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: aiam4739OpenThe Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senate 1100 Commerce, Room 7C14 Dallas, TX 75242; The Honorable Lloyd Bentsen United States Senate 1100 Commerce Room 7C14 Dallas TX 75242; "Dear Senator Bentsen: Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curr on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. The Administrator has asked me to reply. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out Ford's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and asked for additional information about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information. Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that the vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends that dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from the customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new 'school buses,' which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are 'sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events.' Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a 'school bus' for the purposes of the safety standards. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable safety standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for ensuring that the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applicable school bus standards. The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of 'school bus,' that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportation, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statement indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified school bus. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, the person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students is not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person who plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicle is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are 'probably the biggest customer' Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either: a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in Voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation. Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact the State government to learn more about any State requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses. Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety considerations, NHTSA endorses Ford's recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes. I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional information. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. W.A. Jacques Dealer Fleet Operations Manager Ford Rent-A-Car System 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 43311 Detroit, MI 48243"; |
|
ID: aiam3506OpenMr. Robert Munoz, Wonder Enterprise, 2955 S.W. 15 Street, Miami, FL 33145; Mr. Robert Munoz Wonder Enterprise 2955 S.W. 15 Street Miami FL 33145; Dear Mr. Munoz: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1982, asking whethe Federal regulations would prohibit use of your patented device, the 'Illuminated Wonder Panel.' This device would be used in the space provided for the front license plate and consists of a panel on which numbers or letters would be illuminated from behind, if an owner wished to 'personalize' his vehicle. You have indicated that the candela for each character averages .0365, and that with a seven character maximum, a total output of less than .25 candela would result. You submitted photographs showing this device in operation from a distance of 50 feet on a vehicle using parking lamps only, and using parking lamps/low beam headlamps.; Your device is not directly regulated by the Federal motor vehicl safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108 (sic) As an item of original equipment, your device is permissible unless it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, such as parking lamps and headlamps. Judging by the photographs you submitted, it does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. As an aftermarket item, your device is subject to regulation by any State in which the vehicle bearing it is registered. You will have to consult these States for further advice.; We hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5578OpenMr. David A. Lowell Engineering Manager Bankhead Enterprises, Inc. 25 Kincannon Road, SW Cartersville, GA 30120; Mr. David A. Lowell Engineering Manager Bankhead Enterprises Inc. 25 Kincannon Road SW Cartersville GA 30120; Dear Mr. Lowell: This responds to your letter of June 8, 1995, askin for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, your company manufactures 'stinger steered automobile transport trailers' as defined by 23 CFR 658.5, paragraphs (k) Tractor or Truck Tractor, (m) Automobile Transporters, and (n) Single-steered combination. Your company currently mounts taillamps, turn signal lamps, and clearance lamps on the back of the truck tractor. It is your understanding of paragraphs S5.1.1.1 and S5.1.1.2 of Standard No. 108 that 'these items do not seem to be necessary.' For purposes of Standard No. 108, types of motor vehicles are defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b), a regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, rather than 23 CFR 658.5, a regulation of the Federal Highway Administration. Under 571.3(b), the towing portion of your combination vehicle is a 'truck', rather than a 'truck tractor.' A 'truck' is defined, in pertinent part, as a motor vehicle 'designed primarily for the transportation of property.' A 'truck tractor' is a 'truck designed primarily for drawing other motor vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn.' The photographs you enclosed show that the towing portion of Bankhead's combination vehicle is designed to carry motor vehicles, and may do so without the attachment of the trailer, hence it is a 'truck.' It is constructed to carry a load other than a part of the trailer, hence it is not a 'truck tractor.' Accordingly, Bankhead's towing vehicle may not avail itself of the truck tractor lighting options of paragraphs S5.1.1.1 and S5.1.1.2 of Standard No. 108. Your understanding of these sections as they relate to truck tractors meeting the definition of 571.3(b) is generally accurate. However, no provision of Standard No. 108 permits either the elimination or the relocation of taillamps from truck tractors. Because Bankhead's product is operated in interstate commerce, it must also conform to the safety regulations of the Federal Highway Administration (49 CFR part 393). This is to advise you that the Office of Motor Carrier Standards has reviewed this letter and concurs in it. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0280OpenMr. Francois Louis, Manager, Technical Standards Department, Renault, Incorporated, 100 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632; Mr. Francois Louis Manager Technical Standards Department Renault Incorporated 100 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632; Dear Mr. Louis: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1971, to Mr. Clu Ferguson, requesting a clarification of certain sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection, Docket 69-7, Notice 10.; It was our intent, under S4.5.3, to permit free substitution of Type or Type 2 passive belts for seat belt assemblies required under S4. The standard specifies in S4.5.3 that a passive belt must conform to the requirements of S7.1 and to certain requirements of Standard No. 209, but it does not specify either that shoulder belts should be detachable or that they should be non-detachable. The manufacturer may therefore choose either method of shoulder belt attachment. A detachable shoulder belt in a passive belt system must not, however, convert the system from passive to active status.; Please advise us if you need additional clarification of this point. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3855OpenDr. Ing.h.c. F. Porsche AG, Abt. ESV, z. Hd. Hern Mayer, Postfach 11 40, 7251 Weissach, WEST GERMANY; Dr. Ing.h.c. F. Porsche AG Abt. ESV z. Hd. Hern Mayer Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST GERMANY; Dear Mr. Mayor: This responds to your letter about Safety Standard No. 101, *Control and Displays*, and Safety Standard No. 102, *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect*. Your letter asked two questions concerning whether a proposed design for a passenger car automatic transmission shift lever would meet the requirements of those standards. Your questions are answered below. This letter also discusses additional issues raised by your proposed design that were not directly raised by your letter. Finally, since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, which explains how you may apply for confidential treatment of design information.; By way of background information, I would note that the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; According to your letter and accompanying drawing, the design you ar considering may be generally described as follows. The shift level would be mounted on the floor console and would not be identified. A display for the transmission sequence would be provided on the instrument panel. All eligible positions would be permanently in view of the driver, and the selected position would be identified through more intense illumination.; Your first question is whether it is permissible under these standard for a manufacturer not to provide identification for the shift level. The answer to that question is yes. Neither Standard No. 101 nor Standard No. 102 includes any requirement concerning identification of an automatic transmission shift level. Moreover, no other Federal motor vehicle safety standard includes such a requirement.; The identification and other requirements of Standard No. 101 onl apply to the controls and displays listed in the standard. Since automatic transmission shift levers are not among the controls listed in the standard, the standard's requirements are not applicable. Standard No. 102 requires that '(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions...shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver.' Section S3.2. NHTSA has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator. The section does not, however, require the shift lever control itself to be identified.; Your second question is whether Standard No. 101 or Standard No. 10 requires the shift level to be within a certain reaching distance to be operable by the driver while driving the vehicle. The answer to that question is no.; As your letter pointed out, Standard No. 101 does require certai controls to be operable by the driver when the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. As explained in the answer to your first question, however, the requirements of Standard No. 101 are not applicable to automatic transmission shift levers. I would note that the term 'manual transmission shift lever,' listed in section S5.1 of the standard, does not incorporate automatic transmission shift levers. Similarly, Standard No. 102 does not include any requirements concerning the location of the shift lever.; I would like to point out two additional issues raised by your propose design. The first concerns the requirements in Standard No. 102 that '(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions...shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver.' Section S3.2. NHTSA interprets 'positions' to mean the position of the gear in relation to each other *and* the position that the driver has selected. Thus, as noted above, the agency has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear level sequence *and* a gear position indicator.; Moreover, the agency has interpreted this section's use of the word 'permanently displayed' to require a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, a display that would not be seen when the ignition is in the 'off' position does not comply with these requirements. (A letter which discusses this interpretation is enclosed. The letter is addressed to Ford.); Taking these interpretations together, Standard No. 102 requires th display of a gear level sequence and a gear position indicator, both of which must be capable of being seen regardless of whether the ignition is on or off. It is not clear whether your proposed design meets these requirements. Your letter states that all eligible positions are permanently in view of the driver and the selected position is identified through more intense illumination. First, with regard to the gear level sequence, it is not clear whether your letter's use of the word 'permanently' covers periods of time when the ignition is not on. Second, with regard to the gear position indicator, it is not clear whether the selected position is identified by more intense illumination during periods of time when the ignition is not on.; The second issue I would like to note concerns the light intensit requirements of Standard No. 101. Automatic gear position displays are covered by that standard and must meet its requirements for, among other things, light intensity. An automatic gear display is a gauge. See section S4. Section S5.3.3 requires that light intensities for gauges and their identification be continuously variable from (a) a position at which either there is no light emitted or the light is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions to (b) a position providing illumination sufficient for the driver to identify the control or display readily under conditions of reduced visibility. However, if the gauge is an informational readout display, section S5.3.3 only requires that it have at least two values a higher one for day, and a lower one for nighttime conditions.; Finally, I would note that incoming letters and attachments ar routinely made public along with letters of interpretation. Since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, *Confidential Business Information*, which sets forth the agency's procedures concerning confidentiality. Please contact me if you wish to apply for confidential treatment for that drawing.