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: 05-008512drnOpenMr. Drake Earnest Mid-South Bus Center 3590 Manson Pike Murfreesboro, TN 37129 Dear Mr. Earnest: This responds to your letter asking whether a bus distributorship may sell new buses to private high schools that want sleeker vehicles than conventional school buses. You state that you do not sell non-conforming buses (buses that do not meet Federal school bus standards) to these schools, while your competitors will sell them what they want. You ask for documentation that addresses the sale of non-conforming buses to transport school age children. As explained below, you are correct that, when selling new buses to a school (private or public) for pupil transportation, bus dealers and distributorships must ensure that the buses are certified as meeting the Federal school bus standards of this agency. In addition, in some instances, schools themselves are required by Federal law to ensure that they buy buses that meet those standards. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling a new vehicle to sell a vehicle that meets all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, persons selling a new school bus must sell a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applying to school buses. A bus is a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Our statute defines a school bus as any vehicle that is designed to carry 11 or more persons and which is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary students to or from school or related events. Thus, when selling a new bus that will be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary students to or from school or related events, a dealer or distributorship must sell the school a bus that meets NHTSAs school bus FMVSSs. If a new bus is to be sold for school-related events that do not involve school bus route transportation, i.e., do not involve transporting students between home and school, the bus can be a multifunction school activity bus, which meets all the school bus FMVSSs except those requiring the installation of traffic control devices. Persons manufacturing or selling vehicles or equipment that do not comply with all applicable FMVSSs are subject to a maximum penalty of $10,000 for each violation of Section 30112(a)(2) and a maximum penalty of $15,000,000 for a related series of violations. As to schools that purchase buses, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention and through you, to the attention of your clients, a change last year in Federal law regarding the purchase of small nonconforming buses. On August 10, 2005, P.L. 109-59, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was enacted. Section 10309 states in part:
a school or school system may not purchase or lease a new 15-passenger van if it will be used significantly by, or on behalf of, the school or school system to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school, unless the 15-passenger van complies with the motor vehicle standards prescribed for school buses and multifunction school activity buses under this title.
For purposes of Section 10309, 15-passenger van is defined as: a vehicle that seats 10 to 14 passengers, not including the driver. The civil penalty for a violation of Section 10309 is $10,000, with a maximum penalty of $15,000,000 for a related series of violations. Because of this possible exposure to the new statutory civil penalty provision for purchases of new, noncompliant 15-passenger vans (which, by definition, includes vehicles seating 10 to 14 passengers), we recommend that schools considering the purchase of a bus that does not meet the Federal school bus safety standards consult a private attorney about the implications associated with that purchase. In addition, before any school makes a decision about buying a bus of any size, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. We therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSAs school bus safety standards. For a full explanation of NHTSAs school bus regulations, I am enclosing our publication, School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for Americas Children. You also posed a question about requirements for the use of school vehicles. State law determines the requirements that apply to the use of school vehicles. Thus, whether schools can use non-school buses to transport children in Tennessee is determined by Tennessee law. Keep in mind, however, that even if State law permits a nonconforming bus to be used for school transportation, this does not alter the requirements and prohibitions of Federal law. If the sale of that bus to a school is impermissible under Federal law, the seller is subject to civil penalties. For information on Tennessees requirements, you may contact Tennessees State Director of Pupil Transportation: Mr. James Swain Tennessee Department of Education Old TPS High School 1120 Menzler Road Nashville, TN 37243 Phone: 615-253-6025 e-mail: james.swain@state.tn.us If you have any further questions about NHTSAs school bus requirements, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA#571.3 d.6/19/06 |
2006 |
ID: 05-008918drnOpenDr. Ing. Pavel Vokl Dear Dr. Ing. Vokl: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, and of the definition of "seating reference point" in 49 CFR Part 571.3.You have two questions relating to the 2002 version of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J1100 (SAE J1100), which are addressed below. In responding to your letter, I note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide interpretations of SAE standards alone. SAE standards are developed by the SAE, a private organization. NHTSA has authority to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.If an SAE standard (in whole or in part) is incorporated by reference by an FMVSS, NHTSA will provide an interpretation of the FMVSS, and any applicable SAE standard included in that FMVSS. Your first question relates to FMVSS No. 104. You asked whether, within the intention of SAE J1100, the daylight opening is reduced by the area of the projected internal mirror on the windshield.You state your belief that the area of the projected mirror on the windshield may have influence on the mandatory percentage of the area (especially area A according to FMVSS No. 104) to be wiped. Our response is that SAE J1100 is not incorporated by FMVSS No. 104.However, FMVSS No. 104 includes a definition of "daylight opening" that is taken from another SAE standard, paragraph 2.3.12 of section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963.
