NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: 8382aOpen Matthew J. Ryan, Director Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your letter of March 3, 1993, regarding a recent final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (58 FR 4586; January 15, 1993). This final rule requires buses designed to transport persons in wheelchairs to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems meeting specified performance standards. You request confirmation of two statements that you believe correctly construe the new requirements. The statements and our response to each follows. 1.If a school bus is built or modified to accommodate one or more wheelchairs, after January 17, 1994, the restraint/securement system required by the regulation change must be complied with. This statement is partially correct. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (VSA) prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. The rule you ask about becomes effective on January 17, 1994, and would apply to all school buses manufactured on or after that date. Therefore, you are correct that a school bus manufactured on or after that date, and which has one or more locations designed for carrying a person seated in a wheelchair, must be equipped with a wheelchair securement device and occupant restraint system complying with the requirements of Standard 222 at each wheelchair location. Whether a modified school bus must meet the restraint/securement requirements depends, first, on the date of manufacture of the bus, and second, the date of the modification. Since the wheelchair restraint/securement requirements would not apply to a school bus manufactured before the effective date of the requirements, a pre-January 17, 1994, school bus modified to carry a person in a wheelchair need not meet the requirements of the new rule regardless of when the modification is made. A post-January 17, 1994, school bus that is modified before the vehicle's first sale to the consumer to carry a person in a wheelchair would have to meet the new requirements. This is because the person installing the securement system would be considered an "alterer" under NHTSA's regulations (49 CFR 567.7) and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard 222 and its restraint/securement requirements. If a school bus is modified after the vehicle's first sale, the restraint/securement system need not meet the new requirements. This is because none of our FMVSS's for vehicles (such as Standard 222) applies to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to the consumer. After a vehicle's first sale, the only Federal requirement that would affect modifications of the vehicle is the "render inoperative" prohibition in 108(a)(2)(A) of the VSA. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The "render inoperative" prohibits commercial businesses from modifying a vehicle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards. However, the "render inoperative" provision does not require commercial businesses to bring the vehicle into compliance with standards upgraded after the vehicle was manufactured. Therefore, a used school bus modified after January 17, 1994, does not have to be equipped with wheelchair securement/restraint systems complying with the new requirements of Standard 222. 2.A school bus built with no wheelchair seating positions, is not required to have a wheelchair position. This statement is correct. The January 14, 1993, final rule amended Standard 222 by adding a new section S5.4. That section requires a "school bus having one or more locations designed for carrying a wheelchair" to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems at those locations. If a school bus is not designed for carrying a wheelchair, wheelchair securement/restraint systems do not have to be provided. The agency's rationale for not requiring all school buses to be designed to transport persons in wheelchairs is stated in the preamble to the final rule on page 4586. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:222 d:4/19/93 |
1993 |
ID: jensen.drnOpen Mr. Chris S. Jensen Dear Mr. Jensen: This responds to your recent letter requesting NHTSA's assistance to alter your MY 1996 Kia Sportage to accommodate your needs. Your letter informed us that you need to install a hand brake in your car in order to assist your driving, and to do this, you must remove a "knee airbag," installed at knee level at the driver's seating position. You ask us for written permission that would permit you to go to a dealership to disconnect the driver's side knee air bag. This letter grants the permission you request. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, requires that certain new vehicles be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bag in your car was installed as one means of complying with that requirement. Removing or deactivating an air bag by a vehicle dealer is prohibited by Section 30122(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code, the title under which Standard No. 208 was issued. That section provides in part that--
