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: aiam2617OpenMr. John Storz, Director of Engineering, Great Dane Trailers, Inc., Lathrop Avenue, P.O. Box 67, Savannah, GA 31402; Mr. John Storz Director of Engineering Great Dane Trailers Inc. Lathrop Avenue P.O. Box 67 Savannah GA 31402; Dear Mr. Storz: This is in response to your letter of May 5, 1977, concerning a vehicl manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.; You make a reference to a November 10, 1976, letter from the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.; The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weigh rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.; The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it come to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.; In your particular case, your responsibility for any subsequen overloading of the vehicles it manufactures would be determined by the reasonableness of your GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of your vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. Since some of your vehicles are flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) you would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings you specify appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads you anticipate will be carried, your responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to you.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1191OpenMr. Joe R. Hoag, Southwest Auto Auction Inc., 3400 South Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85040; Mr. Joe R. Hoag Southwest Auto Auction Inc. 3400 South Central Avenue Phoenix AZ 85040; Dear Mr. Hoag: This is in response to your letter of July 19, 1973, concernin odometer mileage statements, which questions the circumstances under which the transferor would check the statement indicating that actual mileage differs from the odometer reading. It appears from your examples that the problem arises in the transfer of vehicle ownership to you prior to auction.; The check-off provision is intended to warn the unprofessional buyer t ask for more information when the seller has checked the box indicating that he knows that the recorded mileage is incorrect. Your first example illustrates the case of a seller who considers the recorded mileage to be very low for a car of that age but has no certain information that the mileage is wrong. He should not check the box. Your second example illustrates a seller who has reasonable grounds to know (or perhaps certain knowledge) that the odometer is on its second time around, and he must check the box. The buyer is thereby warned to ask for further information about actual mileage.; Every buyer (including an auto auction) should insist on furthe information when the box is checked, so that it can make an accurate disclosure when it resells the vehicle. In the first example the auto auction would not check the box if the previous owner had not, but in the second example the auto auction would check the box, as the previous owner had and also be prepared to offer the explanation made by the original seller.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4669OpenMr. M. Iwase General Manager Technical Administration Dept. Shizuoka Works Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan; Mr. M. Iwase General Manager Technical Administration Dept. Shizuoka Works Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-shi Shizuoka-ken Japan; Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of August 22, l990, t Erika Z. Jones, formerly the Chief Counsel, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 108. You state that section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv) of Standard No. 108 requires that the horizontal indicator of a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) shall be capable of re-calibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees, and you would like us to confirm our interpretation of the method and procedures of recalibration on the vehicle after repair from accident damage. You say that NHTSA 'interprets as follows: If the dimensional specifications of vehicle body and appropriate instruction are described in shop manual, re-calibration could be addressed.' (55 FR pages 4425 and 4426, February 8, l990). You stated that Koito did not believe that this method is practicable. We believe that you have misunderstood the Federal Register notice. The notice was the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Section S7.7.5.2(a)(2)(iv). Subsection (iv) states that the horizontal aim indicator of a VHAD 'shall be capable of recalibration over a movement of +/- 2.5 degrees . . . to accommodate any adjustment necessary for recalibrating the indicator after vehicle repair from accident damage.' Ford Motor Company had commented that this requirement was unduly restrictive. It asked NHTSA to allow the option of a VHAD with only a vertical aim indicator if the headlamps as installed met a suggested horizontal aim specification of 0.0 +0.8/-0.4 degree. NHTSA, believing in the importance of horizontal aim capablility, found that a principal area of concern was that circumstances could occur during the life of the vehicle that could adversely affect maintenance of correct horizontal aim, and that without horizontal aim capability, it was unclear that the accuracy of horizontal aim could be assured after repair of accident damage. It was at that point that NHTSA observed: 'Manufacturers could address this concern by providing dimensional data for precise structural alignment of the vehicle in shop manuals and appropriate instructions for performing the necessary and potentially extensive parts replacement and vehicle reconstruction requisite for correct horizontal aim.' However, NHTSA went on to say that this concern was already met by subsection (iv) which requires the horizontal aim indicator to be capable of recalibration after crash damage or vehicle repair. NHTSA denied Ford's petition. Thus, it did not propose or adopt a requirement, as Ford wanted, that a manufacturer could provide instructions in place of a VHAD with a horizontal aim indicator. The existing requirement of subsection (iv) remained unchanged. Thus, it is the manufacturer's decision on how to provide for recalibration after crash damage and vehicle repair. Therefore, as long as a VHAD complies with subsection (iv), a manufacturer may provide whatever re-calibration instructions it deems appropriate. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4393OpenMr. Thomas L. Long, Vice-President R & D, Think, Inc., P.O. Box 414, Smyrna, TN 37167; Mr. Thomas L. Long Vice-President R & D Think Inc. P.O. Box 414 Smyrna TN 37167; Dear Mr. Long: This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1987, to Taylor Vinson o this office. You have enclosed a decal intended to be affixed 'on the outside of the rear window of an automobile, directly in front of the high mounted stop light. You have asked about the relationship of the decal to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Center highmounted stoplamps are required to be designed so that ligh output (candela) may be measured at 13 individual test points, at a distance of not less than 10 feet. With the decal applied to the rear window, it is possible that the requisite minimum or maximum candela specified by Standard No. 108 could not be met at all of the test points. Further, the effective luminous area of the lamp must be not less than 4 1/2 square inches. And while the decal would not be applied to the lens, nevertheless, the lens area when viewed from behind could be effectively reduced. Because a vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 at the time of its initial sale, the vehicle could be delivered to its purchaser with the decal attached only if the vehicle continued to meet the light output and effective luminous area requirements.; Even if a vehicle could not be delivered with the decal attached nothing in Standard No. 108 or the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a vehicle owner from applying the decal to his own vehicle, or from taking any other action that might affect the compliance of his vehicle with any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Act does forbid other persons from such actions, so that after a vehicle is sold, the dealer (or a motor vehicle repair business) could still be prohibited from applying the decal. Regulation of a vehicle in use is a matter of the laws of the States where vehicles are registered and operated. Even though Federal law does not prohibit an owner from applying the decal, a State law might. For advice of State laws, you should write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3456OpenMs. Nancy Nishmura, Global Link, Inc., 548 Rose Avenue, Venice, CA 90291; Ms. Nancy Nishmura Global Link Inc. 548 Rose Avenue Venice CA 90291; Dear Ms. Nishmura: This letter confirms your recent telephone conversations with Joa Griffin of my staff regarding Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. You asked Ms. Griffin what safety standards apply to the manufacture of automotive glazing materials, and whether glazing manufacturers must obtain prior approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) before manufacturing and marketing their products.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 197 (the Act), authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, specifies performance requirements for glazing materials to be used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard 'Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways,' Z26.1-1966 (ANS Z26). The requirements of Standard No. 205 are set forth in ANS Z26 in terms of performance tests that the various types or 'Items' of glazing must pass. There are 13 'Items' of glazing for which requirements are specified in the standard. Copies of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z26 were sent to you at an earlier date.; NHTSA does not require or offer prior approval of compliance of an vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle in accordance with that determination. Standard No. 205 sets forth specific certification and marking requirements in paragraph S6. It is our understanding that you represent Asahi Glass Co., a manufacturer of glazing materials. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) such as Asahi are set forth in paragraphs S6.1-6.3. These paragraphs require each prime glazing material manufacturer to mark the glazing materials in accordance to ANS Z26 and Section 114 of the Act. Section 6 of ANS Z26 requires that the glazing be permanently marked with the words 'American Standard' or the letters 'AS', a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, the manufacturer's trademark or designation, and the 'Item' number. Paragraph S6.2 further requires the manufacturer to mark the glazing with the symbol 'DOT' and the manufacturer's code mark, which is assigned by NHTSA. The code mark assigned to Ahasi Glass Co. is '20'. Section 114 of the Act provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that: >>>No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, o introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard....<<<; Section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation o Section 108. However, Section 108(b)(1) provides that there is no violation of Section 108 if the person establishes that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment does not conform to certain standards. Thus, Asahi does not necessarily have to follow the test procedures set forth in ANS Z26 in determining that glazing complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. As long as the manufacturer acts with due care, he can certify that his glazing materials comply with the standard based on means other than such testing. For example, it should be sufficient to use analytical means alone if they are reliable predictors of how glazing would perform when tested. The procedures set forth in ANS Z26 are the procedures that the agency will follow in doing its compliance testing.