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: 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 |
ID: porschevrhsOpen
Walter J. Lewis, Manager Dear Mr. Lewis: In your letter of September 10, 2004, you requested information concerning the proper classification of a new vehicle for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. Specifically, you are interested in whether the agency concurs with your opinion that "an SUV [sport utility vehicle] equipped with a driver-controllable variable ride height suspension system that may not satisfy 523.5 (a) but does satisfy the four out of five criteria of 523.5 (b) (2) when the vehicle is in the off-road ride height position" should be classified as a "light truck". Your view is that the vehicle "does not need to satisfy the four-out-of-five criteria at all suspension heights in order to be deemed capable of off-highway operation". We agree that 523.5(b)(2) does not require a vehicle to meet four of the five criteria at all ride heights; however, a vehicle must meet four out of the five criteria in at least one ride height. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "approve" the classification of a motor vehicle. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, in the first instance, to make any necessary classifications of vehicles and to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. For purposes of CAFE compliance, each manufacturer must classify its vehicles consistent with the definitions contained in 49 CFR Part 523. You are interested in knowing whether a vehicle, as described above, is properly classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. Section 32901(a)(16) of Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code defines the term "passenger automobile" for CAFE purposes. The term "passenger automobile" does not include "an automobile capable of off-highway operation" that the agency decides by regulation has a significant feature (except 4-wheel drive) designed for off-highway operation and "is a 4-wheel drive vehicle or is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight". In the agencys implementing regulations for vehicle classification for CAFE purposes, the definition of light truck (49 CFR Part 523.5) provides, in relevant part: Based on the information you have provided, we conclude that the vehicle in question may be classified as a light truck on the basis of its off-highway capabilities, provided that it either has 4-wheel drive or is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. We have determined that it is appropriate, for the limited purpose of classifying the vehicle for CAFE purposes, to measure the vehicles running clearance with the vehicles adjustable suspension placed in the position(s) intended for off-road operation under real-world conditions. We note that this conclusion does not constitute or imply an opinion as to whether the vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck for purposes of the safety standards. Definitions for classification purposes under the safety standards may be found in 571.3 of 49 CFR. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:523 |
2004 |
ID: positioningSID_VenieroPizzagalliOpenMr. Veniero Pizzagalli Dear Mr. Pizzagalli: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, Side Impact Protection, concerning the positioning of the Side Impact Dummy (SID) for purposes of conducting the FMVSS No. 214 moving deformable barrier (MDB) test. You are having difficulty in placing the SID in a new sport seat that will be mounted in some of your future cars. S7 of FMVSS No. 214 specifies positioning procedures for the SID. S7.1.1 and S7.1.2 specify that a SID placed in a bucket seat at the drivers seating position and at the right front passenger seating position, respectively, is to be positioned such that "[t]he upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back. " The standard also specifies, at S7.2.1, that the H-point of the dummy is to coincide within inch in the vertical dimension and inch in the horizontal dimension of a point inch below the position of the H-point determined by using the equipment for the 50th percentile and procedures specified in SAE J826 (with certain exceptions). In addition, the standard specifies, at S6.4, that adjustable seat backs are placed in the manufacturers nominal design riding position in the manner specified by the manufacturer. S6.4 states that, if the position is not specified, the seat back will be set at the first detent rearward of 25 from the vertical. You state in your letter that, when the SID is placed in the sport seat, there is a space of 78 mm from the back of the dummy to the seat back. The middle of the dummys back cannot rest against the seat because the torso makes contact with the "wings" of the seatback. You suggest five different ways that the dummy could be positioned in the seat and ask if any of these are acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA would not use the first four options you suggest. The first approach you suggest involves resting the dummys torso against the wings of the seat but not having the H-point of the dummy in the zone described by S7.2.1. NHTSA would need to position the H-point as specified in S7.2.1. Your second option calls for forcing the dummy into the seat and against the seat back, possibly using tape or a harness to hold the dummy against the seat back. We would prefer not using artificial means to restrain the dummy in the test. The third option you suggest is to cut a portion of the dummys partial arms or remove them, thereby avoiding contact of the arms with the seat wings. We cannot modify the SID as you suggest other than through a rulemaking proceeding. Your fourth option involves reclining the seat back such that the dummys back is reclined at a 25 tilt angle. We would not use this fourth approach because the seat back angle will be greater than 25 degrees and the dummys back does not make contact with the seat back. Your fifth approach appears usable. This approach involves tilting the seat back such that the dummys back contacts the seat back at the wings. We would consider the wings of the seat to be part of the seat back, so contact with the wings satisfies the provision that the dummy contact the seat back. The H-point of the dummy would be maintained in the permitted tolerance zone of S7.2.1. The seat back would be positioned as specified in S6.4. The dummys back angle will be less than 25 degrees, but the test procedures do not specify that the angle of the back must be 25 degrees. I hope this answers your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or by fax at (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:214 |
