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: aiam4980OpenMr. Robert Salton Performance Friction Corp. 83 Carbon Metallic Highway P.O. Box 819 Clover, S.C. 29710-0819; Mr. Robert Salton Performance Friction Corp. 83 Carbon Metallic Highway P.O. Box 819 Clover S.C. 29710-0819; "Dear Mr. Salton: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You stated that you are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade and recovery test baseline check stops, and that an interpretation would make it clear exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. You also asked what values of pedal effort would be 'considered non-compliance,' i.e., whether peak, average or sustained control force must be within the specified limits under section S5.1.4.1. You indicated in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff that you are primarily interested in the requirements for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards. Standard No. 105's fade and recovery requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1. The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests, each of which consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops or snubs, (2) fade stops or snubs (the heating cycle), and (3) recovery stops or snubs. The pedal force requirements for the baseline check stops or snubs are set forth in S5.1.4.1, which reads as follows: The control force used for the baseline check stops or snubs shall be not less than 10 pounds, nor more than 60 pounds, except that the control force for a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more may be between 10 pounds and 90 pounds. S5.1.4.1 must be read in conjunction with S7.11.1, which sets forth the procedure for the baseline check stops or snubs. S7.11.1.1 provides the following procedure for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less: Make three stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop. Control readings may be terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. Average the maximum brake control force required for the three stops. The baseline check stops or snubs are thus made at a constant deceleration (10 fpsps), with the control force varying as necessary to maintain that constant deceleration. Under S5.1.4.1, the control force is required to stay within a prescribed range (10 pounds to 60 pounds for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds) throughout the entire stop or snub (from the time in which application is started until the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph, other than the initial momentary period it takes to go from 0 to 10 pounds). Thus, compliance with S5.l.4.1 is not determined based on peak, average or sustained control force. Instead, for a vehicle to comply with this test, the control force must never fall below 10 pounds or be above 60 pounds during any part of the test (for the period described above). Your other question concerned how calculation of pedal effort during the baseline check stops or snubs is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. As indicated above, S7.11.1.1 specifies that an average is taken of the maximum control force for the three stops. The term 'maximum' refers to the peak control force for each of the stops. I note that this average is not related to whether the vehicle complies with S5.1.4.1. Instead, as discussed below, this average establishes a baseline control force, which is used to derive certain of the control force limits for the recovery stops. The requirements for the recovery stops are set forth in S5.1.4.3, which reads as follows: Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable or making five recovery stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop, with a control force application that falls within the following maximum and minimum limits: (1) A maximum for the first four recovery stops of 150 pounds, and for the fifth stop, of 20 pounds more than the average control force for the baseline check, and (2) A minimum of-- (A) The average control force for the baseline check minus 10 pounds, or (B) The average control force for the baseline check times 0.60, whichever is lower (but in no case lower than 5 pounds). . . . Thus, the minimum and (for one stop) the maximum control force limits for the recovery stops are calculated using the average control force for the baseline check stops or snubs. This average control force is the one calculated under S7.11.1.1 using the maximum control force of each of the baseline check stops or snubs. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1956OpenMr. Samuel W. Alderson, President, Humanoid Systems, Division of Alderson Biotechnology Corporation, 5250 El Segundo Boulevard, Hawthorne, CA 90250; Mr. Samuel W. Alderson President Humanoid Systems Division of Alderson Biotechnology Corporation 5250 El Segundo Boulevard Hawthorne CA 90250; Dear Mr. Alderson: This is in response to your letter of May 30, 1975, to th Administrator.; Thank you for the offer to assist in the establishment of ne specifications for dummy skin and flesh components. Any procurement of such services would be awarded by competitive procurement, and I hope your company will participate in any such competition when solicited.; The NHTSA issued Part 572, in the form of a large number of dumm design and material specifications supplemented by some calibrating component tests, in order to specify the vehicle performance requirements of certain crash-test standards, such as Standard No. 203, as precisely and objectively as possible. Dummies are not regulated items and not ends in themselves, as S 572.3 states, the dummy specification 'does not in itself impose duties or liabilities on any person.' Thus, the dummy specification serves only as a means of informing the vehicle manufacturers how their vehicles must perform if and when tested by the government. There is no regulatory requirement either for 'certification' of dummies or their 'verification by an independent agency' or anyone else. It may be assumed that government testing will be carried out with dummies that conform to Part 572 as closely as possible. Vehicle manufacturers can ascertain that their vehicles will pass government tests by any means they choose. With this in view, it should be clear that any deviations from the Part 572 specifications are purely a matter of private negotiation and decisionmaking between the dummy manufacturers and their customers, and no governmental 'approvals' are possible or appropriate.; Any changes in Part 572 will of course be done through notice an opportunity for comment, and we expect and hope for your full participation in an administrative proceeding when it takes place.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0644OpenMr. Gorou Utsunomiya, Chief, Liaison Engineer, Toyo Kogyo Detroit Office, 3841 Mystic Valley Dr., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013; Mr. Gorou Utsunomiya Chief Liaison Engineer Toyo Kogyo Detroit Office 3841 Mystic Valley Dr. Bloomfield Hills Michigan 48013; Dear Mr. Utsunomiya: This is in response to your letter of March 16, 1972, in which you as whether the definition of 'unloaded vehicle weight' is the same as or 'curb weight' plus optional parts, and whether the definition of 'gross vehicle weight' is the same as that for 'maximum loaded vehicle weight.'; The two sets of definitions are expressed in substantially differen terms. The new terms, 'unloaded vehicle weight' and 'gross vehicle weight rating' are more general than the older ones. The newer terms also eliminate some ambiguities in the definitions based on 'curb weight,' such as just what is meant by 'standard equipment,' and whether other vehicle fluids besides fuel, oil, and coolant should be included. Further, GVWR is a rating, not necessarily identical to any scale weight although some constraints have been placed on it in our Certification regulations (S567.4(g)(3)).; Thus although the two sets of definitions are somewhat similar in thei application, they are different enough that each must be interpreted and used in its own terms.