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: aiam4301OpenMr. Wil de Groot, President, Exoticars of Hunterdon, 6 Washington Street, Frenchtown, NJ 08825; Mr. Wil de Groot President Exoticars of Hunterdon 6 Washington Street Frenchtown NJ 08825; Dear Mr. de Groot: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1987, with respect to you further questions on Federal regulations of kit cars.; You have presented the following facts: the engine, transmission, fina drive, axles, suspension, steering, brakes, heating and defrosting equipment, windshield wiper motor and mechanisms, instruments, switches, controls, wiring harness, fuel tank, seat belts, door and ignition switch buzzer system, door handles, latches and locks, impact absorbing bumper supports, and other unnamed components, all previously used on a vehicle meeting Federal safety standards would be retained for use with a new body of your own manufacture.; Your first choice is to install these items upon a new chassis of you own manufacture, and to supply the vehicle to a purchaser fully assembled. This is what must be met under these circumstances: when a new body is mounted upon a new chassis, the resulting vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable upon the date of its assembly, even if the parts that you named are used. Further, the assembler must certify that the vehicle complies with the safety standards. There is no legal obligation to use new parts in order to certify compliance with the standards. The assembler is regarded as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, and must notify owner and remedy noncompliance with the safety standards or safety related defects should they occur, in accordance with Federal law and regulations.; If you supply all parts, but do not complete assembly of the vehicle we would regard you nevertheless as its manufacturer and subject to the requirements stated above. However, if you do not supply all parts, the question of whether you would be regarded as the manufacturer would necessarily depend upon the parts that the purchaser must supply in order to complete assembly.; You have also stated your second choice: that the new body would b mounted upon the original chassis, modified to accept it. In this circumstance, when a new body is mounted upon a used chases, the resulting vehicle is not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new vehicles, and there is no certification obligation. Nevertheless, its assembler is a 'manufacturer' under Federal law and responsible for notification of owners and remedy of any safety related defects that may occur in the product. Further, if the safety related defects that may occur in the product. Further, if the assembler is the person responsible for removing the old body, he must ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet the standards that originally applied to the vehicle which might have been affected by removal of the old body. For example, if the body of a 1974 Jaguar XJ6 is removed, compliance with a number of standards such as those covering glazing, lighting, and windshield retention is affected and the reassembled vehicle must then meet the standards that were in effect in 1974. But, standards covering such things as accelerator control systems and brake hoses would not appear to be affected by the disassembly of the original vehicle, and the assembler is under no obligation to ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet those standards.; If the used-chassis vehicle is supplied partially disassembled, but al parts are supplied, we would nevertheless regard the supplier as subject to all the obligations discussed above, assuming that he was the person responsible for removal of the old body. If all parts are not supplied, the answer remains as before: whether the supplier is a 'manufacturer' depends upon the parts that the purchaser must provide.; Finally, you have asked, 'if actual crash tests...have to be made wha is the cost and where is this done?' There is no express legal requirement that a manufacturer of new motor vehicles conduct crash tests in order to certify compliance with those standards where compliance can be demonstrated through barrier impacts. A manufacturer is required to exercise due care to ensure that his vehicle, if crashed, would meet the performance requirements of those standards incorporating barrier impact test procedures, but his certifications may be based upon computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematical calculations, etc. We cannot advice you as to the cost of such tests, and suggest you write the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associations (MVMA) for information on facilities that perform them. MVMA's address is 1620 I Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.; I hope that this answers you questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1103OpenMr. Ralph H. Ullenberg, President, Milwaukee truck Center, Inc., 10521 West Layton Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53228; Mr. Ralph H. Ullenberg President Milwaukee truck Center Inc. 10521 West Layton Avenue Milwaukee WI 53228; Dear Mr. Ullenberg: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you as several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds, a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico, (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date, (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating, if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date, (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.; It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issu underlies all your questions, that is, whether a final- stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.; A truck that is equipped at the time of its manufacture with tire inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S. C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.; The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped withou tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case in within this exception.