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: aiam2312OpenMr. Brian Gill, Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., P.O. Box 50 -- 100 W. Alondra Blvd., Gardena, CA 90247; Mr. Brian Gill Assistant Manager Safety & Environmental Activities American Honda Motor Co. Inc. P.O. Box 50 -- 100 W. Alondra Blvd. Gardena CA 90247; Dear Mr. Gill: This is in response to your May 6, 1976, request for confirmation tha the Honda 'MPV' qualifies as a multipurpose passenger vehicle although it is constructed on a 'modified' truck chassis.; In our letter to you of April 30, 1976, we concluded that the Hond 'MPV' would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, based upon the assumption that the 'MPV' is constructed on a truck chassis. You responded that the 'MPV' is constructed on a 'modified' truck chassis, and questioned whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered this fact in its previous interpretation.; The reference to 'truck chassis' in the definition of multipurpos passenger vehicle, 49 CFR Part 571.3(b), is intended to include chassis that were designed and developed for trucks, but which have been produced in a version for use in passenger carrying vehicles. According to your letter and drawings of March 1, 1976, the Honda 'MPV' is a passenger version of the Honda TN 500 light truck. Since the modification of the chassis in the production of the 'MPV' does not appear to be so great that the major characteristics of the truck chassis are destroyed, we confirm our previous determination that the Honda 'MPV' qualifies as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0905OpenMr. James L. Burgess, 1414 Home Savings Building, 1006 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64106; Mr. James L. Burgess 1414 Home Savings Building 1006 Grand Avenue Kansas City MO 64106; Dear Mr. Burgess: This is in reply to your request of November 8, 1972, for informatio concerning the effects of governmental regulation on a decorative bumper that your client proposes to manufacture for sale in the automotive 'after-market.'; As far as Federal standards are concerned, your client's product is no a regulated item of equipment as long as it is installed after the vehicle has been sold to a customer for purposes other than resale. Although we have issued a standard to regulate the safety of bumpers on passenger cars (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 215, 49 CFR 571.215, effective September 1, 1972), the standard does not apply to the bumper as a separate item of equipment. Thus, a new car manufactured after the effective date of the standard must conform to the standard, but a bumper manufactured after the effective date and sold separately from the vehicle as a replacement part or add on, does not have to conform.; We strongly recommend, however, that any bumper system developed fo sale in the after-market be designed to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 215. If it should happen that significant problems are caused by the sale of inadequate bumpers, it may be necessary to expand the application of the standard to regulate the bumper as a separate item of equipment.; For your added information, state statutes with which we are familia also apply to new vehicles and would presumably not affect the installation of your client's product. However, you might find it advisable to ask the opinion of responsible state officials on this question.; If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2938OpenMr. James R. Randolph, 765 Malley Drive, Northglenn, CO 80233; Mr. James R. Randolph 765 Malley Drive Northglenn CO 80233; Dear Mr. Randolph: This responds to your December 28, 1978, letter concerning an auxiliar fuel tank installed by the dealer on a 1978 Ford van that you purchased. You are concerned that the auxiliary tank represents a safety hazard due to the location of the tank's filler cap in the left rear wheel-well.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel Syste Integrity* specifies performance requirements for fuel systems on motor vehicles. Although the standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components, your dealer had to assure that your van complied with the standard. A person who mounts an auxiliary fuel tank on a new motor vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is a vehicle alterer under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations. That person is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix a label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards--including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Therefore, there should be an 'alterer' label on your van in addition to the certification label placed on the vehicle by the original manufacturer.; Even if the vehicle complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75, th location and design of the auxiliary fuel tank could constitute a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer would also be responsible. I am, therefore, forwarding a copy of your letter to the agency's Office of Defects Investigation. That office will examine this situation and may be in touch with you at a later date.; Thank you for your letter and for bringing this matter to ou attention.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1617OpenMr. Robert S. Podlewski, Brake Engineer, Diamond Reo Trucks, Inc., 1331 S. Washington, Lansing, MI 48920; Mr. Robert S. Podlewski Brake Engineer Diamond Reo Trucks Inc. 1331 S. Washington Lansing MI 48920; Dear Mr. Podlewski: This responds to your August 13, 1974, question whether building motor vehicle from a used power train (rear axle, suspension, drive line, and engine) and a new 'glider kit' constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle, subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121 after March 1, 1975. Typically, a 'glider kit' is a truck chassis on which a cab and front axle system are mounted, which is purchased to permit the re-utilization of a power train from another vehicle.; Re-use of components from an existing vehicle in the construction o another vehicle may or may not result in the manufacture of a new vehicle. The NHTSA has established that the addition of new components (such as a truck body) to the chassis of a used vehicle does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. Conversely, the addition of used components to a new chassis which has never been certified in a vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle, subject to the safety standards in effect for that vehicle class on the date of manufacture. This criterion has been relied on in the area of chassis-cab multistage manufacture.; Since a glider kit typically incorporates a new chassis (as well as new cab and front suspension), the NHTSA finds that the use of such a glider kit in the construction of a motor vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. To conclude otherwise would mean that a vehicle composed entirely of brand new components except the rear axle and perhaps the engine and transmission, would qualify as a used vehicle.; You noted that our decision could eliminate the use of glider kit because Standard No. 121 certification would prevent re-use of rear axles which do not meet 121-level performance requirements. We believe that our determination will contribute to motor vehicle safety by introducing more 121-type vehicles on the highway and will not interfere with the use of glider kits in the long term. Glider kits can be made to meet Standard No. 121 as soon as 121-type rear axles become available on the used market. Until that time, the rear axles of present vehicles may be utilized as replacement parts in used vehicles which are not required to meet Standard No. 121.