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: OshkoshOpenW. Thatcher Peterson Dear Mr. Peterson: This responds to your letter of September 22, 2003, requesting confirmation of Oshkosh Truck Corporations (Oshkosh) understanding of its early warning reporting (EWR) responsibilities under the TREAD Act and 49 CFR Part 579 with regard to the military and civilian heavy trucks it manufactures. Your letter provided information concerning three categories of heavy vehicles, one of which was divided into two subcategories: one subcategory for vehicles restricted to off-road use, and one subcategory for vehicles used on public streets and highways. My responses are organized according to the categories you identified. The first category you referenced concerned trucks built exclusively for military use with no civilian counterparts. As to this category, I confirm that your understanding is correct that such trucks, designed and manufactured exclusively for military use, and with no civilian counterparts, are not subject to the EWR requirements.See letter of May 21, 2003, to Stewart & Stevenson. The second category you referenced concerned Airport Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) trucks and snow removal trucks. These trucks were, in turn, broken into two subcategories. The first, you explained, includes ARFF and snow removal equipment used exclusively for off-road service and almost exclusively at airports to perform such tasks as fighting airplane fires and removing snow. You stated that it is Oshkoshs understanding that it has no EWR responsibilities for such vehicles in light of their off-road use. The second, you explained, includes snow removal trucks used in on-road service to clear public roads. You stated that it is Oshkoshs understanding that it must report EWR information on these trucks because they are civilian vehicles engaged in on-road work. Oshkoshs understanding as to both subcategories of trucks is correct, based on the descriptions that you provided. As to the first subcategory, we have previously interpreted the term "motor vehicle" to exclude vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, and have referenced airport runway vehicles as one example of such vehicles.See letter of June 12, 1995, to Mr. Andrew Grubb. By contrast, the snow removal trucks conducting on-road work would be considered motor vehicles for EWR purposes. The third category you referenced included trucks designed for and used in the on-road civilian market. You gave an example of concrete placement trucks and stated Oshkosh builds approximately 700 of these trucks each year. You explained that it was Oshkoshs understanding that it would have EWR responsibilities for these trucks because they are civilian and engaged in on-road work. I confirm that your understanding is correct. We also note that, based on the annual production information provided in your letter, Oshkosh must submit quarterly EWR information for the two categories of heavy trucks covered by the EWR regulation, as required by 49 CFR 579.22. More specifically, the determinant between full and limited reporting (i.e., as small volume manufacturer under Section 579.27) is the total aggregate production for each reporting category of vehicle defined by the EWR regulation. See letter of August 20, 2003, to Mr. Rod Nash. In this case, it appears Oshkosh produces an estimated 950 medium-heavy vehicles per year, and therefore qualifies as a larger volume manufacturer of medium-heavy vehicles under Section 579.22. If you have any further questions, please contact Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:579 |
2003 |
ID: Oshkosh_NEWOpenW. Thatcher Peterson Dear Mr. Peterson: This responds to your letter of September 22, 2003, requesting confirmation of Oshkosh Truck Corporations (Oshkosh) understanding of its early warning reporting (EWR) responsibilities under the TREAD Act and 49 CFR Part 579 with regard to the military and civilian heavy trucks it manufactures. Your letter provided information concerning three categories of heavy vehicles, one of which was divided into two subcategories: one subcategory for vehicles restricted to off-road use, and one subcategory for vehicles used on public streets and highways. My responses are organized according to the categories you identified. The first category you referenced concerned trucks built exclusively for military use with no civilian counterparts. As to this category, I confirm that your understanding is correct that such trucks, designed and manufactured exclusively for military use, and with no civilian counterparts, are not subject to the EWR requirements. See letter of May 21, 2003, to Stewart & Stevenson. The second category you referenced concerned Airport Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) trucks and snow removal trucks. These trucks were, in turn, broken into two subcategories. The first, you explained, includes ARFF and snow removal equipment used exclusively for off-road service and almost exclusively at airports to perform such tasks as fighting airplane fires and removing snow. You stated that it is Oshkoshs understanding that it has no EWR responsibilities for such vehicles in light of their off-road use. The second, you explained, includes snow removal trucks used in on-road service to clear public roads. You stated that it is Oshkoshs understanding that it must report EWR information on these trucks because they are civilian vehicles engaged in on-road work. Oshkoshs understanding as to both subcategories of trucks is correct, based on the descriptions that you provided. As to the first subcategory, we have previously interpreted the term "motor vehicle" to exclude vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, and have referenced airport runway vehicles as one example of such vehicles. See letter of June 12, 1995, to Mr. Andrew Grubb. By contrast, the snow removal trucks conducting on-road work would be considered motor vehicles for EWR purposes. The third category you referenced included trucks designed for and used in the on-road civilian market. You gave an example of concrete placement trucks and stated Oshkosh builds approximately 700 of these trucks each