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: 07-007541asOpenMr. Darby Crow CEO Crow Cycle Co. 863 Opal Street San Diego, CA 92109 Dear Mr. Crow: This responds to your letter concerning whether the Crow Cycle Companys motorized bicycle design (the Crow beach cruiser) is considered a motorcycle, subject to the jurisdiction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As discussed below, it is our opinion that the Crow beach cruiser is a motor vehicle. Moreover, based on the specifications of the vehicle that you provided, it is our opinion that the Crow beach cruiser should be considered a motorcycle, or more specifically a motor-driven cycle, and therefore is subject to Federal laws governing those vehicles. By way of background, NHTSA regulates the manufacture, importation, and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The definition of motor vehicle is given is 49 USC 30102, and reads: [M]otor vehicle means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. Furthermore, the NHTSA has included definitions of various vehicle types in its regulations. In 49 CFR 571.3, we defined a motorcycle as a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. A motor-driven cycle is defined as a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less. You have provided detailed specifications regarding the Crow beach cruiser. Most relevantly, you stated that it comes equipped with a 36cc, 1.6 HP engine. The Crow beach cruiser has a bicycle frame, seat, transmission, and mountain bike wheels. The speed control is a twist throttle, similar to motorcycle designs, and most other components are standard bicycle components. Furthermore, you stated that the Crow beach cruiser can be operated in three different modes. The first is Human Power, in which the vehicle is operated like a non-powered bicycle. The second is Human Power plus gasoline engine, in which the vehicle operates like a power-assisted bicycle. The third is Gasoline engine only, in which the engine provides the sole power for the vehicle. In this mode, the vehicle has a top speed of 28 mph when placed in the smallest gear. Additionally, we note that the beach cruiser style of bicycles, whether motorized or not, are marketed in part for and commonly used on public roads. You provided several arguments as to why you believe NHTSA should not consider your product a motor vehicle. You state that the engine output and top speed of the vehicle, 1.6 HP and 28 mph, respectively, are similar to what a world-class cyclist can sustain through human power alone, and what an average cyclist can produce in brief bursts. Therefore, you state, the performance of the vehicle is similar to that of an ordinary bicycle powered by a cyclist. You also state that the Crow beach cruiser cannot keep up with normal road traffic, is not capable of quick acceleration, and cannot climb hills at a speed comparable to a motorized vehicle. You made several additional arguments. First, you argued that the Crow beach cruiser is very similar to a mountain or road bicycle. You state that the controls are similar and the components are largely bicycle components. Furthermore, you presented information on various State laws regarding the classification of motorized bicycles and motorcycles. You stated that a majority of States classify a vehicle a top speed of 30 mph or less and an engine capable of producing 2 HP or less as a motorized bicycle. Based on the description of the vehicle you provided, we believe that the Crow vehicle is a motor vehicle, subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). We believe that it should be classified as a motor-driven cycle. Below, we will state our rationale, as well as address the arguments you put forth in your letter. NHTSAs position on whether motorized bicycles should be classified as motor vehicles under the definition in 49 U.S.C. 30102 has been discussed in several previous interpretations. In a 1999 interpretation, we stated that attaching a motor to a bicycle rendered the bicycle a motor vehicle, because the motor was capable of propelling the vehicle on its own.[1] Similarly, a 1997 interpretation to an electric bicycle manufacturer stated that NHTSA considered self-propelled bicycles to be motor vehicles, subject to the Federal requirements.[2] We are enclosing copies of both previous interpretations. Because the Crow beach cycle is capable of operating solely under mechanized power, we would consider it to be a motor vehicle, and thus subject to Federal requirements. We note that we do not consider power-assisted bicycles to be motor vehicles. In a recent letter of interpretation, we stated that a bicycle with an engine that was not powerful enough to power the bicycle alone would not be considered a motor vehicle.