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: 16-002814 Chrysler_VIN_interp_clean_1OpenMr. Tim Czapp Dear Mr. Czapp, This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation as to whether you may locate the vehicle identification number (VIN) plate on a vehicles A-pillar. Based on the information you have provided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) believes motor vehicle manufacturers are able to locate VIN plates on the A-pillar and comply with the agencys VIN regulations. In your letter to NHTSA, you stated that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (Fiat Chrysler) is considering relocating the VIN plate from the vehicles dashboard to the interior portion of the vehicles A-pillar. In further correspondence with Ryan Hagen of my staff, you stated that the VIN plate would remain visible from the outside of the vehicle through the glazing, be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and be located on the inside of the passenger compartment. Further, you stated that the characters of the VIN would essentially be rotated 90 counterclockwise from a traditional VIN orientation and meet the height and character regulations. You also included an illustration of the new VIN location relative to present VIN locations. By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations for new motor vehicles. NHTSA does not provide approvals of any motor vehicle. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is a manufacturers responsibility to determine whether a motor vehicle complies with all applicable regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. The following interpretation represents the agencys opinion based on the information provided in your letter. NHTSA requires vehicles to be marked with VINs to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. The agencys regulations at 49 CFR Part 565 set forth the general requirements for VINs. Of particular relevance to the present question, 49 CFR 565.13(e) states that [t]he VIN of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle, other than the glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label that is permanently affixed to such a part. Further, 49 CFR 565.13(f) states that passenger cars, multipurposes passenger vehicles, low speed vehicles, and trucks with a GVWR of 4536 kg or less must be located within the passenger compartment. Moroever, [i]t shall be readable, without moving any part of the vehicle, through the vehicle glazing under daylight conditions by an observer whose eye-point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar Based on the details you have provided the agency, NHTSA believes your proposed VIN plate location would not prevent the plate from complying with 49 CFR Part 565. Despite being moved to a novel location (the A-pillar), a VIN plate located there could meet NHTSAs VIN regulations, assuming it complied with the remainder of the agencys VIN regulations (e.g. minimum character height, capital, sans characters, etc.). One additional notebecause VINs are often used by law enforcement officials, we recommend notifying the relevant Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and others who frequently use VINs of this VIN plate location change. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ryan Hagen of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel Dated: 9/21/16 Ref: Part 565 |
2016 |
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 |
ID: 16-005785 FAMA Interp [FINAL]Open
Jacqueline Glassman King & Spalding 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006-4707
Dear Ms. Glassman:
This responds to your April 1, 2015 letter on behalf of the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association (FAMA) requesting guidance as to whether work equipment installed on a fire truck that is inoperative during travel, and only operative once the fire truck reaches a work site, is motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) and therefore subject to the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions. As part of this request, you specifically ask NHTSA to confirm your view that, provided work equipment meets certain conditions and does not pose certain risks, it is not subject to the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions.
Your position is not supported by the law and NHTSA does not confirm that position. As your letter states, a fire truck is a motor vehicle. As explained below, the term motor vehicle equipment unambiguously includes equipment installed in or on a motor vehicle regardless of whether it is related to the vehicles operation during travel or only used when the vehicle is stationary. All motor vehicle equipment is subject to the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions.
Motor Vehicle Equipment under the Safety Act
The term motor vehicle equipment is defined in the Safety Act as:
(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or (C) any device or an article or apparel, including a motorcycle helmet and excluding medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner that-- (i) is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle; and (ii) is manufactured, sold, delivered, or offered to be sold for use on public streets, roads, and highways with the apparent purpose of safeguarding users of motor vehicles against risk of accident, injury, or death.
49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).[1]
There is no requirement that motor vehicle equipment be an inherent or fundamental part of a motor vehicles structure. Nor does the definition of motor vehicle equipment exclude equipment that does not relate to the vehicles operation during travel or that does not function while the vehicle is in motion. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8). Moreover, such an exclusion would be inconsistent with the statutory definition of motor vehicle safety, which expressly includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8).
It is not uncommon for NHTSA to investigate and for manufacturers to recall vehicles or equipment for nonoperational safety defects. See, e.g., PE15-007 (investigating recreational vehicle entry steps that may unexpectedly fail in a manner that causes a loss of balance and increases the risk of personal injury); AQ15-002 (investigating timeliness and scope of reporting a defect in aerial boom arms and manufacturers compliance with other reporting requirements under the Safety Act and related regulations).[2]
Work Equipment for Which You Request Guidance
Your letter provides various examples of work equipment installed on a fire truck and seeks guidance on whether such work equipment that is inoperative during travel, and only operative once the fire truck reaches a work site, is subject to the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions. It is. Under the plain language of the Safety Act, such equipment is motor vehicle equipment.
