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: aiam4132OpenThe Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Member, United States House of Representatives, 380 Alvarado Street, Monterey, CA 93940; The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member United States House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey CA 93940; Dear Mr. Panetta: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joh Cormick of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding Federal regulations for wheelchairs on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal laws applying to school buses.; Your constituent requested information about two sets of Federa regulations relating to school bus drivers. He first asked about any regulations issued by the Department of Justice for fingerprint checks of school bus drivers. I understand that those questions have been referred to the Justice Department for reply. His second set of concerns, which you asked us to review, pertain to regulations issued by California that permit temporary placement of wheelchairs in the aisle of school buses during operation of the vehicles. Mr. Cormick believes this is unsafe since a wheelchair might impede access from the school bus in the event of an accident and asks what effect Federal law might have on State adoption of such a regulation.; As explained below, Federal law does not prohibit States from issuing regulation for the temporary placing of wheelchairs in school bus aisles. While NHTSA has issued a number of recommendations to the States for operational requirements for school buses, States establish regulations for school bus use, such as the one described by your constituent. Mr. Cormick is thus correct in contacting State officials to express his concerns and suggestions.; Since your constituent asks how Federal school bus regulations affec regulations issued by the States, I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. This agency administers two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes NHTSA's motor vehicle safety standards for new school buses. Those school bus safety standards set performance standards for various aspects of school bus safety, such as windows and windshields, fuel systems, emergency exits and seating systems. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new buses must certify that their buses comply with our school bus safety standards if the vehicles are intended for carrying school children, and sellers of new school buses must ensure that complying school buses are only sold. The requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act and our school bus safety standards are Federal requirements which apply directly to school bus manufacturers and sellers and are thus not dependent on State adoption.; On the other hand, the second set of regulations we have for schoo buses is contingent on State implementation. This set, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Each State submits a highway safety program which is reviewed and approved by NHTSA each year. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed), contains guidelines for various aspects of pupil transportation programs including school vehicle identification, maintenance, and driver qualifications. One of its recommendations is that school bus drivers meet all special physical, mental and moral requirements established by the State agency having responsibility for pupil transportation. Since States set the procedures for selecting school bus drivers, State officials would be able to provide Mr. Cormick with more information about California's policies governing school bus driver selection and examination.; Because we regulate the manufacture and sale of new school buses an not their use, we would have no authority to prohibit school bus users from placing wheelchairs in aisles of school buses. Further, no recommendations for accommodating wheelchairs in school buses have been made in Program Standard No. 17. However, we are concerned about practices that might affect the safety provided by school buses (such as impeding access to school bus exits) and we encourage States to ensure that school children are transported in the safest possible manner. Mr. Cormick's school district might want to consider using school buses that have seating positions specially modified to accommodate students in wheelchairs. Those vehicles have wheelchair positions to which wheelchairs can be firmly secured, which provides safer accommodations to all occupants of the school bus.; Please contact me if you or your constituent have any furthe questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1330OpenMr. James H. Swinghammer, Assistant Chief Engineer, Young Daybrook, Inc., Plant No. 51, 117 North Main Street, Bowling Green, OH 43402; Mr. James H. Swinghammer Assistant Chief Engineer Young Daybrook Inc. Plant No. 51 117 North Main Street Bowling Green OH 43402; Dear Mr. Swinghammer: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1973 asking about th proper location of identification lamps on one-man truck-tractor cabs that are offset from the vertical centerline of the vehicle. In your view 'when the Law is applied to one (1) man cabs, the possibility exists that oncoming traffic would interpret the truck as not being in its proper traffic lane.'; As you have pointed out, front identification lamps are required b Table II of Standard No. 108 to be 'as close as practicable to the tope(sic) of the vehicle. . . as close as practicable to the vertical centerline. . . .' The 'vertical centerline' is that of the vehicle which is usually that of the cab as well. However, an identification lamp arrangement around the vertical centerline of an offset cab is considered to meet the standard.; We are not aware that an actual safety problem is presented by th current practice of mounting identification lamps around the centerline of offset cabs, and the fact that you produce less than 1,000 vehicles per year does not relieve you of the requirement of providing these lamps.