NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam1946OpenHonorable Larry Winn, Jr., House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Larry Winn Jr. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Winn: This is in reply to your letters of January 28 and May 14, 1975 inquiring about the effect of Federal motor vehicle safety standards on a constituent's problem in finding a mid-size American car with a sufficiently adjustable seat or a dealer willing to modify such a vehicle to accommodate your constituent's 6-feet 8-inch frame.; The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-492 amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*., to prohibit any 'manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business' from 'knowingly render(ing) inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .' Because seat position is a variable which may affect compliance with several safety standards, dealers are understandably wary about relocating a vehicle's seat.; The obvious solution for this problem is for the manufacturer t determine how far its seats can be moved outside their normal adjustment ranges and still comply with applicable standards, and then to make this information available. I hope that Mr. Morton has found a dealer or manufacturer who is willing to make an effort to do this instead of relying on the excuse that Federal law precludes any solution. Mr. Morton also has two other alternatives: to buy and have installed a custom seat from a company willing to certify the altered vehicle under 49 CFR 567.7, or to move the original seat himself or with the assistance of people who are not in the motor vehicle repair business.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5456OpenMr. Thomas L. Wright Coordinator, Technical Support New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles CN 179 Trenton, NJ 08666; Mr. Thomas L. Wright Coordinator Technical Support New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles CN 179 Trenton NJ 08666; Dear Mr. Wright: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1994, t Robert Hellmuth of this agency requesting an opinion whether brush guards offered as accessories for Range Rovers and installed in front of headlamp units are in violation of Standard No. 108. Our letter is based upon the configurations of 'brush bars' depicted as accessory equipment in a 1994 Range Rover brochure. The brochure notes that brush bars 'may be illegal for on-road use in some states. Please check local regulations before purchase, installation, or use.' We note that this advisory applies to the rear lamp guards as well. The purpose of the brush bar is to offer protection to the grille, radiator, and front and rear lamps, and it does so by incorporating three slender horizontal bars in front of the lenses of the front and rear lamps. Paragraph S7.8.5 of Standard No. 108 states that headlamps when activated 'shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grille, in front of the lens.' The lamp guard portion of the brush bar is the type of 'other feature . . . in front of the lens' that is prohibited by Standard No. 108. Thus, under Federal law, a Range Rover could not be displayed for sale and sold with a brush bar installed unless the lamp guards had been removed. This should present no problem as, according to the brochure, the 'lamp protectors are easily removable for cleaning and maintenance.' In our view, the proper time for installation of the lamp protectors is when the vehicle begins to be used off-road. Although there is no similar direct prohibition in Standard No. 108 applicable to other vehicle lamps, the parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps are required to conform with the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when the lamp guards are in place. This is based upon two paragraphs of the standard. S5.3.1.1 prohibits any part of a vehicle from preventing parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and rear lamps from meeting the required photometric output. S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of supplementary motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires as original equipment. The guards are designed for maintenance by the owner, and their installation by the owner after purchase of the Range Rover would not be in violation of Federal law, even if installed for on-road use. Operation of the Range Rover is subject only to State law, and a State may forbid on-road use of a Range Rover with the lamp guards installed if it so chooses. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2393OpenMr. Bing Johnson, 135 Jade Cove Drive, Roswell, GA 30075; Mr. Bing Johnson 135 Jade Cove Drive Roswell GA 30075; Dear Mr. Johnson: This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1976, in which you as about our regulations concerning the modification of 'vans' to make them suitable for camping. The modifications you propose to make include the installation of plumbing, water, electricity, and additional seating.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1381 *et seq.) prohibits the manufacture, offer for sale, sale, introduction in interstate commerce or importation of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. This prohibition does not apply (except for importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Under these provisions, you are responsible for the compliance of any vehicle that you modify up to and including the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale.; The manufacturer must comply with all applicable safety standard established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). His certification appears on a completed vehicle. It would be your responsibility to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards after your modification. Under Part 567 of our regulations, you must attach a label to the vehicle that states that, as altered, the vehicle continued to conform to the standards.; From the description of the modification you describe, it appears tha you might affect the compliance of the vehicle with the following standards: Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, and Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. It should be noted that any additional weight created by your modifications or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.; We also would point out that if you modify a Ford 'Econoline' in al probability you would change the vehicle classification from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle. This should be noted on the certification label that you attach to the vehicle.; I have enclosed an information sheet that explains where you may obtai copies of these regulations.