Work equipment installed on a fire truck at the time it was delivered to the first retail purchaser is a system, part or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8)(A); accord 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(C) (providing that under the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions, original equipment is motor vehicle equipment . . . installed in or on a motor vehicle at the time of delivery to the first purchaser). Work equipment installed on a fire truck after it is delivered to the first retail purchaser is a similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8)(A); accord 49 U.S.C. 30102(b)(1)(D) (providing that under the Safety Acts recall notification and remedy provisions, replacement equipment is motor vehicle equipment . . . that is not original equipment).
All motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Safety Act and associated regulations, including the recall obligations of notification and remedy. See 49 U.S.C. 3011830120. That includes the obligation to conduct recalls for defects related to nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle. See 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(8) (defining motor vehicle safety to include nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle); 3011830120 (recall notification and remedy requirements).
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Stephen Hench of my staff at (202) 366-2262.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 1/4/17 Ref: 49 U.S.C. 30102 |
2017 |
ID: 16-1289 (GM hazard innovative) -- 28 Apr 16 rsyOpenBrian Latouf, Executive Director Global Safety & Field Investigations, Regulations & Certification General Motors LLC, Mail Code: 480 210 2V 30001 Van Dyke Warren, MI 48093-2350 Dear Mr. Latouf, This responds to your letter dated March 18, 2016 requesting an interpretation with respect to the meaning of vehicle hazard warning signal operating unit in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, as applied to a new cruise control system General Motors (GM) is developing. You state that GM is developing a new adaptive cruise control system with lane following (which GM has referred to as Super Cruise) that controls steering, braking, and acceleration in certain freeway environments. When Super Cruise is in use, the driver must always remain attentive to the road, supervise Super Cruises performance, and be ready to steer and brake at all times. In some situations, Super Cruise will alert the driver to resume steeringfor example, when the system detects a limit or fault. If the driver is unable or unwilling to take control of the wheel (if, for example, the driver is incapacitated or unresponsive), Super Cruise may determine that the safest thing to do is to bring the vehicle slowly to a stop in or near the roadway, and the vehicles brakes will hold the vehicle until overridden by the driver. You indicate that GM plans to develop Super Cruise so that, in this situation, once Super Cruise has brought the vehicle to a stop, the vehicles automated system will activate the vehicles hazard lights. You state that you believe that this automatic activation of the hazard lights complies with the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for several reasons. You state that the systems activation of the hazard lights in this situation alerts other drivers that the vehicle is stopped and ensures overall traffic safety. Your letter cites and discusses several past agency interpretations, and asserts that automatic activation of the hazard lights in the situation GM describes is similar to at least one situation in which NHTSA has previously interpreted the standard to permit automatic activation of the hazard lightsimmediately following a crash event. You state that you believe that there would be no ambiguity about the meaning of the hazard lights in this situation, and it would be the safe thing to do. You ask NHTSA to confirm that activation of the hazard lights by the vehicles automated system in the unresponsive/incapacitated driver situation described above complies with FMVSS No. 108. As we explain below, we interpret FMVSS No. 108 to allow the type of automatic hazard activation described in GMs letter.
FMVSS No. 108 requires that all vehicles to which the standard applies, except trailers and motorcycles, be equipped with, among other things, a vehicular hazard warning operating unit and a vehicular hazard warning signal flasher.[1] A vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is a driver controlled device which causes all required turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard.[2] A vehicular hazard warning signal flasher is a device which, as long as it is turned on, causes all the required turn signal lamps to flash.[3] These requirements for hazard lights have been in the standard, largely unchanged, since it was first enacted in 1967.[4] The purpose of the hazard warning is to indicate to approaching drivers that the vehicle is stopped or is proceeding at a slower rate than surrounding traffic.[5] As an initial matter, although not explicitly stated in GMs letter, we assume for purposes of this interpretation that the vehicle GM describes has a manually-activated hazard warning control that satisfies the requirements in S6.6.2 and S4 for a driver controlled hazard warning operating unit, and also satisfies the requirements in FMVSS No. 101 for a hazard warning signal control and telltale. Nothing in GMs letter indicates otherwise. Moreover, this is consistent with the vehicle having, as GM describes, a Level 2 automated system.[6] Past agency interpretations of automatic activation of hazard lights have reached different conclusions about their permissibility. FMVSS No. 108 defines the hazard warning operating unit as a driver controlled device which causes all required turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard. Some past agency interpretations have construed this language to preclude automatic operation of the hazard warning lights, on the basis that automatic activation would not be driver controlled.