ID: 11061saf

Dr. Angela Mickalide
Program Director
National SAFE KIDS Campaign
111 Michigan Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20010-2970

Dear Dr. Mickalide:

Thank you for your letter asking about the child restraint registration form required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You ask whether a child restraint manufacturer could make certain modifications to the registration form to help SAFE KIDS obtain sociodemographic and other information about the families to whom SAFE KIDS will be distributing child seats. As explained below, Standard 213 does not permit the modifications, but does permit an alternative approach.

You explain in your letter that SAFE KIDS and its partners will be providing approximately 38,000 child seats to needy families through distribution sites. You would like to collect information about the recipient families' sociodemographic profile and other factors, by having the restraint manufacturer add questions to the child seat registration form. Distribution site coordinators would mail the completed forms to the manufacturer, who would then tabulate the data for SAFE KIDS' research purposes.

The registration form you ask about is part of an owner registration program that NHTSA established to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer recall campaigns. The form, required by S5.8 of Standard 213, is standardized in appearance, and may not contain other material such as questions concerning the sociodemographic characteristics of the child restraint owners. A particular problem with such questions is that their presence on the registration form might cause some consumers to resist providing the information, or to conclude that the form was for warranty purposes rather than for safety recalls. As a result, they might not return the card.

While we understand that you would like to modify the registration form only for the purposes of your distribution program, unfortunately we lack the authority to grant a special exemption for your situation.

However, Standard 213 does permit an alternative that you suggested. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you said that you are considering asking the manufacturer to place the questions on a separate form and to attach that form to the child seat. That approach is fine. The registration form has to be attached to the child seat to ensure that owners will notice the form. While we want manufacturers to limit what additional materials they attach to child seats (to ensure that attachments do not distract from the form), your supplemental form should not cause a problem since your coordinators will be involved with registering the owners. Thus, there is no risk that the registration form will go unnoticed and uncompleted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Best wishes for success in your distribution program.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:9/5/95

ID: nht70-2.30

DATE: 10/19/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of October 1, 1970, you asked for the opinion of this office as to whether the State of California, in specifying approval procedures for seat belts to be sold within the State, must require seat belt manufacturers to produce data showing that they have performed the exact tests specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not instructions for, or descriptions of, manufacturer tests, nor do they specify types and numbers of tests. They are statements of requirements that each vehicle or item of equipment must meet when tested by the Bureau. Manufacturers are required to exercise due care to ensure that their vehicles will meet the standards if tested by the Bureau, and they are at their own discretion in devising an appropriate testing program for that purpose.

If a seat belt manufacturer presents data of tests conducted on webbing taken from rolls, rather than from individual assemblies, and if you are satisfied that such data demonstrates that the webbing would comply with Standard No. 209 when tested according to the procedures of that standard, you may, in our opinion, accept such data for purposes of State approval.

I trust that your question has been adequately answered. If you need further clarification we will be glad to provide it.

ID: nht91-2.9

DATE: March 5, 1991

FROM: Binichi Doi -- NSK Representative, NSK Corporation

TO: Mr. Kratzke -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: Re Safety Belt Labelling

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Binichi Doi (A37; Std. 209)

TEXT:

This request for ruling is per our telephone communication on March 1, 1991. On March 1, you were kind enough to listen to my rather poorly composed explanation of the situation. Briefly, the problem is as follows:

1. NSK's safety belts which in this subject case are symmetrical in construction for LH and RH seats of vehicles in that both are made of the same material/part composition.

2. If these belts go into regular passenger cars for export to this market, the belt for LH seats would have a switch for restraint system display whereas RH belts have no switch, however, the subject vehicle type is that it sometimes is used for mail delivery. In such case RH belts should have the switch also.

3. Model nos. of LH belts and RH belts are different from each other because of presence/nonpresence of the switch. Therefore, if we are to cover the limited case of "mail delivery" applications separately from regular passenger cars we need to prepare two separate labels for RH belts, one showing a model no. indicating a belt with a switch and another without although these belts are exactly the same in all aspects other than the switch.

4. We would like to receive your ruling whether one type label showing both belt model nos. with and without switch can be attached to all RH seat belts shipped from us to our customer, auto manufacturer, who produces this subject model vehicles.

