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: Milner.jgwOpenMr. Mel Milner Dear Mr. Milner: This is in reply to your letter of October 9, 2002, in which you ask how the requirements of 49 CFR 541.6 apply to two situations that have arisen in the course of your Divisions examination of rebuilt salvage vehicles.Your questions, and our answers, are as follow: 1) Is the R-DOT sticker required to have the same security features, and a standard format, as those listed under Sec. 541.5(d)(1), et al, CFR?Although we find that those identification stickers bearing a Vehicle Identification Number always meet the standards, we rarely find the R-DOT sticker meeting the listed standard, except for the dimensions of the sticker. Depending on whether a replacement part is manufactured domestically or imported, the R-DOT label on the part must have all or some of the security features required for labels on original equipment parts under 49 CFR 541.5.If the part is manufactured domestically, 541.6(a) provides that the manufacturer must affix or inscribe the mark on the part "by means that comply with 541.5(d)," the provision in 49 CFR 541.5 that requires security features for parts on new vehicles.If the part is imported, 541.6(a) provides that the importer must mark it in accordance with 541.5(d)(2), which provides that the removal of the label must "visibly alter the appearance of the section of the vehicle part" on which it is placed. Whether a part is manufactured domestically or imported, the label on the part must be in a specified format (with the manufacturers registered trademark or some other unique identifier, the letter R, and the DOT certification) and must be located within the target area specified by the original manufacturer of the vehicle for which the part is designed. 2) On a number of occasions vehicle rebuilders have presented parts to this Division without the R-DOT affixed, but were provided with R-DOT stickers by a parts distributor to affix themselves.A sample of such "loose" R-DOT stickers is attached on the following page.It is our position that only the manufacturer is permitted to affix the R-DOT sticker to the part.Is this position correct? The R-DOT label must be affixed by the manufacturer, if the part is domestically manufactured (541.6(a)).If the part is imported, the label must be affixed by the importer (541.6(a)) before the part is imported (541.6(f)).In no case is it permissible to sell an unmarked replacement part.In the situation you describe, the parts distributor could not comply with 541.6 by selling unmarked parts and providing "loose" labels to be affixed by a rebuilder. The sample labels attached to your letter contain only the R-DOT legend, with the subscript "Made in Taiwan."Because these labels do not contain the importers trademark or other unique identifier, they would not comply with 541.6(a) even if the imported affixed them before importing the parts. I hope that this information is useful to you. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:541 |
2002 |
ID: mitsuOpen Steven Sinkez, Vice-President Dear Mr. Sinkez: This responds to your request for an interpretation of our Vehicle Identification Number regulation, which you made in a July 5, 1995, meeting with Dorothy Nakama and Steve Wood of this office. You asked, after Diamond Star Motors Corporation's (DSM's) name is changed to Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc. (MMMA), whether that company may continue to use the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to DSM. As discussed below, the answer is yes. We understand the facts as follows. When DSM was formed, shares of DSM stock were split between Mitsubishi Corporation and Chrysler Corporation. In 1994, Mitsubishi purchased all of Chrysler's shares in DSM. Mitsubishi now owns 100% of DSM stock. Effective July 1, 1995, Mitsubishi changed DSM's name to MMMA. We have been informed that no changes other than transfers of shares in DSM stock and the name change were made in MMMA's corporate form. By way of background information, 49 CFR part 565 Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements is intended to simplify VIN information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle defect recall campaigns. Section 565.4(a) provides that a portion of the VIN, called the WMI, must "uniquely identify the manufacturer." The basic issue raised by your question is, if MMMA continues to use the WMI assigned to DSM, whether the WMI will "uniquely identify the manufacturer." In the factual situation at issue, only the company's name is changed, and not the identity of the manufacturer, i.e., MMMA is the same corporation as DSM. Therefore, MMMA may continue to use the WMI assigned to DSM. I hope this response is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Patrick M. Raher, Esq. Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. 555 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 ref: 565#115 d:8/2/95
|
1995 |