year. You explained that it was Oshkoshs understanding that it would have EWR responsibilities for these trucks because they are civilian and engaged in on-road work. I confirm that your understanding is correct. We also note that, based on the annual production information provided in your letter, Oshkosh must submit quarterly EWR information for the two categories of heavy trucks covered by the EWR regulation, as required by 49 CFR 579.22. More specifically, the determinant between full and limited reporting (i.e., as small volume manufacturer under Section 579.27) is the total aggregate production for each reporting category of vehicle defined by the EWR regulation. See letter of August 20, 2003, to Mr. Rod Nash. In this case, it appears Oshkosh produces an estimated 950 medium-heavy vehicles per year, and therefore qualifies as a larger volume manufacturer of medium-heavy vehicles under Section 579.22. If you have any further questions, please contact Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:579 |
2003 |
ID: overbayOpen Mr. Larry W. Overbay Dear Mr. Overbay: This letter follows up a telephone conversation between Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff and Mr. John Hretz of the U.S. Department of the Army in which Mr. Hretz requested a clarification of a February 17, 1995, letter that we sent to you. In that letter, we discussed the testing of air braked vehicles under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems. We explained that, as a result of a court decision, the emergency stopping test requirements, set forth in S5.7.1 of the standard, are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers. As Mr. Glancy explained, subsequent to that letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule reinstating emergency stopping tests in FMVSS No. 121. The amendments reinstating these tests take effect on March 1, 1997, for truck tractors and March 1, 1998, for other medium and heavy vehicles that are equipped with air brakes. Once these amendments take effect, the provisions in S5.7.1 will again be applicable to air braked vehicles. Mr. Hretz asked whether, in conducting the emergency stopping distance tests, removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test. Your question is addressed below. Section S5.7.1 states that When stopped six times for each combination of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1, except for a loaded truck tractor with an unbraked control trailer, on a road surface having a PFC of 0.9, with a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake chamber housing), the vehicle shall stop at least once in not more than the distance specified in Column 5 of Table II. In describing the failure conditions for which stopping distance requirements must be met, S5.7.1 broadly specifies "a single failure in the service brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid," except for certain listed parts. It is our opinion that the failure mode Mr. Hretz described in which one disconnects the service air signal line at the rear service air relay comes within this language. Therefore, a vehicle would not comply with FMVSS No. 121 if it did not meet the specified stopping distance requirements after disconnection of the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Project Manager Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) Attn: SFAE-TWV-FMTV (Hretz) Warren, Michigan 48397-5000 ref:121 d:7/25/95
|
1995 |
ID: oxbody.ztvOpen Mark H. Sidman, Esq. FAX 202-628-2011 Re: Ox Bodies, Inc. Dear Mr. Sidman: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1997, to James Gilkey, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, in connection with the agency's investigation of whether Ox Bodies, Inc., has located rear clearance lamps in compliance with Federal requirements. In your letter of June 3, you have offered your interpretation of paragraph S5.3.1.1. and paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 of 49 CFR 571.108 Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You believe that Standard No. 108's paragraphs relating to clearance lamp location fails the test of practicability "because it is impossible for regulated parties to demonstrate compliance". Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that clearance lamps be located on the front and rear, to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. However, they may be located "other than on the. . . rear if necessary to indicate overall width or to protect them from damage during normal operation (S5.3.1.1.1). To prevent damage, Ox Bodies has located its rear clearance lamps "on the side." In pertinent part, the first sentence of paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 provides that "[e]xcept as provided in S5.3.1.1.1, each lamp and reflective device shall be located so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice." The applicable SAE standard for clearance lamps, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, is J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps", July 1972, which specifies nine photometry test points for clearance lamps at 45 degrees left, center, and 45 degrees right. The exception provided by Paragraph S5.3.1.1.1 is for clearance lamps mounted other than on the front and rear of the vehicle, which "need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." You also point out that the applicable portion of the second sentence of paragraph S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing "any other lamp [including clearance lamps] from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice." You comment that S5.3.1.1.1 does not say that alternatively located clearance lamps "need not be visible nor meet applicable photometric output requirements at 45 degrees inboard" and that this leads to an "irreconcilable internal inconsistency" in Standard No. 108. On the one hand clearance lamps may be mounted at alternative locations and need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard, but on the other hand, they are not exempted from meeting all photometric requirements, including those at 45 degrees inboard. You believe that these allegedly "contradictory" provisions make it