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: nht75-2.28OpenDATE: 07/18/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA TO: Volvo of America Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 19, 1975, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, with regard to an accelerator control system which contains either elements in parallel or a complete parallel system. The requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 124 are met if, after a severance or disconnection of any component of the accelerator control system, the throttle returns to the idle position within the time specified in S5.3, measured from the first removal of the opposing actuating force by the driver, or from the disconnection or severance. You are correct in your interpretation that Standard No. 124 is intended to protect against a single severance, and that there are no requirements in Standard No. 124 concerning the severance or disconnection of the remaining one(s) of two or more parallel elements in an accelerator control system. SINCERELY, June 19, 1975 James Schultz, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS No. 124 Section S5.2 of FMVSS No. 124 - Accelerator Control Systems specifies requirements for return of the throttle to the idle position ". . . whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point." The operation of this section of the standard is clear when the accelerator control system consists of a single series of links and/or cables and/or other connecting devices. Severance or disconnection at any one point will result in a loss of control by the operator and the return of the throttle to its idle position. The situation is not as clear when the accelerator control system contains either elements in parallel or a complete parallel system. In this case if one of two or more parallel links, cables or other connecting devices is severed or disconnected, the operator still maintains control of the accelerator control system. Since the throttle does not return to the idle position at the time of severance or disconnection, the requirements of S5.2 will be met if the system returns to idle within the time limit specified by S5.3, measured from the first removal of the opposing actuating force by the driver. With regard to the above situation it is our understanding there are no requirements in FMVSS No. 124 concerning the severance or disconnection of the remaining of two or more parallel elements in an accelerator control system since S5.2 refers to the severance or disconnection of only one component. Thus the requirements of S5.2 would be met if such a system returns to the idle position within the specified time after the removal of the opposing actuating force. Your verification of our understanding of the standard's applicability to parallel links or systems would be appreciated. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this request. VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development Donald J. Gobeille, Jr. Product Safety Engineer CC: E. SKARIN/AB VOLVO |
|
ID: nht75-3.33OpenDATE: 12/15/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: Volvo of America Corporation TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This responds to Volvo of America's October 9, 1975, question whether a truck equipped with an air-assisted hydraulic brake system with hydraulic push through capability and, in the towing vehicle configuration, a source of compressed air for air braked trailer operation, is subject to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. From your description of the system and the materials that accompanied your letter, the truck does not qualify as an air-braked vehicle to which the standard applies. The fact that it is capable of operation in combination with an air-braked vehicle and supplies the compressed air for braking that vehicle does not affect the truck's classification as an hydraulic-braked vehicle. At the time Standard No. 121 was developed, it covered virtually all of the trucks and truck-tractors in the heaviest categories. In planning and making your decisions to introduce hydraulic-braked vehicles in these weight categories, you should be aware that this agency is planning to cover all such vehicles with the basic performance requirements presently contained in Standard No. 121. SINCERELY, October 9, 1975 Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Re: Applicability of Brake Regulations to Vehicle Combinations Consisting of a Hydraulic Brake Equipped Tractor and an Air Brake Equipped Trailer. Volvo of America Corporation is currently considering the importation of a hydraulic brake equipped truck with a GVWR of 29,000 pounds. The basic vehicle can be outfitted as either a straight truck or a truck tractor. Both versions employ the same brake system. Our question concerns the applicability of the requirements of FMVSS No. 121 to this truck tractor when coupled to an air brake equipped trailer. The operating principles of the brake system employed on both versions of the truck are described in the attachments to this letter. Basically it is an air assisted hydraulic