5. As for the necessary identification of belts for mail delivery vehicle applications the presence of a switch on a belt for RH seats should clearly indicate to car manufacturers that it be installed in mail delivery vehicles and as for the test report for certification, which in our case is prepared by the US Testing Lab, it would indicate that the subject RH seat belt would carry a label with two belt model nos., one for a belt with the switch and the other without the switch.

Hoping that the above explanation is sufficient in explaining the reason for our request for your ruling and looking forward to hearing from your office as soon as possible.

P.S. - If further clarification is needed please contact me at 1-800-521-0605 in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

ID: nht70-2.48

DATE: 03/11/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Kurt Meier

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1970, to Mr. John. M. Will of this offices, partaining to the identification of shift lever position of customatic transmissions as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102.

FMVSS No. 102 specifies that each shift lever position of automation transmission shall be identified and shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver. Your proposed shift lever position identification for future automatic tranmissions, as can be determined from your diagrammatical sketch, does not provide identification for the "neutral" position. Appropriate identification, whether it be the letter "N" or some other suitable designation, must be provided to satisfy the requirements of the safety standard.

It was noticed, from your setch, that the tranmission shift lever seque for the forward drive positions progresses from low to high gear from the neutral position. As background information for the National Highway Bureau's Compliance Test Program, we are interested in low you plan to certify a vehicle incorporating the proposed shift lever sequence for FMVSS 105 (Rydraulic Service Brake, Emergency Brake and Parking Brake Systems) during the 30, 60, and 80 m.p.h. Effectiveness Tests. Your response citing the above reference will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your interest in the safety program of the National Highway Safety Bureau.

ID: ntea2.ztv

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 2003, asking 20 questions relating to the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations issued by this agency (Subpart C, 49 CFR Part 579). By letter dated April 11, 2003, we previously answered several other questions you asked about these regulations. Your questions, and our responses, are as follows:

"1) For manufacturers of fewer than 500 vehicles per year, is NHTSA requiring a report for each quarter when there are no fatalities?"

No.

"A) If not, are low volume and equipment manufacturers still required to submit a request for an m [User] ID and password when they have no fatalities to report?"

No.

"B) Is it true that low volume and equipment manufacturers can submit reports for fatalities in writing to NHTSA?"

No. "Low volume" and equipment manufacturers eligible to report under Section 579.27 must submit reports of claims and notices involving deaths in one of the two ways specified under Section 579.29(a)(2), either by submitting them to the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) early warning repository through the use of templates available through NHTSAs internet home page, or by filling out an interactive form on ODIs early warning website.

"2) Is there another method for requesting and receiving a [User] ID and password, and also the designation of manufacturer's contacts, besides writing to the Director or [sic] ODI, as required under Part 579.29?"

No.

"A) If [a request for] an ID and password is submitted in writing within the required period, and it is not received prior to the due date for the reports, what should a manufacturer do?"

ODI will attempt to provide user IDs and passwords well before the due dates for reporting. If a manufacturer does not receive that information by the due date, it should notify ODI which will take appropriate action. We would then expect reports to be submitted within 10 working days after the manufacturer receives the User ID and password.

"B) Also, if a low volume or equipment manufacturer has no fatalities to report, are they still required to submit a request for an ID and password and the designation of the manufacturer's contacts?"

No.

"3) Part 579.29 - Manner of Reporting, indicates that the required reports must be submitted to NHTSA's early warning data repository identified on NHTSA's Internet home page (www.nhtsa.dot.gov). As of April 21, 2003, there does not appear to be any reference to the repository or to early warning reporting in general, including the Excel templates on the home page. When will the repository, Excel templates and any other information be listed on the home page?"

The NHTSA home page contains a link to "Early Warning Reporting (EWR) Requirements" under the list of "Popular Information."That link will take the viewer to templates and other information which are available now for downloading. Templates may be updated, as necessary. Manufacturers are encouraged to check the website periodically for any such updates.

"A) Also, Part 579.29 indicates that manufacturers of fewer than 500 vehicles per year and equipment manufacturers can either submit reports to the data repository "or by manually filling out an interactive form on NHTSA's early warning web site." Where is this located, and are there instructions/examples for using this interactive form? (See question 1 regarding low volume/equipment mfg.)"