[3] The Crow beach cruiser, on the other hand, is capable of performing purely on engine power. You argued that the Crow beach cruiser is no more capable of keeping up with traffic than human-powered cyclists, and therefore should not be considered a motor vehicle. We disagree with this argument. The Crow beach cruiser, using only the motor, is capable of sustained speeds of up to 28 mph. We believe that vehicles with speeds of over 20 mph are capable of on-road operation. We note that one class of four-wheeled motor vehicles, low speed vehicles (LSVs), have a top speed of more than 20 mph but not more than 25 mph. You also argued that because the Crow beach cruiser uses similar controls to a road or mountain bicycle, it should be considered a motorized bicycle, and that many States do not consider low-powered motorized bicycles to be motorcycles. While we are not familiar with the various State laws you mentioned, we note that Congress has enacted laws regarding motorized bicycles. Specifically, in the Consumer Product Safety Act, Congress distinguished certain types of motorized bicycles, namely, low-speed electric bicycles, which have a top speed of less than 20 mph. In that Act, Congress stated that because low-speed electric bicycles are designed not to exceed the maximum speed of a human-powered bicycle, and they are typically used in the same manner as human-powered bicycles, electric bicycles should be regulated in the same manner and under the same agency (the [Consumer Product Safety Commission] CPSC) as human-powered bicycles. While we note that this law applies only to electric bicycles, and not gasoline-powered bicycles like the Crow beach cruiser, we take note that Congress used a cutoff speed of 20 mph. We also note that the 20 mph cutoff point was the speed that NHTSA used to determine the minimum top speed for LSVs. Therefore, we are not persuaded by your argument that the speed and design of the Crow beach cruiser should cause NHTSA to not consider it a motor vehicle. Based on the above analysis, we have concluded that the Crow beach cruiser is a motorcycle, or more specifically, a motor-driven cycle. As such, it is subject to the FMVSSs applicable to motorcycles. If you have any further questions relating to NHTSA, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, Anthony M. Cooke Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:108 d.4/17/08 |
2008 |
ID: 11349AtxtOpen Sgt. Stephan C. Turner Dear Sgt. Turner: This responds to your letter asking how Federal regulations apply to full-size passenger vans used for school transportation. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask us specific questions about information a local dealer provided you. You also pose hypothetical situations about how Federal law regulates the sale and lease of new vehicles with different seating capacities and configurations. Some background information may be helpful in understanding our regulations. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress amended this statute (then called the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) to direct NHTSA to issue FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. The Act requires each person selling or leasing a new Abus@ for pupil transportation to ensure that the vehicle is a certified school bus. While NHTSA regulates the manufacture, sale and lease of new school buses, this agency does not regulate used vehicles, or the use of vehicles. The requirements that apply to the use of school vehicles are set by the State. Your specific questions are set forth below, followed by our answers. QUESTION #1: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to used vehicles, including 12-passenger vans? ANSWER: No. While NHTSA has a statutory provision relating to the repair and modification of used vehicles, our statutory provisions and standards generally apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Since our standards do not apply to used motor vehicles--vehicles that have been purchased for the first time in good faith for purposes other than resale--sale or lease transactions involving used school buses are not covered by Chapter 301. Thus, there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling or leasing any used vehicle for school purposes, even if the vehicle does not comply with the school bus standards. QUESTION #2: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to vehicles used only occasionally for school purposes (not for regularly scheduled pupil transportation)? ANSWER: Our answer depends on how Aoccasionally@ the vehicle is used for pupil transportation. NHTSA does not prohibit the occasional rental of a van or other vehicle that does not meet the school bus standards. However, when the arrangement involves more than a one- time or very occasional rental for a special school activity, the use of the vehicle has to be examined to determine whether the bus is Aused significantly@ to transport students. The starting point of our answer is section 30125 of Chapter 301, which sets forth the Congressional directive on school bus safety. That section defines Aschoolbus@ as: a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school. (Emphasis added.) NHTSA has not defined the term Aused significantly@ as it is used in this statutory provision. Instead, we answer whether a motor vehicle is Alikely to be used significantly@ for transporting students on a case-by- case basis. Use of a vehicle to carry students Aseveral times a week@ to school-related events, as mentioned in your letter, appears to constitute a long- term relationship between the dealer and the school to provide school transportation, which may require a school bus. I have enclosed a copy of a July 22, 1985 letter to Mr. D. Leeds Pickering that discusses the issue of bus leases and rentals. QUESTION #3: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to full-size passenger vans which have had a seat removed, reducing seating capacity from 12 to 8? ANSWER: It may be helpful to keep in mind that anytime a dealer sells or leases a new Abus@ (a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a school, that bus must be a certified school bus. If a dealer permanently reduces the seating capacity of a bus to less than 11, the modified vehicle is no longer a Abus.