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3428OpenRichard E. Jenkins, Esq., Assistant Patent Counsel, Burlington Industries, Inc., Greensboro, NC 27420; Richard E. Jenkins Esq. Assistant Patent Counsel Burlington Industries Inc. Greensboro NC 27420; Dear Mr. Jenkins: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S 571.117). Specifically, you asked if the addition of 'edger fabric strips', pursuant to a process covered by U.S. Patent 4,196,764, would violate the prohibition in section S5.2.2(b) of Standard No. 117 against adding belts to retreaded passenger car tires.; The described process is prohibited by section S5,2.2(b) (sic), becaus it is clearly adding a belt to the tire.; In the abstract of the subject patent, which you included in you request for an interpretation, is the following statement: 'The invention relates to the use of reinforcing cords associated with the pneumatic tire . . ., and the method of applying such reinforcing cords woven in a warp and weft relationship cut in a bias shape to form a belt....' Similarly, in the *Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments* section of the patent, Section 3 begins, 'The essence of my invention is achieved by providing an extra belt....' Hence, the patent itself states that this process involves the addition of a belt to retread tires. Such an addition is expressly forbidden by section S5.2.2(b) of Standard 117, 'No retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing on which a belt or ply, or part thereof, is added or replaced during processing.'; Your letter stated that this edger fabric should not be considered belt for purposes of the Standard, because the addition of the edger makes a retreaded tire safer and longer lasting. While you may be correct concerning the performance of 'edger fabric,' the Standard as currently written does not permit its use. If you wish, however, you may file a petition for rulemaking requesting this agency to amend Standard 117 to permit the addition of a belt such as edger fabric by following the requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). If you choose to do so, please include all data showing that the addition of this extra belt makes the retreaded tire safer, and that the edger fabric belt would be compatable (sic) with the existing cords of the casing that is used.; Finally, let me point out that Standard 117 applies only to retreade *passenger car* tires. There is no safety standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and the use of this patented process on those tires would not violate any requirements of this agency.; Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff sends his regards. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1415OpenMr. G. M. Hespeler, Manager, Safety Engineering, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. G. M. Hespeler Manager Safety Engineering Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Hespeler:#This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1974 which requested interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, 'Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.'#The wiped area as stated in S4.1.2, is to be evaluated as a percentage of areas A, B, and C 'of the windshield.' This means that areas A, B, and C are evaluated in 'unwrapped view,' rather than in the form of a projection of the windshield's surface.#Sincerely, E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4617OpenThe Honorable Fred Grandy House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Fred Grandy House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; "Dear Mr. Grandy: This is in reply to your recent letter to th Administrator Designate, Jerry Curry, on behalf of your constituent Daniel Weichmann, Jr., of Hampton. You enclosed a copy of Mr. Weichmann's letter to this agency with respect to headlamp covers which, regrettably, we have been remiss in answering. You asked that we review this matter and that you be provided a copy of our response. We are pleased to reply directly to you, with a copy to Mr. Weichmann so that he may be apprised immediately of our views. Mr. Weichmann was advised by the Iowa Department of Transportation on October 10, 1988, that 'The department specifically does not approve head lamp covers', because Iowa has adopted 'Federal standards on equipment approval'. Consequently, 'If the headlamp covers in question meet the Federal Standards they would qualify under Iowa law.' Thus, Mr. Weichmann asked us whether headlamp covers are approved by this agency. Headlamp covers are not permissible as items of original motor vehicle equipment. Paragraph S7.7.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, in pertinent part, states that when headlamps are operated they 'shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens.' Although Standard No. l08 was only recently amended to state this prohibition expressly (I enclose a copy of the amended standard), the prohibition has existed since January l968 through the incorporation by reference in Standard No. l08 of an SAE headlamp Standard, J580b, which contained the identical language. The safety reason for the prohibition is the reduced effectiveness of a headlamp beam when it must pass through an extra layer of glazing, particularly if that glazing is tinted, yellowed, or cracked, or if moisture has condensed on the inside of the cover. Thus, headlamp covers are also implicitly prohibited by paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. l08 which forbids the installation of optional original equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment, such as headlamps, that are required by Standard No. l08. The Iowa DOT's views are consistent with the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which permit States to enact State motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new vehicles provided that they are identical to Federal ones covering the same aspect of performance. Although the Federal standards do not regulate operation of a vehicle after it is sold, and hence could not prohibit a vehicle owner in Iowa from installing headlamp covers and operating his vehicle with them, Iowa's enforcement of a headlamp cover prohibition for vehicles in use would be consistent with its prohibition of them as original vehicle equipment. However, we cannot interpret Iowa law, and reach no conclusion as to whether its statutes or regulations have that effect. Should either you or Mr. Weichmann have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Acting Administrator Enclosure cc: Daniel Weichmann, Jr. The Honorable Fred Grandy Mason City IA /"; |