ID: ModelYearJonesLet.4OpenErika Z. Jones, Esq. Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your letter of November 19, 2002, regarding Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirements (49 CFR Part 565). Specifically, you ask whether 49 CFR 565.6(d)(1) permits a manufacturer to designate vehicles as belonging to a single model year, where the production period for such vehicles falls within three different calendar years, but runs for less than 24 months in total. Based upon the definition of the term "model year" in 49 CFR 565.3(j), the answer is no. We are pleased to clarify this provision of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations dealing with VIN requirements. Under 49 CFR 565.6(d)(1), manufacturers are directed to include a character for model year as the first character of the fourth section of the VIN, with the year-specific alphanumeric code drawn from Table VI of that section. Under 49 CFR 565.3(j), the term "model year" is defined as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model, irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years." Before the agency promulgated a final rule moving VIN requirements to Part 565 (48 FR 22567, May 19, 1983), those requirements were found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 115. As your letter observes, the final rule states that "[t]he basic substantive requirements of Standard 115 are unchanged by this action." 48 FR 22567, 22567. However, in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that preceded the final rule, the agency did note that "[s]ome minor clarifications are also being proposed in this notice." 47 FR 42004, 42005 (Sept. 23, 1982). One of those clarifications concerned the definition of "model year," for the purpose of the VIN regulations. In its migration from FMVSS No. 115 to Part 565, the definition of "model year" was changed slightly, with the word "calendar" added to the text requiring that the actual period of production be "less than two calendar years." Before that change, the definition of "model year" read: "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than 2 years." Although we recognize that, as you suggest, it would have been possible to construe the reference to "2 years" in that definition as meaning any 24-month period, the presence of the term "calendar year" earlier in the same sentence would have equally supported an alternative construction that "2 years" referred to two calendar years. Thus, the 1983 addition of the word "calendar" to the definition of "model year" clarified the earlier definition in order to remove any possible ambiguity as to the meaning of "years." The agency received no comments objecting to this amendment in response to the NPRM, and the final rules definition of the term "model year" has remained in place for nearly two decades. Moreover, interpreting the term "model year" to mean any 24-month period, as your letter suggests, would require us to read out the concept of "calendar year" from the definition at 49 CFR 565.3(j). As you apparently realize, vehicles manufactured in calendar year 2003 could not be designed as MY 2005 vehicles for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program (see 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(15)) or the Theft Protection requirements (see 49 U.S.C. 33101(8)). While we recognize that those programs are authorized under a different statute than the VIN program, we see no reason to construe the VIN requirements in a manner that would allow vehicles to have different model years for different purposes. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:565 |
2003 |
ID: MOPOA.ETLOpenMs. Patricia Libbert Dear Ms. Libbert: This responds to your letter requesting guidance from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") on the proper use of the secure power of attorney for odometer disclosure statements that is authorized by sections 580.13 through 580.15 of NHTSA's odometer disclosure regulation (49 CFR Part 580). The question you ask is whether it is permissible under these regulations for a transferee who has authority to execute the odometer disclosure statement on behalf its transferor by virtue of a secure power of attorney, to use a general power of attorney to appoint a third party (such as a lienholder) to execute the odometer disclosure statement on its behalf. The answer to your question is no. As you know, Federal Odometer Disclosure Regulations promulgated pursuant to the Truth in Mileage Act ("TIMA") (49 U.S.C. Chapter 327) forbid the same party from signing an odometer disclosure statement as both transferor and transferee. 49 CFR 580.5(h). This provision implements TIMA's goal of reducing odometer fraud by making illegal the execution of an odometer disclosure statement when only one of the two parties to the vehicle transfer would be aware of previous mileage disclosures. 53 Fed. Reg. 29471 (Aug. 5, 1988). An amendment to TIMA created the secure power of attorney as a limited exception to this prohibition. 49 U.S.C. 32705(b)(2)(A). That section authorizes one party to a vehicle transfer to use a power of attorney to delegate to the other party its responsibility for executing the odometer disclosure statement (i.e., to execute the odometer disclosure statement as both transferor and transferee), but only if the title is not available at the time of transfer because it is in the hands of a lienholder. Id. NHTSA regulations implementing this provision also permit the use of the secure power of attorney when the title is unavailable at the time of transfer because it is lost. 49 CFR 580.13. The purpose of the secure power of attorney provision is two-fold: to reduce undue interference with dealers' ability to promptly resell vehicles taken in trade that might arise from the requirement that the odometer disclosure be made on the title at the time of transfer and the prohibition against transferees executing the disclosure on behalf of transferors; and to preserve the protection against odometer fraud that is afforded by TIMA's provisions requiring odometer disclosure on the