NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam2928OpenHonorable John M. Ashbrook, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable John M. Ashbrook House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Ashbrook: This responds to your December 19, 1978, letter asking whether it i required that school buses be built transport a minimum of 9 passengers.; As you suggest in your letter, there is no requirement that schoo buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers. The school bus safety regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require the compliance of those vehicles used to transport more than 10 children to or from school and related events. Vehicles with smaller passenger capacities may also transport children to and from school and need not comply with the school bus safety standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5441OpenMr. David Ori, Manager Bureau of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Control Division, Room 104 T&S Building Harrisburg, PA 17120; Mr. David Ori Manager Bureau of Motor Vehicles Vehicle Control Division Room 104 T&S Building Harrisburg PA 17120; "Dear Mr. Ori: This responds to your letter to Mr. James Gilkey of thi agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 to certain limousines. You were concerned about the permissibility of applying sun screening or window tinting to such vehicles during the original manufacturing process, and during the 'second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process.' By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under this authority, NHTSA issued Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials,' to specify performance requirements for various types of glazing and to specify the location in the vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. One provision in Standard No. 205 requires a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance in any glazing area requisite for driving visibility. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the vehicle's windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 205. As you correctly state, second stage manufacturers and alterers also have certification responsibilities. Specifically, a final stage manufacturer is responsible for certifying a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR 567.5. Accordingly, you are correct that a final stage manufacturer is required to certify that its finished product, including the glazing materials, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards. 49 CFR 567.7. However, this provision does not apply to the 'addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations, such as painting.' NHTSA views the addition of window tint film as a 'minor finishing operation.' Accordingly, a person adding such tint film would not be considered an alterer and therefore would not be subject to certification responsibilities. However, aside from certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112a, 'a person may not...sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce...any motor vehicle...unless the vehicle...complies with all applicable standards .' Thus, it would be a violation of the statute to sell a new vehicle whose windows which are requisite for driving visibility had been tinted to allow less than 70 percent light transmittance. Moreover, with respect to vehicles that are no longer new, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business 'may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.' Thus, a person in any of these categories may not apply tint film that would cause the light transmittance of the glazing requisite for driving visibility to be under 70 percent. You stated your belief that limousines that seat less than 10 persons may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product, since such products would violate Standard No. 205. We wish to clarify one aspect of your statement. Limousines that seat less than 10 persons are considered 'passenger cars' under NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA considers all windows in a passenger car to be requisite for driving visibility, accordingly, all windows in a passenger car/limousine must have a minimum 70 percent light transmittance. However, please note that tinting may be used in these vehicles, provided the tinted windows meet the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. You further asked whether a limousine that seats 10 or more persons is subject to the Federal window tinting requirements. A limousine with a capacity of more than 10 persons is considered a 'bus' under our regulations. There are specific requirements in Standard No. 205 that apply to buses (or bus/limousines). Under these requirements, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered to be requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying section S6.1(b) of Standard No. 111), and thus subject to the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in a bus/limousine, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Accordingly, Standard No. 205 does not prohibit the use of tinted glazing materials for bus/limousine windows to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2440OpenMr. Ray Hartman, Crown Coach Corp., 2428 East 12th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021; Mr. Ray Hartman Crown Coach Corp. 2428 East 12th Street Los Angeles CA 90021; Dear Mr. Hartman: This is in response to your letter of October 7, 1976, in which you as several questions concerning Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, and Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; Your first question asks whether a California regulation requirin 20-inch minimum seat spacing in school buses would be preempted by the requirement for 20-inch maximum seat spacing in Standard No. 222.