NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date |
|---|---|
| search results table | |
ID: aiam1854OpenMr. Allan B. Fredhold, General Manager, K-B Axle Co., Inc., 5010 Triggs Street, Los Angeles, CA 90022; Mr. Allan B. Fredhold General Manager K-B Axle Co. Inc. 5010 Triggs Street Los Angeles CA 90022; Dear Mr. Fredhold: This responds to K-B Axle Company's March 4, 1975, request for guidanc in assisting K-B's customers in meeting their certification responsibilities under Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*.; Standard No. 121 specifies air brake performance requirements (and som equipment requirements) which newly-manufactured trucks, buses, and trailers must be capable of meeting. For example, the standard specifies that if a truck or bus, in the loaded and unloaded condition, is stopped six times from 60 mph on certain test surfaces, it must be capable of stopping at least once in 258 feet without leaving a 12-foot wide lane and without uncontrolled wheel lockup.; Many manufacturers incorrectly assume that this requirement means that in order to certify that it has this capability, each vehicle produced must actually be tested from 60 mph on a test track. In fact the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391, et. seq.) specifies the manufacturer's certification responsibility, which is to exercise 'due care' that the vehicle or item of equipment is *capable* of meeting all requirements.; NHTSA has made clear in the past, and has emphasized in it implementation of Standard No. 121, that a manufacturer is free to use whatever method is reasonably calculated to fulfill his responsibility to exercise due care. To cite a simple example, if a safety standard specifies that a certain safety device be no less than 8 inches above the ground, it would not be necessary to measure the height of each safety device on each vehicle produced to assure in the exercise of due care that it complies.; Standard No. 121, of course, establishes more complex performanc requirements, and they would be affected by the addition of your 'tag' or 'pusher' axles. Most final- stage manufacturers and alterers feel confident that they can meet such requirements as minimum air tank volume when they add a third axle. In more complex areas, however, they require some reasonable basis on which to certify, in the exercise of due care, that the vehicle still is capable of stopping within the required distance, and that the brake actuation and release times still meet the minimum performance levels of the standard.; As noted earlier, the standard and our statute do not require roa testing as the basis of certification. NHTSA, in a preamble to Standard No. 121 recognized:; >>>What constitutes due care in a particular case depends on al relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.<<<; Road testing would be one method of exercising due care. You customers, of course, may not have the capability to conduct road testing.; As a supplier of the added component, you are in a good position t develop engineering data on the effect your axle has when added to a 121 vehicle. For example, you could add your axle to a 121 chassis with a representative body and conduct a road test to see that the vehicle with the added axle and gross vehicle weight would still meet the stopping distance requirements. You might also test the actuation and release times on this vehicle to see that the axle addition does not cause non-conformity. This experimentation would permit you to make general statements about the conditions under which your axle could be added to a 121-type chassis without causing non- conformity.; Although retardation force is not a requirement for a vehicle othe than a trailer, you suggest use of dynamometer data as a basis of certification. Such information would be a valid basis of certification if it is shown that a reasonable correlation exists between the retardation forces you specify and the actual ability of the modified truck to stop.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5544OpenSenior Product Manager Philips Lighting Company 200 Franklin Square Drive Somerset, NJ 08875; Senior Product Manager Philips Lighting Company 200 Franklin Square Drive Somerset NJ 08875; Dear Mr. Mack: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1995 requesting a confirmation of your interpretation that 'Philips Color Clear (TM) Halogen Headlights . . . are in compliance with FMVSS-108.' The product in questions 'appears to be colored when not in use' but 'when lighted it produces white light as defined by J579C.' You have provided a report from ETL Testing Laboratories which 'indicates that the color of the light is identical to that of a standard halogen headlight.' There is no definition of white light in SAE J579c Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, December 1978. We believe you mean SAE J578d Color Specification for Lighting Devices, September 1978 which does contain a definition expressed in chromaticity coordinates. The report you supplied indicates that the Philips lamp provides a light within the color coordinates for white when equipped with a red, black, blue, or white insert. As Standard No. 108 contains no requirements for the color of glass lamp lenses or bulbs, only the light emitted from the lamp, we confirm your conclusion that the Philips Color Clear (TM) headlamp has been designed to conform to the color requirements of Standard No. 108. We appreciated your visit to NHTSA on April 26 to demonstrate the lamp with its various inserts. I understand that the light produced by the lamp, and by a standard headlamp, appeared identical to the naked eye in a side by side comparison. If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam2281OpenMr. 