[7] However, since those interpretations were issued, NHTSA has clarified that automatic activation is permissible in certain circumstances. In a 2002 interpretation letter issued to Bartlett Industries, Inc., NHTSA explained that the hazard lights may be automatically actuated following a vehicle crash: [A] series of . . . letters reflect our opinion that hazard warning system lamps must be activated and deactivated by the driver. This conclusion was based upon the definition of hazard warning systems by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) as driver actuated. The one exception to driver actuation that our recent letters reflect is automatic activation of the hazard warning system in the aftermath of a vehicle crash. As we informed Mr. Steele, we would not view automatic activation of the hazard signals in the event of a crash as a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 since there can be no ambiguity about the signal's meaning at that point.[8] GM states that in the event that a human driver fails to respond to Super Cruises request that the human retake control of the vehicle, and Super Cruise consequently determines that the safest thing to do is to bring the vehicle slowly to a stop in or near the roadway, Super Cruise-equipped vehicles will activate the vehicles hazard lights automatically once the vehicle is stopped. We agree with GM that the situation it describes is similar to the situation in which the Steele (and Bartlett) letters that interpreted FMVSS No. 108 to permit automatic actuation of the hazard lights. Although GMs system does not activate the hazard warning signal after a crash has occurred, it does activate the hazard lights when the vehicle has already stopped. This is the prototypical situation in which the hazard lights are intended to be used, and it is one of the situations that other motorists have come to expect when they see the hazard signal. There would appear to be no ambiguity about the signals meaning in this situation, and we believe that it is unlikely that the use of the hazard lights would confuse other motorists.[9] Therefore, the automatic activation of the hazard lights in the circumstances described by GM would be permissible.[10] Any other automatic activation of hazard warning lights would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. NHTSA may also consider amending the relevant provisions of FMVSS No. 108 at some point in the future in order to clarify situations when hazard lights may activate automatically. We note that GM indicates that when the driver is unable or unwilling to take control of the vehicle the system will bring the vehicle to a stop in or near the roadway. A vehicle system that stops a vehicle directly in a roadway might depending on the circumstances be considered to contain a safety-related defecti.e., it may present an unreasonable risk of an accident occurring or of death and injury in an accident.[11] Federal law requires the recall of a vehicle that contains a safety-related defect.[12] We urge GM to fully consider the likely operation of the system it is contemplating and ensure that it will not present such a risk. If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel Dated: 11/18/16 Ref: Standard No. 108
[1] S6.6.2. [2] S4. [3] S4. [4] See 32 FR 2408, 2411-2412 (Feb. 3, 1967). Before 2012, the hazard warning requirements were largely incorporated by reference to standards promulgated by SAE (formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers), specifically, SAE J910, Jan. 1966 (hazard warning signal operating unit), and SAE J945, Feb. 1966 (hazard warning signal flasher). In a 2007 final rule NHTSA reorganized FMVSS No. 108 by streamlining the regulatory text and clarifying the standards requirements. 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007). The final rule, among other things, reduced reliance on third-party documents incorporated by reference by incorporating those requirements directly into the regulatory text. This final rule, which incorporated the hazard warning requirements directly into the regulatory text, became effective on December 1, 2012. 76 FR 48009 (Aug. 8, 2011). [5] 61 FR at 2,865 (Jan. 29, 1996) (quoting Letter from Stephen Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, to Larry Egley (Aug. 8, 1989)) (stopped vehicle); Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Sen. Richard Lugar (May 9, 2000) (vehicle stopped or proceeding at slower rate), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21478.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016). See also SAE J910, Jan. 1966 (A vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is a driver controlled device which causes all turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to the approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard.). [6] NHTSA defines Level 2 automation consistent with the SAE J3016 levels of automation, as the driving mode-specific execution by one or more driver assistance systems of both steering and acceleration/deceleration using information about the driving environment and with the expectation that the human driver perform all remaining aspects of the dynamic driving task. See NHTSAs September 2016 Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/AV (last accessed Sept. 28, 2016), and http://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf (last accessed Sept. 28, 2016). [7] Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Mark Steele, Steele Enterprises (Dec. 6, 1999) (This means that the hazard warning signal unit must be activated by the driver and not automatically.), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20856.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016); Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Eric Reed (Feb. 29, 2000) (An automatic activation of the hazard warning unit would not be driver controlled and is therefore not permitted.), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/reed.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016); Letter from Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel, to Ted Gaston, Muncie Indiana Transit System (Apr. 25, 2005) (We have previously interpreted driver controlled to mean that the hazard warning signal system must be activated and deactivated by the driver and not by automatic means . . . .), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF002470.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016). [8] Letter from John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, to Timothy Bartlett, Bartlett Industries, Inc. (Jan. 28, 2002) (Bartlett letter) (citations omitted), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/23695.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016) (quoting Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Steele Enterprises (Feb. 25, 2000) (Steele letter), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/21171.