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4562OpenErman Jackson, Sales Manager Trailmaster Tanks, Inc. P. O. Box 161759 1121 Cantrell-Sansom Road Fort Worth, TX 76161-1759; Erman Jackson Sales Manager Trailmaster Tanks Inc. P. O. Box 161759 1121 Cantrell-Sansom Road Fort Worth TX 76161-1759; "Dear Mr. Jackson: This is in response to your letter which requeste our interpretation of the applicability of certification requirements to your company. You indicate that you attached a new body to a truck chassis that has been in service for a number of years. Your customer believes that Trailmaster Tanks, Inc., (Trailmaster) should have issued a new final-stage manufacturer certificate at the time of the mounting of the new body. Trailmaster, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the final-stage manufacturer certificate is only issued when the chassis is new. You asked me whether your company was required by Federal law or regulations to certify that the new body on the used truck chassis complies with all applicable safety standards. The answer to your question depends on whether the used chassis consisted of any new components and, if not, whether the used components of the chassis came from different vehicles, as explained below. As a general matter, our safety standards and certification requirements apply to vehicles only before the first sale of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Generally speaking, vehicles that are produced from a chassis that has already been sold to the public are not considered new vehicles, and are not subject to our safety standards or certification requirements. However, there is a special provision in our regulations for vehicles that are produced by combining new and used components. This provision is in 49 CFR 571.7(e), which provides: (e) Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components are from the same vehicle. This regulation means that a party attaching a new body to an old chassis is not required to attach a new certification label or make any certification under Federal law if that party simply uses the engine, transmission, and drive axle that are installed on the old chassis at the time the party receives the old chassis. Based on your statement that the truck 'was not modified in any way' at the time the new body was installed on the old chassis, this would appear to be the case in your situation. If this is true, you were not required to make any certification in connection with this vehicle. On the other hand, if you substituted a new engine, transmission, or drive axle in the old chassis when you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured under 571.7(e) and your company was required to certify the vehicle in accordance with Part 567. Similarly, if you substituted used components on the old chassis at the time you attached the new body, the vehicle was considered newly manufactured unless at least two of the three specified components (engine, transmission, and drive axle) were from the same vehicle. It should be noted that, even if the vehicle created when you attached a new body to a used truck chassis did not result in a newly manufactured vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR 571.7(e), your company was still subject to the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from 'knowingly rendering inoperative' any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used vehicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the first instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited 'rendering inoperative' violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding. I believe you can use the information presented in this letter to determine whether or not the vehicle your company made was considered a newly manufactured vehicle, subject to our safety standards and certification regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0872OpenMr. L. A. Ferguson, Project Engineer, Frigiking Division, Cummins Engine Company, Inc., 10858 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX, 75220; Mr. L. A. Ferguson Project Engineer Frigiking Division Cummins Engine Company Inc. 10858 Harry Hines Boulevard Dallas TX 75220; Dear Mr. Ferguson: This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to the plastic air discharge chambers or combination air chamber-unit housings of the air-conditioning units you manufacture for use in motor vehicles. You ask whether this equipment must meet the requirements of the standard.; The portion of an item of a motor vehicle equipment that forms part o a component listed in the standard will normally be subject to the standard. From the photographs of your equipment that you submitted, we would consider an air discharge chamber or combination air chamber-unit housing that forms part of the surface of a front or side panel to be incorporated into the panel and therefore subject to the standard. The air discharge chamber or combination chamber-unit housing of your roof-mounted equipment is not a part of the 'headlining,' and accordingly would not be subject to the standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1760OpenMr. Heinz