NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: NCC-241028-001 Interp Response - Volvo Trucks - FMVSS 121 Air Brake Reservoirs 01.16.2025OpenJanuary 16, 2025 Mac Bradley Principal Engineer Volvo Group Trucks Technology Volvo Group North America LLC 7900 National Service Road Greensboro, NC 27409 Re: Interpretation of Air Brake System reservoir requirements under Standard No. 121 Dear Mr. Bradley: This responds to your letter dated May 23, 2018, on behalf of Volvo Group North America LLC regarding the air brake system reservoir requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, S5.1.2. You describe a technology where an air dryer feeds the service reservoir directly, without the use of a separate supply reservoir or a condensate drain valve. You asked whether technology that you find to be “demonstratively more effective than a supply reservoir or automatic drain valve” may be used to comply with S5.1.2’s requirements. This letter responds to that request. In responding, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. Section 5.1.2 requires that each truck and bus shall have: One or more service reservoir systems, from which air is delivered to the brake chambers, and either an automatic condensate drain valve for each service reservoir or a supply reservoir between the service reservoir system and the source of air pressure. S5.1.2 provides explicit reservoir requirements. Without either an automatic condensate drain valve or a supply reservoir, a vehicle would not comply with S5.1.2. The air dryer technology you suggest includes neither a condensate drain valve nor a supply reservoir. Although you suggest that this new technology is at least equally effective at removing water from compressed air, the standard is specific in its equipment requirements. We cannot by interpretation remove the requirements set forth in express terms in the regulatory text.1 1 See, e.g., Letter to R.W. Hildebrandt, Bendix Corp. (May 30, 1980), available at www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht80-241 (finding non-compliance where the air brake system may comply with the alleged intent of FMVSS No. 121 but does not comply with the standard’s technical requirements).
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking you cited from 1996 did propose revising FMVSS No. 121 to require a means of automatically removing moisture and contaminants from the air system and to delete the requirement for a supply reservoir. See 61 F.R. 56652 (Nov. 4, 1996). However, after consideration, NHTSA terminated that rulemaking, opting for further study of the requirements and test procedures for air drying and cleansing equipment used in air brake systems. See 63 F.R. 14674 (May 26, 1998). NHTSA cannot amend its regulations by interpretation. The appropriate vehicle to present your arguments would be a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 121. In such a petition, you would be free to rely on the data you shared regarding the efficacy of air dryers at removing water from compressed air in support of a such petition for rulemaking. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Evita St. Andre of my staff at this address or (617) 494-2767. Sincerely, Adam Raviv Chief Counsel Dated: 1/16/25 |
2025 |
ID: NCC-230420-001 571.108 Angelina Twardawa Auxiliary Side Lamps Interpretation signedOpenApril 16, 2025 U.S.Department of Transportation Ms. Angelina Twardawa 4550 Gustine Ave Dear Ms. Twardawa: This responds to your letter, received December 5, 2022 in which you requested a letter of interpretation asking whether aftermarket auxiliary trifunctional side marker lights which illuminate red in the rear, amber in the side, and white in the front, and that attach to the rear of a 53-foot trailer on both sides are compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. Based on the information you provided in your letter, we have concluded that installing the device as described may conflict with FMVSS No. 108. However, an alternative color configuration should be permissible under that standard. Please note that our guidance below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your letter. The contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. Background NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. In your letter, you state that the device is a trifunctional light that attaches to the side of the rear guard of a 53-foot trailer on both sides with an open-ended connector. The lights have a red light designated at the rear, amber light designated at the side, and a white light designated at the front. You note that the piece that attaches to the trailer is rubber and flexible so it will not break, and that the device is stationary. You state the purpose of the device is to assist drivers with backing up, lane changes, and other maneuvers by providing increased visibility of the trailer at night. You ask whether the described design is permitted (both with regards to the device overall and the described lighting configuration), and if it is how far the devices can extend. FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, including for trailers. For auxiliary lamps, the primary restriction imposed by FMVSS No. 108 is by S6.2.1, which states that "[n]o additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment is permitted to be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Additionally, both original equipment and aftermarket lighting can run afoul of the "make inoperative" provision in 49 U.S.C. § 30122. These prohibitions bar installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business of lamps that would impair the effectiveness of required lighting, but do not apply to the owner of a vehicle. We note that whether there is an impairment is determined in the first instance by the manufacturer of the vehicle (or the entity installing the aftermarket lighting) when it is certified as compliant with FMVSS No. 108. Typically, the impairment determination is made on a case-by-case basis and looks at four main characteristics of the auxiliary lamp to analyze whether it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting. These are the brightness (photometric intensity), color, location, and activation pattern of the lamp.1 This list is not exhaustive and other considerations may be relevant to the analysis. NHTSA has long stated that highway traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly.2 Therefore, we have long interpreted the impairment provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are colors which are likely to cause confusion to other road users.3 Additionally, auxiliary lamps must be located such that they would not interfere or be confused with the lamps required by our standards. For example, we have stated that two auxiliary 1 This letter is limited to the information provided in your request. Your request did not state the activation pattern or intensity of the device, which can be relevant to determining if a device causes impairment. For the purposes of this letter, we assume without finding that these aspects of your device do not cause impairment. The following information is provided for your reference regarding these elements. Regarding activation pattern, NHTSA interprets FMVSS No. 108 to require that all auxiliary lamps be "steady burning," with the sole exception being auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals. Letter to Paul Schaye (Sept. 9, 2019), available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/571108-ama-schaye-front-color-changing-light. Regarding