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1416OpenMr. Thomas S. Pieratt, Truck Equipment & Body Distributors, 602 Main Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202; Mr. Thomas S. Pieratt Truck Equipment & Body Distributors 602 Main Street Cincinnati OH 45202; Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1973, inquiring whethe a manufacturer would be an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer if he installs truck bodies or material handling devices (frequently final-stage manufacturing operations) but he expects that a later manufacturer will either extend the chassis frame or add a third axle. These additions are necessary to make the vehicle safe to operate.; In most cases, we would consider the manufacturer in question to be a intermediate manufacturer. Under the definitions of 'completed vehicle,' 'intermediate manufacturer,' and 'final-stage manufacturer' (49 CFR 568.3), the manufacturer would be a final-stage manufacturer only if, at the time he completes his manufacturing operation, the vehicle requires no further manufacturing to perform its intended function, unless the further manufacturing involves only 'readily-attachable components.'; In the case you present, the vehicle cannot perform its intende function unless further modifications are made. That it be able to perform its intended function implies that it be able to do so safely. The answer ultimately depends, therefore, on whether the additions that will be made to the vehicle involve only readily attachable components. We would not generally consider either an extension of the chassis or the addition of a third axle to involve only readily attachable components.; Of course, in those cases where no further modifications are necessar for safe operation, the crane or body installer will be the final-stage manufacturer.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4614OpenThe Honorable Henry J. Nowak House of Representatives Washington, DC 205l5; The Honorable Henry J. Nowak House of Representatives Washington DC 205l5; "Dear Mr. Nowak: Thank you for your letter on behalf of you constituents, Ms. Eugenia M. Pierakos and Mr. James L. Pierakos. Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos are president and sales manager, respectively, of a firm which is the western New York state dealer for Jaeger Industries, Inc., a Canadian manufacturer of curbside recycling equipment. They stated that Jaeger has had difficulty obtaining data/regulations that apply to a type of vehicle manufactured by Jaeger, and specifically asked about regulations related to the use of chain steering for dual steering applications, brakes, and throttle. According to the Pierakos' letter, Jaeger has spoken with two officials of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and no one has provided that company with any definitive answers. Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos requested assistance in obtaining the necessary information. I note that we do recall speaking with a representative of Jaeger by telephone. We were not able to provide definitive answers to that company by telephone, since it is our policy not to provide oral interpretations of our safety standards. This policy is for the benefit of the person requesting the interpretation and the agency. It ensures that there are no misunderstandings as to the question or response, and that there is an opportunity for appropriate review of the interpretation within the agency. The policy also enables us to place all interpretations in the docket, so that the public has access to each interpretation. While we advised Jaeger that they could submit their questions in writing, our records do not show any written request from that company. I will now provide what information I can in response to the Pierakos' request. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. Enclosed is a pamphlet which provides information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Among other things, the pamphlet explains where to obtain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. As indicated above, Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos specifically asked about regulations concerning chain steering for dual steering applications, brakes, and throttle, that would apply to the vehicle manufactured by Jaeger. Information included with the letter indicates that the vehicle in question is an air-braked truck with a gross vehicle weight rating over 30,000 pounds. NHTSA has not issued any standards for 'chain steering.' Moreover, no standard prohibits a manufacturer from providing dual steering. With respect to brakes, Standard No. l2l, Air Brake Systems, establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and Standard No. l06, Brake Hoses, specifies labeling and performance requirements for brake hose, brake hose assemblies and brake hose end fittings. Standard No. l24, Accelerator Control Systems, sets forth requirements for a vehicle's throttle. Also, Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays, includes requirements related to the steering wheel, brakes, and throttle. If the Pierakos, or Jaeger, have any specific requests for interpretation of these or other applicable safety standards, we would be happy to respond to such requests. I note that one of the enclosures included with Ms. Pierakos and Mr. Pierakos' letter is a drawing from Jaeger which includes the following statement: 'This document contains proprietary information and it shall not be used or reproduced or its contents disclosed in part or whole without prior written authorization.' Since the drawing could become subject to a request for release under the Freedom of Information Act, I am returning to you the copy of the drawing included with your letter. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures"; |
|
