NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam3083OpenMr. Robert J. Wahls, Freedman Seating Company, 400 Academy Drive, Northbrook, IL 60062; Mr. Robert J. Wahls Freedman Seating Company 400 Academy Drive Northbrook IL 60062; Dear Mr. Wahls: This responds to your recent letter asking how much deflection o deformation of seat belt anchorages is allowed under the requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, for anchorages that are attached to or are a part of revolving pedestal seats. You mention cases in which seat bases deflect so much that the seat touches the floor before the forces required by the standard are attained.; As noted in your letter, paragraph S4.2.3 of Safety Standard No. 21 specifies that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for the specified time. Likewise, the agency has stated in the past that the force requirements of Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, *provided* structural integrity of the seats is maintained.; Although Safety Standard No. 210 would allow some deformation of th seat base for anchorages that are part of pedestal seats, the structural integrity of the seats would have to be maintained during the force test. Further, you should note that Safety Standard No. 207 requires the forces for testing seats and the forces required by Safety Standard No. 210 to be applied simultaneously for seats that have belt assemblies attached to them. Thus, the pedestal seats discussed in your letter would have to maintain their structural integrity when subjected to the combined forces required by both standards. The agency would not consider pedestal seats to be in compliance with these requirements, if the seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened.; I hope this letter has clarified the agency's position regarding th force requirements of both Safety Standard No. 210 and Safety Standard No. 207.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4746OpenMr. C. Coleman Bird Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz 1300 Nineteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. C. Coleman Bird Pepper Hamilton & Scheetz 1300 Nineteenth St. N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; "Dear Mr. Bird: This responds to your request for an interpretation b this office as to whether a portable back massage device capable of being used in an automobile and powered by the vehicle's electrical system constitutes a piece of motor vehicle equipment as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act). I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The product you described in your letter consists of an inflatable cushion that conforms to the user's back and contains two electric massage units capable of massaging the upper and lower portions of the user's back. The device can also provide heat. It is designed for use either indoors or in a vehicle by means of an adapter which plugs into the cigarette lighter. When the device is used in a vehicle, it is simply placed on the seat, and does not require any additional installation, other than connection to a power supply. You have asked three questions about this device, which I have discussed below. Your first question was whether this device would be considered an item of 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? Section 102(4) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle..... (Emphasis added.) Since the portable back massage device is not original equipment or sold for replacment or improvement of any original equipment, it would be included within this definition only if it were an 'accessory.' In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an 'accessory,' the agency considers the following two criteria: First, when a substantial portion of the expected uses of a product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, the product should be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the Safety Act. Second, if the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of such motor vehicles, we would consider it to be an accessory. Based on the limited information you have provided, I am unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the back massage device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. However, I will explain the considerations the agency focuses upon when applying the above critieria to specific products. We would determine the expected uses of a product by considering the product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store which retails the product, as well as any available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that products found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not necessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. For example, if the device is portrayed in advertising as being in used in motor vehicles, includes as a standard feature a 12 volt adapter enabling its use in a vehicle, and is sold through retail outlets specializing in automotive equipment and accesories, it would be more likely to be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment than a product which did not have these characteris- tics. In evaluating the second criteria, the agency looks at whether the product is intended primarily for the use of consumers, rather than by professionals such as automotive repair and service personnel. Your second question concerned whether the back massager would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the device is not determined to be an item of motor vehicle equipment, it is beyond the scope of the agency's authority to regulate it. Even if it is determined to be motor vehicle equipment, and therefore subject to other provisions of the Safety Act, there is no Standard applicable to this type of device. With regard to your final question, we do not generally provide advice about the authority of other Federal agencies. However, if it is not considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission may have requirements governing such a device. It is also possible the Food and Drug Administration might consider it to be a medical device subject to that agency's regulation. In addition, some States may choose to