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) provides i Section 103(d) that any state or local law or regulation on an aspect of motor vehicle performance covered by a Federal standard must be identical to that Federal standard. Although the NHTSA requirement is phrased in terms of maximum spacing while the California standard concerns minimum spacing, the aspect of performance in question is seat spacing. Therefore, it is the NHTSA's opinion that a California standard on seat spacing regulates the same aspect of performance and to the degree it is not identical to the Federal standard it would be preempted.; Your second question asks whether the seating reference point, a specified in relation to the H' Point used in SAE Standard J826b, varies with the size of different individuals. The seating reference point, as defined by the NHTSA in Part 571.3 allows the manufacturer some discretion in selecting a point that approximates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh. While the NHTSA definition does refer to the SAE procedures for H' point location that includes the specific measurements you cite, the manufacturer retains discretion to vary this point slightly as long as he can show that the point selected continues to simulate the position of the pivot center of the human torso and the thigh of the passengers for whom the seat is designed.; Finally, you note in your letter that compliance with the seat spacin required in Standard No. 222 might entail relocation of the side emergency exit, because Standard No. 217 requires that [a] vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door.' The seat spacing requirement arguably could occasion the realignment of the side emergency door, but this does not have to be the case. The manufacturer is free to adjust seat spacing to be properly aligned with the emergency exit. The NHTSA's intent in this requirement is to provide an emergency exit opening extending at least 2 feet rearward of a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seat back. The agency would not prohibit the use of doors wider than 2 feet as long as a minimum 2-foot opening is provided rearward of the reference plane and the latch mechanism is operated by a device located within the required 2-foot opening.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5010OpenMr. Timothy C. Murphy Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights) Transportation Safety Equipment Institute P.O. Box 1638 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632-0638; Mr. Timothy C. Murphy Chairman TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights) Transportation Safety Equipment Institute P.O. Box 1638 Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632-0638; "Dear Mr. Murphy: This responds to your letter of April 30. 1992 requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked 'whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation' of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108. Specifically, you have enclosed 'Figure 1' which 'shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps.' Accordingly you have concluded 'that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp.' NHTSA adopted a definition of 'effective projected luminous lens area' on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean 'that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . .' No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute 'significantly' to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that 'the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose', and that 'lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design' but instead 'take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area.' In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2625OpenMr. Charles Owen Verrill, Jr., Patton, Boggs & Blow, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. Charles Owen Verrill Jr. Patton Boggs & Blow 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: This responds to your April 20, 1977, petition to amend Standard No 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. In your petition, you request that the National Highway traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permit the use of tires that have a maximum load rating of not less than 95% of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and not less than 95% of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Your petition is denied.; The problem addressed by your petition concerns a revision in the 197 Tire and Rim Manual that alters the load rating of tires. In effect, this revision will result in lower load ratings for certain tires. According to the facts you submit, the change in tire load rating will be implemented by tire manufacturers throughout the next few months which may not provide vehicle manufacturers sufficient time to correspondingly alter the GAWRs of their vehicles in accordance with the new tire load ratings. Therefore, for a short period of time, you allege that it will be impossible to obtain tires that correspond to the GAWR indicated on the vehicle.; To alleviate the above problem, you recommend rulemaking that woul permit vehicle manufacturers to install on their vehicles tires with load ratings slightly less than the GAWR of each axle. The NHTSA cannot permit the relief you request even for the limited time you propose. The intent of our tire standards is to provide minimum requirements for tires to ensure adequate safety. One of these minimum requirements mandates that the tire load rating be at least equal to the GAWR. Your request would have us reduce this minimum requirement. Since the matching of tires on a vehicle with the GAWR of each axle is such a basic principle of safety, the agency concludes that it would not be in the interest of safety to grant your request. Further, such an amendment might violate Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 *et seq*.), which requires that motor vehicles be equipped 'with tires which meet the maximum permissible load standards when such vehicle is fully loaded...'; As you may know, the label requirements of Standard No. 120 whic become effective in September permit you to list suitable tire and rim combinations on the vehicle. You need not equip a vehicle, however, with the tires indicated on the label. In this case, you may equip a trailer with any trailer tire that has a load rating equal to or greater than the GAWR of its associated axle. This may help resolve part of your problem with respect to a short term problem with matching tires on the vehicle with those indicated on the vehicle label.