|
ID: aiam3078OpenMr. Scott Lyford, Esq., 4108 Avenue G, Austin, TX 78751; Mr. Scott Lyford Esq. 4108 Avenue G Austin TX 78751; Dear Mr. Lyford: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of m office when you telephoned on June 4, 1979, on behalf of your clients who intend to manufacture auxiliary gasoline tanks, to sell the tanks as part of a universal kit with all parts necessary for installation, and in some instances to install the tanks in vehicles. you inquired as to the meaning of the word 'integrity' as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75 (49 CFR 571.301-75) and the applicability of the standard to your clients' proposed activities. You also inquired as to the meaning of the phrase 'render inoperative' as used in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act) and its applicability to your clients' proposed activities.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, is a vehicle standard that applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. The word 'integrity' as used in FMVSS 301-75, refers to the fact that compliance with the standard requires that fuel spillage from a vehicle subjected to a fixed or moving barrier crash not exceed the limits established by FMVSS 301-75, S5.5 and S5.6.; Since FMVSS 301-75 is only a vehicle standard and does not specif performance standards for fuel tanks, it does not directly apply to your clients' proposed manufacturing activities. However, as will be discussed later, it does apply when an auxiliary fuel tank is installed in a vehicle by either the manufacturer of the tank or other persons specified in the Act.; Despite the lack of a specifically applicable safety standard auxiliar fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. The defect responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151-153) authorize the Secretary of Transportation (or his delegate the NHTSA Administrator) to make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer of the equipment to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. In addition, these provisions also require that a manufacturer who discovers a safety-related defect in his product notify the Secretary of Transportation (or NHTSA Administrator) and then provide notification and remedy to purchasers. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(A) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.; Since auxiliary gasoline tanks are items of motor vehicle equipment, a defined in section 102(4) of the Act, your clients as manufacturers of such equipment would be required to provide notification and remedy should their auxiliary gasoline tanks prove to be defective in design, materials, manufacture, or performance. (See 49 CFR Part 597).; FMVSS 301-75 would apply to your client's installation of auxiliar fuel tanks in new motor vehicles. Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with the safety standrds (sic) applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone, for purposes other than resale. The purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate customer. Any person who, prior to the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, alters that vehicle by making more than minor finishing operations, is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all safety standards applicable to it. Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act).; Under these provisions, your clients would be considered to be alterer if they installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, and they would be required to recertify the vehicle as complying with applicable safety standards, including FMVSS 301-75. With respect to FMVSS 301-75, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary tank added by an alterer must meet them also.; It should also be noted that the defect responsibilities imposed b Section 151 *et seq*., mentioned earlier with respect to the defective design, composition, manufacture or performance of auxiliary tanks also apply to safety defects in the installation of such tanks in new vehicles. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation. Acting, as both manufacturers and installers of the tanks, your clients would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both the production and installation of the tanks.; FMVSS 301-75 as well as the 'render inoperative' provisions of sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply to your clients' activities in installing auxiliary gasoline tanks in used vehicles. After the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle (referred to here as a used vehicle) is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....<<<; The words 'render inoperative,' in the context of section 108(a)(2)(A) in essence prohibit certain listed entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards.; A listed person or entity found to have violated section 108(a)(2)(A would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Should your clients begin producing auxiliary gasoline tanks they woul be encompassed by the term 'manufacturer' as that term is used in section 108(a)(2)(A) and defined in section 102(5) of the Act. Therefore, if your clients added an auxiliary gasoline tank to a used vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 and in the process knowingly reduced the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, they would be deemed in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). Such reduction of performance could occur for example, if the gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, or if the design materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; I hope you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1045OpenMr. John Morse, Monsanto Co., 1101 17th Street, N.W., Suite 604, Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. John Morse Monsanto Co. 1101 17th Street N.W. Suite 604 Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Morse: #This is in reference to a question that has bee raised in telephone conversations, by Monsanto, as to whether the NHTSA allows a manufacturer of newly developed tires to run them on the public roads before they are certified as conforming to Standard No. 109. #The answer is no. We have, to the best of our knowledge, allowed no exception to the requirement that all tires to which a motor vehicle safety standard is applicable must conform