impossible to comply with Standard No. 108. At the recent meeting with Mr. Gilkey and others from this agency, the agency explained that it does not interpret Standard No. 108 as requiring photometric compliance where visibility compliance is not required. Nor have we ever suggested that the failure of side-mounted clearance lamps to meet SAE photometric requirements from 45 degrees inboard constitutes a noncompliance. You argue that this "mirror" interpretation creates a dead end because there are no SAE affirmative visibility requirements for clearance lamps in the first place, and that this internal inconsistency renders compliance impracticable. You are correct that the SAE Standard J592e contains no visibility requirements, in spite of the contrary impression conveyed by the reference to visibility in the first sentence of S5.3.1.1 and in S5.3.1.1.1. But this erroneous reference to "visibility" has absolutely no effect upon S5.3.1.1's requirement (in its second sentence) that clearance lamps must be located to meet all applicable photometric requirements (including 45 degrees inboard). This, without more, is the operative requirement for clearance lamps no matter where located. Further, this has been the agency's position for over 20 years. See our letters of May 5, 1977 and July 29, 1996 to Dennis G. Moore, and of November 18, 1996, to Larry Keith Evans, Esq., copies enclosed. However, since it is clearly impossible for a lamp that is not visible from a particular point to meet photometric output requirements from that point, by specifying that alternatively located clearance lamps need not meet visibility requirements at 45 degrees inboard, S5.3.1.1.1 must be viewed as relieving a manufacturer from meeting photometric requirements at the 45 degree inboard test points. At the recent meeting you attended representing Ox Bodies, the NHTSA participants indicated that the agency has interpreted paragraphs S5.3.1.1 and S5.3.1.1.1, not withstanding the reference to "visibility," as reading in pari passu to relieve a manufacturer of clearance lamp photometric compliance at the 45-degree inboard test points, and to require photometric compliance at all other test points. Thus, while we agree that it is not "practicable" for truck manufacturers that utilize side-mounted clearance lamps to certify compliance with the photometric requirements for 45 degrees inboard required of rear-mounted clearance lamps, this has no bearing on the duty to assure (and certify) compliance at all other photometric test points, as required by the second sentence of S5.3.1.1. That requirement is clear and independent of any reference to "visibility." Indeed, you imply that the exception in S5.3.1.1.1 that applies only to the inboard test position somehow excuses a truck manufacturer from installing clearance lamps. That implication defies common sense. The purpose of clearance lamps is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. Thus, they must be located where a following driver could see them, or else they would be functionally useless. The rulemaking history of S5.3.1.1.1 indicates that the exception was adopted to facilitate use of clearance lamps on truck and trailer fenders, the widest point of the vehicle, located forward of the rear where inward visibility would be restricted because of the presence of cargo beds and the like (See 40 FR 24204 and 54427, copies enclosed). Further, the agency expects any manufacturer, faced with portions of a standard that appear to be contradictory, to exercise reasonable care by asking for an interpretation to resolve the inconsistencies. We have never received an inquiry from Ox Bodies indicating any difficulty in understanding its obligations under Standard No. 108. Representatives of the Office of Safety Assurance are reviewing your letter of June 19, 1997, in which you suggest a disposition of this matter, and will telephone you shortly after your return. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: PACE.ztvOpen Mr. John W. Cook Dear Mr. Cook: This responds to your FAX of August 12, 1996, asking for "a clear definition in inches of the term 'as practicable' especially as it would apply to clearance lights." You explain that you have fenders that attach to the side of your trailers in widths that vary from 2 to 11 inches. You have asked whether it is acceptable for the clearance lamps "to be within 6-8" from the outer most part of the trailer including fenders." We appreciate your expressed desire to be in conformance with Standard No. 108. This standard employs practicability language in a number of its location requirements in order to afford a manufacturer maximum flexibility in designing its trailer. This flexibility would be lacking were the agency to require clearance lamp location within a specific range such as "within three inches from the top of the vehicle." Thus, the question a trailer manufacturer must determine is whether its location is as practicable as possible given the design of the trailer, where a requirement is expressed in terms of practicability. It is the enforcement policy of this agency not to contest a manufacturer's determination unless it is clearly erroneous. You have asked a specific question about the location of rear clearance lamps. Table II of Standard No. 108 requires them "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. . . and [to be located] as near the top thereof as practicable." Please note that it is the vertical location of the rear clearance lamps that is expressed in terms of practicability, and that the horizontal location is expressed only as a general requirement to indicate overall width. Paragraph S5.3.1.4 provides an exception to the vertical mounting requirement: "[w]hen the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of a vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle." Thus, when rear clearance lamps are mounted on a fender, as you wish to do, the question is not whether this is a practicable location, but whether it is a location that indicates the overall width of the vehicle. The meaning of the term "overall width" is clarified in Note (1) to Standard No. 108 (which follows Table IV in the CFR text): (1) The term "overall width" refers to the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps, determined with doors and windows closed, and the wheels in the straight-ahead position. In our judgment, locating a clearance lamp within 6 to 8 inches of the outermost edges of a trailer that is 80 or more inches in overall width does not indicate "overall width" within the meaning of Standard No. 108. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:9/4/96 |
