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: aiam2991OpenMr. Kei Matsui, Manager, Development Administration Division, Toyo Kogyo C., Ltd., P.O. Box 18, Hiroshima, 730-91 JAPAN; Mr. Kei Matsui Manager Development Administration Division Toyo Kogyo C. Ltd. P.O. Box 18 Hiroshima 730-91 JAPAN; Dear Mr. Matsui: This is in response to your letter of February 2, 1979, requestin confirmation that all three of the speedometer faces shown on the attached sheet comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127. There is no requirements that a specific lower limit appear on the face of the speedometer, either by number or by markings. Your interpretation is, therefore, correct.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2138OpenMr. Robert L. Webber, Vice President, American Sports Co. Inc., P. O. Box 5603, 2970 East Maria Street, Compton, CA 90221; Mr. Robert L. Webber Vice President American Sports Co. Inc. P. O. Box 5603 2970 East Maria Street Compton CA 90221; Dear Mr. Webber: This is in response to your request of November 21, 1975, for a opinion regarding requirements for certifying universal sized helmets pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218.; The requirements of Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, apply t helmets that fit headform size C. This includes the case where, by means of an adjusting mechanism supplied by the manufacturer for the purpose of permitting adjustment to headform size C, the helmet can readily be made to fit headform size C. Thus, any helmet that the manufacturer intends for use by persons with heads in the size C range must meet the requirements of the standard, including the requirement to affix the label required by section 5.6.1 of the standard.; The 'universal' helmet described in your letter seems to fall withi these guidelines in that it is intended to fit, *inter* *alia*, the size C headform. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that it may also be adjusted to fit other size headforms, it should meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 218, including the labeling requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0105OpenMr. Harry G. Seitz, Driver Education Coordinator, Cleveland Public Schools, 1380 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114; Mr. Harry G. Seitz Driver Education Coordinator Cleveland Public Schools 1380 East Sixth Street Cleveland OH 44114; Dear Mr. Seitz: Your letter of July 3, 1968, addressed to Mr. George C. Nield, of th National Highway Safety Bureau has been forwarded to my office for reply.; The installation of dual controls on driver education cars is not *pe se* in violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the secondary equipment must meet the same safety standards established for the primary controls. The secondary steering column must fulfill the same requirements made for the primary column as set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 203 and 204. The installation of an additional foot brake must not affect compliance with Standard No. 105. However, duplicate compliance with the control location and identification requirements of Standard No. 101 is not required since the 'driver' of such a vehicle remains the person seated behind the primary controls. For the same reason the 'driver' mirror requirements of Standard No. 111 apply only with respect to the person seated at the primary controls.; Changes may be made to original equipment when necessary fo installation of secondary controls but none of the standards requirements specified may be eliminated or adversely affected by the alteration.; You may make available copies of this letter to dealers and intereste parties.; Sincerely, Eugene B., Laskin, Acting Director, Office of Standard Preparation; |
|
ID: aiam5307OpenMr. Carl Haywood Operations Manager Emergency Response Specialists 2251 Happy Top Road Morris, Alabama 35116; Mr. Carl Haywood Operations Manager Emergency Response Specialists 2251 Happy Top Road Morris Alabama 35116; "Dear Mr. Haywood: This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993 requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows: Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases. You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term 'motor vehicle' as follows: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. If a vehicle is a 'motor vehicle' under the definition, then the vehicle must comply will all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority. Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site. NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a 'truck' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a 'truck' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA defines a 'trailer' as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all 'occupant seats' in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position. The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to be comply with Standard No. 209. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer. Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam2568OpenHonorable John W. Wydler, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; Honorable John W. Wydler House of Representatives Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Wydler: Thank you for your letter of April 21, 1977, requesting informatio concerning Federal regulations regarding school bus safety on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Peter Peugeot of Rockville Centre, New York.; I have enclosed a document, 'Summary Description of Motor Vehicl Safety Standards Applicable to Buses,' which should be helpful to Mrs. Peugeot. I have also enclosed an information summary, 'Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations,' along with a set of forms from our Technical Reference Branch indicating how specific information may be retrieved through computer assisted literature searches along with an outline of fees for this service.; In addition to the above material, I have enclosed an order form fo the entire set of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, in case Mrs. Peugeot desires this specific volume. I would call her attention to the fact that although this document is relatively expensive, it is furnished in looseleaf form and is updated periodically for an indefinite period with the latest amendments and changes at no additional cost.; I trust this information and material will be of value to Mrs. Peugeot If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam0555OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Jr., Executive Secretary, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Jr. Executive Secretary Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 602 Main Street Cincinnati Ohio 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letters of September 25 and October 19, 1972 In your letter of September 25, you ask whether persons performing intermediate manufacturing operations are subject to the Defect Reports regulations, specifically that part of the regulations which requires the quarterly reporting of production figures (573.5(b)). The defect reports regulations apply to all manufacturers of complete or incomplete motor vehicles. We consider intermediate manufacturers to be within the latter category, and the regulations therefore apply to them.; Your letter of October 19 asks whether a person who installs a fift wheel in a pickup truck is considered a 'remanufacturer.' Under existing regulations, we would not consider the installation of a fifth wheel on a pickup truck to be a significant enough alteration to constitute remanufacturing. Under the recently proposed amendment to the Certification Regulations regarding the certification of altered vehicles (37 F.R. 22800, October 25, 1972), whether such a person would be an alterer and required to affix a new label to the vehicle would depend upon whether the fifth-wheel is a readily attachable component.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2092OpenMr. Richard L. Kreutziger, Coach and Equipment Sales Corp., P.O. Box 36, Penn Yan, NY 14527; Mr. Richard L. Kreutziger Coach and Equipment Sales Corp. P.O. Box 36 Penn Yan NY 14527; Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, to Mr. Schwartz o this office, seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.; FMVSS No. 205 requires that the prime glazing manufacturer certify eac piece of glazing covered by the standard by marking it with the letters DOT, the manufacturers code mark assigned by the Department of Transportation and the markings required by section 6 of A.N.S.Z-26. The latter markings are the 'AS' number, the model number and the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. The distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which the standard applies is required to mark the material in accordance with section 6 of A.N.S.Z-26. Thus, each of the rectangular lites should be marked with the manufacturer's model number and trademark in addition to the AS number, but not with the letters DOT or the prime glazing manufacturer's DOT number.; Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 requires that you, as the vehicle manufacturer, certify that your product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This would, of course, include FMVSS No. 205.; I hope I have fully answered your questions. If you have any furthe need for information please do not hesitate to write.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4845OpenLiam J. Moran, Esq. Hagans, Brown, Gibbs & Moran 310 K Street, Suite 704 Anchorage, Alaska 99501; Liam J. Moran Esq. Hagans Brown Gibbs & Moran 310 K Street Suite 704 Anchorage Alaska 99501; "Dear Mr. Moran: RE: Brey v. Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc. You File No.: 3571 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"; |
|
ID: aiam4795OpenRoger C. Fairchild, Esq. Shutler & Low 14500 Avion Parkway, Suite 300 Chantilly, VA 22021-1101; Roger C. Fairchild Esq. Shutler & Low 14500 Avion Parkway Suite 300 Chantilly VA 22021-1101; "Dear Mr. Fairchild: This responds to your inquiry about Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standards 109, 110, 119, and 120 on tires and rim selection (49 CFR 571.109, 571.110, 571.119, and 571.120), asking about the applicability of certain provisions in the Tire and Rim Association (TRA) Year Book, which those Federal safety standards incorporate by reference. As explained below, we agree that the adjustment factors in the TRA Year Book for inflation pressures and load ratings at different speeds are not applicable in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ('Vehicle Safety Act,' 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not approve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000. Section S4.3 of Standard 109 requires a new pneumatic tire for passenger cars to be labeled with certain information including one size designation, the maximum inflation pressure, and the maximum load rating. S6.5 of Standard 119 has similar marking requirements for tires on vehicles other than passenger cars. In particular, section 4.2.1(c) of Standard 109 and section 6.5(d) of Standard 119 require tires to be labeled with a maximum load rating not less than the lowest of any specified values in the manufacturer's