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: aiam0680OpenMr. 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 letter of April 3, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to particular motor vehicle components, particularly components of motor homes. The components about which you inquire are listed below and are followed in each case by our response:; >>>1. Radio/Stereo speaker grills: When these components ar incorporated into components that are listed in S4.1, such as compartment shelves and trim panels, they must meet the requirements of S4.3. If they are not incorporated into such components they need not meet the requirements.; 2. Lens-dome light: Under the present wording of the standard, thes components are not covered unless they are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.; 3. Decals: Decals are not listed in S4.1 and are not subject to th standard. However, when decals are part of a listed component they must be tested as part of that component.; 4. Pillows - Loose decorator type used in motor home: Pillows that ar not seat cushions are not included in S4.1 and are not subject to the requirements of the standard.; 5. Towels - Used in bathroom of motor home: These items, similarly t decorator-type pillows, are not listed in S4.1 and are not subject to the standard.; 6. Shower Curtain - Used in bathroom of motor home: The NHTSA consider the bathroom of a motor home to be an occupant compartment under S4.1 of the standard, and a shower curtain to be a curtain under that section. Consequently, a shower curtain is subject to the requirements of the standard.; 7. Bath Mat - Used in bathroom of motor home: A bath mat would be floor covering under S4.1 and would be subject to the standard.; 8. Drapery hardware is not subject to the standard. 9. Toilet and Toilet Seat: We would consider toilets and toilet seat to fall within the meaning of seat backs and seat cushions in S4.1, and consequently subject to the standard.; 10. Towel Ring - Used in bathroom: Towel rings are not listed in S4. of the standard and are not subject to its requirements.; 11. ABS plastic plumbing - Used in bathroom: Plumbing is not listed i S4.1 of the standard and is not subject to its requirements.; 12. Face plate covers - for receptacles and switches: If these plate are incorporated into or are part of components enumerated in S4.1, such as trim panels, they are subject to the requirements of the standard.; 13. Bathroom interior of motor home: As indicated above, the bathroo of a motor home is considered to be an occupant compartment.<<<; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5482OpenMr. Allan E. McIntyre Engineering and Product Development Sprague Devices, Inc. P. O. Box 389 Michigan City, IN 46360; Mr. Allan E. McIntyre Engineering and Product Development Sprague Devices Inc. P. O. Box 389 Michigan City IN 46360; "Dear Mr. McIntyre: This responds to your letter to the Federal Highwa Administration asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield washing and wiping systems. Since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) , including Standard No. 104, your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in this response. Your letter concerns a standard issued by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and referenced in S4.2.2 of Standard No. 104. S4.2.2 specifies that each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus shall have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965 (as modified). You explain that you chair an SAE subcommittee that developed a new Recommended Practice J1944, 'Truck & Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System,' that you believe is more suitable for testing 'commercial vehicles.' You ask whether NHTSA would 'allow for documentation of compliance to FMVSS 104 through use of the new J1944 recommended practice or is it necessary to evaluate per J942 as specifically written.' Your question raises two issues, both of which concern how a test procedure specified in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards may vary in practice from that described in the standard. The first issue is whether a vehicle manufacturer is obligated to test its vehicle only in the manner specified in Standard No. 104, i.e., only by using J942 and not the newly developed J1944. The answer is no. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. However, NHTSA does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of Standard No. 104, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA. If NHTSA's compliance test of Standard No. 104 were to show an apparent noncompliance of a vehicle with the standard, the vehicle manufacturer would be asked to show the basis for its certification that its vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer would be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised 'reasonable care' in the manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance. We cannot tell you at this time whether a manufacturer's use of J1944 to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 104 would constitute 'reasonable care.' NHTSA is unable to judge what efforts constitute 'reasonable care' outside of the course of a specific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes 'reasonable care' in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. The second issue raised by your question is whether NHTSA is required to use J942 in the agency's compliance tests. The answer is yes, as long as J942 is incorporated into the test procedure of Standard No. 104. When conducting its compliance testing, NHTSA must precisely follow each of the specified test procedures and conditions set forth in the safety standard. If a different procedure or condition is desirable, the agency must undertake rulemaking to amend the standard to incorporate the desired change. You ask in your letter about the procedure for amending Standard No. 104. NHTSA has a process whereby you can petition for a change to the FMVSS, including Standard No. 104. The petitioning procedure is