The definition does not provide that the area it describes is to be reduced by the area of the projected internal mirror on the windshield. Your second question is whether the 2002 version of SAE J1100 has been incorporated by reference into the definition of "seating reference point" (SgRP) at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions in the FMVSSs.The answer is no, the SgRP definition continues to reference the June 1984 version of SAE J1100.NHTSA has not announced rulemaking to include the 2002 version of SAE J1100 into the definition of SgRP. I hope this information is helpful.If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:104 |
2006 |
ID: 05-009139drn-2OpenDr. Jane van Tilborg Dear Dr. van Tilborg: This responds to your inquiry related to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 116, Motor vehicle brake fluids (set forth in Volume 49 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)) (49 CFR 571.116). You noted that the standard has a section related to labeling of brake fluid containers. While you recognize that this requirement applies in the United States, you asked if we could advise you about the situation for the "rest of the world". Specifically, you indicated that you may wish to "claim performance specifications FMVSS 116 DOT 3, DOT 4, etc". outside the United States, while meeting the local national labeling requirements but not the FMVSS No. 116 labeling requirements. We regret that we cannot advise you about the brake fluid requirements of countries other than the United States. We are concerned, however, that to the extent that you make claims about performance related to our standard, that the claims not be misleading. This would be a concern wherever the brake fluid is sold, and we assume that it would be a concern to other countries as well as to us. If the brake fluid meets all of the applicable requirements of FMVSS 116 other than labeling, you might include a statement to that effect on the label. Also, you must not certify that brake fluid meets FMVSS 116 if it does not meet all of the standards requirements. In addition to concerns related to the country in which the brake fluid is sold, purchasers might rely on such certification to import the brake fluid into the United States. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood ref:116 |
2006 |
ID: 05-009244drnOpenMr. Mike Pruzin Chief Engineer Hitachi Cable Indiana, Inc. 5300 Grant Line Road New Albany, IN 47150 Dear Mr. Pruzin: This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). You asked whether a change in the company manufacturing brake hoses necessitates a change in the manufacturer designation on the hose. As discussed below, under certain circumstances, brake hose may be labeled with the designation of a company which is the sponsor/manufacturer of the hose rather than the company which fabricates it. You informed us that Hitachi Cable Limited (HCL), a Japanese company, previously manufactured brake hose that it labeled HCL and supplied it to your company, Hitachi Cable Indiana, Inc. HCL subsequently entered into a licensing agreement with LG Cable, a Korean company, to, as you state: manufacture our hose using our designs and material specs. You wish to know if LG Cable can label the hose it manufactures with the same designation (HCL) used by HCL on the hose it manufactured, instead of labeling the hose with its own designation, LGC. Although you did not specify the brake hose type at issue, we assume that it is hydraulic brake hose. S5.2.2 of FMVSS No. 106 requires that each hydraulic brake hose be labeled, or cut from bulk hose that is labeled, with specified information. The specified information includes, among other things, a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The term "manufacturer" is defined by statute as "a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." 49 U.S.C. 30102. On several occasions, in the context of considering whether a particular entity may be considered the manufacturer of a motor vehicle, we have interpreted the term manufacturer broadly. In the 1985 notice of proposed rulemaking for the phase-in of the new automatic restraint requirements of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, the agency acknowledged that there were instances in which a vehicle arguably could have more than one manufacturer. See 50 Fed. Reg. 14589, 14596 (April 12, 1985). The example we gave in explaining our position was a company, which we refer to as a "sponsor," that contracts with another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor. However, the agency went on to state, "the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which is also a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles." Other examples are discussed in a December 10, 1992 letter to Erika Z. Jones, Esq. A copy of this letter is enclosed. We believe that the rationale of our interpretations regarding motor vehicle manufacturers is applicable to the situation you describe regarding motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. In