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1868OpenMr. William Sousamian, Unique Truck Accessories, 10343 East Rush, South El Monte, CA 91733; Mr. William Sousamian Unique Truck Accessories 10343 East Rush South El Monte CA 91733; Dear Mr. Sousamian: This responds to your March 14, 1975, request for confirmation that mechanical parking brake device may be installed on air-braked trailers that were manufactured prior to January 1, 1975. We did not receive the literature you intended to enclose with your letter.; Standard No. 121 applies only to trailers manufactured after January 1 1975, and trucks and buses manufactured after March 1, 1975. The standard does not therefore, prevent the installation of a mechanical parking brake on trailers manufactured before January 1, 1975.; As for trailers manufactured in compliance with Standard No. 21, th standard does not prohibit the installation of a mechanical parking brake at the time of manufacture as long as the installation does not interfere with vehicle conformity. The mechancial (sic) device could also be installed after the first purchase of the trailer in good faith for purposes other than resale (i.e., the retail sale), as long as it does not involve the knowing disconnection of the 121-system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business.; Although you are no doubt aware of relevant Bureau of Motor Carrie Safety regulations, I have enclosed a copy of them for your information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5082OpenMr. Paul Gould Senior Engineer - Friction Materials Lucas Heavy Duty Braking Systems Grange Road Cwmbran, Gwent South Wales NP44 3XU Great Britain; Mr. Paul Gould Senior Engineer - Friction Materials Lucas Heavy Duty Braking Systems Grange Road Cwmbran Gwent South Wales NP44 3XU Great Britain; "Dear Mr. Gould: This responds to your letter asking about th dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term 'average deceleration rate' and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as 'only a target' in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force- -relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. With respect to your question about the meaning of 'average deceleration rate,' that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows: For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration. We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are 'only a target' in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates. We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +0.5 ft/s/s. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure: The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2747OpenMr. E. M. Ryan, Ward Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 849, Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. E. M. Ryan Ward Industries Inc. P.O. Box 849 Highway 65 South Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your December 14, 1977, letter asking whether the rea push out window emergency exit option in Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, is limited to rear-engine school buses.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) initiall proposed that this option be restricted to rear-engine school buses. Comments to that rulemaking, however, persuaded the agency to permit the use of these emergency exits on all school buses regardless of the location of the engine or passenger seats. That determination was explained in the preamble to the final rule published on June 3, 1976 (41 FR 22356) (enclosed).; I trust that this fully responds to your question. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5128OpenMr. Juan F. Vega 102790 F.S.P. P.O. Box 747 Starke, FL 32091 U-2-N-9; Mr. Juan F. Vega 102790 F.S.P. P.O. Box 747 Starke FL 32091 U-2-N-9; "Dear Mr. Vega: This responds to your letter addressed to forme Secretary Card. Your letter expresses concern that vans used by the Florida State Prison to transport prisoners do not have seat belts. According to your letter and copies of other correspondence you enclosed, wood and metal benches are located along the sides of the rear area of the vans, and there are no side windows in that area. You state that you believe that this is a violation of Florida and Federal safety belt laws. Your letter has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response because it contains questions concerning laws and regulations administered by this agency. Let me begin by making clear that I have no special knowledge or expertise with respect to Florida law. My answer will address only the requirements of the laws and regulations administered by this agency. Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR 571.208) which, among other things, requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in motor vehicles. However, different requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific requirements for the vans you are concerned about without knowing the vehicles' date of manufacture, seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating. The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208. Thus, if a State purchases a vehicle and makes modifications itself, there is no violation of Federal law, even if the modified vehicle does not comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2317OpenMs. Dianne Black, Liaison Engineer, British Leyland Motors Inc., 600 Willow Tree Road, Leonia, NJ 07605; Ms. Dianne Black Liaison Engineer British Leyland Motors Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia NJ 07605; Dear Ms. Black:#This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1976 concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Control Location, Identification, and Illumination*, for identification of the headlamps and taillamps control.#Your letter presented two symbols specified by the International Standards Organization as alternatives for identification of the master lighting switch. One of these appears in Column 4 of Table 1 of the standard and the other does not appear anywhere in the table. The headlamps and taillamps control (master lighting switch) is required by S4.2.1 to be identified with the word 'Lights'. The manufacturer may supplement this identification with a symbol, but only with a symbol that appears in Column 3 or Column 4 of Table 1. In issuing the amendment to the standard published July 29, 1975 (40 FR 31770, copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered both ISO symbols and decided not to permit the one that does not appear in the table.#Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.