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: aiam4874OpenMr. Keith Salsman 1296 Carman Court Conyers, Ga. 30208; Mr. Keith Salsman 1296 Carman Court Conyers Ga. 30208; Dear Mr. Salsman: This responds to your letter of April 16, l99l asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to the 'Braking Intensity Array' that you have invented. The device is an array of nine rear lamps which include a high mounted stop lamp. The center lamp responds to pressure on the brake pedal. If 'actual braking' occurs, then the lamps adjacent to the center lamp 'will respond appropriately with the adjacent lights lighting under mild braking force', and the remaining pairs of lamps lighting as the braking force increases. You have assured us that the center lamp meets all requirements of Standard No. 108, and that the remaining lamps in the array are controlled by a separate device and will not operate independently. As we see it, the acceptability of your invention under Standard No. 108 is not dependent upon any of the five sections of the standard that you quote. The four pairs of lamps that flank the designed-to-conform center stop lamp are 'additional lamps' within the meaning of S5.1.3, which prohibits the installation of any additional lamp as original equipment if it 'impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by' Standard No. 108. Whether impairment exists is a determination to be made by the person installing the lamp as original equipment, either the manufacturer or the dealer prior to the vehicle's first sale. In this instance, it does not appear to us from your description of the array that it would impair the effectiveness of the center lamp or other stop lamps on a vehicle. We would be concerned if the size of the array is such that the interior rear view mirror could not meet the field of view requirements of Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors, however, if the field of view is not met, the standard allows, as an alternative, the installation of an exterior rear view mirror on the passenger side. Although your array may be permissible under Federal law, it remains subject to regulation by the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on State laws and suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam4983OpenMr. Allan Schwartz President, Tron Industries, Inc. 9130 Wiles Road, Suite 142 Coral Springs, FL 33067; Mr. Allan Schwartz President Tron Industries Inc. 9130 Wiles Road Suite 142 Coral Springs FL 33067; "Dear Mr. Schwartz: This responds to your letter of April 16, 1992, t Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for 'an opinion why the State of Louisiana has not adopted the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive accessory lighting.' Lumitron is described as 'an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product.' You state that it is 'legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle.' You further state that both the Florida Highway Patrol and Kevin Cavey of this agency 'confirmed' your findings that Lumitron 'falls under' Standard No. 108. However, the State of Louisiana has 'not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting.' It appears that authorities in Louisiana believe Lumitron is legal but it has to be approved by the Commissioner. You have asked us for 'a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that state.' Contrary to your assumption and those of the officials you mention, Lumitron is not covered by Standard No. 108. The only aftermarket equipment directly regulated by the standard is equipment intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as headlamps. Such is not the case with Lumitron. Standard No. 108 was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We have interpreted that Act as prohibiting the installation on a vehicle of aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that, in the words of the statute, 'render inoperative in whole or in part' any of the vehicle's required lighting equipment. We understand that Lumitron casts a light on the pavement under the vehicle. We would, of course, be concerned if the intensity of that light served to mask the intensity of such required lighting items as turn signal and stop lamps, or served to distract other drivers so that the lamps required lamps might be considered partially inoperative. Regulation of aftermarket equipment such as Lumitron is within the jurisdiction of each State where Lumitron is sold and used, and the Commissioner in Louisiana may proceed as he deems fit. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but if you are interested in how the laws of other jurisdictions may affect Lumitron, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4827OpenWilliam J. Bethurum, Esq. Patent Attorney Jefferson Place - Suite 302 350 North Ninth Street Boise, Idaho 83702; William J. Bethurum Esq. Patent Attorney Jefferson Place - Suite 302 350 North Ninth Street Boise Idaho 83702; Dear Mr. Bethurum: Your letter of December 14, 1990, to the 'U.S National Highway Safety Commission' for reply. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is the Federal agency responsible for establishing and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your client, Mr. E.D. Farnsworth, has asked about 'when and how side lights adjacent to the main head lights came to be first used with head lights on automobiles.' You have, in turn, asked to be apprised of the regulations which govern new headlamp designs for automobiles and other motor vehicles. The Federal regulations that apply to motor vehicle headlamps are found in 49 C.F.R. 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The current version of the CFR volume (Parts 400 to 999) containing that standard is updated to October 1, l990. We are uncertain as to what you mean by 'side lights adjacent to the main head lights'. Standard No. 108 requires amber or white parking lamps on the front of passenger cars and other types of motor vehicles whose overall width is less than 80 inches, amber turn signal lamps, and amber front side marker lamps. Other types of lamps that are sometimes found on the front, and on the side at the front, are fog lamps and cornering lamps. They are not required by Standard No. 108, and are permissible as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. Standard No. 108, which has been in effect for passenger cars since January l, l969 (the mandatory requirement for a side marker lamp replaced the earlier provision giving manufacturers a choice of lamp or reflector effective January 1, l970), has always prescribed lamp location in general terms. Thus, parking lamps and headlamps are to be installed 'at the front' and 'as far apart as practicable' (Table IV of Standard No. 108). Similarly, turn signals are to be located 'at or near the front' and 'as far apart as practicable.' Amber side marker lamps are to be on the side but placed 'as far to the front as practicable.' Because Standard No. 108 does not otherwise specify lamp location, we surmise that the head lamp and adjacent side lamp relationship to which you refer resulted from the choice of the vehicle manufacturer within the overall general parameters of the Federal specifications. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam5215OpenJerry G. Thorn, Esq. General Counsel, OGC-040 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, DC 20207; Jerry G. Thorn Esq. General Counsel OGC-040 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington DC 20207; "Dear Mr. Thorn: This responds to your letter of June 22, 199 requesting an interpretation of whether an aerosol brake cleaning product marketed under the Solder Seal/Gunk brand is considered 'motor vehicle equipment' under section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As explained in further detail below, this item is considered motor vehicle equipment. As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle .... In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to the brake cleaning aerosol, it appears that the product would be an accessory under the Safety Act. This is based on the information provided in your letter and by Harleigh Ewell of your office to David Elias of mine in a July 23, 1993 telephone conversation. An advertisement you enclosed for the brake cleaning aerosol contains statements (e.g., 'quickly dissolve and flush away brake fluid,' and 'helps to eliminate brake squeal and `chatter'') indicating that a substantial portion of the expected use of the product is related to maintaining motor vehicles. Also, according to Mr. Ewell, the product is sold in auto supply stores, which further indicates its intended use with motor vehicles. Second, based on the product's purpose as suggested by statements on the advertisement, (e.g., 'cleans and evaporates almost instantly,' 'can be applied without disassembly of the unit,' and 'keep out of reach of children') and by the type of store that retails the product, it appears that the aerosol brake cleaner is intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias at the above address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam0233OpenMr. Donald B. Haaversen, 2833 Harriet Avenue, South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408; Mr. Donald B. Haaversen 2833 Harriet Avenue South Minneapolis Minnesota 55408; Dear Mr. Haaversen: Thank you for your letter of March 9, 1970, to the National Highwa Safety Bureau, concerning our Federal motor vehicle tire standards.; The only tire standard promulgated to date is Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standard No. 109, 'New Pneumatic Tires-Passenger Cars' which was effective January 1, 1968. This standard specifies minimum performance for size, strength, endurance, high speed laboratory testing and labeling. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 109 and No. 110 with amendments.; The replies to your specific questions are as follows: >>>1. *Question:* New American made tires have DOT load ranges, loa capacity and inflation pressures molded into the sidewall. Is this required (that they be *permanently* marked), or is it sufficient to affix a temporary marking (such as a sticker) with this same information?; *Response:* Section S4.3 states that this information shall b permanently molded into or onto all new passenger car tires manufactured after August 1, 1968. If the tire was manufactured between January 1, 1968 and July 31, 1968 the labeling requirements may be met by use of a label or tag.; 2. *Question:* How is load capacity information arrived at? Is it b manufacturer certification, government conducted tests, or some other method?; *Response:* The load/inflation schedule is calculated by use o empirical formulas and coordinated through the various Tire and Rim Associations as well as the Society of Automotive Engineers.; 3. *Question:* Is it necessary that these tires be subject to safet tests? These particular tires are already imported by another organization and may already have passed the necessary tests, if any.; *Response:* The application of the 'DOT' recital to a tire, is the tir manufacturers self certification that his tire conforms to all the minimum performance standards of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.<<<; I have also enclosed for your review and information the followin data:; >>>1. U.S. Customs Regulations for Importation of Motor Vehicles an Items of Motor Vehicle Equipment.; 2. Automobiles Imported Into the United States.<<< Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5295OpenCheryl Graham, District Manager Northeast Region ARI P.O. Box 5039 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054; Cheryl Graham District Manager Northeast Region ARI P.O. Box 5039 Mt. Laurel NJ 08054; "Dear Ms. Graham: We have received your letter of November 10, 1993 asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps 'at each side of the rear window.' By way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole restraint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not 'knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the 'device or element of design', then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by your letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps. NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three-lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in preventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe. The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the taillamp). Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array. We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would 'render inoperative' the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. You have also asked 'if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?' This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam4147OpenJacques M. Delphin, M.D., 84 Haight Avenue, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603; Jacques M. Delphin M.D. 84 Haight Avenue Poughkeepsie NY 12603; Dear Dr. Delphin: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1986, enclosing description of your device to improve car signals, and asking about the regulations applicable to it.; According to the information that you furnished, the device 'cancel turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn'. The purpose of the device is to eliminate 'the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch'. The effect of the device is 'to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals'.; As you know, pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, have been required to have self- cancelling turn signal indicators. However, there are no performance requirements for the self-cancelling feature. As a general rule, motor vehicle lighting equipment not required by Standard No. 108 is permissible as original equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and as aftermarket equipment if its installation can be accomplished without creating a noncompliance. The device as you have described it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the turn signal operating unit, or create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 (the requirements of SAE Standard J589 *Turn Signal Operating Unit*, April 1964, which is incorporated by reference). Since Standard No. 108 does not preclude its use, the question of its legality is therefore determinable under the laws of each State where it will be used.; Although there is no Federal safety standard that applies to it, th device is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1411) if its manufacturer or this agency determines that it incorporates a safety related defect.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4217OpenJohn Fleder, Esq., Director, Office of Consumer Litigation, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 386, Washington, D.C. 20044; John Fleder Esq. Director Office of Consumer Litigation Department of Justice P.O. Box 386 Washington D.C. 20044; Dear Mr. Fleder: This is in response to the request from Don O. Burley of your offic for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's interpretation of the Federal Odometer Disclosure Regulation, 49 C.F.R. Part 580. Specifically, Mr. Burley questioned the identity of the parties required to retain odometer disclosure statements under 49 C.F.R. S 580.7.; In 1977, the Agency decided that a regulation requiring the dealer o distributor to retain the statements issued to him (transferee odometer statements) and the statements he issued (transferor odometer statements) would enhance the value of odometer disclosure statements as investigatory tools. Therefore, the Agency proposed the following regulation:; >>>Each dealer or distributor of a motor vehicle shall retain for fou years each odometer mileage statement which he receives. He shall also retain for four years a photostat, carbon, or other facsimile copy of each odometer mileage statement which he issues. . . .<<<; 42 Fed. Reg. 58547 (1977). General Motors responded to this notice by questioning the regulation' application to manufacturers. Section 402 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the 'Act'), 15 U.S.C. S 1982, defines 'dealer' as 'any person who has sold 5 or more motor vehicles in the past 12 months to purchasers who in good faith purchase such vehicles for purposes other than resale.' In addition, the Act defines 'distributor' as 'any person who has sold 5 or more vehicles in the past 12 months for resale.' Therefore, under the regulation as proposed, a manufacturer was defined as a distributor and would have been required to retain odometer disclosure statements. However, the Agency noted that since 49 C.F.R. S 580.5 specifically exempts manufacturers who sell vehicles to dealers from the requirements of executing odometer disclosure statements, manufacturers would not be required to retain any statements. 43 Fed. Reg. 18922 (1977) To clarify these apparently contradictory provisions, the modifying phrase 'who is required by this Part to execute an odometer disclosure statement' was added to the retention requirements following the words 'motor vehicle.' It was not the intent of the Agency by the insertion of this phrase to relieve dealers and distributors from the requirement of retaining odometer statements which they receive from a transferee.; Insurance companies and financial institutions also questioned th scope of the proposed regulation. The Agency noted that insurance companies and financial institutions do not fall within any of the exemptions set forth in 49 C.F.R. S 580.5 and that they must execute and retain odometer disclosure statements unless the transfers involve vehicles that are so badly damaged that they cannot be returned to the road. 43 Fed. Reg. 10922 (1978). The intent of this interpretation was to notify such institutions that they must retain all transferor odometer statements which they execute as well as all transferee odometer statements. I have enclosed a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the applicable comments and the final rule. Since the NPRM, we have not received any other correspondence concerning the retention requirement.; It is the Agency's interpretation that unless a dealer or distributo is exempt under 49 C.F.R. S580.5 from executing an odometer statement or unless he is transferring vehicles that are so badly damaged that they cannot be returned to the road, the dealer or distributor must retain both the statements issued to him and the statements he issued. The retention requirement affords the Government and aggrieved parties with the necessary documentation to prove a violation of the Act and to pinpoint exactly where the violation occurred.; If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3453OpenMr. Mick W. Blakely, C. F. Liebert, Inc., P. O. Box Drawer L, Blaine, WA 98230; Mr. Mick W. Blakely C. F. Liebert Inc. P. O. Box Drawer L Blaine WA 98230; Dear Mr. Blakely: This responds to your letter of April 7, 1981, concerning 'Oil Wel Service Rigs.' Please accept our apologies for the lateness of our reply. You ask whether NHTSA considers oil well service rigs to be off-road vehicles.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safet standards for 'motor vehicles'. Therefore, our regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act). Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle as:; >>>Any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.