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: aiam4597OpenThe Honorable Leon E. Panetta House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Leon E. Panetta House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; "Dear Mr. Panetta: This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf o your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements. The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are: 1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror. 2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive. 3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion. 4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object. Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4593OpenThe Honorable Leon E. Panetta House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Leon E. Panetta House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; "Dear Mr. Panetta: This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf o your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements. The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are: 1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror. 2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive. 3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion. 4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object. Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4209OpenMr. H. Tsujishita, Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept., Head Office, Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., 1, Daihatsu-Cho, Ikeda City, Osaka Prefecture, JAPAN; Mr. H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office Daihatsu Motor Co. Ltd. 1 Daihatsu-Cho Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN; Dear Mr. Tsujishita: This responds to your letter of July 15, 1986, asking thre interpretation questions concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, *Controls and Displays*, and 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. The answers to your questions are provided below.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.; Your first question concerns the visibility requirements for the uppe beam telltale (indicator). As noted by your letter, section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101 provides that the light intensity of each telltale shall be such that, when activated, that telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. The upper beam telltale is one of the telltales subject to that requirement. You note, however, that section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108 requires a high beam indicator that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a (except that the signal color need not be red). J564a provides that the upper beam indicator should be 'plainly visible to drivers of all heights under normal driving conditions when headlights are required.' Based on this provision, you suggest that the upper beam telltale is not required to be visible to the driver under the daytime conditions when headlamps are not needed. As discussed below, your understanding is incorrect.; The difference between these two requirements is not so great as yo suggest. The reference to 'normal driving conditions' in J564a includes a variety of non-nighttime conditions (e.g., driving at dusk or dawn, and driving in daytime rainstorms) when headlamp use may be required by the States. To the extent that Standard No. 101 requires the telltale to be visible under daylight driving conditions not covered by Standard No. 108, manufacturers must meet the broader requirement. Manufacturers are required to meet all applicable safety standards. We note that while Standards No. 101 and 108 each cover upper beam telltales and specify different requirements, it is possible to meet the requirements of both standards simultaneously.; You stated that under daylight conditions the upper beam cannot dazzl oncoming drivers and that there is therefore no need to inform the driver that the upper beam is on. While there may be less need for this telltale during daylight than at night, Standard No. 101 reflects our believe that there is still a need and requires that the telltale be visible under all daytime and nighttime conditions (if the upper beams are actually on).; Your second question concerns the upper beam telltale minimum are requirement. SAE Recommended Practice J564a, which, as noted above, is referenced by section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108, provides that the upper beam indicator should consist of a 'light, with a minimum area equivalent to that of a 3/16 in. diameter circle.' You asked how this requirement would apply to two designs.; In the first design, the outline of the telltale symbol would lighte while the area within and around the telltale symbol would not. You suggested that the framed area, i.e., the area within the telltale that is framed by the outline but not lighted itself, can be counted into the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is incorrect. In the second design, the telltale symbol would be superimposed on a rectangle. In this case, the entire area within the rectangle would lighten, except for that covered by the symbol itself. You suggested that the lighted area other than that covered by the symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. As discussed below, that is correct.; In referencing SAE Recommended Practice J564a, Standard No. 10 requires that the upper beam indicator must consist of a light, and also specifies the minimum area for that light. It does not specify the shape of the light. If the light is a simple circle which is lighted in its entirety (with the identification required by Standard No. 101 placed adjacent to the circle), that lighted circle must be at least 3/16 inch in diameter. If the light is some other shape, such as the shape of the upper beam symbol or a rectangle in which only part of the area is lighted, the total area which is lighted must be at least as large as the area of a 3/16 inch circle. Thus, in the case of the first design discussed above, only the outline area (i.e., the blue lighted area) of the upper beam symbol can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. The unlighted interior part *i.e., the black area) of the symbol cannot be counted toward the minimum area requirement. In the case of the second design discussed above, the entire (blue) area within the rectangle that lightens can be counted toward the minimum area requirement. However, that part of the rectangle which does not lighten, i.e., the (white) part covered by the symbol, cannot be counted.; Your third question concerns Standard No. 101's illuminatio requirements for a side marker lamp control that is incorporated into the master lighting switch. As suggested by your letter and as discussed below, illumination is not required if the identifying symbol for the side marker lamps is marked on the master lighting switch.; While Table I of Standard No. 101 requires that side marker lam controls be identified with the side marker lamp control symbol and that such identification be illuminated, it also provides that separate identification is not required if controlled by the master lighting switch. Thus, for side marker lamp controls that are incorporated into the master lighting switch, use of the side marker lamp control symbol is voluntary. Since such identification is not required by Standard No. 101, it is our opinion that the standard does not require manufacturers to illuminate such identification if they choose to provide it voluntarily.