However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we would regard a deactivation of the driver's side knee air bag in your Sportage in the same way. NHTSA considers your special medical needs as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that deactivates the knee air bag in your car in order to install the hand brake. Please show this letter to your dealer or repair business when you take your car to have the driver's side knee air bag deactivated. If the dealer or repair business wishes to verify the authenticity of this letter, they may call the telephone number below. I hope this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 20077.drnOpenHeather A. Hale, Esq. Dear Ms. Hale: This responds to your request for an interpretation of dealers' responsibilities when selling12-15 passenger vans to child care facilities. You ask two questions that are answered below. Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which NHTSA decides is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." Your first question concerns NHTSA's position that Head Start programs and pre-schools are "schools" while day care facilities that are custodial in nature are not "schools." NHTSA still observes the distinction between facilities that provide educational programs and those that are strictly custodial. We do not consider day care centers that are custodial in nature to be "schools." Your second question was whether NHTSA's restrictions relating to the sale or lease of new "school buses" would apply to vehicles sold or leased to a child care facility which is custodial in nature and which would transport children between the children's homes and the facility. The response to this question assumes that no "significant" transportation "to or from school or school-related activities" would be provided. If transportation would be provided strictly between the children's homes and the custodial facility, a dealer would not be required to sell a school bus for this purpose. If, however, the bus would also be used significantly to transport children between the facility and a school, the dealer would be required to sell a school bus, even though the purchaser was the day care provider rather than the school. In recent interpretations, we have stressed that it is the purpose for which the bus is used, not the identity of the purchaser, that determines whether a dealer must sell a school bus or may sell another type of bus. In fully answering the second question, I ask that you take the following into consideration. At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating, in 1998 and 1999, four crashes in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." The NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children. In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:
In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using 12 to 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash. I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Information about NTSB's nonconforming bus report is available from the NTSB's Public Affairs Office at (202) 314-6100. Sincerely, |
1999 |
ID: aiam5199OpenMr. K. Aubrey Hottell Smith and Robson, Inc. Suite 200 354 North Prince St. Lancaster, PA 17603; Mr. K. Aubrey Hottell Smith and Robson Inc. Suite 200 354 North Prince St. Lancaster PA 17603; "Dear Mr. Hottell: This responds to your letter of June 7, 1993 requesting information on 'air bag replacement, air bag indicator light functioning, and any requirements or recommendations for indicator lights to be functional upon resale of a vehicle.' With regard to air bag replacement, I am enclosing a letter, dated January 19, 1990, to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. As explained in this letter, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. With regard to air bag indicator lights, S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After an air bag is deployed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As explained in the Conrad letter enclosed, this provision does not impose an affirmative duty to replace equipment damaged in a crash. Hence, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag indicator that is inoperable because of damage in a crash. However, the named commercial entities are prohibited from removing, disabling, or otherwise 'rendering inoperative' a functional indicator. Any violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. As noted in the Conrad letter enclosed, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. This recommendation would also include repair or replacement of a non-functioning indicator light. I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the Conrad letter. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: nht71-5.52OpenDATE: 06/25/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Robert W. Hunt Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: By letter of May 26, 1971, you requested an interpretation of the newly issued S5.3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (36 F.R. 4607, March 10, 1971). Your question is whether the three-pound weight shown in Figure 9 is the only force permitted on the lengthening stroke of the buckle abrasion test, or whether additional force may be applied. The three-pound weight is shown in the illustration of the lengthening stroke in Figure 9 for reasons of pictorial accuracy, since it remains attached to the belt throughout the cycle. It is not intended to indicate a three-pound limit on the lengthening stroke force and you are correct in your understanding that additional tension may be applied to obtain the required eight-inch stroke length. Please advise if we can be of further assistance. ROBERT W. HUNT COMPANY May 26, 1971 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attention: L. Schneider Re: Amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 209, Paragraphs 571.21, Title 49 of CFR Docket 69-23, Notice 2 When making tests provided for in the addition (d) "Resistance to Buckle Abrasion" of Paragraph S5.3, a condition occurred which led us to request clarification of the intent of this test procedure. Figure 9 provides for a three-pound weight (B) and it could be interpreted that this weight alone is required to pull the webbing through on the lengthening stroke. It is our understanding that this is not the intention of the specification and that the three-pound weight is provided to offer resistance on the shortening stroke and that additional tension may be applied on the lengthening stroke to be certain that the webbing is pulled through the buckle to obtain a stroke length of 8". In view of what we consider to be more than one possible interpretation of the intent of the specification we will appreciate clarification. W. H. SAVAGE, P.E. President |