There will be a link from the NHTSA website. We will also provide an information manual on how manufacturers are to report to ODI.

4) [Answered by the Final Rule published April 15, 2003, 68 FR 18136]

"5) For manufacturers that have production of 500 or more vehicles for the first time in the 2003 calendar year or after, but not in any prior year, what would be their reporting obligations?"

"A) If such a manufacturer reaches a production level of 500 for the very first time in the 4th quarter of a given calendar year, are they then responsible for submitting reports for the 4th quarter and each of the prior 3 quarters of that calendar year?"

In this situation, a manufacturer would submit reports under Section 579.27 for the first three calendar quarters, and, for the fourth quarter, reports under Sections 579.21-24, according to the type of vehicle manufactured.

"B) If so, would such a manufacturer also be required to submit a one-time historical report?"

The one-time historical report is due only on the date specified in Section 579.28(c), and would not be required from a manufacturer that begins to submit reports under sections 579.21-.24 at a subsequent date.

C) [Moot]

"D) How are the reporting obligations for the quarterly reporting and one-time historic report determined for manufacturers whose production fluctuates above and below 500 vehicles per year for the previous 2 or more years?"

The EWR regulations provide that if a manufacturers aggregate production of a vehicle type "during the calendar year of the reporting period or during each of the prior two calendar years is 500 or more," the manufacturer is not eligible to report under Section 579.27 for that type, and must provide quarterly reports and a one-time historical report in accordance with Section 579.28(c). See, e.g. the introductory text of Section 579.22.

"6) When acting as an intermediate stage manufacturer, how are vehicles that are modified treated? Are they counted for production?"

As we explained in our letter of April 11, 2003 to you, for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, only the manufacturer of the completed vehicle is required to report as a vehicle manufacturer. Incomplete vehicles, including vehicles produced by intermediate manufacturers, are deemed to be equipment, and information about them need not be reported under Sections 579.21-.24. However, we recognize that some light vehicle manufacturers may choose to include information about their incomplete chassis along with their other vehicles for which they report under Section 579.21. The final rules definition of "type" includes "incomplete vehicle" as a category of "light vehicle." Therefore, such a manufacturer would report production numbers and other data for incomplete vehicles that will be light vehicles when completed.

"A) Are intermediate stage manufacturers considered to be equipment manufacturers, since they are not completing the incomplete vehicle?"

See prior answer.

"7) Production Number reporting - do manufacturers of vehicles built in 2 or more stages count both the vehicles that they complete from incomplete chassis and the number of vehicles that they alter? The OEM of the completed vehicles that are altered, such as a pickup truck with the box removed and a new body added, would already have counted the completed pickup in their production numbers, so would the alterer need to count it as well after their manufacturing operations?"

Yes. A manufacturer must include in its production numbers any vehicle to which it attaches, or should attach, a certification under Part 567, either as its original manufacturer or as its alterer.

"A) Are used vehicles that are modified counted toward production, warranty claims, etc. since the company performing this is technically not a "manufacturer" at this point, but a repair facility? Ex. a used chassis that has a new body installed on it."

As a general rule, a used chassis with a new body installed is not considered a new vehicle, and no reporting is required under the EWR regulations. In addition, modifications of used vehicles, with two exceptions, are insufficient to create a new vehicle subject to NHSTA regulations that apply to new vehicles. Those two exceptions are based upon the extent of the modifications. See Sections 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, and 571.7(f), Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. These provisions may be relevant to the operations of some NTEA members.

"If so, what model year is used for reporting, the original model year of the vehicle or the year in which it was modified?"

If a truck or trailer is considered newly manufactured under Sections 571.7(e) or (f), the model year would be that of the year of the vehicles modification, and reporting would be required under the EWR regulations in the same manner as other new motor vehicles. If a truck or trailer is not considered newly manufactured under these sections, no reporting is required. This moots your remaining questions under "A."

"B) Along the same lines, under Part 571.7(e) and (f), since certain vehicles are excluded from Subpart B, does it make a difference whether a vehicle that is modified after the first retail sale is considered newly manufactured or not with regard to being counted toward production. For example, if it is not newly manufactured is it

accounted for, and if so how? If it is considered newly manufactured is it accounted for, and if so, how? If not, what about when a new VIN is issued? If so, for a vehicle with a new VIN, what model year would be used to designate it?"