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3215OpenMr. R. W. Hildebrandt, Group Director Engineering, The Bendix Corporation, 901 Cleveland Street, Elyria, OH 44035; Mr. R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director Engineering The Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria OH 44035; Dear Mr. Hildebrandt: This responds to your January 22, 1980, letter asking whether section S6.1.8.1 and S6.2.6 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, permit the adjustment, after burnishing, of brakes that are equipped with automatic brake adjusters. The answer to your question is no.; On April 28, 1977, the agency responded to a similar request that yo made for an interpretation of these sections to permit brake adjustment for brakes equipped with automatic adjusters. At that time, the agency stated that the provisions of Standard No. 121 do not permit the type of a brake adjustment that you request. However, the agency noted that it would accept a petition for rulemaking to modify the standard in the manner you suggest if such a petition were supported with sufficient technical data.; In your current request for an interpretation, you merely restate you 1977 letter without offering the necessary supporting data and without petitioning the agency to amend the standard. Accordingly, we must restate the agency's interpretation that the standard does not permit the type of adjustment that you request.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4022OpenMr. David Walsh, 16892 Centralia, Redford, MI 48240; Mr. David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford MI 48240; Dear Mr. Walsh: Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1985, inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a product you have developed. You described the product as a mini-venetian blind that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the blind is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your product.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we hav issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles. You asked about State laws affecting your product. I suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which may be able to tell you about State laws or refer you to the appropriate officials in the States in which you wish to sell your product. The address for AAMVA is Suite 910, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.; If you need further information, please lt me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4642OpenMr. Larry P. Egley 109 Travelers Trail St. Charles, MO 63303; Mr. Larry P. Egley 109 Travelers Trail St. Charles MO 63303; Dear Mr. Egley: This is in reply to your letters with respect to th Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF), your invention, now registered with the U.S. Patent Office. Your first letter is a 'Request for Evaluation/Interpretation' of your invention, your second is 'An Appeal for Variant Interpretation.' I regret the delay in responding. You have explained that the SSF operates as follows: when a vehicle reaches a certain high rate of deceleration, the SSF automatically flashes all three of the stop lamps on passenger cars at a rapid rate. If the vehicle has crashed, the SSF continues to flash until the ignition switch is recycled. You recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning. You nevertheless ask for a favorable interpretation because the SSF will be actuated only rarely, and 'the concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system.' Because of the expense of developing the SSF, you state that you are not willing to undertake it 'unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model.' You are correct that Standard No. 108 requires stop lamps to be steady burning, and hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that stop lamps are intended to be operated while the vehicle is in motion, while the hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning begins to flash, the agency is concerned that the signal will prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its effectiveness. Even if we did not have this reservation about the SSF, we could not change the steady burning requirement through interpretation. A change could be made through rulemaking only. We do not currently have information indicating that a flashing signal would be superior to a steady burning one. The SSF is based upon the concept that a flashing lamp increases vehicle conspicuity, and hence should shorten the reaction time of following drivers. As you noted, 'whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration.' In research sponsored by this agency that led to the adoption of the center high-mounted stop lamp, a field study was conducted using 600 taxicabs in San Diego and Sacramento. The cabs were equipped with one of three kinds of center lamps, a steady-burning one, or one that flashed at 2.5 Hz, or one that flashed at either l.5, 2.5, 4.5, or 7.0 Hz depending on the degree of deceleration. The test fleet accumulated 4l million miles. The study found that there was no statistically significant differences among the lamps (Mortimer, R.G., Field test evaluation of rear lighting deceleration signals: II - Field test. Final Report, DOT-HS-806-125, 198l). The agency would be unlikely to issue grants or fund research for the SSF, a proprietary device. Most of its vehicle safety research is devoted to obtaining data to support the development of standards that are more performance-oriented. I am sorry that we cannot be more positive in our response, but we do appreciate your interest in reducing traffic accidents, and deaths and injuries associated with them. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam3615OpenMr. Lawrence T. Hirohata, Vehicle Equipment Safety Specialist, Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii, 79 South Nimitz Highway, Honolulu, HI 96813; Mr. Lawrence T. Hirohata Vehicle Equipment Safety Specialist Department of Transportation State of Hawaii 79 South Nimitz Highway Honolulu HI 96813; Dear Mr. Hirohata: This responds to your recent letter asking whether persons who appl tinted films to motor vehicle glazing would be considered motor vehicle distributors, dealers or repair businesses and thus be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act from rendering inoperative components that have been installed on vehicles pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; The answer to your question is yes. The persons you described fal within classes of persons listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) and the application of tinted film to motor vehicle glazing can constitute rendering inoperative.' Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that:; >>> No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard,....For purposes of this paragraph, the term motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.'