intensity, NHTSA interprets the impairment provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are so bright as to obscure or distract from a vehicle's required lamps. For example, NHTSA has in the past stated that supplemental lighting can impair the effectiveness of the required lighting if it is so intense that it glares other road users or masks required signal lamps. See Letter to Rusty Riggin, Aug. 2, 2002, available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/24179ztv, (explaining that a supplemental rear cornering lamp could violate the impairment provision if it was so intense that it "create[d] distracting glare"). Letter to Mark Wallach (Oct. 17, 2006) available at htqJs://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/wallach3. lamps located next to the three-lamp trailer identification lamp cluster would detract from the purpose of the cluster.4 ' For lighting relevant to your inquiry, FMVSS No. 108 requires that trailers have two amber side marker lamps as far to the front as practicable and two red side marker lamps as far to the rear as practicable. Trailers 30 feet or longer must also have amber intermediate side marker lamps and reflex reflectors on each side located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps.5, 6 Discussion We now turn to your inquiry. Your lamp is not required equipment, and you correctly observe that it is auxiliary or supplemental lighting.7 Therefore, we turn to the question of impairment and look to the characteristics discussed. The factors which appear most relevant to your inquiry are the location and color of the lamps, which we analyze together. Due to the color and location of the lamp as described in your letter, it is likely to impair the effectiveness of the side marker lamps required to be installed on trailers by FMVSS No. 108, and, if installed by you or another entity subject to the "make inoperative" prohibition as aftermarket equipment, could make inoperative lighting required by FMVSS No. 108.8 However, an alternative color scheme would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. Regarding side marker lamps, FMVSS No. 108 requires that intermediate side marker lamps be amber, and rear side marker lamps be red. Your design notes that your device will be mounted at the rear and that the side of the device will have amber lights. Therefore, in driving conditions 4 Letter to Robert Clarke (July 28, 2005), available at htt;ps://www.nhtsa.gov/inter_pretations/gf00255l3. Our opinion is based on the location and color of the lights as described in your letter. An alternative color scheme, with a red light facing the side in place of the amber light, is unlikely to have the same risk of impairing the effectiveness of the side marker lamps because it would Finally, you inquired about how far out the devices may extend from the trailer. NHTSA's regulations do not contain requirements specific to this question. Vehicle width is regulated by the Federal Highway Administration, who's regulation states that no State shall impose a width limitation of more or less than 102 inches (except Hawaii) for vehicles operating on the National Network.9 Five items are excluded regardless of how far they extend beyond the exterior of vehicles; rear view mirrors, turn signal lamps, handholds for cab entry/egress, splash and spray suppressant devices, and load induced tire bulge. Other excluded devices are: all non-property carrying devices or components at the front of a semitrailer or trailer, devices that do not extend more than 3 inches beyond each side or the rear of a vehicle, devices needed for loading or unloading that do not extend more than 24 inches beyond the rear of the vehicle, and aerodynamic devices that do not extend more than 5 feet beyond the rear of a vehicle, provided they have neither the strength, rigidity nor mass to damage a vehicle that strikes a trailer so equipped from the rear and provided also that they do not obscure tail lamps, turn signals, marker lamps, identification lamps, or any other required safety features, such as hazardous materials placards or conspicuity markings.10 We also note that, because it is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the requirements of the Safety Act, it must be designed free from defects regarding motor vehicle safety. Additionally, truck tractors and trailers operated commercially in interstate commerce are subject to the regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Finally, States may have laws applicable to certain motor vehicle lighting. We are unable to advise you on those laws, but you should ensure your system complies with any and all applicable State laws. Sincerely, Peter Simshauser Chief Counsel Dated: 4/16/25 9 23 CFR 658.15. |
2025 |
ID: NCC-230607-001 571.108 Automatic Activation of Hazard Warning Signal for Nonresponsive Driver Frooshani signed 7.22.25OpenU.S. Department of Transportation
Mr. John Frooshani Vehicle Regulatory Manager, Government Relations North American Subaru, Inc. One Subaru Drive Camden NJ 08103
Dear Mr. Frooshani, I write in response to your letter dated February 5, 2020, requesting an interpretation on whether identified advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) features would comply with the hazard warning signal requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. You also spoke with staff from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Office of the Chief Counsel on October 29, 2024. You ask whether your system, after determining a driver is non-responsive, could automatically activate the vehicular hazard warning signal while decelerating the vehicle and bringing it to a stop. Our conclusion is that such a system is permissible in the circumstances described in your letter. The contents of this interpretation letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. Background NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS setting performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not pre-approve new motor vehicles, new motor vehicle equipment, or new motor vehicle technologies. In addition, NHTSA does not prohibit the introduction of new motor vehicles or motor vehicle technologies such as Automated Driving Systems (ADS) into the vehicle fleet, provided those vehicles and technologies meet applicable FMVSS and do not present a safety defect. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. Two provisions of FMVSS No. 108 bear on the issue raised in your letter. First, the standard requires vehicles, except trailers and motorcycles, to be equipped with a vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit and a vehicular hazard warning signal flasher.1 A vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is defined as a driver-controlled device which causes all required tum signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard.2,3 Second, FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1 states that no additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment is permitted to be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108.4 Your letter states that Subaru is exploring deploying an ADAS with a feature intended to prevent a crash if a human driver has become nonresponsive, with the system assuming vehicular control when a driver is inattentive and non-responsive to system warnings. In the described scenario, the vehicle would be brought to a stop and would "activate the hazard warning lamps as the vehicle is decelerating and continue to activate the hazard lamps after the vehicle has been brought to a stop." You state that, in your opinion, the scenario described in your letter is like the one in our 2016 letter to Brian Latouf of General Motors, which allowed automatic activation of the hazard signal following detection of a nonresponsive driver and after the vehicle has been brought to a stop by advanced vehicle systems, and you seek our concurrence. Discussion NHTSA's interpretations of "vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit" read FMVSS No. 108 as broadly restricting automatic activation of the hazard signal.5 However, NHTSA historically has read FMVSS No. 108 to allow automatic activation on a case-by-case basis under limited circumstances consistent with the purpose of the hazard warning signal stated in 1 49 C.F.R. § 571.108. Per FMVSS No. 108, the purpose of the hazard warning system is "to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard." Recent interpretations have noted that "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."7 Several previous agency interpretations referenced FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1 and emphasized that there is no ambiguity about the meaning or purpose of the hazard signal following a crash.8 Although S6.2.1 applies only to equipment not required by FMVSS No. 108, in our 2016 letter to Mr. Latouf, we clarified that the same analysis applies to automatic activation of the hazard signal.9,10 Several letters of interpretation have discussed situations in which we believe automatic activation of the hazard signal would be inconsistent with FMVSS No. 108, such as during braking events,11 after "sudden release of the accelerator pedal,"12 or as a "deceleration warning system"13 where it would conflict with the purpose of the stop lamps.14 Most recently, on March 22, 2023, NHTSA denied a petition for decision of inconsequential noncompliance filed by 7 Letter to Brian Latouf, Nov. 18, 2016. https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/16-1289-gm-hazard-innovative-28-apr-16-rsy. This statement is based on a previous statement made in our letter to Sen. Richard Lugar on May 9, 2000, that drivers in general activate the hazard signal to "indicate either that [they are] proceeding at a slower rate than surrounding traffic, or that the vehicle is stopped on or off a roadway." https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/21478ztv. This was a description of typical hazard signal use and was not intended to state the purpose of the hazard warning. The letter stated the activation should depend on the driver's evaluation of the driving environment and should not occur involuntarily simply because the vehicle is decelerating. 8 Letter to Mark Steele, Feb. 25, 2000, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/2ll71ztv ; Letter to Timothy Bartlett, Jan. 28, 2002, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/23695ztv; Letter to Stephen Powers, Jan. 19, 2021, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/571108-help-system-powers. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA), regarding certain Model Year 2020-2021 Freightliner Cascadia heavy trucks.15 These trucks contained a system that automatically activated the hazard signal during a brake assist application, when the brake system applies maximum braking force to assist the driver in bringing the truck to a complete stop. In contrast to these scenarios, our 2016 letter to Mr. Latouf addressed a similar situation to the one described in your letter. There, we stated that under FMVSS No. 108 a system could, after finding a driver unresponsive and bringing the vehicle to a stop, automatically activate the hazard signal.16 We analogized the situation to the one after a crash and noted that being at a complete stop "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."17 However, we also stated that "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."18 We also declined to state that such activations could occur only when stopped, finding that future approaches for automatic activation of the hazard signal would be handled on a case by-case basis.19 Based on our understanding of the specific circumstances described in your letter, the automatic activation of the hazard warning signal you describe is permissible under FMVSS No. 108. As an initial matter, because FMVSS No. 108 does not specify in what situations the hazard warning signal may or may not be activated, we decline to state categorically that the hazard warning signal can be automatically activated only after a vehicle has come to a complete stop. Indeed, in the letter to Mr. Latouf, we acknowledged that "proceeding at a slower rate than traffic" is a situation in which drivers typically activate the hazard warning system. Where past agency interpretations have opined negatively about in-motion activations, it was because the use in question was not consistent with the purpose of the hazard warning system or it impaired the effectiveness of required lighting in violation of FMVSS No. 108.20 However, your system does not appear to activate the hazard warning system in a way that we have previously found unacceptable. Instead, we view the conditions described in your letter as largely similar to those described in our letter to Mr. Latouf. This letter does not mean that NHTSA views FMVSS No. 108 as generally allowing the automatic use of the hazard warning signal while in motion or to indicate that a vehicle's ADAS 15 88 Fed. Reg. 17291. We believe the circumstances of the petition are distinguishable under FMVSS No. 108. First, Subaru's system does not adjust the flash rate. Second, it activates only in the rare event of a nonresponsive driver. Third, DTNA's system specifically activated during brake events. FMVSS No. 108 states that the stop lights communicate that a vehicle is stopping or diminishing speed by braking. Therefore, the instant circumstance presents much lower risk of confusion than activation during a brake assist. or ADS systems are active. The presence of a nonresponsive driver creates a situation where vehicle operation and driving maneuvers are largely disabled and will be for an unknown duration, as is often true following a crash or if there is a health or mechanical issue. In such a circumstance, even if the vehicle is being decelerated to a stop, the hazard warning is not being used to communicate deceleration, activation of the stop lamps, or another action that may be the purview of a lamp required by FMVSS No. 108. Instead, the activation occurs only upon the detection of a separate hazard: a nonresponsive driver. Therefore, the risk of ambiguity or confusion of the signals is low. Conclusion Based on the information presented in your letter, the system described above would not violate FMVSS No. 108's requirements applicable to the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit or vehicular hazard warning signal flasher. It would also not impair the effectiveness of required lighting. This interpretation is specific to the circumstances described above. We note that Subaru indicates that when the driver is unable or unwilling to take control of the vehicle, the system will bring the vehicle to a stop. A vehicle system that stops a vehicle directly in a roadway might, depending on the circumstances, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, i.e., it may present an unreasonable risk of an accident occurring or of death and injury in an accident.21 Federal law requires the recall of a vehicle that contains a safety-related defect.22 We urge Subaru to fully consider the likely operation of the system it is contemplating and ensure that it will not present such a risk. Finally, activation of the hazard signal is subject to State laws, which may control when a hazard signal may be used. Nothing in this interpretation should be read to preempt State law regarding when it is appropriate for a hazard warning system to be used. We are unable to advise you on those laws, but you should ensure your system complies with any and all State laws regarding when a hazard warning system may be activated. Sincerely, Peter Simshauser Chief Counsel Dated: 7/22/25
