NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
ID: aiam3538OpenMr. Eldridge G. Pentheny, Jr., Administration Engineer, Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc., 1730 Walton Road, P. O. Box 1102, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422; Mr. Eldridge G. Pentheny Jr. Administration Engineer Iveco Trucks of North America Inc. 1730 Walton Road P. O. Box 1102 Blue Bell Pennsylvania 19422; Dear Mr. Pentheny: This responds to your letter asking whether your auxiliary heate toggle switch design meets the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80, *Controls and Displays*.; By way of background information, I would point out that the agenc does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicle or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.; On the top of the switch is the fan symbol specified by Table 1 of th standard and an arrow pointed upward. When the top of the switch is depressed, the heater fan is activated to recirculate cab air without heating it. On the bottom of the switch is a flame symbol and an arrow pointing downward. When the bottom of the switch is depressed, the heater, including the heater fan, is activated. As explained below, use of the flame symbol for the heater does not meet the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80.; Section S5.2.2 states: >>>Identification shall be provided for each function of ...*any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. *If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used.* If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue. [Emphasis added.]; Since the auxiliary heater toggle switch is a heating system control each of its functions must be identified. The switch controls two functions, recirculating air by use of the fan and heating air.; Except for the identification of a heating and/or air conditioning fan neither Tables 1 or 2 specify identification for the functions of a heating system. Therefore, except for a heating and/or air conditioning fan, the functions of a heating system must be identified by words or color coding. I will separately discuss the identification required for the two functions of the auxiliary heater toggle switch.; Depressing the top of the switch activates the fan in order t recirculate air without heating it. This function may be characterized either as recirculation of air or as an on-off switch for the fan. Under the latter characterization, the fan symbol should be used since Table 1 specifies that symbol for a heating and/or air conditioning fan. Thus, the identification on the top of the toggle switch meets the requirements of Standard No. 101-80.; Depressing the bottom of the toggle switch activates both the fan an the heater in order to circulate and heat air. Since neither Table 1 nor Table 2 specify identification for the heating function, it must be in word form. (As explained below, color coding is not appropriate in this instance.) Use of the fan symbol in addition to words identifying the heating function is not necessary, even though the fan operates as part of the heating function, since there is no separate control for the fan. Since the bottom of the toggle switch does not identify the heating function by using words, it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 101-80.; In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, yo indicated that you desire to use the flame symbol for purposes of international harmonization, noting that is the symbol specified by the ISO for heat. While Standard No. 101-80 specifies a number of other ISO symbols, it does not specify that symbol. Section S5.2.1(a) of the standard does permit the use of additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity, so long as the words or symbols specified by the standard are used. Thus, you may use the ISO flame symbol if you also identify the bottom of the toggle switch by using words. Since you indicated that you are already producing the vehicles in question, we suggest that you consider simply adding a label with the words 'AUX. HEAT' (or other identifying words) adjacent to the bottom of the toggle switch.; In the above-mentioned telephone conversation, you asked whethe coloring the bottom of the toggle switch red would be considered color coding as that phrase is used in S5.2.2. The answer is no, since the use of any one color by itself does not constitute color coding. We interpret section S5.2.2 (quoted above) to require that color coding must be readily understandable. Although there may be other appropriate uses of color coding, the standard's example of using red and blue to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control is the only one that comes to mind. The use of red for the hot extreme is readily understood only when used in conjunction with blue for the cold extreme.; As you may know, it is the policy of this agency to both promot international harmonization and avoid unnecessary design restrictions. If you wish to produce vehicles using ISO symbols not specified by Standard No. 101-80, you may wish to consider filing a petition for rulemaking on that issue.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: nht94-3.70OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 14, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus Inc. TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/26/94 from Eric T. Stewart to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-10049) TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1994, asking whether the daylight opening of a door located to the left of the driver's seat can "be used in the calculations of required emergency exit area if it meets the performance requirements of Standard No. 217," Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. The vehicle on which the door is installed has a capacity of 48 children or 40 adults and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms). During a June 27, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you anticipate producing these vehicles as both buses and school buses. Accordingly, I will address the question separately for each of these vehicle types. As explained below, provided that the exit meets all the performance requirements for a side door exit, it may be possible to apply the area of such a door to the emergency exit area requirements for either type of bus. Non-School Bus The emergency exit requirements for non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires non-school buses to have "unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in tot al inches, to at least 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus." That section further requires at least 40 percent of the areas for emergency exit to be on each side of the bus and limits the amount that can be credited for each ex it to 536 square inches. If the door otherwise meets the emergency exit performance requirements, nothing in Standard No. 217 would prohibit counting the door as an emergency exit. Therefore, if the 40 percent distribution requirements are met, the 2 unobstructed area of a door to the left of a driver on a non-school bus can be credited, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches. School Bus The emergency exit requirements for school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. That section states "(t)he area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amo unt to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus." All school buses are required to have either a rear emergency door exit or a side emergency door exit and a rear push-out emergency window. To determine if additional emer gency exits are required, the area of "daylight opening" of the front service door and those required emergency exits is subtracted from the total area required. The formulas in S5.2.3 for subtracting the front service door and the required emergency exits refer to the "size of the available front service door opening" (emphasis added). We interpret this language as allowing the subtraction of the "daylight open ing" of a single front service door. The drawings you faxed on July 12, 1994 indicate that the vehicle has a front service door to the right of the driver in addition to the door to the left of the driver. Since the daylight opening of only one front s ervice door can be credited, the daylight opening of the door to the left of the driver cannot be credited as a front service door. If additional emergency exits are required, they must be added in the following order: 1) Left side emergency exit door near the mid-point of the passenger compartment (if the vehicle has a rear door exit) or right side emergency exit door (if the vehicle has a side door exit and rear push-out window); 2) emergency roof exit; 3) any combination of side emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, or emergency window exits. Since the door to the left of the driver is not credited as the front service door, the only opportunity for crediting the area would be under the third level above. The door could not qualify for category (1), above, because a left side emergency door must be located near the mid-point of the passenger compartment. 3 I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 10049Open Mr. Eric T. Stewart Dear Mr. Stewart: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1994, asking whether the daylight opening of a door located to the left of the driver's seat can "be used in the calculations of required emergency exit area if it meets the performance requirements of Standard No. 217," Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. The vehicle on which the door is installed has a capacity of 48 children or 40 adults and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms). During a June 27, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you anticipate producing these vehicles as both buses and school buses. Accordingly, I will address the question separately for each of these vehicle types. As explained below, provided that the exit meets all the performance requirements for a side door exit, it may be possible to apply the area of such a door to the emergency exit area requirements for either type of bus. Non-School Bus The emergency exit requirements for non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2 of Standard No. 217. That section requires non- school buses to have "unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total inches, to at least 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus." That section further requires at least 40 percent of the areas for emergency exit to be on each side of the bus and limits the amount that can be credited for each exit to 536 square inches. If the door otherwise meets the emergency exit performance requirements, nothing in Standard No. 217 would prohibit counting the door as an emergency exit. Therefore, if the 40 percent distribution requirements are met, the unobstructed area of a door to the left of a driver on a non-school bus can be credited, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches. School Bus The emergency exit requirements for school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are found in S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. That section states "(t)he area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus." All school buses are required to have either a rear emergency door exit or a side emergency door exit and a rear push-out emergency window. To determine if additional emergency exits are required, the area of "daylight opening" of the front service door and those required emergency exits is subtracted from the total area required. The formulas in S5.2.3 for subtracting the front service door and the required emergency exits refer to the "size of the available front service door opening" (emphasis added). We interpret this language as allowing the subtraction of the "daylight opening" of a single front service door. The drawings you faxed on July 12, 1994 indicate that the vehicle has a front service door to the right of the driver in addition to the door to the left of the driver. Since the daylight opening of only one front service door can be credited, the daylight opening of the door to the left of the driver cannot be credited as a front service door. If additional emergency exits are required, they must be added in the following order: 1) Left side emergency exit door near the mid-point of the passenger compartment (if the vehicle has a rear door exit) or right side emergency exit door (if the vehicle has a side door exit and rear push-out window); 2) emergency roof exit; 3) any combination of side emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, or emergency window exits. Since the door to the left of the driver is not credited as the front service door, the only opportunity for crediting the area would be under the third level above. The door could not qualify for category (1), above, because a left side emergency door must be located near the mid-point of the passenger compartment. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:217 d:7/14/94