outlined at 49 CFR part 552 Petitions for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders (copy enclosed). Very briefly, section 552.4 states that a petition should be addressed and submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Each petition must be written in English, have a heading that includes the word 'Petition,' set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change to the regulation is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the revised regulation which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner. After receiving the petition, NHTSA conducts a technical review to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the requested regulatory change will be issued at the end of the appropriate rulemaking proceeding. You state that J1944, the newer SAE standard, is overall a 'tougher' document than J942. You should be aware that NHTSA cannot automatically incorporate a 'tougher' version of an incorporated document into the FMVSS. Before NHTSA incorporates an upgraded standard, NHTSA examines whether there is a safety need for the newer requirements. In its examination, NHTSA considers data from all sources, including the petitioner. If you decide to submit a petition, you ought to explain the safety need for the new requirements and provide an analysis of the increased costs likely to be associated with the new requirements. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions. please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2347OpenMr. Charles R. Cheatham, General Partner, Moto Villa, Ltd. 1635 Rogers Avenue, San Jose, California 95116; Mr. Charles R. Cheatham General Partner Moto Villa Ltd. 1635 Rogers Avenue San Jose California 95116; Dear Mr. Cheatham: #This is in response to your May 27, 1976, lette concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*, to brake hose assemblies that you import and contemplate importing for use in motorcycles. #I understand that you presently import brake hose assemblies for use only on off-road, moto- cross motorcycles. These assemblies are not 'motor vehicle equipment' as that term is defined in Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C 1391(4)) (the Act). Therefore, they are not subject to any requirements of Standards No. 106-74. #The other assemblies that you contemplate importing for onroad use, however, are subject to the standard. Your letter indicates that the manufacturer of the assemblies is prepared to affix bands to them, certifying that they meet all the performance requirements of the standard, but that he is not yet able to obtain hose and end fittings that are labeled pursuant to S5.2. The relief that you have requested, however, is found in S12, which Reads as follows: #>>>*Brake hose assemblies manufactured from March 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976*. Notwithstanding any other provision of this standard, a brake hose assembly manufactured during the period from March 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976, shall meet each requirement of this standard, except that the assembly may be constructed of brake hose which meets every requirement of the standard for hose other than the hose labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2 and S9.1, and the assembly may be constructed of end fittings which meet every requirement of the standard for end fittings other than the end fitting labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1.<<<#You should note that the critical date for application of this section is the assembly's date of manufacture, rather than that of importation. #Please note further that Section 110(e) of the Act requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United Sates to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent upon whom services of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made. #You state in your letter that the brake system products that you plan to import are manufactured by Gri Me Ca S.P.A In order to comply with section 110 of the Act it is necessary that Gri Me Ca designate an agent in the United States for service of process. There is no requirement in the Act that a motor vehicle Importer, located in the United States, designate an agent. #In order for the designation to be effective, it is necessary that the procedural requirements of 49 CFR 551.45 (enclosed) be fulfilled by the submission of the following information: #1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made, #2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer of the brake system components, #3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name, #4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer, #5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation, and #6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. #In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. #If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please do not hesitate to contact me. #Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5528OpenMr. James M. Hanson Chairman Engineering Committee Transportation Safety Equipment Institute 1325 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004; Mr. James M. Hanson Chairman Engineering Committee Transportation Safety Equipment Institute 1325 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington D.C. 20004; Dear Mr. Hanson: This replies to your letter of April 7, 1995, askin for an interpretation of the applicability requirements of paragraph S5.