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4415OpenMr. Frank Miller, Gerry Baby Products, 12520 Grant Drive, Denver, Co 80233; Mr. Frank Miller Gerry Baby Products 12520 Grant Drive Denver Co 80233; Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your September 25, 1987, letter to Mr. Val Radovich o NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and your October 19, 1987 letter to my office concerning paragraph S4.2.1 of Safety Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*.; You ask whether the thread that is used in the manufacture of a sea cushion is tested as part of the component. The answer is yes. In a March 10, 1978 interpretation of Standard No. 302, NHTSA recognized that stitching that does not adhere at every point of contact should be tested separately under S4.2.1. However, the agency also determined that, from the standpoint of practicality, the stitching cannot be tested separately in the prescribed manner. NHTSA thus concluded that stitching will be tested as part of the material itself.; Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1247OpenMr. A. E. Davies, President, International Bicycle Corporation, P.O. Box 912, Goleta, CA 93017; Mr. A. E. Davies President International Bicycle Corporation P.O. Box 912 Goleta CA 93017; Dear Mr. Davies: This is in reply to your letter of August 21, 1973, to Dr. Gregor concerning your wish to import and sell an 'electric moped'.; Although you did not enclose a pamphlet on the Electra, we are familia with the conventionally powered mopeds. Two-wheeled powered vehicles are 'motorcycles' for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and must comply with standards applicable to that category. In addition to Standard No. 108, standards applicable to motorcycle controls (No. 122) and brake systems (No. 123) became (sic) effective January 1, 1974 and September 1, 1974, respectively. The standards are found in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.; The manufacturer of the vehicle, or the importer as a statutor manufacturer, certifies on the basis of his own tests or other engineering information that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal standards at the time of its manufacture. The regulation for this requirement is Part 567 of Title 49. It is a self-certification procedure, subject to penalties for noncompliance, and no 'approval' is obtained from this agency.; Part 555 of Title 49 sets forth the procedures for applying fo temporary exemption from any standard on one of four grounds. Of interest to you will be the exemption procedure for hardship and facilitation of development of low-emission vehicles.; I enclosed an information sheet telling you where you may obtain thes materials.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2892OpenMr. J. K. Novell, Alloy Trailers, Incorporated, P.O. Box 19208, Spokane, WA 99204; Mr. J. K. Novell Alloy Trailers Incorporated P.O. Box 19208 Spokane WA 99204; Dear Mr. Novell: This responds to your October 24, 1978, questions about the effect o the *PACCAR v. NHTSA* decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.; Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision Only the 'road testing' requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.; One question raised is whether the court invalidated these 'roa testing' requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on 'no lockup' and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation 'at the time [the standard] was put into effect' (573 F2d. at 640).; Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks 'no lockup performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.; A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have been antilock equipped, S 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that --; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....<<<; The issue is whether the antilock was 'installed .... in complianc with an applicable .... standard.' Because the NHTSA concluded that the 'no lockup' and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of S 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.; I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the firs retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.; The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different i the case of a manufacturer or agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under S 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety- related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken.'Adequate repair' is defined in S 159(4) not to include 'any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment.' The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safety-related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.; A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain 'road testing' portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, 'no lockup', timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.; Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes a importation in violation of S 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.; You also asked whether the 12- foot-lane requirement of S5.3.2 fo trailers remains in effect. The answer to your question is yes. Because trailers are not required to stop within a specified distance, we concluded that there would be no difficulty in coming to a controlled stop within the 12-foot-lane without 'no lockup' performance, as long as the 90-psi application requirement was also considered invalidated by the Ninth Circuit. If you have information that indicates this not to be the case, we would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible as the basis for reconsideration of our interpretation.; You undoubtedly noted that our October 19th *Federal Register* notic of interpretation of the *PACCAR* decision stated that requirements such as reservoir capacity were not invalidated by the Ninth Circuit, despite their indirect relationship to the 'no lockup' requirement. As for rulemaking to make such a change, I have enclosed a copy of our recent proposal on trailer parking and emergency brake requirements. You will find a discussion of the reservoir issue on page 41058 and a request for information from manufacturers. I encourage you to submit available information to the NHTSA, at the address noted in the proposal.