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 |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam4398OpenMr. Hiroshi Kato, Assistant Vice President, Technical, MMC Services, Inc., 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. Hiroshi Kato Assistant Vice President Technical MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Kato: This responds to your letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you sough my confirmation of a previous interpretation I sent to you. The issue is the classification of a new mini-van for the purposes of our safety and bumper standards. I stated in a July 28, 1987 interpretation to your company that, based on the information you had provided, this new mini-van could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the mini-van's chassis could be considered a truck chassis was based on information you had provided showing that the chassis design and construction was more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis.; In response to this letter, you sent me another letter dated August 3 1987, in which you stated that my previous interpretation may have been based on the erroneous belief that you were going to introduce a cargo version of this mini-van in to the United States, and that this cargo version would have a chassis that was substantially reinforced as compared with the chassis on a passenger version of this mini-van.; My previous interpretation was based on the fact that the mini-van yo will introduce into the United States is built on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the chassis can properly be characterized as a truck chassis was based on the facts that the chassis has a heavier-duty rear suspension and longitudinal members and a 25 percent higher gross vehicle weight rating than the sedan version of this vehicle. Assuming that these understandings are accurate, because nothing in your August 3 letter indicates they were inaccurate, the agency's position was accurately expressed in my July 28, 1987 letter to your company.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3775OpenMr. H. Nakaya, Mazda (North America), Inc., 23777 Greenfield Road, Southfield, MI 48075; Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield MI 48075; Dear Mr. Nakaya: This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding th classification of certain hypothetical mini- van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pa geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.; Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume tha passenger carrying volume (see, e.g., 49 CFR Part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (In the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meets the agency's 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MPV is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a 'truck chassis.' The 'chassis' of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.; The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, on member of which is classified as a 'truck,' is evidence that the common chassis is a 'truck chassis.' However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into an MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.; The floor pan differences mentioned in your first question do no appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same 'chassis,' since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.; Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs o whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.); Your third question involves the significance of the relative sale levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a 'truck chassis,' with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.; If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4091OpenMr. Donald H. Giberson, Assistant Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Law and Public Safety, State of New Jersey, 26 South Montgomery Street, Trenton, NJ 08666; Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety State of New Jersey 26 South Montgomery Street Trenton NJ 08666; Dear Mr. Giberson: This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121 *Air Brake Systems*. You asked whether vehicles equipped with 'Mini-Max' brakes, produced by Transquip Industries, Inc., comply with the standard. You stated that since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. Your question is responded to below. We note that Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40 is administered by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) rather than by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We have sent a copy of this correspondence to BMCS in order that they may respond to that part of your request.; By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals o motor vehicles or equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part: >>>The parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimu performance specified in either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing). . . .<<<; The single diaphragm used in the Mini-Max brake is common to both th service and parking brake systems. As part of the service brake system, it is part of a brake system 'other' than the parking brake system. Therefore, since the diaphragm is not a component of a brake chamber housing, section S5.6.3 requires that a vehicle must be able to achieve the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure.; We do not have sufficient data to determine whether particular vehicle equipped with Mini-Max brakes would meet the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure. The answer to that question could depend on the nature of the particular vehicle. It is possible, of course, that a vehicle could be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 as a result of the braking force provided by the other parking brakes whose diaphragms have not failed.; We note that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised this issu and other issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and an interpretation letter to International Transquip. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590 (202-426-2768).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4090OpenMr. Ron Luce, President, International Transquip Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 590169, Houston, TX 77259; Mr. Ron Luce President International Transquip Industries Inc. P.O. Box 590169 Houston TX 77259; Dear Mr. Luce: This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121 *Air Brake Systems*. You asked several questions relating to whether vehicles equipped with 'Mini-Max' brakes, a type of brake produced by your company, comply with the standard. Your questions are responded to below. We note that while Question 4 was not asked directly by your letter, the question is implicit with respect to one of the questions you did ask.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; *Question 1: Is delayed mechanical parking permissible under sectio S5.6.3 as long as the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 are satisfied?