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: aiam4551OpenMs. Claire Haven Vice President Quadwest 27833 Avenue Hopkins Valencia, CA 91355; Ms. Claire Haven Vice President Quadwest 27833 Avenue Hopkins Valencia CA 91355; "Dear Ms. Haven: This responds to your letter seeking further agenc assurances that installation of one of your company's products will not take the safety belt system out of compliance with applicable Federal standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Your product is a nylon covered foam pad intended to be attached to the shoulder belt portion of a safety belt to enhance the comfort of the occupant. In keeping with our statutory responsibilities, this agency does not offer any such assurances. If this pad is installed as original equipment on any new vehicle, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the vehicle manufacturer to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208), that the safety belt system complies with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209), and that certain vehicle components, including the safety belts, comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR /571.302). Each of these certifications must be valid with the pad installed on the safety belts. Since the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to make this certification, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, such as your shoulder belt pad. If the pad is sold as an aftermarket item, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' The safety belt systems installed in vehicles are generally an element of design installed in compliance with Standards No. 208, 209, and 302. If the installation of your shoulder belt pad results in the vehicle no longer complying with any or all of these standards, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installed the belt pads would have violated this section of the law. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), and each installation of a shoulder belt pad that rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 208 would be a separate violation. Please note that the prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual consumers. Thus, under Federal law, individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherise modify existing equipment without violating the 'render inoperative' provision. As noted above for aftermarket items, the Safety Act obliges manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses not to knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design in vehicles installed in compliance with applicable safety standards. As with new vehicles and items of equipment, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not this agency, to determine in the first instance that the use of its product will not result in a 'render inoperative' violation of Federal law. Because of this statutory scheme, NHTSA makes determinations of whether the installation of products results in a 'render inoperative' violation only in the context of enforcement proceedings, when it reexamines the initial finding made by the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business. In an earlier letter to you about this product, Dr. Clark, the inventor contact for NHTSA, advised you that the installation of this pad prevents the retractor from reeling up the belt completely or in part. This agency would be very likely to find a 'render inoperative' violation with respect to a device whose installation prevented the retractor from functioning as designed. Assuming this pad will be marketed as an aftermarket item, you could comply with your legal obligations as the manufacturer of this pad by examining the requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 302, to determine if the installation of your shoulder belt pad would result in a noncompliance with these standards. If the installation would not do so, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses can install these pads without violating any provisions of Federal law. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that explains how to obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0841OpenMr. Richard Stevens, Cody Chevrolet, Inc., Barre-Montpelier Road, Montpelier, VT 05602; Mr. Richard Stevens Cody Chevrolet Inc. Barre-Montpelier Road Montpelier VT 05602; Dear Mr. Stevens: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention o Mr. Jerome Palisi of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.; 'School bus' is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean bus 'designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children' (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), therefore, 'gross vehicle weight rating' should not be computed under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met by inserting, 'BUS.'; This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1753OpenMr. William J. Flanagan, Executive Director, New Jersey Turnpike Authority, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903; Mr. William J. Flanagan Executive Director New Jersey Turnpike Authority New Brunswick New Jersey 08903; Dear Mr. Flanagan: This is in reply to your letter of December 3, 1974, requesting ou view whether the removal of portions of a tie bar in a truck tire, for the purpose of reducing tire noise, is subject to NHTSA's *Regrooved Tire* regulation (49 CFR Part 569). You state that the removal of the tie bar material does not require that the tread be cut to a depth equal to or deeper than the original groove depth.; We concur in your opinion that the partial removal of tire tie ba material is not subject to the *Regrooved Tire* regulations. This practice would not be considered the making of a 'regrooved tire' (49 CFR S569.3(d)) as long as the removal of tie bar material did not extend to the original tread depth. Any removal or renewal of tread that did extend to at least the original tread depth, however, would be considered the making of a 'regrooved tire' and would be subject to the requirements set forth in S569.7 of the regulation.; We are concerned, however, that this opinion may result in th indiscriminate removal of tire bar material from truck tires having varying tread designs. We believe it possible, notwithstanding the absence of regulations prohibiting such removal, that the removal of tie bar material could in some cases induce tread cracking, instability, and otherwise reduce the safe performance of truck tires. Consequently, we believe you should determine, through testing if necessary, that removal of tire tie bar material will not produce adverse results in tire performance before any large-scale project involving venting is implemented. Any such program should also take into account that effects of venting may differ among various tread designs. Finally, tread venting on new tires manufactured after Match 1, 1975, could affect the conformity of those tires to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4101OpenMr. Peter Hofmann, Product Manager, Continental Products Corporation, 1200 Wall Street West, Lyndhurst, NJ 07071; Mr. Peter Hofmann Product Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst NJ 07071; Dear Mr. Hofmann: This responds to your letter, asking three questions about any Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements for labeling tires as 'all- season' tires. I will answer your questions in the order they were presented in your letter.; >>>1. *Is there a definition issued by NHTSA regarding mud and sno tire tread design characteristics*?<<<; No, NHTSA has not issued any such specifications. For all of our tir regulations, except the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS, 49 CFR S575.104), a tire is subject to the same requirements, regardless of its specific design characteristics. That is *all* new passenger car tires must satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 109 and be labeled in accordance with Part 574. This is true whether the new passenger car tire is a mud and snow tire, all-season tire, high speed-rated tire, temporary spare tire, or a normal highway service tire.; Accordingly, the agency has had no reason to define particula characteristics of a mud and snow tire for any regulation or standard besides the UTQGS, and the agency has not done so.; The UTQGS apply to all new passenger car tires with a few exceptions One of the groups of new passenger car tires not subject to the UTQGS is 'deep tread, winter-type snow tires.' When all-season tires were first introduced, several manufacturers asked whether all-season tires qualified as deep tread, winter-type snow tires. The agency responded to these questions with an explanation of what the UTQGS means by the phrase 'deep tread, winter-type snow tires.' This discussion appeared at 44 FR 30140, May 24, 1979, and reads as follows:; >>>'While all-weather tires may share some characteristics of sno tires under industry categorization systems, they are not limited to acceptable use to winter periods by virtue of their construction. The qualifying language 'deep tread, winter-type' indicates NHTSA's intention to except only a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger automobiles inadvisable. Since all-weather tires are designed with a tread depth which permits and is in fact intended for safe operation throughout the year, they do not qualify as 'deep tread, winter-type snow tires' for purposes of the applicability of the UTQG Standards.'<<<; Hence, for the purposes of the UTQGS, it is the manufacturer who must in the first instance, determine if a passenger car tire design incorporates a tread depth and design such that the tire qualifies as a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. A manufacturer making such a determination is not required to label the tire as a mud and snow tire, instead, the manufacturer simply is not required to comply with the UTQGS requirements for that tire design. In the course of its compliance enforcement for tires, the agency may reexamine the question of whether a particular tire design is a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. This is the only context in which the agency has ever addressed the issue of what constitutes a snow tire.; >>>2.*Can a tire have a paper label affixed stating that it is a mu and snow tire even if the symbol for a mud and snow tire is not molded into the tire sidewall*?<<<; NHTSA has no regulatory requirements specifying how or that a tire b labeled as a mud and snow tire. Therefore, your company may label mud and snow tires in any manner you wish without violating any NHTSA requirements.; It is possible that the Federal Trade Commission has established som requirements for the marketing of a tire as a mud and snow tire, under its authority to prevent 'unfair and deceptive' marketing practices. To learn if the Federal Trade Commission has any requirements, you may write to: Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580.; You may also wish to learn if there are any voluntary industr standards for the labeling of mud and snow tires. The American standardization organization for tires is the Tire and Rim Association, Inc. You may contact them at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. naturally, the decision of whether to follow those voluntary industry standards is left to the discretion of your company.; >>>3.*Can a tire be labeled as an all-season tire even if no markin showing it is a mud and snow tire or all-season tire is molded into the sidewall?*<<<; The answer to this question is identical to the answer given above fo question number 2. NHTSA has no regulations specifying that an all-season tire must be so labeled on the sidewall, so your company will not violate any NHTSA requirements by marketing the tire as an all-season tire without molding information into the sidewall. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission to learn if they have any requirements and the Tire & Rim Association to learn if there is any voluntary industry practice in this area.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1303OpenMiss Adaline R. Crocker, 1547 Ala Wai Blvd. #329, Honolulu, HI 96815; Miss Adaline R. Crocker 1547 Ala Wai Blvd. #329 Honolulu HI 96815; Dear Miss Crocker: This is in response to your question about possible violations of th Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act by an owner who sells his vehicles without knowing for sure if the odometer reading is accurate.; The Act and implementing regulation require you to state the recorde mileage on the odometer, and tell your buyer if you know that the recorded mileage is wrong. It appears from your letter that you have some reason to suspect the validity of the present reading. If on the basis of the facts available to you, you conclude that the reading is probably wrong, you should caution your buyer by indicating on the odometer mileage statement that the true mileage is unknown.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5439OpenMr. John Collins Senior Vice President, Government Affairs American Trucking Associations 2200 Mill Road Alexandria, VA 22314-4677; Mr. John Collins Senior Vice President Government Affairs American Trucking Associations 2200 Mill Road Alexandria VA 22314-4677; Dear Mr. Collins: This responds to your letter about a recent amendmen to the supply line retention requirements in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You requested an interpretation of the test procedure set forth in S5.8.2. That provision states, in relevant part that, A trailer shall meet the above supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pressurized to 100 psi, and the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi. Specifically, you believe that this provision means that (1) the test rig remains connected to the shop air, as shown in Figure 1, for the duration of the test, (2) the shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test, and (3) the pressure in the test rig's 1000 cubic inch reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test. I will address each of these suggested interpretations below. The basic issue raised by your questions is whether the supply line retention test is conducted with air flowing from the test rig (simulating the flow of air from a tractor), or with the supply of air cut off. It is our opinion that this test is conducted with the air flowing from the test rig. As you suggested in your letter, this result is implied by the language of S5.8.2. That section states that a trailer must meet the supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig, and with the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi. There would be no reason to set the regulator at 100 psi if air was not flowing from the test rig. We therefore agree with the first of your three suggested interpretations, that the test rig remains connected to the shop air for the duration of the test. We similarly agree with the second of your suggested interpretations, that the shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test. S5.8.2 does not specify that this valve be shut, and such shutting would be inconsistent with conducting the test with air flowing from the test rig. Your third suggested interpretation is that the pressure in the test rig's 1000 cubic inch reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test. We note that no special efforts are made to maintain this pressure at 100 psi. As indicated above, S5.8.2 specifies that the reservoir of the test rig is initially set at 100 psi, the pressure could vary during the test. However, as indicated above, 100 psi air pressure would continue to flow through the regulator during the test in the direction of the reservoir. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2606OpenMr. Edward J. Flesch, 2729 Vandenberg Avenue, Omaha, NE 68123; Mr. Edward J. Flesch 2729 Vandenberg Avenue Omaha NE 68123; Dear Mr. Flesch: This responds to your letter to the President dated February 8, 1977 which has been forwarded to our office by the Department of Justice. You are concerned whether there is a Federal law that prohibits the replacement of a single part of a seat belt assembly, as opposed to replacement of the entire assembly.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issue safety standards and regulations that govern the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies to be used both as original equipment in passenger cars and as aftermarket replacement equipment. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 209. There is no requirement in Standard No. 209, however, that would preclude the replacement or repair of a broken component in a seat belt assembly.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, *et*. *seq*.), provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in 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. Therefore, none of the persons mentioned could replace or repair a component of a seat belt assembly if that action would destroy the compliance of the assembly with Standard No. 209. Violation of this section of the Safety Act could result in the imposition of civil penalties up to $1,000.; Perhaps it is General Motors' policy not to replace or repair component of a seat belt assembly because of the possibility that the assembly might, thereby, be 'rendered inoperative.' From the point of view of General Motors, replacement of the entire assembly with a new, certified, assembly might be a safer practice. General Motors is certainly entitled to operate under such a policy. The policy is not, however, a Federal law.; Sincerely, Joseph J Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3914OpenMr. Carl R. Ball, Chief of Police, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, 4100 South Kedzie Avenue, Chicago, IL 60632; Mr. Carl R. Ball Chief of Police The Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company 4100 South Kedzie Avenue Chicago IL 60632; Dear Mr. Ball: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1985, asking whethe Safety Standards Nos. 212 and 219 prohibit the mounting of police spotlights on the door post of a vehicle. None of our standards prohibit such a mounting, however, the mounting must be done in a manner that the vehicle still complies with our safety standards. The following discussion more fully explains the effect of the agency's standards on spotlight mounting.; If the spotlight is mounted on a new vehicle before its first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person installing the spotlight would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since the A pillar of the vehicle would have to be altered to install the spotlight, the installation could affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 212, *Windshield Retention*, as well as Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*. If the spotlight is mounted away from the windshield, it does not appear that the installation would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard 219, *Windshield Zone Intrusion*.; If the alteration is made after a vehicle's first purchase, the section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair shop may knowingly render inoperative an element of design installed in compliance with our safety standards. Thus, if any of those persons install a spotlight they must ensure that they have not rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance with our standards.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners However, the agency urges owners that alter their vehicles not to defeat safety equipment installed in the vehicle.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1929OpenMr. Alfred H. Faull, President, Tiger Tanks, Division of Faull Enterprises, Inc., 20795 Main Street, Carson, CA 90745; Mr. Alfred H. Faull President Tiger Tanks Division of Faull Enterprises Inc. 20795 Main Street Carson CA 90745; Dear Mr. Faull: Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1975, concerning the manufactur and installation of replacement tanks for Dodge, Ford, and Chevrolet vans.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated n motor vehicle safety standard relating to replacement fuel tanks. There is, however, a safety standard which imposes performance requirements upon motor vehicles with regard to their fuel systems (Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*). Thus, if installation of your replacement tank is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the tank or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of S108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563). That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) prohibi any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle of item or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (S108(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, even if installation of your replacement tank occurred after the first purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle's compliance with the fuel system integrity standard would still be mandatory where one of the above named persons performed the installation. If the replacement tank caused the fuel system to no longer comply with the safety standard, the installer would have rendered inoperative a system installed in compliance with Standard 301.; The Traffic Safety Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation t make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. Therefore, even though replacement fuel tanks are not the subject of a standard, they still must be designed for safety.; In addition, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulates interstat carriers, including fuel systems for operational and auxiliary equipment. These regulations might be of interest to you and are enclosed. Your attention is directed to the section concerning fuel systems, pages 51 through 54.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0791OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Project Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Project Engineer Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letters of July 5 and July 18, 1972. In you letter of July 5, you ask whether manufacturers of school buses may delete any reference to seating capacity in establishing the gross vehicle weight rating in complying with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).; The definition of gross vehicle weight rating, for school buses requires the value used to include 120 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. 'Designated seating capacity' is defined to mean 'the number of designated seating positions provided,' while 'designated seating position' means 'any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats' (49 CFR 571.3). While the definition refers to the manufacturer's intent as the determinant of the number of designated seating positions, the actual test, as in other legal determinations of 'intent,' is how that intent is objectively manifested. Because it is obvious that school buses, due to their anticipated use, must have positions where children will sit while riding, a school bus manufacturer could not successfully argue that his vehicles do not have designated seating positions. Accordingly, his failure to include the designated seating capacity in his computation of GVWR would be a violation of the Certification regulations and of section 108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(3)). Violations of that section are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $400,000, and other sanctions (sections 109 & 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).; Your letter of July 18 asks whether a vehicle will be in complianc with the Certification regulations if the axle load exceeds the front or rear GAWR, but the total load does not exceed the GVWR. Because the regulations do not specify minimum criteria for GAWR, a vehicle whose actual weight on an axle system exceeds the stated value will not fail to conform to the Certification requirements. It may, however, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, depending on the actual circumstances involved, and if so, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying owners pursuant to section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402).; We will consider the possibility of establishing minimum requirement for GAWR (as we have for GVWR), in light of the facts you have presented.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.