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: jarrettOpen
Via Federal Express Mr. Charles E. Jarrett Chief Legal Officer The Progressive Corporation 300 North Commons Blvd., OHF 11 Mayfield Village, OH 44143 Dear Mr. Jarrett: We have received reports that certain insurance companies may be engaging in transactions that violate Federal odometer disclosure law with respect to vehicles damaged in Hurricane Sandy. Although we are not asserting that your company is engaging in such practices, we are writing to a number of auto insurance companies to remind them of the Federal odometer disclosure law requirements and ask them to review their practices regarding odometer disclosures. These letters do not accuse your company, or any other company, of violating the law. We understand that when a flood-damaged vehicle is declared a total loss, the insurance company pays the insured the value of the vehicle, becomes the owner, and acquires control over the vehicle from the insured. However the reports we have received indicate that instead of completing the required odometer disclosure, some companies ask the insured to complete the odometer disclosure statement without listing the insurance company as the transferee. According to these reports, the insurance company will not sign the title, make an odometer disclosure, or transfer title. The insurance company then sells the vehicle at auction, keeps the proceeds from the auction, and provides the title with the odometer disclosure statement as signed by the insured to the auction buyer. The next person in the chain of title of the vehicle will be the buyer at auction. The insurance company will essentially be omitted from the chain of title. In the circumstance described above, an insurance company is considered a transferee when it pays the insureds claim (in return it obtains ownership of the vehicle), and a transferor when it sells the vehicle at auction. See 49 C.F.R. 580.3. As a transferor, the insurance company is required to make certain disclosures. Under federal odometer disclosure law, 49 U.S.C. 32705, a person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle shall give the transferee written disclosure of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer. More specifically, under 49 C.F.R. 580.5, each transferor shall disclose the mileage to the transferee in writing on the title or on the document being used to reassign the title [t]his written disclosure must be signed by the transferor, including the printed name. The transferee must sign the disclosure statement, print his name, and return a copy to his transferor. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Marie Choi of my staff at (202) 366-1738 or via email at marie.choi@dot.gov. Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel d: 12/20/12 Identical letters sent to: Mr. Dana Proulx General Counsel GEICO Corporation One Geico Plaza Washington, DC 20076
Mr. 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: jensen.drnOpen Mr. Chris S. Jensen Dear Mr. Jensen: This responds to your recent letter requesting NHTSA's assistance to alter your MY 1996 Kia Sportage to accommodate your needs. Your letter informed us that you need to install a hand brake in your car in order to assist your driving, and to do this, you must remove a "knee airbag," installed at knee level at the driver's seating position. You ask us for written permission that would permit you to go to a dealership to disconnect the driver's side knee air bag. This letter grants the permission you request. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, requires that certain new vehicles be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bag in your car was installed as one means of complying with that requirement. Removing or deactivating an air bag by a vehicle dealer is prohibited by Section 30122(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code, the title under which Standard No. 208 was issued. That section provides in part that--
However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we would regard a deactivation of the driver's side knee air bag in your Sportage in the same way. NHTSA considers your special medical needs as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that deactivates the knee air bag in your car in order to install the hand brake. Please show this letter to your dealer or repair business when you take your car to have the driver's side knee air bag deactivated. If the dealer or repair business wishes to verify the authenticity of this letter, they may call the telephone number below. I hope this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: josephOpenMrs. Margaret Joseph Dear Mrs. Joseph: This responds to your inquiry concerning the condition of the van that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania uses to transport your 11-year old daughter, who is blind and uses a wheelchair, to and from school. I regret the delay in responding. You explain that the van is operated by a taxi service, presumably under contract with the State. Our agency is authorized to improve traffic safety by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including new school buses. A "school bus" is a vehicle designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons, which is likely to be used significantly to transport school students to or from school or related events. We believe that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. We therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting our school bus safety standards. Because our standards apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not have the authority to require Pennsylvania to provide school bus transportation for your daughter. Moreover, it is the States, and not our agency, that apply and enforce regulations concerning vehicles in use. Thus, we suggest that you contact your local school district or the Pennsylvania Director of Pupil Transportation about your concerns. The Director is:
I hope this information is helpful. Regrettably, we have been unable to reach you by telephone to discuss your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: K.Dziczek Part 583Open
Ms. Kristin Dziczek Director, Labor and Industry Group Center for Automotive Research 3005 Boardwalk, Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Dear Ms. Dziczek,
This letter is in response to your April 10, 2012 email to Thomas Healy of this office. In your email you ask several questions about the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. The responses to your questions are provided below.
