary Foxx and NHTSA Administrator Dr. Mark Rosekind both have invited stakeholders to help with this effort by submitting requests for interpretation, for exemptions, and petitions for rulemaking.
In response, you have submitted this letter on behalf of your organizations, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and the Association of Global Automakers (Global), expressing concern that NHTSAs bumper standard, codified at 49 CFR Part 581, could deter some auto manufacturers from more rapidly deploying a crash avoidance technology known as automatic electronic braking (AEB).[2] You noted NHTSAs announcement that, beginning with model year 2018, the agency would update its 5-Star Rating System to include AEB as a recommended safety technology, providing consumers with new information on technology with the potential to prevent rear-end crashes or reduce the impact speed of those crashes by automatically applying the brakes.[3] Your letter suggests that many currently available [AEB] systems rely on sensors and other related AEB equipment mounted on vehicle bumpers and that sensors so positioned may not satisfy the minimum requirements of Part 581 for standard equipment. Under Part 581, bumpers are subject to a pendulum test conducted at impact speeds of 1.5 and 2.5 mph, and a fixed barrier test conducted at an impact speed of 2.5 mph. You state that the bumper standard, and NHTSAs subsequent interpretations of it, are inhibiting the timely conversion of this important technology from optional equipment to standard equipment as well as inhibiting the rapid deployment of enhanced crash systems including those that may include pedestrian detection and facilitate greater levels of vehicle automation.
We are pleased to respond to your letter. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is a manufacturers responsibility to determine whether a motor vehicle complies with all applicable regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.
The Bumper Standard
Part 581 was issued in response to the 1972 Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, in which Congress required DOT (by delegation, NHTSA) to prescribe bumper standards for passenger motor vehicles in order to reduce economic loss resulting from damage to passenger motor vehicles involved in motor vehicle accidents.[4] NHTSA established the bumper standard at 49 CFR Part 581, which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger motor vehicles in low-speed front and rear collisions. As authorized by Congress,[5] Part 581 applies only to passenger motor vehicles and not to multipurpose passenger vehicles[6] or low-speed vehicles.[7]
As mentioned above, Part 581 contains two basic damageability tests for bumpers and bumper components: a pendulum test conducted at 1.5 and 2.5 mph, and a barrier test conducted at 2.5 mph. Under each of these tests, the vehicle must meet certain damage criteria specified in 581.5. Your letter focuses on the damage criteria listed in 581.5(c)(8), which states that, following the bumper tests,
[t]he exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours 30 minutes after completion of each pendulum and barrier impact, except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. (Emphasis added.) 581.4 defines bumper face bar as any component of the bumper system that contacts the impact ridge of the pendulum test device.
As you discussed in your letter, NHTSA has issued interpretations regarding what equipment may be part of the bumper face bar. You expressed concern that those interpretations might indicate that bumper-mounted AEB sensors would not be part of the bumper face bar, and would therefore have to meet the damage criteria of 581.5(c). You also stated that the prior interpretations indicated NHTSAs intent to decide whether particular components are part of the bumper system on a case-by-case basis, and asked that NHTSA conclude that bumper-mounted AEB sensors are in fact, components of the bumper system because they help to perform a protective function with respect to frontal collisions, and should therefore not be subject to the damage criteria of 581.5(c)(8).
We agree that the question of whether particular components are part of the bumper system is properly decided on a case-by-case basis. The answer to that question will be determinative of whether bumper-mounted AEB sensors need to meet the damage criteria of the bumper standard that is, whether they must withstand the pendulum and barrier tests with no damage.