regulate such devices. I am enclosing an information sheet which describes the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards program, and how to get copies of the standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have further questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam0705OpenMr. John W. Kourik, Chief Engineer, Automotive Products, Wagner Electric Corporation, 11444 Lackland Road, St. Louis, MO 83141; Mr. John W. Kourik Chief Engineer Automotive Products Wagner Electric Corporation 11444 Lackland Road St. Louis MO 83141; Dear Mr. Kourik:The following interpetations (sic) are submitted i response to your letter of March 16, 1972, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems* and are numbered as the questions were in your letter.; >>>1. The 30 skid number surface referred to in the Standard is wet an measured by the ASTM B-274-65T procedure omitting water delivery as specified in paragraph 7.1 of that procedure.; 2. In S5.1.6 total electrical failure 'means any electrical failur within the antilock electrical system circuitry which would cause loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle.; 3. S5.1.6 does not at present require the activation of the antiloc warning device so long as proper antilock control remains on at least one wheel or axle.; 4. The requirement for an antilock warning device is not limited to failure in the power supply at the antilock electrical connection. However, an electrical failure in a vehicle which causes failure of the whole vehicle electrical system is not expected to activate the warning system since there would be no power to energize it.; 5. In S5.1.7, for air over hydraulic brake systems, the 6 psi pressur is measured in the power air chamber coupled to the master cylinder used to convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.; 6. The wording of S5.1.7 is not intended to exclude the use of an auxiliary hand application valves for controlling the trailer brakes as long as there is also a foot treddle valve which controls the brakes of the towing vehicle and any towed vehicle.; 7. The stoplight on a trailer is to be actuated whenever the servic brakes on the trailer are applied. S4.5.3 of FMVSS No. 108 states 'the stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon the application of the service brakes.'; 8. The intent of S5.2.1.2 is for the service reservoir capacity, to b eight times the combined volume of all of the service brake chambers.; 9. In S5.3.2 the 90 psi pressure is to be fully applied to the traile at the start of the stop.; 10. In S5.3.2, the air compressor and air supply system of the towin vehicle are expected to be operating normally.; 11. In S5.3.3, the towing vehicle brakes may be by-passed by an convenient means so long as it does not cause the air pressure applied to the trailer to fall below 90 psi.; 12. In S5.3.2, item 4 and 5 of Table I are not applicable. 13. A truck tested brake may be run on a dynamometer by a manufacture for his own purposes but compliance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 of the Standard will be determined by the Government by testing a new brake assembly identical to the one on the vehicle.; 14. Same answer as for 13 above. 15. The intent of S.5.4 is for a new brake assembly identical to th one on the vehicle to be tested on a dynamometer for conformance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3.; 16. Same as answer for 15 above. 17. In S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, for air or hydraulic brake systems the 'brake chamber air pressure' is the air pressure in the power chamber coupled to the master cylinder usedto (sic) convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.; 18. Same answer as for question 17. 19. The Standard does not consider tandem ratings, it addresses onl the GAWR of each individual axle.; 20. Vehicles conforming to S5.6.1 must have a parking brake on eac individual axle of a tandem axle arrangement.; 21. In S5.6.2(a) 'Gross vehicle weight rating' is correct fo semi-trailers as well as trucks and buses, gross axle weight rating is not meant.; 22. Semi-trailers are not excluded from meeting the alternat requirement of S5.6.2.; 23. A dolly is classified as a trailer and is a separate vehicle. 24. In S5.6.2, the unloaded dolly weight does not include an unloade semi-trailer.; 25. In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamomete inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pounds as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.<<<; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam2738OpenMr. R. M. Premo, Director, Vehicle Safety Activities, Sheller-Globe Corporation, Vehicle Planning and Development Center, 3555 St. Johns Road, Lima, OH 45804; Mr. R. M. Premo Director Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation Vehicle Planning and Development Center 3555 St. Johns Road Lima OH 45804; Dear Mr. Premo: This responds to your December 6, 1977, letter asking which portions o the roof and sidewall structure of your small bus must comply with the head impact requirements of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; In accordance with the head impact zone requirements outlined i paragraph S5.3.1.1 of the standard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that those portions of your bus constituting the bus sidewall and window structure are not required to comply with the head impact requirements. Only those portions of your bus which constitute part of the roof structure are included within the head impact zone requirements. We have marked in yellow on the enclosed drawing those areas that must comply with the head impact requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1817OpenMr. Roger E. Stange, President, Norton Triumph Corporation, P. O. Box 275, Duarte, CA 91010; Mr. Roger E. Stange President Norton Triumph Corporation P. O. Box 275 Duarte CA 91010; Dear Mr. Stange: This is in acknowledgment of your Defect Information Report, i accordance with the defect reporting regulations, Part 573.; The Defect Information Report involves: 1,471 Norton Commando 850c motorcycles which may experience failure of a rear suspension unit.; The following National