|
ID: HollidayOpenW. David Holliday, Esq. Attorney At Law 8330 Meadow Road, Suite 122 Dallas, TX 75231 Dear Mr. Holliday: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for air bags. According to your letter, you are representing an individual who sustained a serious neck injury in a crash where the air bag in his 2000 Dodge Caravan which he was driving did not deploy. In your letter you asked questions related to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they existed at the time the vehicle was manufactured, January 2000. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) covering new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we issued, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires passenger cars and other light vehicles to be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at both the driver and right front passenger seating positions. While these requirements were phased in over time, the phase-in had been completed by January 2000, the time period you ask about. I note that the Caravan was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, and was among the light vehicles to which the standards air bag requirements applied. In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my office, you clarified that while your letter includes various statements concerning your understanding of the FMVSSs, your primary question is whether FMVSS No. 208 established a frontal impact speed or crash severity threshold above which the air bag must be activated or below which it may not be activated. Among other things, Standard No. 208 specifies that vehicles meet certain performance requirements in crash tests. These tests are conducted with instrumented test dummies placed in the front outboard seating positions of the vehicle. During the tests, the forces measured on the dummies may not exceed specified limits. However, the standard does not specify any crash severity threshold or frontal impact speed where the air bag must, or must not, deploy. This was true in January 2000 and it remains true today, although we note that additional crash test and other requirements have been added since January 2000. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at 202-366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref: 208 d.11.20/08 |
|
ID: 1985-04.23OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/15/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Ms. Janet L. Nedoba TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT:
Ms. Janet L. Nedoba Attorney at Law 111 Addison Elmhurst, Illinois 60126
Dear Ms. Nedoba:
Your letter of September 4, 1985, to the Consumer product Safety Commission was forwarded to our agency for reply, since we issue safety standards for motor vehicles under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). You asked if there are regulations that would apply to a safety belt used in a race car.
Our agency has issued Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance requirements for safety belts used in motor vehicles. A copy of the standard is enclosed. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(B)) defines a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for the public streets, roads, and highways,...." Whether a race car would be considered a motor vehicle covered by our standard would be determined by whether it was used on the street or whether it was intended and sold solely for off-road use. If the race car was manufactured for off-road (or non-public road) use, the standard would not apply.
If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure
September 4, 1985 The Consumer Product Safety Commission 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois Gentlemen:
I am presently working on a product liability lawsuit. The product involved is a safety belt designed for a race car, manufactured in 1979 by Rupert Industries, Inc. of Wheeling, Illinois, model number 85.
I would appreciate your forewarding to me any information you may have concerning standards applicable to this product or similar products.
Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Janet L. Nedoba JLN/jln |
|
ID: aiam3869OpenMr. Herbert R. Apuzzo, Laboratory Supervisor, American Safety Equipment Corporation, Corporate Quality Assurance & Reliability, 11441 Bradley Avenue, Pacoima, CA 91331; Mr. Herbert R. Apuzzo Laboratory Supervisor American Safety Equipment Corporation Corporate Quality Assurance & Reliability 11441 Bradley Avenue Pacoima CA 91331; Dear Mr. Apuzzo: This responds to your letter of September 25, 1984, to Mr William Smit which was forwarded to this office for reply. You asked several questions concerning the requirements of section 5.2(b) of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, which are answered below.; Your first question concerns the conditioning requirements of Procedur D of ASTM D756-78, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 209. You pointed out that the agency's compliance test procedure (document TP-209- 01) calls for conditioning for 24 hours, while ASTM D756-78 calls for conditioning for not less than 40 hours. The conditioning