See our answers to questions 7 and 7 A) above.

"C) Also under Part 571.7(c), since military vehicles are excluded from Subpart B, are vehicles and/or equipment produced and sold to the US Armed Forces counted toward production and included in reporting of warranty claims, consumer complaints, field reports, etc.?"

The exclusion of Section 571.7(c) is limited to compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and does not extend to other NHTSA regulations applicable to motor vehicles. We would expect manufacturers of vehicles that they would otherwise be required to certify, such as staff (passenger) cars and some trucks, to submit reports under the EWR regulations in the same manner as manufacturers of non-military motor vehicles certified by their manufacturers.

"D) Vehicles modified for mobility of the disabled are allowed to use the exemption from the make inoperative prohibition under which the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than retail is defined as the point at which the seller and the end user enter into a sales contract that identifies a specific vehicle to be delivered in the Final Rule of February 27, 2001. Are vehicles that are modified under this provision counted for production purposes?"

Part 595 only applies to modifications made after first sale. Therefore, they will be counted for EWR purposes by their original manufacturers, and not by the modifier.

"8) What are the model years of production volumes that need to be reported for the one-time historic and on-going quarterly reports? The July 10, 2002 (sic) indicates that production volumes from 1994 to the present must be reported for each year of the one-time report and then a moving window of the current model year plus the past 9 model years for the quarterly reports (i.e. is it provided for every year starting with 1994 and carries forward so there are always 9 years plus the current year shown on the quarterly reports?)."

For the quarterly reports, the reports must cover all vehicles "manufactured during the reporting period and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period." See, e.g., the introductory text of Section 579.22. For the one-time historic report, each of the twelve reports must cover claims and field reports applicable to vehicles back to model year 1994.

"A) Can you please give examples of what production information should be submitted for both the one-time historical report and the quarterly reports?"

The production information that is required for quarterly reports and the one-time historical report by manufacturers is described in the introductory text of Sections 579.21- 579.24, and subsection (a) of each of these sections. See the production template at NHTSAs EWR website for an example of the information that is to be submitted.

"B) Also, are the one-time historical reports to be produced utilizing the quarterly spreadsheet templates?"

Manufacturers should use the templates for the production numbers and the number of warranty claims and field reports for their one-time historical report.

"If so, what would be the file name strategy vs. the quarterly reports?"

ODI is developing a "naming convention" which will be covered in an early warning reporting manual that will be issued in the near future.

"9) Can the one-time historical report for warranty claims, warranty adjustments and field reports be submitted electronically?"

The one-time historical report should be filed electronically in the same manner as quarterly reports under Section 579.29(a).

"10) The Final Rule published on January 28, 2003 indicates that NHTSA would allow electronic submission of foreign defect reports under Part 579.11, so that they may be transferred by email or fax. Does this apply to other documents required under Part 579.11, specifically the annual list of substantially similar vehicles?"

Yes. Moreover, NHTSA is developing a template for these submissions.

"11) Clarification - are manufacturers responsible for reporting warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc. for equipment that was installed after the first retail sale by someone or themselves?"

We assume that the last phrase of this question meant to say "by someone other than themselves." Vehicle manufacturers need not report warranty claims, etc. under those circumstances. However, they would have to report a claim or notice about a death or injury regarding their product, even if they believe the claim arose out of the performance of an aftermarket addition.

"12) Are manufacturers responsible for reporting warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc. for altered vehicles? If they don't count toward the alterer's production count, it would seem then that they should be excluded from reporting in any of the other categories not involving deaths or injuries."

Alterers are responsible for reporting on the vehicles they alter. If an alterer has certified, or was required to certify, 500 or more vehicles per year within a specific vehicle category, it is required to submit production numbers, the number of warranty claims, consumer reports, etc.

"13) What are the rules for forwarding information that is received from other manufacturers in regards to external communications? Do engineering bulletins that are produced by another manufacturer and sent to more than one other manufacturer, dealer, customer, etc. and then redistributed by one of the recipients who also happens to be a manufacturer, have to be sent to NHTSA by the manufacturer recipient who re-distributes the bulletin/communication?"

Yes, they must do so under Section 579.5, even though the information may also be submitted by the original issuer of the document.

