Skip to main content

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



Displaying 5841 - 5850 of 6047
Interpretations Date

ID: 10334

Open

Ms. Debra Platt
2289 Southeast Madison Street
Stuart, FL 34997

Dear Ms. Platt:

This responds to your letter of August 29, 1994, in which you inquire whether a child "partially sitting on a bus seat [is] provided crash protection of Standard 222." You explain that you were referring to a third child sitting on the edge of a bus seat nearest the aisle. The child can only face the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward, because the bench seat is overcrowded.

Some background information would be helpful in responding to your question. 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966) provides this agency the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each new vehicle or item of equipment that is sold to the consumer must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on its date of manufacture. However, once the vehicle or equipment is sold, the use of that product becomes a matter of State jurisdiction. NHTSA has no authority to regulate the operation of used vehicles or items of equipment.

With respect to school buses, it has been shown that school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in America (see enclosed School Bus Safety Report, May 1993). Every year, approximately 380,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.8 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school related activities. Occupant deaths per vehicle mile travelled in school buses are about one-fourth those in passenger cars. Crash protection in large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds and which typically seat 16 or more, is provided by "compartmentalization." That concept requires strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed and evenly- spaced seats for school bus occupant protection. Compartmentalization has been shown to be effective by independent studies of the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences. Small school buses, on the other hand, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and which typically seat fewer than 16 occupants, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions.

Turning to your inquiry, this agency agrees it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, facing the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward. To get the full benefit of compartmentalization, the child occupant should face forward to be cushioned and contained between the strong, well-padded seat backs on the school bus. Thus, Standard 222 requires school bus passenger seats to be forward-facing (paragraph S5.1). When a child is sitting on the edge of the bus seat, as you described, it would seem that either the school bus is overloaded or the passengers are seating themselves improperly, indicating a possible lack of adequate supervision. This agency is seriously concerned about such conditions, but as pointed out above, once a vehicle is sold to the first retail customer, the use of that vehicle becomes the responsibility of the State.

Since the States regulate the use of school buses, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Governor's highway safety representative for Florida is:

Mr. Frank Carlile Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy 605 Suwanne St., MS-57 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Telephone: (904) 922-5820

I am also enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued jointly by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration and provides recommendations to the states on the operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Although these recommendations are not mandatory, they might be helpful in your discussions with school officials.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222 d:10/26/94

1994

ID: 07-003234as-2

Open

Mr. Rolf Bergmann

Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing

Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Bergmann:

This responds to your letter regarding requirements related to the spacing between daytime running lights (DRLs) and turn signals in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Specifically, you asked whether the provision in paragraph S5.5.11(a)(4)(iv) can be met by a system in which the intensity of the DRL (located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a turn signal) is reduced to the photometric output of a parking lamp when the turn signal or hazard warning signal is activated. As discussed below, the answer is no. In order to come within the provision at issue, the DRLs would need to be completely deactivated when the turn signals or hazard lights are on.

FMVSS No. 108 specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Among other things, the standard specifies requirements related to spacing between DRLs and turn signals to ensure that the DRLs do not have the effect of masking the turn signals.

The provision you ask about, S5.5.11(a)(4)(iv), is one of the conditions for an option that is available for DRLs located less than 100 mm from the lighted edge of a turn signal. The condition is that:

The DRL is deactivated when the turn signal or hazard warning signal lamp is activated. (Emphasis added.)

In your letter, you argue that the intent of the option in subsection (iv) does not require that the DRL be totally extinguished when the turn signal or hazard warning is activated, and that reducing the illumination of the DRL to a parking lamp mode should be viewed as deactivation.

We disagree with your suggested interpretation based on the plain language of the standard. If the agency had intended to include dimming of the DRL as part of this option, it would have used language other than deactivated and would have specified the amount of light that could be emitted under the dimmed condition.