requirement incorporated by reference in Standard No. 209 is the correct version and is the method which will be used by the agency. The version of the agency's compliance test procedure you cite was prepared before the June 30, 1983, amendments to Standard No. 208 which adopted ASTM D756-78. The compliance test procedure will be revised to specify not less than 40 hours of conditioning.; Your second question concerned the requirement of Procedure D that par of the testing be done in a sealed container placed over water in a 176 degrees F recirculating oven. The test calls for maintaining 'a humid atmosphere' in the sealed container. You asked what percentage of humidity should be maintained.; You are correct that Procedure D does not specify the specifi percentage of humidity. However, section 6.2, *Test conditions*, of ASTM D756-78 specifies that the tests should be conducted in the Standard Laboratory Atmosphere of 23 plus or minus 2 degrees C and 50 plus or minus 5% relative humidity 'unless otherwise specified in the test methods or in this practice.' Since Procedure D does not specify a humidity level, the agency will use the humidity of 50 plus or minus 5% relative humidity specified in section 6.2.; You also asked whether a recirculating chamber can be used to conduc the test. The test equipment specified in the standard is the equipment the agency will use in its compliance tests. Manufacturers are free to use other test equipment as long as they can make a good faith certification that their product complies with the requirements set in the standard.; Your final question concerns another difference between ASTM D756-7 and the compliance test procedure. As explained above, the version of the compliance test procedure you cite was prepared before the June 1983 amendments to the standard and will be updated to cite the requirements adopted in those amendments. You asked for a description of 'dessicator'(sic) and 'uncharged dessicator'(sic) referred to in ASTM D756-78. A dessicator (sic) is a closed container that has a drying agent to absorb moisture. An 'uncharged dessicator'(sic) is a dessicator (sic) that does not have a test specimen in it.; In addition, you asked whether you could use an environmental chambe rather than a dessicator (sic). As discussed previously, the test procedures and equipment specified in the standard are the procedures and equipment which the agency will use in its compliance tests. Manufacturers are free to use other test equipment and procedures as long as they can make a good faith certification that their product complies with the requirements set in the standard.; If you have any other questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht71-1.26OpenDATE: 05/16/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA TO: Mitsubishi Motors Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 17, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W. Torns, regarding positioning of the anthropornorphic test devices for use in the crashes described in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. I am enclosing a copy of the newly revised version of the standard as well as an accompanying press release. In regard to your specific inquiry, Standard No. 208 does not contain specifications for the alignment of the dummy's head once positioned in the vehicle. Paragraph S8.1.11(a) specifies that the dummy head is aligned prior to positioning in the vehicle. Paragraphs S8.1.11(b) through (c) specify the procedure for positioning the dummy in the vehicle seat. If the procedures in S8.1.11 are followed as specified, the dummy's neck and head may actually be inclined because of contact with the roof or other vehicle components. Thank you for your interest in our motor vehicle safety programs. |
|
ID: 16-004482-Weight Distribution Truck Camper Trailer-RoyOpen
Mr. Roy E. Pack 13828 W. Pinetree Dr. Sun City West, AZ 85375
Dear Mr. Pack: This responds to your letter asking about manufacturing a Weight Distribution Tag Axle for use with slide-in campers on pickup trucks (slide-in pickup campers). In your follow-up letter from January 2017, you state that you will refer to your product as a Weight Distribution Truck Camper Trailer (WDTCT). Throughout this letter, we will refer to your product as a WDTCT, or alternatively, a trailer. You describe the WDTCT as an attachment that serves as an extension of the truck frame. You explain that the WDTCT is designed to be used with slide-in pickup campers, with tires of its own, and is attached to the rear of the pickup truck. You state that the WDTCT removes some of the load from the rear axle of the pickup truck and redistributes it to the front axle and the WDTCT. In a telephone conversation on October 4, 2016 with Ms. Callie Roach of my staff, you clarified that you would like to know: (1) whether manufacturing your product for use with a pickup truck is permitted; and (2) what rules and regulations would apply to the manufacture of it. You also state that you intend that a manufacturing company other than yourself would produce the WDTCT. As explained below, our regulations do not prohibit the manufacture of your product for use with slide-in pickup campers. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has requirements that would apply, which will be generally discussed below. The following is our interpretation based on our understanding of the facts you provided.
General Authority By way of background, the NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of a NHTSA compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. Manufacturers must also ensure that their vehicles and equipment are free of safety-related defects.
