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: aiam1343OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Truck Equipment & Body, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Truck Equipment & Body 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of November 6, 1973, requestin information on whether vehicle certification labels must be affixed by persons who for their own use install fifth wheels on chassis cabs.; The NHTSA takes the position that vehicles completed by persons fo their own use must conform to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards and be certified (by affixing the appropriate label) as conforming. The NHTSA considers the use of these vehicles to be an introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce and subject to the prohibitions of section 108 of the Safety Act. Persons who complete incomplete vehicles are final-stage manufacturers, and all other regulations applicable to manufactuers (sic) (Parts 566, 573, and 577) apply to them.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4395OpenMr. Wally Lang, Langco, Inc., 1340 Walden Drive, Elgin, IL 60120; Mr. Wally Lang Langco Inc. 1340 Walden Drive Elgin IL 60120; Dear Mr. Lang: I am pleased to respond to your request for a written statement of th legal requirements that would apply to a new product you plan to introduce. In telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke, of my staff, you described a new product that you would like to introduce. This product, which would be sold only as an item of aftermarket equipment, is a child safety seat belt buckle shield. This 'buckle shield' is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle on a child restraint system. The buckle shield would consist of a plastic strip that would completely cover the buckle on the child restraint. It would be clipped onto the child restraint belt on one side, and attached to the side of the buckle on the other side, so as to completely cover the buckle. To open the buckle, a person would have to firmly grasp the strip and pull it away from the child restraint system. The end of the strip clipped to the belt would pull off of the belt, thereby allowing the person to release the buckle.; Although we understand your concern that young children not be able t easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.; Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable t new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213), which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard No. 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with that Standard before selling the product.; Additionally, as Mr. Kratzke explained, you are not required to ge 'approval' from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to you product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said two years ago on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:; >>>The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle forc release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985).<<<; Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using th buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.; In addition, use of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Standard No. 213 specifies two elements of design with which a child restraint system might not comply if your buckle shield were installed. Section S5.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shield would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each material used in a child restraints (sic) system shall comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials* (49 CFR S571.302). If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) (sic) does not apply t individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 213. However, our policy is to encourage child restraint owners not to tamper with their child restraints. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.; If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at thi address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3450OpenMr. Marshall Zaun, President, Sigma Six Inc., P.O. Box 4272, Westlake Village, CA 91359; Mr. Marshall Zaun President Sigma Six Inc. P.O. Box 4272 Westlake Village CA 91359; Dear Mr. Zaun: This responds to your July 29, 1981 letter asking whether three-wheeled vehicle would be classified as a motorcycle for purposes of complying with the motor vehicle safety standards.; The term 'motorcycle' is defined in our regulations as 'a motor vehicl with motive power...designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground' (Volume 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). Since your vehicle is designed to travel on three wheels, it would be classified as a motorcycle for purposes of complying with the safety standards. The agency plans no major rulemaking at this time that would change the definition of motorcycle or the standards with which these vehicles comply.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1197OpenMr. Richard B. Raymond, Raymond's Utility Trailers, 5306 Phyllis Road, Lansing, MI 48906; Mr. Richard B. Raymond Raymond's Utility Trailers 5306 Phyllis Road Lansing MI 48906; Dear Mr. Raymond: By notice letter dated April 27, 1973, you were advised that thi agency was considering seeking imposition of civil penalties against you for violation of sections 108(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 108(a)(1) provides in pertinent part that 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale . . . any motor vehicle . . . unless it is in conformity with [all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards].' Section 108(a)(3) provides in pertinent part that 'No person shall fail to issue a certificate required by section 114.' You were afforded an opportunity to submit to us any information, data, or arguments relevant to this matter. We have carefully reviewed your response of May 15, 1973.; We have concluded that you have violated sections 108(a)(1) and (a)(3 of the Act by manufacturing for sale, selling, and offering for sale snowmobile and bicycle trailers that did not conform and were not certified as conforming with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, and that accordingly you are subject to civil penalties not to exceed $1,000 for each separate violation of section 108. Section 109(b) authorizes the Secretary to compromise any civil penalty. This authority has been delegated to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator. If you wish to seek a settlement, you should submit a written offer in compromise to the undersigned, accompanied by a certified check payable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, not later than twenty (20) days after you have received this letter. The Administrator views a compromise of $1,000 as appropriate under the circumstances. If