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact Joan Griffi (202- 426-9511) if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4239OpenMs. Robin Leeds, Executive Director, Connecticut Operators of School Transportation Association, 133 Jerome Avenue, Burlington, CT 06013; Ms. Robin Leeds Executive Director Connecticut Operators of School Transportation Association 133 Jerome Avenue Burlington CT 06013; Dear Ms. Leeds: This responds to your letter concerning the height of front bumpers o school buses. According to your letter, school bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require front bumpers on all school buses to be located 18 inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, your bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper. I regret the delay in answering your letter.; You are interested in a revision to Connecticut's requirements fo school bus bumpers, which would require a bumper height that corresponds to the height used by chassis manufacturers, thereby avoiding the need to reposition or replace original bumpers. However, the state Department of Motor Vehicles believes that the 18 inch height, corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents the override of an automobile. You asked three questions related to this issue, which I have addressed below.; I would like to begin with some background information on our bumpe standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its Part 581 Bumper Standard pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Vehicle Safety Act). The standard establishes requirements for impact resistance in low-speed front and rear collisions and includes a bumper height requirement. The bumper height requirement prevents override in collisions with other vehicles subject to the standard.; The standard applies to 'passenger motor vehicles other tha multipurpose passenger vehicles.' The term 'passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles' generally corresponds to passenger cars. Title I of the Cost Savings Act specifically excludes trucks and larger buses from any bumper standards and allows multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) to be exempted from the bumper standard. I believe you are interested in the large, standard school buses to which the standard does not apply.; You first asked whether it would be safer if school bus bumpers wer kept at the position originally utilized by the chassis manufacturer. We are not aware at this time of any indications that it is safer to retain the bumper in its original position. However, NHTSA does not have sufficient data at this time to evaluate the safety effects of lowering the bumper. Chassis manufacturers may have considered practical reasons for positioning their bumpers in the manner they have done, since trucks and buses sometimes require greater ground clearance than passenger cars to negotiate ramps and to clear obstacles associated with off-road operation.; Your second question asked whether repositioning or replacing th bumper would affect compliance of the school bus with our motor vehicle safety standards. As you might know, persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7 *Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles*, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.; A dealer that modified the bumper of a school bus, prior to its firs sale, would thus be required to certify that the school bus, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. A violation of the Vehicle Safety Act would occur if an alterer modified the school bus in such a way that the vehicle no longer complied with an applicable standard. Since the school bus's continued compliance with applicable safety standards depends on many factors, such as the design of the school bus and the nature of work performed on the vehicle, dealers modifying school bus bumpers might want to contact the vehicle manufacturer to learn if any standards might be affected by the lowering of the bumper and obtain any information needed to make the required certification.; Your third question asked 'What, if any, liability is incurred by dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?' Violations of Vehicle Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1000 per violation, with a maximum fine of $800,000 for a related series of violations. A dealer altering a school bus can protect itself from such liability by ensuring that it complies with all relevant Federal requirements.; The issue of possible liability in tort is a matter of state law rathe than Federal law. Therefore, we suggest that you consult a local attorney on this question.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3006OpenMr. Marvin Manes, Oestreicher, Sternberg & Manes, Suite 402, Wolf Ledges Professional Bldg., 411 Wolf Ledges Parkway, Akron, OH 44311; Mr. Marvin Manes Oestreicher Sternberg & Manes Suite 402 Wolf Ledges Professional Bldg. 411 Wolf Ledges Parkway Akron OH 44311; Dear Mr. Manes: This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1979, asking whethe your client, a tire brand name owner, is permitted to bill its dealers and distributors directly for the costs of supplying Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) information pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104 and maintaining records of tire sales pursuant to 49 CFR 574.7.; The UTQG regulation requires that tire manufacturers and brand nam owners 'provide' grading information for each of their tires (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)). Similarly, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation requires these parties to 'provide' upon request tire registration