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: nht94-6.30OpenDATE: April 14, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: John Rhein -- Fisher-Price, Inc. (East Aurora, NY) TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/3/93 from John Rhein to John Womack (OCC 8639) TEXT: This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company. You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squares" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement. Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed June 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material." The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address space is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or overall organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card. Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions. |
|
ID: 9646Open Martin M. Sackoff, Ph.D. Dear Dr. Sackoff: This responds to your letter to this agency with reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. Your specific question addressed S4.2.2.4, Tire strength, which states: "Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table I when tested in accordance with S5.3." You asked for an interpretation of the term "breaking," whether it means a blowout of the tire or the breaking of the tire caused by the plunger used in the test specified in the standard. The breaking energy test is a measure of the resistance of the tire to bruise or damage due to impact of the tire with road hazards. This agency tests such resistance in accordance with the procedures of S5.3, Tire strength, of the standard. In that test, a cylindrical steel plunger is forced perpendicularly into the tire rib at the rate of 2 inches per minute at five test points equally spaced around the circumference of the tire. The inch-pounds of force required to push the plunger into the tire is continuously monitored. As the plunger pushes into the tire, the resistance to the plunger force increases. That resistance requires ever- increasing force applied to the plunger to continue pushing it into the tire. Ultimately, one of two things will happen: 1. The plunger will push all the way to the rim; or 2. The tire cords, plies, innerliner, or other components of the tire will stretch, separate, crack or break so that the resistance pressure of the tire diminishes. The "breaking" of the tire at that point does not require an actual blow-out although, obviously, a blow-out would constitute a "breaking." The plunger force is measured just prior to contact with the rim as in 1 above or just prior to the force reduction described in 2 above. The measured force is then combined with the penetration of the plunger into the tire as specified in S5.3.2.3 and S5.3.2.4 of the standard. The breaking energy value of the tire is then determined by computing the average of the values obtained at the five test locations on the tire. Table I, Appendix A of the standard specifies the minimum breaking energy of tires based on tire type, size, composition, and inflation pressure. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:109 d:5/12/94 |
1994 |
ID: 8639Open Mr. John Rhein Dear Mr. Rhein: This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company. You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squares" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement. Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed June 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material." The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address space is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or overall organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card. Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:213 d:4/14/94 |
1994 |
ID: nht92-6.44OpenDATE: May 21, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Tom Mario -- Vice President Sales, Sealco Air Controls, Inc. TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/31/92 from Tom Mario to Steve Wood (OCC 7170) TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry about recent amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to trailers. That final rule (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) amended the standard by deleting the requirement for a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. It also added requirements for the retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's supply line in the event of pneumatic failure and for the prevention of automatic application of trailer parking brakes while the minimum supply line pressure is maintained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. NHTSA promulgates safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One such safety standard, Standard No. 121, specifies performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. Any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. You first asked whether a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment becomes effective on October 8, 1992. The answer is yes. While the amendment deletes a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device. Your next two questions asked which air brake system would be required on certain axles for different types of trailers. As indicated above, any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. I note that while the standard does include certain specific requirements for braking at particular axles, all of the requirements amended or adopted in the October 1991 final rule are written in terms of overall vehicle braking performance. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with these requirements, manufacturers must assess how the selection of brake designs at each axle will affect overall braking performance. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht92-4.2OpenDATE: 09/17/92 FROM: MARK W. RUSSO TO: WALTER MYERS -- NHTSA ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MARK W. RUSSO (A40; STD. 222); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7-14-92 FROM PAUL RICE TO MICHAEL F. HECKER (STD. 222) TEXT: Thank you for discussing the R-Bar subject with me. As I mentioned in our conversation, I am very concerned over the "applicability" issue regarding the R-Bar and FMVSS 222. I fear that a device not covered by a "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard" may be installed in a school bus that will be transporting my children! In addition to our conversation, I want to stress one area where I believe this device creates a condition that could be considered in non compliance with the objectives of FMVSS 222, section S5.1.4 (c). With reference to a NHTSA letter from Mr. Rice to Mr. Hecker (Micho, Ind.) dated May 14, 1992, which indicates that Mr. Hecker claims the device incorporates a design that