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: aiam0698OpenMr. Bernard Belier, U.S. Resident Engineer, CITROEN, 801 Second Avenue, New York NY 10017; Mr. Bernard Belier U.S. Resident Engineer CITROEN 801 Second Avenue New York NY 10017; Dear Mr. Belier: This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1972, in which you pose questions about the operation of the seat belt warning system under Standard 208 and about the intent of the headlamp adjustment requirement under Standard 215.; Your questions on Standard 208 deal with the requirement in S7.3.3 tha the warning system in a vehicle with an automatic transmission must not operate when the engine is operating and the gear selector is in the 'Park' position. In answer to your first question, if the two conditions for non-operation exist, the warning system must not operate, regardless of the position of the hand brake lever. If either condition does not exist, e.g., the transmission is in 'Park' but the engine is not operating, it would be permissible to have the system operate, and its operation could be controlled by the hand brake so long as the hand brake circuitry does not interfere with the mandatory operation of the system under S7.3.1 and S7.3.5.; If the shift lever is in the neutral position, as stated in your secon question, you are free to choose whether to have the system operate or not, since S7.3 does not require either operation or non-operation when the transmission is in neutral.; In response to your last question on Standard 208, an 'operatin engine' is an engine that is rotating. It is permissible to have a system in which the warning operates when the transmission is in 'Park' and the ignition is 'On', but the warning must shut off when the engine begins to operate.; The other operating mode of your system has no direct counterpart i Standard 208. As you describe it, returning the ignition to the 'off' position will activate the warning system, even after removal of the key, until the belts are returned to their stowed positions. Our letter of August 17, 1972, explained that this will not conform to the requirement of S7.3.2 that the warning must not operate when the belts at occupied front positions have been operated.; We recognize that there are other possible alternatives to the require interlock system as a means of encouraging seat belt usage, and several have been suggested. We consider it important, however, that these systems work in a substantially uniform manner, for maximum public safety, acceptance and convenience. On the basis of all the material we have received to date, including yours, we have decided that our present requirements represent the best combination for the alternative to passive restraints in the period 1973-1975. I therefore must deny your petition to substitute your system, or allow it as an alternative, for the interlock system.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam5160OpenMr. Kirk Brown Secretary Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764; Mr. Kirk Brown Secretary Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield IL 62764; "Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your letter of March 15, 1993 inquiring 'whether modifying the throttle controls on a school bus so that a short person can operate it would jeopardize the manufacturer's certification that a bus is in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards' (FMVSS's). By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR Part 571.124). Standard No. 124 'establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control.' The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new bus prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would probably be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. As an alterer, that person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR 567.7.) If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the 'render inoperative' prohibition in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section 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. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from modifying the throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition. You ask whether NHTSA could grant a waiver to allow a school bus company to modify the throttle control on its vehicles. The Safety Act provides that NHTSA may by regulation exempt a person from the 'render inoperative' prohibition if the agency determines that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. Based on the information in your letter, we believe it would be unlikely that the agency would decide that an exemption is appropriate for any modification that would prevent the throttle from returning to idle. Such an exemption would increase the incidence of engine overspeed and the likelihood of possible crashes resulting from this condition. That the vehicle is question is a school bus makes the safety concerns even more compelling. You should be aware that the 'render inoperative' prohibition only applies to the commercial entities listed in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel "; |
|
ID: aiam0362OpenMr. David A. Phelps, Jr., Group Supervisor, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, Fort Valley, GA 31030; Mr. David A. Phelps Jr. Group Supervisor Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company Fort Valley GA 31030; Dear Mr. Phelps: This letter is to further clarify an interpretation contained in ou letter of May 6, 1971, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation.; We wish to make it clear that although the final-stage manufacturer ma designate someone to maintain the records required under section 574.10 of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation, the legal responsibility for maintaining the records remains with the final-stage manufacturer.; However, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediat vehicle manufacturer, may assume 'legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by (the Act) with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured . . .' (49 C.F.R. 563.7). In such a case, the responsibilities for maintaining the records required by the Act and the Tire Identification and Record keeping Regulation will be assumed by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, or any intermediate manufacturer, and the final- stage manufacturer will be relieved of all liability for maintaining the records.; We would also point out that the Tire Identification and Record Keepin Regulation was not meant to preclude the use of multiple designees for the maintenance of the required records. See the enclosed interpretation issued on May 28, 1971 (36 F.C. 9780).; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam5530OpenMr. Charles Tucker 201 Lakeside Drive, Apt. #48 New Concord, OH 43762-1168; Mr. Charles Tucker 201 Lakeside Drive Apt. #48 New Concord OH 43762-1168; "Dear Mr. Tucker: This responds to your letter of March 21, 1995 requesting a letter stating that your van can be modified by replacing 'the factory installed steering wheel with the smaller ASTECH steering wheel without an air bag.' Your letter explains that your range-of-motion is limited from