By way of background, pursuant to the American Automobile Labeling Act, Part 583 requires passenger motor vehicles to be labeled with five items of information related to the countries of origin of those vehicles. The items of required information are:
On a carline basis:
U.S./Canadian parts content
Major sources of foreign parts content
For the vehicle:
Final assembly point
Country of origin for the engine
Country of origin for the transmission.
An explanatory note concerning the meaning of parts content is also required on the label. See 583.5(a) and (b).
You first asked whether the parts percentage on the label includes the content of the engine and transmission. The answer is yes.
As indicated above, the first item of information required on the label is U.S./Canadian parts content. As indicated by 583.5(a)(1), this term refers to (t)he overall percentage, by value, of the passenger motor vehicle equipment that was installed on vehicles within the carline of which the vehicle is part, and that originated in the United States and/or Canada. Passenger motor vehicle equipment is defined at 583.4(b)(7) as any system, subassembly, or component received at the final assembly point for installation on, or attachment to, such vehicle at the time of its initial shipment by the manufacturer to a dealer for sale to an ultimate purchaser. Passenger motor vehicle equipment also includes any system, subassembly, or component received by an allied supplier from an outside supplier for incorporation into equipment supplied by the allied supplier to the manufacturer with which it is allied. The engine and transmission of a passenger motor vehicle would be considered a system, subassembly, or component of a passenger motor vehicle. They therefore come within the definition of passenger motor vehicle equipment and are included when calculating U.S./Canadian parts content.[1]
You next ask that if the engine and transmission content are included in the overall percentage of parts of the vehicle, whether the component content of the engine and transmission is used in calculating the contribution of these components to the overall parts content of the vehicle, or whether the entire engine and transmission is considered as a whole from the country of origin of these components. You also ask whether the country of origin for the engine and transmission is determined by the point of final assembly of these components or based on their parts content percentage.
The procedure for determining U.S./Canadian parts content (the first item of information on the label) is set forth at 583.6.[2] As part of that procedure, the procedure for determining the U.S./Canadian percentage of the value of an item of equipment, such as an engine or transmission, is set forth in 583.6(c). The procedure varies depending on whether the equipment is supplied by an outside supplier or an allied supplier.[3] Equipment supplied by an outside supplier is considered 100 percent U.S./Canadian if 70 percent or more of its value is added in the U.S. and/or Canada, and to otherwise have the actual percent of its value added in the U.S. and/or Canada rounded to the nearest five percent. See 583.6(c)(1). Equipment supplied by an allied supplier is considered to have the actual percent of its value added in the U.S. and/or Canada. See 583.6(c)(2).
The procedures for determining the countries of origin for the engine and transmission, i.e., the last two items of information on the label, are set forth in 583.8. The procedures are significantly different from those used in connection with determining U.S./Canadian parts content. Moreover, as indicated earlier, while U.S./Canadian parts content is calculated on a carline basis, the determinations of country of origin of the engine and transmission are not. Section 583.8(e) specifies that the country of origin of the engine and the country of origin of the transmission is the country that contributes the greatest amount of value added to that item of equipment, with the U.S. and Canada being treated separately. The country of origin of the engine/transmission is determined based on the country of origin and value of each component and the assembly and labor costs incurred during final assembly of the engine/transmission, not simply the point of final assembly. See 583.8(b)-(d).
You also point out that 49 C.F.R 583.6 contains a procedure under which manufacturers may submit a petition to the agency to calculate the U.S./Canadian parts content and major sources of foreign parts of a vehicle carline using alternative methods. You inquire whether any manufacturers have submitted petitions to calculate the U.S./Canadian parts content and major sources of foreign parts of a vehicle carline using an alternative method. The agency is not aware of any petitions that manufacturers have submitted to calculate the U.S./Canadian parts content and major sources of foreign parts of a vehicle carline using alternative methods.
If you have further questions, you may refer them to Thomas Healy of this Office (202-366-2992).