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 Blue Bird Body Company's March 29 and 31, 1976, an April 14, 1976, requests for confirmation of several interpretations you have made regarding the new safety standards for school buses and the definition of school bus' as they become effective in October 1976.; Your interpretation is correct that bus passenger compartment' as use in S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, means that portion of the bus that is rearward of the forwardmost point on the windshield.; You request confirmation that the requirement in S5.7(a) of Standar No. 220, *School Bus Rollover Protection*, to open emergency exits during the application of force to the bus roof are inappropriate and therefore not applicable in the case of roof exits. Your interpretation is correct, and the NHTSA intends to modify the language of Standard No. 220 appropriately.; You request confirmation that the knee impact requirement of S5.3.2. of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, does not apply to the rear row of seating in a school bus because there is no passenger seating behind this row. Your interpretation is correct. I would like to point out that the seat back of the rear row of seating also is not subject to the requirements of S5.3.1.1 for the same reason. You are also correct that school bus passenger seat' as defined in S4 does not include a wheelchair that is placed in a school bus to transport non-ambulatory bus passengers. Our response on other issues concerning special arrangements for handicapped passengers will be forthcoming as a response to the outstanding Sheller- Globe petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 222.; In your March 31, 1976, letter you asked whether a bus that is sold fo purposes that include carrying kindergarten and nursery school children to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus under the redefinition of school bus' that becomes effective October 27, 1976 (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The answer to your question is yes, because the statutory definition underlying the NHTSA definition of school bus specifically lists preprimary students as passengers of school buses. See 15 U.S.C. S1391(14).; In your April 14, 1976, letter you ask whether the requirement o S5.3.1.3 of Standard No. 222 for a minimum contact area' on a described spherical head form refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the spherical head form, or the area of contact on the head form as seen in projected view. The contact area' refers to the area of actual contact on the surface of the head form.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam0316OpenMr. J. E. Martens, Manager, Vehicle Engineering Safety Staff, American Motors, 14250 Plymouth Road, Detroit, MI 48232; Mr. J. E. Martens Manager Vehicle Engineering Safety Staff American Motors 14250 Plymouth Road Detroit MI 48232; Dear Mr. Martens:#This is in reply to your letter of March 23, 1971 t Mr. Rodolfo A. Diaz about the combined windshield wiper-washer control symbol and the 'upright position' requirement as applied to this control identification.#The symbol combining the wiper and washer symbols as illustrated in your letter is approved for identifying the combined wiper- washer control.#The symbol placement on the combined wiper-washer control which you propose is in accordance with the intent of S4.2, since it appears upright to the driver in the 'off' position.#We appreciate your writing to us. If we can be of further service, please let us know.#Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs; |
|
ID: aiam5114OpenMr. Vasant Jinwala Consumer Testing Laboratories 480 Neponset Street Canton, MA 02021; Mr. Vasant Jinwala Consumer Testing Laboratories 480 Neponset Street Canton MA 02021; "Dear Mr. Jinwala: This responds to your inquiry about a product know as the 'Comfort Cushion' that your organization is testing for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (49 CFR 571.302). According to the product's packaging that accompanied your letter, the Comfort Cushion is intended to be placed over seats in motor vehicles as well as in homes and offices. You stated that a Comfort Cushion you tested did not conform to Standard No. 302. You further stated that the product's manufacturer believes that Standard No. 302 only applies to a car's original equipment and does not apply to an aftermarket auto accessory. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. 