particular, given the facts you provide, HCL may be considered the manufacturer of the brake hose at issue. HCL is not merely purchasing brake hose from LG Cable, but has entered into a licensing agreement with that company to manufacture hose using HCLs designs and material specs. Because HCL may be considered the sponsor/manufacturer of the brake hose, and assuming HCL has agreed to its being so designated, the hose may be labeled with HCLs designation. We note that, to the extent HCL provides for the hose to be labeled with its designation, it would be accepting responsibility as the manufacturer of the hose for purposes of NHTSAs regulations. This would include the responsibility to conduct any recall that may become necessary with regard to the hose. LG Cable would also be responsible as it would also be a manufacturer of the hose, since it is the entity that actually fabricates the hose. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:106 NCC-112:DNakama:mar::62992:OCC 009244 Cc: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Docket Std. 106 NCC112:DNakama:mar:62992:OCC#05-009244 cc: NCC-112 Subj/chron, DN NVS-200, NVS-100 rewrittenEG [U:\NCC20\INTERP\106\009244drn-5.doc] Interps: Std. No. 106, Redbook (2) |
|
ID: 05-009256drnOpenMs. Julie Laplante Les Entreprises Corbeil 830, 12 ime Avenue Laurentides (Qubec) J5M 2V9 CANADA Dear Ms. Laplante: This responds to your faxed letter asking how wheelchair weights are taken into consideration in calculating the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of a school bus manufactured in two or more stages. You ask several questions as a manufacturer of such a school bus. Our responses are based on our understanding of your questions and the facts presented in your letter. Some background information might be helpful. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSAs) regulations (49 CFR Part 567, Certification), each vehicle manufacturer must certify that each new vehicle complies with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As part of the certification, the manufacturer assigns a GVWR to the vehicle. GVWR is defined at 49 CFR Part 571.3, Definitions, as: the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturers good faith evaluation of the vehicles size, weight and load carrying capacity. The only express regulatory limitation on the assignment of GVWR is set forth in NHTSAs certification regulation, which states that the assigned GVWR shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicles designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120 pounds. (49 CFR 567.5(c)(5), Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. An identical provision is set forth in 567.4(g)(3) for vehicles manufactured in a single stage.)[1] With this background information, I will now address your questions as we understand them. Question No. 1. [Does] a wheelchair position ha[ve] the same weight [as] a designated seating capacity [sic]? We understand you to ask whether the weight of the wheelchair is included in the minimum occupant weight allowance specified in 49 CFR 567.5(c)(5). The answer is no. The weights of wheelchairs (because they are taken in and out of the school bus) would be considered part of the rated cargo load. When calculating the vehicles GVWR, the occupant weight allowance is a minimum of 120 pounds times the designated seating positions of the school bus, or 150 pounds times the designated seating positions of a bus. The weight of the wheelchair would be considered separate from the occupant weight allowance. Thus, when calculating the vehicles GVWR, the combined weight for occupants plus the unloaded vehicle weight plus the rated cargo load (which would include the weight of the wheelchairs) would be added together. (Unloaded vehicle weight means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. 49 CFR 571.3.) Question No. 2. If the answer is yes on question #1, do I have to calculate 150 pounds for a bus and/or 120 pounds for a school bus or multifunction school activity bus? The answer to #1 above was no. The occupant weight allowances in 567.5(c)(5) pertain to the weights of the persons on the bus, not to the weights of the wheelchairs. Question No. 3. If the answer is yes on question #1, do I have to add the weight of a passenger on top of the wheelchairs weight? See answers above. Question No. 4. Since there exists many types of wheelchairs (manually operated and self-propelled models), do we have the responsibility, as a manufacturer, to know exactly which kind of wheelchair will be used in a specific bus in order to calculate the GVWR? The GVWR must not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and a minimum of 120 pounds times the vehicles designated seating capacity. The weight of the wheelchairs would be considered part of the rated cargo load. The rated cargo load on which you base the GVWR rating should not be less than what you can reasonably expect the user to use on your vehicle. See also answers to #5 and #6 below.