|
2025 |
ID: NCC-220316-001 Aircraft Refueler.Beyer.30102OpenU.S.Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. Washington, DC 20590
Webster, NY 14580 Lbeyer l@rochester.rr.com
Dear Mr. Beyer, This responds to your March 13, 2022 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) inquiring whether a certain aircraft refueling truck would constitute a motor vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act").1 Based on the specific information provided in your request and supporting documentation, we conclude that this aircraft refueling truck would not be considered a "motor vehicle.". Accordingly, the Safety Act would not prevent its importation into the United States. In responding to this request, NHTSA notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter only aims to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. Background The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to regulate motor vehicle safety by promulgating and enforcing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways."2 The Safety Act prohibits the import of motor vehicles into the United States unless the motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS and bears a permanently affixed label by the vehicle's original manufacturer certifying compliance.3 According to your letter, in June 1998, Advanced Engineered Products, Limited ("Advanced") manufactured an aircraft refueling truck for Calgary Fuel Facilities Corporation ("Calgary 1 Codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Fuel") for use at the Calgary airport. In your communications with NHTSA, you included a link to the listing of the unit, which indicates several specialized attributes.4 The three-axle vehicle has a 6,500-gallon tank that, when full of fuel, weighs 44,000 pounds. You noted that airport road surfaces have higher weight capacity than public roads, permitting units to transport heavier loads on fewer axles. Calgary Fuel used the unit at the Calgary airport from June 1998 until September 2015. In September 2015, Eastway Tank Pump & Meter Limited ("Eastway") bought the unit from Calgary Fuel and shipped the unit within Canada from Calgary to Ottawa on a flat deck trailer. In September 2021, Eastway coordinated the transportation of the unit from Canada to a storage yard in New York. According to your subsequent communications with our office, Eastway was unable to contract for a flatbed trailer to transport the unit. Thus, the unit was operated on public roads for a single time during transport to the storage yard. Eastway provided a warning vehicle containing "Slow Vehicle" signage that followed the unit during transit. In October 2021, Eastway attempted to import the unit into the United States. The import process requires submission of a completed Form HS-7.5 Box 2A on the form was checked as the basis for import.6 Officers from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) contacted NHTSA to determine whether the vehicle could be lawfully imported into the United States under the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA under Box 2A. NHTSA responded by stating that the vehicle did not have a certification label permanently affixed by the vehicle's original manufacturer and did not have a correct Vehicle Identification Number 4 htt,ps://usedoilandfiretrucks.com/products/1998-intemational-refueler/ The vehicle or equipment item conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (or the vehicle does not conform solely because readily attachable equipment items that will be attached to it before it is offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale are not attached), and Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, and bears a certification label or tag to that effect permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle or affixed by the manufacturer to the equipment item or to its delivery container in accordance with applicable National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (VIN) as required by Box 2A. For these reasons, NHTSA stated that the unit was ineligible for importation under Box 2A and CBP seized the unit.7 Discussion In your letter, you asked whether the aircraft refueling truck you reference is a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. We conclude that the vehicle you describe is not a "motor vehicle." In so opining, we distinguish this from our 1972 interpretation letter opining that an airport refueling vehicle is a "motor vehicle."8 NHTSA has previously held that airport runway vehicles, such as airport baggage conveyors, do not meet the definition of a "motor vehicle" and are not subject to FMVSS, even if they are operationally capable of highway travel.9 However, in a 1972 interpretation, NHTSA stated that an airport refueling vehicle would be a motor vehicle because it "may frequently be driven on public roads such as perimeter roads between oil tanks and the airport."10 The features of the vehicle you describe are substantially different from the features discussed in the 1972 letter. To inform our conclusion about whether your vehicle is a "motor vehicle," we turn to evaluating the design and actual use of the unit at issue. More recent interpretation letters analyze the question of whether such a vehicle is considered a "motor vehicle" using a five-factor test.11 We discuss these factors in turn. 1. Whether the vehicle is advertised for use on-road and off-road, or whether it is advertised exclusively for off-road use. While Advanced, the original equipment manufacturer for the purposes of this response, has gone out of business, NHTSA examined the advertising of similar businesses that manufacture aircraft refuelers.12 This sample suggests aircraft refuellers are intended exclusively for off road use on airport roads to refuel aircraft, contrary to the description described in the 1972 interpretation. Your letter supports this inference, noting that the unit in question was used exclusively at the Calgary airport from June 1998 until September 2015. This factor supports 7 If you can substantiate that the vehicle was manufactured in 1998, it may be imported today even if it was a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. The prohibition against importing motor vehicles not certified to meet the applicable FMVSSs at the time of manufacture does not apply to vehicles that are 25 years or older. These vehicles can be imported under Box 1 of Form HS-7. Nevertheless, we will opine on the issue of whether this vehicle is a motor vehicle to remove any ambiguity about whether the vehicle could have legally been imported in 2021. the finding that this aircraft refueler is not a "motor vehicle" as that term is defined in the Safety Act. 2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers assist the vehicle's purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on road use. We have no evidence to inform whether Advanced assisted Calgary Fuel, the vehicle purchaser, in documentation necessary to register the vehicle for on-road use. You state that the vehicle does not have a vehicle identification number (VIN). Without a VIN, we believe it would be difficult for the vehicle to be registered in any U.S. State. Further, the unit lacked a certification label permanently affixed by the vehicle's original manufacturer. This suggests that Advanced did not designate or register the vehicle for on-road use and weighs against considering this vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." 