brake system with a hydraulic push through capability. In the tractor version of this truck provisions are made in the brake system for the supply of compressed air to the brake system of the attached trailer. This is accomplished in a manner which enables the truck to operate in combination with conventional air brake equipped trailers. Our understanding of the pertinent regulations indicates that since the truck tractor is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 121, being fitted with hydraulic brakes, the combination of this tractor and an air brake equipped trailer also is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 121, regardless of what requirements are applicable to the trailer by itself. Your verification of this understanding is requested. Your prompt consideration of this matter would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning the technical details of the brake system, please direct them to Mr. Bjorn Klingenberg at the address indicated below: Volvo of America Corporation Truck Division 266 UNION STREET NORTHVALE, N.J. 07647 All other communications concerning this matter should be directed to the undersigned. VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development Donald W. Taylor Manager, Product Safety & Quality CC: B. KLINGENBERG |
|
ID: nht75-3.4OpenDATE: 11/05/75 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA TO: General Electric Company TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1975, to Ed Leysath of this agency concerning wattage requirements for Type 1A and 2A headlamps. Your specific question is whether the wattage specifications in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for Type 1A and 2A headlamps are design wattages or maximum wattages. Paragraph S4.1.1.21(b) of Standard No. 108 specifies that, "Each Type 1A headlamp shall be designed for a maximum of 50 watts. Each Type 2A headlamp shall be designed for a maximum of 60 watts for each filament." (Emphasis added.) It follows, therefore, that the 50 - and 60-watt values are design wattages. You are correct in your interpretation that a tolerance of approximately 7.5% applies to these values, and that an ampere value of 4.20 for a 50-watt filament and 5.02 for a 60-watt filament is permitted. The 7.5% tolerance as you know is the average actual maximum wattage (as opposed to design wattage) rating of headlamps listed in Table 2 of SAE Standard J573 as determined by multiplication of the maximum amperage times the design volts. Sincerely, ATTACH. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY July 8, 1975 Ed Leyseth -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation Subject: FMVSS 108 - Section 4.1.1.2.1 Dear Mr. Leyseth, On March 26, 1975 I wrote to Bill Eason and requested an interpretation of the wattage requirements of the rectangular headlamp system. (copy enclosed). To date we have heard nothing and we urgently need your reply. I would appreciate your help in providing us with your interpretation as quickly as possible. Very truly yours, Frank W. Bowers -- Manager, Product Reliability attach: copy of 3/26/75 letter March 26, 1975 William Eason -- National Highway Safety Administration, Department of Transportation Subject: FMVSS 108 - Section 4.1.1.21 Dear Mr. Eason: I have heard that the Department of Transportation has interpreted Section 4.1.1.21(6) of FMVSS as far as the wattage limitation on Type 1A and Type 2A rectangular headlamps is concerned. It is my understanding that the 50 watt limit on the Type 1A and the 60 watt limit on the 2A apply as design maximums and that a tolerance of approximate 7.5% applies to these values. This, then, would permit a max. ampere value of 4.20 for a 50 watt filament and 5.02 for a 60 watt filament. If a 40 watt filament is used than its max. amperes would be 3.36. I agree with this interpretation and understand that these are the figures that SAE is proposing. I would appreciate it very much if you would confirm that this interpretation is correct since design and certification of the product depends upon an accurate interpretation of the standard. Thanks very much for your help in this matter. Very truly yours, F. W. Bowers -- Manager, Product Reliability bcc: R. G. Burnor #1200 |
|
ID: nht95-1.20OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: January 10, 1995 FROM: Paul N. Wagner -- President, Bornemann Products Incorporated TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Ref: Your letter dated December 23, 1994, copy enclosed ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/21/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO PAUL N. WAGNER (A43; STD. 207) TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht: Thank you very much for your response to my questions concerning seating systems, FMVSS # 207. I would like to expand this inquiry somewhat further, and request a clarification accordingly, so as to eliminate any doubt on the issue of integrated seats. For definition's sake, an integrated seat will refer to a seating system having the seat belts mounted to the seating structure, with the "D ring" mounting located on the seat back