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3780OpenB.E. Diehl, Captain, Commander, A.S.E.D., Maryland State Police, 6601 Ritchie Highway, Glen Burnie, MD 21062; B.E. Diehl Captain Commander A.S.E.D. Maryland State Police 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie MD 21062; Dear Captain Diehl: This responds to your letter of November 11, 1983, asking thre questions about the use of sun screening devices on vehicle glazing materials. The answers to your questions are as follows:; 1. The interpretations of Standard No. 205, *Glazing materials*, state in this agency's letters to the State of Hawaii concerning the use of sun screening device on vehicle glazing materials will be uniformly applied by the agency from State-to-State. If you are aware of vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair shops that are in violation of those interpretations, please provide that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.; 2. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements for all glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Those performance requirements may vary depending on where in the vehicle the glazing is used. For example, only glazing materials used at levels requisite for driving visibility must comply with the luminous transmittance requirements.; 3. Standard No. 205 specifies abrasion resistance requirements fo glazing materials. Therefore, the use of solar screening materials, which do not meet the abrasion requirements of the standard, would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with the standard.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4045OpenThe Honorable Harold Rogers, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Harold Rogers U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Rogers: Thank you for your letter on your constituent's behalf to former Chie Counsel Frank Berndt asking several specific questions about our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to your constituent. If you or your constituent need further clarification about how our requirements apply in a specific situation, please let me know.; Your questions were as follows: >>>1. Can a vehicle designed, manufactured, and sold as a truck, eve be considered a 'school bus' unless remanufactured, modified, or converted by a manufacturer or a manufacturer's dealer or distributor and certified as a school bus?<<<; The answer to your question depends on whether you are asking about vehicle being considered a 'school bus' under State or Federal law. Under Federal law, which applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the answer is no. A vehicle is certified only once, when manufactured as a new vehicle. With the one exception discussed below, there is no provision in our statutes or regulations for recertification of a used vehicle which has been modified so that it falls into a different category of vehicles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued thereunder require manufacturers to classify their new motor vehicles and certify that their vehicles meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Those determinations are only made by the manufacturer at the time the vehicle is originally manufactured. Since both the physical attributes underlying the vehicle types and the applicable safety requirements differ from type to type, a vehicle can be classified only as a single type. Therefore, a new vehicle manufactured and sold as a 'truck' is certified as meeting our safety standards for trucks and cannot be certified also as a vehicle meeting safety standards for school buses.; Our regulations do not prohibit used trucks from being modified fo pupil transportation purposes. Since our certification requirements apply only to the manufacture or alteration of new motor vehicles, the person performing the modification does not recertify the vehicle as a 'school bus' unless the modification of the vehicle is so extensive as to constitute a manufacture of a new vehicle. For example, a used truck chassis lacking requisite systems required by our regulations might be combined with a new school bus body. The completed school bus would be considered newly manufactured, and would have to be certified as a 'school bus.'; Used trucks which have been modified to carry school children might b considered 'school buses' under State law. State definitions of school buses determine the applicability of school bus operational requirements to vehicles. If the modifications to a truck bring it within a State's definition of 'school bus,' then the vehicle would be considered a school bus under State law and would have to comply with State requirements for school buses in order to be properly used as a school bus in that State.; >>>2. Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply only t manufacturers, their dealers and distributors?<<<; The answer to your question is no, because our motor vehicle safet standards apply to anyone who manufactures, distributes or sells new motor vehicles. Federal law requires manufacturers of new school buses to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable school bus safety standards. In addition, distributors and sellers of new school buses must ensure that only complying school buses are sold. While new school buses are typically sold by their manufacturers or manufacturers' distributors and dealers, the responsibility to sell complying school buses rests with any person selling new school buses.; The Vehicle Safety Act applies also to persons who perfor manufacturing operations on previously certified *new* vehicles prior to the vehicles' first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. Such persons are considered 'alterers' under our regulations and are subject to requirements that they certify compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Alterers who significantly affect the configuration of a new motor vehicle previously certified to applicable safety standards must certify that the new vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration in effect on the date of manufacture of the original vehicle or on the date the alterations were completed. In addition, the Vehicle Safety Act applies to commercial businesses performing operations on *new and used* motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) states, in part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .<<<; Thus, the requirements of our motor vehicle safety standards affec those aforementioned parties modifying or repairing new or used motor vehicles, by setting limits on the operations performed on those vehicles. Those persons are prohibited from either removing, disconnecting or degrading the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. There is no prohibition against an individual owner modifying his or her own vehicle.; >>>3. What is the difference between a tamperer and a modifier as the relate to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?<<<; Our regulations do not define the terms 'modifier' and 'tamperer. However, the terms are commonly used to describe persons who make changes to vehicles. The term 'modifier' is often used to describe persons making changes to new or used vehicles. As explained above, persons modifying a new motor vehicle prior to its first purchase are considered 'alterers' under our regulations and are subject to requirements that they recertify the vehicle. Commercial parties involved with modifying new or used vehicles are subject also to the 'render inoperative' prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A).; 'Tamperers' often refer to persons modifying or removing safety system or equipment on used vehicles. Commercial parties involved in tampering are subject to the 'render inoperative' prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A). Violations of Section 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation. Again, our regulations do not apply to individual owners modifying their own vehicles. Such modifications, however, would have to comply with State law.; >>>4. Who can make the certification that a vehicle meets applicabl Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?<<<; Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new motor vehicle certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. As suggested above, 'alterers' are considered to be vehicle manufacturers and therefore are also subject to certification requirements. Alterers certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to applicable safety standards affected by the alteration.; >>>5. Does the date of manufacture of a vehicle determine the specifi Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that the vehicle has to meet?<<<; In general, the answer to this question is yes. The date of manufactur is one factor determining applicability of our motor vehicle safety standards. Each motor vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of a safety standard is subject to requirements of that standard if, of course, the standard applies to that vehicle type. However, as explained above, 'alterers' affecting compliance with Federal safety standards by their alteration may choose the completion date of the alterations as the date by which to certify.; >>>6. Are passenger restraint systems required on school buses with manufacture date prior to April 1, 1977?<<<; In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safet standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Pursuant to that mandate, we issued Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, which requires school buses to provide a passenger restraint system through a concept called 'compartmentalization'. The standard became effective on April 1, 1977, and applies to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. School buses manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, are not subject to compartmentalization requirements.; >>>7. Are there any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicabl only to school buses prior to April 1, 1977?<<<; The answer is no. There are three safety standards that we issue exclusively for school buses, i.e., Standards No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength, and No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*. Those standards became effective April 1, 1977.; >>>8. Do school buses manufactured prior to April 1, 1977, have to mee FMVSS No. 217 and FMVSS No. 222?<<<; Standard No. 217 became effective September 1, 1973. School buse manufactured on or after that date and prior to April 1, 1977, had to meet Standard No. 217 *if* push- out windows or other emergency exits were provided. Pursuant to the 1974 Congressional mandate, NHTSA amended Standard No. 217 to require school buses manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, to contain additional emergency exits and set special requirements for those exits.; Standard No. 222 became effective on April 1, 1977. School buse manufactured prior to that date do not have to meet that standard.; Again, please contact my office if you or your constituent have an further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0006OpenMr. William A. Batten Eaton Corporation Truck Components Operations P.O. Box 4013 Kalamazoo, MI 49003; Mr. William A. Batten Eaton Corporation Truck Components Operations P.O. Box 4013 Kalamazoo MI 49003; Dear Mr. Batten: This responds to your letter and telephon conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. You asked about the standard's 'applicable mileage requirement or time domain' for a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. You informed Ms. Fujita that, stated differently, your question is whether NHTSA requires a used vehicle to continue to meet an FMVSS, and if the answer is yes, for what mileage or amount of time the vehicle must meet the standard. Generally speaking, the answer is no. NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires a vehicle to comply with applicable FMVSS's until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. However, you should be aware that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a vehicle (new or used) are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Thus, in the context of Standard No. l24, a person in the aforementioned categories is prohibited from rendering inoperative an accelerator control system that has been installed in compliance with that standard. In addition, if the in-use deterioration of the performance of a vehicle or one of its components creates a safety risk, it could constitute a safety-related defect. Pursuant to sections l5l-l54 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of such safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge. Thus, if the accelerator control systems on your vehicles deteriorate such that they no longer would comply with Standard No l24 and create an unsafe situation, that could be the basis for a defect determination, even though the vehicles met all applicable safety standards when they were new. I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements, you can write to them at the following address: Office of Motor Carrier Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice 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.