3. Whether the vehicles are sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. The manufacturer of the vehicle you ask about has gone out of business. Therefore, we are unable to evaluate this factor. 4. Whether the vehicle has affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. Your letter indicates that the aircraft refueler has a low muffler system that makes it unsuitable for on-road use when it is loaded with fuel because it will not have sufficient ground clearance to navigate ordinary obstacles on public roads. Your letter further indicates that the refueler was transported several times within Canada towed on a flat deck trailer, rather than as a self 5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. The lack of a vehicle identification number, permanently affixed certification label, the use of a flat-bed trailer for primary transportation, and the use of warning signage when operated on public roads for a single time, suggests that the unit is not independently suitable for public roads. These factors make it unlikely to be registered as a motor vehicle in any U.S. State, and the lack of a vehicle identification number would make it unlikely such a vehicle would be registered for on-road use in Canada. There is no evidence that this vehicle was registered in Canada. This factor suggests that the unit would not be considered a motor vehicle. Conclusion Based on the considerations in NHTSA's five-factor test and the description of the unit you provided, the aircraft refueler in question would not be considered a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act. It is similar to airport runway vehicles discussed in prior NHTSA interpretations in that, while perhaps operationally capable of traveling on public roads, it was manufactured and sold primarily for off-road use. Furthermore, it is distinguishable from the aircraft refueling vehicle that NHTSA considered in its 1972 interpretation. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my staff at interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov. Sincerely, Peter Simshauser Chief Counsel Dated: 10/1/25 |
2025 |
ID: NCC-250121-001 FMVSS No 135.Parking Brake Indicator-lanetta signed 11.8.25OpenOctober 8, 2025
U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. Washington, DC 20590
Ms. Christie Iannetta Nelson Mullins 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001
Dear Ms. Iannetta: I am writing in response to your letter addressed to NHTSA dated January 15, 2025, asking the agency to reconsider an interpretation issued on October 31, 2024 ("the interpretation").1 The interpretation was issued in response to a request you submitted on behalf of an anonymous client on February 26, 2024. In the request, you asked for clarification on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, "Light vehicle brake systems." Specifically, you asked about paragraph S5.5.1, which sets out requirements for when certain brake indicators must be activated. In the interpretation, the agency concluded that the parking brake system described in your letter likely would not comply with FMVSS No. 135's requirements. Your January 15 letter requests that we reconsider the interpretation. After considering your request and evaluating the conclusion and analysis in the interpretation, we do not believe we misunderstood your original interpretation request, and we are not reconsidering the interpretation. A detailed explanation of our reasoning follows. Background By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Please also note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your letter. This letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is intended only to provide clarity regarding existing 1 NHTSA Interpretation File Search, ID: NCC-230308-001, https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/ncc-230308-001- nelsonmullinsparkingbrakeindicatorinterp. FMVSS No. 135 establishes requirements for light vehicle braking systems. Paragraph S5.5.1 therein requires indicators to be activated when the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" ("run") position and one or more of seven scenarios occur. Paragraph (c) of S5.5.1 requires an indicator to be activated upon "application of the parking brake." Therefore, if the parking brake is applied and the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position, a parking brake indicator must be activated. You explain that your client's vehicle uses an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) system where the parking brake can be applied manually by the driver or automatically by the system. The driver can engage the parking brake via the in-vehicle control at any time before shifting the vehicle into park, and when the parking brake is engaged by the driver, the parking brake indicator displays clearly in front of the driver. However, the EPB system can also apply the parking brake on its own, and it does so whenever the vehicle is shifted into park. If the EPB system engages the parking brake on its own, the parking brake indicator does not display. Finally, regardless of how the parking brake is engaged (by the driver or by the EPB system), the parking brake always disengages automatically once the vehicle is shifted out of park, or in some vehicles, when the brake pedal is depressed. In the interpretation we concluded that your client's system is likely not compliant with the requirements of FMVSS No. 135. Specifically, we explained that S5.5.l(c) requires that if a vehicle ignition is in the "on" position and the parking brake is applied, an indicator must activate to inform the driver of the status of the parking brake. You may reference the interpretation for our complete analysis on the issue. In your January 15 letter, you express your belief that we misunderstood an important fact about the manufacturer's parking brake system, and that we failed to consider relevant regulatory context. NHTSA's Response We adequately understood the functionality of your client's parking brake system, and we also considered all of the relevant regulatory background. NHTSA Did Not Misunderstand Your Client's EPB System You indicate that we purportedly failed to understand that it is impossible for your client's vehicle to be driven with the parking brake applied because the system is designed to disengage whenever the vehicle is shifted out of park. Your letter quotes the following line from the interpretation as evidence that we misunderstood this crucial fact about the EPB system: "nothing prevents the vehicle from driving during this engagement." (See interpretation p. 3, ID: NCC-230308-001). When we drafted the interpretation, we did so with a complete understanding that your client's vehicle is designed to make it impossible to drive with the parking brake activated. We