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: aiam5596OpenMr. Isaias Rios Product Engineering Department Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V. Hidalgo No. 8 Esquina Plano Regulador Xocoyahualco, Tlalnepantla Estado de Mexico C.P. 54080 Mexico; Mr. Isaias Rios Product Engineering Department Rines de Acero K-H S.A. de C.V. Hidalgo No. 8 Esquina Plano Regulador Xocoyahualco Tlalnepantla Estado de Mexico C.P. 54080 Mexico; "Dear Mr. Rios: This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, t Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120. You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs. On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995. We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as 'covered equipment,' such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4568OpenMr. Wendell D. Kegg Tire/Wheel Consultants 12190 Hoover Avenue, OH 44685; Mr. Wendell D. Kegg Tire/Wheel Consultants 12190 Hoover Avenue OH 44685; "Dear Mr. Kegg: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. You were uncertain about section S4.3.1's requirements related to the inflation pressure for spare tires specified on vehicle placards. You asked whether a vehicle manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire's sidewall. As you know, FMVSS 110 sets forth requirements related to vehicle placards in passenger cars. Section S4.3 requires that the placard be 'permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location' and display the vehicle capacity weight, the designated seating capacity, the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for maximum loaded weight and, subject to the limitations of S4.3.1, for any other manufacturer-specified vehicle loading condition, and the vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation. FMVSS 110 does not have any provision requiring the inclusion of information on the placard related to spare tires or air pressure related to spare tires. Accordingly, a passenger car manufacturer may, but is not required to, specify information related to spare tires on the placard. In response to your question whether a passenger car manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the spare tire's sidewall, section S4.3.1 of FMVSS 110 states that the vehicle placard must not specify an 'inflation pressure other than the maximum permissible inflation pressure' required to be molded on the tire itself by section S4.3 of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, unless the alternative inflation pressure satisfies the three conditions set forth in S4.3.1. The first condition requires that the alternative inflation pressure be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. The second condition requires that the vehicle loading condition be specified for the alternative reduced pressure. The third condition requires that the tire load rating be specified by an individual manufacturer for the tire size at that inflation pressure that is not less than the vehicle load on the tire for that vehicle loading condition. Accordingly, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify on its placard an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum permissible inflation pressure. I am enclosing a December 13, 1984 letter to Mr. Alberto Negro of Fiat, which explains the agency's position concerning a manufacturer's specification on the placard of an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire. As that letter indicates, a manufacturer would have to meet each of the conditions specified in section S4.3.1, including that the alternative inflation pressure must be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. Because spare tires are subject to these requirements like any other pneumatic tire, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on that tire. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3772OpenD.Ing.h.c. F. Porsche AG, z. H. Herrn Mayer/ESV, Postfach 11 40, 7251 Weissach, West Germany; D.Ing.h.c. F. Porsche AG z. H. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach West Germany; Dear Mr. Mayer: This is in response to your letter of October 13, 983, to Nelso Erickson of this agency, requesting our interpretation of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 118, *Power-Operated Window Systems*.; A recent amendment to section 3(d) of FMVSS 118 (48 Fed. Reg. 46793 October 14, 1983, copy enclosed) permits power window operation during the 'interval between the time the locking device which controls the activation of the vehicle's engine is turned off and the opening of either of a two-door vehicle's doors or, in the case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of either of its front doors.' As you point out in your recent letter, the opening of the vehicle's front doors would typically be sensed through the interior roof lamp electrical circuit. This circuit would be activaetd when the door is opened 8 to 10 inches from the frame. You ask whether it is permissible under the standard to have power windows remain operable until the door is opened to this point where the roof lamp is activated.; FMVSS 118 is primarily intended to prevent the unsupervised operatio of power windows by children remining in a vehicle. See 48 Fed. Reg. 46793. Paragraph 3(d) was drafted to be consistent with this goal, since it is highly probably that the driver would still be in the vehicle during the specified time interval. Your proposed interpretation is also consistent with the standard's goal, since the driver would not likely be able to leave the vehicle with the door only ajar.; Therefore, we agree that power systems may remain operable unde paragraph 3(d) of FMVSS 118 until the door is opened far enough to permit a small adult to leave the vehicle. The 8 to 10 inch point where the roof lamp is activated appears to be within this permissible range.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0449OpenMr. Paul H. Lawrenz, American Motors Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI, 48232; Mr. Paul H. Lawrenz American Motors Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Lawrenz: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1971, to Mr. Lewis C Owen of this Office concerning an interpretation on the visibility requirements in FMVSS No. 108 as referenced in FMVSS No. 215.; Paragraph S4.3.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that the lamps be visibl at the extreme photometric test angles or as otherwise specified in the applicable SAE Standards. This paragraph does not require photometric tests at these extreme angles.