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam3390OpenMr. Richard A. Rechlicz, N88 W16414 Main Street, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051; Mr. Richard A. Rechlicz N88 W16414 Main Street Menomonee Falls WI 53051; Dear Mr. Rechlicz: This responds to your December 18, 1980, letter asking severa questions about the application of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, to school buses.; First, you refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.1 and questio which paragraph establishes the minimum safety level. Since paragraph (a) was first proposed and subsequently modified by the addition of paragraph (b), you believe that paragraph (a) defines the minimum level of safety while paragraph (b) meets or exceeds that level of safety. This reading of the standard is not completely accurate. Paragraph (a) of that section was the first part of the section to be proposed. Before the rule became effective, however, the proposal was amended to include paragraph (b). Accordingly, both paragraphs must be read together as defining the minimum mandatory safety performance requirement.; Second, you ask for our opinion of the preemption clause in th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). You state that your interpretation is that no State or local government may adopt a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. An exception exists for standards applicable to vehicles purchased for the State's or the local government's own use. This is an accurate reading of the preemption clause, however, a major area of contention frequently arises around what constitutes the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard.; Third, you ask whether the Federal government, through Standard No 217, has preempted States from regulating unobstructed openings for purposes of emergency exits. As you are aware, the standard states that the emergency exit opening must be of a certain size. Further, the standard specifies the location of one of the seats at the forwardmost side of the emergency exit. These are the agency's only requirements relating to the unobstructed emergency exit opening. With respect to whether a State could regulate further in this area, it would depend upon the type of regulation the State adopted. For example, a regulation that governed the size of the opening or the location of the forwardmost seat would probably be preempted. However, a regulation that required an aisle leading to the side emergency door would not likely be preempted, since the Federal government does not regulate aisles in buses.; Your fourth question asks us to comment on whether a Wisconsin statut requires aisles in school buses. The agency does not issue interpretations of State statutes. You should contact appropriate State officials for this information.; Finally, you recite a Wisconsin definition of emergency door zone whic states that it is 'the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit...' You then ask whether there are any such zones on buses constructed with side emergency exits. The agency, as stated above, requires an unobstructed opening at each exit (S5.2.3.1). If Wisconsin defines this as a zone, then such a zone exists in buses for purposes of the Wisconsin statute.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5389Open"Mr. S. Greiff PARS Passive R ckhaltesysteme GmbH Borsigstrabe 2 63/55 Alzenau Germany"; "Mr. S. Greiff PARS Passive R ckhaltesysteme GmbH Borsigstrabe 2 63/55 Alzenau Germany"; Dear Mr. Greiff: This responds to your letter of April 19, 1994 requesting an interpretation of the 500 foot minimum runway length in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Federal motor vehicle safety standards Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301. Laboratory Test Procedures are provided to contracted laboratories as guidelines for conducting compliance tests. The Laboratory Test Procedures do not limit the requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. None of the standards referenced in your letter include any requirement for minimum runway length. Instead, the standards specify that the collision into the fixed barrier will occur at any speed up to and including 30 mph. 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; |
|
ID: aiam4084OpenConfidential; Confidential; Dear Confidential: This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that proposed mini-van, which would use a front-wheel-drive passenger car platform as its base, would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). The vehicle would have an airduct lying on top of the floor and running longitudinally rearward from the dash area between the two front seats and then turning outboard to enter the bottom of the 'B' pillar. While the top of the airduct would be above the level floor plane in the area between the front seats and immediately behind the front seats, it would not extend under the second or third seats, which would be removable. The floor would otherwise be flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classifications of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed mini-van would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).; Section 523.5 provides in relevant part: >>>(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobil which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions:; (1) Transport more than 10 persons, (2) Provide temporary living quarters, (3) Transport property on an open bed, (4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume, or (5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purpose or other nonpassenger- carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.<<<; With respect to the location of the airduct, it is necessary in orde to come within section 523.5(a)(5) that the removal of seats creates a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. Since the airduct would not extend under the removable second or third seats, and since the floor is otherwise flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior, it is the agency's opinion that the vehicle would qualify as a light truck under section 523.5(a)(5).; This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would b classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed mini-van for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CFR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523. We have enclosed a copy of a letter dated December 1, 1983 which addresses some of the issues involved in making such a classification.