considered this fact when analyzing your client's system under the requirements of paragraph S5.5.1(c). We concluded that even though your client's vehicle design may potentially address the safety concern of driving with the parking brake activated, manufacturers may not disregard FMVSS requirements because they feel they have resolved the safety issue the standard was designed to address. As we stated in the interpretation, "[I]f a manufacturer believes that it has developed technology that makes certain regulatory requirements unnecessary, it may petition the agency for a rulemaking to amend the relevant requirements." Until the standard is amended, manufacturers must certify in good faith to the current requirements. NHTSA Did Not Ignore Important Regulatory Context You assert that the stated purpose of paragraph S5.5.l(c) is to prevent drivers from driving with the parking brake on, and your client's EPB system addresses that safety concern. Not only did we consider this argument in the interpretation, but our response to this argument was a central component of the interpretation. As we stated in the interpretation: Just because a manufacturer has designed a system that purports to resolve, through other means, a safety concern addressed in an FMVSS does not mean that it is not bound by the requirements of the FMVSS or that it may introduce noncompliant motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to the market. If a manufacturer believes that it has developed technology that makes certain regulatory requirements unnecessary, it may petition the agency for a rulemaking to amend the relevant requirements. We understood then that your client believes it has created an EPB system that addresses the stated safety purpose of paragraph S5.5.l(c)'s parking indicator requirement. As noted, manufacturers must certify compliance with the express terms of an FMVSS, and not just with its stated purpose. In this case, we believe that even if your client's system may address the stated safety purpose underlying paragraph S5.5.l(c), it does not comply with the paragraph's requirements. Nor is your argument about the test procedures set out in FMVSS No. 135 S7.12.2 persuasive. You note that the parking brake test procedure requires a vehicle to be put into neutral and the parking brake applied, after which the parking brake must hold the vehicle stationary for a specific amount of time. One of the steps in the test procedure (S7.12.2(m)) is for the test conductor to verify the operation of the parking brake application indicator. You assert that the parking brake indicator is only evaluated after the performance of the steps within the test procedure in S7.12.2, during which the parking brake is applied manually. However, nothing in the parking brake test procedure negates paragraph S5.5.l(c)'s parking brake indicator requirement. The requirements that the brake system warning indicators illuminate under specified conditions exists independent of any test procedure. The duration during which a brake system warning indicator must be displayed is addressed in paragraph S5.5.3, which provides that each warning indicator "shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition ('start') switch is in the 'on' ('run') position, whether or not the engine is running." Nothing in the test procedures purports to alter or limit this requirement. Thus, your client must be able to certify in good faith that its vehicle's parking brake indicator appears in plain view of the driver whenever the parking brake is engaged. We do not believe your client is able to do so based on your description of its EPB system. We note also that the final inspection procedure in paragraph S7.17 requires inspection of "[t]he brake system indicators, for compliance with operation in various key positions, lens color, labeling, and location, in accordance with S5.5." We expect that noncompliance with the requirement of paragraph S5.5.l(c) would be observed during this final inspection. I hope this letter provides clarity on NHTSA's stance on this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. David Jasinski of my staff at interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov. Sincerely, Peter Simshauser Chief Counsel
Dated: 10/8/25 |
2025 |
ID: 000036drnOpen[ ] Dear [ ] : This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Specifically, you wish to know whether a front entrance door on the curb side of a non-school bus (over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating) may count towards the emergency exit requirement and can be credited the maximum allowable area of 3458 cm per exit. The answer is yes. Before addressing the substantive question that you raised, I note that in a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you requested confidential treatment of the identity of your company. In order to save time, I agree to keep confidential the name of your company and all other identifying information in this letter. The enclosed copy of your redacted incoming letter will be placed in the public docket. We will make available to the public only the enclosed version of your letter to me that is purged of all references to your identity. [1] You asked Ms. Nakama to address whether, for a non-school bus over 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) GVWR, Standard No. 217 permits manufacturers to designate the front entrance door as an emergency exit. If the door meets the standards emergency exit requirements, the answer is yes. We answered this question in the affirmative in a June 30, 1988, interpretation letter to Mr. Terry K. Brock of Coons Manufacturing Inc. (copy enclosed). In that letter, we stated that: "As long as the front door meets all applicable requirements for emergency exits under Standard No. 217, the door can be considered as an emergency exit. [I]t has never been this agencys position that only push-out window and roof exits may be used to satisfy Standard No. 217 requirements." Standard No. 217 requirements for non-school bus emergency exits have been amended since the issuance of the interpretation letter to Coons Manufacturing. However, the agencys interpretation that a front door that meets Standard No. 217 emergency exit requirements can be considered an emergency exit has not changed. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure [1] In the future, if you want to submit information that you consider confidential you need to follow the procedure set forth in 49 CFR Part 512, Confidential Business Information. |
2003 |