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2233OpenMr. Joseph M. Connell, Truck & Fleet Manager, Maurice J. Sopp & Son, 5801 Pacific Boulevard, Huntington Park, CA 90255; Mr. Joseph M. Connell Truck & Fleet Manager Maurice J. Sopp & Son 5801 Pacific Boulevard Huntington Park CA 90255; Dear Mr. Connell: This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1976, concerning th sale of a 1975 Chevrolet Step Van that has been modified by the addition of a 'boiler' assembly.; SS 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification* provide that the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) appearing on the certification label; >>>shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rate cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity... <<<; Further, S 567.7 provides that a person who, before the first purchas in good faith for purposes other than resale, alters a previously certified vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid shall affix to the vehicle an additional label that certifies the modified weight ratings and the vehicle's continued compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your letter indicates that the unloaded weight of the van, as altere by Steamaster Boiler Co., exceeds the original 10,000 pound GVWR. From this information, it appears that there has been a violation of the Certification regulation. While we would have to investigate your role as the dealer in this transaction to determine your precise liability, we advise you not to sell the vehicle in its present condition.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3072OpenMr. Mike Champagne, 6936 East 75th Street South, Tulsa, OK 74133; Mr. Mike Champagne 6936 East 75th Street South Tulsa OK 74133; Dear Mr. Champagne: This is in response to your telephone conversations of July 13, 1979 with Mr. Steve Wood of my office, in which you requested a general explanation of the Federal law concerning auxiliary gasoline tanks and the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles to propane-powered vehicles.; The following discussion sets forth the implications of thes activities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits.; Before getting into the legalities of these installations an conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles which are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increase the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present.; The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It 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) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles.; Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate customer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.R. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7).; Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as 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). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act).; With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is tha not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also.; If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fue system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline- powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane- powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75.; After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. 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 ...<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufacture in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974) (sic). Such a reduction of performance could occur, for example, if 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, and 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.; If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.; There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection wit FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be governed by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars.; The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle s that is has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A).; As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 *et seq.* o the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well (sic) persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 *et seq.* provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term 'manufacturer' includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers.; Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or make propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation.; Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and th propane systems would all be treated as 'replacement equipment.' Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment.; Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provid notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1000 per violation.; Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 *et seq.* Since the term 'manufacturer' is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble, or import *new* vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers.; Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of th liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary of replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort.; I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have an further questions I will be happy to answer them.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3588OpenMr. William J. Benzie, Corporate Fleet Coordinator, The Continental Insurance Companies, Eighty Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038; Mr. William J. Benzie Corporate Fleet Coordinator The Continental Insurance Companies Eighty Maiden Lane New York NY 10038; Dear Mr. Benzie: This responds to your recent letter asking about Federal regulation pertaining to automotive glass and to windshield repair kits. You are particularly interested in the Novus windshield repair method and ask if it has been approved by the agency.; The agency has issued Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials* (4 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of that standard for your information. There are no standards or regulations specifically governing windshield repair methods. However, I am enclosing a letter of interpretation which the agency issued in 1975 regarding the Novus method of windshield repair. I am also enclosing a letter of interpretation which discusses the general responsibilities of persons who modify or repair vehicles, including windshields, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Please look closely at the third and fourth paragraphs of that letter.; Please note that the agency does not grant prior approval of any moto vehicle, motor vehicle equipment or method of vehicle repair. It is the responsibility of the vehicle or equipment manufacturer to certify that its products are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and regulations.; I hope the enclosed information will answer all of your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3422OpenMs. Judith I. Robey, Executive Vice President, Devlin Associates, Inc., 1150 First Avenue, Suite 795, King of Prussia, PA 19406; Ms. Judith I. Robey Executive Vice President Devlin Associates Inc. 1150 First Avenue Suite 795 King of Prussia PA 19406; Dear Ms. Robey: This responds to your April 28, 1981, letter asking for informatio relating to the agency's recordkeeping requirements.; I have enclosed copies of the agency's major recordkeeping regulation and portions of one statute that requires the retention of information. This information describes the types of records to be retained and the periods that retention is required. The agency has not specified the form or location for record retention, but it has stated that records must be readily retrievable when necessary. The agency has not imposed a penalty for accidental loss of records. I can see no instance in which a penalty would be imposed for such an accidental loss.; Finally, you ask for any recommendations that we might have wit respect to record retention. We only suggest that records be maintained in an easily accessible manner so that they can be used effectively in removing dangerous vehicles or equipment from the highway. Other than this general recommendation, the actual recordkeeping techniques that a company should use would depend upon the size and sophistication of the company.; If you have any questions concerning any of the materials that I hav provided you, you may contact Roger Tilton of my staff (202-426-9511).