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: aiam1701OpenMr. Charles O. Verrill, Jr., Messrs. Patton, Boggs & Blow, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20036; Mr. Charles O. Verrill Jr. Messrs. Patton Boggs & Blow 1200 Seventeenth Street N.W. Washington DC 20036; Dear Mr. Verrill: This is in reply to your two letters of November 8, 1974, on behalf o Trailer Manufacturers Association, requesting interpretations of Standard No. 108 as it applies to boat trailers.; Standard No. 108 requires that clearance lamps be located 'on the rear (Table II) but 'boat trailers need not be equipped with both front and rear clearance lamps, provided an amber (to front) and red (to rear) clearance lamp is located so as to indicate its extreme width' (paragraph S4.1.1.9). You enclose a drawing showing front and rear clearance lamps imbedded in the trailer fender and ask for an interpretation that 'where locating the clearance lamp on the front and rear of the vehicle would not mark the extreme width of the vehicle, the manufacturer shall have the option of locating the clearance lamps as close to the front or rear as practicable in order to mark the overall width of the trailer.'; Paragraph S4.1.1.9 contemplates the use of a double-faced lamp. Thi lamp is generally mounted atop the fender so that the visibility requirements at 45 degrees inboard may be met. Separate lamps also 'located at or near the mid point' would meet the same need for vehicle safety, and would be acceptable, provided that the visibility requirements are also met. This does not seem likely from your proposed configuration, unless the lamps are located above the trailer frame.; You also present the problem of boat trailers on which 'apparatus t hold, load and unload the boat extends from two to four feet beyond the rear frame.' The apparatus overhang may prevent lamps mounted on the rear frame from meeting the visibility requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1.'You ask for an interpretation 'that would permit the use of detachable light bars where necessary to comply with the visibility requirements of S4.3.1.1.'; There are two solutions to your problem permissible under Standard No 108. The apparatus itself appears to be a permanent and rigid part of the vehicle within the meaning of paragraph S4.3.1, so that the lamps in question could be mounted there and comply with the requirements of the standard. You may not wish to do so, however, because of damage that might be incurred through unloading the immersion in water. In that instance paragraph S4.3.1.1 provides the answer: 'However, if motor vehicle equipment. . . prevents compliance with this paragraph by any required lamp or reflective device, an auxiliary lamp or device meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be provided'. A detachable light bar would be acceptable as an auxiliary, provided that it complies with the wiring requirements of paragraph S4.5, and the required lighting is retained (in your hypothetical, lamps located at the end of the frame).; We have also received your petition of November 8, 1974, on behalf o Trailer Manufacturers Association to amend Standard No. 108 with respect to boat trailers. You will be informed in due course whether it merits initiation of rulemaking.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0813OpenMr. Stan Haransky, Truck Body & Equipment Association, Inc., 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220, Washington, DC 20015; Mr. Stan Haransky Truck Body & Equipment Association Inc. 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1220 Washington DC 20015; Dear Mr. Haransky: This is in reply to your letter of July 20, 1972, concerning th Certification of vehicles having a dual purpose. You ask how you should determine weight ratings when a vehicle is intended to carry loads of varying weights, and cite as an example a vehicle designed to carry both gasoline and; 2 fuel oil. You indicate that you are presently placing a secon certification label on the vehicle, a copy of which you enclose, to inform the customer of the allowable weights.; The method you are using may not be consistent with the Certificatio regulations, as our position is that weight or axle values that may be confused with GAWR or GVWR cannot appear on the Certification (Part 567) label, or on adjoining labels. This will be the case if the 'total' in the 'chassis rated weight' column differs from the figure you provide on the Part 567 label for GVWR (assuming that the front and rear axle figures are identical to the GAWR figures on the Part 567 label). Gross vehicle weight rating is not necessarily the total of all axle weight ratings.; We recommend that the weight ratings be computed on the basis of th heaviest load that the vehicle is designed to carry, without attempting (for certification purposes) to anticipate the density of particular cargoes.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2087OpenDirector, Office of Standards Enforcement; Director Office of Standards Enforcement; SUBJECT: Certification of Universal Size Motorcycle Helmets You have asked whether a universal motorcycle helmet must b permanently labelled with the DOT label to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 218. As I understand it, these helmets are readily adjustable and can be made to fit the size C headform by means of filler material supplied by the manufacturer for the purpose of allowing such adjustment. Accordingly, they are required to comply with the standard.; The requirements of the standard apply to helmets that fit headfor size C. It is my interpretation that the term 'fit' includes the case where by means of an adjusting mechanism supplied by the manufacturer for the purpose of permitting adjustment to headform size C, *inter* *alia*, the helmet can readily be made to fit headform size C. You should, in testing the helmets for compliance purposes, follow the manufacturer's suggested procedures for fitting the helmet to the size C headform and then proceed as with any other helmet. When