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 a product's 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 Comfort Cushion, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Comfort Cushion will be during motor vehicle operations. In addition, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles since it is intended to be placed over the vehicle's seats. While it appears that the Comfort Cushion is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards setting forth performance requirements for such a device. Standard No. 302 would not apply to the device because that standard applies to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of the Comfort Cushion. The manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. A commercial business that installs the Comfort Cushion would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install the product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any violation of this 'render inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installs an aftermarket item of rapidly burning material could vitiate the compliance of the materials that were present in the vehicle at the time of the vehicle's sale to the first consumer. Such an installation could constitute a possible violation of the render inoperative prohibition. Please note also that the render 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 the Comfort Cushion 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. 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, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1157OpenMr. Donald McGuigan, Ford Motor Company, The American Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48121; Mr. Donald McGuigan Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn Michigan 48121; Dear Mr. McGuigan: This is to confirm your phone conversation of June 20, 1973, with Mik Peskoe of this office as to whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 requires passenger cars manufactured on or after July 1, 1973, to be equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 109 as of July 1, 1973. the answer to this question is no. We will consider passenger cars to conform to Standard No. 110 if they are equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 109 as of the date the tires are manufactured.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam3490OpenMr. James S. Peterson, Consumer Specialist, Dealer License Section, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 7909, Madison, WS (sic) 53707; Mr. James S. Peterson Consumer Specialist Dealer License Section Wisconsin Department of Transportation P.O. Box 7909 Madison WS (sic) 53707; Dear Mr. Peterson: Thank you for your letter of July 14, 1981, informing the agency that Wisconsin automobile dealership had issued an odometer disclosure statement which included a disclaimer of the company's responsibility for the accuracy of the statement. Specifically, you wanted to know if this practice was a violation of the Federal odometer laws.; Section 408(c) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Ac requires each automobile dealer who purchases a vehicle to obtain a complete odometer disclosure statement from the prior owner. 15 U.S.C. 1988(c). When the vehicle is resold, the dealer certifies the mileage by relying on the disclosure statement received from the prior owner. The Act, therefore, imposes an affirmative duty upon a dealer to obtain a complete odometer disclosure statement from the prior owner.; The Odometer Disclosure Requirements require the owner of a vehicle t disclose to subsequent purchasers the odometer mileage and to certify the accuracy of the odometer reading. 49 CFR 580.1. The regulations establish a specific scheme for the certification of the accuracy of the odometer reading. 49 CFR 580.4(c)(1) - (3). Where a transferor has knowledge that the odometer reading is inaccurate, the regulations require the transferor to certify that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. However, where the dealer has no reason to believe that the odometer reading is inaccurate, the dealer must certify the accuracy of the odometer reading to the subsequent purchaser. By including an absolute disclaimer on the odometer disclosure statement, the seller fails to certify the accuracy of the odometer reading as required by the Act.; Section 412 of the Act provides that any person who violates an provision of this title shall be subject to civil penalties not to exceed $1,000 for each such violation. 15 U.S.C. 1990(b). Thus, a dealer that includes a disclaimer on an odometer disclosure statement may be subject to civil penalties for failing to properly certify the accuracy of the odometer reading.; Enclosed please find a copy of the letter to the dealership informin it that the disclaimer on the odometer disclosure statement is a violation of the Federal odometer laws.; If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4355OpenMr. Yueh-An Chen, Division Head, Planning Division, Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center, P. O. Box 510, Taoyuan, Taiwan 330, Republic of China; Mr. Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P. O. Box 510 Taoyuan Taiwan 330 Republic of China; Dear Mr. Chen: This is in reply to your letter of June 5, 1987, asking whether certai rear lighting arrangements are acceptable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have submitted a diagram showing four lamps on either side of th vertical centerline of the rear of the car. The most inboard lamps, denoted 'R', are the backup lamp system. Yue Loong contemplates four different functions for the remaining three systems of lamps, 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D', 'E', 'F' (inboard to outboard) and asks about acceptability.; >>>1. In the first system, ABC or DEF will serve the respective tur signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No. 108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple functions. This system is permissible as long as ABC and DEF will serve the respective turn signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No.108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple function. This system is permissible as long a ABC and DEF meet all Standard No. 108's requirements for turn, hazard warning, and stop signals when tested in those modes. Your diagram, however, does not indicate which, if any, of these lamps provide the taillamp functions that Standard No. 108 also requires for the rear of motor vehicles. Therefore, lamps ABC and DEF would have to meet the taillamp requirements as well.; >>>2. The second system differs from the first in that the hazar warning system would not operate through the two most outboard lamps. This system is permissible, as Standard No. 108 does not mandate use of all turn signal lamps for the hazard warning signal mode, requiring only 'at least one' on each side of the vehicle, front and rear.; >>>3. The third system differs from the second in that the two mos outboard lamps would no longer be part of the stop lamp system. We view this arrangement as permissible. Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and taillamps be located 'as far apart as practicable'. In a literal sense this would appear to require stacking the lamps vertically at the outboard edges of the vehicle, but NHTSA has not adopted a design-restrictive interpretation of this requirement. The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, but it is subject to review and comment by this agency in instances where such a determination appears clearly erroneous. Where the turn signal system (or part of it) is located at the outboard edges of the vehicle, and the stop lamps and taillamps are adjacent to it, or to each other, we view the 'practicability' requirement as met.; >>>4. The fourth system differs from the third in that the stop lam system would be either that of the systems discussed in items 2 and 3 above, and operating according to Section 3 of your letter. Either system would be acceptable, subject to the operational restriction with turn signal lamps that I shall discuss in my response to section 3.; Next, you have presented four kinds of flashing arrangements for th turn signal lamps. You ask (a) which could meet Standard No. 108, and (b) which could meet Standard No. 108 assuming a flash cycle of 104 seconds. With respect to (a), all four would appear to be acceptable. The standard allows multiple turn signal lamps either to flash simultaneously, or sequentially in the direction of the turn. With respect to (b), Standard No. 108 specifies that a turn signal flasher provide not less than 60 and not more than 120 cycles per minute. This translates to not less than 1 and not more than 2 cycles per second. This requirement would have to be met by all lamps in arrangement (d), i.e. where all lamps operate simultaneously. When operating sequentially, each lamp individually would be subject to the restrictions with the result that the inclusive cycle for a three lamp system would be not less than 3 seconds and not more than 6 seconds. Therefore, arrangements (a), (b), and (c) would meet this requirement assuming a flash cycle of 4 seconds, by arrangement (d) would not, being restricted to a cycle of 2 seconds maximum.; In your third question, or Section 3 as you term it, you have combine the condition of your first two questions and attached a table of 'detailed operating states' of the rear lamps, which incorporated three attached figures, with the question whether it would comply with Standard No. 108. Two of the Operating States illustrated denote the stop lamp 'on' and, individually, the right or left turn signal as 'on'. Standard No. 108 does not allow simultaneous activation of the stop lamp and turn signal lamp when the stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal. In that event, the circuit must be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing (paragraph 4.2, SAE Standard J586c *Stop Lamps*, August 1970, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108). Our other comment concerns 'Fig. a', 'Fig. b', and 'Fig. c' depicting flash cycles of the turn signal lamps. As we noted earlier, the individual lamps are subject to the cycle minima and maxima of 1 to 2 cycles per second, and none of the rates depicted in the three Figures appears to meet the minimum requirement of 1 second. Otherwise, the 'Operating State' table appears acceptable.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1507OpenMr. B. D. Sibley, Chief Product Engineer, Certain-Teed Products Corporation, P.O. Box 366, Lawrence, KS 66044; Mr. B. D. Sibley Chief Product Engineer Certain-Teed Products Corporation P.O. Box 366 Lawrence KS 66044; Dear Mr. Sibley: This responds to your April 5, 1974, question whether S5.6.1 or S5.6. of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, requires parking brakes on all axles other than front steerable axles.; S5.6.1 requires 'parking brakes on an axle other than a steerable fron axle' to have certain static retardation force values. 