|
1994 |
ID: 08-001603drn bus driver compartmentOpenMr. Paul Witkowski VCA North America 41000 West Seven Mile Road Suite 140 Northville, MI 48167-2664 Dear Mr. Witkowski: This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask for guidance on 50 articulated hybrid-driveline buses that a United Kingdom bus manufacturer is manufacturing for sale in Nevada. These buses will be used as transit buses and will include a separate, lockable compartment for the bus driver that is partitioned off from the rest of the vehicle. You wish to know whether FMVSS No. 217 permits the design, i.e., whether under the standard the driver would have adequate access to the buss emergency exits. As explained below, FMVSS No. 217 does not prohibit the separate, lockable compartment specifically described in your letter. However, there are other requirements and safety considerations of which you should be aware. Background 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 (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following is an interpretation of our requirements based on the information you provided. You describe the drivers compartment as having: a full height tinted glass partition that separates the driver from the main passenger compartment. Access to the drivers compartment is gained from the main passenger compartment through a centrally mounted full depth tinted glass door, that when opened, allows the driver to ascend the two steps to his elevated workplace. You explain that the cab door is spring loaded and will close behind the driver entering the compartment. The driver has two ways of locking the door. The first way is by manually operating a handle on the door to lock the door. To release the lock and open the door, the driver rotates the handle 90 degrees clockwise. The second way is by pushing a button from the drivers seat that electrically operates a shoot bolt which mechanically extends a steel bar into a mating hole in the door. To release the lock, the button is pressed again. You state that the electronic locking feature requires constant electrical power to remain locked, and will open upon loss of electrical power. You also state that the drivers compartment has one side window to the left of the driver that has a sliding portion that can open for ventilation and to allow the driver to adjust the exterior mirror. The glass on the right side of the drivers compartment does not open.[1] We assume that neither of these two side windows meets the requirements for emergency window exits of FMVSS No. 217. Discussion FMVSS No. 217 applies to buses, except buses manufactured for the purpose of transporting persons under physical restraint. (See S3.) Among other purposes, FMVSS No. 217 is intended to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. (See S2.) FMVSS No. 217 states in part at S5.2.2.1: Buses other than school buses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus. The main question presented by your letter is whether the bus provides the driver unobstructed openings for emergency exit. In your design, the driver is separated from the passenger compartment that has the emergency exits but still is able to readily access those exits. The driver can manually unlock and open the door in one or two motions, and the lock will also automatically disengage the locking mechanism in the event of an electrical failure. Because of these features, in our opinion FMVSS No. 217 does not prohibit your design. Keep in mind that the bus drivers seating position must be counted in the S5.2.2.1 calculation of required unobstructed openings for emergency exit. There are other requirements and safety considerations of which you should be aware. Because you describe the compartment as made of tinted glass, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the compartment meets all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials. FMVSS No. 205 applies to buses and to glazing materials used in those vehicles. (See S3.1(a).) States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles and may have laws pertaining to the drivers access to an emergency exit or to other aspects relating to your vehicle. You should check State law to see how they affect your vehicles. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel ref:217 d.11/20/08 [1] You enclosed photographs of a bus that was manufactured for use in the U.K. To clarify the photographs, based on a telephone conversation between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, we note that the window you say is to Drivers LH Side (page 4 of your letter) is actually, in the photograph, to the drivers right hand side of that bus. The same is noted for the window to drivers right hand side. It is actually to the drivers left side in the photograph. |
2008 |
ID: nht71-5.58OpenDATE: 04/30/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA TO: Rolls-Royce Limited TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1971, in which you repeat Rolls Royce's requests for interpretation of Standards No. 207 and 208. The request for interpretation of the seat adjustment requirement of Standard No. 207 was initially made in your petition for reconsideration of that standard. Our response to the petitions on Standard No. 207 was published or April 20, 1971. Your petition was denied to the extent that it requested that the requirement be amended to permit 2 inches of travel. However, it is recognized that continuously adjustable seats may have a certain small amount of travel that would not be harmful, and the notice accordingly indicates that they are considered to remain in their adjusted position despite such motion. We expect that you have by now received our reply to your questions on Standard No. 208. Your inquiry first reached us through your Washington counsel and we accordingly sent our reply by the same route. Please advise us if further clarification is needed. |
|