title and prohibiting the same party from signing the disclosure as transferor and transferee. Allowing a transferee who has received a secure power of attorney for the purpose of odometer disclosure to use a general power of attorney to appoint a third party to make the odometer disclosure would render the fraud protections in the Federal regulations governing secure powers of attorney completely ineffectual. The general power of attorney would not be on secure paper, on a form issued by the state; and would not contain any of the additional provisions in NHTSA's regulations that are designed to protect against fraud. These include the requirements that the transferor who is giving the power of attorney disclose the mileage at time of transfer on the power of attorney form, sign the form (including the printed name), give the transferee's name and address, the date of transfer, and a certification as to whether the odometer reading reflects actual mileage (49 CFR Section 580.13(b) - (d)); and the requirements that the transferee sign the form (also including the printed name), return a copy of the form to the transferor, enter the mileage on the title exactly as it is disclosed by the transferor on the secure power of attorney form, and return the original secure power of attorney form to the state that issued it, along with a copy of the title or the original title, whichever is applicable (49 CFR 580.13(e),(f)). In the absence of these safeguards, the recipient of the general power of attorney would be able to execute the odometer disclosure statement on behalf of both the original transferor and the original transferee, without having to comply with the Federal regulations governing the use of powers of attorney for odometer disclosure. Essentially, allowing a secure power of attorney to be transferred by means of a general power of attorney would accomplish indirectly what TIMA prohibits -- permitting the same party to sign an odometer disclosure as transferor and transferee -- while providing none of the protections against fraud afforded by the secure power of attorney. In any event, there should be no need for a dealer to execute a power of attorney transferring its secure power of attorney to a lienholder for the purpose of odometer disclosure. If the dealer has a buyer for a vehicle for which it has not yet received the title from the lienholder, the regulations provide that it may accomplish odometer disclosure by using Part B of the secure power of attorney form, by which it in turn designates its transferee as its attorney in fact for the purpose of odometer disclosure. I hope this information adequately addresses your questions. If you have any legal questions concerning the Federal odometer disclosure law and regulations, please contact Ms. Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at 202-366-5263. Any questions or concerns regarding odometer fraud or the Federal odometer enforcement program may be directed to Mr. Richard Morse, Chief of NHTSA's Odometer Fraud Staff, at 202-366-4761. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:580 d:9/19/96 |
1996 |
ID: Morgenstern.1OpenMr. Howard Morgenstern Dear Mr. Morgenstern: This responds to your June 14, 2004, letter in which you request interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked about the light transmissibility requirements for windows on minivans and what vehicle classification a minivan would have under the standard. Your letter explained that you received a ticket in New York City because the rear window on the drivers side of your Ford Windstar had "excessive tint," which the ticket characterized as less than 70% light transmissibility. Based upon the facts presented, we believe that the rear windows on your minivan are not subject to any light transmissibility requirement under FMVSS No. 205, although they may be subject to requirements under State law. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of those standards is FMVSS No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing. FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways Standard ANSI Z26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a-1980 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "ANSI Z26.1"). One requirement of FMVSS No. 205 involves the light transmissibility of glazing. The items of glazing to which these light transmissibility requirements apply depend upon the type of vehicle and the location of the glazing. For example, in passenger cars, all glazing required for driver visibility must meet a light transmissibility requirement of 70% (excluding any shade band), which essentially includes the windshield, all driver and passenger side windows, and the rear window (see ANSI Z26.1 Table 1). However, for buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), only windshields, driver and passenger front side windows, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility need to meet the 70% light transmissibility requirement (see ANSI Z26.1 Table 1). The standard does not specify a light transmissibility requirement for any other windows on these types of vehicles. Under NHTSAs statutory authority (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) and regulations, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance, and such classification is required to be included on the vehicle certification label (see 49 CFR 567.4(g)(7)). (Definitions for the terms "passenger car," "multipurpose passenger vehicle," and "truck" are provided under