Highway Traffic Safety Administratio identification number has been assigned to the campaign *75-0040*. The first quarterly status report for this campaign is required to be submitted by May 5, 1975. Please refer to the above number in all future correspondence concerning this campaign.; The letter which you propose mailing to owners of the subject vehicle does not meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. The sections of this law dealing with defect notifications became effective December 26, 1974. Specifically, the statement made in the fourth paragraph, that at moderate speeds or in straight line operation 'there is no safety problem', is a disclaimer and is prohibited by 49 CFR S 577.6 (copy enclosed). The phrase 'there is no safety problem' must therefore be deleted from the notification. A statement that the motorcycle continues to be rideable (sic) at moderate speeds or in straight line operation is permissible as long as this is accurate.; Since remedy without charge is contingent upon actual dates, you letter should further designate a specific date as the earliest date on which the defect will be remedied without charge, as required by section 153(a)(5). The letter must also include information responsive to section 153(a)(6). This can be done by informing owners that they may write to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590 if they are unable to obtain remedy without charge.; The notifications should be mailed by first class mail as specified b section 153(c)(1), and not by certified mail as you have indicated is your intention.; A copy of the 1974 amendment is enclosed. If you desire furthe information, please contact Messrs. W. J. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840.; Sincerely, Andrew G. Detrick, Director, Office of Defect Investigation, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5507OpenMr. Ralph T. Welch 840 SE Summit Drive Roseburg, OR 97470; Mr. Ralph T. Welch 840 SE Summit Drive Roseburg OR 97470; Dear Mr. Welch: This responds to your request for an interpretatio whether the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) specify 'the type of odometer' placed in a motor vehicle. As explained below, the FMVSS do not so specify. If an odometer is provided, its mileage may be stated in kilometers. Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. Neither Standard No. 101 nor any other FMVSS specifies that an odometer be placed in a motor vehicle or that it register distance in miles, rather than kilometers. However, S5.3.1 (referencing Table 2 'Identification and Illumination of Displays') of Standard No. 101, specifies that if an odometer is provided and the odometer measures mileage in kilometers, the mileage must be stated as 'KILOMETERS' or 'km.' I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0355OpenMr. David J. Humphreys, Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc., Suite 406, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC 20006; Mr. David J. Humphreys Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc. Suite 406 1140 Connecticut Avenue Washington DC 20006; Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in response to your letter of May 13, 1971, with which yo enclosed eleven questions that time precluded answering at the recent Recreational Vehicle Institute symposium. Some of the questions are really comments or expressions of opinion, and the answer must be of the same nature.; >>>1. Where does the manufacturer's responsibility start and end, an where does the sub-contractor's or supplier's responsibility start and end?; This question must obviously be answered in general terms. The primar thrust of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is the regulation of manufacturers. Under the statutory scheme set up by Congress and the standards and regulations that we have issued, the 'manufacturer' is viewed as the final producer of a particular product--either a completed vehicle or a defined type of motor vehicle equipment. Although we recognize that in virtually all types of manufacturing there is actually a multiple chain of production from basic raw materials to final product, it is necessary for our purposes to fix legal responsibility on the final 'assembler', our legal system offers ample ways in which the final manufacturer can and does share some of the responsibility with his suppliers, primarily through the system of contracts and warranties that is basic to all commercial activities. Thus, where a standard is concerned, we look to the final manufacturer for compliance purposes. His responsibilities are, of course, modified by the possibility of a due care defense, whether or not supplied products are involved. There are some exceptions: for example, the Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulation places some limited responsibilities on the manufacturers of 'incomplete vehicles', and the responsibility for safety-related defects extends to all manufacturers of other vehicle components, whether or not covered by a standard.; 2. Are RV manufacturers required to provide more proof of complianc than the compliance nameplate?; There is no requirement that manufacturers 'provide proof o compliance', beyond the certification label, as a routine matter (the sense in which the question was probably intended). If the NHTSA discovers evidence of noncompliance with the standards, by testing or otherwise, it normally asks the manufacturer to provide the test results or other information or data that formed the basis for his certification that the product conformed to the particular standard in question. This is a normal function of the administrative process whereby the agency gathers all available information in the course of deciding whether and how to proceed in an enforcement action. Obviously, it is in the manufacturer's interest to maintain carefully the records of testing and other data upon which he bases his certification.; 3. Are defect reports required relative to plumbing or electrica defects which are functional defects but could in some cases have safety implications? Who makes the decision concerning the safety implication?; Defect reports and appropriate notification action are