ID: aiam4558OpenVicky Johnson, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel Kansas Department of Transportation 7th Floor, Docking State Office Bldg. Topeka, Kansas 66612-1568; Vicky Johnson Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel Kansas Department of Transportation 7th Floor Docking State Office Bldg. Topeka Kansas 66612-1568; "Dear Ms. Johnson: This is a response to your letter asking for m comments on a school transportation issue that has arisen in Kansas. I apologize for the delay in this response. You explained that, in the past, many school districts in your State used vans with more than ten seating positions to transport school children, even though these vehicles were not certified as meeting Federal school bus standards. According to your letter, you informed those school districts that there are 'civil liability risks' associated with transporting students in vehicles that do not meet Federal school bus standards. Further, you said you informed those districts that a manufacturer or dealer who sells a school district a bus that is not a certified school bus may be in violation of Federal law. According to your letter, most of those school districts now recognize the 'considerable risks' associated with this practice. You are concerned that some of these districts are now purchasing the same vehicles that were previously certified as buses, but the vehicles now have only ten seating positions. Accordingly, the vehicles are now certified by the manufacturer as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). You believe that this situation is not a violation of Federal law because dealers are no longer selling school districts 'buses' that are not certified as school buses. However, you believe there is still a considerable risk of civil liability for the school districts in the event of a crash. You asked for our comments on this practice. Generally speaking, there is no violation of Federal law when a dealer sells a properly certified MPV to a school district. On the other hand, NHTSA has maintained a long-standing position that if a dealer sells an MPV or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, that dealer is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with all applicable school bus standards. (40 FR 60033, 60034, December 31, 1975.) For example, let us assume that a dealer sells a school district a vehicle that is certified as an MPV by its manufacturer. The vehicle has ten designated seating positions when it is delivered to the dealer, but is large enough to accommodate an additional bench seat, which would result in the vehicle having at least 13 designated seating positions. In this instance, a dealer who sells such a vehicle to a school district would have violated the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) against selling vehicles that do not comply with all applicable safety standards. In essence, NHTSA has concluded that a dealer may not legally sell a school district a vehicle that is capable of being converted into a school bus, unless: 1. that vehicle is certified as complying with applicable school bus standards, or 2. the dealer has reason to believe that the buyer has no intent of converting and using the vehicle as a school bus. If the dealer is uncertain of the buyer's intent, the agency has suggested that the dealer request a written statement of purpose from the buyer. (Id.) The agency has taken this position because the dealer frequently is the person in the distribution chain with the best knowledge of how a buyer intends to use a vehicle. Applying this reasoning to the situations described in your letter, the dealers selling MPVs to school districts might have done so in violation of Federal law. If the MPVs in question were capable of being converted into school buses, and the dealer had reason to believe that the purchasing school district intended to convert the vehicles to school buses, the dealer could only sell the MPV to the school district if the vehicles were certified as conforming to all applicable school bus standards. Your letter did not provide enough information for us to offer an opinion on any such potential liability. If you know of instances where a dealer may have sold vehicles to a school district under circumstances such as I describe here, please report this information to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, Room 6113, NEF-30 at the address on this letterhead. With respect to your question about the risk of civil liability in the event one of these vehicles is in a crash, that is a question of State, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how the matter would be resolved under Kansas law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Kansas to get an opinion about how the laws of Kansas would apply in such a situation. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: nht92-6.39OpenDATE: May 25, 1992 FROM: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs for Motor Coach Industries, Inc., and Transportation Manufacturing Corporation TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA TITLE: Subject: NHTSA Pre-emptive Authority With Respect to New York Program Bill No. 253 ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/19/92 from Paul J. Rice to C.N. Littler (A39; Std. 208; VSA 103) TEXT: I have attached, pursuant to our telecon of May 14th, a copy of New York Governor Cuomo's Program Bill No. 253 for a departmental review. We believe that a legitimate argument of interference with Federal pre-emptive authority exists with respect to this proposed State legislation. The Governor's Bill will require all buses, certified or licensed within New York, or entering New York and performing substantial revenue service; to be equipped with seat belts at all passenger seating positions. The Motor Vehicles Safety Act (1966) Sec 103(d) appears to prohibit the State from mandating vehicle safety standards to a higher level than the Federal standards on all but State owned vehicles. Therefore, following your review of the attached bill, I would greatly appreciate a legal opinion regarding this issue and/or any other points of note. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter, with kindest regards, I remain, respectfully yours. Attachment GOVERNOR'S PROGRAM BILL 1992 Memorandum RE: AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to the requirement for seat belts on buses, the reexamination and disqualification of certain bus drivers, and the obligations of bus drivers and motor carriers PURPOSE: To increase bus driver qualification standards, to improve the system for providing information regarding the driving recOrd of bus drivers, and to require that certain buses be equipped with seat belts. SUMMARY OR PROVISIONS: Section 1 of the bill adds a new subdivision 6 to section 383 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that buses manufactured after July 1, 1993 shall be equipped with seat safety belts, except for buses operated by motor carriers which do not operate more than 100 days or more than ten thousand vehicle miles in the State.