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016)). As noted above, see supra n.4, the referenced SAE document is now incorporated into the text of FMVSS No. 108. [9] Automatic activation of hazard lights may also be permissible under the theory that the automatic-activation function represents supplemental lighting in addition to the driver- (manually-)controlled hazard lights. Supplemental lighting is not permitted to impair the effectiveness of required lighting; see S6.2.1. In recent years, NHTSA has generally concluded that the use of required lighting equipment for other than its original purpose would impair the effectiveness of the required lighting because it would compromise and reduce its safety and effectiveness. See, e.g., Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch (Aug. 5, 1999), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20180.ztv.html (last accessed Sept. 28, 2016). Regardless of whether automatic activation of hazard lights was construed as supplemental lighting, NHTSA would still look to whether the automatic activation of the hazard lights was consistent with the purpose of hazards and whether it would create ambiguity or risk confusing other motorists. [10] Since the mid-1990s, several interpretations have addressed situations in which automatic activation of hazard lights would not be permissible because the message that the hazard lights would convey in those instances would not be consistent with the purpose of hazards, i.e., to indicate to approaching drivers that the vehicle is stopped or is proceeding at a slower rate than surrounding traffic. See, e.g., Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to David Coburn, Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Aug. 6, 1999) (We believe that a hazard warning system should not be used for the auxiliary purpose of indicating sudden accelerator release, a signal that bears no relationship to a hazard warning signal and one which could create confusion were the hazard warning signal used for an unrelated purpose.), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/19886.ztv.html (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016); Letter from Frank Seales, Jr., Chief Counsel, to Mark Steele, Steele Enterprises (Oct. 7, 1999) (FMVSS No. 108 does not permit the hazard lights to signal the activation of the anti-lock brake system because that could result in confusing signals), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20662.ztv.htm (last accessed Apr. 6, 2016). NHTSA would continue to consider automatic activation of hazard lights in such situations to be inconsistent with FMVSS No. 108. [11] 49 U.S.C. 30102, 30118. [12] 49 U.S.C. 30118. |
2016 |
ID: 16-2706 (GM load limiters on buses Aug 8)_v2 incorporating circulation commentsOpenMr. Brian Latouf Executive Director Global Safety & Field Investigations, Regulations & Certification General Motors LLC, Mail Code: 480 210 2V 30001 Van Dyke Warren, MI 48093-2350 Dear Mr. Latouf: This letter responds to a letter from M. Carmen Benavides, dated March 7, 2013, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. We unfortunately did not receive the letter until it was subsequently emailed to us by your staff on May 24, 2016. GM asks about section S4.5(b) of FMVSS No. 209 as applied to twelve- and fifteen-passenger buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds (lb) and less than or equal to 10,000 lb (subject buses). GM indicates that it is considering installing seat belts with load limiters (load-limiting belts) in the front outboard seating positions in the subject buses; the seat belts do not comply with the elongation requirements of FMVSS No. 209. GM requests an interpretation that would permit it to take advantage of a provision in S4.5 that permits the installation of load-limiting belts that do not comply with the elongation requirements in vehicles other than the subject buses. As we explain below, we decline to issue such an interpretation. By way of background, FMVSS No. 209 specifies performance requirements for seat belts. Some of these requirements specify the maximum amount the webbing of a seat belt assembly is permitted to extend or elongate when subjected to certain specified forces.[1] The purpose of the elongation requirements is to help ensure that the webbing will not stretch so much that the belt provides a lesser level of protection. A load limiter is a seat belt assembly component that controls tension on the seat belt and modulates or limits the forces that are imparted to a restrained vehicle occupant during a crash. Load limiters are intended to reduce head and upper torso injuries through increased energy management. They usually work in concert with an air bag system to optimize occupant protection in a crash. Under S4.5(a) of FMVSS No. 209, load-limiting belts are not required to meet the elongation requirements. However, S4.5(b) in turn specifies where such load-limiting belts (i.e., those that do not meet the elongation requirements) may be installed: A seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles at any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 ( 571.208). S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, establishes the minimum performance standards for occupant protection as measured in a frontal crash test. Section S4.5 of Standard No. 209 thus permits load-limiting seat belts that do not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 to be installed at any seating position that is subject to the frontal crash test requirements. The reason for allowing such load-limiting belts at those seating positions is that crash testing helps to ensure the load-limiting devices work in combination with an automatic restraint system (air bag) to provide occupants with protection from overly injurious contact with vehicle interior hard points.[2] Stated differently, an air bag would mitigate the negative effect of the belt stretching beyond that allowed by the elongation limits of FMVSS No. 209. GM asks if the front outboard designated seating positions in the subject buses can be fitted with load-limiting belts that do not comply with the elongation requirements. Our answer is no. Section S4.5(b) of FMVSS No. 209 allows such seat belts to be installed only at a designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208[.] The issue is thus whether the front outboard seating positions in the subject buses are subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. As we explain below, they are not. There are two bases for this conclusion. First, as GM observes in its letter, FMVSS No. 208 S5.1 is not a compliance requirement or option for the front outboard seats in the subject buses. The relevant occupant protection compliance options in FMVSS No. 208 for front outboard seats in current production buses in the 8,500 10,000 lb GVWR range are specified in S4.4.5 of FMVSS No. 208. This section requires that front outboard seating positions be equipped with Type 2 seat belts, but does not specify that these seating positions may or must comply with FMVSS No. 208 S5.1.