required in th case of any defects determined to be safety-related. These would include defects in the plumbing or electrical systems, as in any other system of the vehicle. Section 113 of the Act requires the vehicle manufacturer to make this determination and take appropriate action on his own initiative. The NHTSA also has the authority to make an independent determination on the question, under procedures that afford the manufacturer the opportunity to present his own evidence.; 4. Is there a statutory requirement that rulings and standards in fac be reasonable, and in fact reduce some known hazard? If so, how do you establish the fact that a particular hazard is real, does exist and the proposed standards will reduce such hazards?; The act requires that a standard 'shall be practicable, shall meet th need for motor vehicle safety, and shall be stated in objective terms,' and also that it be 'reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed.' The NHTSA devotes a great deal of effort to establishing that hazards are 'real', and that a standard 'will reduce such hazard'. The effort is multifaceted, and includes analysis of known accident data, existing research data, research studies and tests funded and managed by NHTSA, information gathered from industry and other sources, and the knowledge and expertise of NHTSA technical personnel.; 5. What will be the NHTSA's view in regard to a motor home that exceed the chassis manufacturer's GVWR?; Under the new certification regulations scheduled to come into effec January 1, 1972, the final-stage manufacturer will have the responsibility for establishing the GVWR of his vehicle, and there are no inherent restrictions on the value that he establishes. It is anticipated that the standards will base many of the performance requirements on the GVWR and GAWR of the vehicle, and it may often be to the final- stage manufacturer's advantage to remain within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's recommended values in order to take full advantage of the protections provided by the regulation on Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.; 6. Mr. Wood's talk mentioned that 'some trailers' might be included i the definition of 'passenger motor vehicle' in S 976, the 'Hart Bill'. What trailers are 'some trailers'?; Our opinion on the meaning of terms in bills before Congress can onl be speculative, and the terms in question may be changed if and when the bill is enacted, or clarified by legislative history. 'Motor vehicles' under the present National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act clearly include trailers. We are not sure whether or not the reference in the definition ('any motor vehicle manufactured primarily for the transportation of its operator and passengers upon the public streets, roads, and highways') to 'its operator' is intended to excluded trailers.; 7. Do you think that the NHTSA should use 'due care' before proposing standard to be reasonably certain that there exists correlation between a small- scale test and realistic tests--which are preferably large scale?; The answer to question 4. includes the statutory criteria under whic the NHTSA operates in issuing standards and regulations. The validity of test procedures is one of the basic things that must be taken in to account by the NHTSA in the issuance of any regulation.; 8. When a proposal or rule is issued, have the test procedures bee proven by the government? If not, how can 'doubted' results be correlated by the NHTSA test facilities? How do you compare results as related to test equipment?; In terms of the broad generalities of the question and the scope o this letter, little more can be said in addition to the answers to questions 4. and 7. The agency must make every reasonable effort to assure that the standards meet the statutory criteria, and are the best way of dealing with the safety problems involved.; 9. What are the present tie down angle requirements for seat belts an are there any exceptions?; The requirements for seat belt installations are contained in th published standards, and we request that persons concerned with requirements such as those mentioned first examine the standards as they relate to his particular case. We will be pleased to answer questions related to specific requirements of the standards, either by letter or in person.; 10. It would seem that the standards and due care testing lead to concentration of the industry into a few major companies. Is NHTSA concerned about this effect and is it willing to see it happen in order to accomplish NHTSA's goal?; The economic impact of the standards is one of the main concerns of th NHTSA in its rulemaking activity, it is part of the determination of 'practicability' required by the Act. Mr. Toms devoted a major part of his address at the banquet (after the question was asked) to this problem, and his remarks probably contain the most complete discussion on the subject that we can offer.; 11. Which, if any, of the speakers has had personal experienc vacationing in a recreational vehicle?; The speakers, and other personnel of the NHTSA, have the responsibilit to discharge their functions as objectively and fairly as possible, unbiased by their 'personal experiences', vacationing or otherwise. We hope and intend that the motor vehicle safety program will, to the greatest extent possible, enable the public to have safe and enjoyable vacation experiences with your members' products.