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: 2898yyOpen Liam J. Moran, Esq. RE: Brey v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc. Your File No.: 3571 Dear Mr. Moran: This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke, our Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). More specifically, you noted that S5.5.2(g) requires add-on child restraint systems to be permanently labeled with the following: WARNING! Failure to follow each of the following instructions can result in your child striking the vehicle's interior during a sudden stop or crash. Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt as specified in the manufacturer's instructions located [Insert the location of the instruction booklet]. You also noted that Standard No. 213 requires the installation instruction booklet to "explain the primary consequences of not following the warnings required to be labeled on the child restraint system." Parenthetically, I note that your letter erroneously identified S5.6.3 as the source of this requirement. You told Mr. Kratzke in your telephone conversation that your litigation involves an add-on child restraint system. S5.6.3 applies solely to built-in child restraint systems. However, the identical requirement is set forth for add-on child restraint systems in S5.6.1.3 of Standard No. 213. You asked whether the explanation in the instruction booklet of the primary consequences of not following the warnings labeled on the child restraint system (per S5.6.1.3) is required to be something more than the statement required to be labeled on the child restraint system (per S5.5.2(g)). The answer is no. NHTSA explicitly addressed this question in the rulemaking that established the current labeling requirements. A notice of proposed rulemaking was published on May 18, 1978 (43 FR 21470). This proposal did not include any proposed regulatory text to require a label on the child restraint system warning users about the failure to follow the instructions provided by the manufacturer. However, the preamble did have the following discussion: Comments are also requested on whether a brief explanation should be given of the primary consequences of not following the warnings and instructions provided by the manufacturer on the restraint. An example of such an explanation is that failure to attach the tether on systems having top tethers may result in the top part of the system bending forward during a crash and striking the dashboard or back of the front seat, depending on where the restraint is installed. Another example would be to explain that failure to adjust belts snugly may result in the child coming entirely out of the restraint during a crash or in crash forces being placed on the wrong portions of the child's body. (Emphasis added). 43 Fed. Reg. 21476. This request for comments was addressed solely to information that should be labeled on the restaint itself. There is no indication in the proposal that the agency sought comments on or otherwise considered requiring information in addition to this to be provided in the instuction booklet. A final rule implementing this proposal was published on December 13, 1979 (44 FR 72131). That rule included the following discussion: Many commenters (citation omitted) supported the proposed requirement that manufacturers inform consumers about the primary consequences of not following the manufacturer's warning about the correct use of the restraint. Therefore, the visible label must state the primary consequence of misusing the restraint. The same information would also have to be included in the instruction manual accompanying the restraint. (Emphasis added). 44 Fed. Reg. 72137. The regulatory language that was added to the labeling requirement for child restraints in the final rule to "state the primary consequence of misusing the restraint" was the warning now in S5.5.2(g) of Standard No. 213. The last sentence in the above-quoted section of the preamble expressly states that the instruction booklet that accompanies the child restraint must include the same warning that is required to be labeled on the child restraint. There is, therefore, no basis for the assertion that the instruction booklet must include some warning in addition to the warning required to be labeled on the child restraint system. Sincerely,
Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:213 d:3/l9/9l |
1970 |
ID: nht91-2.40OpenDATE: March 19, 1991 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Liam J. Moran -- Hagans, Brown, Gibbs & Moran TITLE: Re Brey v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc.; Your File No.: 3571 ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-7-91 from Liam J. Moran to Steven Kratzke TEXT: This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke, our Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). More specifically, you noted that S5.5.2(g) requires add-on child restraint systems to be permanently labeled with the following: WARNING! Failure to follow each of the following instructions can result in your child striking the vehicle's interior during a sudden stop or crash. Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt as specified in the manufacturer's instructions located (Insert the location of the instruction booklet). You also noted that Standard No. 213 requires the installation instruction booklet to "explain the primary consequences of not following the warnings required to be labeled on the child restraint system." Parenthetically, I note that your letter erroneously identified S5.6.3 as the source of this requirement. You told Mr. Kratzke in your telephone conversation that your litigation involves an add-on child restraint system. S5.6.3 applies solely to built-in child restraint systems. However, the identical requirement is set forth for add-on child restraint systems in S5.6.1.3 of Standard No. 213. You asked whether the explanation in the instruction booklet of the primary consequences of not following the warnings labeled on the child restraint system (per S5.6.1.3) is required to be something more than the statement required to be labeled on the child restraint system (per S5.5.2(g)). The answer is no. NHTSA explicitly addressed this question in the rulemaking that established the current labeling requirements. A notice of proposed rulemaking was published on May 18, 1978 (43 FR 21470). This proposal did not include any proposed regulatory text to require a label on the child restraint system warning users about the failure to follow the instructions provided by the manufacturer. However, the preamble did have the following discussion: Comments are also requested on whether a brief explanation should be given of the primary consequences of not following the warnings and instructions PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER ON THE RESTRAINT. An example of such an explanation is that failure to attach the tether on systems having top tethers may result in the top part of the system bending forward during a crash and striking the dashboard or back of the front seat, depending on where the restraint is installed. Another example would be to explain that failure to adjust belts snugly may result in the child coming entirely out of the restraint during a crash or in crash forces being placed on the wrong portions of the child's body. (Emphasis added). 43 Fed. Reg. 21476. This request for comments was addressed solely to information that should be labeled on the restraint itself. There is no indication in the proposal that the agency sought comments on or otherwise considered requiring information in addition to this to be provided in the instruction booklet. A final rule implementing this proposal was published on December 13, 1979 (44 FR 72131). That rule included the following discussion: Many commenters (citation omitted) supported the proposed requirement that manufacturers inform consumers about the primary consequences of not following the manufacturer's warning about the correct use of the restraint. Therefore, the visible label must state the primary consequence of misusing the restraint. The SAME INFORMATION would also have to be included in the instruction manual accompanying the restraint. (Emphasis added). 44 Fed. Reg. 72137. The regulatory language that was added to the labeling requirement for child restraints in the final rule to "state the primary consequence of misusing the restraint" was the warning now in S5.5.2(g) of Standard No. 213. The last sentence in the above-quoted section of the preamble expressly states that the instruction booklet that accompanies the child restraint must include the same warning that is required to be labeled on the child restraint. There is, therefore, no basis for the assertion that the instruction booklet must include some warning in addition to the warning required to be labeled on the child restraint system. |
|
ID: nht88-1.52OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 02/23/88 EST FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO: LEONARD CAIN, -- DIRECTOR, SCHOOL BUILDING AND TRANSPORTATION -- MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: JULY 30, 1987 LETTER FROM CAIN TO TILLMAN TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry of July 30, 1987, in which you pose some questions concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and Standard 17 to certain vehicles used for transporting school students. I apologize for the delay in this response. Before I answer your specific questions, I think it might be useful to give you some general information on the Federal role in school bus regulation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) deals with school buses under two different Federal laws: the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Vehicle Safety Act), and the Highway Safety Act. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act and directed NHTSA to issue safety standards respecting certain elements of school bus performance, and addressing any person who manufactures or sells a new "school bus." The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued under this Act are mandatory Federal standards that apply to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A school bus manufacturer must certify its vehicles as complying with Federal standards that are applicable to school buses. A seller ma y not sell a vehicle that does not comply with those standards if the seller has reason to know that the buyer intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one m ust consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use. Under the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA has issued guidelines (23 CFR No. 17, Highway Safety Program Standard) that cover a wide range of subjects relative to school bus identification, operation, and maintenance. 2 Different practices apply to "school vehicles" under the guidelines depending upon whether the vehicle is "Type I" or "Type II." This agency may recommend that an individual State adopt all or part of these guidelines as the State's own policy governing student transportation programs. However, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA does not require compliance with these guidelines. Instead, each individual State decides whether it will adopt some or all of these "Standards 17" guidelines. Please keep this information in mind as I answer your questions in order. I have assumed in answering your questions that the activities to which you refer are school-related. Question 1a: Does a vehicle (type 1 bus) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? The answer to your question is "yes." However, the agency's regulatory and enforcement authority is directed toward the person manufacturing or selling a school bus. This agency can not regulate purchase or use of a school bus, and consequently