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: 05-009256drnOpenMs. Julie Laplante Les Entreprises Corbeil 830, 12 ime Avenue Laurentides (Qubec) J5M 2V9 CANADA Dear Ms. Laplante: This responds to your faxed letter asking how wheelchair weights are taken into consideration in calculating the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of a school bus manufactured in two or more stages. You ask several questions as a manufacturer of such a school bus. Our responses are based on our understanding of your questions and the facts presented in your letter. Some background information might be helpful. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSAs) regulations (49 CFR Part 567, Certification), each vehicle manufacturer must certify that each new vehicle complies with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As part of the certification, the manufacturer assigns a GVWR to the vehicle. GVWR is defined at 49 CFR Part 571.3, Definitions, as: the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturers good faith evaluation of the vehicles size, weight and load carrying capacity. The only express regulatory limitation on the assignment of GVWR is set forth in NHTSAs certification regulation, which states that the assigned GVWR shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicles designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds. (49 CFR 567.5(c)(5), Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. An identical provision is set forth in 567.4(g)(3) for vehicles manufactured in a single stage.)[1] With this background information, I will now address your questions as we understand them. Question No. 1. [Does] a wheelchair position ha[ve] the same weight [as] a designated seating capacity [sic]? We understand you to ask whether the weight of the wheelchair is included in the minimum occupant weight allowance specified in 49 CFR 567.5(c)(5). The answer is no. The weights of wheelchairs (because they are taken in and out of the school bus) would be considered part of the rated cargo load. When calculating the vehicles GVWR, the occupant weight allowance is a minimum of 120 pounds times the designated seating positions of the school bus, or 150 pounds times the designated seating positions of a bus. The weight of the wheelchair would be considered separate from the occupant weight allowance. Thus, when calculating the vehicles GVWR, the combined weight for occupants plus the unloaded vehicle weight plus the rated cargo load (which would include the weight of the wheelchairs) would be added together. (Unloaded vehicle weight means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. 49 CFR 571.3.) Question No. 2. If the answer is yes on question #1, do I have to calculate 150 pounds for a bus and/or 120 pounds for a school bus or multifunction school activity bus? The answer to #1 above was no. The occupant weight allowances in 567.5(c)(5) pertain to the weights of the persons on the bus, not to the weights of the wheelchairs. Question No. 3. If the answer is yes on question #1, do I have to add the weight of a passenger on top of the wheelchairs weight? See answers above. Question No. 4. Since there exists many types of wheelchairs (manually operated and self-propelled models), do we have the responsibility, as a manufacturer, to know exactly which kind of wheelchair will be used in a specific bus in order to calculate the GVWR? The GVWR must not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and a minimum of 120 pounds times the vehicles designated seating capacity. The weight of the wheelchairs would be considered part of the rated cargo load. The rated cargo load on which you base the GVWR rating should not be less than what you can reasonably expect the user to use on your vehicle. See also answers to #5 and #6 below.