NHTSA has consistently interpreted the bumper face bar as including components that are integral parts of the bumper face bar, or are needed to attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame, like shielding panels, tape strips, and certain types of grilles that, like the bumper, serve a load-bearing, protective purpose. [8] On the other hand, NHTSA has found that bumper-mounted radar sensors, directional signals, and fog lamps are exterior surfaces that are not part of the bumper face bar and therefore are subject to the damage criteria.[9] Here, NHTSA concludes that the bumper-mounted sensor devices that some automakers may seek to introduce as standard AEB equipment are not integral parts of the bumper face bar, or components and associated fasteners needed to attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Rather, they are more clearly akin to the other sensors and lamps NHTSA has previously found to be subject to the damage requirements of Part 581. The fact that AEB (and bumper-mounted sensors that may be part of an AEB system) helps to mitigate damage in low-speed collisions does not make AEB sensors integral parts of the bumper face bar. They would therefore be exterior surfaces subject to 581.5(c)(8).
Even if NHTSA were to conclude that bumper-mounted AEB sensors were an integral part of the bumper face bar, 49 CFR 581.5(c)(5) further requires that [t]he vehicles propulsion, suspension, steering, and braking systems shall remain in adjustment and shall operate in the normal manner after conducting the pendulum and barrier tests. Your letter suggests that some bumper-mounted AEB sensors may require realignment to facilitate proper system operation following Part 581 testing. Given that AEB systems on a vehicle are part of that vehicles braking system, in the event damage to an AEB sensor during Part 581 compliance testing causes any of these systems not to operate in a normal manner, the vehicle would not comply with Part 581. If a vehicle manufacturer is unable to install an AEB system in a given passenger motor vehicle model that complies with Part 581, they may wish to petition NHTSA for a temporary exemption under 49 CFR Part 555. Such an exemption may be an effective interim approach for some manufacturers until they are able to develop AEB systems that comply with Part 581, or until that regulation is amended (through rulemaking) to address bumper-mounted standards differently. We remain confident that your members will be able to speed the introduction of AEB into the marketplace in ways that comply with applicable vehicle requirements, and that bumper-mounted AEB sensors able to meet the damage criteria of Part 581[10] will build consumer confidence in these new systems. We look forward to working with you further to speed the introduction of effective AEB systems throughout the fleet. If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 7/13/16 Ref: Part 581
[1] See Transportation Sec. Foxx announces steps to accelerate road safety innovation, May 13, 2015, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/nhtsa-will-accelerate-v2v-efforts (last accessed Feb. 18, 2016). [2] For more information about how AEB works, see http://www.safercar.gov/AEB (last accessed Feb. 18, 2016). [3] See U.S. DOT to add automatic emergency braking to list of recommended advanced safety technologies in 5-Star Rating System, Nov. 2, 2015, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/nhtsa-recommends-aeb-11022015 (last accessed Feb. 18, 2016). [4] This section of the Act is now codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 325. [5] 49 U.S.C. 32501 and 32502. [6] NHTSA defines multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) at 49 CFR 571.3. [7] NHTSA defines low-speed vehicle (LSV) at 49 CFR 571.3. [8] See 43 FR 20804 (May 15, 1978); 43 FR 40230 (September 11, 1978); letter to Kenneth M. Bush, American Suzuki Motor Corporation (March 9, 2004) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/581interpretation.html. [9] See 43 FR 40230 (September 11, 1978); letter to William Shapiro, Volvo Cars of North America (December 11, 1995) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/95/nht95-4.100.html). [10] Again, we note that Part 581 applies only to passenger motor vehicles and not to MPVs or LSVs. |
2016 |
ID: 16-000745 Twisted Restorations revisedOpen
Mr. Ian Robinson Twisted Automotive Limited Thirsk Industrial Park York Road Thirsk, North Yorkshire YO7 3TA
Dear Mr. Robinson:
This responds to your February 12, 2016 letter describing your interest in importing Land Rover Defender vehicles that are more than 25 years old into the United States (U.S.) and then restoring and modifying these vehicles in U.S. facilities before selling them. Your letter describes basic and beyond basic levels of modification and asks if the modifications are so substantial as to be considered a manufacture of new motor vehicles. You also ask about the Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act of 2015.
As explained in detail below, overall we find that both levels of modification would rise to the level of manufacturing, which makes whoever is making the modifications (we assume it would be Twisted Automotive Limited) a manufacturer as defined in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.[1]
General Authority
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. Manufacturers are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.