We also note that the Federal Register notice adding the language of paragraph S5.5.11(a)(4)(iv) to Standard No. 108 also indicates that dimming the DRL is not a correct interpretation of the standard. In devising the precise requirements of the standard, NHTSA conducted testing of the turn signal masking effect in order to determine appropriate spacing and luminosity regulations. NHTSA tested the masking effect using two variables spacing and relative luminosity. The agency found that increasing the spacing between the DRL and the turn signal was a highly effective means of allowing subjects to see the turn signals while the DRLs were active. On the other hand, the agency found that increasing the intensity of the turn signals (thereby making them brighter relative to the DRLs) had almost no effect on turn signal masking.[1] In its explanation of the rule, the agency explained:

The alternative of brighter turn signals does not resolve the issue. The only effective alternative to prevent turn signal masking would be to extinguish the DRLs during signaling.[2] [Emphasis added]

If you have any further questions, please contact Ari Scott of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony M. Cooke

Chief Counsel

ref:108

d.10/19/07




[1] 58 FR 3504, January 11, 1993.

[2] Id.

2007

ID: 23098a.drn

Open



    The Honorable Todd R. Platts
    Member, U.S. House of Representatives
    2209 East Market Street
    York, PA 17402



    Dear Congressman Platts:

    Thank you for your letter of April 25, 2001, to the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of Congressional Affairs on behalf of your constituent,

    Mr. Dean Thoman, of Glen Rock, PA. Mr. Thoman's church operates a small private school that recently purchased a used 15-passenger van to transport school children for school-related activities. After the purchase, Mr. Thomas found information leading him to believe "it was against federal and State law to use this van to transport school age children for any school activity. " Mr. Thoman then attempted to return the van to the dealer but was refused. Mr. Thoman sought your office's assistance in returning the van and getting a refund. You have asked DOT to review Mr. Thoman's situation. Because you seek information about laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), I have been asked to respond to you.

    Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. '30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. '30125 defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. (1) This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

    The great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of "school bus." More specifically, any new "bus" sold to a school district, or to a private school, is considered to be a "school bus" when sold for pupil transportation, and as such must comply with the school bus safety standards. A dealer or distributor who sells a new bus to a school district or private school that does not meet school bus standards is subject to penalties under the statute.

    Under Federal law, a school district or private school can be sold a used bus (i.e., a 15-passenger van), even though the vehicle could not be sold as a bus when new. This is because NHTSA's requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale," i.e., to sales of used vehicles. Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards.

    Although we cannot assist Mr. Thoman in his efforts to return the 15-passenger van to the dealer for a refund, Mr. Thoman may wish to show this letter and enclosures to the dealer. This will put the dealer on notice that a dealer selling a 15-passenger van for school transportation could be subject to liability in the event of a crash.

    Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

    I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-9511.

    Sincerely,

    John Womack
    Acting Chief Counsel

    Enclosures
    ref:VSA#571.3
    d.6/6/01




    1. 1 NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events.



2001

ID: nht94-4.62

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Platt, Debra, (Florida)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 8/29/94 Letter From Debra Platt To NHTSA Office Of Chief Council (OCC 10334)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 29, 1994, in which you inquire whether a child "partially sitting on a bus seat [is] provided crash protection of Standard 222." You explain that you were referring to a third child sitting on the edge of a bus seat nearest the aisle. The child can only face the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward, because the bench seat is overcrowded.

Some background information would be helpful in responding to your question. 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966) provides this agency the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each new vehicle or item of equipment that is sold to the consumer must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on its date of manufacture. However, once the vehicle or equipment is sold, the use of that product becomes a matter of State jurisdiction. NHTSA has no authority to regulate the operation of used vehicles or items of equipment.

With respect to school buses, it has been shown that school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in America (see enclosed School Bus Safety Report, May 1993). Every year, approximately 380,000 public school buses travel approx imately 3.8 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school related activities. Occupant deaths per vehicle mile travelled in school buses are about one-fourth those in passenger cars. Crash protection in large school buses , those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds and which typically seat 16 or more, is provided by "compartmentalization." That concept requires strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed and evenly-spaced seats for school b us occupant protection. Compartmentalization has been shown to be effective by independent studies of the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences. Small school buses, on the other hand, those with a GVWR of 10,000 poun ds or less and which typically seat fewer than 16 occupants, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions.

Turning to your inquiry, this agency agrees it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, facing the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward. To get the full benefit of compartmentalization, the child occupant should f ace forward to be cushioned and contained between the strong, well-padded seat backs on the school bus. Thus, Standard 222 requires school bus passenger seats to be forward-facing (paragraph S5.1). When a child is sitting on the edge of the bus seat, a s you described, it would seem that either the school bus is overloaded or the passengers are seating themselves improperly, indicating a possible lack of adequate supervision. This agency is seriously concerned about such conditions, but as pointed out above, once a vehicle is sold to the first retail customer, the use of that vehicle becomes the responsibility of the State.