can n ot require a school district to purchase a particular kind of vehicle for transporting students. As noted above, the definition of "school bus" includes vehicles sold for transporting students to and from school-related events. An activity bus is a sch ool bus under this functional definition. Therefore, a manufacturer or seller of a vehicle who has reason to believe that the vehicle's intended use is solely for transporting students to and from school-related activities must ensure its compliance with any Federal safety standard that applies to a school bus. Question 1b: Does a bus purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow? School bus color is a matter addressed under the guidelines set out in "Standard 17" discussed above. Accordingly, the answer to your question depends on the laws and regulations of Mississippi. There is no Federal standard requiring that a manufacture r or seller paint a school bus a particular color. Question 2a: Does a van (designed to carry 11 or more persons) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? Recall again that our regulations are directed to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A van designed to carry 11 or more persons, and intended to transport students to and from school-related events is a "school bus" under the agency's definition. Th erefore, a manufacturer or seller would have to ensure the vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. To determine whether a local school district may use a noncomplying vehicle it purchases, you must look to state law. 3 Question 2b: Does a van purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow? Again, for the reasons set out in my answer to Question 1b, the answer to this question depends on the laws of your State. I hope you find this information helpful. |
|
ID: 2662oOpen Leonard Cain, Director Dear Mr. Cain: This letter responds to your inquiry of July 30, 1987, in which you pose some questions concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and Standard 17 to certain vehicles used for transporting school students. I apologize for the delay in this response. Before I answer your specific questions, I think it might be useful to give you some general information on the Federal role in school bus regulation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) deals with school buses under two different Federal laws: the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Vehicle Safety Act), and the Highway Safety Act. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act and directed NHTSA to issue safety standards respecting certain elements of school bus performance, and addressing any person who manufactures or sells a new "school bus." The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued under this Act are mandatory Federal standards that apply to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A school bus manufacturer must certify its vehicles as complying with Federal standards that are applicable to school buses. A seller may not sell a vehicle that does not comply with those standards if the seller has reason to know that the buyer intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one must consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use. Under the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA has issued guidelines (23 CFR No. 17, Highway Safety Program Standard) that cover a wide range of subjects relative to school bus identification, operation, and maintenance. Different practices apply to "school vehicles" under the guidelines depending upon whether the vehicle is "Type I" or "Type II." This agency may recommend that an individual State adopt all or part of these guidelines as the State's own policy governing student transportation programs. However, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA does not require compliance with these guidelines. Instead, each individual State decides whether it will adopt some or all of these "Standard 17" guidelines. Please keep this information in mind as I answer your questions in order. I have assumed in answering your questions that the activities to which you refer are school-related. Question 1a: Does a vehicle (type 1 bus) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? The answer to your question is "yes." However, the agency's regulatory and enforcement authority is directed toward the person manufacturing or selling a school bus. This agency can not regulate purchase or use of a school bus, and consequently can not require a school district to purchase a particular kind of vehicle for transporting students. As noted above, the definition of "school bus" includes vehicles sold for transporting students to and from school-related events. An activity bus is a school bus under this functional definition. Therefore, a manufacturer or seller of a vehicle who has reason to believe that the vehicle's intended use is solely for transporting students to and from school-related activities must ensure its compliance with any Federal safety standard that applies to a school bus. Question 1b: Does a bus purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow? School bus color is a matter addressed under the guidelines set out in "Standard 17" discussed above. Accordingly, the answer to your question depends on the laws and regulations of Mississippi. There is no Federal standard requiring that a manufacturer or seller paint a school bus a particular color. Question 2a: Does a van (designed to carry 11 or more persons) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? Recall again that our regulations are directed to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A van designed to carry 11 or more persons, and intended to transport students to and from school-related events is a "school bus" under the agency's definition. Therefore, a manufacturer or seller would have to ensure the vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. To determine whether a local school district may use a noncomplying vehicle it purchases, you must look to state law. Question 2b: Does a van purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow? Again, for the reasons set out in my answer to Question 1b, the answer to this question depends on the laws of your State. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely,
Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:57l d:2/23/88 |
1988 |
ID: nht87-2.92OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 09/14/87 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Mr. Y. Osaki TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Mr. Y. Osaki Manager, Truck Engineering MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 501 Southfield, MI 48075 Dear Mr. Osaki: This responds to your letter asking about the relationship between the maximum load ratings for the tires on a medium duty truck and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) specified for that truck pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked if the GVWR specified for a truck could slightly exceed the sum of the gross axle weight ratings specified for the truck. While none of our regulations prohibit your company from assigning a GVWR that exceeds the sum of the gross axle weight r atings for this medium duty truck, we recommend that you not do so, for the reasons explained below. Your letter correctly notes that paragraph @5.1.2 of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @571.120) requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to each truck axle shall b e not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for the axle system, as specified on the vehicle certification label required by Part 567. However, Part 567 does not limit the GVWR that can be assigned to the sum of the GAWR's specified for a vehicle . Instead, 5567.4(g)(3) requires that the vehicle certification label specify the GVWR of the truck and requires only that the specified GVWR shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicl e's designated seating capacity. Although, Part 567 does not prohibit such a practice, we note that assigning a GVWR to a vehicle that exceeds the sum of the GAWR's assigned to the vehicle (other than a semitrailer) would be encouraging the user of that vehicle to overload it. If the ax les of a medium duty truck cannot safely bear the load specified in the GVWR, the vehicle will be overloaded whenever it is loaded to the specified GVWR. Such overloading poses a serious safety hazard for the affected vehicle in particular and for the mo toring public in general. Several past interpretations on this subject have stated if a vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction while in use that can be traced to the overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect p rovisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and under common law product liability doctrines. To avoid giving rise to a potential safety hazard and the accompanying liability, we recommend that you specify a GVWR not greater than 17,19 6 pounds for the medium duty truck in question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Ms. Jones: Subject: SPECIFICATION OF GVWR AND MAXIMUM LOAD RATING OF THE TIRES This is to inquire about the relationship between maximum load rating of the tires and GVW. We are planning to develop the medium duty truck installing LT235/85R16 tires. According to FMVSS 120.5.1.2, the sum of the maximum load rating of tires fitted to an axle shall not be less than the GAWR of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's ce rtification label. In our case, the sum of the maximum load rating of LT235/85R16(E) tires are 6,084 lbs. (front) and 11,112 lbs. (rear). TRA So, we can specify at most these values for each GAWR on the certification label as follows: GAWR: Front - 6,084 with 235/85R16(E) tires 6K rims, at 80 psi cold single GAWR: Rear - 11,112 with 235/85R16(E) tires 6K rims, at 30 psi cold dual Question: In this case, is it possible for us to specify 17,200 lbs. as GVW on the certification label raising up the fraction, or should we specify 17,196 lbs. strictly? Your kind advice will be appreciated. Very truly yours, |
|
ID: nht95-3.54OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 25, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: The Honorable Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senator TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/4/95 LETTER FROM PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE TO REGINA SULLIVAN TEXT: Dear Senator Wellstone: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Kris Solberg, concerning our requirements for school buses. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA admin isters the Federal regulations for school buses. Ms. Solberg, principal of Grace Christian School, asks that our "school bus" definition be narrowed so that it only encompasses vehicles carrying more than 15 passengers. Ms. Solberg believes that, at NHTSA's urging, Minnesota recently amended its schoo l bus definition to include vehicles carrying 15 passengers. She states that, as a result of this change, schools cannot use conventional 15-passenger vans to transport students to school events, even though the vans are "safe enough." I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. The short answer to Ms. Solberg's question is that NHTSA cannot narrow the "school bus" definition as she requests because the definition was set by Congress. Further, for safety rea sons, we do not agree that the definition should be changed. As Ms. Solberg's letter suggests, school bus regulations exist on the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level are NHTSA's school bus regulations. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles by issuing Federal motor vehicle safe ty standards (FMVSSs) that each new vehicle must meet when sold. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Congr ess also defined a "school bus" as a passenger motor vehicle "designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . 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." (Emphasis added.) Since the school bus definition was set by Congress, NHTSA is unable to revise it to exclude 15-passenger vans. Further, we do not agree that the definition should be narrowed to exclude vehicles. School bus-type vans have more safety features providing occupant crash protection than do conventional full-size vans. Narrowing the definition could result in school children being transported in vehicles that are not as safe as the vehicles used today. NHTSA believes that, while school bus vans are slightly more expensive than conventional 15-passenger vans, the increased level of safety justifies the higher costs . Thus, we recommend against changing the Federal definition of a "school bus." While the Federal government regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the States regulate the use of vehicles. According to Ms. Solberg's letter, Minnesota has decided to adopt NHTSA's "school bus" definition into its regulations. In d oing so, under Minnesota law, if a school wishes to use a 15-passenger van to carry students, the van must meet school bus safety standards. NHTSA does not require States to adopt our "school bus" definition. However, we strongly support any decision by a State to do so. This agency attaches the utmost importance to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. While s chool buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: nht95-5.33OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: July 25, 1995 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: The Honorable Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senator TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/4/95 LETTER FROM PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE TO REGINA SULLIVAN TEXT: Dear Senator Wellstone: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Kris Solberg, concerning our requirements for school buses. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA administers the Federal regulations for school buses. Ms. Solberg, principal of Grace Christian School, asks that our "school bus" definition be narrowed so that it only encompasses vehicles carrying more than 15 passengers. Ms. Solberg believes that, at NHTSA's urging, Minnesota recently amended its school bus definition to include vehicles carrying 15 passengers. She states that, as a result of this change, schools cannot use conventional 15-passenger vans to transport students to school events, even though the vans are "safe enough." I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. The short answer to Ms. Solberg's question is that NHTSA cannot narrow the "school bus" definition as she requests because the definition was set by Congress. Further, for safety reasons, we do not agree that the definition should be changed. As Ms. Solberg's letter suggests, school bus regulations exist on the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level are NHTSA's school bus regulations. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that each new vehicle must meet when sold. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Congress also defined a "school bus" as a passenger motor vehicle "designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . 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." (Emphasis added.) Since the school bus definition was set by Congress, NHTSA is unable to revise it to exclude 15-passenger vans. Further, we do not agree that the definition should be narrowed to exclude vehicles. School bus-type vans have more safety features providing occupant crash protection than do conventional full-size vans. Narrowing the definition could result in school children being transported in vehicles that are not as safe as the vehicles used today. NHTSA believes that, while school bus vans are slightly more expensive than conventional 15-passenger vans, the increased level of safety justifies the higher costs. Thus, we recommend against changing the Federal definition of a "school bus." While the Federal government regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the States regulate the use of vehicles. According to Ms. Solberg's letter, Minnesota has decided to adopt NHTSA's "school bus" definition into its regulations. In doing so, under Minnesota law, if a school wishes to use a 15-passenger van to carry students, the van must meet school bus safety standards. NHTSA does not require States to adopt our "school bus" definition. However, we strongly support any decision by a State to do so. This agency attaches the utmost importance to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-2992. |
|
ID: 9505Open The Honorable Paul David Wellstone Dear Senator Wellstone: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Kris Solberg, concerning our requirements for school buses. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA administers the Federal regulations for school buses. Ms. Solberg, principal of Grace Christian School, asks that our "school bus" definition be narrowed so that it only encompasses vehicles carrying more than 15 passengers. Ms. Solberg believes that, at NHTSA's urging, Minnesota recently amended its school bus definition to include vehicles carrying 15 passengers. She states that, as a result of this change, schools cannot use conventional 15-passenger vans to transport students to school events, even though the vans are "safe enough." I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. The short answer to Ms. Solberg's question is that NHTSA cannot narrow the "school bus" definition as she requests because the definition was set by Congress. Further, for safety reasons, we do not agree that the definition should be changed. As Ms. Solberg's letter suggests, school bus regulations exist on the Federal and State levels. On the Federal level are NHTSA's school bus regulations. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles by issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that each new vehicle must meet when sold. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Congress also defined a "school bus" as a passenger motor vehicle "designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which . . . 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." (Emphasis added.) Since the school bus definition was set by Congress, NHTSA is unable to revise it to exclude 15-passenger vans. Further, we do not agree that the definition should be narrowed to exclude vehicles. School bus-type vans have more safety features providing occupant crash protection than do conventional full-size vans. Narrowing the definition could result in school children being transported in vehicles that are not as safe as the vehicles used today. NHTSA believes that, while school bus vans are slightly more expensive than conventional 15-passenger vans, the increased level of safety justifies the higher costs. Thus, we recommend against changing the Federal definition of a "school bus." While the Federal government regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the States regulate the use of vehicles. According to Ms. Solberg's letter, Minnesota has decided to adopt NHTSA's "school bus" definition into its regulations. In doing so, under Minnesota law, if a school wishes to use a 15-passenger van to carry students, the van must meet school bus safety standards. NHTSA does not require States to adopt our "school bus" definition. However, we strongly support any decision by a State to do so. This agency attaches the utmost importance to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,
John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:571 d:7/25/95
|
1995 |
ID: nht94-1.97OpenTYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA DATE: March 25, 1994 FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 15, 1993, in which you requested an interpretation of the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993, 58 FR 4586, which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection to include requirements for wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems. You referred to the second sentence in S5.4.3.2 of the standard which provides in pertinent part: "When more than one wheelchair occupant restraint shares a common anchorage, the anchorage shall be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons multi plied by the number of occupant restraints sharing that anchorage." You stated that you believe that this language is intended to address the situation where restraints from two different wheelchair occupant restraint systems share a common anchorage, a nd is not intended to address the situation "where the lower end of an upper torso restraint joins the pelvic restraint and goes to one of the rear floor anchorages of a single occupant's restraint system." You stated that if the latter, the floor ancho rage would be required to withstand a force of 13,344 Newtons each for the upper torso restraint and the pelvic restraint; and if the wheelchair was also secured to that floor anchorage, the anchorage would be required to withstand 3 x 13,344 Newtons. Your letter included two figures illustrating typical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system designs. In Figure 1, the upper torso restraint is attached to the lap belt at the buckle, and the lap belt is attached to the vehicle at the same anchorage as the rear anchorage for the wheelchair securement device. In Figure 2, the upper torso restraint is also attached to the lap belt; however, the lap belt is attached to the rear wheelchair securement device instead of the wheelchair securemen t anchorage. You asked for verification that the required load for the rear anchorages for both designs is 2 x 13,344 Newtons rather than 3 x 13,344 Newtons. You are correct that the load for the rear anchorages for both these designs would be 26,688 Newtons (2 x 13,344 Newtons). The relevant section to determine this load is S5.4.3.2(e) which states: When a wheelchair securement device and an occupant restraint share a common anchorage, including occupant restraint designs that attach the occupant restraint to the securement device or the wheelchair, the loads specified by S5.4.1. 3 (13,344 Newtons) and S5.4.3.2 (13,344 Newtons) shall be applied simultaneously... The term "wheelchair occupant restraint" includes both the pelvic and upper torso restraints (see S5.4.4). In your designs, each rear floor anchorage would be required by S5.4.3.2(e) to withstand a combined force of 26,688 Newtons, which includes the lo ad specified for the wheelchair occupant restraint and the load specified for the wheelchair securement device. The second sentence of S5.4.3.2, which you quoted in your letter, addresses the situation where the wheelchair occupant restraints for more than one wheelchair, e.g. two wheelchairs, are secured to the same floor anchorage. This requirement parallels a r equirement in S5.4.1.3 which addresses the situation where the wheelchair securement devices for more than one wheelchair are secured to the same floor anchorage. Thus, for example, if either of your designs were installed in a bus such that the right r ear anchorage was shared with another identical wheelchair securement and occupant restraint system (functioning as the left rear anchorage for the second system), that floor anchorage must be capable of withstanding a force of 13,344 Newtons for each oc cupant restraint system and 13,344 Newtons for each wheelchair securement system, for a total force of 4 x 13,344 Newtons, such force to be applied simultaneously as required by S5.4.3.2(e). 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.