Imported Vehicles At Least 25 Years Old Section 30112(b)(9) of the Safety Act, which you cite in your letter, allows importation of a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old without the need to conform the vehicle to the applicable FMVSSs, i.e., those in effect at the time of its manufacture. The 25-year period runs from the date of the vehicles manufacture.
You state in your letter that the Land Rovers you intend to import are 25 years old or older. According to your letter, the vehicles would be brought into the U.S. unmodified, and the modifications will be made in this country.
Discussion
The agency evaluated Twisteds proposed activities under two lines of thinking found in past interpretation letters. The first line arises in letters relating to whether NHTSA would consider certain modifications made overseas to a vehicle (more than 25 years old) simply to be restorations and not a vehicle manufacture, so that the vehicle may be imported under 30112(b)(9) without conforming to the FMVSSs. The second line relates to whether modifying a used vehicle by combining new and used parts constitutes a manufacture of a vehicle. Both complement each other in our analysis and lead to the same conclusion, which is that the work done to Twisteds vehicles is commensurate with the manufacture of a vehicle. Each line of thinking is analyzed below in greater detail.
Restoration
Your letter discusses two levels of modification of the Land Rover Defenders you plan on exporting to the United States. The level with the least modifications is what you describe as basic restoration and includes the following:
1. Remedial works undertaken to the chassis to put it in a good and long lasting state of repair. 2. Remedial works to the drive-train (axle, differential, wheels) or replacement with new where repair is not an option. 3. Original engine is removed and fully overhauled before being relocated back in original vehicle. 4. Original engine is removed and replaced with a modern engine of similar capacity (engine would meet the latest emission standards). 5. Suspension is repaired or where necessary replaced (but not upgraded) to put it in a good and long lasting state of repair commensurate with a quality restoration project. 6. Body panels new panels would need to be fitted where existing panels could not be repaired. 7. Body panels (new or original) would be re-aligned and all panels secured by stainless steel fittings rather than with non-stainless fittings as on the original vehicle. 8. Full external and interior repainting where you also ask about what colors you can repaint the Land Rover. 9. Restoration of lights, seats, seat upholstery, and all interior trim with the possibility of replacement of seat frames and cloth trim if beyond repair. 10. Possibility of converting right-hand drive vehicles to left-hand drive.
Chapter 301 does not define restoration, but NHTSA has interpretation letters on the subject. The agency interprets the term restoration, as applied to motor vehicles, as returning something to its former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition.[2]
Your question has been answered in past interpretations, and the same answer applies.[3] While Twisted refers to its modifications as restorations, the totality of the modifications that Twisted seeks to do, even at the basic level, is beyond what NHTSA considers as restoration and are in fact equivalent to manufacturing (assembling) a motor vehicle.
The basic restoration described in your letter includes modification beyond returning the motor vehicles to their former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition. The extent of disassembly of the original vehicle, the substitution of equipment not used in the original vehicle, the substantial refurbishment of the chassis, and the reassembly with items of new equipment such as the engine, drive train and axles result in a new motor vehicle, i.e., one that could not be regarded as 25 years old or older. Converting right-hand drive vehicles to left-hand drive is also considered beyond restoration.
Accordingly, we conclude that the activities you list under both the basic and beyond basic levels exceed what we consider to be a restoration. Instead, Twisteds activities appear to constitute a manufacture of vehicles.
Combining New and Used Parts
Twisteds planned activities in the U.S. invoke NHTSAs past interpretations relating to the combination of used and new parts. In particular, Twisted states it may do remedial work on the chassis to put it in a good and long lasting state of repair and do the same to the drive-train or replace the components with new where repair is not an option.
The substitution of a new body on a used chassis does not result in a new motor vehicle assuming the vehicle continues to be titled and registered with its original model year (see Williams letter, supra).