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4308OpenMr. Paul Miller, Arizona Bus Sales, Inc., P.O. Box 21226, Phoenix, AZ 85036; Mr. Paul Miller Arizona Bus Sales Inc. P.O. Box 21226 Phoenix AZ 85036; Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your April 14, 1987 letter to us asking about Federa requirements applicable to the sale of new school buses. You enclosed a copy of a bid from a school bus dealer offering to sell a 48-passenger activity bus to a school district. The bid describes options for changing the school bus paint and deleting 'school options.' You ask whether a bid with 'an option to modify paint, and delete school bus options' accords with our school bus regulations.; The answer to your question depends on the nature of the 'schoo options' which the bid makes nonobligatory. It is unclear from the bid whether the reference is to the school bus performance requirements mandated by our Federal motor vehicle safety standard, or to the way the school bus is painted and marked. If the 'school options' are the features required by Federal school bus safety standards, the answer to your question is no--i.e., the dealer may not sell a new school bus that fails to comply with those standards. On the other hand, Federal law does not prohibit school districts from changing the color or markings of their school buses. Instead, requirements for the identification of school buses are set by each State.; Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those standards set performance requirements that all new school buses must meet, including standards for passenger crash protection, emergency exits, rollover protection and fuel systems. The Safety Act requires manufacturers of school buses to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. The Act also requires school bus dealers to ensure that only complying school buses are sold. These requirements, set by Federal law, apply to *each* school bus manufacturer and seller.; A school bus dealer cannot elect whether to comply with thos requirements and choose to sell a new activity bus that does not comply with our school bus safety standards.; Our second set of school bus 'regulations,' issued under the Highwa Safety Act, include recommendations for identifying school buses. These recommendations are set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed). While the 'standard' recommends that activity buses should be painted yellow and marked 'School Bus,' the decision to adopt its recommendations is made by each State. Therefore, questions you might have about activity bus identification should be addressed to your State officials.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if you hav further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3137OpenMr. K. W. Schang, Director, Vehicle Safety Programs, American Motors Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. K. W. Schang Director Vehicle Safety Programs American Motors Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Schang: This responds to your letter of October 11, 1979, requesting ou opinion concerning the proper designated seating capacity of the rear seat in your 1981-model AMC Spirit.; You state that the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat will hav approximately 43 inches of hip room. The amended definition of designated seating position specifies that any position likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position, and includes a caveat that bench or split-bench seats having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions. Since the hip room in the rear seat of the 1981 Spirit will be well below the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition, and since you state that the rear seat will be contoured for two persons with distinct recessed areas for each person's buttocks, we conclude that this particular seat would qualify as a two-passenger seat. Under the definition, whether a particular position is 'likely to be used' is determined by the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design. Given the limited amount of hip room and the configuration of the planned 1981 Spirit rear seat, it is not likely that more than two persons will occupy the seat.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4758OpenMr. Charles T. Thomas Prestige Travel 10333 Richmond Avenue, Suite 170 Houston, Texas 77042; Mr. Charles T. Thomas Prestige Travel 10333 Richmond Avenue Suite 170 Houston Texas 77042; "Dear Mr. Thomas: This is in reply to your recent undated letter askin for a waiver of one of the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(g) for persons working outside the United States and seeking to import a nonconforming vehicle, i.e., the requirement that 'the importer's assigned place of employment has been outside the United States at all times between October 31, l988, and the date the vehicle is entered into the United States.' You are able to meet the other requirements of paragraph (g), but you returned to the United States in September l988 after a 12-year employment abroad, and your l985 Jaguar remains in Germany. We are sorry that we are unable to provide the waiver you seek. This specific requirement was established by Congress as part of an exception to more rigorous requirements that became effective on, and applicable to, vehicles imported on and after January 31, l990, of this year. Further, Congress did not provide us with any authority to waive this requirement. These provisions were added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Public Law 100-562. However, our inability to waive this requirement does not mean that you will be unable to import your car. Under its new authority, the agency has tentatively determined that l985 Jaguar automobiles are eligible for importation (as well as a number of other cars). Public comments on the tentative determinations were due in mid-May. After a final determination is made, and assuming that it is favorable, you may then import your Jaguar pursuant to the requirements of 49 CFR 591.5(f). In other words, you may import the vehicle either through an importer registered with this agency as one who will certify compliance of the Jaguar with Federal safety standards, or by yourself upon demonstration that you have a contract with a registered importer. I enclose a copy of Part 591 for your information, as well as a list of registered importers approved as of April 13. We anticipate a final determination on vehicle eligibility this summer. If you wish to inquire as to the status of the determination, or to obtain an updated list of registered importers, please address your further correspondence to Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
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.