Section 2 of the bill adds a new section 509-bb to the Vehicle and Traffic Law to require the reexamination of bus drivers who have a total of three driving convictions and/or accidents within a three-year period. One of the driver's convictions or accidents will not be counted in that total if the driver successfully completes a motor vehicle accident prevention course approved by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. The type of accidents which will be counted, as well as the type of reexamination to be administered, will be determined by regulation. If the driver fails the reexamination, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles may suspend, revoke or impose restrictions on the driver's license, and the driver must pass the examination before being authorized to operate a bus. Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the bill amend sections 509-c(1)(d), 509-c(2)(d), 509-cc(1)(d) and 509-cc(2)(e) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, respectively, to require one-year disqualifications of bus drivers and school bus drivers upon the conviction of three or more serious driving violations, as defined by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, or upon the conviction of five or more driving violations of any kind, within a three-year period. One conviction of such drivers will not be counted in that total if the driver successfully completes a motor vehicle accident prevention course approved by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the bill add two new paragraphs to sections 509-c (1), 509-c(2), 509-cc(1) and 509-cc(2) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, respectively: 1) to require a one-year disqualification of a bus driver or school bus driver who has failed a reexamination under new section 509-bb of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which is added by section 2 of this bill; and 2) to require a one-year disqualification of a bus driver or school bus driver who has been the subject of such a reexamination, if the driver is convicted of a serious driving violation, is convicted of three or more driving violations of any kind, or is involved in two or more vehicle accidents within an eighteen month period following such reexamination. The type of accidents which will be counted will be determined by regulations of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. Section 11 of the bill amends section 509-d(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that, prior to hiring a new bus driver, a motor carrier must obtain the driving record of the applicant and investigate the applicant's employment record. Section 12 of the bill amends section 509-f of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that motor carriers annually shall require each bus driver to provide the carrier with a list of all traffic violations and all accidents in which the driver was involved during the prior twelve months. Section 13 of the bill amends section 509-i of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to require the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to notify a motor carrier of any convictions or accidents of a bus driver resulting from the operation of any motor vehicle. Motor carriers will be required to establish an escrow account with the Department of Motor Vehicles, which shall charge a fee to defray the costs of the notification.
Section 14 of the bill amends section 509-j of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to increase the minimum civil penalty for violations of the motor carrier laws and regulations from $250 to $500 per violation, and to increase the maximum penalty from $1000 to $2,500 per violation. This bill takes affect on the first day of September next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law, provided that no reexamination or disqualification shall be required by the changes made by sections two through ten of the bill solely as a result of convictions or accidents which occurred prior to such effective date. EXISTING LAW: Under Section 383 Of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, seat belts are required on passenger vehicles manufactured after 1965 and on school buses manufactured after July 1, 1987, but are not required on other buses. Under section 506 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles can require the reexamination of any driver who has been involved in three accidents within an eighteen-month period. If the driver fails the examination, the Commissioner may revoke or suspend the driver's license, or may impose restrictions on the use of the license. Article 19-A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law currently provides for a one-year disqualification of bus drivers who accumulate nine or more points within an eighteen-month period. There is no current requirement for disqualification based upon a driver's involvement in multiple accidents. Section 509-d of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires that, prior to hiring a new bus driver, a motor carrier must "make an inquiry" for the driving record of the applicant, but does not require that the record actually be obtained. Section 509-i of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to provide notification of new driving convictions of bus drivers to those motor carriers which request such information and pay the necessary fee. Section 509-f of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires bus drivers to inform motor carriers of driving convictions, but not accidents. Under section 509-j of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles can require that a motor carrier pay a civil penalty between $250 and $1000 for violations of the motor carrier laws and regulations. STATEMENT IN SUPPORT: The tragic bus accident which occurred in Warren County on April 11, 1992 and resulted in the death of two young students from Long Island highlighted three deficiencies in our current law. First, present law does not permit the disqualification of bus drivers based upon prior accidents. Second, the current system of employer review of employees' prior accidents and driving convictions is insufficient. Finally, although seat belts are currently required on cars and school buses, they are not required on charter buses, even if those buses are carrying school children. This bill seeks to cure those deficiencies in the law, in order to reduce the chances of a similar accident in the future. First, this bill provides that a bus driver who has a total of three serious driving convictions or accidents within a three-year period must undergo a new examination, including a road test. Driving convictions and accidents which occur while the driver is operating a personal vehicle are included in this total. If the driver fails to pass the road test, the driver will be disqualified from operating a bus for one year. If the driver passes the road test, no penalty is imposed, but a subsequent serious conviction or two subsequent accidents within an eighteen-month period will result in a one-year disqualification. In addition, any driver having three convictions within a three-year period will be disqualified for