ID: aiam1046OpenMr. Norman Amorosi, Vice President-General Manager, Seminole Trailer Manufacturing Corp., 895 West 19th Street, Hialeah, FL 33010; Mr. Norman Amorosi Vice President-General Manager Seminole Trailer Manufacturing Corp. 895 West 19th Street Hialeah FL 33010; Dear Mr. Amorosi: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973 to this agency askin whether it is permissible under Standard No. 108 to locate boat trailer identification lamps on the first crossmember forward of the rearmost crossmember. You believe that the identification lamps will have a longer life span in this location.; The general locational requirement that a lamp be 'on the front' or 'o the rear' was never intended to specify that it be at the extreme front or rear of a vehicle. Clearance and identification lamps required to be 'on the front' are generally mounted on a truck cab or body, for instance. Therefore your proposed location is acceptable to meet the requirements of Table II of the Standard. However, identification lamps, wherever located, must meet the visibility requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1, and if they do not meet them in your proposed location the trailer will not comply with Standard No. 108.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3581OpenMr. Ron Gustafson, Furudals Buruks Kursinternat, 790 70 FURUDUAL Sweden; Mr. Ron Gustafson Furudals Buruks Kursinternat 790 70 FURUDUAL Sweden; Dear Mr. Gustafson: This responds to your letter of June 28, 1982, asking abou requirements applicable to child restraints sold in the United States as well as any necessary permits or licenses. You also asked about any U.S. testing organizations, procedures or standards for child restraints.; All child restraints sold in the U.S. must conform with the minimu performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. The standard also sets out the test procedures that are used to measure the performance of child restraints. There are no other performance requirements or test procedures applicable to child restraints. I am enclosing a copy of the standard.; You are not required to obtain a permit or license from this agenc prior to selling a child restraint in the U.S., nor are you required to obtain approval from any U.S. testing organization. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are required by Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*, of our regulation to submit certain identifying information to the agency. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566.; In addition,m you would be required by the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1392 *et seq.*) to certify that your child restraint complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under the Act, you would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign for any safety-related defect in your product. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, which defines your responsibilities as a manufacturer.; If you have any further question, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4244OpenRichard E. Bond, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Holiday Rambler Corporation, 65528 St. Road 19, Wakarusa, IN 46573; Richard E. Bond Esq. Assistant General Counsel Holiday Rambler Corporation 65528 St. Road 19 Wakarusa IN 46573; Dear Mr. Bond: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of 49 CF Part 565, *Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements*. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; The hypothetical situation discussed in your letter refers to corporation which has manufactured vehicle X for several years. The corporation forms a wholly-owned subsidiary to which it transfers the manufacturing operations of vehicle X. You state that the subsidiary corporation will continue to manufacture vehicle X and ask if the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is authorized to transfer the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code for the corporation to the wholly-owned subsidiary.; In a telephone conversation with Elizabeth Harrison of this office, yo stated that Holiday Rambler is considering transferring the manufacture of commercial cargo trailers to a wholly-owned subsidiary. You also said that the new subsidiary would be responsible for certifying compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and reporting any safety-related defects for these trailers.; Section 4(a) of Part 565 requires the first three characters of vehicle identification number (VIN) to identify uniquely the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. You indicated that less than 500 commercial cargo trailers are produced each year, therefore, the first three characters of the VIN together with the third, fourth and fifth characters of the fourth section of the VIN must uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle. As you know, SAE is authorized by NHTSA to assign manufacturer identifiers.; This agency has not authorized SAE to transfer WMI codes under th circumstances described above. If the WMI code for these trailers, which are now manufactured by Holiday Rambler, were transferred to a new subsidiary, then the WMI would no longer *uniquely* identify the manufacturer. Therefore, your corporation should request the assignment of a new WMI for the subsidiary and not use the WMI assigned to Holiday Rambler for these trailers, if the subsidiary is formed. The new identifier and the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in the VIN must be submitted to this agency under the reporting requirements of section 5 of Part 565.; Please note that the subsidiary must also inform NHTSA under 49 CF Part 566, *Manufacturer Identifier*, of its corporate name and the types of vehicles or vehicle equipment which it will manufacture, and comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566, *Certification*.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0207OpenMr. W. B. Colquhoun, Executive Vice-President, Norton Villiers Corporation, North Way, Andover, Hampshire, England; Mr. W. B. Colquhoun Executive Vice-President Norton Villiers Corporation North Way Andover Hampshire England; Dear Mr. Colquhoun: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1970, enclosing ten copies o the Consumer Information for motorcycles produced by Norton Villiers Corporation.; Your submittal has on its face eliminated the problems that were calle to your attention in our letter of January 9. The form in which the information is presented deviates, however, from the form prescribed by the regulations, sections 375.101 and 106. The most significant deviation is the omission of the explanatory statements that are required for both types of information. The figures included with each section of the regulations should be followed closely in your presentation of the information to purchasers.; Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Director |