*; The second sentence of section S5.6.3 provides that '(o)nce applied the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means.' As discussed by a recent notice granting a petition for rulemaking submitted by the California Highway Patrol (copy enclosed), there are at least two issues relating to whether a braking system such as Mini-Max complies with these requirements.; The first issue is whether the system meets the requirements that onc applied, the parking brakes must be held solely be mechanical means. As currently designed, the Mini-Max parking brake can be held by air and not by mechanical means, solely or otherwise, for many hours. Indeed, since a driver will often park the vehicle for a period of time shorter than that required to obtain mechanical holding, there will be many instances when the vehicle is parked and the parking brake never is held by mechanical means. The second issue is whether the parking brakes are held in the applied position. With the current design of the Mini-Max braking system, the air pressure leaks down over time until the mechanical lock is activated. Since the position of the brake components necessarily changes during this time, resulting in reduced parking brake force, there is an issue whether the parking brake is being held in the applied position.; While NHTSA has never concluded that a brake system resulting in fals parking is safe or provided an interpretation that the current Mini-Max system complies with section S5.6.3, we recognize that some past interpretations, as well as one issued by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, could contribute to ambiguity concerning whether some of the features incorporated in the Mini-Max design are permitted by the standard. In light, of that ambiguity and for the other reasons discussed in the grant notice, NHTSA decided to grant the CHP petition to initiate rulemaking on the delayed mechanical park issue rather than issuing an interpretation whether or not such a brake system complies with these requirements.; *Question 2: Is an external pressure separation assembly consisting o a two-way check valve and accompanying steel hex nipple considered to be a component of a brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3 if the assembly is 'permanently bonded' to the housing?*; The answer to this question is no. Section S5.6.3 provides in relevan part that '(t)he parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (*except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing*).' (Emphasis added.) The dictionary defines 'housing' as 'a fully enclosed case and support for a mechanism.' See *Random House Dictionary of the English Language* (unabridged edition). Thus, the term 'brake chamber housing' refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. An external pressure separation assembly does not become part of the brake chamber housing merely because it is attached to the housing, whether by 'permanent bonding' or some other means. However, a brake chamber housing could be cast or molded to include a fitting, serving the same purpose as the external pressure assembly, as an integral part of the brake chamber housing.; *Question 3: Is an internal assembly consisting of a diaphragm with th brake chamber housing considered to be a component of the brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3?*; The answer to this question is no. As discussed above, the term 'brak chamber housing' refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. A diaphragm within the brake chamber is not a component of the case enclosing the brake chamber.; *Question 4: Does section S5.2.1.1 require that capability of releas must be unaffected or that air pressure in the tank must be unaffected?*; Section S5.2.1.1 provides that '(a) *reservoir shall be provided* tha is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i. of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once *and that is unaffected* by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system.' (Emphasis added.) The word 'unaffected' refers back to reservoir.' Thus, the required reservoir is not permitted to be 'affected' by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system, i.e., it must be protected. A reservoir would not meet this requirement if a loss of air pressure in the service brake system resulted in a loss of air pressure in the reservoir, even if the reservoir was still capable of releasing the parking brakes.; *Question 5: If the emergency brakes on trailers can be modulated so a to provide a driver with several applications and releases to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system, is it unnecessary for an S5.2.1.1 reservoir to be capable of releasing the brakes?*; The capability of modulation after activation of the low air warnin system does not satisfy the requirements of section S5.2.1.1 (quoted above). That section requires that the reservoir not be affected by loss of service air, i.e., that it be protected, and that, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i. (a pressure that corresponds to the lower end of the range of pressures maintained by compressors), it be capable of releasing the parking brakes at least once. A vehicle's emergency brakes could be capable of modulation after activation of the low air warning system and not meet either of these requirements.; In addition to the notice granting the CHP petition, we are enclosin copies of interpretation letters concerning the Mini-Max system addressed to Navistar, P.T. Brake Lining Company, and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4092OpenMr. Carl R. Walker, Manager, Technical Sales and Service, P.T. Brake Lining Company, Inc., P.O. Box 329, Lawrence, MA 01842; Mr. Carl R. Walker Manager Technical Sales and Service P.T. Brake Lining Company Inc. P.O. Box 329 Lawrence MA 01842; Dear Mr. Walker: This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Richard Radlinski concerning a statement by International Transquip alleging that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) 'agree' that the Mini-Max brake system produced by that company complies with Federal standards. You noted that International Transquip has referenced a June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS.; NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicl equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment complies (sic) with applicable safety standards. I would emphasize that NHTSA has not issued any statement that could be read as 'agreement' that the Mini-Max brake complies with FMVSS No. 121.; We are enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to Navistar whic discusses NHTSA's position concerning the June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS. The letter also notes that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised a number of issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and two related interpretation letters, to International Transquip and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590 (202-426-2768).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4176OpenMr. Larry H. McEntire, Administrator, School Transportation, Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, FL 32301; Mr. Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation Florida Department of Education Tallahassee FL 32301; Dear Mr. McEntire: I regret the delay in responding to your letter to this office askin whether certain 'mini-vans' designed to carry a maximum of eight persons are classified by NHTSA as 'passenger cars' or 'multipurpose passenger vehicles' (MPV's), for purposes of complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; I would like to begin by clarifying that the classification of particular vehicle is determined in the first instance by its manufacturer, and not by NHTSA. Under our certification requirements (49 CFR Part 567), manufacturers are required to specify the type of their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in Part 571.3 of our regulations and must certify that their motor vehicles comply with all the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. We define an MPV in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle ... designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.'; Information we have received regarding manufacturer certificatio discloses that manufacturers classify *cargo- carrying* models of the Ford Aerostar, and G.M. Astro and Safari as 'trucks.' A 'truck' is defined in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle...except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' We understand that *passenger* models of mini-vans designed to carry up to eight passengers utilize the same type of chassis used in truck models. It is likely, therefore, that the passenger model mini-vans you asked about would be classified as MPV's instead of passenger cars. This is verified by the 'MPV' classification given by manufacturers to the Chrysler mini-van and Toyota Van.; On a related matter, you asked for our comments on your Department' recommendation to your school boards that they not condone parents' use of conventional vans (i.e., vans not meeting Federal or State school bus safety regulations) to transport school children to school-related events. Mr. Arnold Spencer of Rockledge, Florida, recently wrote to our office concerning the above recommendation and requested us to explain how our school bus regulations apply to persons owning vans. I have enclosed a copy of our April 25, 1986, response to Mr. Spencer which you might find helpful.; I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions please feel free to contact us.