Since the States regulate the use of school buses, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Governor's highway safety representative for Florida is:

Mr. Frank Carlile

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

605 Suwanne St., MS-57

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Telephone: (904) 922-5820

I am also enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued jointly by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration and provides recommendations to the states on the operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Although these recommendations are not mandatory, they might be helpful in your discussions with school officials.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.7

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. Harold Sousa

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/31/94 letter from Harold Sousa to NHTSA Counsel

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sousa:

This responds to your letter asking about whether you can import a product into the United States. You stated that the product uses air pressure from a vehicle's brake system to "prevent the air from escaping from the tires of trucks and buses" and "kee ps air pressure in the case of puncture (sic)." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how this agency's requirements apply to the manufacture and importation of such a product. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regulates the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under our governing statute, the manufacturer must certify that its vehic le or equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Importers are included in the definition of "manufacturer" under our statute.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering a tire pressure device such as you describe. However, since this device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

If the device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

One relevant issue is whether your device is considered an integral part of the brake system in the sense that it would need to comply with certain of Standard No. 121's requirements. A related issue is whether certain parts of the device are considered brake hoses and therefore subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses.

We do not have sufficient information about your device to specifically address these issues. I can advise you, however, that your device would not be considered part of the braking system if it were separated from the vehicle's main braking system by a check valve in such way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device. Moreover, if your device is not considered to be part of the braking system, it would not be subject to Standard No. 106.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a repair shop, the repair shop would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device o r element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

You should also be aware that all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process, notices, orders, and decisions. This designation is to be mailed to the Chief Counsel of NHTSA. In accordance with 49 CFR 551.45, the designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

7. The signature of one with authority to appoint the agency. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

ID: pedlok.ogm

Open

Mr. Chris Webre
President
Safety Systems and Controls, Inc.
2400 Campbell Rd. #H
Houston, TX 77080

Dear Mr. Webre:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal standards to a product you have developed. You stated that your company produces a product known as the PED-Lok. According to your letter, the PED-Lok automatically applies service brake pressure to the rear brakes of a school bus when the loading and unloading warning lights are flashing and the passenger door is opened. You asked if Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) apply to this product.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

A review of Standard No. 121 indicates that this standard does not contain any provisions directly applicable to your product. However, I note that as your product is directly connected to the air brake system, a leak or malfunction in the device could have an effect on brake performance.

If an auxiliary device such as the PED-Lok is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 121. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122). Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" prohibition does not require manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses to certify that vehicles continue to comply with the safety standards after any aftermarket modifications are made. Instead, "make inoperative" prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards.

Please note that the "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

In addition, as the manufacturer of the PED-Lok, Safety Systems and Controls would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer. Safety Systems and Controls would be subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). A "defect" includes "any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle safety" is defined as "the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance." 49 U.S.C. 30102.

If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. Repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. Replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the determination that defect existed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:121
d.6/20/00

2000

ID: 18859.ztv

Open

Andre Hubert, President
Electro Design Stan Inc.
50 Daoust
St-Eustache, Qc J7R 5B5

Dear Mr. Hubert:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Mr. George Entwistle of this agency which was forwarded to this office for response. Your letter seeks to clarify the classification of the Electro-Radar which you intend to export to the United States in the near future. You enclosed a promotional brochure describing the unit and a tariff classification ruling from the U.S. Customs Service.

You described the Electro-Radar as a radar system mounted on a trailer that is used by municipalities and other transportation departments to determine the speed of passing motor vehicles, then display in large LED numbers both the applicable speed limit and the speed of the vehicle. You stated that the unit is mounted on a trailer for transport from one site to another. Once at a site the equipment is installed and remains at the same site for periods varying from one day to several weeks. You asked whether this unit may be excluded from the definition of a motor vehicle as long as it has the required lighting equipment and if so, which box on the NHTSA Form HS-7, DECLARATION - Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards, corresponds to your situation.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (hereinafter Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

Whether your Electro-Radar is considered to be a motor vehicle depends on its intended use. It is NHTSA's position that the statutory definition quoted above does not envision, for example, mobile construction equipment such as cranes and scrapers that use the public roadways only for transport between off-road job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at those off-road sites. In such cases, the on-road use of that equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. This contrasts with vehicles such as dump trucks that frequently use the public roadways going to and from off-road job sites but remain at those sites for only a limited period of time. Those vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act since their on-road use is more than merely "incidental."