<<<; Without knowing more about the film appliers you described, we find i difficult to determine the number of classes into which they would fall. However, the film-appliers are clearly considered to be dealers. This conclusion is based on the definitions of motor vehicle equipment' (section 102(4)), and dealer' (section 102(7)). The tinted film is an item of motor vehicle equipment since it is an accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle.' Therefore, any person who sells the tinted film primarily to persons, typically vehicle owners, for purposes other than resale is a dealer. The status of such a person does not change because he or she also applies the film to motor vehicle glazing.; The film appliers you described may also be motor vehicle repai businesses. You stated that the film appliers argue that they are not repair businesses. Implicit in their argument is a narrow interpretation of the term repair.' We don't believe that such an interpretation was intended by Congress since it would frustrate Congress' stated purpose in attempting to ensure that safety equipment remains operative over the life of the vehicle. The only type of person mentioned in the legislative history as being permitted to render safety equipment inoperative is the owner of the vehicle on which the safety equipment is installed. In addition, we believe that the references in the history to service, maintenance and replacement further suggest that a narrow interpretation was not intended.; The agency has consistently stated in its past letters o interpretation that the installation of tinted films on vehicle glazing constitutes rendering inoperative if the installation destroys the glazing's compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205. The legislative history of section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that render inoperative' includes permanent removal, disconnection or *degradation* of the safety performance of any element or design of a vehicle (Conference Report). Therefore, the activity described in your letter definitely falls within the scope of section 108(a)(2)(A).; In conclusion, it is the agency's opinion that businesses which ar installing tinted films on motor vehicles and thereby destroying the glazing's compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205 are in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As such, the businesses are liable for civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.; Our Office of Enforcement is currently investigating the practice o applying tinted film to motor vehicle glazing. Accordingly, we have forwarded a copy of your letter and the advertisement to that office for its action.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0015OpenMs. Vel McCaslin Program Director Grace After School 10221 Ella Lee at Sam Houston Tollway Houston, Texas 77042; Ms. Vel McCaslin Program Director Grace After School 10221 Ella Lee at Sam Houston Tollway Houston Texas 77042; "Dear Ms. McCaslin: This responds to your letter of April 1, 199 requesting clarification of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) and Federal regulations at 49 CFR Part 571 as they apply to 15 passenger vans used to transport students from Houston Independent Schools to an After School Program at your church. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has used its authority under the Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of various types of new motor vehicles. One type is the school bus. NHTSA defines 'school bus' as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for purposes that include transporting students to and from 'school or school-related events.' Therefore, unless your program would be considered a 'school or school-related event,' your vehicles would not be considered 'school buses' under Federal law. In order for NHTSA to determine if your program would be considered a 'school or school-related event,' you would need to provide us with further information about your program. Under Federal law, the answer to the question of whether your buses are school buses bears on the legal obligations of the seller, but not those of the purchaser or user, of new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all Federal school bus safety standards if that person is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. However, it is not a violation of Federal law for the purchaser to buy or use a vehicle to transport school children that does not comply with all the Federal standards. Under State, and common law, whether your buses complied with the Federal standards may have legal significance for you as a vehicle user. Since the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles, you must look to Texas law to determine if your After School Program may use noncomplying vans to transport school children. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4809OpenMr. Fred Ciampi Fred's Welding Service Route 86, Box 85 Jumping Branch, WV 25969-0085; Mr. Fred Ciampi Fred's Welding Service Route 86 Box 85 Jumping Branch WV 25969-0085; "Dear Mr. Ciampi: This responds to your letter requesting informatio concerning Federal requirements governing the manufacture of utility trailers. Your letter indicated that you plan to manufacture trailers. First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. For purposes of this authority, trailers are considered motor vehicles. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects. The following Federal safety standards apply to trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification Number--Basic Requirements, and Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, depending on the type of braking system used, trailers must meet Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, and Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. All of these standards are found in 49 CFR Part 571. In addition, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567. You may find a copy of 49 CFR at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of Title 49 from the United States Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 783-3238. With respect to laws governing trailer manufacture, the principal statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. You may obtain a copy of this Act from GPO. You may wish to note especially 151 of the Act, which requires a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to conduct notice and recall campaigns if you or this agency find that your product has a safety-related defect. There may be State regulations that apply to trailer manufacture and use. In many states, a person cannot register a new vehicle unless he or she has a statement or certificate of origin. I understand that the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association will supply a small quantity of form statements or certificates upon request. You may contact that organization by writing them at 1896 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 22090, or calling (800) 336-0154. You may wish to contact the local Department of Transportation or Motor Vehicle Administration in the states for which you have an interest for further information on state requirements. I hope you find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have specific questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3228OpenMr. David Williams, Box 4091, Wilmington, DE 19807; Mr. David Williams Box 4091 Wilmington DE 19807; Dear Mr. Williams: I would like to clarify my remarks of March 17, 1980, with respect t the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to imported vehicles.; In that letter I implied that there was a prohibition against importin cars that didn't meet Federal standards and that such vehicles had to comply with standards in effect on the date of importation. Actually, a non-conforming vehicle may be imported under bond if it will be brought into compliance within 120 days of entry with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, 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.