2005 |
ID: postalvehicles.rbmOpenL.W. Camp Dear Mr. Camp: This letter responds to your request for a legal interpretation of paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you want to know if Ford Motor Company may place a label other than the air bag label required by S4.5.1(b)(i) on a sun visor if the applicable seating position is legally built without an air bag. I apologize for the delay in our response. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter. You stated in your letter that you are supplying the U.S. Postal Service with right hand drive vehicles over a period of two years. The Postal Service has requested that the vehicles be built without air bags as allowed by S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208. You also stated that Ford would like to place a label on the sun visor over the front outboard seating position informing the driver that the vehicle is not equipped with air bags and that he or she should always wear both lap and shoulder belts. You are concerned that paragraph S2.5.1(b)(3) could be read as preventing Ford from placing such a label on the sun visor. Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3), FMVSS No. 208 provides:
Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(1)(i), FMVSS No. 208 provides, in part:
The requirements of S4.5.1(b)(3) are limited by the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1). This is because there is no need to place an air bag label over a seating position for which there is no air bag. Likewise, there is no need to restrict the content of a label that is voluntarily placed on a sun visor when no label is required. The reason that NHTSA has specified a particular air bag label is because we believe this is an area where uniformity in message and design furthers the interest of motor vehicle safety. If no label is required, there is no need to prevent another label that provides an important safety message. Accordingly, we have no objection to Ford placing a label on the sun visor notifying occupants that there is no air bag and that they should use the available restraint system. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or desire additional information, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
2000 |
ID: powerliftgateOpenMr. Paolo Ivaldi Dear Mr. Ivaldi: This responds to your letter of March 20, 2001, and to your telephone conversations with Katherine McDonough of my staff. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118, "Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof-Panel Systems" (49 CFR section 571.118). You explain that you are designing a power-operated liftgate. By liftgate, you mean the type of vertically-opening back door that is typically found on a sport utility vehicle or van. Your system would allow the user to open and close the liftgate either remotely or by pushing a button on the vehicle console. With regard to the power-operated liftgate you are designing, you ask three questions. First, you ask whether Standard No. 118 applies to the operation of such power-operated liftgates. Next, assuming that FMVSS No. 118 applies, you ask whether a liftgate, which will operate only when the vehicle's ignition key is in the on position, will satisfy the requirements of FMVSS No.118. Finally, again assuming that FMVSS No. 118 applies, you ask whether the standard requires that you put "pinch sensors along the liftgate openings." The answer to all of your questions is that FMVSS No. 118 does not apply to power-operated liftgates. Paragraph S2 of FMVSS No. 118 reads, in pertinent part, "this standard specifies requirements for power-operated window, partition, and roof-panel systems." The term partition refers to the type of interior retractable window that might be found in a limousine, and the term roof-panel refers to the type of retractable panels that are commonly known as sunroofs. Accordingly, since a liftgate is not a window, partition, or roof-panel, FMVSS No. 118 does not apply to its operation. During your conversation with Ms. McDonough, you mentioned that you are voluntarily equipping the liftgate with obstacle sensors. These sensors are capable of detecting the presence of an obstacle in both directions, e.g., both opening and closing, and will stop the motion of the liftgate until the obstacle is removed. We appreciate your effort to reduce the likelihood of injuries caused by the inadvertent closing of a liftgate on an occupant. Please note that your liftgate must comply with FMVSS No. 206 "Door Locks and Door Retention Components." There are no special exemptions for power doors. Accordingly, your liftgate must meet all of FMVSS No. 206's requirements for back doors. In addition, all other applicable safety standards must be met. I hope this letter answers your questions. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to call Katherine McDonough at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:118#206 |
2001 |