1996 |
ID: paddorOpen
Via Federal Express
Mr. Garrett Paddor General Counsel Farmers New World Life Insurance Company 4680 Wilshire Blvd, 2nd Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90010
Dear Mr. Paddor:
We have received reports that certain insurance companies may be engaging in transactions that violate Federal odometer disclosure law with respect to vehicles damaged in Hurricane Sandy. Although we are not asserting that your company is engaging in such practices, we are writing to a number of auto insurance companies to remind them of the Federal odometer disclosure law requirements and ask them to review their practices regarding odometer disclosures. These letters do not accuse your company, or any other company, of violating the law.
We understand that when a flood-damaged vehicle is declared a total loss, the insurance company pays the insured the value of the vehicle, becomes the owner, and acquires control over the vehicle from the insured. However the reports we have received indicate that instead of completing the required odometer disclosure, some companies ask the insured to complete the odometer disclosure statement without listing the insurance company as the transferee. According to these reports, the insurance company will not sign the title, make an odometer disclosure, or transfer title. The insurance company then sells the vehicle at auction, keeps the proceeds from the auction, and provides the title with the odometer disclosure statement as signed by the insured to the auction buyer. The next person in the chain of title of the vehicle will be the buyer at auction. The insurance company will essentially be omitted from the chain of title.
In the circumstance described above, an insurance company is considered a transferee when it pays the insureds claim (in return it obtains ownership of the vehicle), and a transferor when it sells the vehicle at auction. See 49 C.F.R. 580.3. As a transferor, the insurance company is required to make certain disclosures.
Under federal odometer disclosure law, 49 U.S.C. 32705, a person transferring ownership of a motor vehicle shall give the transferee written disclosure of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer. More specifically, under 49 C.F.R. 580.5, each transferor shall disclose the mileage to the transferee in writing on the title or on the document being used to reassign the title [t]his written disclosure must be signed by the transferor, including the printed name. The transferee must sign the disclosure statement, print his name, and return a copy to his transferor.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Marie Choi of my staff at (202) 366-1738 or via email at marie.choi@dot.gov.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
d: 12/20/12
Identical letters sent to:
Mr. Dana Proulx General Counsel GEICO Corporation One Geico Plaza Washington, DC 20076
Mr. Charles E. Jarrett Chief Legal Officer The Progressive Corporation 300 North Commons Blvd., OHF 11 Mayfield Village, OH 44143
Mr. Christopher C. Mansfield General Counsel Liberty Mutual Group 175 Berkeley Street Boston, MA 02117
Ms. Patricia R. Hatler Chief Legal and Governance Officer Nationwide One Nationwide Plaza Columbus, OH 43215
Ms. Susan L. Lees General Counsel Allstate Insurance Company 3075 Sanders Road Northbrook, IL 60062
Mr. Steven A. Bennett General Counsel United Services Automobile Association (USAA) 9800 Fredericksburg Road San Antonio, TX 78288
Mr. Jeffrey W. Jackson General Counsel State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company One State Farm Plaza Bloomington, IL 61710
|
|
ID: Part 574- TIN font - Weinstein-ContinentalOpenKenneth N. Weinstein Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Dear Mr. Weinstein: This letter responds to your request on behalf of Continental AG and its affiliate companies (Continental) for approval of the use of the G006 print type in tire identification numbers, pursuant to Note 3 of Figure 1 in 49 CFR 574.5. NHTSA is granting your request. Note 1 of Figure 1 of 49 CFR 574.5 states that the tire identification number, which must appear on every new and retreaded tire, will be in the following fonts: Futura Bold, Modified Condensed or Gothic. However, Note 3 states that other print types will be permitted if approved by NHTSA. On behalf of Continental, you seek approval of a print type known as G006, which you state is very close to Futura Condensed. You have provided examples of both the G006 print type and Futura Condensed for our review. In the final rule establishing Part 574 (35 FR 17257, November 10, 1970), NHTSA explained that the reason for specifying only four print types which would be acceptable without advance agency approval was to ensure that the information would be easily readable by all people. The G006 print type that you have submitted is easily readable and thus satisfies our concerns. Accordingly, NHTSA approves use of the G006 print type. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Dated: 12/19/14 Ref: Part 574 |
2014 |
ID: Part 579--EWR--AllianceOpen
Robert Strassburger, Vice President Vehicle Safety and Harmonization Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 803 7th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001-3717
Re: Request for Interpretation
Dear Mr. Strassburger:
This responds to your November 6, 2013 letter on behalf of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) requesting clarification and guidance regarding a recent amendment to the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulation, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 579, subpart C. Specifically, you seek clarification regarding the updating of manufacturer reports when required to provide updates under 49 CFR 579.28(f)(2)(i) & (ii).