forms to dealers and distributors (49 CFR 575.7(a)) and directs tire manufacturers and brand name owners to maintain or have maintained for them records of the information acquired on these registration forms (49 CFR 574.7(b)).; A billing arrangement of the type your client suggests would in effec make the tire manufacturer or brand name owner the agent of the dealer or distributor for purposes of grading and registering tires. Such a practice would run counter to the intention of the agency that manufacturers and brand name owners bear primary responsibility for implementation of tire grading and registration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will take whatever action is necessary, including possible revision of the regulations, to prevent manipulation of the tire regulations in this manner.; Apart from the legal implications of your client's proposal, NHTS would question the soundness, from a business standpoint, of a plan for direct billing of UTQG and tire recordkeeping costs. Your client's proposed course of action appears to have the aim of generating dissatisfaction with Federal tire regulations among dealers and distributors, and could, by lessening cooperation at the retail level, interfere with your client's ability to fulfill its obligations under the regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3513OpenThomas J. Cody, Esq., Rogers Ferraro & Cody, P.C., P.O. Box 158, Pomona, NY 10970; Thomas J. Cody Esq. Rogers Ferraro & Cody P.C. P.O. Box 158 Pomona NY 10970; Dear Mr. Cody: This is in reply to your letter of December 2, 1981, to Dr. Robert L Henderson of this agency asking for an opinion regarding the legality of a warning system devised by your client, David Stepkin.; Mr. Stepkin's system 'flashes the rear brake lights continuously whe either brake is applied on a motorcycle.' With respect to Federal regulation of motorcycle lighting systems, I refer you to 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment*, a copy of which is enclosed. Paragraph S4.6(b) in essence requires that brake lamps (or stop lamps as we call them) be steady burning. This requirement would appear to preclude use of your system.; In addition, the substitution of a flashing signal for the steady on to which the public is accustomed might create confusion, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamp. You will note that paragraph S4.1.3 prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs effectiveness of required lighting equipment.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3143OpenMr. M. Ogata, Branch Manager, Toyo Kogyo U.S.A., 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462, Southfield, Michigan 48075; Mr. M. Ogata Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield Michigan 48075; Dear Mr. Ogata: This letter is in response to your October 19, 1979, request for an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 and 49 CFR Part 575. Specifically, you inquired if it is permissible for Mazda to place information concerning the 185SR13 tire size on the tire placard, as required by section 4.3(d) of Standard No. 110, and in the consumer information booklet, as required by 49 CFR S 575.102(c)(2), for vehicles which may have 185HR13 tires installed by dealers at a customer's request. This would be permissible.; A 185SR13 tire and a 185HR13 tire are the same size and have the sam load-carrying capacity. The 'S' and 'H' only denote different high-speed capabilities for what are, otherwise, identical tires.; This agency requires the manufacturer to list recommended tire sizes o the tire placard and in the consumer information booklet for two reasons. First, the information is required to ensure that any replacement tires installed on the vehicle will be a proper size for the rims mounted on that vehicle. Second, the information helps to ensure that the tires installed on the vehicle will have sufficient load-carrying capacity to be used safely on that particular vehicle. Neither of these safety concerns would be frustrated by a manufacturer putting information on the placard and in the booklet about a tire with a lower speed rating. Therefore, your proposed plan would not violate any of our consumer information regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4686OpenMr. Malcolm B. Mathieson Vice President, Engineering Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261; Mr. Malcolm B. Mathieson Vice President Engineering Thomas Built Buses Inc. P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Mathieson: This responds to your letter to former Chie Counsel Erika Jones concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release to school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. Your letter expressed concern about a recent opinion from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which states that school buses used in interstate commerce and thus subject to FHWA's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's) are required by the FMCSR's to comply with the provisions in Standard No. 217 applicable to buses other than school buses. Your letter included copies of a recent letter from Thomas Buses to FHWA on this issue, as well past interpretations by FHWA and this agency. As you are aware, Standard No. 217 contains specific emergency exit requirements for school buses, as well as requirements for other buses. As noted in your letter to FHWA, and in our past interpretations, including the July 5, 1984 letter to Ron Marion that you enclosed, it is NHTSA's position that all buses sold as school buses must comply with the school bus requirements in Standard No. 217. We recognize that this position may conflict with FHWA's interpretation of their regulations, and we are seeking resolution of this issue with FHWA to resolve any inconsistencies between the FMVSS's and the FMCSR's. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
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.