other headforms become available, a helmet will be required to pass the requirements for all sizes that it fits.; Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4850OpenMr. Saburo Inui Corporate Manager Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc. 1850 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036; Mr. Saburo Inui Corporate Manager Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America Inc. 1850 M Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20036; Dear Mr. Inui: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1991, wit respect to an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it relates to High Intensity Discharge Headlamp (HID) designs contemplated by Toyota. You explained these designs in greater detail to NHTSA staff members in a meeting with them on February 20. Standard No. 108 defines an 'integral beam headlamp' as one which is neither a sealed beam headlamp nor one equipped with a standardized replaceable light source, but one which is a 'headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly, including lens, reflector, and light source.' You have presented two HID headlamp designs, and have asked whether these lamps are 'integral beam headlamps' as defined by Standard No. 108. These lamps differ from conventional headlamps by having ballast, consisting of a 'starter' affixed to the rear of the headlamp, connected to a 'converter,' which is separated from the headlamp-starter unit. Because of space limitations, it may not be feasible to integrate the ballast into the headlamp enclosure. On one of these headlamps (Figure 2) the starter and converter are directly connected to each other by a 'hard wire' while in the other (Figure 3), the starter and converter are connected by 'hard wires' that meet at a connector between the two. In this design, the ballast units would be installed separately, then permanently joined by a connector, which could not be separated without destroying the connector. You believe that both designs are 'integral beam headlamps.' The phrase 'optical assembly' in the definition of 'integral beam headlamp', in our view, encompasses all lamp components other than the power source which are required for illumination of the headlamp. This means that an 'optical assembly' includes the ballast. Although the lamp, starter, and converter may be permanently attached to each other, and could be considered 'indivisible,' and the starter could be considered to be 'integral' with the lamp body, the positioning of the converter at some distance from the starter, as shown in your Figure 2 and Figure 3, does not render it 'integral' within the meaning of the definition, unless it is permanently attached to the starter. However, a design which had a connector as in your Figure 3 and described in your letter, would be considered both 'integral' and 'indivisible' if its individual components were not permanently attached to each other until the installation of the device in a motor vehicle, providing that any portion of the device could not be subsequently detached without damage sufficient that the entire device would have to be replaced. This would apply to either original or replacement equipment. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0540OpenMr. R.A.C. Dandy, Senior Engineer, Head of Mechanical Section, British Standards Institution, Hemel Hempstead Centre, Maylands Avenue, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, England; Mr. R.A.C. Dandy Senior Engineer Head of Mechanical Section British Standards Institution Hemel Hempstead Centre Maylands Avenue Hemel Hempstead Herts England; Dear Mr. Dandy: This is in reply to your letter of July 26, 1972, on the subject o seat belt retractor testing under S5.2(k) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; Your outline of the emergency locking retractor test procedure i essentially correct. During the initial 5,000 cycles, however, the belt is to be retracted completely, even though some vehicle installations may prevent complete retraction. The assumption in (3)(ii) of your letter is therefore incorrect.; The remaining points in your interpretation are correct. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5312OpenMr. Bob Carver Product Engineering Wayne Wheeled Vehicles 13311 Industrial Parkway Marysville, OH 43040; Mr. Bob Carver Product Engineering Wayne Wheeled Vehicles 13311 Industrial Parkway Marysville OH 43040; "Dear Mr. Carver: This responds to your letter of January 8, 1994 asking two questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follow. 1. There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the 'Daylight Opening' and 'Unobstructed Opening' as it applies to the new side emergency door specification in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which 'Daylight Opening' and 'Unobstructed Opening' are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the '30 cm minimum' shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the 'Unobstructed Opening' area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the 'Unobstructed Opening' area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4. The term 'daylight opening' is defined in the Final Rule as 'the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.' An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the 'maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit,' we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. Your question specifically concerns how the 'maximum unobstructed opening' of a side door is measured when the opening is partially obstructed by a seat. In the case of the illustrated door exit, occupants would use the exit by movement along the floor. This would be considered in determining the extent of an obstruction. None of the four examples you enclosed with your letter correctly illustrates the area that would be credited for the illustrated exit. The following regions would not be credited for this exit: (1) the area visually obstructed by the seat, (2) your region A2, an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat, (3) your region A5, an area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edge of the door forward of the seat, and (4) your region A8, an area bounded by the seat leg, the floor, the lower edge of the seat bottom, and the edge of the door forward of the seat. Because the seat would make the last three regions unusable as exit space for a person traveling along the floor of the bus towards the exit, they would not be credited for that exit. You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice. 2. Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): 'Each school bus ....shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' as appropriate, .... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus.' I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e., FMVSS 302)? The answer to your question is yes. The agency addressed this issue in an October 2, 1978, letter to Mr. E.M. Ryan of Ward Industries, Inc. I am enclosing a copy of this letter. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0110OpenWarren M. Heath, Commander, Engineering Section, California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804; Warren M. Heath Commander Engineering Section California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento CA 95804; Dear Commander Heath: This is in response to your letter of August 19 inquiring as to th certification responsibility of manufacturers of assemblers of dune buggy kits with respect to conformance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. But the issue you raise is far broader and involves the whole area of owner-assembled motor vehicles.; You have stated:>>>It is our interpretation that Federal Standard 10 is not applicable to dune buggies that are owner-constructed or reconstructed for the builders personal use.'<<<; This interpretation is incorrect. It is a violation of sectio 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for any person to:; >>>'...introduce or deliver for introduction in interstat commerce...any motor vehicle...manufactured [or assembled] on and after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect...unless it is in conformity with such standard...'<<<; This means that the final assembler of a dune buggy, whoever he is must insure that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable Standards including No. 108. In the case of dune buggies, this means Standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles since a dune buggy is 'constructed...with special features for occasional off-road operation.' (23 C.F.R. S255.3(b)).; It is our understanding that a dune buggy consists of a newl manufactured body mounted on the modified chassis of a passenger car previously in use. An issue is raised by the facts that dune buggies are assembled from both new and used items of motor vehicle equipment and that there is language in the Act which appears to exempt 'any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale' (section 108(b)(1). However, since the modification involving used components goes far beyond customizing a used vehicle and results in the end product having a different classification under the Federal Standards and a different purpose than the original vehicle a dune buggy is a 'new' motor vehicle for purposes of the Act.; Continuing your interpretation you further state: >>>'However, those sold as kits or by a manufacturer are required t comply with Federal Standard 108.'<<<; Only assembled vehicles are required to conform to most Federa Standards including No. 108, and there is no legal requirement under the Act that a kit seller furnish lighting equipment meeting the various SAE requirements specified in that Standard. Some Federal Standards, however, do establish requirements applicable to equipment items as well as to assembled vehicles. If a kit manufacturer furnishes hydraulic brake hoses (Standard No. 105), new pneumatic tires (Standard No. 109), glazing materials (Standard No. 205), seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209), and wheel discs, wheel covers, or hub caps (Standard No. 211), then these items must conform to the applicable Standard.; Finally, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the certificatio required by section 114 of the Act. This certification is required to be furnished only by a manufacturer, or distributor, and only to a distributor or dealer upon delivery of a motor vehicle or equipment item to which a Standard or Standards are applicable. No certification is required to be given by a manufacturer to a party not a distributor or dealer. Nor is there any requirement that the assembler per se certify the vehicle. This of course, does not relieve the assembler of his independent obligation to insure that the assembled vehicle meets Federal Standards.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations |
|
ID: aiam0576OpenMr. F. S. Murley, Administrative Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, P.O. Box 560, Oshkosh, WI 54901; Mr. F. S. Murley Administrative Engineer Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 560 Oshkosh WI 54901; Dear Mr. Murley: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1971, concerning th responsibility for compliance with Standard No. 108 and with the Certification regulations for vehicles you manufacture to which snow plows are added. You present four hypothetical situations, listed below.; >>>1. 'Complete - the plow equipment is mounted at OTC and a complet truck is delivered to the dealer or customer.' Your interpretation that 'OTC must conform on all counts as the manufacturer of a complete vehicle sold to the first purchaser and certify a complete vehicle' is correct.; 2. 'Chassis only to OTC dealer - the dealer mounts the plow equipment The dealer may also be a dealer for the plow equipment or he may purchase same.'