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0450OpenMr. Paul H. Lawrenz, American Motors Corporation, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. Paul H. Lawrenz American Motors Corporation 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Lawrenz: This is in reply to your letter of September 21, 1971, to Mr. Lewis C Owen of this Office concerning an interpretation on the visibility requirements in FMVSS No. 108 as referenced in FMVSS No. 215.; Paragraph S4.3.1.1 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that the lamps be visibl at the extreme photometric test angles or as otherwise specified in the applicable SAE Standards. This paragraph does not require photometric tests at these extreme angles.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam4797OpenMr. S. Kadoya Manager Safety and Technology Mazda Research and Development of North America, Inc. 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48105; Mr. S. Kadoya Manager Safety and Technology Mazda Research and Development of North America Inc. 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor MI 48105; Dear Mr. Kadoya: This responds to your request for interpretations o several safety standards and the Bumper Standard, in connection with a planned 'active' suspension system. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. Your questions are responded to below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by this agency, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. According to your letter, Mazda is concerned about the protocol of compliance testing of vehicles equipped with an active suspension system. This concern arises because many standards do not specify a suspension height that is to be used during compliance testing. As you noted, this has not been a concern for conventional suspension systems, since they do not provide for variable height. Mazda's planned active suspension system would be actuated by hydraulic fluid or compressed air, with control pressure being developed by a hydraulic pump or air compressor driven off the engine. Consequently the active suspension system would be operational only when the vehicle's engine is operating. At vehicle speeds in excess of 'z' mph, where z is greater than 35 mph, the suspension height would be lowered by 'x' mm from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation. If the engine/vehicle were not used for several consecutive days, pressure in the control system would fall such that the suspension height may be lowered from the nominal or design position for vehicle operation by 'y' mm, where y is greater than x. The suspension height would return to the nominal or design position for vehicle operation after such an extended period of inoperation almost immediately after starting the vehicle's engine. Before discussing your specific questions, I would like to discuss more generally the issue of how compliance is determined in situations where a standard down not specify a particular test condition. In issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA attempts to specify all relevant test conditions. The agency does this as part of ensuring that its standards are objective and practicable. As a practical matter, however, it is not possible to specify every conceivable test condition. This is particularly true for ones which may only be relevant to as-yet-undeveloped technologies. In cases where a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we believe there are several relevant factors to consider in interpreting the standard. First, in the absence of specification of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. For example, where a standard does not specify suspension height, its requirements may need to be met at all heights to which the suspension can be adjusted. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes. Even if a standard is silent as to a particular test condition, the language of the standard or its purposes may indicate limitations on such test condition. Finally, in situations where a limitation on a particular test condition may appear to be appropriate, we also must consider whether the limitation is sufficiently clear, both with respect to justification and specificity, to be appropriate for interpretation. For example, in a situation where it may appear to be reasonable to limit a particular test condition but it is not obvious what particular limitation should be adopted, it would be inappropriate to select a particular limitation by interpretation. Instead, such a decision should be reached in rulemaking. I will now address the specific questions asked in your letter. Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment In asking about Standard No. 108, you stated the following: NHTSA has previously issued an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, at the request of a confidential applicant and dated February 12, 1985, with respect to active suspension equipped vehicles. This interpretation stated that the requirements of FMVSS 108 must be meet (sic), ...at any time in which...' lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be, '...operated for its intended purpose.' Consequently, headlamps, tailamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, must comply with the location requirements of FMVSS No. 108 whenever the vehicle's ignition is in the 'on' position. Conversely, reflex reflectors, and turn signal lamps that also function as hazard warning signal flashers must comply with the location requirements when the vehicle's ignition is in either the 'on' or 'off' position. However, it is Mazda's interpretation that hazard warning flashers are not intended to be operational for a period of days, but rather for a period of hours, at maximum, only. You then asked two questions, (1) whether Mazda's understanding of the subject NHTSA interpretation is accurate, and (2) whether Mazda's interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers is correct. I note that the February 1985 interpretation was written in the context of a vehicle with a variable height system actuated by hydraulic fluid. In that particular system, the hydraulic pressure relaxed over a period of about three hours after the ignition was turned off, with the result that the vehicle assumed a lower height than it would have during driving. NHTSA stated the following: We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height requirement