As background, the EWR regulation requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to submit quarterly reports of early warning information: production information; information on incidents involving death or injury; aggregate data on property damage claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field reports; and copies of field reports (other than dealer reports and product evaluation reports) involving specified vehicle components, a fire, or a rollover. 49 CFR Part 579, subpart C. On August 20, 2013, NHTSA published a final rule amending the EWR regulation to add new vehicle types, fuel and propulsion codes, and component codes for light vehicle reporting under 49 CFR 579.21. See 78 Fed. Reg. 51382, 51424-45. The amendments to the EWR rule are effective August 20, 2014. Section 579.28(f)(2) requires a manufacturer to submit an updated report on incidents involving death or injury when a vehicle manufacturer is not aware of the VIN at the time the incident is initially reported or when the component code 99 (system or component is unknown) is reported in its initial report, and the manufacturer becomes aware during a subsequent calendar quarter of the VIN or that one or more of the specified systems or components allegedly contributed to the incident. 49 CFR 579.28(f)(2)(i) & (ii). A manufacturer need not submit an updated report if the VIN or system or component is identified by the manufacturer in a reporting period that is more than one year later than the initial report to NHTSA. Id.
You raise several scenarios seeking guidance on the applicability of the EWR regulation's updating requirements in light of recent amendments that I repeat below, followed by NHTSAs interpretation.
1. "A manufacturer files an EWR report for the first quarter of 2014 (as a hypothetical example) that includes a death/injury claim coded as '99' because the claim does not specify the system or component allegedly contributing to the incident. During the 3rd quarter of 2014, the manufacturer becomes aware that the claimant is alleging that the death/injury claim involves a failure of a forward collision warning system. Must the manufacturer update the EWR report to include the new information regarding the forward collision warning system, even though the requirement to include such information did not apply when the initial report was filed?... Would the answer be different if the information is learned in the 4th quarter of 2014 (after the new reporting categories would be in effect)?"
Under the first scenario in your hypothetical, pursuant to 49 Part 579.28(f)(2)(ii), the manufacturer must update the death and injury claim in its quarterly report for the period in which it learns of the updated information. The manufacturer would not have to submit its updated report under the Forward Collision Warning component code because the component code would not be effective for that period. However, the manufacturer would have to update the death and injury claim with an applicable component code available in the third quarter reporting period. Under the second scenario in your hypothetical, the answer would be slightly different. If the manufacturer learns of the information in the fourth quarter of 2014, the manufacturer would have to report the updated report under the Forward Collision Warning component code.
2. "A manufacturer files an EWR report for the first quarter of 2014 that includes a death/injury claim coded as '98' because the allegation was that the death or injury was caused by a failure of the lane departure warning system .... Must the manufacturer update this EWR report to conform the report to the new reporting categories after they take effect?"
No. NHTSA will not require a manufacturer to update all death and injury EWR reports that alleged one of the new component codes and were submitted before the effective date of the new component codes.
3. "A manufacturer files an EWR report for the first quarter of 2014 that includes a death/injury claim without a VIN. The claim is coded 03 because the allegation is that the death or injury was caused by a failure of the service brake system. The manufacturer subsequently learns the VIN in the 3rd quarter of 2014, and prepares an updated EWR report to add the VIN. Must this updated report now include information about whether the service brake allegation involved foundation brakes or automatic brake controls? Must the updated report identify the vehicle type and the fuel and/or propulsion system?"