allows it to "move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended". Being familiar with the operating principle of this device, I tend to agree in theory. However, what Mr. Hecker fails to mention is that the device also incorporates a "drop down" feature (by nature of a positive mechanical action) which is activated by forward movement of the device! Thus, if a passenger is "recoiled" forward, or if a subsequent frontal collision occurs, impact with the bar should activate this approximate 2 inch drop down feature. So, if there is any concern regarding minimum clearance in accordance with section S5.1.4 (c), it appears the operating principle of this device complicates the problem. Further, I also believe this "drop down" mechanism, in the above scenario, could create the potential for the bar to become jammed against a passenger's legs as a result of this "roller and track" drop down mechanism. I would also like to know if there has been any further developments at NHTSA regarding the R-Bar subject since Mr. Rice responded to Mr. Hecker of Micho (May 14 letter from NHTSA). The N.J. Department of Pupil Transportation is under the impression that Micho Industries had planned to write to NHTSA again to suggest that only a different "interpretation" of their test data would resolve this issue. I have a list of questions I am sending to Micho Industries covering many of the things you and I had discussed. I will keep you advised as to their response to these questions and any other new developments. I would appreciate any comments you may have regarding this R-Bar subject. |
|
ID: nht90-4.87OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: December 17, 1990 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Department, Koito Manufacturing Company TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-13-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from M. Iwase TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1990, with respect to photometric measurement procedures for a L.E.D. center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL). According to your letter, "photometric output of L.E.D. lighting device decreases as the time passes after activation, as shown in Figure 1." Your Figure 1 demonstrates that L.E.D.s at five minutes have a relative photometric output of slightly more than 70 percent of the output when the lamp is activated. After 20 minutes, it would appear to be only slightly more than 60 percent of initial output. You have asked at what time after activation of the CHMSL its photometrics are to be measured; in your opinion, five minutes is a reasonable time. You support your opinion with three arguments, which I will not summarize here since they are not relevant to my response. Standard No. 108 does not specify when the CHMSL photometric test is to occur. Neither SAE Recommended Practice J186a, Supplemental High Mounted Stop and Rear Turn Signal Lamps, January 1977, the applicable standard that is incorporated by reference, nor any other section of Standard No. 108, requires the photometric test to be conducted at any particular time. The standard does require that CHMSLs and other lamps be designed to conform to its requirements; therefore, we expect the CHMSL to meet the minimum photometric specifications at whatever point in time it is tested after its activation. If Koito wishes to test at five minutes after activation, it may do so. The purpose of the CHMSL is to reduce the frequency and severity of rear end collisions. Thus, its initial activation is the one that is most critical to highway safety. Although the short survey of continuous brake application times that Koito conducted, and which is referenced in your letter, showed one continuous brake application that exceeded four minutes, at such a period in time the warning message of the light would have been long delivered to the driver following. Thus, the fact that the L.E.D. diminishes over a continuous period of time would not appear to affect its purpose, as long as the CHMSL conforms to the minimum photometric requirements upon each application of the brake pedal, no matter how long the previous brake application and no matter how short the interval between brake applications. I hope that this answers your question. |
|
ID: nht91-7.44OpenDATE: December 10, 1991 FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: ACTION: General Motors Modified Antitheft Petition ATTACHMT: Attached to USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert Rogers to Barry Felrice; Also attached to letter dated 2/7/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert A. Rogers (A39; Part 543) TEXT: On November 18, 1991, General Motors Corporation (GM) submitted a letter informing NHTSA of a change in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system that was installed on the My 1992 Pontiac Bonneville. (GM discovered, through a review, that the information of the second generation "PASS-KEY" had not been forwarded to the agency.) Since the initial petition for the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville, but before the start of production, of the MY 1992 Bonneville, a design change had been made to include GM's second generation "PASS-KEY II" theft deterrent system, as standard equipment on this car line and not the original "PASS-KEY" system as described in the petition. GM had previously been granted a partial exemption on the original "PASS-KEY" system for the MY 1992 Bonneville. Rulemaking has reviewed the changes to the system, and finds that the differences between the "PASS-KEY II" and the original "PASS-KEY," as described below, would qualify for de minimis treatment. GM has changed the system in which the shut down period of the system would be for three minutes plus or minus 18 seconds, instead of the previous 2 to 4 minutes. GM believes that this is more precise than the prior system. The other change in the system is that the "PASS-KEY II" timer does not reset back to zero if further resistance comparisons are attempted while the decoder module is shut down. GM states that this functional difference will still provide a similar level of theft deterrent performance since the decoder module while in the shut down mode, will ignore any further attempts to start the vehicle by means of a key with an improper pellet resistance during that time, and continuous attempts will result in the module remaining inoperative until the proper key is used. As stated above, Rulemaking does not believe that these changes are significant enough to warrant submission of a full modification petition by GM and, therefore, would qualify for de minimis treatment. Accordingly, Rulemaking requests a letter granting the change to the antitheft system be forwarded to GM, pursuant to Part 543.9 (j).