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Ref: Part 593 Dated: 5/31/12
[1] The second item on the label is major sources of foreign parts content. As indicated by 583.5(a)(2), this term refers to (t)he names of any countries other than the United States and Canada which contributed at least 15 percent of the average overall percentage, by value, of the passenger motor vehicle equipment installed on vehicles within the carline of which the vehicle is part, and the percentages attributable to each such country ... . Again, since engines and transmissions come within the definition of passenger motor vehicle equipment, they are included in making the calculations for this item of information. [2] The procedure for determining major foreign sources of passenger motor vehicle equipment is set forth in 583.7. [3] The terms allied supplier and outside supplier are defined in 583.4. |
2012 |
ID: kane.ztvOpenBarry C. Kane, Esq. Dear Mr. Kane: This is in reply to your letters of June 9 and 10, 2003, which asked for an interpretation of terminology in 49 CFR Part 579 and Part 573. These letters were identical, with the exception noted below under the discussion of Section 579.4(d)(2). Your Part 579 questions related both to the reporting obligations under Subpart B pertaining to foreign safety campaigns, and the reporting obligations under Subpart C, the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) requirements. You wrote on behalf of "divers automotive-related clients," including "original equipment manufacturers, as well as first and second tier providers of parts and/or services." For purposes of EWR, your clients are considered manufacturers of original equipment (OEM) and thus are covered by 49 CFR 579.27. In response to your initial inquiry, if an OEM does not receive a claim or notice of death in any quarterly reporting period, it is not required to report that fact to NHTSA. Your next question was postulated on the assumption that section 579.27 requires OEMs to report information about injuries allegedly caused by their products. However, that is incorrect. Section 579.27 requires your clients to report "on each incident involving one or more deaths . . . that is identified in a claim . . . or in a notice . . . which notice alleges or proves that the death was caused by a possible defect in the manufacturers . . . equipment" (emphasis added) (if the incident occurred in the United States, the manufacturer must also report the number of injuries, if any). You asked for confirmation "that an incident in which a manufacturers component is involved that did not initiate the sequence of events leading to [a death] has not to be reported because such a component does not meet the definition of involving in 579.27." We have not defined "involving" and a definition of the term is not required to respond to your question. Whether a component initiated a sequence of events that led to a death (and injury) may be a question of fact or law (e.g., proximate cause) that is not developed or resolved at the time a manufacturer receives a claim or notice about a death. Regardless, if the document received by the OEM meets the definition of "claim" or "notice" and identifies the OEMs equipment with "minimal specificity," as those three terms are defined in Section 579.4(c), the OEM must report to NHTSA in the manner prescribed by Section 579.27. You have also asked a question about the application of Section 579.4(d)(2)s definition of identical or substantially similar motor vehicle equipment to a hypothetical situation. Equipment sold or in use outside the United States is deemed to be "identical or substantially similar" to equipment sold in the United States if the equipment has "one or more components or systems that are the same, and the component or system performs the same function" in vehicles sold in the United States (Section 579.4(d)(2)). In your hypothetical, identical fasteners would be used in an air-conditioning unit and an alternator. In your letter of June 9, you stated your belief that "`substantial similarity looks at the assembly as a whole and not to the components forming the assembly to determine the similarity unless it is the particular fastener in this example that is the rudimentary cause of the failure in one of the components." However, on June 10, you advanced a modified view of "substantial similarity" and concluded that "all these different assemblies incorporating such fasteners are substantially similar irrespective of whether the cause of the failure is another part of the assembly," and you asked whether your clients are "obliged to report all these assemblies . . . although the cause of the defect is not the fastener." We addressed these situations in the preamble to the EWR final rule (67 FR 45822 at 45844). With respect to the view in your letter of June 9, we remarked that we read the word "equipment" both as the completed item of motor vehicle equipment and as each individual component that comprises the item. With respect to your modified view of June 10, the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) had asked "if the only commonality [in equipment] is a single type of fastener that neither failed nor contributed to the incident, are the components or equipment substantially similar?" We replied that the equipment incorporating the fasteners would be substantially similar for EWR purposes, "unless the claim [or notice] specifically identified a non-common component as the source of the failure" (p. 45844). With respect to the phrase "sold or offered for sale" as it appears in the definition of "identical or substantially similar," a client has asked you "if the rule covers the situation where an automobile is manufactured outside the United States and has been privately imported by an individual consumer." It is your suggestion that "the rule does not apply to this situation," and that it "is intended to apply to manufacturers who intentionally enter the market in this country rather than low volume imports