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The conspicuity requirements of S5.7 apply to 'each trailer of 80 or more inches overall width and with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs.' You state that the word 'and' in this paragraph 'could cause some trailer manufacturers to think that both conditions must be present before tape is applied on the trailer', and that some manufacturers could interpret this to avoid applying tape to trailers of the specified width but less than the specified GVWR and vice versa. We have no objection to a manufacturer's applying conspicuity treatment to trailers of any width or GVWR. However, as S5.7 clearly states, a manufacturer is not required to comply with the conspicuity requirements unless its trailer is at least 80 inches in overall width and has a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. If you desire further clarification on this matter, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3805OpenMr. Rich van Drie, Junior International Trade Advisor, The Netherlands Chamber of Commerce in the United States, 303 E. Wacker, Suite 412, Chicago, IL 60601; Mr. Rich van Drie Junior International Trade Advisor The Netherlands Chamber of Commerce in the United States 303 E. Wacker Suite 412 Chicago IL 60601; Dear Mr. van Drie: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking abou the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, *Flammability of interior materials* (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, you wish to know whether car mats and car seat covers sold not to car manufacturers, but to retailers and wholesalers must comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. The mats and seat covers are required to comply with those requirements only if they will be installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop. However, there are possible product liability consequences which could result if the mats and seat covers do not meet the flammability requirements and burn in a vehicle under circumstances where complying mats and seat covers would not have burned.; Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 specifies the components of a vehicl which must meet the flammability requirements of section S4.3. Included among the components listed in S4.1 are seat cushions, seat backs, head restraints, and floor coverings. These components would cover items like seat covers and floor mats. Hence, any seat covers or mats installed as original equipment in new vehicles would have to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. However, section S3 of the standard specifies that the standard applies to new vehicles and not to individual components. The effect of section S3 is that the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 are not directly applicable to the individual components like seat covers and floor mats that are sold as items of aftermarket equipment.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act, as amended (hereinafter 'the act', 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative... 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,...' This agency would interpret the installation of seat covers and car mats which do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 in a vehicle as rendering inoperative an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard (Standard No. 302), and therefore that installation would violate section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act specifies a potential civil penalty of $1000 for each violation of section 108.; While this language precludes manufacturers, dealers, distributors, an repair shops from installing seat covers or floor mats which do not comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 in a motor vehicle, it does not prohibit consumers from installing such items in their vehicles. Hence, if the manufacturer of noncomplying seat covers and floor mats intends that they only be installed by purchasers, no violation of Federal law or regulation would be involved.; However, if the seat covers or floor mats were to catch fire in situation where a seat cover or floor mat complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, there would be possible liability consequences under State and common law. You may wish to consult a private attorney for further advice in this regard.; Should you have any further questions or need further information i this area, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1838OpenMr. Michael P. Dixon, Route 2, Box 230, East Bend, NC 27018; Mr. Michael P. Dixon Route 2 Box 230 East Bend NC 27018; Dear Mr. Dixon: This is in response to your letter of February 12, 1975, requestin information concerning penalties available for failure to provide an odometer disclosure form upon sale of a vehicle.; As you know, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac requires that a written disclosure of a vehicle's correct mileage be provided by the seller to the purchaser at the time ownership of a vehicle is transferred. If the correct mileage is unknown, however, the Act requires a statement to that effect to be furnished in written form to the buyer. Violation of any of these requirements may subject the violator to civil liability where his actions were intended to defraud the purchaser. The Act makes available to the buyer a remedy in the amount of $1,500 or treble damages, whichever is greater. To obtain this remedy, section 409 of the Act provides that a private civil action be instituted in State or Federal Court.; If you have reason to believe that the odometer mileage was altered b someone other than the person who actually sold you the vehicle, you are not precluded from suing him. The Act does limit your recovery for a violation to your immediate transferor.; Where a vehicle has been rebuilt, the odometer mileage that is relevan for purposes of the Cost Savings Act, is the number of miles the *chassis* has traveled.; I have enclosed the materials you requested. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2717OpenMr. Paul Bennett, Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co., P.O. Box 1299, City of Industry, CA 91749; Mr. Paul Bennett Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 1299 City of Industry CA 91749; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company's October 6 1977, request for confirmation that the criteria for a bulk agricultural commodity trailer contained in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, can be met by a trailer that does not accommodate 'slip-in bottom dump' bulk harvest tubs as well as the 'deck type' harvest tubs used for tomatoe (sic) harvesting. From your description, it is assumed for the purposes of this interpretation that the trailers in question do conform to the criteria in the standard for maximum length and an air line and reservoir arrangement that minimize field damage.; The criterion of 'skeletal construction that accommodates harves containers' can be met by a design that accommodates mounting of deck type bulk harvest tubs by means of removable flooring, whether or not the removal of flooring also permits the mounting of 'slip-in bottom' bulk harvest tubs.