Applicable Standards and Requirements
After considering the information and photographs you provided, we conclude that your product is a type of motor vehicle called a trailer. The term trailer is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. Trailers are required to meet certain FMVSSs, such as those for lighting, tires, braking systems, brake hoses and brake fluids. Manufacturers, including trailer manufacturers, are also subject to informational requirements.[1]
We are not in the position to determine what specific FMVSSs would apply to your product and whether your product would comply with those standards. Under the Safety Act, the responsibility to assure compliance rests with the manufacturer of the product. However, we are able to discuss generally the portions of the Safety Act and the FMVSSs that appear particularly relevant to your product.[2] As a motor vehicle, your product must comply with all applicable FMVSSs, which may include, but are not limited to: FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, which addresses lighting and conspicuity; FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,0000 pounds) or less; FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars; and FMVSS No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. Also, while your vehicle is not required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you would need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with FMVSS No. 106, Brake hoses, and FMVSS No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, respectively. If the WDTCT is equipped with air brakes, the vehicle is required to comply with FMVSS No. 106 and with FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems. Assigning Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
In your letter, you mention the pickup trucks gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and indicate that you understand that the WDTCT would not in any manner change the GVWR or GAWRs of the pickup truck. Furthermore, you indicate that you understand that the WDTCT is required to have its own GVWR. Under 49 CFR 567.4 (g) (4), Certification, trailers are required to have the GVWR and gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of each axle printed on its certification label. In your follow-up letter from November 2016, you state that the WDTCT would have GVWRs between 2,000 and 3,500 pounds. When assigning the weight ratings, the manufacturer must ensure that the trailers GVWR and GAWR represent the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the trailer may be safely operated. NHTSA considers vehicle overloading a serious safety problem for slide-in campers and issued 49 C.F.R. 575.103 which contains labeling requirements for slide-in campers and trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers. While this provision does not apply to your trailer, it contains requirements with regard to providing warning labels for use of slide-in campers, which could prove useful to your customers. While you are not required to do so, you may want to consider informing users that they should weigh each combination of slide-in camper, pickup truck, and WDTCT in order to determine if there is any overloading. In your letter, you mention weighing a particular slide-in camper, pickup truck, and WDTCT combination with the WDTCTs wheels off the scale to determine whether the pickup truck would be overloaded. However, that weighing configuration would only tell users whether the vehicles GVWR is exceeded. To ensure that there is no overloading, users must ensure that none of the axles are overloaded by weighing each axle separately. In 49 CFR 575.103(e)(2)(i)(E), NHTSA requires that manufacturers of pickup trucks capable of accommodating a slide-in camper provide a statement which specifies that each axle should be weighed separately. After each axle has been weighed, the combined weight should be added together to ensure that it does not exceed the vehicles GVWR. Furthermore, when your product is used with a slide-in camper, the WDTCT should also be weighed separately to ensure that its GVWR and GAWR are not exceeded when used with a particular slide-in camper. Defects and Recall Responsibilities Manufacturers of motor vehicles are subject to the requirements of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects under 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a motor vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. NHTSA expects vehicle manufacturers to take reasonable steps to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading. If your product creates an unreasonable risk that the user will overload the GVWR or GAWR of either the pickup truck or the WDTCT, NHTSA will likely consider the product to have a safety-related defect. A manufacturer's responsibility for any subsequent overloading of the vehicles it manufactures would be determined by the reasonableness of its GVWR and GAWR, given the size and configuration of its vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. Other Issues
You should also be aware that State and local jurisdictions have the authority to set requirements that apply to the use of vehicles and may have regulations that apply to the manufacture and/or use of your WDTCT. Further, for information on private tort liability, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Roach at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel
Dated: 3/7/18 Ref: VSA 571.3 (definitions for trailer, GVWR, and GAWR) Part 575.103 Part 567 [1] Some of these are as follows. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to submit identification information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. A manufacturer must also permanently affix to each motor vehicle it manufactures for sale in the United States a label that, among other things, identifies the manufacturer and the vehicles date of manufacture, and states that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS in effect on that date. As a trailer, the WDTCT must have a vehicle identification number (VIN). The content requirements for the VIN are found at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Requirements. [2] For more information, you may consult NHTSAs New Manufacturers Handbook which includes a general discussion of NHTSA regulations that apply to manufacturers. Please note that the handbook was last updated in 2016 and may not contain the most updated provisions. You can find the handbook at https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov/Manufacturer_Handbook_20161019.pdf. |
2018 |
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.