W. Gerth, Assistant Vice President Engineering, Mercedes- Benz of North America, Inc., One Mercedes Drive, Montvale, NJ 07645; Mr. Heinz W. Gerth Assistant Vice President Engineering Mercedes- Benz of North America Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale NJ 07645; Dear Mr. Gerth: This is in response to your letter of December 4, 1974, inquirin whether the license plate mounting bracket and other associated hardware on the front end of the vehicle is covered under the proposed damage criteria of Part 581 and Standard No. 215.; The proposed Part 581 bumper standard (40 FR 10, January 2, 1975) which absorbs Standard No. 215, does not require the attachment of a license plate or equivalent substitute during the frontal pendulum test impacts. In addition, there are no damage criteria specified for license plates.; The proposal does, however, limit the amount of allowable damage to vehicle's exterior surfaces and does not specifically except from compliance, the portion of the vehicle that would serve as the place for license plate attachment. Vehicles manufactured from the date on which this proposal becomes effective until September 1, 1978, would, however, be permitted to incur surface damage to any component of the bumper system that contacts the impact ridge of the pendulum test device during testing. It seems likely that license plate mounting brackets would be located in an area that would be subject to this exception.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4098OpenDawn B. Brown, Esq., Currier, Zall & Shepard, 207 Main Street, P. O. Box L, Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2938; Dawn B. Brown Esq. Currier Zall & Shepard 207 Main Street P. O. Box L Nashua New Hampshire 03061-2938; Dear Ms. Brown: This responds to your January 2, 1987 letter asking a number o questions concerning certain aspects of automatic transmissions. You ask first if there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) relating to the permissibility of a transmissions design which allows a driver to remove the key from the ignition while the transmission is in drive. You state your belief that 'Standard 114, 49 CFR 571.113 is relevant,' and ask whether that standard ever has been interpreted for a purpose other than to prevent unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. (We assume that the citation of 571.113 instead of 571.114 was a typographical error.) You ask further if there are any Federal safety standards that address whether a vehicle should 'jump from park to drive when left in park.' Finally, you ask whether there are standards other than 114 'that govern these problems.'; As it currently is written, Standard 114 requires a manufacturer t install a key-locking system that prevents starting a vehicle engine and also prevents either, steering a vehicle or moving a vehicle forward under its own power whenever the key is removed. Thus, the standard does not directly require that the vehicle be in park before a driver can remove the ignition key.; In 1968, when Standard 114 was adopted, the stated purpose was t 'reduce the incidence of accidents resulting form unauthorized (motor vehicle) use.' 33 *Federal Register* 6471, April 27, 1968. The agency based this goal on evidence showing that: 'Cars operated by unauthorized persons are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury and death than those which are driven by authorized individuals.' (See the preceding citation.) Neither the Standard nor the language in the preamble to it states any other goal.; In 1980, this agency amended Standard 114 to prevent a driver fro inadvertently locking the steering wheel of a moving vehicle by removing the ignition key or shutting off the engine (45 Federal Register 85450, December 29, 1980). However, after receiving petitions for reconsideration and studying the question further, NHTSA decided that while this kind of inadvertent activation might be a safety problem in certain vehicles, the problem did not then warrant requiring additional steps to protect against inadvertent lock-up. Therefore, the agency rescinded the 1980 amendment. The agency stated that it would continue to monitor complaints on the subject, and initiate rulemaking should new data warrant it (46 Federal Register 32251, 32253, June 22, 1981).; Currently, the agency is re-evaluating whether data warrants amendin Standard 114 to improve key-locking systems by reducing the prospect of a driver s inadvertently locking the steering column while a motor vehicle is moving.; As to your question about the existence of a FMVSS which directl addresses the permissibility of a design which allows a car to jump from 'park' to 'drive' when a driver leaves the car in 'park,' the answer is there is no such standard. However, NHTSA has received a number of letters complaining of this phenomenon and, using its authority not only to issue FMVSS but also require the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects, has conducted investigations based on these complaints. A listing of the defects investigations can be obtained from: Technical Reference Division, NHTSA, Room 5108, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4831OpenMr. J. C. Brown President MidAmerica Design Service 10206 Lima Road Ft. Wayne, IN 46618; Mr. J. C. Brown President MidAmerica Design Service 10206 Lima Road Ft. Wayne IN 46618; Dear Mr. Brown: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, l99l, t the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company has been asked to 'develop a high mounted stop light and turn signal