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4177OpenMr. Larry H. McEntire, Administrator, School Transportation, Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, FL 32301; Mr. Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation Florida Department of Education Tallahassee FL 32301; Dear Mr. McEntire: I regret the delay in responding to your letter to this office askin whether certain 'mini-vans' designed to carry a maximum of eight persons are classified by NHTSA as 'passenger cars' or 'multipurpose passenger vehicles' (MPV's), for purposes of complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; I would like to begin by clarifying that the classification of particular vehicle is determined in the first instance by its manufacturer, and not by NHTSA. Under our certification requirements (49 CFR Part 567), manufacturers are required to specify the type of their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in Part 571.3 of our regulations and must certify that their motor vehicles comply with all the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. We define an MPV in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle ... designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.'; Information we have received regarding manufacturer certificatio discloses that manufacturers classify *cargo- carrying* models of the Ford Aerostar, and G.M. Astro and Safari as 'trucks.' A 'truck' is defined in Part 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle...except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' We understand that *passenger* models of mini-vans designed to carry up to eight passengers utilize the same type of chassis used in truck models. It is likely, therefore, that the passenger model mini-vans you asked about would be classified as MPV's instead of passenger cars. This is verified by the 'MPV' classification given by manufacturers to the Chrysler mini-van and Toyota Van.; On a related matter, you asked for our comments on your Department' recommendation to your school boards that they not condone parents' use of conventional vans (i.e., vans not meeting Federal or State school bus safety regulations) to transport school children to school-related events. Mr. Arnold Spencer of Rockledge, Florida, recently wrote to our office concerning the above recommendation and requested us to explain how our school bus regulations apply to persons owning vans. I have enclosed a copy of our April 25, 1986, response to Mr. Spencer which you might find helpful.; I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions please feel free to contact us.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5214OpenMs. Gail Lindsey Hillsborough County Public Schools Risk Management and Safety Department 707 East Columbus Drive Tampa, FL 33602; Ms. Gail Lindsey Hillsborough County Public Schools Risk Management and Safety Department 707 East Columbus Drive Tampa FL 33602; "Dear Ms. Lindsey: Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle o the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply. You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You therefore requested information on 'crash safety standards' of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter. For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992, Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992, Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988, a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations, and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan. The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4521OpenMrs. Alice Collins 703 Cohassett Ave. Lake Wales, FL 33853; Mrs. Alice Collins 703 Cohassett Ave. Lake Wales FL 33853; "Dear Mrs. Collins: This is a response to your letter of January 15 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activities in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were 'unsafe.' You go on to say that 'the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans,' and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I will address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman. Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is 'unsafe.' Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are 'safe' or 'unsafe.' Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager. With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MPV, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria. In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr. Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an August 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information. As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition against vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our Constitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr. Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government. In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, 'is consistent with our belief that school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children.' This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school children by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are 'compartmentalized' (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs), and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus. I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for vehicles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, 'Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.' I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam4866OpenMr. Howard 'Mac' Dashney Pupil Transportation Consultant Michigan Department of Education P.O. Box 30008 Lansing, Michigan 48909; Mr. Howard 'Mac' Dashney Pupil Transportation Consultant Michigan Department of Education P.O. Box 30008 Lansing Michigan 48909; "Dear Mr. Dashney: This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991 In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events? The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions. The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered 'schoolbuses' by this agency. A 'school bus' is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR 571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for 'buses' and also those for 'school buses.' The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses: Standards No. 101 through No. 104, Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standards No. 106 through No. 108, Standards No. 111 through 113, Standard No. 115, Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standard No. 119, Standard No. 120, Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems), Standard No. 124, Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 205, Standards No. 207 through No. 210, Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 217, Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 220, Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds), and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302. These standards are part of 49 CFR 571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS. Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR 571.3. For instance, 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation' (49 CFR 571.3(b)). 'Passenger car' is defined as ' a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less' (49 CFR 571.3(b)). Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events? Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses. Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events? Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information. I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
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.