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: aiam4159OpenMr. Benjamin R. Jackson, Executive Director, Automobile Importers Compliance Association, 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20009; Mr. Benjamin R. Jackson Executive Director Automobile Importers Compliance Association 1607 New Hampshire Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20009; Dear Mr. Jackson: This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin of our Rulemakin division, in which you requested an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. Specifically, you asked for a written confirmation of Mr. McLauglin's statement that only lines listed in Appendix A of Part 541 must be marked in compliance with Part 541. Mr. McLauglin's statement was correct.; Your concern appears to arise from the fact that direct importer sometimes import car lines not offered for sale in the United States by the original manufacturer. Such lines may have a majority of major parts interchangeable with the major parts of a car line offered for sale in the United States and listed in Appendix A of Part 541 as a high theft line subject to the theft prevention standard. Section 603(a)(1)(C) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(1)(C)) specifies that lines that have a majority of major parts interchangeable with the major parts of a high theft line are themselves high theft lines for the purposes of the theft prevention standard. Accordingly, you were concerned that the direct importers might be statutorily required to make determinations of interchangeability with the lines listed in Appendix A, and mark those lines that had a majority of major parts interchangeable with those of a listed high theft line. This is not the case.; Section 603(a)(2) of the Cost Savings Act specifies: 'The specifi lines ... which are to be subject to the standard may be selected by agreement between that manufacturer and NHTSA . If the manufacturer and NHTSA disagree as to such selection, NHTSA shall select such lines ...' The agency followed these procedures and arrived at the selections of high theft lines listed in Appendix A. All lines not listed in Appendix A are not required to be marked in accordance with Part 541, because they have not been selected as high theft lines in accordance with section 603(a)(2) of the Cost Savings Act.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5641OpenMr. Jim Schroeder Graco Inc. P.O. Box 1441 Minneapolis, MN 55440; Mr. Jim Schroeder Graco Inc. P.O. Box 1441 Minneapolis MN 55440; Dear Mr. Schroeder: This responds to your inquiry about the Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) with which your trailer must comply. You state that your company plans to manufacture a trailer mounted striper that applies reflective paint stripes to roadways. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that your trailer will spend a significant amount of time traveling on public roads between job sites. Please note that we are returning the photographs attached to your letter that were marked confidential. As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the FMVSSs are promulgated. The statute 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. Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and telephone conversation that the trailer spends extended periods of time on the public roads moving between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be its primary purpose. The following Federal safety standards apply to trailers: Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which address conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Numbers, and Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, while your vehicle is not required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. In addition as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, you would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567. 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, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel Enclosures; |
|
ID: aiam5371OpenMr. Donald F. Lett Lett Electronics Company 410 North Plum Hutchinson, KS 67501; Mr. Donald F. Lett Lett Electronics Company 410 North Plum Hutchinson KS 67501; "Dear Mr. Lett: This responds to your letter to me in which you aske whether any 'pre- necessary authorization' is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume 'pre-necessary authorization' means this agency's prior approval or permission to modify the tires in the manner you propose. You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a 'D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire' into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self- certification system, neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSSs. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations. We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance. It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Therefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the tire. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer would constitute a violation of 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously-complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above. Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters 'DOT' appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties. In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely affected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems. Finally, I note that you used the term 'previously D.O.T. approved' tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation 'approves' tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the 'DOT' code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam2001OpenMr. David E. Hatch, Development Project Director, Product Development Division, Reynolds Metals Company, 5th and Cary Streets, Richmond, VA 23261; Mr. David E. Hatch Development Project Director Product Development Division Reynolds Metals Company 5th and Cary Streets Richmond VA 23261; Dear Mr. Hatch: This is in response to your letter of July 14, 1975, asking whethe recycled replacement bumpers must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 215, *Exterior Protection*, and which States have bumper requirements that exceed the level of performance mandated by the Federal standard.; Standard No. 215 is a motor vehicle safety standard that applies to th performance of bumper systems on cars manufactured after certain dates. The requirements of the standard are not imposed on the manufacturers of the bumper as an item of motor vehicle equipment. It is the manufacturer of the car who must certify the compliance of the bumper system with the provisions of Standard 215. Therefore, the sale of a bumper, as an item of replacement equipment, does not fall within the application of the standard.; Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub L. 89-563), as amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, even though a recycled bumper is not required to meet the requirements of Standard 215 when it is produced or sold, its installation on a car by one of the above-named persons would invoke the application of section 108 of the Act. As long as a vehicle complies either with the particular safety standard in effect at the time of its manufacture or with the standard in effect at the time the system in question is replaced or altered, no violation of section 108 would have occurred.; The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972 (Pub. L 92-513) directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to promulgate a Federal bumper standard that will achieve the maximum feasible reduction in costs to consumers who are involved in low speed collisions. Currently, several States have bumper standards that are geared toward the same type of cost reduction. According to section 110 of the Cost Savings Act, States with cost-reduction standards (applying to non-safety-related damage) that were in effect or promulgated by the date of the Act's issuance (October 20, 1972) can retain those standards, to the extent they do not conflict with Standard No. 215, until a Federal cost-reduction bumper standard takes effect. Once the NHTSA enacts such a Federal bumper standard, those bumper standards which are not identical will be preempted.; As far as we know, the only States which currently have bumpe standards imposing requirements different from those contained in Standard 215 are California, Florida, and Georgia.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3625OpenConfidential; Confidential; Dear Confidential: This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1982, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*. You have asked whether the standard permits three-wheeled motorcycles to be equipped with a reverse gear.; Standard No. 123 applies only to motorcycles with handlebars, which ar generally those machines with two wheels. As the standard is silent with respect to reverse gears, the agency considers that a manufacturer of a three-wheeled motorcycle with handlebars may provide and locate a reverse gear change mechanism wherever he deems appropriate.; This office can offer no comments on three-wheeled motorcycle safety i general. However, I suggest that you contact NHTSA's Office of Research and Development. Several years ago it conducted a study of three-wheeled vehicles, and as I recall, a configuration with two wheels in front and one behind was found to offer greater stability than the converse.; We shall delete your name and that of your company from the publicl available copies of this letter, in accordance with your wish for confidentiality.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4490OpenMr. Robert W. Hocken General Manager Phoenix Transit System P.O. Box 4275 Phoenix, AZ 85030; Mr. Robert W. Hocken General Manager Phoenix Transit System P.O. Box 4275 Phoenix AZ 85030; Dear Mr. Hocken: This is in reply to your letter of December l6, l98 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have received a 'Service Information Safety Related letter' from Flxible Corporation stating that deceleration warning lights installed on your buses do not comply with Standard No. 108. You have also asked how you may file for 'Special Exception' if your buses are not in compliance. This will confirm that Flxible Corporation, pursuant to applicable Federal regulations, has determined that certain buses produced by it, including the 67 units furnished Phoenix, do not comply with Standard No. 108, and has initiated a notification and remedy campaign (Campaign 87V-089). The basis of this determination was the manufacturer's conclusion that flashing amber deceleration warning lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stop lamps. The company has advised you of the corrective action to be taken, that is, to remove the deceleration flasher. Although the agency encourages owners of campaigned vehicles to remedy noncompliances, the decision whether to do so rests with the vehicle owner. There is no Federal requirement that an owner correct a noncompliance that exists in his vehicle, and no penalty for his failure to do so. Thus, no 'Special Exception' is either needed or available for an owner who wishes to continue operating a vehicle in a noncompliant state. We are interested in your comment that you experienced a 44 percent reduction in accidents in l985, the first full year that the system was installed on all your buses, compared with l984. This report compares favorably with the accident reduction experienced in our test fleets of passenger cars equipped with center highmounted stop lamps, which was the basis for eventual adoption of that requirement. The agency is engaged in research pertaining to the conspicuity of large vehicles, and would find it helpful to have a copy of the data upon which you based your comment. It should be sent to Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Research and Development, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. We appreciate your interest in safety. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam1407OpenMr. Joseph P. O'Sullivan, Office of the Attorney General, State of Kansas, State Capitol Building, Topeka, KS 66612; Mr. Joseph P. O'Sullivan Office of the Attorney General State of Kansas State Capitol Building Topeka KS 66612; Dear Mr. O'Sullivan: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1974, concerning th application of the Federal odometer law to certain automobile (sic) operated by the Kansas State Department of Education. The cars in question are equipped with special odometers whose use normally requires the disconnection of the original equipment odometers.; The question posed by the Department of Education is whether thi practice violates the Federal law and whether the Department must keep the special odometer in the car when selling it. Our reply is that the Department is not violating the Federal law, and that while it must make certain disclosures when it sells the cars, it need not leave the special odometers installed.; Sections 404 and 405 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act (15 U.S.C. 1981) (sic) make it unlawful for a person to disconnect an odometer with the intent to change the number of miles it indicates (section 404) and for a person with the intent to defraud to operate a vehicle with an inoperative odometer (section 405).; With respect to section 404, it does not appear that the Departmen will be changing the indicated mileage. With respect to section 405, it is apparent that the Department has no fraudulent intent in operating the vehicles with the standard odometers disconnected. We therefore find that the Department's practice does not violate the odometer law and may be continued.; We suggest that in executing the disclosure statement required b Section 408 of the Act, the Department should indicate that the indicated mileage is in error. Although section 408 does not require disclosure of the true mileage, we regard full disclosure to be in the public interest and therefore recommend that the Department also include the true mileage on the disclosure statement. By doing this, it will avoid any appearance of deceptive intent.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3165OpenMr. E. M. Ryan, Ward Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 849, Highway 65 South, Conway, AR 72032; Mr. E. M. Ryan Ward Industries Inc. P.O. Box 849 Highway 65 South Conway AR 72032; Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your October 8, 1979, letter asking whether your ne bus design will comply with Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. The window exit that you plan to install in the bus would slide open rather than push out and would be operated by a squeeze-type force application that is parallel to the horizontal centerline of the bus.; Standard No. 217 requires buses to be equipped with emergency exit that comply with a variety of requirements. In the case of window exits, the force application for opening them depends upon the location of the release mechanism. For example, the required force application in the high force access region, according to the standard (S5.3.2), is straight and perpendicular to the exit surface.; In applying the above requirement to your vehicle, it appears that you bus would not comply with the standard. From the pictures that you enclosed with your letter, it appears that your release mechanism falls in the high force access region. If so, the force application for opening the exit is in the incorrect direction as specified by the standard. Further, your bus would use window exits that slide open rather than push out. Although, sliding emergency exits are not prohibited by the standard, they must comply with all of the standard's requirements. Also, they must be capable of complying when the non-exit half of the window is either open or closed. The agency prefers the use of push-out emergency exits, because they are less likely to 'bind up' during a side impact than sliding emergency exits.; The standard was written in its present form to provide uniformity o emergency exits in buses. A uniform exit system can help prevent confusion during accidents and facilitate emergency exit of vehicles. The vehicle that you plan to build would be unlike other buses now in operation with respect to emergency exits. The NHTSA does not think that this would be desirable or in the interest of safety.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5081OpenMs. Shirley A. Stewart President SAS Electrical Service, Inc. 1601 Society Court Herndon, VA 22070; Ms. Shirley A. Stewart President SAS Electrical Service Inc. 1601 Society Court Herndon VA 22070; "Dear Ms. Stewart: This responds to your letter of October 16, 1992, t this office regarding the installation of a 'silent monitor' on school buses. You stated in your letter that you made a presentation to Mr. Maurice Hicks and Mr. Rich Van Iderstine of this agency at a meeting on October 2, 1992, and you asked how our standards apply to installation of this device on school buses. You described the silent monitor as a six-inch cube of welded steel designed to house a video camera to monitor the interior of school buses. You explained that the device is installed in the interior access panel above the bus windshield facing the passenger compartment. The box protrudes into the interior of the bus by three to four inches. The front of the box, which swings open for installation of a video camera, contains a reflective solar glass window to prevent glare on the inside of the box. By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering silent monitors. However, it is possible that the installation of a silent monitor could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards. All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your silent monitor is installed in a new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, if your silent monitor is installed in a used school bus, any businesses, including your own, making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards. We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have responsibilities under the Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151, et seq., of the Safety Act, such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge. In order to determine how installation of your silent monitors could affect the compliance of school buses with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those addressing school bus body joint strength, crash protection, and windshield intrusion. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. As indicated above, you stated that your silent monitor would be installed in the interior access panel above the bus windshield facing the passenger compartment. Given the added weight that would be on the panel, we suggest that you carefully evaluate whether additional securement of the panel is needed to ensure that the panel and silent monitor do not come loose during a crash. We also note that the silent monitor appears to have sharp edges. You may wish to consider adding padding to prevent injury to an occupant who comes in contact with the monitor. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure"; |
|
ID: aiam4358OpenMr. Allan Fogel, New York City Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Management Audit, 161 William Street, New York, NY 10038; Mr. Allan Fogel New York City Office of the Comptroller Bureau of Management Audit 161 William Street New York NY 10038; Dear Mr. Fogel: This responds to your March 6, 1987 letter to my office asking whethe we consider a 'Mobile Instructional Unit' (MIU) to be a 'school bus.' You wish to know whether Federal school bus safety standards apply to such a vehicle. You have asked, in addition, whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on hydraulic brakes applies to an MIU. It is my opinion that the MIU is not a school bus under the applicable Federal law and regulations and is thus not required to meet the school bus standards. If the MIU is equipped with air brakes, it is not subject to the hydraulic brake standard.; The background information you provide explains that the MIU is self-propelled unit built on a new or used school bus chassis. MIU's are 'completely self-contained with all furnishings, (including desks for 10 pupils).' When an MIU is built with a used chassis, the Board of Educator's contractor guts the interior of the bus and constructs a classroom facility within the shell. According to your letter, the MIU's are never used to transport pupils: 'The empty vehicle is driven to the site by the contractor where it is parked and then pupils and teacher enter the vehicle. At the end of the day after instruction, the pupils and teacher disembark and the empty vehicle is driven back to the garage by the contractor.'; Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381- 1431) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. We have issued several standards which apply to school buses, a class of vehicle defined by the Act as 'likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary or secondary school students to or from schools or events related to such schools.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)) The bus from which an MIU is built would have had to comply with the school bus standards at the time of its original manufacture. As long as a bus continues to be used as a school bus, the law does not allow a contractor to modify it in a way that takes it out of compliance with the school bus standards. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) However, if the bus is modified so that it will no longer be used to transport students, it ceases to be a school bus and does not have to continue to meet the standards applicable exclusively to school buses. In the case of the MIU, it seems clear that the vehicle would no longer be suitable for transporting students to or from school. The MIU would thus not have to meet the school bus standards.; Although the school bus standards would not apply, the MIU woul continue to be a motor vehicle and would continue to be subject to other standards under the Act. You have asked about the applicability of Standard No. 105, *Hydraulic Brakes*. Since the buses from which the MIU's are built were originally equipped with air brakes, the hydraulic brake standards would not apply to them. However, these is a separate standard for air braked vehicles, Standard No. 121, a copy of which I have enclosed. If the contractor built an MIU in a way that impaired the air brake system, he or she might be in violation of the Act. The contractor would also have to ensure that several other regulated safety systems -- the windshield wipers, the driver's safety belt, etc. -- remained operative.; MIU's built with new chassis also fall outside the ambit of the Safet Act's school bus definition. Since they are not school buses under Federal law, the MIU's are not subject to our school bus safety standards. However, the MIU's would be subject to other standards, including Standard No. 121 for air braked vehicles. The contractor should be able to inform you of the compliance of the vehicles with applicable Federal safety standards.; Since you may be interested in reviewing the standards which apply t vehicles such as the MIU, I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if you hav further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, 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.