itself (instead of the wall pillar as most vehicles have today). To clarify the issue of FMVSS # 207 static testing, it is clear that the only adjusted position exception is the vertical movement of nonlocking suspension seats while loads are applied. You have also made it very clear that the seating structure may be tested in any adjusted position, however there is still another question. In order to be specific, if an integrated seat is tested to FMVSS # 207, when the loads are applied, a rachet-style seat recliner mechanism may not have its adjustment teeth shear during the test, since the seat must maintain its adjusted position, and t he shearing of the recliner teeth is an adjustment change. Is this supposition correct, assuming that the shearing of the recliner's teeth is a change in detent position? The premise above does allow for normal structure deformation that does not change the detent position. Lastly, a question that was not proposed earlier concerns continuous engagement, which simply implies that the seat recliner or slides will always be in a locked position, even during adjustment. Some slides and recliners, for adjustment purposes, must be "unlocked," or released, allowing for the adjustment to be made, but then automatically relock when the desired position is achieved; this adjustment method is not considered to be as continuously engaged, since the mechanism is in a released state du ring adjustment. An apparatus that might be considered to be a continuous engagement device might be a screw-drive mechanism, which can be adjusted by revolution, but would always have a locking feature, even during adjustment (and never be in a released position). Must a seat recliner or seat slides have "continuous engagement," in order to comply with FMVSS # 207/# 208/# 210 specifications on integrated seating? What this question addresses is the time frame when a seat recliner or seat slide may be disengaged, or released, during use while a vehicle is in motion, since the seat is not locked at these adjustment times, and the seat belt system is attached completely to the seating system. I apologize for the continued questioning on this issue, and hope for your earliest response. Thank you very much for your consideration of the above matters, as it is very much appreciated. If I can be of service, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Again, our thanks for your help! |
|
ID: nht88-2.8OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 04/27/88 FROM: L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/89 EST; FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 02/24/89 FROM DAN TREXLER -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; TO JOAN TILGHMAN -- NHTSA; LETTER DATE D 12/20/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO MELVIN SMITH -- ILLINOIS DOT TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones, This letter is in reference to a letter written by Mr. Frank Berndt to Mr. Melvin Smith of the Illinois Department of Transportation dated December 20, 1984, in which Mr. Berndt gave an interpretation of one of the requirements of FMVSS 217, a copy is at tached for your information. This interpretation concerned the location of the back of a seat with relation to the forward edge of a side emergency door. Mr. Berndt's interpretation stated that there was no tolerance permitted for the location of the s eat back with reference to a transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the side emergency door. This lack of tolerance is what we wish to address in this letter. As I am sure you can appreciate, a requirement for an exact location opens the door to impossible manufacturing requirements. The seats themselves, due to the use of bent-tube welded construction, can vary in the slope of the back or the relative positi on of the seat cushion, by as much as one-half of an inch. The weld-generated deformations, though slight, will also cause relative movement of the seat during the installation process of bolting the seats to the floor. Therefore, if an exact relationsh ip of any part of the seat is a requirement by law, this becomes an extremely difficult goal to meet. It will usually result in the necessity for multiple reseatings, or the physical bending of the seat after it is installed (which requires a significan t amount of force because these are seats meeting the requirements of FMVSS 222), or attempts to deform the padding of the seat locally, or some other undesireable side effect. In light of the above considerations, and our understanding that the principle intent of FMVSS 217 in this regard is to prevent a seat back from extending backward into the door opening, we request that the NHTSA consider the following interpretation as meeting the requirements of FMVSS 217: 1. A seat back may not intrude backward into the door opening through the transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the door opening. 2. A seat back may be located ahead of this transverse plane by no more than three-quarters of an inch, plus or minus three-quarters of an inch, or within but no more than, one and one-half inches ahead of the transverse plane coincident with the lea ding edge of the door opening. (See Fig. 1) We would appreciate your early consideration of this interpretation, because of the current unreasonable situation that has developed among our bus users in their attempts to inspect school-buses for their compliance with their interpretations of the FMV SS 217. Thank you. Sincerely, FIG 1: ALLOWABLE SEAT POSITION AT A SCHOOL BUS SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR WHEN THE BUS ALSO HAS A REAR PUSHOUT WINDOW [DRAWING OMITTED] |