ID: 000180cmcOpenMr. James W. Gilchrist Dear Mr. Gilchrist: This responds to your letter of August 25, 2002, requesting a waiver allowing a drivers seat to be moved in order to accommodate your son.In your letter you state that because of your sons tremendous size, " he does not fit in the drivers seat of any cars we can find. The drivers seat of the cars we have looked at need to be moved back several inches to gain the extra legroom he needs." You further state that dealerships will not move the drivers seat back because they claim relocation of the seat "is prohibited by federal regulations." As explained below, federal regulations do not prevent qualified dealers or repair businesses from moving the drivers seat rearward. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicable laws and regulations to you.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.; Vehicle Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing motor vehicles or equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) (49 U.S.C. 30122).NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.Several such exemptions have been promulgated in 49 CFR Part 595, but only portions of some FMVSSs are covered. Two standards are directly relevant to moving a drivers seat: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, may also be relevant if the sensor for the airbag is located under the drivers seat. Under Part 595, there is no exemption available from FMVSSs No. 207 and 210 in order to move a drivers seat as in your situation.This is because it may be possible for a repair business to move a seat in a manner that preserves compliance with those standards.There is an available exemption for FMVSS No. 208 under part 595 if the modifier cannot move the seat without taking the vehicle out of compliance with that standard.This exemption is only available to a repair business that has registered with NHTSA that it intends to use the Part 595 make inoperative exemption in modifying vehicles. As a practical matter, as long as the new holes drilled in the floor are of the same size as the original holes, the same bolts are used, and the floor is the same thickness (or compensation is made in that regard) the modifier can be confident that the vehicle still complies with FMVSS No. 207.If the upper anchorage for the shoulder belt must be moved after the seat is moved rearward, compliance with FMVSS No. 210 can be preserved by keeping the anchorage within the "acceptable range" shown in Figure 1 in the standard.We have included a copy of this figure along with the brochure, "Adapting Motor Vehicles for People with Disabilities," which explains this approach.This may be more problematic than preserving the FMVSS No. 207 compliance, depending on the vehicle chosen to be modified; therefore, you should consult the vehicle modifier before choosing the vehicle to modify. We caution that the work should be done by a business that is experienced in making vehicle modifications and that has registered to use the make inoperative exemptions.The vehicle to be modified should be chosen after consulting with that modifier to ensure that there is enough room to move the seat the amount required and that the upper anchorage for the shoulder belt can be relocated if necessary. I hope this information is helpful.If you have any other questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:207 |
2002 |
ID: 000182cmcOpenMr. Jeremy Karmel Dear Mr. Karmel: This responds to your letter of August 13, 2002, requesting information on regulations concerning the installation of passenger seats in a van.In yourletter you stated that a customer would like to purchase a van from your company.You indicated that the customer would then like "to install an extra row of seating, himself, using factory equipment, to carry two more passengers." As you further explained in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff, either the customer would perform the installation or a third party repair business would install the extra seating. As explained below, there are different Federal requirements depending on the timing of the installation and the person installing the seating. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.; Vehicle Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has exercised authority to establish five Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), which could be relevant to installation of a seat in a vehicle: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Standard Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to this situation, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacement belts.Thus, if new seat belts are installed on an already certified vehicle, the manufacturer of the seat belts is required to certify that the seat belts comply with standard No. 209. If additional seats are installed in an already certified vehicle prior to its first retail sale, the person modifying the vehicle would be considered an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be subject to certification requirements.Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as: A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified ... other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, ... before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale .... As an alterer, the person installing the seats would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the original manufacturer's certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label must also state the name of the alterer, the month and the year in which the alterations were completed, and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR), if changed by the vehicle alteration. If additional seats are installed after the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale (i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle), a vehicle modifier or repair business could not install additional seats in your customers van if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards.The only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30122(b)).That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard If, for example, a third party repair facility installs the extra passenger seat, then the "render inoperative" prohibition would mean that it must be done is such a way as to not affect the vehicles compliance with all applicable FMVSS.This would require, among other things, that installation of the new seat be done such that the attachment of the original seats and seat belts to the vehicle must not be compromised. In addition, the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, if the customer, as an individual vehicle owner, were to install the seats himself in his own vehicle, Federal law would not apply. While Federal law would not apply to a modification if it were made by your customer to his own vehicle, I would urge him to exercise care in installing the seat bench and to install seat belts on the seats. The seats and seat belts will not provide any protection to occupants if they separate from the vehicle frame in a crash. Additionally, you and your customer should be aware that States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.Also, your customer may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the New York State regarding potential liability in tort for his business in these circumstances. I hope this information is helpful.If you have any other questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:207 |
2002 |
ID: 000191OpenMr. Tom Steinkamp Hawkeye Truck Equipment 5800 2nd Avenue P.O. Box 3283 Des Moines, IA 50316
Dear Mr. Steinkamp:
This responds to your e-mails, addressed to Jeff Woods of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, about this agencys regulations concerning trailers. You asked whether certain trailers that you sell are classified as full trailers or semi-trailers. Your question is addressed below. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, now codified as 49 CFR Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. As such, we would also refer you to the individual manufacturers of the subject trailers for information about classification and their basis for compliance. Turning to the information about the trailers you have provided to NHTSA, you describe the trailers as pup trailers. The average empty weight of the trailers is approximately 8,500 pounds, and they have two axles. There are three versions of the trailers, which vary by axle spacing. There is a 50 axle spacing trailer, an 81 axle spacing trailer, and a 10 axle spacing trailer. The gross vehicle weight ratings range from 34,000 pounds to 40,000 pounds. Each of the trailers is connected to the towing truck by a long tongue. (The tongue appears to be similar in length to the main part of the trailer.) You stated that the tongue is solid and would not slide from side. You also stated that if the trailer is unhooked from the truck, a jack is needed to hold up the tongue. In addressing your question, we believe it is necessary to consider the definitions of full trailer and semitrailer together. These terms are defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3, for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as follows: Full trailer means a trailer, except a pole trailer, that is equipped with two or more axles that support the entire weight of the trailer. Semitrailer means a trailer, except a pole trailer, so constructed that a substantial part of its weight rests upon or is carried by another motor vehicle. As you know, a distinction is made between these types of trailers for safety reasons and, as such, each designation carries with it attendant requirements in terms of safety-related features. Most significantly, the full trailer requires a more enhanced braking capability because its axles support the full weight of the trailer. Full trailers are required to have ABS on at least one front and rear axle to avoid an instability that may result from lockup of either a front or rear axle. Semi-trailers, by contrast, are supported in the front by another motor vehicle. They are only required to have ABS on one axle. In applying the definitions of full trailer and semi-trailer to the trailers at issue, we distinguish between the weight of the main portion of the trailer and the tongue. The tongue on these trailers, while unusually long, is essentially a device for connecting the trailer to the towing truck. It is our view that if the full weight of the main portion of the trailer (the portion not including the tongue) is supported by the trailer axles, the trailer is a full trailer. However, if a substantial part of the weight of the main portion of the trailer is transferred via the tongue to the towing vehicle, the trailer would be a semi-trailer. We are unable to offer you further guidance as to the specifics of the trailers you ask about given the information we have received, yet we hope this analysis is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:571 d.12/18/06 |
2006 |
ID: 000322cmcOpenMr. Gerald Plante Dear Mr. Plante: This responds to your September 17, 2002, e-mail concerning the telltale requirement for vehicles equipped with automatic suppression features for passenger air bags under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208. You ask whether you may use a telltale design that would illuminate "PASS AIR BAG ON" when the passenger air bag is activated and "PASS AIR BAG OFF" when it is not activated. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the illumination you have described is permissible under FMVSS No. 208. You state in your e-mail that Subaru is interested in using a telltale for which: With the ignition on, the words PASS AIR BAG will always be illuminated . With the ignition on, if the passenger air bag is deactivated, then the word OFF is illuminated. If the passenger air bag is activated, then illumination of OFF is turned off and illumination of a separate box area with the word ON in black is illuminated. Subaru's proposed design meets the specific requirement of a telltale using the identifying words "PASS AIR BAG OFF" when the air bag is deactivated, but it also includes the illuminated display "PASS AIR BAG ON" when the passenger air bag is activated. On May 12, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule requiring all light passenger vehicles to be equipped with advanced air bag systems. These requirements are codified in FMVSS No. 208. The rule also established a phase-in schedule, starting September 1, 2003, under which vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles meet these new advanced air bag requirements. The amended safety standard provides alternative methods of compliance with the advanced air bag requirements. One of the advanced systems contemplated for the passenger side air bag is an automatic suppression system, whereby the air bag is turned off when a small child is present in the front passenger seat. One of the required elements of such a system is a telltale that informs the vehicle occupants that the air bag has been suppressed when the passenger seat is occupied by a person that the suppression system identifies as a child. The final rule was amended in response to various petitions for reconsideration. Those amendments were published on December 18, 2001. The requirements for the telltale are specified in S19.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208. One of the requirements is that the telltale, a yellow light, emits light whenever the passenger air bag is deactivated and does not emit light whenever the air bag system is activated (except that it need not emit light when the passenger seat is unoccupied). Another requirement is that the telltale have the identifying words "PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF" or "PASS AIR BAG OFF" either on the telltale or within 25 mm (1 inch) of the telltale. There is no requirement that the identifying language be placed directly over the telltale or be otherwise illuminated. While the December 2001 amendments did make some minor changes to S19.2.2, the only change affecting the required wording was the allowance of the words "PASS AIR BAG OFF." Since the telltale requirements of the advanced air bag rule were based in large part on the requirements of an earlier NHTSA rule governing the installation of air bag on-off switches as original vehicle equipment, I believe it is useful to note that the earlier rule, published in the Federal Register on January 6, 1997 (62 FR 798), directly addressed the issue you have raised. In that final rule, NHTSA addressed Volvo's request that the telltale indicate the air bag status at all times. While deciding against adopting such a requirement, NHTSA noted that with respect to telltales for manual air bag on-off switches, manufacturers can voluntarily provide additional features "such as audible signals or extra lights as long as the Standards specific requirements are met." 62 FR 798, 805. NHTSA believes the same rationale applies to the telltale requirement for vehicles with automatic suppression systems, and the additional wording would be allowed under S19.2.2. Subaru's design appears to differ from the type of design contemplated by Volvo only in that the words "PASS AIR BAG," which are constantly illuminated when the vehicle ignition is on, are backlit by a yellow light. The pertinent issue under the regulation is not the backlighting of the words "passenger air bag." Rather, the telltale requirements are designed to clearly notify vehicle occupants when the air bag has been turned off. Accordingly, no illumination of the word "off" is allowed when the air bag has been activated. While Subaru's proposed telltale design appears to meet this requirement, you may consider using a different color backlight to illuminate the words "PASS AIR BAG." I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:208 |
2002 |
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.