'An axle' refers to any axle other than steerable front axles and therefore S5.6.1 requires parking brakes on all axles other than steerable front axles. A tandem axle consists of two separate axles for purposes of this requirement.; S5.6.2 has no specific axle-by-axle requirements. Its performanc standard may be met by any means which hold the vehicle stationary and conform to S5.6.3 and S5.6.4. It should be emphasized that this requirement cannot be met simply by equipping the vehicle with parking brakes which hold to the limit of tractive ability but permit vehicle movement.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4705OpenMr. Cadwallader Jones President Jones Ford Inc. P.O.Box 10267 North Charleston, SC 29411; Mr. Cadwallader Jones President Jones Ford Inc. P.O.Box 10267 North Charleston SC 29411; "Dear Mr. Jones: This is in response to your letter to NHTSA in whic you asked questions concerning the circumstances in which Ford vans with more than ten designated seating positions would be considered school buses for purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). I apologize for the delay in this response. Your letter asked whether the vans that you describe would be considered school buses if used to transport adult education students, college students, high school students (including athletic teams), playground teams with no connection to schools, day care center clients, or children transported by churches that do not have day schools, but occasionally transport children. The starting point for the agency's analysis of when vehicles used in these circumstances would be required to comply with FMVSS requirements applicable to school buses is Section 102(14) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). That provision defines 'Schoolbus' as a 'passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' When interpreting this provision, the agency has always looked to the nature of the particular institution purchasing the buses. If its central purpose is the education of primary, preprimary or secondary students, the agency has determined that the buses purchased must comply with the FMVSS requirements for school buses. If the institution is concerned primarily with the education of post-secondary students, or serves a function that is custodial rather than educational, NHTSA has said that the buses need not comply with the school bus requirements. The agency has already explained the application of this provision to several of the circumstances raised in your letter. On July 12, 1977, in a letter to Mr. Jim Thomason, the agency said that buses used to transport adults and other post-high school students to vocational training need not comply with the FMVSS school bus requirements because these passengers do not fall in the categories of 'primary, preprimary or secondary students.' However, that interpretation also noted that a bus used by a vocational school connected with a secondary school would fall within the scope of the school bus requirements. The agency has also determined, in a March 17, 1976 letter to Mr. W.G. Milby (and reaffirmed several times since then), that buses used to transport college students need not comply with the standards for school buses. The same letter also includes our opinion that a bus used to transport school athletic teams to activities falls within the scope of the definition of school bus, and must comply with the applicable FMVSS. A May 10, 1982 interpretation letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin determined that vehicles used to transport children to day care centers need not comply with the school bus standards. The rationale for this decision is based on the fact that these facilities serve an essentially custodial function, although they may have some educational components, and are not considered to be schools. Your letter also asks about transportation of children by churches which do not operate day schools. In a November 20, 1978 letter to Mr. J. Perry Robinson, this office determined that the term 'school' does not include church schools such as Sunday schools, or those providing other religious training. As noted in that letter, however, a normal preprimary, primary or secondary school operated under the auspices of a church would be required to comply with the the school bus requirements. Finally, your letter asks whether vehicles used to transport 'playground teams' with no connection to a school would be required to comply with the school bus requirements. The agency has not addressed this question in any past interpretations. However, it is my opinion that a bus used to transport 'playground teams' that are organized independently of any school or educational organization would not be required to comply with the school bus standards. The term 'school' cannot be construed to include athletic teams not connected with any school or educational organization. I hope you have found this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting 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.