[3] (I note that NHTSA has amended the occupant protection requirements that apply to buses.[4] These amendments became effective November 28, 2016. The amended requirements for the subject vehicles likewise do not specify S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208 as a compliance requirement or option.[5]) Accordingly, the subject vehicles are not subject to S5.1; i.e., they are not required to comply with it. Second, we decline to interpret subject to in FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) to include vehicles that a manufacturer voluntarily produces in accordance with S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208. The plain meaning of the phrase subject to, as well as the agencys prior interpretations (discussed below), indicate that the phrase may not be read to refer to voluntary compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 S5.1. The ordinary definition of the adjectival form of subject includes liable to receive; exposed (to) [subject to censure].[6] This suggests that in order for a vehicle to be subject to the requirements of an FMVSS provision, the vehicle manufacturer must be exposed to some legal liability if it manufactures a vehicle that does not comply with that provision. A manufacturer, however, can be exposed to legal liability for violating an FMVSS provision only if that provision is a requirement or compliance option for the vehicle.[7] The agency could find it unreasonably complicated to pursue a noncompliance enforcement action for a compliance requirement or option that is not applicable to that vehicle. To illustrate, if NHTSA were to conduct a frontal crash test of a subject bus and the test dummy readings were greater than the allowed injury assessment reference values of FMVSS No. 208, would that be a failure to comply with the standard? Might a manufacturer argue that the test is invalid since FMVSS No. 208 S5.1 did not strictly apply to the vehicle? We note that this usage of the phrase subject to is consistent with other NHTSA regulations, which similarly use the phrase subject to to refer to regulatory provisions that are compliance requirements or options.[8] In sum, since S5.1 is neither a requirement nor a compliance option with respect to the front outboard seating positions in the subject buses, the buses cannot be said to be subject to S5.1. Accordingly, they fail to qualify for the S4.5 load-limiting belt exemption. Past Interpretations This interpretation of FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) is consistent with prior agency interpretations of the provision. We reached a similar result in an interpretation to Magna Steyr. [9] There, the agency was asked to interpret S4.5(b) of FMVSS No. 209 to permit load-limiting belts that did not comply with the elongation requirements in the rear outboard seating positions of passenger vehicles. We found that this was not permissible. We examined FMVSS No. 208 and determined that S5.1 applies only to front outboard seating positions. Accordingly, we concluded that belts with load limiters installed at rear outboard seating positions must meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209. We further explained that the manufacturer could not take advantage of the FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) exemption for the rear seating positions by voluntarily complying with S5.1 with respect to the rear seating positions. NHTSA stated: Your message also asks if a manufacturer wishing to install belts with load limiters in a rear outboard seating position may comply with S4.5 of Standard No. 209 by verifying the performance of the belts through testing the belts by performing testing as set forth in S5.1 on the rear outboard seats. The answer is that belts installed at rear seating positions are subject to the elongation requirements and must meet them. The issue we addressed in the Magna Steyr letter is similar to the issue raised by GMs letter. Just as we there interpreted FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) to not apply to rear seating positions in passenger cars because those were not required to comply with FMVSS No. 208 S5.1, here we similarly find that FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) does not apply to the front outboard seating position in the subject vehicles because they are not required to comply with FMVSS No. 208 S5.1. We reached a similar result in an interpretation to Ford.[10] Ford submitted an interpretation request asserting that load limiters on dynamically-tested manual belts should be exempt from the elongation requirements. At the time of Fords request, FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) specified that a seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system.[11] That is, the express terms of S4.5(b) at the time did not permit load-limiting manual belts that did not meet the elongation requirements. Ford sought an interpretation that S4.5(b) permitted load-limiting manual belts that did not meet the elongation requirements to be installed in seating positions that were subjected to dynamic tests. Ford argued that the reasoning that led the agency to exclude manual belts from the exemption was outmoded because dynamic testing requirements had, in the interim, been established for certain manual belts. The agency did not concur with Fords proposed interpretation because it would add a requirement that was not contained in the standard. NHTSA stated: [S]ection S4.5 expressly provides that a belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in a motor vehicle only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system . . . it is not possible to interpret the term automatic restraint system, as used in S4.5, to mean automatic restraint system or dynamically tested manual restraint system. An interpretation cannot add or delete requirements that are not contained in the language of the standard itself.[12] In short, prior interpretations are consistent with our interpretation today of FMVSS No. 209 S4.5(b) that the phrase designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 includes only seating positions for which S5.1 is a requirement or compliance option.