multiple sclerosis and that the smaller steering wheel improves your ability to drive. During a March 31, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the van is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of your steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards. After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in your van is one means of complying with this requirement. As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals like yourself, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem. As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement. Under the amendment, 'vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. A 'vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' is defined as vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat. Based on the information you provided, your van would come within this definition. Therefore, if the modifier of your van would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the 'make inoperative' prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed. I hope this information has been helpful. I have also forwarded a copy of this letter to the modifier indicated in your letter. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Fitzpatrick Enterprises Attn: Steve Manson FAX 614/497-1863"; |
|
ID: aiam1820OpenMr. R.W. Hildebrandt, Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Gp., 901 Cleveland Street, Elyria, Ohio 44035; Mr. R.W. Hildebrandt Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Gp. 901 Cleveland Street Elyria Ohio 44035; Dear Mr. Hildebrandt:#This is in response to your letter of Februar 14, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the labelling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, *Brake Hoses*. #You have asked whether Bendix may use the same manufacturer identification designation on brake hose, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies manufactures at three plants which are geographically separated. While S5.2 of Standard no. 106-74 requires designations identifying the manufacturer of these components, nothing in the standard prohibits a single manufacturer from applying the same designation to components manufactured at different plant locations. #Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel; |
|
ID: aiam0732OpenMr. Robert B. Kurre, Wayne Transportation Division, Post Office Box 908, Industries Road, Richmond, IN 47374; Mr. Robert B. Kurre Wayne Transportation Division Post Office Box 908 Industries Road Richmond IN 47374; Dear Mr. Kurre: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1972, in which you aske whether a bus passenger seat to which you plan to attach seat belts would be required to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.; The seat would not be required to conform to either standard. Eac expressly exempts bus passenger seats from compliance with its requirements. It is our opinion that if a manufacturer provides a safety device which the applicable standards do not require him to provide, he is not bound to conform to the performance requirements of those standards.; Even though no standard is presently applicable, the agency i considering rulemaking action that will establish a standard for bus seating and we strongly urge you to provide the safest possible installation.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam1089OpenMs. Lois M. Woocher, Attorney, Boston Regional Office, Federal Trade Commission, Rm. 2200-C, Kennedy Federal Building, Government Center, Boston, MA 02203; Ms. Lois M. Woocher Attorney Boston Regional Office Federal Trade Commission Rm. 2200-C Kennedy Federal Building Government Center Boston MA 02203; Dear Ms. Woocher: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1973, forwarding complaint from Kenneth D. Peaslee. Mr. Peaslee ordered a 1973 Honda motorcycle, and was delivered one manufactured in December 1971. He asks if the dealer should make him a partial refund. The question is one should be answered under Massachusetts laws and we are unable to advise him of his rights. There is no violation of any regulation administered by this agency.; I note that the Massachusetts investigator made the statement in hi letter of March 15, 1973, which you enclosed that the Federal Government 'stopped' a practice of model year misdating 'among foreign auto importers.' That statement is not really accurate. We require (49 CFR Part 567) that each motor vehicle be equipped with a label disclosing among other things, the month and year of manufacture. The main purpose of this is to allow a determination of what Federal motor vehicle safety standards were applicable when the vehicle was manufactured. This dating may make it commercially more difficult for a manufacturer or dealer to represent the vehicle as being of a later model year, but such representations are not prohibited or otherwise regulated under our rules.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel |
|
ID: aiam4771OpenMr. Vaughn Crawley Vice President Monitor Manufacturing Co. 1820 South Cobb Industrial Blvd. Smyrna, GA 30080; Mr. Vaughn Crawley Vice President Monitor Manufacturing Co. 1820 South Cobb Industrial Blvd. Smyrna GA 30080; "Dear Mr. Crawley: This responds to your letter seeking an explanatio of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., 'the Safety Act'). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particularly concerned with van converters' certifications of compliance with Standards No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that, in a van conversion, the pedestal, the seat, and the safety belts may all be supplied by different manufacturers. You also stated that each of these components might be accompanied by test reports and engineering analyses showing that the component will, if properly installed, comply with the requirements of the safety standards. You asked whether the test reports and engineering analyses of each of the individual components could be combined to form the basis for certifying compliance with Standards No. 207 and 210, or whether the assembled seating system, as installed in the vehicle would have to be tested. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised 'due care' in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. With respect to your question about whether additional testing needs to be done by your company for the vans you manufacture or if you can simply rely on the tests done by the component manufacturers, this agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute 'due care' in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. NHTSA would look to such things as the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter, the installation of those components by your company, the quality control procedures used by your company, and any other relevant factors to determine whether your company had exercised due care to ensure that your vans complied with all relevant safety standards. However, it is not clear that a manufacturer could show that it exercised 'due care' based solely on the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter. As explained above, a van converter is required to assure that its vans will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the procedures specified in the standards. It would be difficult to establish that a manufacturer had exercised 'due care' to satisfy its responsibilities under Standards No. 207 and 210, unless the manufacturer had some evaluation of the performance of the assembled seating systems and safety belts installed in the vehicles in question. Test results for the individual components of the seating systems may not give a van converter enough information about the seating system as a whole to make such an evaluation. You should also note that, while the exercise of 'due care' may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles or items of equipment do not comply with all applicable safety standards. I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Kenneth Weinstein, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, at (202) 366-5263 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel"; |