to be installed into the door of over the road trailers.' You have not found a reference in Standard No. 108 to such a lamp, and you have concluded that, as long as you add to the trailer's existing lamps without eliminating any of its lighting devices that are standard equipment, you will be in compliance. You have asked us for our opinion on this matter. You are correct that the requirement for a center high mounted stop lamp does not extend to trailers. Moreover, trailers are not included in the agency's pending rulemaking to extend the requirements to vehicles other than passenger cars. Although your design appears to combine the stop lamp and turn signal, a combination prohibited for passenger cars, you are under no Federal legal obligation to design a center high mounted stop lamp for trailers that complies with Standard No. 108. As the lamp is not intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. 108, it is permissible under section S5.1.3 of the standard as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. The judgment of whether impairment exists is initially that of the trailer manufacturer, who certifies compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will review it and inform the manufacturer accordingly. Assuming that the trailers for which the lamp is intended have an overall width of 80 inches or more, your lamp would be mounted in closest proximity to the three-unit identification lamp cluster, which Table II of Standard No. 108 requires to be located 'as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle.' Identification lamps indicate to following drivers the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway ahead. It is possible that an activated center stop lamp or adjacent turn signal could mask the light from these lamps. However, these trailers are also equipped with clearance lamps, which serve the same purpose of identifying a large vehicle. Thus, it would appear that your device would not impair the effectiveness of the identification lamps within the prohibition of section S5.1.3. We assume that the turn signal portion of the lamp is a supplement to others on the trailer that are located to comply with the 83-inch maximum mounting height imposed by Table II. I hope that this is responsive to your concern. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0521OpenMr. Earl S. Everhart, Jr., Vice President - Engineering, Maxim Motor Division, Middleboro, MA 02346; Mr. Earl S. Everhart Jr. Vice President - Engineering Maxim Motor Division Middleboro MA 02346; Dear Mr. Everhart: This is in response to your letter concerning the requirements o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206. Your letter was forwarded to us November 10, 1971, by Mr. Stan Haransky, Associate Director of the Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.; You ask whether the standard would prohibit the manufacture of fir trucks without side doors on the cabs. According to your letter, the trucks are built without side doors in order to allow firemen to enter and exit the cabs quickly during emergencies.; Standard 206 does not require that any type of motor vehicle b equipped with side doors. The standard requires only that if a vehicle subject to it has hinged or sliding side doors, they must conform with the standard's performance requirements for hinges, locks and latches.; Please write if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5373OpenPaul L. Anderson, President Van-Con, Inc. P.O. Box 237 123 William Street Middlesex, NJ 08846-0237; Paul L. Anderson President Van-Con Inc. P.O. Box 237 123 William Street Middlesex NJ 08846-0237; "Dear Mr. Anderson: This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994 requesting information on which of the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020, December 2, 1992), would apply to Type A-1 school buses. Your letter notes that Type A- 1 school buses have a capacity of 16-20 passengers and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds. The recent amendments to Standard No. 217 set new requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effect of each of these amendments on Type A-1 school buses is discussed separately below. Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2) The recent amendments listed above revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. This section states: The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening. The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses, including Type A-1 school buses, are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. After deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) a emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows. Please note that, while these new requirements apply to all school buses, it is unlikely that a 20 passenger school bus will require additional exits. Under the new requirements, a school bus with 21 designated seating positions (20 passengers plus the driver) is required to provide 9,072 square centimeters of exit area. A school bus with a front service door and either of the mandatory options (rear emergency exit door or side emergency exit door and rear push-out window) should easily exceed this amount. To illustrate, in the past, the agency has estimated that the average front service door has a daylight opening of 12,916 square centimeters. For school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, a rear emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,270 square centimeters. A side emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,954 square centimeters. A rear