"14) Is there a hierarchy of reporting categories for incidents that fit more than one reporting category? E.g. how would an incident that starts as a consumer complaint that turns into a warranty claim be logged? Both as a consumer complaint and warranty claim or just one of them?"

The incident would be reported both as a consumer complaint and as a warranty claim.

"15) Make - Is it acceptable to use the chassis manufacturer's designation for the make and model?"

No. Our system will not accept submissions that attempt to specify multiple, unrelated manufacturers producing the same make, model, and model year vehicle. For EWR purposes, a final stage manufacturer can create a pseudo make by combining the final stage manufacturers name with the chassis make, such as Widget Ford, Widget Dodge, Widget Volvo, etc., used in conjunction with the appropriate model application. If a single body is installed on various chassis of a single manufacturer, the model designation would be modified to reflect the chassis. From the example above, Widget Ford becomes Widget Ford 150, Widget Ford 250, etc.

Whichever way a final stage manufacturer identifies a product in its production data, that product identification must be applied throughout each quarterly report (i.e., Death, Injury, Warranty, Consumer Complaints, etc.) as well as in all future quarterly reports.

"16) What constitutes structure"?

For purposes of the EWR regulations, "Structure" is defined in Section 579.4(b).

"A) If truck bodies are considered structures, are all components of the truck body considered to be part of the structure for warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

Yes.

"B) If yes, what about latch mechanisms on the body compartments-would they be categorized under latch-17?"

Yes. "Latch," as defined in Section 579.4(b), applies to latching devices on "doors" of all exterior body compartments.

"C) Further, are there any components of truck body that would not be reportable for warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

A manufacturer that has certified a completed truck is not required to report the number of property damage claims, consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field reports, involving a body component that is not considered "structure." However, the manufacturer would be required to report incidents involving death or injury with respect to such a component, using Code 98.

"i Clarification - are paint runs or dents or scratches reportable as warranty claims, consumer complaints, etc.?"

No. These do not relate to any systems or components of a vehicle specified in the regulations.

"ii What about equipment that is attached to or stored within a body? How would they be classified? Examples: ladder racks, generators, welding equipment, cranes, tool boxes, liquid storage tanks, sprayers, etc."

Equipment attached to the exterior of a body could create a safety problem if it detaches from the body while the trailer is in motion should be classified as "structure." Please note that the definition of "structure" includes mounting elements such as brackets and fasteners. On the other hand, equipment stored within a trailer is normally related to the structure of the vehicle. However, an incident that occurs that is due in whole or in part to the equipment, such as a fire or an incident involving a death, would be reportable.

"(a) And, would it make a difference if the vehicle to which the equipment is attached was completed from an incomplete vehicle vs. an altered vehicle with the same equipment?"

No.

"17) Would the definition of latch include locking/latching mechanisms that are located internally to a vehicle, such as on the inside of a second unit body of a truck or the interior of a trailer?"

No. The definition of "latch" relates only to a vehicles exterior doors.

"18) Would power take-off (PTO) issues be classified?"

"A) If so, how?"

"B) What about transmission mounted vs. engine mounted PTO's? Would the mounting location change the classification?"

Claims and other items involving PTOs would be reportable in the context of how they affect the vehicle or roadway safety; e.g., if a PTO failure causes the engine to seize, then it would be reported in the "Engine and Engine Cooling" category; if a hydraulic line to a PTO ruptures causing a fire, it would be reported under "Fire;" if there is an electrical problem as a result of a failure or problem with a PTO, then it would be reported under "Electrical System."

"19) In regards to the one-time historical report, the Production Information of Part 579.22 indicates that "[i]f the service brake system in a vehicle is not readily characterized as either hydraulic or air, the vehicle shall be considered to have hydraulic service brakes." Brake system information is not readily accessible in the records of many final-stage manufacturers, however, GVWR information typically is available. Given this, could manufacturers base their brake system designations on GVWR for the lack of any records to indicate otherwise? Some companies manufacture vehicles that are primarily under 20,000 Lbs. GVWR while others primarily manufacture Class 8 (over 33,000 Lbs. GVWR) vehicles. The guidance provided would be proper for assuming a hydraulic brake system for vehicles that are under 20,000 Lbs. GVWR, but not for vehicles that are over 33,000 Lbs. as they are predominately equipped with air brakes."