|
ID: aiam1573OpenMr. John B. White, Michelin Tire Corporation, Technical Division, P.O. Box 3467, New Hyde Park Post Office, New York 11040; Mr. John B. White Michelin Tire Corporation Technical Division P.O. Box 3467 New Hyde Park Post Office New York 11040; Dear Mr. White: This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1974, asking for ou interpretation of paragraph 4 of the abbreviated rule making procedures for the addition of tire size designations to the Appendix of Standard No. 109. That paragraph presently states that requests for additional sizes must include a 'statement that the tire size designation and load inflation schedule has been coordinated with the Tire and Rim Association, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation..., etc.' You point out that if coordination with a tire nd rim association is a prerequisite to the approval of a tire size designation, the procedure is inconsistent with the NHTSA policy as expressed in Standard No. 119 that avoids placing final regulatory power in a private organisation.; The abbreviated procedure for adding new tire size designations to th Appendix of Standard No. 109 was initially published on October 5, 1968 (33 FR 14964), and in that issuance, paragraph (4) stated:; >>>A statement *as to whether* the tire size designation and loa inflation schedule has been coordinated with an organisation such as the Tire and Rim Association, The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation...,etc. (emphasis added)<<<; This language was consistent with agency policy of cooperation with th association in setting up the tables, but assumed that manufacturer adherence to association decisions was voluntary. The change to the existing language, which admittedly calls for association coordination, was made in a notice published May $, 1971 (36 FR 8298).; While the issue in Standard No. 109 differs from that in Standard No 119 (in the former it is adding new tire size designations, while in the latter it is matching tires and rims), we agree that the problem of placing regulatory authority in a private organisation is the same in both cases. We have not been able to find an explanation for the change in language made on May 4, 1971. Moreover, the new language was not included in the guidelines for the addition of new tire and rim matching information in Standard No. 110, even though those guidelines were also amended on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 8298). Based on these factors, we have taken steps to amend the guidelines for the addition of new tire size designations to Appendix A of Standard No. 109 to read as originally published. A copy of this amendment, which is effective on publication in the *Federal Register*, is enclosed.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator |
|
ID: aiam4321OpenMs. Pam Vanderberg, State Auditor's Office, P.O. Box 956, Jackson, MS 39205-0956; Ms. Pam Vanderberg State Auditor's Office P.O. Box 956 Jackson MS 39205-0956; Dear Ms. Vanderberg: This responds to your March 11, 1987 telephone call to our offic asking about the regulations we administer for school buses. You ask for background information about our school bus safety standards and request a listing of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.; I am pleased to respond to your concerns. I would like to begin b explaining that we administer two Federal laws that affect school buses. The first of these is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (copy enclosed), under which our agency issues safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, fuel systems and school bus body strength. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date.; Under the Vehicle Safety Act, any person selling a new school bus mus ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including our school bus safety standards. Under the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571.3), a 'school bus' is a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (driver included) that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (excluding buses sold for use as common carriers in urban transportation). A dealer or distributor who sells a new noncomplying bus to a school or school district is subject to substantial penalties for violating Safety Act provisions. For your information, I have enclosed a December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033) which discusses the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers to sell complying school buses.; New school buses must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safet standards we issued for 'buses' and also those for 'school buses.' The following is a list of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses: Standards No. 101 through No. 104, Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems), Standards No. 106 through No. 113, Standards No. 115 through No. 120, Standard No. 121 (School buses with air brake systems), Standard No. 124, Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 205, Standards No. 207 through No. 210, Standard No. 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 217, Standard No. 219 (School buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard No. 220, Standard No. 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds), and Standards Nos. 222, 301, and 302. School bus manufacturers must certify their vehicles to all applicable requirements of each of these safety standards. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the standards.; The second Federal law administered by this agency having a bearing o school buses is the Highway Safety Act of 1966. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed), under the Highway Safety Act as a guideline for the pupil transportation aspect of state highway safety programs. This 'standard,' or guidelines, includes recommendations for school bus operational requirements, such as school bus identification and maintenance and driver training programs. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of Standard No. 17's recommendations as their own policies governing their pupil transportation programs.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us 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.