arranged by private consumers." We understand that this question relates to Smart cars, manufactured by DaimlerChrysler A.G. in Europe. That company does not sell these cars or offer them for sale in the United States, but at some future time they may be imported by a Registered Importer. Although, as a factual matter, a Smart car sold outside the United States would be identical or substantially similar to a Smart car sold or offered for sale by a person in the United States other than its fabricating manufacturer (e.g., a Registered Importer), we do not intend the rule to impose a reporting obligation upon a manufacturer who is not marketing an identical or substantially similar vehicle in the United States. Thus, the EWR rule does not require DaimlerChrysler to report incidents of deaths outside the United States involving Smart cars, unless and until DaimlerChrysler imports the Smart car into the United States (see definition of "manufacturer," Section 579.4(c)). You next asked "whether a supplier of parts to OEMs or Tier 1 suppliers is ever required to notify the Administration of the recall under the rule since they do not decide on or carry out a recall themselves, but solely sell their products via the OEMs/Tier 1." Part 579 does not require an OEM to notify NHTSA that a person is conducting a defect notification and remedy campaign on products that incorporate equipment which the OEMs have supplied. Defect reporting obligations arise under another regulation, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. In some instances, these obligations apply to, or may be assumed by, OEMs (see Section 573.3). With respect to the obligation under Section 579.5(b) to provide copies of each communication relating to a customer satisfaction campaign (as defined in Section 579.4(d) to include other terms as well) within five days after the end of each month, you suggest that "this rule only needs compliance when indeed such customer satisfaction campaigns exist." This is correct. We need not be informed that there were no customer satisfaction campaigns in the previous month. It is also your tentative view that "the campaigns need only be reported when there is "communication with two or more of those involved in the distribution chain for the assembly in the U.S." That is incorrect. If a communication is "issued to, or made available to, more than one dealer, distributor, lessor, lessee, other manufacturer, owner or purchaser, in the United States," a copy of the communication must be furnished to us. See Section 579.5(b). Your last question is "whether we should consider additional rules, statutes, or provisions promulgated by the individual states or whether this rule supercedes individual state requirements." We are unaware of any State requirements that address the same issues as Part 579. If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:579 |
2003 |
ID: Katz.1OpenNorman Katz, Esq. Saretsky, Katz, Dranoff & Glass, L.L.P. 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Dear Mr. Katz: This responds to your inquiry of February 8, 2006, in which you asked whether there are any safety standards, directives, or regulations related to the necessity for safety shields to prevent the use of the solenoid switch to jumpstart a passenger vehicle. You further asked whether there are penalty provisions related to the agencys regulations and/or directives, and if so, how such penalties are enforced. In response to your questions, although our regulations do contain requirements for theft protection, there is not any specific requirement for a safety shield to prevent use of the solenoid switch to jumpstart a vehicle. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (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, but instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture (see 49 U.S.C. 30115 and 49 CFR Part 567, Certification). Regarding enforcement of the agencys standards, NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge (see 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120). In addition, the manufacturer is liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each noncomplying item it produces (see 49 U.S.C. 30165), unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means), that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standards (see 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)). In addition, a manufacturer is prohibited from selling or making available for sale any vehicle or equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs (see 49 U.S.C. 30112). FMVSS No. 114, Theft Protection, specifies requirements for theft protection to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle (see 49 CFR 571.114 (copy enclosed)). It also specifies requirements to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from the rollaway of parked vehicles with automatic transmissions resulting from the shift mechanism being moved out of the park position. The standard applies to passenger cars and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less (excluding walk-in, van-type vehicles). Of note with respect to your question, paragraph S4.2 of the standard requires, Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) The normal activation of the vehicles engine or motor; and (b) Either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. Except in limited circumstances set forth in the standard, a vehicle with an automatic transmission with a park position must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in park or becomes locked in park as the direct result of removing the key. When the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in park, the vehicle may not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade. The jumpstart situation suggested in your letter might arise from a variety of circumstances, including a vehicle owner seeking to activate the vehicle as a result of a lost/misplaced key, or more likely, an attempt by a third party to obtain the vehicle without the owners consent (theft). FMVSS No. 114 requires that the vehicle be configured so as to prevent steering or forward self-mobility when the key is removed. A manufacturer may use any available technology to meet the requirements of the standard (see enclosure from the NHTSA website regarding various anti-theft devices). Accordingly, it is not necessary to require use of any specific technology, such as the safety shield suggested in your letter. I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:114 d.6/6/06 |