However, a vehicle incorporating a new chassis is considered a new vehicle. Further, the agency has also stated that the substitution of new chassis parts for the original ones may reach a point where, in combination with newer parts on the body, the overall vehicle itself could be regarded as newly manufactured.
We believe that what you describe as remedial work to the chassis and related parts could in fact be sufficiently extensive that the components would no longer be considered used but would instead be considered newly manufactured. This means the vehicle you produce would be a new vehicle.
Relatedly, please note that NHTSA has issued FMVSSs for certain items of motor vehicle equipment (covered equipment). Thus, under the Safety Act, all items of covered equipment that Twisted uses must comply with the applicable FMVSSs. In addition, Twisted must ensure that its modified vehicles contain no safety-related defects.
In summary, the extent of Twisteds plans to modify or replace the chassis and drive train and combine new and used items of motor vehicle equipment lead us to conclude that Twisteds activities constitute manufacturing. Thus, the resulting vehicles would be new and Twisted would be a manufacturer within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Under the Safety Act, the new vehicles must be certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of their manufacture.
FAST Act
Section 24405 of Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act [4] has a provision about low-volume manufacturers being able to manufacture a certain number of replica vehicles that do not fully comply with the applicable FMVSSs. It states that the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue such regulations as may be necessary to implement the amendments made in this section.[5]
Your letter asks whether the low-volume manufacturer exemption applies to Twisteds business of modifying Land Rover Defender vehicles. We cannot answer this question now, prior to issuing the regulation. The agency will initiate rulemaking soon to implement 24405.
Agents Please note that all manufacturers headquartered outside of the U.S. must designate an agent for service of all process, notices, orders, and decisions.[6] This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:
The designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. Please visit for more information on importation and certification: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FAQ%20Site/. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Sara Bennett of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 7/8/16 Ref: 49 U.S.C. 30102
[1] Manufacturer means a person (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, see 49 U.S.C 30102(a)(5). [2] Letter to John Harland of HarLand Rover Restorations (Sept. 9, 1999), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20592.ztv.html; letter to Roger Williams (Feb. 22, 2001), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/23894.ztv.html ; letter to Paul Jackson Rice of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC (Aug. 23, 2001), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/23085.ztv.html. [3] Past interpretations written to HarLand Rover Restorations discuss in detail what is and is not considered restoration. The facts in Twisteds interpretation request are strikingly similar, with the only difference in that Twisted plans to do the modifications in the U.S., while HarLand performed the modifications in the United Kingdom prior to attempting to import the modified vehicles into the U.S. That difference is not consequential to our response here, since the issue is whether the modifications made here or abroad constitute a manufacture. [4] Pub. L. No. 114-94, 24405 (2015), available at https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr22/BILLS-114hr22enr.pdf. [5] Pub. L. No. 114-94, 24405(c) (2015), available at https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr22/BILLS-114hr22enr.pdf. [6] 49 CFR Part 551, Subpart D. |
2016 |
ID: 16-002006 Cybersecurity Act of 2015Open
Mr. R. A. Whitfield Quality Control Systems Corporation 1034 Plum Creek Drive Crownsville, MD 21032-1322
Dear Mr. Whitfield:
This responds to your April 2, 2016 letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is precluded from taking enforcement action regarding a safety defect or noncompliance with a regulation or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) when that defect or noncompliance is a cyber threat indicator provided to the Federal government under the Cybersecurity Act of 2015.
As you know, the agency published a request for comments on NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2016-02: Safety-Related Defects and Emerging Automotive Technologies.[1] We noticed that you submitted identical questions as a comment to the abovementioned docket.[2] The issue you raise will be discussed in the agencys response to comments that is currently being prepared.
Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Sara Bennett of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 6/1/16 Ref: Miscellaneous [1] Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0040 (Apr. 1, 2016), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/04/01/2016-07353/request-for-public-comments-on-nhtsa-enforcement-guidance-bulletin-2016-02-safety-related-defects. [2] Your comment is available at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2016-0040-0013. |
2016 |
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.