<<<; The answer depends on whether the chassis is a complete or incomplet vehicle under Parts 567 and 568. If the vehicle as you manufacture it is a complete vehicle, OTC must build the truck so that it conforms with Standard No. 108, and certify the vehicle in accordance with section 567.5. If the mounting of the snow plow by the dealer adversely affects conformity, and the dealer does not bring the vehicle back into conformity before sale, he will be violating Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions as prescribed in sections 109 and 110 of the Act. He need not, however, certify the vehicle. Your certification will be sufficient.; If the vehicle as you manufacture it is an incomplete vehicle, OTC mus either forward to the dealer the appropriate documents specified in section 568.4, or assume legal responsibility for conformity and certification under the provisions of S 567.5(b) and S 568.7(a). In the first case, the dealer would be the final-stage manufacturer, and would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 108 and the certification regulations. In the second, OTC would have the responsibility for the completed vehicle, and would not have to furnish the Part 568 document. Your own answer on page 2 of your letter is incorrect. The reference to 'purchasers' in S 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is to purchases for the express reason of resale.; >>>3. 'Chassis only to OTC dealer - the plow manufacturer mounts th plow for the dealer. The dealer buys the plow equipment from the plow manufacturer. OTC may ship a chassis (incomplete) direct to the plow manufacturer or to the dealer who in turn ships to the plow dealer or manufacturer.'<<<; In this case the plow manufacturer would be in the same position as th dealer in question 2, and the answer would otherwise be similar.; >>>4. 'Complete - the plow equipment is mounted by the plo manufacturer. OTC sends an incomplete vehicle chassis to the plow manufacturer who mounts the plow equipment and ships the complete vehicle to the customer, usually an OTC dealer.'<<<; The answer to this question is also similar to the answer to questio 2. OTC is the incomplete manufacturer, and the plow manufacturer the final-stage manufacturer, and their responsibilities are as outlined above.; We regret that it was impossible for us to have this response for yo within the time you requested.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4866OpenMr. Howard 'Mac' Dashney Pupil Transportation Consultant Michigan Department of Education P.O. Box 30008 Lansing, Michigan 48909; Mr. Howard 'Mac' Dashney Pupil Transportation Consultant Michigan Department of Education P.O. Box 30008 Lansing Michigan 48909; "Dear Mr. Dashney: This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991 In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events? The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions. The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered 'schoolbuses' by this agency. A 'school bus' is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR 571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for 'buses' and also those for 'school buses.' The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses: Standards No. 101 through No. 104, Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standards No. 106 through No. 108, Standards No. 111 through 113, Standard No. 115, Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standard No. 119, Standard No. 120, Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems), Standard No. 124, Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 205, Standards No. 207 through No. 210, Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 217, Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 220, Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds), and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302. These standards are part of 49 CFR 571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS. Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR 571.3. For instance, 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation' (49 CFR 571.3(b)). 'Passenger car' is defined as ' a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less' (49 CFR 571.3(b)). Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events? Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses. Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information. I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam0825OpenMr. Steven M. Sharp, Managing Director, Intercontinental Equipment Corp., 5383 Overland Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123; Mr. Steven M. Sharp Managing Director Intercontinental Equipment Corp. 5383 Overland Avenue San Diego CA 92123; Dear Mr. Sharp: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1972, in which you rais several questions concerning Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. You state that Intercontinental Equipment Corp. (I.E.C.) is the United States importer and distributer of certain vehicles manufactured by Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. in Japan. You also state that I.E.C. has contracted with Yachiyoda Sangyo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo to acquire vehicles from Suzuki, remove non-complying equipment, install approved devices, and affix necessary labels of conformity and arrange for shipment.; The answers to your questions are as follows 1. You ask whether the I.E.C. contract with Yachiyoda changes th status of Suzuki as manufacturer and I.E.C. as importer. It does not change the status with respect to our manufacturer identification and certification regulations.; 2. You inquire as to the classification of Suzuki and Yachiyoda unde Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Since Suzuki manufactures a completed vehicle, Yachiyoda is not considered a manufacturer under NHTSA regulations and is not required by the NHTSA to submit manufacturer identification or certification information.; 3. You ask whether the label of conformity (Label 2) which you propose to have affixed to the vehicles is acceptable. Th NHTSA finds it acceptable.; I enclose copies of Parts 566, 567, and 568 for your information. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.