Attachment USG 2846 Part III dated 11/18/91 from Robert A. Rogers to Barry Felrice. (Text omitted) |
|
ID: nht92-8.23OpenDATE: March 19, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Wm. Richard Alexander -- Chief, Pupil Transportation, Maryland State Department of Education, Office of Administration and Finance TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/18/92 from Wm. Richard Alexander to Mary Versailles (OCC 7021) TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 18, 1992 requesting confirmation "that forward-facing wheelchairs on school buses do not need a crash barrier located forward of each wheelchair position." As explained below, your understanding is correct. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires "a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point." Under S5.2.1, the rear surface of the restraining barrier must be within a distance of 24 inches or less from the seating reference point. Standard No. 222's requirement for a restraining barrier does not apply to wheelchair positions. First, a wheelchair position is not technically a "designated seating position," as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Second, Standard No. 222's seating requirements apply only to "school bus passenger seats." See S1 of Standard No. 222. The term "school bus passenger seat" is defined in S4 as "a seat in a school bus, other than the driver's seat or a seat installed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers." I would also note that installing a crash barrier forward of a wheelchair securement location in compliance with S5.2.1 would appear to be impractical. First, the seating reference point could move depending on the type of wheelchair secured at the location. Second, many wheelchairs would not fit behind a restraining barrier complying with S5.2.1 as some are longer than 24 inches forward of the seating reference point. While the current requirements of Standard No. 222 do not have any requirements for wheelchair securement locations, NHTSA is concerned about providing crash protection for all students on school buses. NHTSA has recently published a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems on school buses. The notice proposed amending Standard No. 222 to include minimum strength and location requirements for the anchorages for securement and restraint devices and minimum strength requirements for the securement and restraint devices themselves. This notice did not, however, propose to require a restraining barrier forward of wheelchair securement locations. I am enclosing a copy of the notice for your information. 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. |
|
ID: 09-000724 fortin.draft.dj.aug20OpenValrie Fortin Regulations and Standards Technician Girardin Minibus Trans-Canada Highway Drummondville, Qubec J2B 6V4 Canada Dear Ms. Fortin: This responds to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR 571.10(b)(1) and (2). Those paragraphs include formulas for determining the required number of designated seating positions (DSPs) in a seating surface area. In your letter, you cite an example of four adjacent seats in a line with a total width of 1778 mm. You observe that, using the calculation procedure set forth in section 571.10(b)(2), the seating surface would have three DSPs. You ask whether the regulations would allow you to designate four DSPs for that seating surface area instead of the result of the calculation. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. By way of background, for the purpose of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA has defined a designated seating position as a location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female. On June 22, 2005, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for a revised definition of designated seating position that would be more objective. NHTSA had identified a problem of three people occupying a seat with only two DSPs. It was believed that providing a more objective definition of designated seating position would help alleviate this problem. In the October 2008 final rule, NHTSA amended the definition of designated seating position for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2011.[1] The new definition states that a seat location that has a seating surface width of at least 330 mm is a designated seating position. The final rule also established a procedure, codified in section 571.10, for measuring seating surface width and calculating the number of DSPs at a seat location. For seat locations with a seating surface width of less than 1400 mm, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 350, rounded down to the nearest whole number. For seat locations with a seating surface width of 1400 mm or greater, the number of DSPs required is equal to the seating surface width divided by 450, rounded down to the nearest whole number. In your letter, you put forth a scenario where four seats are placed adjacent to each other, each one having a width of 444.5 mm, such that the total width of the seating surface area, as calculated under section 571.10(c)(2), is 1778 mm. You observe that, under the formula used to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating surface width of at least 1400 mm, there would be three DSPs at the seating area. You ask whether you may, under the new DSP definition set forth in the October 2008 final rule, consider the actual designated capacity (represented by the defined seating positions) instead of the result of the calculation in section 571.10(c)(2). You stated that you believe the goal of the new regulation is to prevent the possibility of having more occupants on a seat than the allowed capacity of the vehicle without reducing the actual capacity of the vehicle. As indicated above, we changed the definition of designated seating position because of a concern that, in certain situations, more people were occupying a seating surface area than the number of DSPs. You put forward a scenario in the opposite direction, where a manufacturer wants to designate more DSPs than the number required by the formulas in section 571.10(b), and also where the seating area is specifically designed for that greater number of occupants. However, the definition of designated seating position was also revised to be more objective. NHTSA developed a procedure, set forth in section 571.10(b)(1) and (b)(2) to calculate the number of DSPs for a seating location. Our rulemaking was not intended to limit manufacturers from designating more DSPs than specified by the formulas or to permit manufacturers to designate a smaller number of designated seating positions than the number they actually intend to be used by occupants. In light of the issue you have raised, we will consider clarifying the language of section 571.10(b) in a future rulemaking or in the responses to petitions for reconsideration of the new DSP definition. Nothing in this letter should be construed as a response to any of the petitions for reconsideration.
