Interpretation ID: hen2.jeg

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.
Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-5339

Dear Mr. Henneberger:

This letter follows up a meeting between you, your client, William A. Leasure, Jr., Executive Director of the Truck Manufacturers Association, and members of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) staff. In the meeting, you and Mr. Leasure raised concerns about our

September 22, 1997, interpretation letter, addressed to Mr. Leasure, concerning Standard No. 208's air bag labeling requirements. The requirements at issue were established in a final rule published on November 27, 1996. In our interpretation letter, we recognized that the rulemaking establishing the requirements focused on light vehicles. However, based on the regulatory text and purpose of the requirements, we concluded that the requirements also apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags.

You and Mr. Leasure raised several concerns about our conclusion. Among other things, it was argued that the air bags used on these vehicles are very different than the ones used on light vehicles, and that the specific attention-getting warning labels developed for light vehicles are not needed for medium and heavy vehicles. It was also noted that the "DATES" section of the final rule establishing the labeling requirements identified a compliance date for light vehicles but not for medium or heavy vehicles.

Upon reconsideration, we have decided to revise our previous position and instead interpret the labeling requirements established in the November 27, 1996, final rule as applying only to passenger cars and to trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less. These are the vehicles that are required to have air bags under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-40), and they are the ones that NHTSA intended to address in the rulemaking at issue. We believe that this is supported by the preamble and by the DATES section of the final rule.

We agree with your view that different labels may be appropriate for different types of vehicles than the ones addressed in the rulemaking at issue. However, given our revised interpretation, we do not, at this time, see a need to address this subject in rulemaking. Under our interpretation, the labeling of these other vehicles is at the option of the manufacturer. Thus, if a manufacturer believes that the labels specified in Standard No. 208 are appropriate for other vehicles as well, it is free to use those labels. However, if the manufacturer believes that a different label is more appropriate, it is free to use that label.

If you have any further questions about this subject, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.3/23/99