to the standard an be certified as such. #Your truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3582OpenMr. John I. Kitchen, President, Tri-City Tires, Inc., 1016 Butt Street, Chesapeake, VA 23324; Mr. John I. Kitchen President Tri-City Tires Inc. 1016 Butt Street Chesapeake VA 23324; Dear Mr. Kitchen: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff askin for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR S571.120) concerning the use of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. Specifically, you wanted to know whether a DOT symbol was required to appear on any retreaded tires so used.; Pursuant to your request in a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke he sent you a copy of a March 22, 1978 letter from this agency to Dorsey Trailers. That letter stated that retreaded tires could be used on new trucks and trailers, and that retreaded tires used for that purpose are not required to have a DOT symbol. This conclusion is mandated by the requirement in 49 CFR S574.5 that 'the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Standard is applicable.' Since no safety standard applies to retreaded tires for use on trucks and trailers, it follows that the DOT symbol must not appear on those tires.; In your recent letter, you enclosed a copy of a September 29, 198 letter from this agency to Elgene Tire Company. That letter states that, for purposes of Standard No. 120, used tires are interpreted to include retreaded tires. As you noted in your phone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, an implication of this intrepretation (sic) seems to be that retreaded tires are required, as used tires, to have a DOT symbol.; The agency position regarding the presence of the DOT symbol o retreaded tires has been consistent since 1978, i.e., that the controlling provision on that issue is S574.5 and therefore the DOT symbol is not required to appear on retreaded truck tires, and, indeed, must not appear on those tires. Retreaded truck tires without the DOT symbol may be used on new trucks and trailers in full compliance with Standard No. 120. To clarify this point, the agency published a proposal on October 30, 1980 (45 FR 71834) to amend Standard 120 so that it expressly permits the installation of retreaded tires on new trucks and trailers. (A copy of the proposal is enclosed) Final action on that proposal is expected this summer.; I trust that this response clears up the confusion to which you allude in your letter regarding these requirements. Should you have any further questions in this area, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4247OpenMs. Elinor F. Wilber, Chairman, Transportation Committee, Ms. Norma Gyle, Chairman, Seat Belt Subcommittee, State of Connecticut, E -- 23, State Capitol, Hartford, CT 06106; Ms. Elinor F. Wilber Chairman Transportation Committee Ms. Norma Gyle Chairman Seat Belt Subcommittee State of Connecticut E -- 23 State Capitol Hartford CT 06106; Dear Ms. Wilber and Ms. Gyle: This responds to your letter asking whether Connecticut may se performance standards for belts retrofitted to school buses. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. The answer to your question is yes.; First, we would like to distinguish between a state law which would se standards for belts *voluntarily* retrofitted to school buses and a state law which *requires* all school buses to be retrofitted with safety belts. As to the latter, Connecticut may require the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses which the State purchases for its own use. However, as explained below, Federal law would preempt Connecticut from requiring other school buses (i.e., those used by non-public schools) to be retrofitted with safety belts.; Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety regulations i governed by section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which states:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; The first sentence of section 103(d) has the effect of preemptin safety standards of the States and their political subdivisions that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance as a Federal safety standard unless they are identical to that safety standard. The second sentence of the section provides that the limitation on safety standards does not prevent governmental entities from specifying nonidentical safety requirements for vehicles procured for their own use. However, the second sentence does not permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.; It is our opinion that a state standard which requires *all* schoo buses to be retrofitted with safety belts has the effect of mandating the installation of safety belts in all large school buses operating in that state. Since such a standard regulates the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard for school bus occupant crash protection (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222) and would not be identical to the Federal requirements for 'compartmentalization,' we believe it would be preempted under the first sentence of section 103(d). However, a state is not prohibited from requiring the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses procured by the State or its political subdivisions (i.e., public school buses) as long as the Federal requirements for compartmentalization are not violated.; Connecticut may set performance requirements for safety belt voluntarily installed on used school buses, such as for the amount of force the anchorages must be capable of withstanding. As you know, we are currently considering an amendment to FMVSS No. 222 to set performance requirements for voluntarily-installed safety belts on new school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. However, since such an amendment, if adopted, would only affect *new* school buses and no Federal safety standard establishes performance requirements for retrofitting safety belts, Connecticut would not be preempted from establishing requirements for belts that are voluntarily- installed on used buses. Keep in mind, however, that a state should ensure that its requirements do not prevent vehicles from complying with Federal safety standards. Since FMVSS No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, specifies requirements for belt assemblies used in motor vehicles, Connecticut must not issue a standard for belt assemblies for nonpublic school buses that is not identical to Standard No. 209.; I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contac my office if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.