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4923OpenHerbert J. Lushan Regalite Plastics Corporation 300 Needham Street Newton Upper Falls, MA 02164; Herbert J. Lushan Regalite Plastics Corporation 300 Needham Street Newton Upper Falls MA 02164; "Dear Mr. Lushan: This responds to your letter concerning the use o tinted flexible plastic glazing in certain jeep-type vehicles. You explained that a customer has asked you to manufacture a bronze-tinted clear plastic flexible window for installation in the rear side and rear windows of its vehicles. You indicated that this glazing material would not satisfy the minimum light transmittance requirement of Standard No. 205 and requested confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits the use of such glazing for rear and side windows in these vehicles. Further, during two telephone conversations on October 29, 1991 and October 30, 1991, you informed Elizabeth Barbour of my staff that your question specifically refers to the use of this glazing on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and the two-door Geo Tracker. You also confirmed to Ms. Barbour that the glazing materials to which your letter refers would be installed as original equipment, but added that your company is also involved with after-market products. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called 'items'), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference 'ANSI Z26,' the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Among Standard No. 205's requirements are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance, measured by Test 2 in ANSI Z26. A minimum of 70% light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying sections S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111) and thus, subject to the minimum light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Thus, Standard No. 205 permits the use of tinted glazing materials (i.e. items of glazing that are not subject to Test 2) for windows to the rear of the driver in such vehicles when they are equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars. As stated above, you described the product you wish to manufacture as tinted flexible plastic, Item 7 glazing, which would be installed in the rear side and rear windows of the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker. According to the agency's information about these vehicles, the rear side and rear windows are part of a removable soft-top. Standard No. 205 permits glazing used for readily removable windows in these locations to be manufactured out of flexible plastic glazing (Items 6, 7 and 13), among other types of glazing. Thus, since these specific window locations on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker are not subject to the light transmittance requirement, and since Standard No. 205 permits use of flexible plastic glazing for readily removable windows, the Standard would permit you to manufacture the bronze-tinted flexible plastic glazing for the use your customer requested. You also stated that your company is involved with after-market glazing materials. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. According to this provision, your company, for example, could install the Item 7 glazing in the rear side and rear windows of a Suzuki Sidekick or Geo Tracker after that vehicle is first sold to a consumer. This provision would, however, prohibit the after-market installation of tinted flexible plastic glazing in the front side windows of that vehicle because such installation would cause the glazing of the front side windows to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. The 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners themselves. No section of the Safety Act prevents vehicle owners themselves from installing any product on their vehicles, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. The actions of individual vehicle owners may be regulated or precluded by individual States, which have the authority to regulate owner modifications and the operational use of vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4866OpenMr. Howard 'Mac' Dashney Pupil Transportation Consultant Michigan Department of Education P.O. Box 30008 Lansing, Michigan 48909; Mr. Howard 'Mac' Dashney Pupil Transportation Consultant Michigan Department of Education P.O. Box 30008 Lansing Michigan 48909; "Dear Mr. Dashney: This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991 In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events? The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions. The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered 'schoolbuses' by this agency. A 'school bus' is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR 571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for 'buses' and also those for 'school buses.' The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses: Standards No. 101 through No. 104, Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standards No. 106 through No. 108, Standards No. 111 through 113, Standard No. 115, Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standard No. 119, Standard No. 120, Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems), Standard No. 124, Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 205, Standards No. 207 through No. 210, Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 217, Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 220, Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds), and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302. These standards are part of 49 CFR 571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS. Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR 571.3. For instance, 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation' (49 CFR 571.3(b)). 'Passenger car' is defined as ' a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less' (49 CFR 571.3(b)). Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events? Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses. Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information. I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
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.