|
ID: 08-005949asOpenMr. Solomon Bekhor Inventor 428 N. Hayworth Avenue, # 110 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Dear Mr. Bekhor: This letter responds to your letter enclosing a patent abstract for the Communicar system you have developed. Briefly described, the Communicar consists of a multiplicity of warning lights around the vehicle, as well as words embedded in the windows that can be illuminated electronically through a computer-controlled system connected to the vehicle. In a phone conversation with Ari Scott of this office, you asked us to discuss the applicability of Federal law to your system. Furthermore, you asked for information on how to request changes in current regulations. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Compliance with Federal Standards The Communicar system presents a number of compliance issues with the FMVSSs, most significantly FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. FMVSS No. 108 is our regulation that applies to vehicle lighting. It specifies requirements for certain specific items of lighting equipment. While your description of the Communicar is lengthy, it does not describe in detail the placement, appearance, and functionality of front and side-mounted warning lamps. However, based on the aforementioned phone conversation, we believe that these would function primarily as auxiliary brake lights and turn signals. Furthermore, that the lighted words that appear on the windows of the vehicle (consisting, in part, of STOP, HELP, SLOWING DOWN, LEFT TURN, RIGHT TURN, REVERSE, and U-TURN,) would also be considered auxiliary signal lighting. Based on the information you provided, the Communicar would not be permissible as original motor vehicle equipment. If an item of lighting equipment other than those specified is provided as original equipment, it is allowed under paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 only if it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.1.3 reads as follows: No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. In our view, impairment of driving signals may occur if the following driver is confronted with messages and symbols that are unfamiliar in the motoring environment and have the potential to confuse. We believe that products such as the one you described would be prohibited by S5.1.3. The array of warning lamps on the front and sides of the vehicle is likely to be unfamiliar to most drivers, who are accustomed to seeing the traditional signal lamps. Furthermore, the illuminated words appearing on some or all windows of the vehicle have the potential to create substantial distractions from the required signal lamps and general driving environment. As we have said before, traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly and unhesitatingly recognize the meaning lamps convey and respond to them. The required signal lamp system provides an important and standardized message. It is our opinion that the addition of an array of novel signal lamps such as the Communicar that deploys an array of front- and side-mounted signal lamps, as well as displays wording on the vehicles windows, would divert a driver's attention from the required signal lamps and cause confusion with respect to their meaning, and thereby impair the effectiveness of the required lamps. With respect to the aftermarket, 49 U.S.C. 30122 has the effect of requiring that the installation of any aftermarket vehicle lamp, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, must not "make inoperative" any element of design or device installed on a vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 108. As with original equipment, we regard the addition of a novel signal lamp system such as the Communicar to make inoperative a vehicle's original required lighting equipment by diverting a driver's attention from the required signal lamps, and causing confusion with respect to their meaning. Additionally, because part of the Communicar affects the windshield and windows of the vehicle, there is the potential for your product be affected by FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for motor vehicle glazing. While we do not have enough information to address this issue in detail, we would note this to be an additional area of concern. Requesting Changes to Federal Regulations Any interested person may request that NHTSA adopt a new standard or amend an existing one. Such requests are formally submitted via a petition for rulemaking. The requirements for petitioning for rulemaking are set forth in 49 CFR 552.4. The petition