|
|
ID: 11-003978 TIA.jun09 (Std 138)OpenMr. Paul Fiore Director of Government and Business Relations Tire Industry Association 1532 Pointer Ridge Place, Suite G Bowie, MD 20716 Dear Mr. Fiore: This letter responds to your letter to the Administrator on behalf of the Tire Industry Association (TIA) raising concerns that the tire industry has with the agencys tire pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) regulations. Because your letter raises legal questions, I have been asked to respond. Your letter states that the TIA represents all segments of the tire industry, including manufacturers, repair businesses, dealers, recyclers, retreaders, and suppliers. You state that your members have encountered concerns with TPMS malfunction indicator lamps illuminating after the performance of certain services and repairs on vehicles. You raise issues confronted by your members when encountering TPMS systems and ask whether actions by service providers violate the make inoperative provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The make inoperative provision (49 USC 30122(b)) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative, in whole or in part, any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. You put forth four scenarios faced by your membership. You request clarification from NHTSA on the applicability of the make inoperative provision. We address each scenario in turn below. For each scenario, we address only the applicability of the make inoperative provision in the context of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. We have stated in the past that TPMS requires special consideration because TPMS itself is analogous to a malfunction indicator.[1] Thus, our response to all of the scenarios you raise regarding the make inoperative provision may not be applicable to all FMVSSs.
Please note that in those circumstances in which Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning TPMS system, NHTSA nevertheless strongly encourages such repair so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We note that State tort, contract, or other laws governing motor vehicle repair businesses may impose additional requirements upon your members. Scenario #1: If a motorist is made aware of an inoperative TPMS sensor and declines to purchase a new one, does the service provider knowingly make the system inoperative and violate 49 USC 30122(b) by removing the dead or damaged sensor and replacing it with a standard snap-in rubber valve stem? Our response: For the purpose of this response, we assume that you are referring solely to TPMS sensors that are integrated with the valve stem. Moreover, we assume that the sensor was inoperative before a customer brought the vehicle to the repair business. An illuminated malfunction indicator lamp could be an indication of an inoperative sensor. We also assume that you are describing a part within the TPMS system that cannot be repaired. In that event, a motor vehicle repair business would not be violating 49 USC 30122(b) by removing an inoperative or damaged TPMS sensor and replacing it with a standard snap-in rubber valve stem. The removal of a malfunctioning TPMS sensor that is integrated with a valve stem would not violate the make inoperative provision because the element of the system was already inoperative. However, a motor vehicle repair business that goes on to make any other element of the TPMS system inoperative, for example, by disabling the malfunction indicator lamp, would violate the make inoperative provision. Scenario #2: If a motorist purchases a set of aftermarket winter tires and wheels and declines to purchase new TPMS sensors, does the service provider violate 49 USC 30122(b) because they would be installing assemblies that knowingly make the system inoperative? Our response: In this scenario, we assume that the vehicle has a functioning TPMS system at the time he or she purchases aftermarket tires and wheels. In that case, a service provider would violate the make inoperative prohibition of 49 USC 30122(b) by installing new tires and wheels that do not have a functioning TPMS system. To avoid a make inoperative violation, the service provider would need to decline to install the new tires and rims, use the TPMS sensors from the original wheels (if they are compatible), or convince the motorist to purchase new TPMS sensors and ensure that the sensors are properly integrated with the vehicles TPMS system.