submission or in a listed publication such as the TRA Yearbook, for tires of that size designation, type and each appropriate inflation pressure. For passenger car tires, these inflation pressures and load ratings are specified in tables in section one of the TRA Yearbook entitled, ''P' Type Tires Used on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons' and ''T' Type Spare Tires for Temporary Use on Passenger Cars and Station Wagons.' For tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, these inflation pressures and load ratings are specified in the tables in section 2 of the TRA Yearbook. Question One You first asked whether the Federal safety standards incorporate an independent vehicle speed adjustment factor in determining the 'vehicle normal load' and 'vehicle maximum load.' Your question was based on provisions in the TRA Year Book which apply such a vehicle load adjustment factor for certain tires rated for a maximum speed above 130 mph. As you are aware, S4.2 of Standard 110 provides that the vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating marked on the tire, and the vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in Standard 109's high speed performance test. You are correct that an adjustment factor based on the vehicle's maximum speed capacity is not required to be used in determining compliance with Standard 110 and 120. As you noted, Standard 110's requirement, as specified in S4.2.2, takes into account an adjustment for high speed use by requiring that the normal vehicle load on a tire must not exceed the test load used in Standard 109's high speed performance test in S5.5 (i.e. 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating). Based on this provision and Standard No. 110's use of the terms 'vehicle maximum load' and 'maximum loaded vehicle weight,' we interpret S4.2 as applying to normal vehicle uses and not special high speed applications. In fact, incorporating a load adjustment factor based on speeds of 130 to 168 mph, as the TRA provision does, would be contrary to motor vehicle safety if it encouraged vehicle operation at speeds far exceeding safe operating speeds. Therefore, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards. Question Two You also asked about a vehicle speed adjustment factor for the inflation pressure with passenger cars. As you explained, the TRA Year Book requires that the 'speed category of the tire must match or exceed the theoretical maximum speed of the vehicle (i.e., actual maximum speed, as adjusted for tire inflation pressure using another factor specified by TRA). TRA sets forth two speed categories: speeds up to 210 km/h (130 mph) and speeds above 210 km/h (130 mph). As with the vehicle load adjustment factor which concerns normal vehicle applications, you are correct that an adjustment factor for inflation pressure based on the vehicle's maximum speed is not required to be used in determining compliance with Federal safety standards. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards. Question Three You then asked about the applicability to the Federal standards of TRA's recommended adjustments for tire inflation pressure and 'service load' for tires used on trucks and buses, depending on the maximum speed capability of the vehicle. As with the adjustment factors for passenger car tires, these adjustment factors are not relevant for compliance with Standard 119 or 120. Again, the general tables in the TRA Yearbook listing maximum inflation pressures and maximum load ratings, standing alone without applying any adjustment factor, are the applicable values in determining compliance with the Federal safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam3050OpenHonorable Daniel K. Akaka, 415 Cannon Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515, Attention: Mr. Pat McGarey; Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 415 Cannon Building House of Representatives Washington DC 20515 Attention: Mr. Pat McGarey; Dear Mr. Akaka: This responds to your June 21, 1979, telephone request asking ho automobile dealers can determine when they must sell school buses as opposed to regular vans.; The key factors in making this determination are the purpose for whic the vehicle will be used and the passenger carrying capacity of the vehicle. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the school bus safety standards in response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). In defining 'schoolbus', Congress drew upon NHTSA's definition of 'bus', i.e., any motor vehicle, including a van, designed to carry more than 10 persons. Congress stated that the term 'schoolbus' means 'a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers ... and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting ... students to or from school or events related to such schools.' The NHTSA concluded from this mandate that any vehicle that is a bus and will be used on a regular and recurring basis to transport school children must comply with school bus safety standards. To effect this conclusion, the agency issued a definition of 'schoolbus' which is 'a bus that is sold or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to or from school or related events....'; The effect of the 1974 amendments and the agency's definition is t require any new bus that is sold to transport school children on a regular basis to comply with the safety standards. Compliance is required whether a bus is used regularly to transport students 100 percent of the time or whether it regularly transports students only 10 percent of the time while otherwise transporting adults.; 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.