would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height. With respect to your question of whether Mazda's understanding of the interpretation is correct, I would like to note two points. First, while you state that 'the requirements of FMVSS 108' must be met at any time in which lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment are to be operated for their intended purpose, out interpretation was limited to standard's minimum height requirement. While we are prepared, if asked, to address other requirements, out interpretations should be understood to be limited to their specific facts and conclusions. Second, while our interpretation only addressed headlamps and hazard warning signal lamps, you applied the interpretation for headlamps to tailamps, stoplamps, the license plate lamp, and side marker lamps, and the interpretation for hazard warning signal lamps to reflex reflectors. We concur with this application, with respect to Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement. We do not agree with Mazda's suggested interpretation of the maximum intended operating duration of hazard warning signal flashers. You would apparently like us to conclude that Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers does not apply after a vehicle's ignition has been turned off for a matter of days. In addressing how Standard No. 108 applies in the absence of a specification for vehicle height, our February 1985 interpretation differentiates between situations where the vehicle is operating and where it is not. Looking at the purposes of the requirements in question, we believe it is obvious that the minimum height requirement for headlamps is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating, while the minimum height for hazard warning signal lamps is also relevant to situations where the vehicle is stopped and the ignition turned off. However, we believe that any determination that Standard No. 108's minimum height requirement for hazard warning signal flashers should not apply after a specified number of hours after the ignition has been turned off is one that would need to be addressed in rulemaking. It is therefore my opinion that the minimum mounting height of hazard warning signal lamps must be met at all heights with the ignition off, even if the system requires days to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height. If you believe that a time limitation should be placed on this requirement, I note that you can submit a petition for rulemaking requesting such a change. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors You requested an interpretation of section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 111, which generally requires a passenger car's rearview mirror to 'provide a field of view with an included horizontal angle measured from the projected eye point of at least 20 degrees, and sufficient angle to provide a view of level road surface extending to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle...' You noted that since the specified procedures for determining the location of the driver's eye reference points are made referenced to point with the vehicle's cabin, your active suspension system would not affect these measurements. However, different vehicle heights would be relevant to whether there is a view of level road surface extending to the horizon beginning at a point not greater than 200 feet to the rear of the vehicle. You stated that, based on 'intended purpose,' Mazda's interpretation of Standard No. 111 is that the requirements of this standard are to be met when the vehicle's ignition is in the 'on' position as rearview mirrors are not intended to be used when the vehicle's engine is not operating. You then asked two questions, (1) whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 with respect to the state of the vehicle's switch is correct, and (2) for the purpose of compliance testing to the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, what means of maintaining the intended suspension height for a given speed and operating condition would be satisfactory to NHTSA. We agree that the field of view requirement specified in S5.1.1 for rearview mirrors need not be met for vehicle heights that only occur when the engine is not on, since the requirement is only relevant in situations where the vehicle is operating. However, the requirement would need to be at all vehicle heights that occur during vehicle operation, under the loading conditions specified in S5.1.1. With respect to the issue of how suspension height should be maintained for purposes of compliance testing, you note early in your letter that, for reasons of practicality and safety, a vehicle's engine is not actually operational during compliance testing. However, since the active suspension system derives its power from the vehicle's engine, the system's ability to maintain and regulate suspension height is only possible during engine operation. You therefore indicated that Mazda is seeking guidelines (for several standards) by which Mazda may be able to establish a means to maintain the intended suspension height for compliance testing purposes in the absence of engine operation. We are not able, in an interpretation, to specify a particular means for maintaining suspension height for compliance testing in the absence of engine operation. However, the basic principle that should be followed in selecting a means for maintaining suspension height is that is should not result in different test results than would occur if testing could be conducted with suspension height being maintained by engine operation, i.e., what would happen in the real world. This should be relatively straightforward for section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 111, since the test is static, For a crash test, it is important that a vehicle not be altered in any way that would change the vehicles's crash performance relevant to the aspect of performance being tested. Standard No.204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement In asking about Standard No. 204, you stated the following: Section S4 of this standard specifies the compliance parameter for this standard. Section S5 specifies the testing conditions to determine compliance with this standard. Section S5.1 specifies that the vehicle be loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight. Section S5.5 specifies that the vehicles fuel tank be filled with Stoddard solvent to any capacity between 90 and 95 percent of the total capacity of the tank. Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of this standard is that they are to be met when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the 'on' position only. Furthermore, Mazda interprets the vehicles suspension height pursuant to S5.1 and S5.5 to be the intended suspension height for the vehicle given the conditions of S4, i.e., 30 mph vehicle speed and steered wheels are positioned straight ahead. You then asked whether Mazda's interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 are correct. As discussed below, we agree that Standard No. 204's requirements need to be met only at the suspension height that occurs at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead. Standard No. 204 specifies requirements limiting the rearward displacement of the steering control into the passenger compartment to reduce the likelihood of chest, neck, or head injury. These requirements must be met in a 30 mile per hour perpendicular impact into a fixed collision barrier. While the standard specifies a number of test conditions, it does not specify suspension height. Looking at the Standard No. 204 as a whole, we believe it is clear that NHTSA explicitly decided to limit the standard's evaluation of steering control rearward displacement to how vehicles perform in a 30 mph perpendicular impacts, even though the requirements have relevance at lower and higher speeds. Therefore, we agree that the standard's requirements need to be met only at suspension heights that occur at a 30 mph vehicle speed and with steered wheels positioned straight ahead. With respect to Mazda's question concerning means of maintaining intended suspension height for compliance testing, please see our discussion provided with respect to Standard No. 111. THIS DATABASE WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE COMPLETE LETTER - DUE TO ITS LENGTH. THIS IS PART I. PART II IS ALSO DATED OCTOBER 2, 1990 AND COVERS QUESTIONS ON STANDARDS 208, 301 AND THE BUMPER STANDARD, PART 581. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4705OpenMr. Cadwallader Jones President Jones Ford Inc. P.O.Box 10267 North Charleston, SC 29411; Mr. Cadwallader Jones President Jones Ford Inc. P.O.Box 10267 North Charleston SC 29411; "Dear Mr. Jones: This is in response to your letter to NHTSA in whic you asked questions concerning the circumstances in which Ford vans with more than ten designated seating positions would be considered school buses for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in this response. Your letter asked whether the vans that you describe would be considered school buses if used to transport adult education students, college students, high school students (including athletic teams), playground teams with no connection to schools, day care center clients, or children transported by churches that do not have day schools, but occasionally transport children. The starting point for the agency's analysis of when vehicles used in these circumstances would be required to comply with FMVSS requirements applicable to school buses is Section 102(14) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). That provision defines 'Schoolbus' as a 'passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' When interpreting this provision, the agency has always looked to the nature of the particular institution purchasing the buses. If its central purpose is the education of primary, preprimary or secondary students, the agency has determined that the buses purchased must comply with the FMVSS requirements for school buses. If the institution is concerned primarily with the education of post-secondary students, or serves a function that is custodial rather than educational, NHTSA has said that the buses need not comply with the school bus requirements. The agency has already explained the application of this provision to several of the circumstances raised in your letter. On July 12, 1977, in a letter to Mr. Jim Thomason, the agency said that buses used to transport adults and other post-high school students to vocational training need not comply with the FMVSS school bus requirements because these passengers do not fall in the categories of 'primary, preprimary or secondary students.' However, that interpretation also noted that a bus used by a vocational school connected with a secondary school would fall within the scope of the school bus requirements. The agency has also determined, in a March 17, 1976 letter to Mr. W.G. Milby (and reaffirmed several times since then), that buses used to transport college students need not comply with the standards for school buses. The same letter also includes our opinion that a bus used to transport school athletic teams to activities falls within the scope of the definition of school bus, and must comply with the applicable FMVSS. A May 10, 1982 interpretation letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin determined that vehicles used to transport children to day care centers need not comply with the school bus standards. The rationale for this decision is based on the fact that these facilities serve an essentially custodial function, although they may have some educational components, and are not considered to be schools. Your letter also asks about transportation of children by churches which do not operate day schools. In a November 20, 1978 letter to Mr. J. Perry Robinson, this office determined that the term 'school' does not include church schools such as Sunday schools, or those providing other religious training. As noted in that letter, however, a normal preprimary, primary or secondary school operated under the auspices of a church would be required to comply with the the school bus requirements. Finally, your letter asks whether vehicles used to transport 'playground teams' with no connection to a school would be required to comply with the school bus requirements. The agency has not addressed this question in any past interpretations. However, it is my opinion that a bus used to transport 'playground teams' that are organized independently of any school or educational organization would not be required to comply with the school bus standards. The term 'school' cannot be construed to include athletic teams not connected with any school or educational organization. I hope you have found this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3815OpenMr. H. Nakaya, Branch Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc., Suite 462, 23777 Greenfield