You suggest that, if the installer does not disable the malfunction indicator lamp, the driver would still be warned that the TPMS system is inoperative and there would be no violation of 49 USC 30122(b). However, the illumination of the malfunction indicator lamp is inapposite to this scenario. By removing tires and wheels with functioning TPMS sensors and replacing them with tires and wheels without TPMS sensors, the repair business has knowingly removed an essential part of the TPMS system. This is precisely the type of action that the make inoperative provision of 49 USC 30122(b) is intended to prohibit. Scenario #3: If a service provider inadvertently breaks a non-defective sensor and is unable to locate a replacement part immediately, is it a violation of 49 USC 30122(b) to allow the vehicle to return to service if the service provider makes arrangements to obtain a replacement part and install it at a future date? And does the answer change if the service provider damages a sensor and then does nothing to replace it or if the customer specifically directs the service provider to finish service without replacing the damaged part (i.e., the customer is in a hurry or wants to have the work done somewhere else)? Our response: In this scenario, we again presume that you are referring solely to TPMS systems that are integrated with a valve stem.
Your question raises two issues. First, to fully analyze how the make inoperative prohibition relates to inadvertent damage would depend on the specific factual circumstances. We note that the make inoperative provision prohibits a motor vehicle repair business from knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with the applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Generally, we would not consider inadvertent actions to violate the make inoperative prohibition. However, without more specific facts concerning whether the TPMS was knowingly made inoperative, we cannot provide a more complete response to your question. To address the second issue raised by your question, the applicability of the make inoperative prohibition to the arrangement of repairs at a future date, we note that the make inoperative prohibition contains an exception for when the repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative. Therefore, as a general matter, a violation of the make inoperative prohibition does not occur until a repair business allows or intends a vehicle to be returned to use. A motor vehicle repair business would violate 49 USC 30122(b) if it has knowingly made inoperative any part of a device and allowed the vehicle to be used (other than for testing or a similar purpose). This would be true regardless of whether arrangements have been made for future repair, as there are no other exceptions to the make inoperative prohibition in the statute. Of course, if the repair business has not knowingly made a device or element inoperative, there would be no need to use this exception, and the motor vehicle repair business would be able to release the vehicle to the customer, with or without making arrangements to complete a repair, without violating 49 USC 30122(b). We stress that our response relates solely to the applicability of the make inoperative prohibition in 49 USC 30122(b), and does not address whether state or local laws or regulations would impose obligations upon a service provider.
Scenario #4: If the service provider releases the vehicle to the driver without an illuminated malfunction indicator lamp and then it illuminates after the vehicle has been driven, does that become a violation of 49 USC 30122(b)? TIA believes that in this situation, the service provider did not knowingly make the system inoperative so there would be no violation. Our response: We discussed this scenario in the April 2005 final rule.[2] The mere illumination of the malfunction indicator lamp after the vehicle has been released by a motor vehicle repair business to the driver would not itself be a violation of the make inoperative provision. FMVSS No. 138 requires that the malfunction telltale illuminate not more than 20 minutes after the occurrence of a malfunction, meaning that the system may not detect a malfunction that occurred while the car was at the motor vehicle repair business until the car has been released to the owner and driven for some time. Whether or not a make inoperative violation has occurred would depend only upon whether the motor vehicle repair business knowingly made inoperative an element of the TPMS system that caused the malfunction indicator lamp to illuminate. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely yours, O. Kevin Vincent Chief Counsel 11/22/2011 |
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.