our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3, Definitions.)NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle, although the agency may reexamine the manufacturers classification in the course of any enforcement actions. Although we have not examined your vehicle or its certification label, we recognize that most minivans are properly classified as MPVs or trucks. We would expect that the Ford Windstar is similarly classified. Consequently, if our assumption is correct, only the windshield, driver and passenger front side windows, and any rear window that is used for driving visibility would be subject to the 70% light transmissibility requirement under FMVSS No. 205. However, as discussed in our November 9, 2001, letter of interpretation to Terry W. Wagar (copy enclosed), NHTSA decided in a 1998 rulemaking not to regulate light transmittance levels of light truck and MPV rear and rear side glazing under FMVSS No. 205. In that rulemaking, the agency also stated that States are free to set light transmittance levels for those windows on those vehicles (see 63 FR 37820, 37827 (July 14, 1998)). Thus, Federal law would not preempt State laws that specify light transmissibility requirements for such windows. However, we cannot advise you as to the requirements of New York law. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Enclosure |
2004 |
ID: morr.jegOpen Ms. Sarah L. Morrissey Dear Ms. Morrissey: This responds to your faxed letter concerning air bag regulations. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked what specific governmental regulations were in effect regarding air bags in a 1994 Plymouth Voyager. You also asked whether the Voyager is considered a car or light truck. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations related to air bags are included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. The safety standards that apply to a vehicle depend on its date of manufacture. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 208 revised as of October 1, 1993. This corresponds to the early part of the 1994 model year. For purposes of our safety standards, the Plymouth Voyager was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. I note that the term "light truck" is commonly used to refer to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. For further information about air bags and related rulemakings, you may wish to visit our web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov and select the term "Air bags" under the Popular Information column. Sincerely, |
1997 |
ID: motor_vehicle_definitionOpen Mr. M. James Lester Dear Mr. Lester: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 2001, asking for an interpretation that small utility trucks and vans you wish to import from Korea are not "motor vehicles" subject to regulation by this agency. You enclosed a flyer which describes the vehicles you wish to import as follows: (1) a "Coach" van, designed to seat 7 passengers; (2) a "Panel Van," designed to seat 2 passengers; and (3) two types of flatbed trucks-each designed to seat two passengers-one for standard cargo and the other for long cargo. We note that we addressed the importation of similar vehicles manufactured by Asia Motors in our letter of August 11, 2000, to Daryl R. Nelson of Fleet Golf and Industrial Vehicles, Inc. In your letter, you list five factors that this agency has considered in determining whether a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" subject to our motor vehicle safety regulations. After each factor, you provide facts about your situation. These factors are: 1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use. You represent that "All advertising, brochures, and promotional materials will clearly state that these vehicles are intended for use off-road only." You further indicate that "use [of the vehicles] in any other capacity will serve to void the warranty." This factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles. 2. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist the vehicle's purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. You addressed this factor by stating that "any MCO or MSO would have to come though our company, and under no circumstance would we ever assist in obtaining such documents for the purpose of registering these vehicles for on-road use." This factor would indicate that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles. 3. Whether the vehicles will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles. You replied that your company "do[es] not intend to market these vehicles through automobile or truck dealers, but instead will market through golf car, turf and industrial vehicle dealers." According to your letter, such dealers "primarily sell vehicles for off-road use in such applications as[:] maintenance and material handling on golf course grounds, park grounds, large industrial plants, etc." While golf courses, park grounds, and large industrial plants may have roadways, these are generally not roads used by the general public. Accordingly, this factor suggests that the vehicles should not be considered motor vehicles. 4. Whether the vehicle has affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads. You have informed us that the vehicles you wish to import will have a 2-inch by 7-inch yellow and black label mounted on the rear headed "WARNING" and which states that "This vehicle is for off-road use only. The use of this vehicle is not intended for on-road use, and it does not meet US DOT regulations for on-road use. It is illegal for use as a licensed vehicle!" As this agency's regulations concern on-road vehicles rather than on-road use, we would ask that you change the second sentence of the warning label to read as follows: "This vehicle is not intended for on-road use, and it does not meet US DOT regulations for on-road vehicles." With this change, this factor would indicate that the vehicles are not motor vehicles. 5. Whether states or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. You state that "it is your understanding that some foreign countries do allow the use of these vehicles on-road in some circumstances." For purposes of this interpretation, we assume that they are operated there without the 25 mph-speed governor that you will install on the ones that your company intends to import into the United States. Since the vehicles closely resemble small trucks and vans used on the public roads, we believe it is likely that states would permit them to be registered for highway use. Therefore, this factor suggests that the vehicles should be considered motor vehicles. Based on the representations in your letter and considering all the five factors discussed above, on balance, we believe that your vehicles are not "motor vehicles." However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn, for example, the vehicles are in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack ref:571 |
2001 |
ID: Mr_ Richard HardestyOpen1000 West Main Street P.O. Box 158 Sargent, Nebraska 68874 Dear Mr. Hardesty: This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expressing concern about the Sargent Volunteer Fire Departments transporting minor children in cargo areas in vehicles during what appears to be an annual Fire Prevention Week event. You enclose copies of newspaper photographs of preschool and elementary school students riding on a firetruck. The captions on the photographs indicate that the children were given rides on the vehicles as part of a Fire Prevention Week parade or other community outreach event. You are concerned that the firetrucks are not equipped to provide occupant protection systems for children. You believe that Nebraska State law requires children to be in child safety seats that meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You believe that if the law prohibits carrying the children as described above, then the practice should be discontinued, or the law changed to permit the practice. I appreciate your interest in child passenger safety. However, we regret to inform you that your question cannot be answered by NHTSA. Your letter relates to Nebraska State law and so must be answered by Nebraska State officials. By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. Under that authority, we issued FMVSS No. 213, which sets forth requirements which must be met by any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 65 pounds or less. We require that persons manufacturing child restraint systems (including child safety seats) must certify that their products meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213, and must ensure that their products meet all other requirements of the Safety Act. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects, undertakes automotive research initiatives, and administers grant programs for State highway safety projects. NHTSA does not set requirements for how children are to be transported in vehicles, such as whether child restraints must be used in parade vehicles. Matters relating to the use of child restraints, including child safety seats, are decided by individual States. Thus, your question asking whether there is an exemption under the law that permits children to ride in parades without a child restraint system is most appropriately answered by Nebraska officials. For information about Nebraskas law, we suggest you contact: Mr. Fred E. Zwonechek, Administrator, Department of Roads, Office of Highway Safety, 5001 S. 14th St., Lincoln, Nebraska, 68512-1248, telephone: (402) 471-2515. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel Signed 5/26/10 ref:213 |
|
ID: Ms BuleyOpenMs. Gloria M. Buley President Woodstock Safety Mirror Co., Inc. 253 Mountain Road Shokan, NY 12481 Dear Ms. Buley: This responds to your recent request for further clarification of our July 10, 2006, letter of interpretation regarding how applicable Federal regulations apply to your product, a school bus supplemental mirror system comprised of a forward-looking fold-out mirror with a stop signal device on the back that is intended to be mounted on the right side of the school bus. Specifically, pursuant to a March 8, 2007, teleconference and a subsequent March 10, 2007 e-mail, you sought clarification regarding the permissibility of installing a third school bus stop signal arm on the right side of a school bus, provided that two stop arms are already provided on the left side of the school bus. You also asked how one would test the vehicle in seeking to verify that this supplemental mirror/stop signal arm system does not take the vehicle out of compliance with applicable safety standards. As discussed in further detail below, a supplemental stop signal arm on the right side of a school bus is permissible under Federal law provided: (1) two compliant stop signal arms are already present on the left side of the bus; and (2) the additional, supplemental stop signal arm does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any applicable safety standards (e.g., Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors). Assuming that your supplemental stop signal arm/mirror system retracts when the school bus door closes, a bus equipped with your device would be tested under paragraph S13, School Bus Mirror Test Procedures, of FMVSS No.111 with your supplemental stop signal arm in the retracted position. The Authority of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration As we noted in our July 10, 2006, letter of interpretation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to self-certify that their products comply with all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture, prior to their first sale to the public. NHTSA selects a sampling of new vehicles and equipment each year to determine their compliance with applicable FMVSSs. If our testing or examination reveals an apparent noncompliance, we may require the manufacturer to remedy the noncompliance, and may initiate an enforcement proceeding if necessary to ensure that the manufacturer takes appropriate action. Compliance certification is a significant matter for affected manufacturers, because our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) prohibits any person from selling any new vehicle, including a school bus, that does not comply with all applicable Federal safety standards (see 49 U.S.C. 30112). Furthermore, after the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS (see 49 U.S.C. 30122). In general, the make inoperative prohibition requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with applicable standards. The make inoperative provision does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles, but we urge owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Background As we explained in our earlier letter, there are two primary Federal safety standards that have bearing on your product: (1) FMVSS No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, and (2) FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Each will be discussed in turn below, followed by our response to your questions. FMVSS No. 131 Each new school bus must be equipped with a stop signal arm meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. Stop signal arm is defined at S4 of FMVSS No. 131 as a device that can be extended outward from the side of a school bus to provide a signal to other motorists not to pass the bus because it has stopped to load or discharge passengers. Standard No. 131 requires the stop signal arm to be installed on the left side of the bus (S5.4). The standard also specifies that a second stop signal arm may be installed on a school bus. The second stop signal arm must be on the left side of the bus and must comply with certain requirements of the standard (S5.4.2). We note that under paragraph S5.5, FMVSS No. 131 provides, The stop signal arm shall be automatically extended in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated; except that a device may be installed that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm. However, FMVSS No. 131 does not specify a corresponding test procedure for operation (i.e., extension and retraction) of school bus stop signal arms. FMVSS No. 111 The requirements for the performance and location of vehicle mirrors are contained in FMVSS No. 111, and provisions of particular relevance here include S9, Requirements for School Buses, and S13, School Bus Mirror Test Procedures. In short, each school bus is required to be equipped with two outside rearview mirror systems, System A and System B. System A requires at least one mirror of unit magnification of not less than 323 cm2 of reflective surface with stable supports on each side of the bus. These mirrors must provide, at the drivers eye location, a rearward view of specified test cylinders and that area of the ground at least 61 meters from the mirror surface. System B mirrors are required to have no surface discontinuities, a projected area of at least 258 cm2, and to be affixed with stable supports. In addition, those mirrors must be located such that the distance from the center point of the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female seated in the drivers seat to the center of the mirror shall be at least 95 cm. System B mirrors must provide a view of the entire top surface of specified cylinders in the test procedures and also provide a view of the ground that overlaps with the view of the ground provided by the System A mirrors. As shown in Figure 2 of the standard, the required mirror systems must provide a rearward view along the right side of the bus at least 3.6 m (12 ft.) perpendicular to the vehicle when measured from the centerline of the rear axle. The required mirror systems must also provide a rearward view along the left side of the bus at least 1.8 m (6 ft.) perpendicular to the vehicle when measured from the centerline of the rear axle. In summary, unless the cylinders can be viewed directly by the driver, the System A and System B mirrors must together provide a view of the entire top surface of all of the test cylinders depicted in Figure 2 of FMVSS No. 111. When the agency conducts compliance testing under FMVSS No. 111, we follow paragraph S.13, School bus mirror test procedures. In relevant part here, subparagraph S13.8 provides, Make all observations and take all photographs with the service/entry door in the closed position and the stop signal arm(s) in the fully retracted position. Your Specific Issues Permissibility of a Third Stop Signal Arm Taking the simpler issue first, we are first analyzing your product in light of FMVSS No. 131. Your device meets the definition of a stop signal arm, but it is designed to be installed on the right side of the bus. Because S5.4 and S5.4.2 specify only that the primary stop signal arm and any secondary stop signal arm must be on the left side, your device can be installed on the right side of the bus only if the device is a third stop signal arm. To further clarify, a supplemental stop signal arm on the right side of a school bus is permissible under Federal law provided: (1) two compliant stop signal arms are already present on the left side of the bus; and (2) the additional, supplemental stop signal arm does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any applicable safety standards (with FMVSS No. 111 being the most relevant). In response to your other question, we are not aware of the details of any early State efforts related to stop signal arms testing. You may wish to contact State officials directly to seek further information. Testing to Demonstrate that a Supplemental Stop Signal Arm Does Not Take the School Bus Out of Compliance with FMVSS No. 111 Based upon our analysis of the materials (including engineering diagrams) that you submitted previously, we believe that your system would provide supplemental mirrors, because it would not provide the requisite performance for required equipment. As noted above, your supplemental mirror system would be permissible, provided that it does not interfere with the performance of the mirrors required under FMVSS No. 111. In other words, your system may not be mounted in a way that would block the required System A or System B mirrors view, as this would prevent the driver from seeing all of the required test points under S13. It is with reference to the requirements specified above that your device is to be judged in terms of maintaining a school buss ongoing compliance with applicable safety standards. As you point out, when conducting compliance testing, the agency would assess the school bus in a stationary position with its doors closed and stop signal arm(s) retracted. When students are being loaded onto the stopped bus, the doors will generally obstruct the field of view specified in Figure 2, during which time the stop arm will normally be extended. Once the doors are closed and the stop arm(s) is (are) retracted, school bus drivers are trained to look in their System A and System B mirrors to ensure that no children or vehicles are approaching the bus before it moves into traffic. So provided that your supplemental stop signal arm/mirror system retracts when the school bus door closes, a bus equipped with your device would be tested with your supplemental stop signal arm in the retracted position. We understand from speaking with you that you have hired at least one testing corporation to conduct school bus testing with your product installed in order to demonstrate that your companys mirror system would neither make inoperative nor diminish the performance of any other mirrors or safety devices currently required on school buses. It would be appropriate to conduct such testing under the procedures specified in S13 of FMVSS No. 111, although the intent would be to demonstrate the vehicles ongoing compliance with supplemental equipment, rather than demonstrating the compliance of required equipment. One specific goal of such testing would be to provide confirmation that when installed and in the retracted position, your device does not obstruct the view of cylinder N, which is located only one foot from the right side of the bus. In summary, assuming that it is possible to maintain compliance with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 111, we believe that your supplemental stop signal arm/mirror system would be permissible as a third stop signal arm. However, we cannot independently confirm that statement, because it is not possible for us to assess your device when mounted on the large variety of current school bus designs. We would also point out that the Federal requirements are only the first step on the journey of bringing a piece of motor vehicle equipment to market. State governments also regulate school buses. Different States may have varying requirements (and prohibitions) regarding equipment on school buses operated in their jurisdictions. Such State requirements are generally permissible, so long as they do not conflict with relevant Federal standards (being thereby preempted). We cannot advise you as to State law. Accordingly, you may wish to consult with relevant State officials regarding applicable requirements prior to marketing your product in that State. I hope this information is helpful. Congressman Maurice D. Hinchey has contacted us on your behalf, so we will be sending him a copy of this response. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas or Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel cc: The Honorable Maurice D. Hinchey ref:111 d.3/26/07 |
2007 |
ID: nht73-3.28OpenDATE: 02/15/73 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA TO: Mr. Charles J. Simerlein TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 29, 1972, concerning the method in which a load is to be "secured in the luggage area" under the test procedures of Standard 208. I apologize for our delay. The intent of S8.1.1(a) is to place the load in the luggage area in such a way that it stays there during the test. The standard does not specify the manner in which the load is secured. A manufacturer may secure it in any reasonable manner. |
|
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.