@ Because the dealer would not be selling a bus, the requirement to sell a school bus does not apply. However, a dealer modifying a new vehicle in this manner would have other responsibilities as a vehicle Aalterer@ under our regulations (49 CFR '567.7). The dealer would be changing the vehicle=s classification to that of a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and would have to certify that the vehicle complies to the MPV standards. Hypothetical situations. You ask whether a dealer would be violating NHTSA=s school bus requirements in two hypothetical situations. Hypothetical #1: A dealer leases or sells a new full size passenger van to be used for occasional use for high school sports teams transporting players to games. The full size van comes standard with 5 seating positions. The identical van (same length, width, and manufacturer) can also be ordered with 8 or 12 seating positions. Would there be any federal violations in this scenario with 5, 8, or 12 seating positions? Would it make any difference if the vehicle in this scenario were used for regularly scheduled pupil transportation to and from school? Would it matter if the vehicle was a used 1995 van? ANSWER: The main issue raised by this hypothetical is whether a 12-passenger van is a Aschool bus@ when ordered with five or eight seating positions. Anytime a dealer sells or leases a new bus to a school, the vehicle has to be a school bus. The 12-passenger van is a Abus@ (capacity of 11 or more persons, driver included) and thus any new 12-passenger van sold to a school would have to be a school bus. If the van=s seating capacity were permanently reduced to less than 11 before the vehicle=s sale, the van is no longer a Abus@ and thus is not subject to our school bus standards. The modified vehicle is considered an AMPV@ instead. While the dealer may sell or lease a new MPV to the school, the dealer altering the vehicle from a bus to an MPV must certify the vehicle as an MPV and ensure that it complies with the MPV standards, or face substantial penalties under our statute. My discussion in the first part of this letter should answer the issues you raise relating to Aused@ vehicles and the Aoccasional@ use of the vehicle for pupil transportation. Hypothetical No. 2: The dealer reduces the number of passenger seats in the van from 12 to 8 by removing the back (last) seat in the vehicle. Would it matter whether the extra seat in the back is easily removable on a track or is permanently bolted to the floor? Our answer is yes, the ability to easily remove the extra seat affects whether the van is a Abus@ (and subject to the school bus standards) or an MPV. A person who removes a seat that is designed to be readily removable is not an alterer under our regulations, and would not be changing the vehicle type from a bus to an MPV. Thus, the dealer would be selling or leasing a Abus@ which is subject to the school bus standards. If the dealer were permanently removing seats that had been bolted to the floor, our answer to hypothetical #1 applies. You also ask additional questions about the meaning of certain terms in the Congressional school bus definition. "Designed to carry" refers to the number of seating positions in the vehicle, which the vehicle manufacturer generally determines. "Events related to such schools" includes any activity connected to a school whether on or off school grounds, including sports events, band concerts, field trips, and competitions such as debate or chess tournaments. For your information, I am also enclosing an August 1995 question-and-answer sheet about school bus issues of interest to school districts. If you have any further questions regarding Federal school bus requirements, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:VSA#571.3 D:4/2/96
|
|
ID: 0869Open Mr. Scott E. Mack Dear Mr. Mack: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1995, requesting a confirmation of your interpretation that "Philips Color Clear (TM) Halogen Headlights . . . are in compliance with FMVSS-108." The product in questions "appears to be colored when not in use" but "when lighted it produces white light as defined by J579C." You have provided a report from ETL Testing Laboratories which "indicates that the color of the light is identical to that of a standard halogen headlight." There is no definition of white light in SAE J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1978. We believe you mean SAE J578d Color Specification for Lighting Devices, September 1978 which does contain a definition expressed in chromaticity coordinates. The report you supplied indicates that the Philips lamp provides a light within the color coordinates for white when equipped with a red, black, blue, or white insert. As Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the color of glass lamp lenses or bulbs, only the light emitted from the lamp, we confirm your conclusion that the Philips Color Clear (TM) headlamp has been designed to conform to the color requirements of Standard No. 108. We appreciated your visit to NHTSA on April 26 to demonstrate the lamp with its various inserts. I understand that the light produced by the lamp, and by a standard headlamp, appeared identical to the naked eye in a side by side comparison. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/11/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10443Open Mr. Jerry G. Sullivan, P.E. Dear Mr. Sullivan: This responds to your letter addressed to Mary Versailles of this office in which you asked whether, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the driver's side front door area on non- school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds could be credited toward the unobstructed openings requirement of section S5.2. The opening paragraph of section S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, requires buses other than school buses to provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits which collectively amount, in square inches, to 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the vehicle. The same paragraph also requires that at least 40 percent of the total unobstructed opening area must be provided on each side of the bus. No single emergency exit, however, can be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. With regard to non-school buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, section S5.2.2(c) provides that such buses may meet the emergency exit requirements by means of doors. Accordingly, nothing in the standard prohibits crediting the driver's side door as an emergency exit so long as it meets all emergency exit requirements of the standard, including the release mechanism and 40 percent requirements, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:217 d:1/9/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10890Open Thomas L. Wright, Acting Manager Dear Mr. Wright: This responds to your request for information about responsibilities of motorcycle manufacturers. As you discussed with Dorothy Nakama, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "regulate" how an enterprise becomes a "recognized manufacturer." Enclosed is NHTSA's information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, which discusses the main requirements of 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. (formerly the Vehicle Safety Act). A copy of the Act is enclosed. Under section 30112(a) of the Act, a motorcycle manufacturer may not manufacture a motorcycle for sale unless the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and is covered by a certification issued under 49 U.S.C. section 30115. One safety standard is Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements. (See 49 CFR 571.115.) In our regulations, at 49 CFR part 567 Certification, NHTSA has promulgated the requirement that a manufacturer certify compliance of its motorcycle with all applicable safety standards. Under part 566, NHTSA requires manufacturers to submit certain identifying information and a description of the items they produce. Also enclosed is a copy of a July 13, 1992 interpretation letter to Mr. Jeffrey Puentes, discussing serial numbers on motorcycle frames versus motorcycle VINs. As you may be aware, "certificates of origin" are matters relating to vehicle titling, which the State regulates, rather than NHTSA. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:115#567 d:6/27/95
|
1995 |
ID: 10947-1Open Giuseppe Di Vito Dear Mr. Di Vito: This responds to your May 22, 1995, letter requesting an interpretation regarding the testing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that you have been requested to manufacture for BMW some type 15A side window security glazing with an internal spall shield coating. Because of the adhesive with which it is applied, this coating cannot pass test number 4 of ANSI Z.26.1-1977 (the boil test). Nevertheless, you urge that test number 5 (the bake test) be used as a substitute for purposes of compliance certification. The boil test and the bake test are not equivalent, and your glazing would have to meet the boil test. Although both tests subject the glazing to the same heat for the same period, the bake test applies the heat using an oven, whereas the boil test applies the heat using boiling water. Section 5 of Z.26 explicitly states that the boil test is to be used for safety glass and that the bake test is only to be used for multiple glazed units. The illustrations that you enclosed with your letter show that your glazing is not a multiple glazed unit. Therefore, it has to meet the boil test to be certified for use on motor vehicles sold in this country. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to write Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or call him at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:205 d:8/4/95
|
1995 |
ID: 11656-1PJAOpen Mr. Claude Sauvageau, P.Eng. Dear Mr. Sauvageau: This responds to your letter asking about emergency exit labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. You ask which of two labels your client, an urban bus manufacturer, should use on their emergency exit windows. As required by S5.3.1 of Standard No. 217, two motions are necessary to open the exits of your client=s buses. The first is to pull down on a red latch at the top center of the window. The second is to push to the left a handle at the bottom right of the window. Your first label depicts only the action of pulling down the red latch. Your second label shows the sequence of first pulling down the red latch and then pushing the handle to the left. You are correct in your assumption that only the second emergency exit label is permitted. The language in S5.5.1 requires the label to have A. . . the designation >Emergency exit= followed by concise operating instructions describing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit . . .@ (emphasis added). The word Aeach@ explains that all necessary motions have to be described. The words Aand open@ explicitly include the motion to open the window. The first label only tells how to unlatch the window, not how to open it. The second label tells how to unlatch and open the window. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at 202-366-5260. Sincerely,
Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:217 d:4/29/96
|
1996 |
ID: Hopkins.1OpenMr. Bruce A. Hopkins Dear Mr. Hopkins: This is in response to your letter of October 21, 2003, in which you requested clarification of several issues under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, as amended by a final rule published on November 18, 2002, (67 FR 69600). Your questions involved actions that your final stage manufacturer members must take to meet the requirements of the regulation, once the revisions become effective on September 1, 2004. [1] Specifically, you asked about the content and placement of vehicle placards, listing of information related to spare tires, and reporting of seating capacity. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is in the process of responding to petitions for reconsideration of the November 18, 2002, final rule, and we expect to issue our response shortly. We note that RVIA itself submitted a petition to the agency on this rulemaking. Our review suggests that the issues raised in your most recent letter are already before the agency in the context of the petitions for reconsideration, and we believe that the response will clarify these matters and will allow manufacturers sufficient time to assure compliance with applicable requirements. Should you have any remaining or additional questions once the response to the petitions for reconsideration is published, please feel free to submit them to the agency. If you have further questions in the interim, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman ref:110 [1] 68 FR 33655 (June 5, 2003,) (final rule; response in part to petitions for reconsideration; delay of effective date). |
2004 |
ID: 23443.drnOpenMr. Jim Elliott Vice President Sales & Marketing Dear Mr. Elliott: This responds to your July 19, 2001, letter asking that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) create a "special purpose bus" vehicle type specifically for the child care industry. Essentially, this would be a bus that meets NHTSA's crash worthiness school bus safety standards, and not stop arm or school bus lighting requirements. Please be advised that NHTSA is currently considering a rulemaking to propose this new vehicle type. We anticipate publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that would specify the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that a "special purpose bus" would have to meet. I am enclosing a copy of our interpretation letter of December 5, 2000, to Southern Illinois Bus. In this letter, we explain that although school bus manufacturers or dealers cannot "make inoperative" the compliance of a school bus with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, No. 131, School bus pedestrian safety devices, or any other safety standard by removing such equipment, the Federal "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to the owner of a school bus (i.e., to the school or school district). Thus, a child transportation provider may purchase a school bus and remove the stop arms and school bus lamps without violating any NHTSA requirements. If you have any further questions, please contact me at this address or at (202) 366-9511. Sincerely, John Womack Enclosure |
2001 |
ID: nht79-4.49OpenDATE: 05/23/79 FROM: J. C. ECKHOLD DIRECTOR AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY OFFICE TO: JOAN B. CLAYBROOK -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION TITLE: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF DAYLIGHT CONDITIONS FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 101-80; CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS (DOCKET NO. 1-18; NOTICE 13) ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7/20/79 [EST] FROM FRANK BERNDT, CHIEF COUNSEL OF NHTSA TO J. C. ECKHOLD OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY TEXT: In considering various aspects of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80 (43 Fed. Reg. 27541, dated June 26, 1978) Ford Motor Company (Ford) seeks clarification of certain portions of Section 5.3.3. That portion of Section 5.3.3 for which Ford seeks clarification reads in pertinent part: ". . . The light intensity of each tell-tale shall not be variable and shall be such that, when activated, that tell-tale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Ford testing experience indicates that under certain possible, but infrequent, morning or evening sun lighting conditions the angle, intensity and color characteristics of sun lighting may cause transitory reflection characteristics that obscure either the intensity or color, or both, of the required tell-tale indicators at times when the angle of reflected sunlight is virtually the same as the viewing angle of the driver. Because tell-tale illumination level may not be variable, tell-tale intensity must represent a compromise between daytime and nighttime visibility requirements. Ford suggests that consideration be given to issuing clarifying language to specify that the situations as described are not intended to be included in the requirement that tell-tale indicators must be visible under all daytime and nighttime conditions. Your early consideration of this request will be appreciated. Very truly yours, |
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.