2006 |
ID: KenWeinsteinOpenKenneth N. Weinstein, Esq. Mayer Brown LLP 1909 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 Dear Mr. Weinstein: This responds to your letter asking about the legal effect of certain language included in various versions of this agencys Laboratory Test Procedure (TP) for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, prepared by our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC). The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. In your letter, you noted that in a final rule published in the Federal Register (64 FR 27203) on May 19, 1999, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) deleted a provision (S4.1(b)) in FMVSS No. 209 requiring that the lap belt portion of a safety belt system be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions. The final rule was effective on July 29, 1999. The deleted language read, in relevant part, as follows: A seat belt assembly shall provide pelvic restraint whether or not upper torso restraint is provided, and the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or rollover of the motor vehicle. . . . You stated in your letter that language derived from the deleted S4.1(b)[1] continued to appear in the TPs for FMVSS No. 209 until the issuance of TP-209-08 on December 7, 2007. This language read as follows: The assembly shall provide pelvic restraint whether or not upper torso restraint is provided, and the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or rollover of the motor vehicle. You stated further that at least one plaintiffs attorney has asserted in a products liability lawsuit that, notwithstanding the amendment to the standard, the presence of the quoted language in the TP for FMVSS No. 209 acted to impose a duty on vehicle manufacturers to assure that the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or rollover of the motor vehicle in all vehicles produced during the time that the language was present, i.e., until December 2007. You requested explicit confirmation that the inadvertent failure of OVSC to delete the language at issue from the TP did not, and does not, impose any requirements applicable to vehicles produced prior to that time. This letter provides the confirmation that you request. 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. Chapter 301). 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. 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. As explained in a legal note set forth at the beginning of the OSVC TPs: The OVSC Test Procedures are prepared for the limited purpose of use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC. The TPs are not rules, regulations or NHTSA interpretations regarding the FMVSS. . . . The OVSC TPs do not impose any requirements on manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify compliance with applicable FMVSSs, not with TPs. The TPs do not have the effect of either adding to or limiting the requirements of the FMVSSs. As indicated above, the provision you asked about was deleted from that standard in a final rule that was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1999, and which became effective on July 29, 1999. Vehicles manufactured on after that effective date were not subject to that requirement. We note that, as a practical matter, it may not be possible for the agency to revise a TP by the time a particular amendment to an FMVSS becomes effective. As to the particular language you cite, we agree that in that case the agency inadvertently left language derived from the deleted provision in subsequent versions of the TP until December 2007. However, as indicated above, language in a TP does not impose any requirements on manufacturers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref: 209 d.1/16/09 [1] We note that the current version of FMVSS No. 209 has a paragraph S4.1(b) which is different and unrelated to the one deleted in 1999. |
2009 |
ID: kesler23584Open Mr. Ray Kesler Dear Mr. Kesler: This responds to your letter of August 22, 2001, asking if your mirror for original equipment manufacturers "is a permissible legal radius of curvature, information warning phrase, and using [sic] a FAIL SAFE reflective graphic concept permanently etched in glass mirror for day and night use." More specifically, you state that the radius of curvature of your mirror is 30-65 inches and your mirror contains a "ring indicator" and the phrase "Vehicles Larger than Ring Do Not Change Lanes." As explained below, your mirror is permitted only as a supplement to the mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), establishes performance and location requirements for mirrors installed in new vehicles. Several of its provisions concern the installation of convex outside rearview mirrors. Under FMVSS No. 111, only those passenger cars with inside rearview mirrors having an insufficient field of view are required to have passenger side mirrors. If convex mirrors are used, they must have a radius of curvature between 35 and 65 inches and they must be marked with the warning: "Objects in Mirror are Closer Than They Appear." In 1991, you petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a ring indicator applied to those mirrors. After reviewing your petition, the agency denied your request, finding that your suggested mirror system could, by comparison with our currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduce a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed (56 FR 42715, August 29, 1991). Subsequent correspondence from this Office (enclosed) tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited by the current requirements in FMVSS No. 111 from being installed on vehicles, as supplements to the required mirrors. The specifications for rearview mirror in your current correspondence appear to be identical to those contained in your previous petition except that the radius of curvature is now between 30 and 65 inches. This range of curvature, however, is not within the radius of curvature (between 35 and 65 inches) required by FMVSS No. 111. Furthermore, your rearview mirror is not marked with the warning: "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear" as required by FMVSS No. 111. For these reasons and as explained in length in the denial notice, see 56 FR 42716, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to mirrors required by FMVSS No. 111. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Enclosure |
2001 |
ID: key-like objectOpenGerald Plante, General Manager Dear Mr. Plante: This responds to your inquiry regarding the definition of "key-like object" in relation to the buckle release requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Specifically you asked if the tongue from a safety belt buckle would be considered a "key-like object" for purposes of the standard. As explained below, a buckle tongue would conform to the definition of "key-like object" under the system you described. On December 8, 2004, we amended FMVSS No. 208 to require all designated seating positions in rear seats, other than side-facing seats, be equipped with Type 2 integral lap/shoulder safety belts (69 FR 70904). For certain folding and removable seats, the standard permits use of a release mechanism that detaches both the lap and shoulder portion at either the upper or lower anchorage point, but not both (See S4.1.5.5.2, S4.2.7.2, S4.2.7.4, and S4.2.7.5 of FMVSS No. 208). The standard also specifies that detachment must be by means of a "key or key-like object". In a phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you asked how the agency defines "key-like object". In a follow-up letter you specifically asked whether a tongue from an adjacent buckle would meet the definition of "key-like object".Your letter described a "release mechanism in which the shoulder belt portion [of a safety belt] is detached by inserting the tongue from another belt into a narrow slot".The photographs you provided illustrate a buckle with a narrow slot on the side that would accept the corner of a tongue from another belt. In specifying the requirement for a "key or key-like object," we were concerned about the potential for inadvertent release of a safety belt. This potential is particularly acute with typical push-button releases, which can be released with the push of a finger. We stated that manufacturers may choose to use the door or ignition key since these keys are always likely to be in the driver's possession when the belt needs to be detached. However, to provide flexibility in design we also permitted use of a "key-like object". The standard does not define "key-like object", but the preamble to the December 2004 final rule notes that a design in which an object must be inserted into a small hole in order to release a latch would comply with the requirement (69 FR 70908). Although your system has a slot as opposed to a hole, it also requires use of an object other than an occupants finger to release the latch. Under your system, a buckle tongue (or similarly shaped object) must be placed in the appropriate slot to release the latch, and therefore functions as a "key-like object". The system you described, therefore, would comply with the "key-like object" requirement in S4.1.5.5.2, S4.2.7.2, S4.2.7.4, and S4.2.7.5 of FMVSS No. 208. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:208 |
|
ID: kiabag.nhfOpenMr. Reymundo Mangahas Dear Mr. Mangahas: This responds to your letter requesting permission to deactivate the knee air bag in your 1998 KIA Sportage. You explain that you are disabled and need to install hand controls in the vehicle to allow you to drive. In your letter, you state that the knee air bag interferes with the proper installation of the hand controls and needs to be deactivated. You also enclose a prescription for the hand controls from your doctor. This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that deactivates the knee air bag to install hand controls on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. If you show this letter to your dealer or mechanic, you should be able to get this work performed. We would like to explain that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. 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 standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. Currently, there is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to not exceed specified injury criteria during a test. We do not have information regarding how the occupant protection system without the knee air bag will perform in a crash. You may wish to ask Kia what effect removing or disconnecting the knee air bag may have on the vehicle, which may influence your decision to disconnect it. As noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that removes the knee air bag to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, your mechanic or dealer should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the knee air bag. The vehicle manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. In addition, if the vehicle is sold, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate. Finally, to improve occupant crash protection, we encourage you to use the vehicle's seat belts and to recommend that other drivers and passengers buckle up as well. You may be interested to know that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 28, 1998, in the Federal Register and are in the process of reviewing public comments. If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1999 |
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.