we do not hear from you within the 20 day period we will proceed with a court action to seek the maximum civil penalty authorized by law and an order restraining further violations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; We have also reviewed your letter of June 22, 1973, forwarding to us sample defect notification letter regarding the failure of trailers manufactured by your company to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; We are of the opinion that the sample notification you have submitte does not fully conform to the requirements of the Defect Notification regulation (49 CFR Part 577) and should be modified as follows:; 1. Section 577.4 of the regulation requires the opening statement o the notification to be: 'This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.' While your opening statement is similar, we see no necessity for a departure from the regulatory language, which was intended to be used verbatim, and suggest that you modify this sentence to conform to the regulation.; 2. The second sentence of your letter states that the determination o a defect was made by the NHTSA. This, however, is not the case. Section 577.5 of the Defect Notification regulation provides that the notification letter shall state that the defect was determined to relate to motor vehicle safety by the NHTSA when that determination results from an administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to section 113(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402(e)). This proceeding did not take place in your case, however, and we consequently view the determination regarding the defect to have been made by you. We believe it would serve to further clarify your letter if your second sentence were to indicate as well that the defect relates to a nonconformity to Standard No. 108.; In addition, our enforcement file in this case indicates that trailer manufactured by you were not certified in conformity with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). Your notification letter should refer to this as well. An appropriate second sentence for your letter would therefore read: Raymond's Utility Trailers has determined that a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety exists in your *(year)* trailer in that it fails to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 'Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment', and has not been certified as conforming to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards in accordance with applicable regulations.; 3. Section 577.4(c) requires the notification to contain a clea description of the defect. In your case, the defect concerns a failure to conform to specific requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and NHTSA certification requirements. We believe that to fulfill this requirement your notification letter should indicate how, specifically, your trailers fail to conform to the standard and the regulations. To do so would require a statement of the number, color, and type of specific lighting equipment with which your trailers have not been equipped, and the fact that the required certification label has not been affixed.; A statement that such lighting and the required label will be affixe to the vehicle should also be included to meet the requirements of S577.4(e)(1), which requires a statement of the measures to be taken to repair the defect when the manufacturer offers to repair the defect without charge to the purchaser.; Sincerely yours, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3000OpenMr. R. M. Premo, Vehicle Safety Activities, Sheller-Globe Corporation, 3555 St. Johns Road, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. R. M. Premo Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Premo: This is in response to your letter of February 15, 1979, concerning th definition of 'forward control' vehicle contained in 49 CFR 571.3. Your specific concern is how to measure a vehicle's length to determine if 'the steering wheel hub is in the forward quarter of the vehicle length.'; Overall vehicle length should be determined by measuring the maximu longitudinal distance between the foremost point on the front bumper face bar and the rearmost point on the rear bumper face bar. In the context of the Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR 581), the agency considers bumper guards to be part of the bumper face bar if they are contacted by the impact ridge of the pendulum test device used in compliance testing (43 F.R. 20804, May, (sic) 15, 1978). For the purposes of determining vehicle length, the agency will consider bumper guards as a part of the vehicle bumper face bar and thus included in the measurement of vehicle length. Components such as a permanent or fold-down step which are not associated with the bumper system's function are not considered part of the bumper face far for the purposes of Part 581 Bumper Standard (43 F.R. 40230, Sept. 11, 1978). Therefore, the agency will not consider a permanent or fold-down step as a part of the bumper face bar for the purposes of determining vehicle length.; I have enclosed for your information a notice of proposed rulemakin which would extend Standards No. 201, 203 and 204 to forward control vehicles. The notice also states the agency's intention to eliminate the forward control exemption found in other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2241OpenHonorable Richard Nolan, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable Richard Nolan House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Nolan: This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1976, in which you as six questions pertaining to tire identification and recordkeeping, and to defects notification and recall. The statutory basis for and regulations governing this subject are set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 574. I have enclosed copies for your reference. Specific answers to your questions follow in the sequence asked:; >>>1. Manufacturers are required to retain tire registratio information for three years. (49 CFR 574. 7(d)).; 2. As in all defect recall campaigns under our Act, the tir manufacturer, not the Department of Transportation, traces and notifies individuals of defective tires. There have been approximately 2,526,480 tires subject to recall in 119 recall campaigns.; 3. The number of persons employed by industry to process thi information has not been reported, but the filing systems are highly automated by the use of computer processing techniques. The cost of storage of this information during the three-year period is minimal. The recording of information at the time of purchase, however, is manually performed at the retail level, usually by the salesman, and has been estimated by dealers to cost anywhere from 5 or 10 cents per tire up to $2.50 per tire. The substantial difference in cost estimates is to a large part due to whether or not one assumes the salesman who completes the forms and the clerk who mails them would not be employed but for the tire registration process. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) takes the position, which has yet to be refuted, that additional personnel are not needed to carry out the program on the retail level and consequently the costis (sic) at the lower end of the scale. Simplification of the process has been achieved with the adoption of a standardized report form on which towrite (sic) the name and address of the purchaser. A copy is enclosed.; 4. There is no cost incurred by the Federal government attributable t the tire registraion (sic) and recordkeeping procedure except indirectly in that the regular staff, as one of their functions, assigns and maintains a manufacturer's identification code list and monitors the program of defects recalls and regulation enforcement. The cost of this work has been determined to be about $34,000 annually.; 5. The NHTSA has undertaken no prosecution of dealers or manufacturer for violation of the tire information and recordkeeping regulation. Fourteen civil penalties have been assessed for violation of the regulation, although these all occurred shortly after the regulation became effective.; 6. We do not presently anticipate a major revision of the regulation However, as with allour (sic) standards and regulations, it is regularly reviewed and revised to increase its effectiveness while lowering its cost to the industry and the consumer. Further, dealers, manufacturers, and others are free at any time to petition the NHTSA to amendthe (sic) regulations. These procedures, which are found in 49 CFR, Part 552, require that we act on petitions within 120 days.; At the present time, this program is also being analyzed by th National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council as part of its study of 'Safety Defects and Recalls' requested by Secretary William T. Coleman. The Council's report will also guide us in revising and improving the regulation.<<<; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam5584OpenTerrence S. Lockman, Investigator Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. Attorneys-at-Law P.O. Box 12308 226 South Palafox Place Pensacola, FL 32581; Terrence S. Lockman Investigator Levin Middlebrooks Mabie Thomas Mayes & Mitchell P.A. Attorneys-at-Law P.O. Box 12308 226 South Palafox Place Pensacola FL 32581; "Dear Mr. Lockman: This responds to your request for an interpretatio whether a Model Year (MY) 1981 Versa Sweeper road sweeper is a 'motor vehicle' and therefore subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that were in effect when the vehicle was manufactured. Further, you ask whether the Versa Sweeper had to comply with requirements for an occupant restraint system or for rollover protection. You explained that you are conducting an investigation, and that 'At the time in question, the vehicle was being used in a construction zone, to sweep debris off the roadway.' I note, before beginning, that your letter had asked for certain information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). NHTSA separately answered your FOIA request by letter dated May 22, 1995, from Ms. Heidi Coleman of my staff, Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law. Yours is an unusual interpretation request. Typically, questions concerning whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle are raised around the time of manufacture of a vehicle or its importation into the country, and by a person knowledgeable about the intended use of the vehicle, such as the vehicle's manufacturer. In contrast, your question asks about another entity's vehicle 14 years after the vehicle's manufacture, which makes our response more difficult. We cannot say for certain what principles would have applied in 1981 concerning the Versa Sweeper, and our knowledge of the vehicle is limited to the information you provided. Thus, a conclusive answer is beyond our reach. We can make the following observations, however. NHTSA applies several principles when making a determination of whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defined a motor vehicle as 'a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways . . . .' We are not certain, based on the information you provided, that the Versa Sweeper was manufactured for use on public highways. The literature you sent indicates that the Versa Sweeper is intended for 'road maintenance sweeping and highway preparation cleaning.' It appears that the vehicle might be a construction vehicle. Moreover, you indicated that the vehicle was being used in a construction zone 'at the time in question.' Construction-related vehicles generally are 'motor vehicles' for purposes of our statute if they frequently use the highway going to and from job sites and stay at a job site for only a limited time. With regard to the 1981 Versa Sweeper, its use of the highway is unclear. Assuming the Versa Sweeper had regularly used the highway, NHTSA's longstanding position has been that vehicles of unusual configuration that are incapable of obtaining speeds greater than 20 miles per hour (mph) are not required to comply with the FMVSSs. It is unclear how this principle applies to a 1981 Versa Sweeper. The material you enclosed indicates that the Versa Sweeper has 'Infinitely variable speeds from 0-30 miles per hour....' It is unclear whether this means each Versa Sweeper can attain a speed of 30 mph or whether some, but not all, can. A Versa Sweeper that had a maximum speed of less than 20 mph is excluded. One that went over 20 mph might not have been. You ask about requirements for occupant restraints and rollover protection. The agency has stated that 'street sweepers'--that are motor vehicles--are trucks. In 1981, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), required open-bodied light trucks to have a lap belt system. There was no rollover requirement. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1894OpenMr. William A. Domm, International Harvester, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611; Mr. William A. Domm International Harvester 401 North Michigan Avenue Chicago IL 60611; Dear Mr. Domm: This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1975, asking that th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concur in your preliminary decision to classify two new International Harvester vehicles as multipurpose passenger vehicles.; The definition of multipurpose passenger vehicle, which appears at 4 CFR Part 571.3 *definitions*, describes vehicles falling within that category as ones with motive power, except trailers, designed to carry 10 persons or less and constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.; According to your letter, the two vehicles in question satisfy both th truck chassis and the features for occasional off-road use criteria. If this is the case, and the other specified criteria are met as well, your vehicles would be properly classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles for purposes of complying with applicable motor vehicle safety standards.; The NHTSA is not in a position to formally endorse your classification However, it appears from the information you have provided that the vehicles in question are multi-purpose passenger vehicles as defined in Part 571.3 (sic); Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0786OpenMr. Louis C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Environmental Activities Staff, General Motors Technical Center, Warren, MI 48090; Mr. Louis C. Lundstrom Director Automotive Safety Engineering Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Technical Center Warren MI 48090; Dear Mr. Lundstrom: Your letter of July 11, 1972, raises two substantive question concerning the belt system requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.; The first question concerns S7.4.1, which provides that the engin starting system shall not be operable 'unless the belt system at each occupied front position is operated after the occupant is seated.' You ask whether a system that you submitted for our inspection, which does not use electronic logic circuits, would conform to this requirement.; The belt system in question is designed to make it quite difficult t enter the vehicle if the belt system is fastened. The occupant is thus forced to unfasten the belt (if it has been left fastened) to enter the vehicle, then to fasten it in order to start the engine. The system employs an inboard- mounted shoulder belt with the outboard attachment point for the lap and shoulder belts mounted in the door. The ignition system employs a buckle switch, so that the belt must be buckled for the engine to start. Upon entering the vehicle, an occupant may find that the belt is either buckled or unbuckled, depending on the action of the previous occupant, but if it is buckled, he will find entry difficult if he does not first unbuckle it. After evaluating the system, we have concluded that the occupant is essentially compelled to operate the belt system after being seated in order to start the car. The system therefore conforms to the requirements of S7.4.1.; In view of the lack of logic circuits, we urge that the design of th buckle be given careful attention, to prevent defeat of the system by the insertion of objects into the buckle.; Your second question concerns the acceptability of belts which requir 'some action during normal vehicle entry or egress' under the requirements for passive belts. As presently drafted, S4.5.3 does not permit such belts to be classified as passive belts. We will treat your request for amendment of this requirement as a petition for rulemaking and give it prompt consideration.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3903OpenMr. Ron Marion, Specification Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., P.O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261; Mr. Ron Marion Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses Inc. P.O. Box 2450 High Point NC 27261; Dear Mr. Marion: This responds to your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 222, *School Bus Seating and Crash Protection*. You asked whether a single, full width, 90 inch seat may be placed at the last row of the school bus and be designated as a four passenger seat. In telephone calls with Ms. Hom of my staff, you stated that these school buses have a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. Further, the next to last row of seats has two 39 inch, three passenger seats, on the left and right of the aisle.; I would like to separate your question into two parts. The first par deals with designating the full width seat as a four passenger seat even though, under S4.1 of Standard No. 222, the number of seating positions is six. The second part concerns the restraining barrier requirement of Standard No. 222.; We believe that designating a 90 inch, full width seat as a fou passenger seat would not comply with FMVSS No. 222. Paragraph S4.1 of the standard states that:; >>>The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat i expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.<<<; Thus, under S4.1, the number of seating positions on a 90 inch widt seat is six. Labeling a 90 inch width seat as a four passenger seat amounts to a disclaimer by the manufacturer that two seating positions are not to be used. This practice is prohibited since, despite the disclaimer, it is likely that passengers will use all six seating positions and, thus, each position should provide the level of occupant protection required by our standard. A manufacturer cannot escape its occupant protection responsibilities associated with a designated seating position simply by disclaiming that position.; The second part of your question deals with designating the 90 inc seat as a six passenger seat and the requirement in Standard No. 222 for restraining barriers. Standard No. 222 requires a restraining barrier of specified size in front of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating reference point (SRP). From the information in your letter, we have determined that at least one of the designated seating positions in the center portion of the last row would not have the rear surface of another passenger seat within 24 inches of its SRP. A restraining barrier would have to be placed in front of these designated seating positions, and would block the center aisle. Such a barrier would obstruct access to the emergency exits.; FMVSS No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, regulates th number, size, and operation of school bus emergency exits. Paragraph S2 states that one of the purposes of Standard No. 217 is 'to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress.' Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires each school bus to be equipped with either a rear emergency door or a side emergency door and a rear window. Paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4 require unobstructed passage through these exits from the interior of the bus. If there is unobstructed access, as required by paragraphs S5.2.3.1 and S5.4, with the restraining barrier in place, then the buses you describe would not violate that requirement. However, even if the barrier and other aspects of the bus design would not violate the requirement, we would urge that the manufacturers of such buses ensure that the design not complicate efforts of the passengers to reach and use the emergency exits.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, 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.