one year. Second, this bill will reform the present conviction and accident information system. Under current law, a motor carrier is not permitted to hire a new driver unless they "make an inquiry" for the driving record of the applicant from every state in which the applicant worked or held a license during the preceding three years. Simply making the inquiry is all that is necessary, however, and there is no requirement that the record actually be obtained. In addition, every year drivers must inform their employers of motor vehicle violations which have occurred during the prior twelve months, but they are not required to report accidents. Moreover, although DMV operates a system for informing motor carriers of new convictions of their drivers, the program is optional. This bill will correct these inadequacies by requiring that motor carriers actually obtain the driving records of applicants, by requiring that drivers inform their employers of accidents as well convictions each year, and by requiring that all motor carriers take part in DMV's driving conviction notification system. Finally, State law presently requires that all school buses manufactured after July 1, 1987 and operated in this State be equipped with seat belts, but does not require seat belts on other buses. This bill requires that all buses manufactured after July 1, 1993 and operated in this State be equipped with seat belts, except for buses of motor carriers which do not conduct substantial business within this State. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: Any increased costs incurred by the Department of Motor Vehicles as a result of this bill will be accommodated within their present budget. |
|
ID: aiam3516OpenMr. Thomas D. Turner, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. Thomas D. Turner Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1981, requesting severa interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. The answer to each of your questions is discussed below.; Your first question concerned section 3.3 of the standard, which amon other things, requires that an 'interior compartment door assembly located in...a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position...' must remain closed when tested under certain conditions. You stated your belief that the requirement only applies to interior compartment doors located within the head impact area, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49. You asked if the area adjacent to a designated seating position is to be determined by projecting laterally from the head impact area for a designated seating position to the side panel next to it.; The impact protection requirement for interior compartment doors wa added to the standard on October 25, 1968 (33 FR 15794). As explained in that notice, a copy of which is enclosed, the agency specifically denied requests to limit the interior compartment door requirement to doors located in the head impact area. The requirement is designed to provide protection to the head and other portions of an occupant's body that can be thrown against an interior compartment door opened by inertial forces in a crash. To accomplish the purpose of the standard, any interior compartment door, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49, that is located in a side panel and is next to a designated seating position is covered by the requirements of section 3.3 of the standard.; You also asked how the term 'instrument panel' is defined for th purposes of section 3.3 of the standard. You are correct that the term refers to the panel below the windshield which is used to mount the speedometer, other gauges, etc. For the reasons discussed in response to your first question concerning S3.3, any interior compartment door on the instrument panel is covered by the requirements of section 3.3, not just those located in the head impact area.; You also asked about the requirements of section 3.3.1 of the standard You state that section 3.3.1 allows the use of either option (b) or (c) to show compliance. Your statement is not correct. Section 3.3 of the standard requires more than compliance with either option (b) or (c) of section 3.3.1. Section 3.3 requires interior compartment doors to remain closed when 'tested in accordance with either S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(b) or S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(c).'; You also state that you interpret option (c) of section 3.3.1 to be horizontal inertial load of 30g in a longitudinal direction which would simulate a forward 30 mile per hour flat barrier impact. Your interpretation is correct. Section 3.3.1(c) provides that an interior compartment door latch must be subject to 'a horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction in accordance with the procedures described in section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b, 'Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems,' or an approved equivalent.' The purpose of the requirement is to impose loads similar to the loads experienced by a door latch tested in the 30 mile per hour forward barrier crash required by section 3.3.1(b) of the standard.; You further state that the loading applied in accordance with sectio 3.3.1(c) should be a forward deceleration inertia loading. Your interpretation is not correct. To ensure that the requirements of sections 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.1(c) are equivalent in stringency, the agency believes that the 30g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(c) must take into account the distortion and deformation that would occur in a 30 mile per hour barrier impact. Therefore, the 30g inertia load must be applied in both the forward and rearward direction. Likewise, the 10g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(a) must be applied in both the inboard and outboard direction.; Your final question concerned the requirements of section 3.5.1 of th standard, which specifies that armrests must comply with at least one of three options. Section 3.5.1(c) specifies that one option is providing an armrest which has 'Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length...when measured vertically in side elevation... at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.' You are correct that an armrest complying with section S.3.5.1(c) can be made of any material, as long as it meets the dimensional requirements set by that section.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: 16-000745 Twisted Restorations revisedOpen
Mr. Ian Robinson Twisted Automotive Limited Thirsk Industrial Park York Road Thirsk, North Yorkshire YO7 3TA
Dear Mr. Robinson:
This responds to your February 12, 2016 letter describing your interest in importing Land Rover Defender vehicles that are more than 25 years old into the United States (U.S.) and then restoring and modifying these vehicles in U.S. facilities before selling them. Your letter describes basic and beyond basic levels of modification and asks if the modifications are so substantial as to be considered a manufacture of new motor vehicles. You also ask about the Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act of 2015.