must be in the English language, the word "Petition" must be in the heading preceding the text, and the petition must set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an amendment is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the amendment which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner. Petitions must be sent to: Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, W41-307 Washington, DC 20590 We have a specific policy with respect to evaluating requests related to signal lamps, which would encompass the Communicar system. We believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals. As you might imagine, the agency is frequently presented with new lighting ideas intended to enhance safety. Many of these are not allowable under Standard No. 108 because of deviations from the performance of the lighting equipment mandated by the standard. These ideas are often submitted without proof of their effectiveness. On December 13, 1996, we published a Federal Register notice that articulated the agency's general policy regarding new signal lighting ideas and how that policy would apply in the case of four specific brake signaling ideas (61 FR 65510). In a subsequent notice, published on November 4, 1998 (63 FR 59482), we expressed our intent to participate in efforts to develop an international consensus on how to handle new signaling ideas. We went on to say that, until a new international consensus emerges, we will follow the policy described in the December 1996 notice. I enclose a copy of both the 1996 and 1998 notices. Of particular interest to you will be the discussion on p. 65517 of the December 1996 notice in which we advised inventors to provide our Office of Research and Development with candidates for future agency research. We summarized our policy as follows: In summary, a petitioner seeking to persuade the agency to mandate a lighting invention for new vehicles bears the initial burden of establishing its safety value and cost effectiveness. The burden for those inventors seeking to make an invention optional is to convince the agency that the invention will not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment through creating ambiguity or negatively affecting standardization of signals. Before submitting any invention to the agency, we urge you to carefully read the enclosed Federal Register notices, and make sure that you are submitting the kind of data necessary for us to evaluate your petition. Furthermore, for your convenience, I am also enclosing some information for new manufacturers of vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This should help to answer some common questions that the agency is asked. If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:108 d.7/24/09 |
2009 |
ID: 571-217--label requirement--14-001681 MathenyOpen
Mr. Larry Fowler Director of School Bus Sales Matheny Motors P.O. Box 1304 Parkersburg, WV 26102
Dear Mr. Fowler:
This responds to your letter asking about the Do Not Block label requirement in S5.5.3(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask if it is a violation of a Do Not Block policy to have integrated child seats or child restraint harnesses without tethers adjacent to school bus emergency exits.[1]
In short, the answer to your question is no, provided all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 217 are met. Additional considerations relevant to this response and clarification of previous NHTSA statements are discussed below.
Section S5.5.3(d) of 49 CFR 571.217 applies to new school buses with one or more wheel chair anchorage positions. S5.5.3(d) requires school bus manufacturers to place a label with the words DO NOT BLOCK directly above or beneath each Emergency Door or Emergency Exit label on the school buses. NHTSA stated that the agencys primary reason for the requirement was to inform school bus users and aftermarket wheelchair retrofitters that emergency exits should not be blocked with wheelchairs or other items, such as book bags, knapsacks, sports equipment or band equipment.[2]
The labeling requirement of S5.5.3(c) does not establish a prohibition on manufacturers barring them from installing an integrated child seat in the exit row. If a manufacturer installed an integrated child seat in the exit row, there would not be a per se violation of FMVSS No. 217. We assume in this answer, of course, that the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 217 were met. For instance, S5.4.2 of FMVSS No. 217 has requirements that ensure school bus emergency exit openings are of sufficient size for emergency egress. The exit with the integrated child seat adjacent to it must meet those requirements when tested by NHTSA in accordance with the standards test procedures.
As to whether a manufacturers installing an integrated child seat in the emergency exit row would be contrary to a NHTSA Do Not Block policy, we assume you are referring to statements in NHTSAs guidelines on transporting pre-school age children on school buses.[3] NHTSA issued the guidelines in 1999 to foster use of child restraints on school buses to transport pre-schoolers.