|
ID: aiam5005OpenMr. Tom Mario Vice President Sales Sealco Air Controls, Inc. 215 East Watkins Street Phoenix, AZ 85004; Mr. Tom Mario Vice President Sales Sealco Air Controls Inc. 215 East Watkins Street Phoenix AZ 85004; "Dear Mr. Mario: This letter responds to your inquiry about recen amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to trailers. That final rule (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) amended the standard by deleting the requirement for a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. It also added requirements for the retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's supply line in the event of pneumatic failure and for the prevention of automatic application of trailer parking brakes while the minimum supply line pressure is maintained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. NHTSA promulgates safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. One such safety standard, Standard No. 121, specifies performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. Any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. You first asked whether a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment becomes effective on October 8, 1992. The answer is yes. While the amendment deletes a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device. Your next two questions asked which air brake system would be required on certain axles for different types of trailers. As indicated above, any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. I note that while the standard does include certain specific requirements for braking at particular axles, all of the requirements amended or adopted in the October 1991 final rule are written in terms of overall vehicle braking performance. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with these requirements, manufacturers must assess how the selection of brake designs at each axle will affect overall braking performance. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, 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 Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam3978OpenThe Honorable Bill Goodling, House of Representatives, 2263 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515; The Honorable Bill Goodling House of Representatives 2263 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20515; Dear Mr. Goodling: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. And Witten of Biglerville, Pennsylvania, concerning our regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.; Mr. Witten believes that Federal law prohibits schools from carryin more than 9 students in a van. He suggested that the law should be changed to allow schools to use the full capacity of 15-passenger vans.; I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for schoo buses. As explained below, there is no Federal law prohibiting schools from transporting 15 school children in a 15-passenger van. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act in 1974 to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date.; The Vehicle Safety act requires any person selling a new 'school bus to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a 'school bus' is defined as a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons and intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. Thus, a 10- or 15-passenger van is considered a school bus if intended for school purposes, and our school bus safety standards apply to those vehicles as well as to larger school buses. If any new school bus does not meet those standards, the seller may be required under the Vehicle Safety Act to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties.; The Federal requirements apply only to the manufacture and sale o school buses, not to their operation. State law determines the requirements which vehicles must meet in order to be licensed for use as school buses. School vehicles that are within Pennsylvania's definition of a 'school bus' are subject to the State's requirements for school buses. We are aware that Pennsylvania has recently amended its definition of a 'school bus' by extending it to vehicles with a capacity of 10 passengers and a driver. Previously, those vehicles were excluded from the definition. Pennsylvania now requires those previously-excluded vehicles to comply with the State's school bus regulations in order to be used as school buses in that State.; The nature of the State's regulations for school bus use is a matte left to Pennsylvania. Our agency has issued recommendations for state highway safety programs regarding the use of school buses in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed), which Pennsylvania may choose to adopt. Program Standard No. 17 is part of a series of program standards covering various aspects of highway safety which are issued by NHTSA under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Pennsylvania may have decided that our recommendations should be made part of the state's comprehensive regulations for school bus usage. Again, however, operating requirements which school buses must meet are determined by State officials.; I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me i you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, 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.