The answer to both questions is no. Pursuant to 49 Part 579.28(f)(2)(i), if a manufacturer does not know the VIN associated with an incident at the time the incident is initially reported, a manufacturer is required to submit an updated report with the VIN of such incident in the reporting period in which the VIN is identified. Under this section, no other information is required to be updated. An update is not required if the VIN is identified in a period that is one year later than the initial report to NHTSA.
4. "In addition, for these scenarios and others, it is uncertain whether updates would be provided using current templates or any new templates that may be specified by the agency. [Also], there should be flexibility for manufacturers to provide updates using any new template on a voluntary basis."
Updated reports should be submitted with the templates used when those files were first submitted. NHTSA will maintain the existing templates expressly for updated reports. We note that while the Alliance states that this is a transitional issue, there are instances where a manufacturer may need to revisit a prior EWR submission and provide an update. Accordingly, the agency will maintain the existing templates for such instances. You also ask whether manufacturers may voluntarily submit EWR reports using the new templates prior to the effective date of the amended rule. Due to the technical difficulties involved in processing and validating the huge amount of data coming in to the EWR system each quarter, NHTSA must work with only one template for the specified quarter. Manufacturers must submit reports using the template in effect for the reporting period and any subsequent revised reports must be reported with the template that was effective at the time the original report was submitted.
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns. If you need any further assistance in this matter, please contact Andrew J. DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263 or by email at andrew.dimarsico@dot.gov.
Sincerely,
O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel
Dated: 3/12/14 Ref: Part 579
|
2014 |
ID: pedlok.ogmOpenMr. Chris Webre Dear Mr. Webre: This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal standards to a product you have developed. You stated that your company produces a product known as the PED-Lok. According to your letter, the PED-Lok automatically applies service brake pressure to the rear brakes of a school bus when the loading and unloading warning lights are flashing and the passenger door is opened. You asked if Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) apply to this product. By way of background information, Congress has authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. A review of Standard No. 121 indicates that this standard does not contain any provisions directly applicable to your product. However, I note that as your product is directly connected to the air brake system, a leak or malfunction in the device could have an effect on brake performance. If an auxiliary device such as the PED-Lok is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 121. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122). Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" prohibition does not require manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses to certify that vehicles continue to comply with the safety standards after any aftermarket modifications are made. Instead, "make inoperative" prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. Please note that the "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. In addition, as the manufacturer of the PED-Lok, Safety Systems and Controls would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer. Safety Systems and Controls would be subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). A "defect" includes "any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle safety" is defined as "the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance." 49 U.S.C. 30102. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either: 1. Repair the product so that the defect is removed; or 2. Replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect. The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the determination that defect existed. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
2000 |
ID: pereaOpenGilbert A. Perea, State Transportation Director Dear Mr. Perea: This responds to your letter asking about the modification of your large school buses (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds) by the installation of a new seating system that has an integral lap and shoulder belt system. I regret the delay in responding. You explain that an equipment manufacturer, Busbelts Development Corporation (BDC), has been promoting its seating systems for school buses in New Mexico. You enclose photographs of the BDC product and copies of material provided by BDC. The seating systems appear to be standard school bus bench seats that have been modified to incorporate an integrated lap and shoulder belt system. The shoulder belt portion of the system attaches to the top of the school bus seat back. You state that Mr. Gary H. Murphy of BDC has informed you that "all of the required tests have been completed to conform to applicable [FMVSSs] in a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration certified and approved testing Lab." (1) Further, a BDC brochure states that its system "enhances and complies with compartmentalization . . . ." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you asked that we respond to four questions. Each question concerns the safety of the BDC system and whether a school bus that has had its original seats replaced with the BDC seating systems would continue to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Our answers are provided below. In addressing those questions, it might be helpful to have some background information concerning seat belts on school buses. In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued a number of safety standards under our Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to improve protection to school bus passengers during crashes. One of these standards was Standard No. 222, which provides for passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Prior to issuance of Standard No. 222, we found that the school bus seat was a significant factor contributing to injury. We found that seats failed the passengers in three principal respects: by being too weak; too low; and too hostile. In response, we developed requirements to improve the performance of school bus seats and the overall crash protection of school buses. Those requirements comprise the "compartmentalization" approach we adopted for providing high levels of crash protection to school bus passengers. Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. If a seat is not compartmentalized by a seat back in front of it, compartmentalization must be provided by a restraining barrier. The seats and restraining barriers must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant. They must meet specified height requirements and be constructed, by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger. It is helpful to bear in mind the following highlights about compartmentalization:
With this background in mind, we now turn to your questions.
Because the BDC system is an item of equipment that is sold separately from a school bus, there are almost no safety standards that directly apply to it. Our safety standards for school buses apply to new, completed vehicles, not to separate components systems such as the bench seat and integrated belt system. As such, Standard No. 222 does not apply to the BDC product, assuming the product is sold in the aftermarket and is not sold as part of a new school bus. Our standard for seat belt anchorage strength (Standard No. 210) also applies to new, completed vehicles. A representation that a product meets crash protection standards that do not apply is misleading.(2) The only safety standard that applies to the aftermarket product is Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Standard No. 209 specifies strength, ease-of-use and other requirements for seat belt webbing, buckles, and other components. Section S4.1(c) of Standard No. 209 requires that a lap-and-shoulder belt system (a "Type 2 seat belt assembly") must provide upper torso restraint without shifting the pelvic restraint into the abdominal region. Some of the photographs you provided depict children wearing the Type 2 seat belt with the lap portion in the middle of their bodies, above the pelvic region. Placement of the lap portion of the seat belt in the abdominal area of a passenger is prohibited by S4.1(c). A belt positioned over the abdominal area will load the abdomen in a crash, resulting in a greater likelihood of injury to the abdomen and surrounding organs. It appears from some of the photographs that the lap belt is pulled on to the abdominal area of some of the children by a device that adjusts the positioning of the lap and the shoulder belts on small children. We refer to these types of devices as "belt positioning devices." Due in part to our concerns about positioning a lap belt over a child's abdominal area and about how some devices introduce excessive slack into the shoulder belt, we recently began a rulemaking action to regulate these devices. We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to require belt positioning devices to be labeled with a warning not to use them with children under a certain size (e.g., a child smaller than the average 6-year-old), and not to have the lap belt positioned over the child's abdomen. A copy of our NPRM is enclosed for your information. If the BDC system were installed on new school buses, the vehicle would have to meet Standard No. 222 and the other school bus standards with the product installed. Without testing a vehicle, we cannot make a positive determination of whether the standard could be met with the product installed. However, as explained below, we believe that a new school bus may not be able to meet the standard with the seating system. We have other safety concerns as well, apart from whether the requirements of Standard No. 222 could be met.
We believe it is possible that the incorporation of a shoulder belt into existing school bus seats would reduce the benefits of compartmentalization. As we explained in the background section, Standard No. 222's compartmentalization requirements rely on the school bus seat backs to help cushion and contain the occupants in a crash. Each seat back protects not only the occupant of that seating position, but also the occupant seated rearward of that seating position. If a shoulder belt were attached to a school bus seat back, the belt may prevent the seat back from deflecting forward in the manner required by S5.1.3 of Standard No. 222 to protect the rearward passenger. In other words, in a crash the seat back will not perform in a manner that would provide protection to an unrestrained passenger. Even if the seat back deflects as required by Standard No. 222, it is possible that compartmentalization could be compromised by the attachment of a shoulder belt to a school bus seat back. These relate to possible problems resulting from a load application of two different forces on the school bus seat in a severe crash. In a forward collision, a passenger restrained by the shoulder belt would load the belt at an earlier point in time than the point at which the seat back is impacted by an unbelted occupant seated directly rearward of the seat. The forward force on the seat back from the shoulder belt would tilt the seat back forward prior to the impact of the rearward unbelted occupant against the seat back. The unbelted occupant would ramp up the tilted seat back in the crash, rather than be contained in what had been a compartmentalized space. That occupant not contained in the compartment would be at greater risk of injury due to possible ejection and/or impacts against hard or unforgiving surfaces.(3) Both the head of the unrestrained passenger and the head of the restrained passenger could impact, possibly injuring both children. The head of the unrestrained passenger could impact the head of the restrained passenger, resulting in possible injury to the two passengers. Compartmentalization could be compromised in other ways as well. The seat backs of school buses must meet head protection requirements specified in S5.3.1. The performance requirements in S5.3.1 generally lead manufacturers to pad their seat backs with energy-absorbing foam and to ensure that there are no hard structures in the seat back that can cause head injuries to the passenger rearward of the seat back in a crash. Anchoring a shoulder belt to the seat back may require the installation of rigid components, which may cause the seat back to no longer meet S5.3.1. The seat backs must also meet leg protection requirements specified in S5.3.2 of Standard No. 222. The requirements are generally met by padding and other measures to protect passengers' knees as they impact seat backs in a crash. Apparently BDC modifies the school bus seat by installing a cross bar and D-ring structure to mount the belts and by installing a steel lap and shoulder belt retraction system within the seat back. The knee and leg protection requirements of the standard must continue to be met with the retrofitted components in the seat back. In addition to the issues discussed above, care should be taken to ensure that passengers will not be entangled in the shoulder belt webbing material in a crash. Shoulder belts that have a considerable amount of webbing around the head and neck area of children pose a risk of strangulation or other neck injuries. For the above reasons, we believe that a school bus seating system with an integrated lap and shoulder belt system might reduce the crash protection provided by compartmentalization. (4) There is limited information about how an integrated lap and shoulder belt system on a school bus seat would perform in a crash or affect the current safety of school buses. We are undertaking a comprehensive school bus safety research program to evaluate better ways of retaining occupants in the seating compartment. As part of that program, we will be looking into possible ways of redesigning the school bus seat as well as integrating a lap and shoulder belt into the seat that is compatible with compartmentalization. Also, we plan on conducting some research on extra padding, not only for the seat itself but also for the bus side wall. Information from this research program will help researchers better understand and develop the next generation of occupant protection systems for school buses.
Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from installing any modification that "make[s] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on the vehicle would be subject to fines of up to $1,100 per violation and to injunctive relief. The compartmentalization requirements of Standard No. 222 include requirements that a protective seat back must be provided to protect an unrestrained passenger. We believe that replacing a school bus seat with a seating system that has a torso belt is likely to make inoperative an element of design installed as part of the compartmentalization concept. We are concerned about the continued compliance of the bus with Standard No. 222's seat deflection and head and leg protection requirements. We are concerned about the ability of the bus to continue to provide required crash protection to children regardless of whether a belt is used.
Compartmentalization is intended to restrain passengers in a crash regardless of whether they buckle up. A torso belt may reduce that level of safety to an unbelted passenger. As previously stated, we have concerns about a product that might interfere with the ability of a school bus to protect unbelted occupants. We will be evaluating integrated lap and shoulder belt systems in our school bus research program. The program will provide information that will help us better assess the merits, costs and feasibility of having integrated seat belts on school buses. Before closing, we wish to address a statement that BDC made in its marketing literature in support of seat belts on large school buses. BDC states that its "dynamic test data" shows that in a 30 mile per hour (mph) school bus crash, an unbelted occupant "suffered fatal head injuries (2000 HIC level) when his/her head came in contact with a standard school bus seat." These test data apparently result from computer simulations conducted for BDC. The data do not reflect the data we have obtained in actual crash testing of school buses. Actual crash test data from a 30 mph barrier crash conducted by NHTSA indicate that HIC measurements recorded by calibrated test dummies are all well below the 1,000 threshold level. On a final note, we would like to point out that many of your newer school buses may still be under the school bus manufacturer's warranty. Before you decide to retrofit any school bus with any seat belt, it may be prudent for you to share BDC's information with the school bus manufacturer, and request a determination whether the school bus manufacturer will continue to honor warranties if the BDC seat belts are placed on school buses. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
1. We note that this statement is misleading. NHTSA does not "certify" or "approve" test laboratories or facilities to conduct compliance testing or for any other purpose. 2. Regardless of whether a safety standard applies to the product, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30120 requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment to provide remedies if it is determined their products have safety-related defects. If it were determined that the seating systems had a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers and repair or replace the defective item without charge. 3. Another concern associated generally to the use of lap and lap and shoulder belts on large school buses relates to the potential for seat failure resulting from combined stresses exerted simultaneously or in close succession on a school bus seat by: (1) the belted occupant of the seat, where the seat belt is attached to the seat frame; and (2) an unbelted occupant, seated directly rearward of the seat, impacting the seat back. In a severe crash, the combined force applications on a particular seat resulting from a belted occupant and an unbelted occupant in the rearward seat could increase the likelihood of seat failure or seat deformation. We do not believe that school buses are frequently involved in the type of severe frontal crashes where this phenomenon is likely to occur. However, there is a risk that compartmentalization could be compromised in this circumstance. 4. The concerns discussed above relating to the compatibility of compartmentalization with existing designs of lap and shoulder belts also apply to the situation where a belt system is retrofitted to existing school bus seats (i.e., where the original bench seat is modified but not replaced).
|
1999 |
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.