With respect to the service brake issues in the one-time historic report, the manufacturer should provide the warranty claim counts, as they are available. If the counts are not divided by type of service brake system, the approach suggested by NTEA is acceptable except that to prevent any gaps, vehicles with a gross vehicle weight less than 30,000 lbs. GVWR should be filed in Service Brake System, Hydraulic, and all others in Service Brake System Air.

"20) Part 573.5(a) states that [e]ach manufacturer of a motor vehicle shall be responsible for any safety-related defect or any noncompliance determined to exist in the vehicle or in any item of original equipment. Does this mean that a final-stage manufacturer would be required to perform a recall on vehicles that it completes where the defect or noncompliance lies within the incomplete chassis upon which the completed vehicle is based?"

Recall responsibility rests primarily with the manufacturer that certified the completed vehicle. See Sections 568.7, 571.3, 573.5. If the final stage manufacturer certified the vehicle, then it is primarily responsible for remedying any safety-related defect or noncompliance in the vehicle, including the portion of the vehicle manufactured by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. If an incomplete vehicle manufacturer or intermediate manufacturer certified the vehicle, then it is responsible for remedying the safety defect or noncompliance regardless of the manufacturer of the part or system that is the subject of the recall. Of course, the final stage manufacturer could seek indemnification or other redress from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

"A) Further, are incomplete vehicles considered to be "original equipment" for reporting purposes?"

See answer to Question 6.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.5/14/03

ID: 003917rbm

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). You specifically ask whether the telltale requirements of S19.2.2 would prohibit a design that would cause the telltale to flash for five seconds to inform vehicle occupants that the status of the air bag has changed. You have also requested that the name of your company be kept confidential due to the confidential business nature of the contemplated design. That request is granted. I am pleased to provide a response to your request for interpretation. The design discussed in your letter would not be prohibited by S19.2.2.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-size adults.

Under S19.2.2, any air bag system that uses automatic suppression technology to satisfy the requirements of the standard must have a telltale that illuminates whenever the air bag is suppressed and that does not illuminate whenever the air bag is active, except that the telltale need not illuminate when the passenger seat is unoccupied. S19.2.2 is silent as to how the telltale must operate while the status of the air bag is in transition. Nor does the provision address flashing, as opposed to continuous, illumination. S20.2 tests the air bag suppression system by placing a child restraint, test dummy, or human in the passenger seat, starting the engine and then waiting 10 seconds before determining the status of the air bag.

Under the design contemplated by your company, the required telltale would flash for five seconds to notify the vehicle occupants that the status of the air bag has changed. You state that you believe this feature will better alert both drivers and front seat passengers when the status of the air bag has changed than simply turning the telltale on or off. Under your design, the five seconds of flashing would be triggered by a change in status from "active" to "inactive" and vice versa. After the five-second flashing period has ended, the telltale would either illuminate steadily or go out, depending on the activation status of the air bag.

Nothing in S19.2.2 prohibits a telltale that flashes to inform vehicle occupants that the air bag has transitioned from an active to inactive status. While S19.2.2(h) prohibits telltale illumination other than when the air bag has been turned off (except during a bulb check), the intention behind S19.2.2(h) is to let vehicle occupants know whether or not their air bag is suppressed without requiring them to discern varying light intensities or other potentially confusing designs. Accordingly, we interpret the standard to permit a system that transitions from continually burning to flashing for a brief period of time, no more than 10 seconds, after the air bag has been reactivated.

Thus, your contemplated design would be permissible under S19.2.2 as long as the telltale only flashes when the air bag is actually suppressed or for a brief period of time after the air bag has been reactivated. Please note that while nothing in the standard would prohibit the telltale from continuously flashing whenever the air bag is suppressed, such designs could be unduly annoying and could lead a vehicle owner to disconnect the telltale. Likewise, an occupant detection system that regularly turned the air bag on and off because the status of the air bag was constantly in transition would be problematic.