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 yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Ref: Std. 571 8/5/2011
[1] On December 23, 2009, NHTSA issued a partial response to petitions for reconsideration of the new DSP definition in which we allowed one year of additional lead time before the new DSP definition is applicable. See 74 FR 68185. |
|
ID: 06-007875--6 May 09 rewrite--rsyOpenJeff Ronning, PE Senior Consultant Rocky Mountain Institute 1739 Snowmass Creek Road Snowmass, CO 81654-9199 Dear Mr. Ronning: This responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of November 27, 2006. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your letter, you asked for our interpretation of 49 CFR Part 538 as it would apply to a plug-in electric hybrid design for a postal delivery vehicle. You ask for confirmation that your basic vehicle design will qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle so that the United States Postal Service (USPS) can be assured [you] are on the right course. You explained that if the vehicle is fully charged, it would be able to operate completely on electricity for most carriers where the average carrier route is only 15 miles, and that the gasoline engine would be used only for rare long-range travel and peripherals such as heating and all-wheel drive function. On January 9, 2007, you further asked by email whether a flex-fuel engine (i.e., one able to use either petroleum-based gasoline or ethanol E85 fuel) instead of a plain gas engine for the same hybrid vehicle would qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle under Part 538. Based on the information that you provided, either design would qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle for purposes of the dual-fuel CAFE incentive. 49 CFR Part 538, Manufacturing Incentives for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, is likely not directly relevant to the vehicle you described. Part 538 has three basic purposes. First, it establishes minimum driving range criteria to aid in identifying passenger automobiles that qualify as dual-fueled automobiles. Second, it establishes gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels other than natural gas. And finally, it extends the dual-fuel incentive program through model year 2008. The minimum driving range criteria contained in 538.5 and 538.6 apply only to passenger automobiles. In the context of the CAFE program, passenger automobiles are defined as any automobile (other than an automobile capable of off-highway operation) manufactured primarily for use in the transportation of not more than 10 individuals.[1] Although NHTSA leaves it to automobile manufacturers to classify their vehicles in the first instance for CAFE purposes, we would likely consider a postal delivery vehicle to be a non-passenger automobile (commonly referred to as a light truck), since it is manufactured primarily for carrying cargo, and not for transporting passengers. Thus, the minimum driving range criteria of Part 538 would likely not apply to your vehicle.[2] The other two aspects of Part 538, gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels other than natural gas, and the extension of the incentive program through MY 2008, also would not apply to your vehicle. Since you described your vehicle as a plug-in hybrid, gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels would be irrelevant. Further, Part 538s extension of the incentive program has been superseded by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, which extended the program by statute through model year 2018.[3] Thus, Part 538 would likely not apply to your vehicle. However, your vehicle may still qualify for the dual-fuel incentive under 49 U.S.C. 32905(b), whether or not 49 CFR Part 538 applies to it. A dual fueled automobile is defined (in relevant part) in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(8) as an automobile that: (A) is capable of operating on alternative fuel and on gasoline or diesel fuel; [and] (B) provides equal or superior energy efficiency, as calculated for the applicable model year during fuel economy testing for the United States Government, when operating on alternative fuel as when operating on gasoline or diesel fuel. Alternative fuel, in turn, is defined at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(1) as including: (J) electricity (including electricity from solar energy); and (K) any other fuel the Secretary of Transportation prescribes by regulation that is not substantially petroleum and that would yield substantial energy security and environmental benefits. Based on this statutory language, NHTSA interprets electricity as an alternative fuel only if it is not substantially petroleum. The electricity on which the alternative fuel vehicle operates must come from some source other than petroleum-based gasoline pumped into the vehicle; for example, from the grid, as in a plug-in hybrid, or from solar energy as the statute mentions.[4] Thus, we would likely consider a plug-in hybrid like your proposed design, whether it contained a gasoline engine or an engine that could also run on E85, to be a dual fueled automobile under 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(8). If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:538 d.7/24/09 [1] 49 CFR 523.4, see also 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(18). [2] Nevertheless, we note that it is possible that, in the course of examining your vehicle, NHTSA could conclude that in actuality it would be appropriately classified as a passenger automobile. In that situation, in order to qualify for the dual fuel incentive, your vehicle would be required to conform with Part 538 and 49 U.S.C. 32901(c), which specify that the vehicle must drive a nominal distance of 7.5 miles on its stored capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA urban test cycle and 10.2 miles when operated on the EPA highway test cycle. [3] Pub. L. 110-140, Sec. 109 (Dec. 19, 2007). [4] In contrast, in a regular hybrid electric vehicle, any electricity used to run the vehicle comes from stored regenerative braking force, which is derived from the operation of the gasoline engine. |
2009 |
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.