ID: prevost_applicabilityOpenMr. Deny Bertrand Dear Mr. Betrand: This replies to your inquiries regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles. You explained that your company manufactures over-the-road coaches and is thus required to comply with the requirements specified in the two standards. You focused your inquiries on two areas, the requirements for threshold warning signals and the application of the standards to vehicles and lifts that were manufactured prior to the effective date. I have addressed each of your questions below. By way of background, in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that certain vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. On December 23, 2004, the agency published a final rule that extended the compliance date of FMVSS No. 403 until April 1, 2005, and compliance date of FMVSS No. 404 until July 1, 2004 (69 FR 76865) . 1. Threshold warning signal In a letter and e-mail correspondence, you asked about the threshold warning signal requirements of FMVSS No. 403 for public use lifts. Specifically, you asked whether:
(b) S6.1.4 requires that a passenger backing onto a platform lift be able to see the actual beacon, (c) the vehicle manufacturer or lift manufacturer is solely responsible for compliance with the threshold warning system requirements, (d) optical sensors could be used to detect an occupant in the threshold area, and (e) the threshold warnings could be activated based on whether an access door were open. As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency established a threshold warning signal requirement for platform lifts to minimize the risk of a lift user backing off a vehicle before a lift is properly positioned. For public-use lifts, S6.1.3 requires that:
(a) Visual warning beacon
While the standard specifies several criteria for the visual warning, it does not specify design criteria such as size or shape for the beacon. Therefore, a flat light may be relied upon to comply with S6.13, so long as when installed according to the lift manufacturers instructions, it complies with the color, intensity, frequency, and line-of-sight requirements in S6.1.4. (b) Line-of-sight requirement In a telephone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you stated that your companys lift supplier intends to provide a beacon that mounts above the access door such that a passenger backing onto the platform from interior of the vehicle will not see the beacon directly. You further explained that this supplier stated that it intends to rely on light reflected from the beacon in order to comply with the requirement. This would not be acceptable. Compliance with the line-of-sight requirement is based on the location of the beacon and not by light emitted from the beacon. S6.1.4 states that the beacon must be installed such that it does not require more than 15 degrees of side-to-side head rotation to be viewed by a passenger backing onto the platform from the interior of the vehicle. A warning system that relied on reflected light, as opposed to the physical location of the beacon, would be more susceptible to environmental light conditions, thereby reducing its effectiveness. (c) Compliance responsibility Your e-mail further asked if compliance with the threshold warning signal requirements is the responsibility of the lift or vehicle manufacturer. The threshold warning signal requirements are part of FMVSS No. 403, which as previously explained, applies to platform lifts. Lift manufacturers are required to certify that their lifts comply with all applicable requirements under the standard. S6.13 of FMVSS No. 403 requires that lift manufacturers provide installation instructions with each lift, including procedures for operational checks that the vehicle manufacturer must perform to verify that the lift is fully operational and compliant with requirements such as the threshold warning signal requirements (see S6.13.2) . Therefore, it is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to provide a lift that, when installed according to manufacturer instructions, complies with all the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. Under S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 404, it is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to install an FMVSS No. 403-compliant platform lift according to the instructions provided by the platform lift manufacturer. Under S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404, the platform lift as installed must continue to comply with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. (d) Optical sensors In your letter, you asked whether a platform lift could comply with the threshold warning signal requirements through the use of optical sensors, as opposed to a sensitive floor pad. S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires the appropriate threshold warning signal to be activated when any portion of a passengers body or mobility aid occupies the platform threshold area defined in S4 of that standard, and the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch) below the vehicle floor reference plane. A platform lift must meet this requirement when tested in accordance with S7.4 of the standard. S7.4 specifies that the appropriate signals must be activated when one front wheel of the wheelchair test device, as described in S7.1.2, is placed in the platform threshold area and the platform is more than 25 mm (1inch) below the vehicle floor reference plane. The standard specifies the performance requirements for a threshold warning system, but not the design. Therefore, a lift manufacturer may use optical sensors to comply with the threshold warning requirement, as long as it satisfies the performance requirements of the standard. (e) Access Door Condition In your letter you asked whether a lift that activates the threshold warnings whenever the lift is more than 25 mm (1 inch) from the vehicle floor level and the access door is open would comply with the standard. You explained that in such a case, a lift would not be required to be equipped with detection equipment. Again, the threshold warning signal minimizes the likelihood of an individual backing off of a vehicle when a platform lift is not in proper position. An appropriate signal must be activated when a platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch) out of position and one front wheel of the wheelchair test device is in the platform threshold area. Under S7.4.2, removal of the test device from the platform threshold area must deactivate the alarm. The deactivation requirement ensures that a signal is only activated when an occupant is at risk of off-loading onto a lift before the lift is in position. If an alarm were permitted to be activated whenever an access door were open and the lift were more than 25 mm (1 inch) from the vehicle floor, the effectiveness of the alarm would be diminished. In that instance, the alarm would continue to signal even when a lift user were safely on the lift and being lowered to ground level. Additionally, the prolonged signaling may irritate the lift user and other vehicle occupants. 