<<<<; Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects wil use public highways as part of its intended function; Tracked and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not moto vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. aircraft runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles are not considered to be motor vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of his customers actually would use them on the highway.; Just as clearly, vehicles which use the highway on a necessary an recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work- performing nature and as such their manufacturer contemplate a primary use of the highway. Rigs and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers are examples in this area. Even if the equipment uses highways infrequently, it is considered a motor vehicle on the same basis as is a 'mobile structure trailer' which is often towed only once from the factory to the home site. All these motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such, they are subject to several of the motor vehicle safety standards, and the manufacturer must comply with other regulations in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. (However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the District Court's decision that mobile construction equipment does not fall within the definition of 'motor vehicles' found in section 102(3) of the Act. *Koehring Co. v. Adams*, 452 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Wis. 1978), *aff'd*., 605 F.2d 280 (7th Cir. 1979). The agency construes the opinion to apply only to the specific equipment at issue in *Koehring Co*., i.e. mobile excavators, and mobile well drills.); There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicl classification despite their use of the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicle.; In your letter you state that oil well service rigs were designed fo off road use and use the highways infrequently. You also state that oil well service rigs can travel on the highways only when a special permit has been obtained because the vehicles are oversize. We assume that since a special permit is required for the use of such vehicles on the highway, oil well service rigs cannot travel unescorted on public roads. On the basis of the representations contained in your letter, and the assumptions we have made, we have determined that the oil well service rigs manufactured by Mainland Manufacturing are not 'motor vehicles' for purposes of the Act and Form HS-7. This is because an oil well service rig uses the highways infrequently and is distinguished by its escorts from the normal flow of traffic.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam2239OpenMr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company, P.O. Box 937, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. W. G. Milby Staff Engineer Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to several questions raised by Blue Bird Body Compan concerning the applicability of school bus safety standards to certain bus types under the newly-issued redefinition of school bus (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The new definition (effective October 27, 1976) reads:; >>> School bus' means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstat commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.<<<; In your February 24, 1976, letter you ask whether buses utilized t transport athletic teams and school bands to and from athletic events qualify as school buses under the definition that becomes effective October 27, 1976, and, if so, whether they must therefore comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; From your description of the use of an activity bus' to transpor students to and from athletic events related to the students' school, it would be included as a school bus under the new definition if it were sold for this use. It appears clear that the manufacturer and dealer in these cases would both be aware that the purchasing school intended to use the bus to transport students to events related to their school, such as athletic events involving school teams. In close cases, the knowledge of parties to the sales transaction would be determinative of whether the bus was sold...for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events....' Any bus determined to be a school bus under the new definition would be required to meet all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture.; Your December 16, 1975, letter asks whether transit buses that ar based on a basic school bus design must meet the requirements of Standard No. 217, *Emergency Exits*, that apply to buses other than school buses. Since receipt of your letter, the redefinition of school bus has been issued and Standard No. 217 has been amended by the addition of requirements for school buses. In answer to your question, only a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school qualifies as a school bus. A bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation would be required to meet the requirements of Standard 217 for buses other than school buses.; Your separate question regarding the configuration of emergency exit has been answered in an earlier interpretation of the provision you question. A copy of that interpretation is enclosed.; Your March 4, 1976, letter asked whether the new definition of schoo bus includes buses that are sold for transportation of college-age students. You argued that an intent to include buses other than those for the transportation of preprimary-, primary-, and secondary-school students would go beyond the statutory definition added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. S1391(14)), and apply the standards to a broader variety of vehicles than those for which they were developed. The NHTSA finds this argument to have merit. It therefore withdraws its discussion of the breadth of the regulatory definition of school bus that appeared in the December 31, 1975, preamble. The agency will not consider buses sold for the transportation of college-age students to be school buses.; You also asked if any motor vehicle safety standard requires tha school buses be painted yellow. No motor vehicle safety standard requires yellow paint. At this time, however, Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,* requires installation of warning lights, and this would entail the use of yellow paint by the operator under Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17.; In an area unrelated to school bus definition, you asked in a Februar 20, 1976, letter whether the description of vehicle roof appearing in S5.2(b) of Standard No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, applies to determination of roof size under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b). The description is intended to apply to roof measurement under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b).; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant 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.