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2202OpenMr. Byron A. Crampton, 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Byron A. Crampton 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of January 16, 1976, concerning cre cab doors for use on fire trucks, and the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components*.; You asked two questions in your letter: >>>(1) Is it the intent of FMVSS 206 to actually address door hardwar for doors that are adjacent to a walkway and not a seat?<<<; Standard No. 206 is applicable to the type of vehicle that yo described. Paragraph S4 of the standard states that 'component on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard'. The standard does not require the door to be directly adjacent to a seat. The door on your vehicle leads directly 'into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations,' so the standard is applicable. The presence of a walkway is irrevelant. (sic); >>>(2) If the standard does apply would not the installation of a untested conventional door structure in place of a folding door result in a safer vehicle?<<<; The NHTSA hopes that manufacturers would install conventional hinge door structures instead of folding doors on fire trucks, if the hinged doors would result in producing safer vehicles. The cost of testing the components of hinged doors for purposes of Standard 206 should not be determinative of whether the manufacturer will install hinged doors or folding doors on the fire trucks. Rather, the safety of the firemen who must use the trucks should be the determinative factor.; You should be aware that the tests in Standard No. 206 are laborator tests of the components, and do not involve the vehicle as a whole. These component systems are generally available from suppliers and are already warranted as being in compliance with Federal standards. Therefore, the cost of using conventional hinged doors might not be as prohibitive as you had supposed.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3940OpenMr. T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting, Engineering Control Department, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan; Mr. T. Chikada Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13 Nakameguro Meguro-ku Tokyo 153 Japan; Dear Mr. Chikada: This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials* (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, you asked whether center high-mounted stop lamps are required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. They are not required to do so.; Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 lists all the components in ne vehicles which are required to comply with the flammability requirements of the standard. The only item on the list in section S4.1 which might conceivably apply to center high-mounted stop lamps is 'any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' Assuming that your center high-mounted stop lamps are not designed to absorb energy on contact by an occupant, they would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302.; Although interior lights are not required to comply with th requirements of Standard No. 302, the agency has noted that almost all such lights now in production use fire-resistant plastic lenses and fixtures. Liability might be found under State and common law if the newly required center high-mounted stop lamps were to incorporate highly flammable plastic components, while the other interior lights incorporated fire-resistant plastic components.; Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further question in this area.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2652OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Manager Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your June 29, 1977, letter asking whether states ar preempted from regulating minimum seat spacing in school buses by Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, which regulates maximum seat spacing.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides in Sectio 103(d):; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Section 103(d) has the effect of preempting safety standards of th states and their political subdivisions unless they are identical to applicable Federal safety standards that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance. The second sentence of the section clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards.; The state regulations to which you refer in your letter would mandat minimum seat spacing in school buses. Although the requirement of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates maximum seat spacing and the state requirements regulate minimum spacing, the regulated aspect of performance is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that state standards applicable to all school buses concerning minimum seat spacing regulate the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard and would be preempted to the extent that they are not identical with the Federal standard. Section 103(d) would not prevent a state from requiring minimum seat spacing in buses procured for its own use as long as the maximum seat spacing of 20 inches is not violated.; The agency will try to disseminate this opinion to the states a broadly as possible. If you receive further state inquiries on this subject, you should refer them to this office.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., 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.