The descriptive brochure of the Electro-Radar shows that it is a small, very mobile unit that can be easily towed from site to site over the public roads. Not only is the unit towed on-road while being transported to its next site, the brochure shows that the unit is likely to be used on the public streets or roads as a means of traffic speed control. Your letter states that the units are utilized at those sites from one day to several weeks, which means that the units are frequently transported over the public roads. Such frequent transportation of the Electro-Radar over the public streets and roads is more than merely incidental to the use for which it was manufactured. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the unit meets the definition of a motor vehicle and as you stated, would be classified as a trailer.

A "trailer" is defined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Thus, in order to be imported into the United States, the Electro-Radar must comply with all FMVSSs applicable to trailers. For your information, I am enclosing a fact sheet entitled Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers. Please note that, among other things, the trailer must be assigned a vehicle identification number (VIN) that complies with 49 CFR Part 565 and be certified as prescribed in 49 CFR Part 567.

You also asked which box should be marked on the Form HS-7 if the trailer is considered a motor vehicle. For the trailer in question, you should mark Box 2A.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers or Taylor Vinson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 or 366-5263 respectively, or either by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref:108;#VSA
d.5/4/99

1999

ID: 20077.drn

Open

Heather A. Hale, Esq.
Hale, Stein, Fosdick, Murphy,
Hale and Associates, P.C.
P. O. Box 51107
Livonia, MI 48151-1077

Dear Ms. Hale:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of dealers' responsibilities when selling12-15 passenger vans to child care facilities. You ask two questions that are answered below.

Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses.

Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which NHTSA decides is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

Your first question concerns NHTSA's position that Head Start programs and pre-schools are "schools" while day care facilities that are custodial in nature are not "schools."

NHTSA still observes the distinction between facilities that provide educational programs and those that are strictly custodial. We do not consider day care centers that are custodial in nature to be "schools."

Your second question was whether NHTSA's restrictions relating to the sale or lease of new "school buses" would apply to vehicles sold or leased to a child care facility which is custodial in nature and which would transport children between the children's homes and the facility.

The response to this question assumes that no "significant" transportation "to or from school or school-related activities" would be provided. If transportation would be provided strictly between the children's homes and the custodial facility, a dealer would not be required to sell a school bus for this purpose. If, however, the bus would also be used significantly to transport children between the facility and a school, the dealer would be required to sell a school bus, even though the purchaser was the day care provider rather than the school. In recent interpretations, we have stressed that it is the purpose for which the bus is used, not the identity of the purchaser, that determines whether a dealer must sell a school bus or may sell another type of bus.

In fully answering the second question, I ask that you take the following into consideration. At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating, in 1998 and 1999, four crashes in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." The NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using 12 to 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Information about NTSB's nonconforming bus report is available from the NTSB's Public Affairs Office at (202) 314-6100.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.8/6/99

1999

ID: 8354

Open

The Honorable Nick Smith
Member, United States House of
Representatives
121 South Cochran Avenue
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your letter regarding the inquiry from your constituent, Dave Globig of Spring Arbor College, concerning Federal requirements for the transportation of school children. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations on this subject.

Mr. Globig's understanding is that Federal law "will not allow certification of any vans made after 1995 and, after 1997, will not allow any vans to be certified." You stated that Mr. Globig was concerned about purchasing expensive vehicles and finding out later that "they cannot be certified."

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of school bus safety standards that ensures that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation. These standards require school buses to have safety features that include emergency exits, strengthened body panel joints, protective seating and special lamps and mirrors. Our regulations require manufacturers to self-certify the compliance of their vehicles. Our regulations also require each person selling a new school bus to sell only buses that have been certified by the manufacturer as meeting these school bus safety standards.

Under our regulations, a motor vehicle, including a van, designed to carry 11 or more persons (including the driver) is classified as a "bus." A "school bus" is defined as a bus that is sold "for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." The term "school" refers to preprimary, primary, and secondary school.

With regard to Mr. Globig's belief that after 1995, Federal law will not allow any vans to be certified, there is no such prohibition going in effect. NHTSA has no requirement that would prevent a manufacturer from certifying its van as meeting all applicable FMVSSs, including the school bus standards, if the vehicle in fact complied with those standards.