Question No. 5. Do we have the choice between two wheelchair weights? (Example: 120 pounds for a wheelchair location in a school bus-manually operated/X [sic] pounds for a wheelchair location in a school bus self-propelled). If it is reasonable to expect that the user will load the school bus with certain types of wheelchairs, including self-propelled (motorized) ones that are more massive than manual wheelchairs, the GVWR should account for the weight of the motorized wheelchairs. That the bus would carry self-propelled wheelchairs during its service life does not seem an unreasonable expectation. It is your responsibility to select a chassis with sufficient load ratings that will accommodate the weight of the vehicle. Question No. 6. If the answer is yes to question number 5, what would be the weight of a self-propelled wheelchair? We cannot answer this question for you. It is your responsibility as a manufacturer to evaluate the weights of the wheelchairs. The rated cargo load must not be less than what can reasonably be expected to be used on the school bus. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel #ref:567 NCC-112:DNakama 3/2/06:revisedDfujita4/19/06:62992:OCC#05-009256 S:\INTERP\567\05-009256drn.doc cc:NCC-112, subj/chron, DN, NVS-100, NVS-200, Interps: 567, Redbooks (2) [1] Because you ask about school buses, we also draw your attention to our regulation defining the term designated seating position (49 CFR 571.3). The regulation specifies that: For the sole purpose of determining the classification of any vehicle sold or introduced into interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, any location in such vehicle intended for securement of an occupied wheelchair during vehicle operation is regarded as four (4) designated seating positions. This provision was adopted to ensure that smaller school buses remain classified as school buses, and thus subject to the school bus safety standards, when seats are removed to install wheelchair securement positions. |
|
ID: 05-009466drnOpenMs. Phyllis Mason 2613 Sunny Meadow McKinney, TX 75070 Dear Ms. Mason: This responds to your letter about window screens. You state that you own a vehicle that has a rear window screen that raises and lowers with the touch of a button, and that you find the screen to be very useful. You ask whether a window screen that would operate with a switch built into the car to raise and lower a screen for the front window or windshield would be permitted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The short answer is that our regulations do not prohibit a vehicle from having such a screen, but we have some safety concerns about such a device. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates reports of safety-related defects. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under the standard, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. We have interpreted FMVSS No. 205 not to prohibit a retractable built-in screen for the rear window of vehicles (September 19, 1995 letter to General Motors Corporation). The agency determined in the 1995 letter that the screen is neither glazing in itself nor in combination with the glazing in the vehicle (because it is not attached to the glazing). Similarly, we interpret the standard as not prohibiting a retractable built-in front window screen. However, we have some safety concerns about in-vehicle front windshield shades. Driving with a lowered shade would be unsafe, as the view through the windshield could be substantially impeded. We are also concerned that these devices could be purposefully or unintentionally deployed while the vehicle is in motion.[1] From this perspective, non-mechanical front windshield shade products that protect the interior while the vehicle is parked do not convey such risk. Note that States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. If you wish to know whether State law permits the installation of front windshield screens in a vehicle, you should contact State officials with your question. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:205#302 d.6/19/06 [1] Our statute limits the types of modifications that manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses can make to used vehicles (49 U.S.C. 30122). These entities cannot install a built-in sun screen if doing so would make inoperative any device or design installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. |
2006 |
ID: 10495-iiOpen Mr. Steve Anthony Dear Mr. Anthony: This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fuel Container Integrity, which takes effect on March 27, 1995. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you manufacture CNG containers for OEMs. You further stated that some of your customers have requested that containers they purchase prior to FMVSS No. 304's effective date be labeled with a statement that they comply with FMVSS No. 304. Specifically, you asked whether your containers could be labeled with the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" or "DOT effective March 27, 1995." As explained below, prior to the effective date, you are prohibited from labeling a container with information that could appear to be a certification to the FMVSS. In the preamble to the final rule establishing FMVSS No. 304, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, a certification is a statement that a vehicle or item of equipment meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are then in effect. Therefore, until a standard is effective, manufacturers may not certify compliance with it (59 FR 49010, 49020 September 26, 1994). Based on this discussion, you acknowledge that it would be impermissible for a manufacturer to include the symbol DOT on CNG containers manufactured prior to March 27, 1995. Nevertheless, you wish to specify information on the container that the container will comply with the soon to be effective FMVSS. As discussed in our September 1994 notice, a manufacturer may not certify a container as meeting the equipment standard until the standard goes into effect. Any label on a product about meeting a standard tends to create the appearance of a certification. It is therefore our opinion that, along with not using the symbol DOT, any such statement on a container label must affirmatively indicate that (1) no standard applies to the container, and (2) the statement is not a certification. With these considerations in mind, your suggestion to include the statement "This