As explained in detail below, overall we find that both levels of modification would rise to the level of manufacturing, which makes whoever is making the modifications (we assume it would be Twisted Automotive Limited) a manufacturer as defined in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.[1]
General Authority
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not make determinations as to whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. Manufacturers are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects.
Imported Vehicles At Least 25 Years Old Section 30112(b)(9) of the Safety Act, which you cite in your letter, allows importation of a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old without the need to conform the vehicle to the applicable FMVSSs, i.e., those in effect at the time of its manufacture. The 25-year period runs from the date of the vehicles manufacture.
You state in your letter that the Land Rovers you intend to import are 25 years old or older. According to your letter, the vehicles would be brought into the U.S. unmodified, and the modifications will be made in this country.
Discussion
The agency evaluated Twisteds proposed activities under two lines of thinking found in past interpretation letters. The first line arises in letters relating to whether NHTSA would consider certain modifications made overseas to a vehicle (more than 25 years old) simply to be restorations and not a vehicle manufacture, so that the vehicle may be imported under 30112(b)(9) without conforming to the FMVSSs. The second line relates to whether modifying a used vehicle by combining new and used parts constitutes a manufacture of a vehicle. Both complement each other in our analysis and lead to the same conclusion, which is that the work done to Twisteds vehicles is commensurate with the manufacture of a vehicle. Each line of thinking is analyzed below in greater detail.
Restoration
Your letter discusses two levels of modification of the Land Rover Defenders you plan on exporting to the United States. The level with the least modifications is what you describe as basic restoration and includes the following:
1. Remedial works undertaken to the chassis to put it in a good and long lasting state of repair. 2. Remedial works to the drive-train (axle, differential, wheels) or replacement with new where repair is not an option. 3. Original engine is removed and fully overhauled before being relocated back in original vehicle. 4. Original engine is removed and replaced with a modern engine of similar capacity (engine would meet the latest emission standards). 5. Suspension is repaired or where necessary replaced (but not upgraded) to put it in a good and long lasting state of repair commensurate with a quality restoration project. 6. Body panels new panels would need to be fitted where existing panels could not be repaired. 7. Body panels (new or original) would be re-aligned and all panels secured by stainless steel fittings rather than with non-stainless fittings as on the original vehicle. 8. Full external and interior repainting where you also ask about what colors you can repaint the Land Rover. 9. Restoration of lights, seats, seat upholstery, and all interior trim with the possibility of replacement of seat frames and cloth trim if beyond repair. 10. Possibility of converting right-hand drive vehicles to left-hand drive.
Chapter 301 does not define restoration, but NHTSA has interpretation letters on the subject. The agency interprets the term restoration, as applied to motor vehicles, as returning something to its former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition.[2]
Your question has been answered in past interpretations, and the same answer applies.[3] While Twisted refers to its modifications as restorations, the totality of the modifications that Twisted seeks to do, even at the basic level, is beyond what NHTSA considers as restoration and are in fact equivalent to manufacturing (assembling) a motor vehicle.
The basic restoration described in your letter includes modification beyond returning the motor vehicles to their former, original, normal, or unimpaired condition. The extent of disassembly of the original vehicle, the substitution of equipment not used in the original vehicle, the substantial refurbishment of the chassis, and the reassembly with items of new equipment such as the engine, drive train and axles result in a new motor vehicle, i.e., one that could not be regarded as 25 years old or older. Converting right-hand drive vehicles to left-hand drive is also considered beyond restoration.
Accordingly, we conclude that the activities you list under both the basic and beyond basic levels exceed what we consider to be a restoration. Instead, Twisteds activities appear to constitute a manufacture of vehicles.
Combining New and Used Parts
Twisteds planned activities in the U.S. invoke NHTSAs past interpretations relating to the combination of used and new parts. In particular, Twisted states it may do remedial work on the chassis to put it in a good and long lasting state of repair and do the same to the drive-train or replace the components with new where repair is not an option.
The substitution of a new body on a used chassis does not result in a new motor vehicle assuming the vehicle continues to be titled and registered with its original model year (see Williams letter, supra).