Finally, we note that while a flashing design is not prohibited, any vehicle manufacturer choosing to incorporate such a design in its telltale would need to either provide an alternative means of determining whether the air bag is active or suppressed consistent with S19.2.3 or limit the flash to less than 10 seconds. This is because the test procedure set forth in S20.2, and its corollaries in S22.2 and S26.2, require the manufacturer to provide a mechanism that NHTSA can use to determine whether the automatic suppression system is, in fact, able to reliably classify the front passenger seat occupant. For a continually flashing system, the alternative means is necessary to differentiate between a properly functioning system and a problematic system that is continually transitioning between suppression and activation.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.7/16/03

ID: NCC-240112-Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

August 8, 2024

Mark Cherveny
Manager, Global Relations, Standards & Compliance The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
200 Innovation Way
Akron, OH 44316-0001 

Dear Mr. Cherveny: 

This letter responds to Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company’s “Letter of Interpretation Request for § 571.139 S5.5(c): maximum inflation pressure,” which states that your company has received requests from original equipment vehicle manufacturers to stamp “350 kPa” on “Extra Load” passenger tires. Your request seeks clarification on whether your company is “permitted to stamp an Extra Load passenger tire with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa.” It then asks: “If this is permitted, then would the minimum breaking energy specified in [49 C.F.R.] § 571.109 Table I-C and the test inflation pressures specified in § 571.109 Table II – Test Inflation Pressures … still apply for strength testing?” 

In responding to this request, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

As to your question whether “Extra Load” tires may be labeled as 350 kPa, NHTSA’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) have no labeling requirements based on whether a passenger car tire is extra load or standard load. Thus, the FMVSS do not prohibit the proposed labeling on passenger car tires.1 

As to your question about the minimum breaking energy and inflation pressure tests in FMVSS No. 109, the testing requirements in Table I-C and Table II are based on a tire’s maximum inflation pressure and make no reference to whether the tire is labeled as standard load, extra

1 This letter, like your request, focuses solely on the FMVSS. Whether the proposed labeling complies with any other federal or state law or standards is outside the scope of this letter and we take no position on that question.

Page 2
Mr. Mark Cherveny 

load, or XL.2 Thus, passenger car tires with a maximum inflation pressure of 350 kPa are subject to the inflation pressures indicated for 350 kPa tires in the testing requirements set forth in Tables I-C and II. 

We note that your request did not inquire how the testing requirements in FMVSS 139, as opposed to those in FMVSS 109, apply to 350 kPa tires that have been stamped “Extra Load.” Because you did not request an interpretation of the testing standards in FMVSS 139, this letter does not provide such an interpretation. 

Finally, as you note in your letter, FMVSS No. 138—unlike FMVSS 109 and 139—does refer to the maximum inflation pressures for both standard load and extra load tires. The U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association has requested that NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 109 and 139 “to clarify marking and testing based on load classification,” and that it specifically clarify “whether 350 kPa is acceptable as a ‘Maximum Permissible Inflation Pressure’ marking for XL tires.”3 NHTSA is considering that request. However, as they currently stand, the testing requirements in Tables I-C and II of FMVSS 109 make no reference to load classification and are based solely on a tire’s maximum inflation pressure. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/8/24
Ref: Standard No. 109

2 FMVSS No. 109 has never referred to the terms “standard load,” “extra load,” or “reinforced” tires. 58 FR 59227 (Nov. 8, 1993).
3 See Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0011-0017.