Conclusion As GM points out in its letter, passenger cars, trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles under 10,000 lb can take advantage of the FMVSS No. 209 S4.5 load-limiting belt exemption because a manufacturer may certify compliance of the front outboard seating positions in these vehicles with FMVSS No. 208 using S5.1.[13] Further as GM also points out there well may be safety benefits to extending the FMVSS No. 209 S4.5 provision to the front outboard seating positions in the subject buses. Nevertheless, we cannot interpret the existing text of S4.5(b) in a way that would permit this. If you would like NHTSA to consider rulemaking to amend the language of the standard, you may submit a petition for rulemaking. If you have any further questions, please contact John Piazza of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Dated: 1/19/17 Ref: FMVSS 209 [1] See S4.2(c), S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4), and S4.4(b)(5). [2] See 45 FR 51626 (Aug. 4, 1980). [3] See also FMVSS 208, S4.6 (dynamic testing for manual belts on buses not required); 52 FR 44898, 44899 (Nov. 23, 1987) (explaining decision not to apply a dynamic test requirement to buses at this time). [4] 78 FR 70416 (Nov. 25, 2013). [5] See id. at 70472. [6] Websters New World Dictionary, Fourth College Edition 1425 (2008) (italics in original). [7] See 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1) ([ A] person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]) (emphasis added). A manufacturer that sells vehicles or equipment that do not comply with an applicable standard, must notify owners of the noncompliance and recall the vehicles. If a manufacturer does not comply with these requirements, the agency may issue a recall order. The agency may enforce that order in court, as well as seek civil penalties. [8] See, e.g., 49 C.F.R. 565.26(b) (Manufacturers of vehicles subject to this part shall . . . .). [9] Letter to Doris Schaller-Schnedl, Magna Steyr Engineering (Sept. 19, 2001). [10] Letter to Robert H. Munson, Ford Motor Co. (Mar. 28, 1989). [11] 49 C.F.R. 571.209, S4.5(b) (1989) (A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system.). Section S4.5 was subsequently amended to include load-limited manual belts. See 56 FR 15295 (Apr. 16, 1991). [12] Id. [13] See FMVSS No. 208 S4.1.5.1 (passenger cars); S4.2.6 (trucks, MPVs, and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 lb or less); S4.2.3 (trucks and MPVs with GVWR greater than 8,500 lb and not more than 10,000 lb, or an unloaded weight greater than 5,500 lb and a GVWR not more than 10,000 lb). |
2017 |
ID: 16008-1.pjaOpenMr. Jay Reese Dear Mr. Reese: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether four different trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) recent rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. In some cases they are excluded, and in others they are not and a guard would be required. Each trailer design is addressed separately below, with reference to the drawings you enclosed. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996, at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are wheels back vehicles, low chassis vehicles and special purpose vehicles. Design 1: Drawing #BTS-5104 Flatbed You believe that this vehicle meets the description of an excluded wheels-back vehicle. Wheels-back vehicles are excluded by S3 of Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection. The term is defined in S4 as a "trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of [the tire] on that axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle." The drawing you enclosed of the trailer your company manufactures shows that the rear surface of the tires on that axle is within 305 mm of the rear extremity. Assuming the axle is "permanently fixed," this is a wheels back vehicle, and no guard is required. Design 2: Drawing BTS-4748 Hydraulically operated dovetail with flipunder approach plate You believe this flatbed trailer meets the definition of a special purpose vehicle. The vehicle has an 8 foot long tail section that tilts down at a 15 degree angle to permit loading of wheeled vehicles. At the rear of the section is depicted a triangular full width approach plate that, during loading, extends farther rearward and downward, bridging the gap between the tail section and the ground. Its purpose is to allow construction equipment to transition from the ground up onto the bed without encountering the "bump" of the edge of the tailpiece. During transit, this approach plate folds under the tail section and fits into an indentation in the bottom of the chassis. The forwardmost edge of the plate locks into position on the bottom of the chassis. In this position, the lower surface of the approach plate is 22 inches above the ground, and the rear face of the vehicle presents a vertical surface from 22 to 37 inches above the ground. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."(1) Again, the approach plate is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied be the rear underride guard. Therefore, the approach plate would have to be considered work-performing equipment for the trailer to be excluded. There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971. Taken together, NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Approach plates do not perform work in this sense because they merely form a ramp between the ground and the vehicle driving onto the tilt bed.(2) Therefore, the approach plate is not work-performing equipment and the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. We now turn to the question of whether your trailer is excluded as a low chassis vehicle. Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your vehicle that may meet these configuration requirements is the rear edge of the folded approach plate itself, so the question becomes whether the approach plate is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicle. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure." To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit. To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load. Applying these principles to your approach plate, we conclude that it is part of the chassis. The folded approach plate conforms with the outline of the underside of the trailer bed, maintaining a constant bed thickness and helping to define the outline of the bed. Your approach plate is hinged along the entire rear of the trailer and, when folded, locks at its forward edge into a place fitted for it on the underside of the chassis. NHTSA considers the approach plate on your trailer to be "locked" into the frame of the vehicle sufficiently that it is considered integral with it, as one unit, and therefore a part of the frame structure. By contributing to the structural integrity of these frame members, NHTSA considers the approach plate to be supporting load. Therefore, the approach plate is part of the chassis, and the trailer is a low chassis vehicle, excluded from the underride guard requirements. Design 