However, a vehicle incorporating a new chassis is considered a new vehicle. Further, the agency has also stated that the substitution of new chassis parts for the original ones may reach a point where, in combination with newer parts on the body, the overall vehicle itself could be regarded as newly manufactured.
We believe that what you describe as remedial work to the chassis and related parts could in fact be sufficiently extensive that the components would no longer be considered used but would instead be considered newly manufactured. This means the vehicle you produce would be a new vehicle.
Relatedly, please note that NHTSA has issued FMVSSs for certain items of motor vehicle equipment (covered equipment). Thus, under the Safety Act, all items of covered equipment that Twisted uses must comply with the applicable FMVSSs. In addition, Twisted must ensure that its modified vehicles contain no safety-related defects.
In summary, the extent of Twisteds plans to modify or replace the chassis and drive train and combine new and used items of motor vehicle equipment lead us to conclude that Twisteds activities constitute manufacturing. Thus, the resulting vehicles would be new and Twisted would be a manufacturer within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Under the Safety Act, the new vehicles must be certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of their manufacture.
FAST Act
Section 24405 of Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act [4] has a provision about low-volume manufacturers being able to manufacture a certain number of replica vehicles that do not fully comply with the applicable FMVSSs. It states that the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue such regulations as may be necessary to implement the amendments made in this section.[5]
Your letter asks whether the low-volume manufacturer exemption applies to Twisteds business of modifying Land Rover Defender vehicles. We cannot answer this question now, prior to issuing the regulation. The agency will initiate rulemaking soon to implement 24405.
Agents Please note that all manufacturers headquartered outside of the U.S. must designate an agent for service of all process, notices, orders, and decisions.[6] This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:
The designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. Please visit for more information on importation and certification: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FAQ%20Site/. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Sara Bennett of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh Chief Counsel
Dated: 7/8/16 Ref: 49 U.S.C. 30102
[1] Manufacturer means a person (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, see 49 U.S.C 30102(a)(5). [2] Letter to John Harland of HarLand Rover Restorations (Sept. 9, 1999), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/20592.ztv.html; letter to Roger Williams (Feb. 22, 2001), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/23894.ztv.html ; letter to Paul Jackson Rice of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC (Aug. 23, 2001), available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/23085.ztv.html. [3] Past interpretations written to HarLand Rover Restorations discuss in detail what is and is not considered restoration. The facts in Twisteds interpretation request are strikingly similar, with the only difference in that Twisted plans to do the modifications in the U.S., while HarLand performed the modifications in the United Kingdom prior to attempting to import the modified vehicles into the U.S. That difference is not consequential to our response here, since the issue is whether the modifications made here or abroad constitute a manufacture. [4] Pub. L. No. 114-94, 24405 (2015), available at https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr22/BILLS-114hr22enr.pdf. [5] Pub. L. No. 114-94, 24405(c) (2015), available at https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr22/BILLS-114hr22enr.pdf. [6] 49 CFR Part 551, Subpart D. |
2016 |
ID: nht70-1.46OpenDATE: 03/19/70 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Melvin Hart TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: We have received your petition of March 10 for temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 (Occupant Protection in Interior Impact). The petition raises several questions. Standard No. 201 does not, as you appear to assume, pertain only to instrument panels. It also covers seat backs, interior compartment doors, sunvisors, and armrests. Please explain whether you are seeking an exemption from the entire Standard, or only from S3.1. The comment on p. 6 of the petition, "two of the standards loom higher than the rest as problems", raises the question whether you are still requesting an exemption from Federal Standard No. 103 (Defrosting and Defogging Systems). If so, then you should submit a supplemental petition containing the information we requested on February 19 in returning to you your petition of February 13. The signature "Melvin Hart Owner" does not fulfill the requirement (49 C.F.R. @ 355.5(b)(13)) that the application be signed "by an officer of the petitioner and state his authority and area of responsibility". If you will explain the scope of your request for exemption from Standard No. 201, whether an exemption from Standard No. 103 is still needed, and your corporate position with Transer, Inc. we shall consider your petition further. In closing permit me to suggest that it would be to your advantage to submit as much information as possible on the safety characteristics of the T6.A, including relevant drawings and photographs. An exemption is based in part upon a finding that it is "consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the [National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety] Act". Since an exemption is, in effect, a license to manufacture motor vehicles, the Administrator must more data than the written assurances of a manufacturer that it will produce a "safe" vehicle before he can find that the exemption is "consistent with the public interest". This is especially true concerning a new vehicle produced by a new company which his not manufactured motor vehicles before. If you would like to discuss the T6.A with our engineers we shall be happy to arrange such a meeting. |
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.