ID: aiam5584

"Dear Mr. Lockman: This responds to your request for an interpretatio whether a Model Year (MY) 1981 Versa Sweeper road sweeper is a 'motor vehicle' and therefore subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that were in effect when the vehicle was manufactured. Further, you ask whether the Versa Sweeper had to comply with requirements for an occupant restraint system or for rollover protection. You explained that you are conducting an investigation, and that 'At the time in question, the vehicle was being used in a construction zone, to sweep debris off the roadway.' I note, before beginning, that your letter had asked for certain information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). NHTSA separately answered your FOIA request by letter dated May 22, 1995, from Ms. Heidi Coleman of my staff, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law. Yours is an unusual interpretation request. Typically, questions concerning whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle are raised around the time of manufacture of a vehicle or its importation into the country, and by a person knowledgeable about the intended use of the vehicle, such as the vehicle's manufacturer. In contrast, your question asks about another entity's vehicle 14 years after the vehicle's manufacture, which makes our response more difficult. We cannot say for certain what principles would have applied in 1981 concerning the Versa Sweeper, and our knowledge of the vehicle is limited to the information you provided. Thus, a conclusive answer is beyond our reach. We can make the following observations, however. NHTSA applies several principles when making a determination of whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defined a motor vehicle as 'a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . . .' We are not certain, based on the information you provided, that the Versa Sweeper was manufactured for use on public highways. The literature you sent indicates that the Versa Sweeper is intended for 'road maintenance sweeping and highway preparation cleaning.' It appears that the vehicle might be a construction vehicle. Moreover, you indicated that the vehicle was being used in a construction zone 'at the time in question.' Construction-related vehicles generally are 'motor vehicles' for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site for only a limited time. With regard to the 1981 Versa Sweeper, its use of the highway is unclear. Assuming the Versa Sweeper had regularly used the highway, NHTSA's longstanding position has been that vehicles of unusual configuration that are incapable of obtaining speeds greater than 20 miles per hour (mph) are not required to comply with the FMVSSs. It is unclear how this principle applies to a 1981 Versa Sweeper. The material you enclosed indicates that the Versa Sweeper has 'Infinitely variable speeds from 0-30 miles per hour....' It is unclear whether this means each Versa Sweeper can attain a speed of 30 mph or whether some, but not all, can. A Versa Sweeper that had a maximum speed of less than 20 mph is excluded. One that went over 20 mph might not have been. You ask about requirements for occupant restraints and rollover protection. The agency has stated that 'street sweepers'--that are motor vehicles--are trucks. In 1981, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), required open-bodied light trucks to have a lap belt system. There was no rollover requirement. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht95-4.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 21, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Rita Cola Carroll -- Chairperson, Bus Safety Committee, Great Valley School District, Paoli, PA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/9/95 LETTER FROM Rita Cola Carroll to NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Ms. Carroll:

This responds to your question whether a child sitting on a school bus seat with part of his body extending into the aisle, is afforded the compartmentalization protection of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection.

We have addressed this issue in an October 26, 1994; letter to Ms. Debra Platt of Stuart, Florida, and have enclosed a copy of our response for your information. In the Platt letter, NHTSA agrees that it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, rather than face forward. We are enclosing a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, which is referenced in the Platt letter. Guideline 17 uses specific wording with regard to seating of school children. It says: "Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat intended by the vehicle's manufacturer to provide accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.208 ."

We are also enclosing a copy of a report prepared by this agency entitled School Bus Safety Report, and a copy of a Report Summary prepared by the Transportation Research Board in May 1989. The latter two reports give a good overview of school bus safet y issues, and they and Guideline 17 contain recommendations to the various states in developing their own pupil transportation safety programs.

As noted in the Platt letter, since the States regulate school bus use, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Pennsylvania Governor's highway safety representa tive is:

Mr. Michael Ryan governor's Highway Safety Representative Deputy Secretary Highway Safety Administration Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1220 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Telephone: (717) 787- 6815

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely

ID: nht95-7.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 21, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Rita Cola Carroll -- Chairperson, Bus Safety Committee, Great Valley School District, Paoli, PA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/9/95 LETTER FROM Rita Cola Carroll to NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Ms. Carroll:

This responds to your question whether a child sitting on a school bus seat with part of his body extending into the aisle, is afforded the compartmentalization protection of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection.

We have addressed this issue in an October 26, 1994; letter to Ms. Debra Platt of Stuart, Florida, and have enclosed a copy of our response for your information. In the Platt letter, NHTSA agrees that it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, rather than face forward. We are enclosing a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, which is referenced in the Platt letter. Guideline 17 uses specific wording with regard to seating of school children. It says: "Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat intended by the vehicle's manufacturer to provide accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.208."

We are also enclosing a copy of a report prepared by this agency entitled School Bus Safety Report, and a copy of a Report Summary prepared by the Transportation Research Board in May 1989. The latter two reports give a good overview of school bus safety issues, and they and Guideline 17 contain recommendations to the various states in developing their own pupil transportation safety programs.

As noted in the Platt letter, since the States regulate school bus use, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Pennsylvania Governor's highway safety representative is:

Mr. Michael Ryan governor's Highway Safety Representative Deputy Secretary Highway Safety Administration Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1220 Transportation & Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Telephone: (717) 787- 6815

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely