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: aiam4690OpenMr. Diana L.D. Regan 43 Rockwood Drive Larchmont, NY 10538; Mr. Diana L.D. Regan 43 Rockwood Drive Larchmont NY 10538; "Dear Ms. Regan: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretatio of how our laws and regulations would apply to a product you have invented. Your product is designed to alter the alignment of the webbing of a lap/shoulder safety belt to improve the fit of the safety belt on children weighing between 40 and 85 pounds. According to your letter, the product is designed to be firmly attached to the webbing of both the lap belt portion and the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt. When the product is attached, it pulls down the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt so that it will pass across the child's chest and shoulder, instead of the neck. You asked whether this product would be considered a safety belt or a child restraint system for the purposes of our safety standards. The answer is that your product would not be considered to be either for the purposes of our standards, as explained below. Section S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209) defines a 'seat belt assembly' as 'any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle.' (Emphasis added). Your device is not itself designed to secure a child in a motor vehicle. Instead, your device is designed to alter the alignment of the existing safety belt in the vehicle, so that the existing safety belt system in the vehicle can be adjusted to better fit a child occupant. Therefore, your device would not be a 'seat belt assembly' within the meaning of Standard No. 209. Section S4 of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213) defines a 'child restraint system' as 'any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.' (Emphasis added). As explained above, your device is not a Type I or Type II seat belt. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, your device is not itself designed to restrain, seat, or position children. The restraining of the child would be accomplished entirely by the safety belt system already installed in the vehicle. Your device would simply alter the alignment of that safety belt system for the child. Therefore, your device would not be a 'child restraint system' within the meaning of Standard No. 213. You also asked for information regarding your responsibilities as the manufacturer and seller of this product. I have enclosed an information sheet we have prepared for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed copies of a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick A. Boutin and a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These two letters describe how products intended to enhance the comfort of safety belt wearers could be affected by our laws and regulations. The information sheet explains how to obtain copies of our laws and regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1168OpenMr. Bill Howard, Ratliff Motor Company, Post Office Box 400, Live Oak, FL 32060; Mr. Bill Howard Ratliff Motor Company Post Office Box 400 Live Oak FL 32060; Dear Mr. Howard: This is in response to your request for odometer disclosure forms. The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires disclosur of odometer readings, but the regulations issued to implement the Act do not require you to use a federally printed form to make the disclosure, and the government therefore does not provide such forms. The regulation (Part 580) specifies an adequate format and is enclosed for your information. This format will satisfy federal disclosure requirements throughout the fifty states and permits use of identical forms in all jurisdictions.; The use of a commercially- prepared form is satisfactory if it contain the required information. The document does not have to be separate from other transfer documents, and in the case of a transferor using a bill of sale or other transfer document, the statement may be included within the form. The statement must be executed prior to the transfer. Either the original or a carbon copy may be given to the transferee.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3505OpenDr. John R. Holsten, Director of Regulatory Affairs, M. Lowenstein Corporation, Technical Center, P.O. Box 2000, Lyman, SC 29365; Dr. John R. Holsten Director of Regulatory Affairs M. Lowenstein Corporation Technical Center P.O. Box 2000 Lyman SC 29365; Dear Dr. Holsten: This responds to your November 25, 1981, letter asking whethe children's car seats must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. The answer to your question is yes. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, specifically states that each material used in a child restraint system shall comply with the flammability requirements of Standard NO. 302.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1538OpenMr. William E. Linch, President, Linch-Jones, Inc., 131 Honeysuckle Lane, Smyrna, GA 30080; Mr. William E. Linch President Linch-Jones Inc. 131 Honeysuckle Lane Smyrna GA 30080; Dear Mr. Linch: This is in response to your letter of June 4, 1974, inquiring as to th validity of your odometer disclosure statement.; The odometer disclosure requirements prescribed at 49 CFR Part 58 specify that a seller must provide his purchaser with a written statement that declares the mileage indicated on the vehicle odometer at the time of the transfer. If that mileage is known by the transferor to differ from the number of miles actually traveled by the vehicle, this must also be included in the disclosure statement in the form specified in the regulations.; The statement suggested in your letter inserts the word 'may' into th aspect of the disclosure statement pertaining to mileage registration that is inaccurate for reasons other than calibration error. Although the statement as you have phrased it is not a direct violation of the Act, it is in conflict with the intended purpose of the disclosure statement to inform the purchaser of a vehicle as to the accuracy of the mileage registered on the odometer. In order to accomplish this purpose it has been determined that where the seller of a vehicle has good reason to believe that the mileage registered on the odometer differs from the vehicle's true mileage he must so inform the buyer in positive terms. This insures a conscious effort to determine the accuracy of the vehicle's odometer will bemade (sic) by the seller and prevents him from transferring ownership of a vehicle in a manner that could mislead the buyer.; In the situation where the transferor is uncertain whether the mileag is accurate, he must determine whether there is a credible basis for an assumption that the mileage is either correct or incorrect. If he has good reason to believe that the mileage is inaccurate, even though he is not positive, he should check the statement saying that the mileage indicated on the odometer is incorrect.; We urge you to phrase your odometer disclosure statement in the manne prescribed in the odometer regulation.; The full odometer statement enclosed in your letter appears correct However, I should point out that the transferor's signature and the date of the statement must appear on the form in order for it to be complete.; For your information I am enclosing a copy of the odometer regulatio which includes the odometer disclosure statement form.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5202OpenMs. Margaret W. Mouzon Mouzon Information Services 2687 Apple Way Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1801; Ms. Margaret W. Mouzon Mouzon Information Services 2687 Apple Way Ann Arbor MI 48104-1801; "Dear Ms. Mouzon: This responds to your letter of June 4, 1993 requesting information on dealer responsibility for occupant restraint system installation. You asked if a dealer is required to replace a deployed air bag prior to selling a used car. You also asked if the air bag must be operable when a dealer sells a showroom or demonstration model of an 'otherwise new' car. With regard to your first question, I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so. With regard to your second question, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ...' (Emphasis added) Section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) 'shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Because of these statutory requirements, a dealership cannot legally sell or offer for sale a new car equipped with an air bag installed to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, if the air bag is not functional. A showroom or demonstration model would be considered a new car, as it has never been sold for purposes other than resale. I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the two letters discussed above. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4940OpenMr. Edward M. Klisz Chief, Light Tactical Vehicle Branch Department of the Army United States Army Tank-Automotive Command Warren, MI 48397-5000; Mr. Edward M. Klisz Chief Light Tactical Vehicle Branch Department of the Army United States Army Tank-Automotive Command Warren MI 48397-5000; "Dear Mr. Klisz: This responds to your letter regarding foreign-mad tires that the Army procured in Southwest Asia. You indicated that your office is trying to ascertain the suitability of these tires, not all of which are marked with a 'DOT' certification, for Army use. You enclosed a list of the tires and, for those marked with 'DOT', requested this office to 'determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to our records.' You also requested that we verify your understanding of the general requirements applicable to foreign tire manufacturers, and the process by which such manufacturers certify their tires as complying with our standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your questions. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). Section 103 of the Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle safety standard as, 'a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria.' See 102(2) . The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States, regardless of whether the product is manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, must comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114... In the case of tires, this provision of the Safety Act means that a foreign tire manufacturer would be prohibited from exporting its new tires to the United States unless the manufacturer certified that the tire complies with the applicable U.S. safety standards. All new tires for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), and all new tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements that must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States. The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. In place of this sort of process, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process for tires sold in the United States. Under this self-certification process, the tire manufacturer, not any governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with the applicable safety standards. Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base this certification on a specified number of tests or any tests at all, a manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is up to the individual tire manufacturer to determine in the first instance what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters 'DOT' on one sidewall of each certified tire. As stated above, NHTSA does not do any pre-sale approval or testing of tires. Instead, the agency routinely tests certified tires that have been sold to determine whether the tires do in fact comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, the agency purchases new tires and tests them according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standard, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance. Turning now to your particular situation, it is not clear how helpful these requirements will be in assessing the current safety performance of the tires procured during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In the case of such tires that are marked with 'DOT', that mark means the tire manufacturer certified that, when new, the tires complied with all applicable safety standards. However, the presence of a 'DOT' symbol on a used tire does not mean that the tire in its current condition would still comply with the new tire standards. There are many instances in which used tires would be unlikely to comply with the new tire standards, simply because of normal environmental factors and without any fault in the construction of the tire. Such environmental factors include, but are not limited to, a hole larger than a nail suffered by the tire while in service, damage to the inner liner of the tire from being run flat, damage to the bead area of the tire during mounting, damage to the sidewall from running against rocks, curbs, and so forth. In each of these instances, the vehicles on which the tires have been used and the conditions in which those vehicles have been operated would be at least as important in determining the tire's current performance capabilities as would the tire's capabilities when it was new. Further, the absence of a 'DOT' symbol on a tire purchased outside of the United States does not necessarily mean that the tire, when new, would not have complied with the applicable tire safety standard. On the contrary, it is possible that the new tire would have, if tested, actually been found to comply with those safety standards. The only definitive conclusion you may draw about a tire without a 'DOT' symbol that is purchased outside the United States is that the tire's manufacturer, for whatever reason, did not certify that tire's compliance. It could be that the tire did not comply when new, or it could be that the manufacturer did not produce the tire for importation and eventual sale in the U.S., and therfore felt no need to certify the tire. You noted in your letter that this agency has established a requirement in 49 CFR Part 574 that all tire manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, must obtain an identification mark from NHTSA and label each of their tires with that mark. Before NHTSA will assign an identification mark to a tire manufacturer headquartered outside the United States, the manufacturer must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. However, the designated agent of the manufacturer only acts as the agent for service of process, the manufacturer's designated agent is not responsible for the certification of the tires. Only the manufacturer certifies that the tires comply with all applicable standards and, as explained above, that certification must be made (and indicated with a DOT symbol) before the tire would be allowed to enter the United States. Finally, you requested in your letter that we review the list of tires you submitted and verify the accuracy of the 'DOT' marks shown. I believe this request was based upon a misunderstanding of NHTSA's role in the certification process. Since manufacturers are not required to deliver their tires to NHTSA for testing, or register their products with the agency, the agency has no way to 'verify the accuracy' of the DOT codes you submitted. To repeat, the DOT code molded into the sidewall of a tire represents the manufacturer's self-certification that the tire complies with applicable standards, the DOT code is not a statement or certification by NHTSA that the tire complies with our standards. NHTSA would only have information about the 'accuracy' of the DOT codes (i.e., whether the tires so marked actually meet the standards), in the event that the agency had conducted one of its random enforcement checks on a new tire like the one in question. Accordingly, we reviewed our enforcement records to determine whether NHTSA performed compliance tests on new versions of any of those tires. Having searched the agency's data base for the brands, types, and years of the listed tires, we found that the agency did not conduct compliance tests on any of these tires. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam5652OpenMs. Carrie Stabile 85 Sedge Road Valley Cottage, NY 10989; Ms. Carrie Stabile 85 Sedge Road Valley Cottage NY 10989; "Dear Ms. Stabile: This responds to the letter from you and you brother James Stabile regarding a 'Vehicle Illuminated Warning System' that you wish to market for school buses. You have asked for its 'review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards.' While your cover letter did not describe your Warning System in detail, it appears from your enclosed sketches that the system consists of panels centered in the front and rear headers through which the bus operator may provide certain illuminated messages to other drivers. These are 'School Bus' (in green), 'Slow Down' (yellow), and 'Do Not Pass' (red). You indicated to Dee Fujita of my staff that you might design the system such that the messages are automatically activated in certain circumstances. You are considering designing the system such that the 'School Bus' message would be illuminated while the vehicle is moving, 'Slow Down' would show when the school bus driver brakes, and 'Do Not Pass' when the vehicle's red lamps are activated. The message board is rimmed by small yellow and red lamps. The small yellow lamps would flash with the Slow Down message and the small red lamps would flash with 'Do Not Pass.' The short answer is there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that specifies requirements for your Warning System. However, as explained below, your system is regarded as supplementary lighting equipment, which subjects it to certain requirements. Further, the States have the authority to regulate the use of school buses, including how the vehicles are identified. Thus, States might have requirements affecting whether your message board is permitted on school buses operating in each jurisdiction. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information you provided. To answer your letter, we will first discuss the Federal lighting requirements that apply to your system generally. Following that, we will discuss specific issues about your system. General lighting requirements In addition to the lighting equipment required for ordinary buses, paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. All other required lighting equipment, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, must be steady-burning. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under the following conditions. If your Warning System is to be installed by a manufacturer or dealer before the first sale and delivery of the school bus, the Warning System must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 including the signal system mentioned above, that is to say, it cannot replace required equipment, or modify its performance or detract from the 'message' that the required lamp is intended to impart. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification to the vehicle that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer at that time. A dealer installing the Warning System is regarded as an alterer, and required to affix its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to conform, at that point, the dealer installing the system would make its determination that impairment did not exist. NHTSA will not contest a determination unless it is clearly erroneous. If the Warning System is to be installed on school buses already delivered and in use, there is no Federal requirement that the person adding the equipment certify the vehicle. However, there is a similar obligation to ensure continuing compliance. If the person is a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, under a statute that we administer, that person must ensure that installation and use of the Warning System will not 'make inoperative' any of the required lighting equipment including the school bus signal lamp system. We regard 'making inoperative' in this context the equivalent of 'impairment' discussed in the previous paragraph. The statute permits an exception to the above: modifications of any nature made by the school bus owner itself in its own repair facilities are not prohibited by our statute. Specific issues concerning 'impairment' As noted above, the Warning System may be installed on new school buses if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. 'Impairment' can occur in different ways. One way could be by interfering with the performance of required lamp systems, including the required school bus warning lamps or the brake warning lamps. The following are examples of interference: Your system could not replace the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108. It must not cause the yellow-red warning system to flash sequentially, rather than alternately as required by the standard. The Warning System must not cause the flashing of lights that must be steady-burning (e.g., the stop and taillamps, which, under Standard No. 108, must be steady-burning at all times). Your system appears to have a deceleration warning system operating through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones. The lamps for the system must be steady-burning, and cannot flash. For the same reason, the little lights around the message board must not flash with the 'Slow Down' and 'Do Not Pass' messages. 'Impairment' can also occur when an operator is distracted from the driving task, even momentarily. For this reason, we have discouraged the concept of message boards over the years. However, this is the first time we have been asked to consider it in the context of school bus lighting. We find that there are considerations that are relevant to the operation of school buses, that do not apply to other vehicles. A driver behind a school bus, or approaching from an opposite direction, is more likely to be cautious because of the awareness of the importance of child safety and the penalties involved in infractions of traffic laws relating to school buses. There is less possibility of impairment existing with advisories relating directly to the actions other drivers are presumably anticipating when in the vicinity of a school bus. With this in mind, we believe your message board, which sends only three messages--an identification of the vehicle as 'School Bus' and advisories of 'Slow Down' and 'Do Not Pass'--generally would be permitted under Standard No. 108. There are a number of specific features about your message board, however, that could distract a driver, and thus constitute 'impairment.' These are as follows: Your sketch indicates that the lamps used for the 'School Bus' message would be green. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of required exterior lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory lighting equipment. Another feature that could distract a driver is the message 'Slow Down,' which automatically illuminates anytime the school bus driver brakes. We believe this could be confusing to drivers in other lanes and oncoming vehicles, since it may lead some drivers to believe the school bus is preparing to stop, when the bus is not. A less confusing feature would be if the Slow Down message is illuminated only when the amber school bus warning lamps flash, and not each time the driver brakes. State requirements Because your Warning System is not a Federally required item of lighting equipment, its use is also subject to regulation under the laws of the States in which it may be used. Each State regulates the use of school buses in its highway safety programs, setting requirements for pupil transportation safety, including the identification of school buses. NHTSA has issued a number of Highway Safety Program Guidelines for States to use in establishing their highway safety programs. Guideline No. 17, 'Pupil Transportation Safety' (copy enclosed) has recommendation that might affect your message board, if the State has decided to adopt the recommendation as State law. The Guideline recommends that school buses should, among other things, Be identified with the words 'School Bus' printed in letters not less than eight inches high, located between the warning signal lamps as high as possible without impairing visibility of the lettering from both front and rear, and have no other lettering on the front or rear of the vehicle, except as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), 49 CFR part 571. (Section IV.B.1.a.) Depending on the requirements a State has adopted for identifying school buses, the State might limit how your message board displays the words 'School Bus,' and the 'Slow Down' and 'Do Not Pass' messages. If you have questions about State law requirements, we suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. We appreciate the interest that you and your brother have shown in improving the safety of school children. If you have any further questions, you may call Dee Fujita (202-366-2992) or Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2197OpenMr. Danny Lanzdorf, Supervising Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 2566, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. Danny Lanzdorf Supervising Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Lanzdorf: This responds to Oshkosh Truck Company's January 22, 1976, questio whether a vehicle complies with S5.1.1 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake System*, when it is moving must also comply with the requirement when it is stationary. Section S5.1.1 specifies an air compressor of sufficient capacity to increase air pressure in the supply and service reservoirs from 85 p.s.i. to 100 p.s.i. within a limited period when the engine is operating at the vehicle manufacturer's maximum recommended rpm.; Section S5.1.1 does not specify whether or not the vehicle is moving a a test condition for the requirement. In view of the absence of this test condition, the NHTSA will resolve differences in this test condition in the manufacturer's favor if they affect the outcome of testing.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0450OpenMr. Paul H. Lawrenz, American Motors Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. Paul H. Lawrenz American Motors Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Lawrenz: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1971, to Mr. Lewis C Owen of this Office concerning an interpretation on the visibility requirements in FMVSS No. 108 as referenced in FMVSS No. 215.; Paragraph S4.3.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that the lamps be visibl at the extreme photometric test angles or as otherwise specified in the applicable SAE Standards. This paragraph does not require photometric tests at these extreme angles.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4413OpenD. F. Landers, PSI Mobile Products Inc., 25 Eldredge, P.O. Box 1183, Mt. Clemens, MI 48043; D. F. Landers PSI Mobile Products Inc. 25 Eldredge P.O. Box 1183 Mt. Clemens MI 48043; Dear Mr. Landers: This is in response to your letter requesting confirmation of a Jul 11, 1983 determination by this agency that your special tow tractor vehicle is exempt from Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You indicate in your letter that you now have three sizes of tow tractors and that your market may expand to include commercial airline use as well as the Department of Defense.; Based on the information you have provided us, we confirm our previou determinations that baggage tow tractors are not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency has consistently interpreted the definition of motor vehicle as excluding vehicles such as airport runway vehicles that are intended and sold solely for off-road use and are not equipped for highway use. Further, we note that section 571.7(c) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that; >>>No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufacture for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.<<<; Your vehicles might become subject to the Federal motor vehicle safet standards if there is a material change in the facts regarding the intended or actual use, design or sale of your vehicles. Please remember that compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards is the obligation of each manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. We appreciate your continuing efforts at classifying correctly your vehicles.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.