2. Applicability to the Installation of Lifts on Used Vehicles Under FMVSS No. 403, as recently amended, all lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005, must comply with that standard. Under FMVSS No. 404, all vehicles with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005, and later that are manufactured with a platform lift must comply with the vehicle standard. Vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with a FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift. Based on your phone conversation with Mr. Calamita, you asked about two situations: (a) the installation of a lift on a used vehicle that was manufactured before the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date, and (b) the installation of a lift on a used vehicle that was manufactured on or after the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date. (a) Installation of a lift on a used, pre-July 1, 2005 vehicle Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first sale for purposes other than resale (first retail sale) . See 49 CFR 30112. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Vehicles manufactured prior to July 1, 2005, whether originally manufactured with or without a lift, are not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. Therefore, a non-FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift may be installed on such a vehicle, so long as the installation does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the standards to which it was originally certified. For example, if a vehicle were manufactured with a platform lift on September 1, 2004, a vehicle modifier would be permitted to replace the original lift with either a non-FMVSS No. 403-complaint lift or a FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift. Further, the agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system or interlock system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122. (b) Installation of a lift on a used vehicle manufactured on or after July 1, 2005 After first retail sale, the "make inoperative" provision only applies to standards to which a vehicle is certified as complying. If a vehicle with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005 or later is manufactured with a lift, that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if after first retail sale a platform lift is added to a vehicle that was not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404, a modifier need not bring that vehicle into compliance with a FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift. In your letter, you asked about a specific situation in which vehicles are manufactured to accept a removable lift, but as manufactured and certified, are not equipped with a lift. A removable lift would then be installed by the vehicles owner. First, the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by a vehicle owner to his/her own vehicle. Additionally, even if a removable lift were added by a repair shop or dealer after first retail sale, these vehicles would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. Again, these vehicles were not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404. If a removable lift were added by a modifier, the addition of the lift must not cause any applicable FMVSS to be made inoperative. However, modifications made to a vehicle that was certified as complying with FMVSS No. 404 must not remove that vehicle from compliance with that standard. If an automotive repair business were to replace a lift on a vehicle that complied with FMVSS No. 404, the lift must be replaced with a FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift and in a manner that would maintain the vehicles compliance with FMVSS No. 404. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:403#404 |
2005 |
ID: proulxOpen
Via Federal Express
Mr. Dana Proulx General Counsel GEICO Corporation One Geico Plaza Washington, DC 20076
Dear Mr. Proulx:
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. 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. Garrett Paddor General Counsel Farmers New World Life Insurance Company 4680 Wilshire Blvd, 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90010
Mr. Steven A. Bennett General Counsel United Services Automobile Association (USAA) 9800 Fredericksburg Road San Antonio, TX 78288
Mr. Jeffrey W. Jackson General Counsel State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company One State Farm Plaza Bloomington, IL 61710 |
|
ID: RavensOpen Mr. Jeff Shahan Dear Mr. Shahan: This is in response to your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, "Rear Impact Protection," as applied to the Ravens Steel Dump trailer with an 18-inch deep spreader pan bolted or welded to the rear of the trailer. As explained below, the Ravens Steel Dump trailer equipped with such a spreader pan will be required to incorporate a rear impact guard that complies with FMVSS No. 223, "Rear Impact Guards." You provided a drawing of the Steel Dump trailer with an 18-inch deep spreader pan bolted or welded to the rear of the trailer. According to that drawing, the spreader pan extends across the full width of the rear of trailer, and the top rear edge of the spreader pan is 52 and 3/4 inches above the ground. FMVSS No. 224 requires most trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard complying with FMVSS No. 223. The standard does not apply to pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, low chassis vehicles, special purpose vehicles, wheels back vehicles, or temporary living quarters. None of these exclusions apply to the Steel Dump trailer depicted in your drawing. The Steel Dump trailer clearly does not qualify as temporary living quarters or as a pole trailer, pulpwood trailer, or low chassis vehicle. As explained below, it also does not qualify as a special purpose vehicle or a wheels back vehicle. S4 of FMVSS No. 224 defines a "special purpose vehicle" 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." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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. A spreader pan does not perform work in this sense. Therefore, we do not consider the spreader pan to be work-performing equipment, and the Steel Dump trailer does not meet the definition of a "special purpose vehicle." Moreover, according to the drawing you provided, the spreader pan does not, while the vehicle is in transit, reside in or move through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard. In an interpretation letter issued to the National Truck Equipment Association on September 9, 1998, NHTSA stated that the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, or "guard zone," is the cubic area extending (1) vertically from the ground to a horizontal plane tangent to the bottom of the trailer; (2) laterally to the side extremities of the trailer as defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224; and (3) from the rear extremity of the trailer, as defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224, to a transverse vertical plane 12 inches forward. The spreader pan does not reside in this zone; thus the Steel Dump trailer does not meet the definition of a "special purpose vehicle." S4 of FMVSS No. 224 defines a wheels back vehicle as "a trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of tires . . . is not more than 305 mm [12 inches] forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle." A vehicle's "rear extremity" is defined as
Since the rearmost axle on the Steel Dump trailer is located such that the rearmost surface of the tires is only 3 and 7/8 inches forward of the rear of the tailgate, but 21 and 7/8 inches forward of the rear of the spreader pan, the question becomes whether the spreader pan is structural and, therefore, constitutes the rear extremity of the trailer. Merely because an object is attached to the vehicle's body does not mean that the object is a nonstructural protrusion. The attributes that the examples of nonstructural protrusions listed in the definition of "rear extremity" have in common are that they are relatively small and localized and would not have a major impact on a colliding passenger vehicle. The spreader pan is 18 inches in depth and extends the full width of the trailer. Consequently, it cannot be considered relatively small or localized. In addition, according to your drawing, the spreader pan is located 52 and 3/4 inches above the ground. At this height, and without a rear underride guard, the spreader pan could penetrate the passenger compartment of a colliding passenger vehicle. For these reasons, we do not consider the spreader pan to be nonstructural. Thus, the Steel Dump trailer equipped with a spreader pan does not meet the definition of a "wheels back vehicle." Since the Steel Dump trailer equipped with a spreader pan does not qualify for any of the exclusions, it must be equipped with a rear underride guard that complies with FMVSS No. 223. I hope this letter answers your question. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey in the Office of the Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:224 |
2001 |
ID: RECARO_e-registration7970OpenMr. Dan Mullins Dear Mr. Mullins: This replies to your inquiry as to whether the recent amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 require your company to revise its on-line registration form. As explained below, so long as online registration information is not provided on the paper registration form, your electronic registration form is not subject to the format requirements of the standard. To improve the effectiveness of manufacturer campaigns recalling child restraint systems (CRSs) that contain a safety defect or fail to conform to FMVSS No. 213, manufacturers are required to provide a registration form (hereafter referred to as a "paper form") with each restraint (S5.8). The paper form must conform in size, content and format to the form depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). To minimize the potential for confusion, no other information is permitted to appear on the paper form except for information that distinguishes a particular restraint from other systems. In your e-mail you indicate that RECARO provides an electronic registration form on its website and that the internet address for the electronic form is provided in the CRS instruction manuals. You further state that the internet address is not provided on the paper form. You then ask if recent amendments to FMVSS No. 213 would subject RECAROs electronic registration form to the standards format requirements under this scenario. On September 9, 2005, we amended FMVSS No. 213, in part, to permit the inclusion of an internet address for electronic registration of a CRS on the paper form (70 FR 53569). If a manufacturer chooses to provide such information, the website address must also be provided in the instruction manual (S5.6.1.7 and S5.6.2.2) and the format of the electronic registration form must conform to S5.8.2 (S5.8.1(d)). However, S5.8.2 is only applicable if a manufacturer voluntarily provides an internet address for electronic registration on the paper form. We noted in the final rule that the amendments did not establish any new requirements for CRS manufacturers. If a manufacturer does not include an internet address on the paper form, then the electronic registration requirements do not apply even if the manufacturer elsewhere provides information on electronic registration. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:213 |
2006 |
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.