3: Drawing #BTS 5110 Fixed dovetail with flipover approach plate This trailer is similar to design 2, except that the downward-tilted dovetail section is not hydraulically operated, but attaches rigidly to the flatbed. The approach plates on this design are not full-width, and they swing up instead of down and lie on top of the dovetail when the vehicle is in motion. The rear face of the dovetail itself appears to meet the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3. NHTSA considers the dovetail section to be an integral extension of the main chassis frame members, and therefore the vehicle is excluded as a low chassis vehicle, according to the analysis in Design 2. Design 4: Drawing BTS-2844 Pusher bumper This vehicle, which you state is for off-road use, is a flatbed trailer with a lower chassis surface that is 31 inches above the ground. There is a "pusher bumper" cantilevered rearward from the rear underside of the trailer. It extends slightly behind the rear of the chassis and its lower surface is 17 inches from the ground. The pusher bumper is used to push the vehicle out of the soft ground in the oilfields. Your drawing notes that "pusher bumper guard assy supplied by customer." You stated that this trailer falls under the special purpose vehicle exclusion, meaning that you regard the pusher bumper as work-performing equipment. Your questions raises two main issues: (1) whether the bumper is "work-performing" equipment, and (2) whether the "off-road" nature of your trailer excludes it from our definition of a "motor vehicle." Both of these issues are addressed below. The pusher bumper is not work-performing equipment. As explained in the above discussion of Design 2, "work-performing"equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Pusher bumpers do not themselves actively exert force, but are instead passively pushed against by other equipment. Therefore, the pusher bumper is not work-performing equipment and the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. In fact, it appears that you currently consider the pusher bumper to be an underride guard. Your diagram refers to it as a "guard assy" and it appears to meet the configuration requirements for an underride guard. Many underride guards may perform passive pushing or holding functions on occasion. For example, many trailers use their guards to secure the trailer at a loading dock using a dock locking device that holds the underride guard. When performing this function, these guards are subjected to forces in the forward-aft direction, although the forces may be less than a pusher bumper experiences. To say that all these guards are work-performing equipment would mean that many, if not most, standard van-type trailers would be excluded; clearly not what the agency intended by its special purpose vehicle exclusion. Your diagram stated that the pusher bumper is "supplied by" the customer. Regardless of who supplies it, you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for installing a device that will enable you to certify that your trailer complies with Standards No. 223 and 224.(3) You state that "the trailer is for off-road use in the oil field business." This raises the possibility that it is not a motor vehicle subject to our laws. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as:
Whether NHTSA considers a piece of oilfield equipment to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental." If the trailers are specially designed for use in the oilfields and their use of the roads is infrequent and incidental to their primary mission in the oilfield, then they are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition and our regulations would not apply to them. However, we are unable to make that determination based on the very few statements in your letter. If your Design 4 trailer is not excluded, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential. Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, 1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. An unnecessary reference to pipe equipment containing hazardous materials was eliminated. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998). 2. To the extent that this interpretation is inconsistent with interpretation letters to Mr. Thomas M. Joyce and Mr. R. H. Anderson of Landoll Corporation, interpreting the frame rails of tilt bed trailers as work-performing equipment, those prior interpretations are superceded. The basic answer in those letters did not depend on this point, and the analysis in this letter is more thorough. 3. NHTSA's regulations do not control modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. However, the Federal Highway Administration's regulations may require compliant guards to be maintained after the vehicle is sold. |
1998 |
ID: 16035.jegOpenMr. Toshiyuki Aoki Dear Mr. Aoki: This responds to your fax asking about the neck injury criteria specified in the alternative unbelted sled test requirements of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I apologize for the delay in this response. You note that S13.2 of the standard specifies that the neck injury criteria are "measured with the six axis load cell (ref: Denton drawing C-1709) that is mounted between the bottom of the skull and the top of the neck as shown in drawing 78051-218." You state that you do not understand the neck transducer position for the Hybrid III dummy from this quoted language and ask whether it means "upper neck transducer," not "lower neck transducer." The language quoted above does mean "upper neck transducer." The terms load cell and transducer are synonymous. The upper neck transducer is located, as specified in S13.2, between the bottom of the skull and the top of the neck, and is shown in that position on drawing 78051-218. By contrast, the lower neck transducer for the Hybrid III dummy is located between the top of the thorax and the bottom of the neck. (Our regulations do not specify use of the lower neck transducer for testing under Standard No. 208.) I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further legal questions, you may refer them to Edward Glancy of this office at (202) 366-2992. If you have any technical questions about how we use the Hybrid III dummy in our tests, you may contact Stan Backaitis of our Office of Safety Performance Standards at (202) 366-4912. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 16037.ogmOpenNorman Jolly, Esq. Houston, TX 77002 Dear Mr. Jolly: This is in response to your "petition" of September 17, 1997, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) award money damages to Texans owning a Toyota, Nissan, or Honda passenger car or light truck equipped with a passive seat belt system and a separate lap belt. You believe that the manufacturers failed to properly warn motorists to use the manual lap belt with the shoulder belt. This agency cannot provide the relief sought by your petition. NHTSA's authority to entertain petitions and provide specified forms of relief when such petitions are granted is found in section 30162 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 30162). This section provides, in pertinent part, the authority granted by Congress in these matters: (a) Filing. Any interested person may file a petition with the Secretary of Transportation requesting the Secretary to begin a proceeding-- (1) to prescribe a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter; or (2) to decide whether to issue an order under section 30118(b) of this title. Section 30118(b)(1) authorizes NHTSA to make a final decision that a vehicle contains a safety related defect or fails to comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If such a final decision is made and it has been determined that a vehicle does not comply with a standard or contains a safety related defect, section 30118(b)(2) requires NHTSA to order the manufacturer of the vehicle to notify owners, purchaser, and dealers of the defect or noncompliance and to provide a remedy under section 30120. Section 30120(a) prescribes the forms that such a remedy may take: (a) Ways to remedy. (1) Subject to subsections (f) and (g) of this section, when notification of a defect or noncompliance is required under section 30118(b) or (c) of this title, the manufacturer of the defective or noncomplying motor vehicle or replacement equipment shall remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge when the vehicle or equipment is presented for remedy. Subject to subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the manufacturer shall remedy the defect or noncompliance in any of the following ways the manufacturer chooses: (A) if a vehicle-- (i) by repairing the vehicle; (ii) by replacing the vehicle with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle; or (iii) by refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. (Emphasis added.) NHTSA may require a manufacturer to provide notification and a remedy in the event that a vehicle contains a defect or does not comply with applicable standards. However, even if NHTSA were to determine that a defect existed, the manufacturer would still be able to select the remedy and cannot be ordered to provide a cash payment to an owner. If a manufacturer attempts to repair the vehicle and does not do so within a reasonable time, section 30120(c) requires that the manufacturer replace the vehicle or refund the purchase price, less an allowance for depreciation. Even in this circumstance, where the manufacturer has elected to repair the vehicle and has not done so, the manufacturer can still replace the vehicle rather than providing a cash payment to the owner. As noted above, your petition seeks relief that the agency does not have the authority to grant. NHTSA is therefore rejecting your petition. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: 16039.nhfOpenMr. Roger Gangitano Dear Mr. Gangitano: This responds to your letter requesting "blanket approval" to remove the air bag sensor and disable the air bag system in all vehicles modified to be driven by a person with a disability in which the location of the vehicle's air bag sensor interferes with the installation of a power seat base. I regret the delay in responding. As explained below, our answer is we will not grant "blanket approval" to remove the sensor and disable the air bag system each time the installation of a power seat base requires removing the air bag sensor. You explained that modifying a van to accommodate a person with a disability often necessitates the installation of a six or eight way power driver seat base. You stated that most vehicles could be fitted with a power seat base that did not interfere with the air bag sensor located beneath the driver's seat. However, you stated that the installation of a power seat base in certain vehicles, in particular the 1997 Chevy Astro or 1997 GMC Safari, required removal of the air bag sensor. Consequently, you explained that you would require the agency's authorization to remove the air bag sensor and disable the air bag system each time you needed to install a power seat base. You requested "blanket approval" for such situations so that you would not have to request authorization each time you must remove the air bag sensor to install a power seat base for a customer with a disability. We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) would require businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation. There is no procedure by which modifiers or repair businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Modifiers are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. We have always done this on an individual, case by case basis. In situations such as the one you describe where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of the "make inoperative" provision a purely technical one justified by public need. The agency has issued letters stating that it would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modified a vehicle to accommodate a particular person's disability. Although we understand your desire to avoid writing to the agency each time you need to install a power seat base in a vehicle where the location of the air bag sensor is incompatible with the power seat base, we will not grant blanket approval at this time for such a modification. We do note, however, that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
1998 |
ID: 16054.ztvOpenMr. Bill Cox Dear Mr. Cox: This is in reply to your faxes of September 22, 1997, and October 1, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. With your fax of September 22, you attached an article distributed by the Knight-Ridder newspapers on the arrival of the first Chinese truck or sport utility vehicle at a Michigan dealership. This article contains the statement that "since it's considered a low-volume vehicle, it needn't comply with U.S. safety standards. It doesn't have air bags and it doesn't meet U.S. crash standards." You have asked how they are allowed to do this. The article is incorrect. All low-volume motor vehicles must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported and sold in the United States, unless it has filed for and received an exemption from the standards. As Mr. Vinson informed you in his call to you on October 1, no exemption has been granted this Chinese vehicle. In your fax of October 1, you state that new Volkswagen Beetles are being imported under an exemption from NHTSA "allowing small volume importers to import 10 cars or less not to comply." You ask why you weren't told about this exemption. As with the Chinese Jeep, the Volkswagen Beetle does not have a small volume importer exemption. However, this vehicle could be imported as one that has been refurbished from an original vehicle that is more than 25 years old. If this is the case, then the vehicle is not required to comply upon admission to the United States. We are providing copies of your correspondence to our compliance office. Thank you for informing us of these matters. Sincerely, |
1997 |
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.