Out of concern that placement of a typical car seat in the seat next to an emergency exit window could possibly impede occupant exit in an emergency, and because the public was generally unfamiliar with using child restraints on school buses, the agency recommended that child restraints not be placed adjacent to emergency exits (guideline, section 5, p. 4). The point of the recommendation was to make sure that persons using child restraints on school buses carefully consider the egress issue. It may be possible for integrated child seats and child restraint harnesses without tethers to be installed such that they do not impede emergency egress from the exit. However, ultimately it is up to those persons with firsthand knowledge of the bus to assess whether installation of a particular child seat would block the exit.[4]
Note that NHTSA does not regulate the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. Thus, S5.5.3(d) does not create any Federal requirement that would prohibit school bus users from using harnesses, or any other child restraint system, in any particular seat. Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, State law should be consulted regarding the use of child restraints on school buses.[5]
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions please contact Analiese Marchesseault of my office at 202-366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel
Dated: 6/18/15 Standard No. 217
[1] We assume by integrated child seat you mean a built-in child restraint system as defined by FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR 571.213). We also assume that the harnesses to which you refer are portable child restraints manufactured and labeled for use only on school bus seats. See S5.3.1(b) of FMVSS No. 213. [2] 67 FR 19343, at 19349 April 19, 2002. [3] Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses, NHTSA, February 1999, http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/buses/Guide1999/prekfinal.htm. [4] NHTSA does not consider seated children, restrained or unrestrained, to be blockages that would inhibit egress through emergency exits. [5] This letter does not address possible liability under State tort law. You may wish to consult a private attorney or your insurance company about issues relating to tort liability. |
2015 |
ID: 007240-2drnOpenMichael Wehr, Director of Maintenance Dear Mr. Wehr: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. According to your letter, the Milwaukee County Transit System purchases transit buses. You state that for years, new buses could be purchased with a transmission shift selector in the form of a horizontal row of three buttons: "D" for forward; "N" for neutral; and "R" for reverse. Recently, the bus manufacturer has begun to only offer buses with a shift selector in the form of a vertical row of six buttons, which are, from top to bottom: "R" for reverse; "N" for neutral; "D" for forward; "3" for third gear; "2" for second gear; and "1" for first gear. You believe the bus manufacturer no longer offers the older system because bus manufacturers and transmission suppliers have recently changed their interpretation of FMVSS No. 102. According to your letter, they have taken the position that "in order to comply with [FMVSS No. 102] the bus operator has to be able to manually downshift the automatic transmission on a transit bus." You ask whether new transit buses can be produced with the older three-button shift selector system. As we have explained in a previous interpretation letter, FMVSS No. 102 "does not require more than one forward drive shift lever position," provided that engine braking occurs automatically at speeds below 40 km/h. See letter to Arnold and Porter dated August 13, 1987, (copy enclosed). Thus, a bus could be produced with a transmission that only included the D, N and R shift positions rather than R, N, D, 3, 2, and 1, so long as the rest of the standards requirements were met. We note that the transmission retarder on your buses that is activated by the service brake pedal would not satisfy the standards requirements. We do not have sufficient information to comment on why particular bus manufacturers and transmission suppliers may believe that buses with the older three-button shift selector system may not comply with FMVSS No. 102. If they have any questions about the standard, they may contact us. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2003 |
ID: 09-001270asOpenThe Honorable Mitch McConnell United States Senate Washington, DC 20510-1702 Dear Senator McConnell: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Charles Gatten, Jr., concerning the licensing of mini-trucks imported into the United States. Your constituent specifically asked how to get a copy of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety and emissions standards. Mr. Gatten indicated that a vehicle at issue is a 2000 mini-truck, with a speed capability of 70 mph. He also identified certain safety equipment that is included on the vehicle. While Mr. Gatten did not identify a specific model name, the vehicles generally referred to as mini-trucks are typically smaller than conventional small trucks manufactured for sale in the United States and are manufactured in Japan, China and other countries. These vehicles are not manufactured to meet U.S. safety standards. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation that is responsible for improving safety on our Nations highways. To achieve this goal, NHTSA develops and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), which require minimum levels of safety performance for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal statute generally prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States any motor vehicle unless the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the manufacturer has certified that the vehicle meets those standards. As to the importation of motor vehicles, to be imported free of restriction, a motor vehicle less than 25 years old must be originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS and bear a label certifying such compliance that is permanently affixed by the original manufacturer. A motor vehicle that is not so manufactured and/or certified can be lawfully imported on a permanent basis only if NHTSA decides that the vehicle is eligible for importation based on its capability of being modified to conform to Page 2 The Honorable Mitch McConnell all applicable FMVSS. NHTSA makes these decisions in response to petitions that are filed by importers specially registered with the agency (referred to as registered importers) to import nonconforming motor vehicles and to perform the necessary modifications on those vehicles so that they conform to all applicable FMVSS. In the past, NHTSA has issued interpretations of the statutory term motor vehicle, concluding that a number of non-certified mini-trucks are not motor vehicles and therefore need not comply with any of the Federal safety standards. The conclusions in these interpretations were generally premised on several important facts including: the vehicles (1) were intended solely for off-road use, e.g., on farms and closed locations like college campuses and industrial plants, and would in fact be so used, and (2) had a top speed of 25 mph. Because these vehicles are not manufactured to meet U.S. safety standards, NHTSA cannot endorse their use on public highways. In your letter, you asked about licensing requirements. We note that registration and licensing are generally matters of State law. Mr. Gatten asked how to get a copy of the Federal standards. Like other Federal regulations, the FMVSS are located in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Specifically, the FMVSS are located in Title 49, Part 571. Mr. Gatten can access the CFR through the website of the Government Printing Office (http://www.gpoaccess.gov). Emissions standards are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Gatten may wish to contact the EPA Imports Team at (734) 214-4100 for information regarding the applicability of its regulations to the mini-trucks at issue. He can also use their website (http://www.epa.gov) to find information on this issue. If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Stephen P. Wood, Acting Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511. Sincerely yours, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref: 571 d.7/7/09 |
2009 |
ID: 21610michelinOpenMr. Larry D. Weiman Dear Mr. Weiman: This responds to your May 2, 2000, letter asking for assistance in locating information pertaining to the marketing, testing, application and certification of a particular type of Michelin tire: Michelin XM + S 244 Reinforced Radial X, size 205R16 104T. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, we issued a number of standards for tires. All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified by the manufacturer as complying with FMVSS 109, New pneumatic tires, found at 49 CFR 571.109, while all new tires sold for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be certified as complying with FMVSS 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119). All retreaded passenger car tires must be certified as complying with FMVSS 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires (49 CFR 571.117). We also have authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, including tires. The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) are set forth in 49 CFR 575.104. Those standards do not require certification in the same manner as the FMVSSs. The UTQGS require that manufacturers mold onto or into the sidewalls of their tires the comparative rating of those tires for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance for the use and benefit of consumers. Finally, 49 CFR 574.5 requires each tire sold in the United States to have a tire identification number (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewall by the manufacturer to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect. Our statute establishes a self-certification process applying to the manufacture of vehicles and equipment to our safety standards. This means that NHTSA does not perform any pre-sale testing, approval, or certification of tires, whether of foreign or domestic manufacture, before their introduction into the U.S. retail market. Instead, each tire manufacturer must certify that its tires comply with applicable FMVSSs. We do not require that a manufacturer base its certification on any specific test or on any number of specified tests. However, manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of each tire manufacturer to determine what tests results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify, with due care, that its tires comply with applicable Federal tire safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all applicable Federal safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire. If manufacturers conduct any tests, they are not required by Federal law or regulation to release their test results to the public. NHTSA tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For such enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers or distributors and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. Those test reports are made public. If the tire passes the tests, no further action is taken. If it fails the tests and is determined not to comply with any applicable standard or standards, the manufacturer is responsible for recalling the tires and remedying the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. As discussed in correspondence to you dated June 8, 2000, from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, no compliance or defect reports have been located for the tire type and size you specified. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, |
2000 |
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.