<<<; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2368OpenMs. Susan Soodek, Assistant Director, Government Affairs Department, APAA, 1730 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20006; Ms. Susan Soodek Assistant Director Government Affairs Department APAA 1730 K Street N.W. Washington DC 20006; Dear Ms. Soodek: This is in response to your letter of June 24, 1976, asking whethe Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, applies to 'slip-on' seat covers manufactured for sale in the aftermarket. Standard No. 302 applies only to vehicles (see S3 of the Standard) and would not apply to replacement seat covers unless they are installed in the vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. S1397(b)(1)).; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5157OpenMatthew J. Ryan, Director Commercial Vehicle Safety Bureau State of New York Department of Transportation Albany, NY 12232; Matthew J. Ryan Director Commercial Vehicle Safety Bureau State of New York Department of Transportation Albany NY 12232; "Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your letter of March 3, 1993 regarding a recent final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (58 FR 4586, January 15, 1993). This final rule requires buses designed to transport persons in wheelchairs to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems meeting specified performance standards. You request confirmation of two statements that you believe correctly construe the new requirements. The statements and our response to each follows. 1. If a school bus is built or modified to accommodate one or more wheelchairs, after January 17, 1994, the restraint/securement system required by the regulation change must be complied with. This statement is partially correct. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (VSA) prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. The rule you ask about becomes effective on January 17, 1994, and would apply to all school buses manufactured on or after that date. Therefore, you are correct that a school bus manufactured on or after that date, and which has one or more locations designed for carrying a person seated in a wheelchair, must be equipped with a wheelchair securement device and occupant restraint system complying with the requirements of Standard 222 at each wheelchair location. Whether a modified school bus must meet the restraint/securement requirements depends, first, on the date of manufacture of the bus, and second, the date of the modification. Since the wheelchair restraint/securement requirements would not apply to a school bus manufactured before the effective date of the requirements, a pre-January 17, 1994, school bus modified to carry a person in a wheelchair need not meet the requirements of the new rule regardless of when the modification is made. A post-January 17, 1994, school bus that is modified before the vehicle's first sale to the consumer to carry a person in a wheelchair would have to meet the new requirements. This is because the person installing the securement system would be considered an 'alterer' under NHTSA's regulations (49 CFR 567.7) and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard 222 and its restraint/securement requirements. If a school bus is modified after the vehicle's first sale, the restraint/securement system need not meet the new requirements. This is because none of our FMVSS's for vehicles (such as Standard 222) applies to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to the consumer. After a vehicle's first sale, the only Federal requirement that would affect modifications of the vehicle is the 'render inoperative' prohibition in 108(a)(2)(A) of the VSA. That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The 'render inoperative' prohibits commercial businesses from modifying a vehicle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards. However, the 'render inoperative' provision does not require commercial businesses to bring the vehicle into compliance with standards upgraded after the vehicle was manufactured. Therefore, a used school bus modified after January 17, 1994, does not have to be equipped with wheelchair securement/restraint systems complying with the new requirements of Standard 222. 2. A school bus built with no wheelchair seating positions, is not required to have a wheelchair position. This statement is correct. The January 14, 1993, final rule amended Standard 222 by adding a new section S5.4. That section requires a 'school bus having one or more locations designed for carrying a wheelchair' to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems at those locations. If a school bus is not designed for carrying a wheelchair, wheelchair securement/restraint systems do not have to be provided. The agency's rationale for not requiring all school buses to be designed to transport persons in wheelchairs is stated in the preamble to the final rule on page 4586. 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 Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2692OpenMr. Stuart Pivar, Rototron Corp., 115 Florida Street, Farmingdale, New York 11735; Mr. Stuart Pivar Rototron Corp. 115 Florida Street Farmingdale New York 11735; Dear Mr. Pivar: This is in reply to your letter of September 1, 1977, with respect t moped tires. You have informed us that you wish to manufacture mopeds that would be equipped with an unspecified quantity of tires that are 'not marked with the letters DOT and [do not] have the letters UY which is the code assigned by the DOT to this company...' You have asked 'to have an interim approval from your office for use of this tire until we can arrange for this manufacturer to engrave the necessary letters in their mold'.; The symbol 'DOT' is the tire manufacturer's certification that the tir complies with all applicable requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.* Without that certification a moped manufacturer would appear to have no reasonable basis for certifying that vehicles of his manufacture equipped with these tires comply with Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.* Your use of these tires might therefore be an apparent violation of the certification requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act subjecting you to civil penalties. If the tires in fact failed to comply, additional penalties could be imposed, and you would be required to notify and remedy the noncompliance.; The fact that part of a foreign manufacturer's production may b certified as meeting DOT standards cannot be relied upon as an assurance that a tire that is not marked with the DOT symbol or manufacturer code letters will also comply. Indeed, it is a prima facie indication that the tire was not manufactured for the American market and does not meet Federal safety standards.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Deputy 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.