There are two issues we would like to bring to Mr. Globig's attention. The first issue relates to which requirements apply to the use of school vehicles. The responsibility for complying with our school bus requirements rests with the manufacturer and seller of a new bus. The school purchaser, on the other hand, has no obligation under our regulations to purchase and use a complying school bus, or any other type of vehicle. Since Federal law applies only to the manufacture and sale of a new vehicle, under our regulations, a school may use any vehicle it chooses to transport its students. NHTSA does not have the authority to prevent a school from using any of its vehicles.

Once a new vehicle has been sold, the use of that vehicle becomes subject to state law. Thus, Mr. Globig should contact state officials for information about any requirements Michigan might have concerning the use of vans as school vehicles. NHTSA strongly recommends that school children only be carried in vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards. We have enclosed for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. '401, et seq., which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines to which states may refer in developing their own highway safety programs. Guideline 17, jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration, provides recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. The Guideline recommends, among other things, that any school vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons should comply with all Federal safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

The second issue concerns the meaning of "school" with respect to our school bus safety standards. The school bus safety requirements apply only to new buses used to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary school children. If Mr. Globig is asking about a college, such an institution is not considered a "school" as that term is used in our regulations. Therefore, new buses sold for transporting college students are not required to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to your constituent. Should Mr. Globig have additional questions or need additional information, he should feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:571 d:2/27/95

1995

ID: nht95-1.76

Open

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 27, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nick Smith -- Member, United States House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/17/95 LETTER FROM NICK SMITH TO REGINA SULLIVEN

TEXT: Thank you for your letter regarding the inquiry from your constituent, Dave Globig of Spring Arbor College, concerning Federal requirements for the transportation of school children. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations on this subje ct.

Mr. Globig's understanding is that Federal law "will not allow certification of any vans made after 1995 and, after 1997, will not allow any vans to be certified." You stated that Mr. Globig was concerned about purchasing expensive vehicles and finding o ut later that "they cannot be certified."

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under that a uthority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of school bus safety standards that ensures that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation. These standards require school buses to have safety features that include emergency exits, strengthen ed body panel joints, protective seating and special lamps and mirrors. Our regulations require manufacturers to self-certify the compliance of their vehicles. Our regulations also require each person selling a new school bus to sell only buses that ha ve been certified by the manufacturer as meeting these school bus safety standards.

Under our regulations, a motor vehicle, including a van, designed to carry 11 or more persons (including the driver) is classified as a "bus." A "school bus" is defined as a bus that is sold "for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." The term "school" refers to preprimary, primary, and secondary school.

With regard to Mr. Globig's belief that after 1995, Federal law will not allow any vans to be certified, there is no such prohibition going in effect. NHTSA has no requirement that would prevent a manufacturer from certifying its van as meeting all appl icable FMVSSs, including the school bus standards, if the vehicle in fact complied with those standards.

There are two issues we would like to bring to Mr. Globig's attention. The first issue relates to which requirements apply to the use of school vehicles. The responsibility for complying with our school bus requirements rests with the manufacturer and s eller of a new bus. The school purchaser, on the other hand, has no obligation under our regulations to purchase and use a complying school bus, or any other type of vehicle. Since Federal law applies only to the manufacture and sale of a new vehicle, under our regulations, a school may use any vehicle it chooses to transport its students. NHTSA does not have the authority to prevent a school from using any of its vehicles.

Once a new vehicle has been sold, the use of that vehicle becomes subject to state law. Thus, Mr. Globig should contact state officials for information about any requirements Michigan might have concerning the use of vans as school vehicles. NHTSA stro ngly recommends that school children only be carried in vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards. We have enclosed for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issu ed under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. @@ 401, et seq., which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines to which states may refer in developing their own highway safety programs. Guideline 17, jointly issued by t his agency and the Federal Highway Administration, provides recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. The Guideline recommends, among other things, that any school vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons should comply with all Federal safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

The second issue concerns the meaning of "school" with respect to our school bus safety standards. The school bus safety requirements apply only to new buses used to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary school children. If Mr. Globig is asking a bout a college, such an institution is not considered a "school" as that term is used in our regulations. Therefore, new buses sold for transporting college students are not required to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to your constituent. Should Mr. Globig have additional questions or need additional information, he should feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

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.

Go to top of page