push- out window that is the minimum size required has a daylight opening of 5,002 square centimeters. Emergency Exit Release (S5.3) The recent amendments added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. As explained above, the recent amendments should not require either of these types of exits to be installed on Type A-1 school buses. However, if either of these types of exits are voluntarily installed on Type A-1 school buses, the release mechanisms must comply with these requirements. In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements, including the release requirements in S5.3, apply to 'each' emergency exit. This language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus, including voluntarily installed ones. Other requirements apply to 'required' emergency exits. (See, for example, S5.5.3(c) discussed below.) Those requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits. Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4) The amendments of the extension requirements also apply to Type A-1 school buses. The recent amendments revised the extension requirements for side doors on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). These amendments also affect school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, as the requirements specify that these vehicles are to comply with the same requirements as school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds (except for the minimum size for rear emergency exit doors). If a Type A-1 school bus has a side emergency exit door, that exit is required to comply with the amended requirements concerning access to the exit. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch. In addition, if an emergency roof exit is installed in a Type A-1 school bus, it is required to provide an opening at least 41 centimeters high and 41 centimeters wide under the new requirements. Finally, all emergency exit doors, including emergency exit doors on Type A-1 school buses, are required to have a 'positive door opening device' that, among other things, prevents the door from closing if it has been opened beyond a certain point (see, S5.4.2.1(a)(3)). Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5) Finally, the recent amendments revised the identification requirements (S5.5) for exits on all school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit,' as appropriate. For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed by these amendments. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. Please note however, that the identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3). You should be aware that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. I have enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. To summarize and answer your specific questions, Type A-1 school buses typically would not be affected by the recent amendment requiring either emergency roof exits or emergency window exits. However, required emergency exits (including a rear emergency exit door) are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape. In addition, all exits (required and voluntary) must comply with the new performance requirements for release and extension. With respect to your receipt of an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent there are questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authoritative and which therefore can be relied upon by manufacturers are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might be misinterpreted by manufacturers as official agency guidance on which they may safely rely. Please note that recent delay of the effective date of the recent amendments applies only to provision of emergency exits (S5.2) (59 FR 22997, May 4, 1994). The other amendments were effective on May 2, 1994. I also note that the May 4 notice does not state 'that it only applys (sic) to School Buses with capacity of 24 to 90 passengers.' The notice does refer to tables in a previous NPRM which listed the types of exits required under the proposal for buses with a capacity in that range. I have also enclosed a copy of the recent final rules for your use. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0171OpenMr. Henry T. Skipper, Jr., Vice-President, Sales, Great Dane trailers, Incorporated, Lathrop Avenue, P.O. Box 1159, Savannah, GA 31402; Mr. Henry T. Skipper Jr. Vice-President Sales Great Dane trailers Incorporated Lathrop Avenue P.O. Box 1159 Savannah GA 31402; Dear Mr. Skipper: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1969, in which you aske whether the name of your company may be placed on the certification label affixed to vehicles manufactured by another company.; The question of 'private brand' manufacturing was raised at variou stages of rulemaking in respect to the certification regulations. It was decided that the certification label on a vehicle must show the name of the actual manufacturer. This information is important in the enforcement of standards and regulations under the Act. The Vehicle Safety Act, moreover, places primary responsibility for conformity to the standards, and for certification of conformity, on the manufacturer, and the regulations are designed to implement that intent. You should note, however, that as a distributor of the vehicles in question you share the responsibility for compliance with the standards to the extent of your knowledge, and participate in the certification by passing it along to dealers or other distributors.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Dowell H. Anders, Acting 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.