Road, Southfield, Michigan 48075; Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. Suite 462 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield Michigan 48075; Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your letter of January 20, 1984, requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect*. You asked whether Mazda may modify the display of shift lever positions for vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions to delete the gear lever indicator. As explained below, FMVSS No. 102 does not permit the deletion of the gear position indicator.; You should be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.; Your letter states that Mazda automobiles with automatic transmission currently display the gear lever sequence and identify the shift lever position of the automobile. Based on the information in your letter, the agency understands that you propose to modify the display in such a way that '[t]he actual gear selection would not be indicated (as is the case of current manual transmissions).' The pattern of the gear positions would be embossed either on the instrument panel or on the shift lever handle.; Paragraph S3.2. of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 stat that the '[i]dentification of shift lever *positions* of automatic transmissions...shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver.' [Emphasis added.] 49 CFR S571.102. NHTSA interprets 'position' to mean the position of the gears in relation to each other *and* the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions.; You should note that FMVSS No. 101, *Controls and Displays,* als applies to the display of automatic gar positions. Paragraph S5 of the standard requires that, inter alia, each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard shall meet the requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of such display. Since 'gear position' is listed under S5.1, and 'Automatic Gear Position' is listed under Table 2, the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 apply to the display of shift lever positions in vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5121OpenMr. Donald Ray McCray 620694, Darrington Unit Rt. 3 P.O. Box 59 Rosharon, TX 77583; Mr. Donald Ray McCray 620694 Darrington Unit Rt. 3 P.O. Box 59 Rosharon TX 77583; "Dear Mr. McCray: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1992 t former Secretary Card. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for motor vehicle safety. Your letter expresses concern about the buses that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (DCJ) uses to transport inmates. You believe the buses are unsafe and operated in violation of Federal law. As explained below, it appears the DCJ did not violate any NHTSA regulation. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, each person selling a new bus must ensure that the bus complies with the FMVSS's for buses. NHTSA's requirements for vehicle seats are set forth in FMVSS No. 207, Seating Systems. However, that standard does not require seat covers or pads for any bus seat. Also, there is no FMVSS that requires buses to be heated. NHTSA does not regulate the use of motor vehicles, such as the speed at which the DCJ must operate the bus. Individual states, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. Texas state officials would be best able to answer your concerns about the manner in which you were transported. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2111OpenMr. W.G. Milby, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W.G. Milby Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This is in response to your letter of September 23, 1975, in which yo inquire whether the emergency exit decal installations shown in photographs enclosed with your letter comply with paragraphs S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.'; It appears from the photographs you provided that some of the emergenc exit markings may not comply with some of the requirements specified in FMVSS No. 217. Our specific comments are listed below:; 1. Figure 1 - The emergency exit marking for the rear door appears t meet the requirements. It is to be noted, however, that revised requirements for emergency exits on school buses have been proposed which may differ from the current requirements.; 2. Figures 2 and 3 - The emergency exit marking for the side push-ou windows does not appear to meet the requirements of S5.5.2. Both the seat back and the adjacent seated occupant partially obstruct the marking so it is not legible from the adjoining seat or the aisle location.; 3. Figure 4 - The emergency exit marking for the side door appears t meet the requirements.; 4. Figure 5 - The marking for the rear window emergency exit that i adjacent to a davenport type seat with unknown seating capacity appears to contain two release mechanisms (laterally spaced at each edge) and an identical marking for each latch mechanism. We cannot determine if occupants would obstruct these markings from standees if all positions in the davenport type seat were occupied.; We also question whether the instructions are complete because i cannot be determined if both latches must be released before the window can be pushed out.; 5. Figure 6 - The emergency exit marking for the transit sliding typ window appears to meet the requirements.; 6. Figure 7 - The center rear emergency door which contain instructions for unlatching the opening of the door in the form of an arrow only per the proposed amendment to FMVSS No. 217, Docket 75-3: Notice 1 does not meet the present requirements for emergency exit identification. The specific content of the emergency exit marking for school buses has not yet been finalized by this agency and we, therefore, cannot comment until a final rule on the proposal has been published in the *Federal Register*; 7. Figures 8 and 9 - The emergency exit marking for another transi sliding type window appears to meet the requirements.; It is emphasized that these comments are for your information only an are based on the contents of your photographs. This agency cannot make a final judgement concerning compliance of a bus from photographs of components. The determination of compliance or noncompliance with FMVSS No. 217 can be made only by the actual inspection and test of a complete vehicle.; I trust this information will be of assistance to you in regard to you inquiries.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting 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.