Question No. 5. Do we have the choice between two wheelchair weights? (Example: 120 pounds for a wheelchair location in a school bus-manually operated/X [sic] pounds for a wheelchair location in a school bus self-propelled). If it is reasonable to expect that the user will load the school bus with certain types of wheelchairs, including self-propelled (motorized) ones that are more massive than manual wheelchairs, the GVWR should account for the weight of the motorized wheelchairs. That the bus would carry self-propelled wheelchairs during its service life does not seem an unreasonable expectation. It is your responsibility to select a chassis with sufficient load ratings that will accommodate the weight of the vehicle. Question No. 6. If the answer is yes to question number 5, what would be the weight of a self-propelled wheelchair? We cannot answer this question for you. It is your responsibility as a manufacturer to evaluate the weights of the wheelchairs. The rated cargo load must not be less than what can reasonably be expected to be used on the school bus. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel #ref:567 NCC-112:DNakama 3/2/06:revisedDfujita4/19/06:62992:OCC#05-009256 S:\INTERP\567\05-009256drn.doc cc:NCC-112, subj/chron, DN, NVS-100, NVS-200, Interps: 567, Redbooks (2) [1] Because you ask about school buses, we also draw your attention to our regulation defining the term designated seating position (49 CFR 571.3). The regulation specifies that: For the sole purpose of determining the classification of any vehicle sold or introduced into interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, any location in such vehicle intended for securement of an occupied wheelchair during vehicle operation is regarded as four (4) designated seating positions. This provision was adopted to ensure that smaller school buses remain classified as school buses, and thus subject to the school bus safety standards, when seats are removed to install wheelchair securement positions. |
|
ID: 05-009466drnOpenMs. Phyllis Mason 2613 Sunny Meadow McKinney, TX 75070 Dear Ms. Mason: This responds to your letter about window screens. You state that you own a vehicle that has a rear window screen that raises and lowers with the touch of a button, and that you find the screen to be very useful. You ask whether a window screen that would operate with a switch built into the car to raise and lower a screen for the front window or windshield would be permitted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The short answer is that our regulations do not prohibit a vehicle from having such a screen, but we have some safety concerns about such a device. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates reports of safety-related defects. FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under the standard, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. We have interpreted FMVSS No. 205 not to prohibit a retractable built-in screen for the rear window of vehicles (September 19, 1995 letter to General Motors Corporation). The agency determined in the 1995 letter that the screen is neither glazing in itself nor in combination with the glazing in the vehicle (because it is not attached to the glazing). Similarly, we interpret the standard as not prohibiting a retractable built-in front window screen. However, we have some safety concerns about in-vehicle front windshield shades. Driving with a lowered shade would be unsafe, as the view through the windshield could be substantially impeded. We are also concerned that these devices could be purposefully or unintentionally deployed while the vehicle is in motion.[1] From this perspective, non-mechanical front windshield shade products that protect the interior while the vehicle is parked do not convey such risk. Note that States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. If you wish to know whether State law permits the installation of front windshield screens in a vehicle, you should contact State officials with your question. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:205#302 d.6/19/06 [1] Our statute limits the types of modifications that manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses can make to used vehicles (49 U.S.C. 30122). These entities cannot install a built-in sun screen if doing so would make inoperative any device or design installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. |
2006 |
ID: 05-Turnquist_drnOpen
Mr. Harold V. Turnquist Dear Mr. Turnquist: This responds to your letter requesting confirmation that there has been no change since 1998 in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSAs) position regarding use of 15-passenger vans by your districts Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) program. In an April 29, 1998, letter to you, then Acting Chief Counsel John Womack stated that NHTSA does not consider the ECFE program to constitute a "school" as that term is used in our statute. Mr. Womack concluded that new buses leased to you for transporting ECFE Program participants were thus not required to be school buses under Federal law. Assuming the ECFE program has not changed, we confirm that we still believe that the instruction in developing the participants parenting skills are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school", and that we thus do not consider the ECFE program to be a "school" for purposes of our regulations. Accordingly, if a dealer were to sell or lease a new 15-passenger van to the Saint Paul Public Schools Community Education Department for the exclusive use of the ECFE program, that dealer need not sell or lease a new school bus. Nonetheless, there have been developments in the last few years regarding the use of 15-passenger vans, and we appreciate the opportunity to bring these to your attention. 15-Passenger Van Rollover Risk The way some 15-passenger vans may be driven may subject occupants to an increased risk of rollover crashes. On June 1, 2004, NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D. , reissued a cautionary warning to 15-passenger van users because of an increased rollover risk under certain conditions. NHTSA research has shown that 15-passenger vans have a rollover risk that increases dramatically as the number of occupants increases from fewer than five to more than ten. In fact, 15-passenger vans with 10 or more occupants had a rollover rate in single-vehicle crashes that is nearly three times the rate of those that were lightly loaded. Dr. Runge advised 15-passenger van users to be aware of the following safety precautions in order to significantly reduce the rollover risk: I am enclosing copies of the consumer advisory and a flyer, "Reducing the Risk of Rollover Crashes in 15-Passenger Vans". The Multifunction School Activity Bus In 2003, NHTSA established a new school bus subcategory, the "multifunction school activity bus" (MFSAB). This vehicle is a bus that meets all Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses except those for school bus flashing lights and stop arms. MFSABs are sold for purposes that do not include transporting students to and from home or school bus stops. Federal law permits the sale of new MFSABs to child care facilities as an alternative to school buses with flashing lights and stop arms. A copy of a July 31, 2003, final rule that establishes the vehicle category is enclosed for your information. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosures |
2005 |
ID: 0513Open Mr. Yoshiaki Matsui Dear Mr. Matsui: We have received your letter of November 16, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency, asking for an interpretation of the final rule that amended Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on November 2, 1994. The rule amended S5.1.2(c) to specify, in pertinent part, that "after the outdoor exposure test, plastic materials used for reflex reflectors . . . shall not show . . . haze that exceeds 7 percent . . . ." The amendment is effective November 1, 1995. You have presented two fact situations with respect to replacement reflex reflectors, and ask whether the amended haze requirement is applicable in each case. These are: "First case - replacement reflex reflectors manufactured after the effective date, but the vehicle to which the reflex reflectors are fitted is no longer manufactured after the effective date." Motor vehicle replacement equipment is governed by S5.8 of Standard No. 108. S5.8.1 requires that any reflective device manufactured to replace any reflective device on any vehicle to which Standard No. 108 applies shall be designed to conform to Standard No. 108. Paragraphs S5.8.2 through S5.8.9 permit certain specified items of replacement equipment to be manufactured to original equipment specifications (e.g., earlier versions of SAE standards no longer specified for original equipment on motor vehicles); however, reflex reflectors are not included among them. This means that any reflex reflectors manufactured on and after November 1, 1995, whether original or replacement, must conform with the 7 percent haze limitation, regardless of the date of manufacture of the vehicle. "Second case - Replacement reflex reflectors manufactured before the effective date, which may be fitted to a vehicle manufactured before or after the effective date. (In this case, the same type of vehicles are manufactured before and after the effective date continuously.)" A replacement reflex reflector manufactured before November 1, 1995, to replace a reflex reflector on a vehicle manufactured either before or after November 1, 1995, is subject to the requirement that the plastic materials used in them shall show no haze in a visual inspection after the outdoor exposure test because that is the requirement in effect at the time the replacement reflex reflector is manufactured. As a practical matter, it would appear to make no difference when the reflector was manufactured or to which specification. The amendment is not intended to change manufacturing techniques or composition of plastics materials in any way. Because it is impossible not to have some degree of haze at the end of the three-year test period, Standard No. 108 was amended to make it more objective and practicable, and the measured haze limit raised to 7 percent, at which point haze is visible to the naked eye. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:12/7/94
|
1994 |
ID: 0533Open Mr. Michael Love Dear Mr. Love: We have received your letter of November 29, 1994, asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 591. Specifically, Porsche wishes to import vehicles for the Canadian market through the Port of Charleston, where certain processing activities will be performed on the cars before they are exported to Canada. The temporary importation of Canadian-market cars would be through 591.5(c) which allows importation "solely for export", provided that the vehicle is so labeled. You have asked for our concurrence in your interpretation of 591.5(c). We agree that Porsche may import and export Canadian-market cars under this section of the importation regulation. You foresee a situation in which "a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U.S. customer". Porsche would like to be able to convert the vehicle to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards after importation and before it leaves Porsche's control. Porsche would also like to be able to re-import from Canada into the U.S. vehicles that would be converted to U.S. specifications. You have asked for confirmation that these operations would also be permissible under 591.5(c). Importation of noncomplying motor vehicles into the United States and their subsequent conversion to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be accomplished through the mechanisms established by Congress in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (now 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.). First, NHTSA must have decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. Second, a vehicle intended for sale must be imported under bond by one who has been designated a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, who will undertake to bring the vehicle into compliance and to submit appropriate proof of this to NHTSA. Porsche may become a Registered Importer by filing an application under Part 592. If a vehicle intended for the Canadian market has been temporarily imported under 591.5(c), and Porsche then wishes to convert it to U.S. specifications rather than export it to Canada, you should telephone Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (202-366- 2830), to apprise him of the situation. We see no problem in this as long as NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation and Porsche provides a compliance package, in accordance with the requirements of Parts 592 and 593. Sincerely,
Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:591#592#593 d:12/22/94
|
1994 |
ID: 0552Open Ms. Melinda Dresser Dear Ms. Dresser: We have received your letter of November 28, 1994, asking whether the exterior lighting of six Oscar Mayer "Wienermobiles" that your company is manufacturing conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed diagrams showing the location of the exterior lighting devices. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, the determination of whether a vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is that of the manufacturer who, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30115, must certify compliance of the vehicle with those standards upon completion of manufacture. NHTSA has no authority to approve or disapprove specific vehicle designs. We do, however, provide interpretations of our standards to manufacturers upon request. The appropriate standard here is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Your letter does not state whether Carlin has classified the Wienermobile as a "passenger car" or as a "truck". We believe that the vehicle is a "truck" within the meaning of 49 CFR 571.3(b) because it appears to be "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment", rather than for the transportation of passengers, and that its overall width of 94 inches makes it more appropriate for the Wienermobile to meet wide vehicle lighting requirements. Therefore, the Wienermobile must be equipped with the lighting equipment specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, and located as specified in Table II, the requirements for trucks whose overall width is 80 inches or more. This means that they must be equipped with the front and rear clearance and identification lamps that Table I requires for wide trucks; these lamps do not appear on your drawings. In addition, all four-wheeled motor vehicles are required to have hazard warning/turn signal lamps and we don't see these lamps either on the drawings. With respect to front lighting equipment that is depicted, we note that supplementary lighting equipment such as fog lamps and the "front marker light" are permissible under Standard No. 108 if the manufacturer determines that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, in this instance, the headlamps. In the absence of a clearly erroneous determination, NHTSA will accept the manufacturer's judgment on impairment. Trucks that are subject to Table II need not be equipped with a center high- mounted stop lamp or parking lamps, if that is the purpose of the front marker lamp. We hope that these comments will be helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:1/9/95
|
1995 |
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.