CNG container meets the requirements of DOT FMVSS No. 304 effective March 27, 1995" would not be permissible because it might be read as constituting a certification. Moreover, the symbol DOT may not be included in your statement because its inclusion might be misinterpreted as implying that the container has been certified to an FMVSS that is in effect, since use of the DOT symbol is the usual method by which certifications are made. You may, however, label a container with the following statement: "This CNG container would comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 304, that takes effect on March 27,1995. However, since this container was manufactured before the effective date of FMVSS 304, it cannot be certified to comply with that standard. No FMVSS applies to the container." I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref: 303 d:3/2/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10496Open Mr. R.C. Rost Dear Mr. Rost: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law requires buses used for Head Start to be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. You stated that the state of Minnesota recently adopted a law that prohibits such buses from being equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. I apologize for the delay in our response. In an August 26, 1988 letter to you, NHTSA explained that "Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils such as those in Head Start programs." Federal law continues to require such buses to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, the Head Start buses referenced in your letter must be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. We have written to Major Glen Gramse of the Minnesota State Patrol to explain that the Minnesota law is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses. I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:571 d:4/10/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10496aOpen Major Glen Gramse Dear Major Gramse: It has been brought to our attention by Mr. R.C. Rost of Minnesota Body and Equipment that there is a question regarding Minnesota's law concerning buses used for Head Start programs. According to Mr. Rost, Minnesota prohibits these buses from being equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. He requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to clarify any inconsistencies between the Federal and State law. As explained below, to the extent there is a conflict between Federal and State law, Federal law would prevail in this matter. All manufacturers and sellers of new school buses must comply with the Federal law by manufacturing and selling vehicles that are equipped with school bus lights and stop signal arms. By way of background, Congress has directed this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSSs for school buses, including ones requiring these buses to have warning lights and stop arms. The Federal law requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary, or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSSs for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement. NHTSA's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore "schools" under NHTSA's statute. Accordingly, buses transporting students to and from Head Start facilities are defined as school buses under Federal law and are therefore subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Any manufacturer that omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 or the stop signal arm required by paragraph S5 of Standard No. 131 (or that delivers a bus with these devices inoperative), is in violation of Federal law, and subject to recall provisions and civil penalties. The effect of the statute's preemption provision is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that State standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light or stop arm requirements as a higher standard of performance. Thus, regardless of how a State defines "School bus," a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with warning lights or stop arms. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads (including the equipment on the vehicles), those State laws may not override Federal laws for what type of safety equipment must be installed on new vehicles. I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:571 d:4/10/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10498Open Mr. Thomas J. Leffler Dear Mr. Leffler: This responds to your letter of November 8, 1994, asking whether S4.3 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, requires a self-locking device to restrain the seat cushion of a particular seat design in the down position. The seat "has a storage box below the seat cushion frame. To access the storage space, the seat cushion pivots up to allow entry into the box." If a self-locking device is required, you asked whether static or dynamic testing is required for the device. Section S4.3 of Standard No. 207 requires "a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back" to be equipped with a self-locking restraining device. NHTSA does not consider the words "occupant seat or occupant seat back" to refer to the seat cushion alone, and therefore a restraining device for the cushion alone is not required. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:207 d:2/7/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10499Open Ms. Barbara Kise Dear Ms. Kise: This responds to your letter of November 11, 1994 asking whether the air bag in your 1994 Oldsmobile can be disconnected. You explained that you use oxygen for emphysema and chronic bronchitis and are concerned that your lungs might not be able to tolerate the powder ejected if the air bag deploys in a crash. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is prohibited by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. '30122. The provision 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. However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. NHTSA has previously stated that chemical and medical tests indicate that an air bag inflation poses no respiratory system hazard, even for persons who are highly susceptible to airborne particles. However, one recent test series of persons with an asthmatic condition revealed that prolonged exposure (20 minutes with the windows rolled up) to the atmosphere inside a vehicle after both the driver and passenger air bags have deployed can induce significant asthmatic reactions in some persons. Please note that these were worst case test conditions unlikely to be found in a real world crash situation. However, given this test, we would recommend that you consult your doctor to determine whether any significant hazard could result if you were exposed to air bag deployment by-products. I have enclosed a report on this test for you to share with your doctor to assist in this determination. If you and your doctor decide that the risk to you offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of your air bag, and you wished to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against the person who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag. I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, we urge that the air bag be reactivated prior to selling the vehicle. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle always uses his or her safety belt. I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure d:1/9/95 ref:VSA#208
|
1995 |
ID: 10512Open Ms. Dona B. Mann R.N., C.E.T.N. Dear Ms. Mann: This responds to your letter of November 14, 1994, concerning the "Koze Kover" seat belt holder. Your letter explains that "(t)he Koze Kover seat belt holder will hold the descending shoulder strap away from the jugular area of the neck. It is made from a tri- laminate material of polyester Kodel, 1/4 inch foam and urethane coated pack cloth. It is fastened by a hook and loop closure." You asked whether this product would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued by this agency. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. We do have a standard (Standard 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply. While no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note that the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. With a device such as yours, the realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, the occupant's head would be more likely to contact the vehicle interior. Finally, you should be aware that originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. We encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether it would degrade the flammability performance of safety belts. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:209 d:1/4/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10526Open Mr. Harry C. Gough, P.E. Dear Mr. Gough: This responds to your letter to this office asking whether the retroreflective tape required to outline school bus emergency exits can, in the case of the rear emergency door, be placed on the door itself. The short answer is no. You stated that the State of Connecticut requires that school bus bumpers be black. You further stated that one school bus manufacturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of the retroreflective tape installed on the rear bumper. You then noticed that a number of school buses from a different manufacturer had the bottom part of the tape installed on the door itself. You asked whether the language of S5.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, permitted the installation of the retroreflective tape on the door itself. Paragraph S5.5.3 of FMVSS No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) provides: Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, . . . This requirement was imposed by amendment to FMVSS No. 217 promulgated by a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). In discussing this requirement in the preamble portion of the final rule, we said at 57 FR 49421: Accordingly, the final rule requires a minimum 1 inch wide strip of retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, to be placed around the outside perimeter of the emergency exit opening, not the emergency exit itself (emphasis added).
As you may know, the buses with the tape on the emergency exit doors have been recalled by the manufacturer. For information about the recall, you can contact the bus manufacturer, Thomas Built Buses, P. O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261. Enclosed for your information are two interpretative letters issued by this office on related issues pertaining to the retroreflective tape requirement. See letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, dated July 7, 1993; and letter to Mr. Turner dated March 28, 1994. I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosures Ref:217 d:3/16/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10527Open Ms. Robin R. Miller Dear Ms. Miller: This responds to your letter of November 22, 1994, requesting information on what type of occupant protection systems (seat belts and/or air bags) were required in four passenger cars. The passenger cars were manufactured by Excalibur Automobile Corporation (Excalibur) between January 10, 1994, and May 6, 1994. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires some type of occupant protection system to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. Different installation requirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture. For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front outboard seating position. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). In addition, for passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position. Type 2 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints." Type 1 seat belt assemblies are defined in Standard No. 209 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint." You should be aware that Excalibur has applied for temporary exemption (49 CFR Part 555) from the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 which would, if granted, apply to vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of the exemption. Excalibur has also asked that it apply to those vehicles already manufactured but unsold and in dealer inventory. In addition, the manufacturer has also applied for an exemption from notification and remedy of its noncompliance with the automatic crash protection requirements on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety (49 CFR Part 556). If granted, this would relieve Excalibur of the obligation to notify and remedy the noncompliance in vehicles already manufactured and not covered by the safety exemption petition. Prior to acting upon either of these applications, NHTSA will publish notices in the Federal Register requesting comments. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:208 d:1/5/95
|
1995 |
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.