ID: 21938

Mr. Jimmy Biondi
W.J. Casey Trucking and Rigging Co., Inc.
1200 Springfield Rd.
Union, NJ 07083





Dear Mr. Biondi:

This is in response to your recent correspondence and telephone inquiries relating to the classification of certain specialized vehicles owned by your company.

You ask whether the individual units are motor vehicles and therefore subject to safety standards administered by this agency.

As discussed below, the answer to your question appears to be yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." Section 30101(a)(6) of Chapter 301 of Volume 49 of the United States Code defines "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

You describe the vehicles as hydraulic suspension trailers that consist of a series of axles linked through a common hydraulic system in either a two, three, or four axle configuration. The individual units can be used alone or may be joined together depending on the load to be carried. The units have a minimum of 2 axles per unit with 8 tires per axle and have a maximum load of 34 metric tonnes (33.46 tons) per axle. The axle units are 10 feet wide and support a flat deck. Each axle is steerable and the hydraulic suspension may be adjusted while the vehicle is in motion in order to ensure that the deck remains level even when the unit is traveling over an uneven surface.

You further indicate that these vehicles are to be used for the short distance transport of unusually large cargo to and from rail sidings, utility substations and shipping ports. Your letter indicates that when empty, the modules are trucked to the work site on trailers and then assembled in the configuration needed for the work at hand. You further state that when the units are to be used on a site that is "local," the modules would be configured at your site and the resulting trailer would be towed to the site where it is to be loaded. In a telephone conversation, you also indicated that with the exception of the two axle units, an individual unit or module would travel empty on the highway en route to a location where it would be loaded.

In your letter, you stated that the trailer is always accompanied by company escorts and state police as required by permits. You also indicate that the maximum travel speed is 40 miles per hour empty and usually less than 20 miles per hour when the trailer is loaded. We assume that your use of these trailers is consistent with the intentions of the manufacturer.

Based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that the vehicles you describe are motor vehicles for the purposes of Chapter 301 and Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As you indicated in your letter and telephone conversation, all of the units will travel on public highways at speeds above 20 miles per hour. Furthermore, such operation would not be incidental to their main use but would be part of the normal use and operation of the vehicles.

As the trailers are motor vehicles, they are subject to the requirements of Chapter 301. Section 30115 of Chapter 301 (49 U.S.C. 30115) requires that the manufacturer must certify that a vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and, in the case of a vehicle, must permanently affix a certification label or tag to the vehicle. For your information, I have enclosed an agency guide for trailer manufacturers which provides guidance on the safety standards applicable to trailers.

We note, however, that due to the unusual configuration of these trailers, they would not be required to conform to several Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to more conventional trailers.

For example, Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996, at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are wheels back vehicles and low chassis vehicles. Wheels-back vehicles are excluded by S3 of Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection. The term is defined in S4 as a "trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of [the tire] on that axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle."

The drawing you enclosed of the trailer owned by your company shows that the rear surface of the tires on that axle is within 305 mm of the rear extremity. Assuming the axle is "permanently fixed," this is a wheels back vehicle, and no guard is required.

We also note that your trailers appear to be excluded from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121). Standard No. 121 applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. However, subparagraphs S3(a) through (g) of Standard 121 lists seven types of vehicles to which the standard does not apply. Applicable to your trailer, paragraph S3(a) excludes any trailer that has a width of more than 102.36 inches with extendable equipment in the fully retracted position and is equipped with two short track axles in a line across the width of the trailer. Similarly, S3(e) excludes any trailer that has a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds and whose body conforms to that described in the definition of heavy hauler trailer set forth in S4

Heavy hauler trailer is defined in S4 as:

[A] trailer which has one or more of the following characteristics, but which is not a container chassis trailer:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition ...

The drawings that you have provided indicate that the trailers at issue are 118 inches wide and have two short track axles under the trailer deck. Accordingly, these trailers are, by virtue of S3(a) of Standard No. 121, not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121. The information attached to your letter also indicates that the trailers have a GVWR exceeding 120,000 pounds and that the cargo-carrying surface of the trailer bed is less than forty inches above the ground. If so, S4(a)(2) applies and, when combined with the trailer's GVWR, excludes your trailer from the ABS requirements in accordance with S3(e) of Standard No. 121.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Otto Matheke at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack.
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.3/22/01

ID: 21941.ztv

Mr. Ryan Hoffman
Hoffman Group, Inc.
2863 Mandela Parkway, 2d floor
Oakland, CA 94608





Dear Mr. Hoffman:





This is in reply to your fax of July 25, 2000, with respect to the Funtech 50. You describe the vehicle as a "three-wheel motorcycle with two outrigger wheels (stabilizer wheels)."

You write that "the stabilizer wheels are not in contact with the ground under normal driving conditions" although a wheel can momentarily touch the ground during a turn. You have asked for an interpretation that the Funtech 50 with its outrigger wheels is a "motor-driven cycle" as we define it.

For purposes of our jurisdiction, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b), a "motorcycle" is "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." I enclose copies of letters of January 3, 1995, to James D. Murphy, Jr., and June 11, 1986, to Terry W. Wagar providing interpretations that two-wheeled vehicles with outrigger wheels used to provide stability in turns are considered to be "motorcycles." When outrigger wheels serve the same stabilizing purpose on a three-wheeled vehicle such as the Funtech 50, we also consider such a vehicle to be a "motorcycle."

A "motor-driven cycle" is defined as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less." Your letter does not identify the Funtech 50's engine. If it produces 5-brake horsepower or less, the vehicle would be a "motor driven cycle; otherwise," the Funtech 50 is a "motorcycle."

You also asked for clarification that a three-wheeled motorcycle "can have either two wheels at the front and one wheel at the rear, or, one wheel at the front and two wheels at the rear." We

confirm your understanding that both configurations are acceptable; the regulatory definition of motorcycle does not specify how three wheels must be arranged.

If you have further questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





Enclosures
ref:571
d.7/31/00

ID: 21964

Mr. Larry Cernosek, Chairman
Texas Towing & Storage Association
2104 Lyons Avenue
Houston, TX 77020





Dear Mr. Cernosek:

This is in reply to your letter of July 25, 2000, "responding to [my] letter of May 9, 2000, for further clarification." My letter provided an interpretation of Standard No. 108 as it relates to a light bar consisting of stop and taillamps.

In that letter, I expressed my assumption that the light bar was installed on tow trucks, as required by S5.3.1.1, to serve as a compliance surrogate for required lighting equipment whose conformance was affected by the truck's work-performing equipment. You have explained in your latest letter that the original equipment is unaffected by the work-performing equipment and that the lamps in the light bar are additional lamps within the meaning of S5.1.3.

In my earlier letter, I stated that additional lighting equipment was permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. I further commented that additional lighting equipment "need not meet any performance or location requirements." You have replied that the additional stop and taillamps do not impair the effectiveness of the original equipment lamps and do not have to meet any location or performance requirements.

We agree with your remarks. There are no location or performance requirements for supplementary lighting equipment. From the photos you enclose, it does not appear that that the supplemental stop lamps in the light bar would cause "impairment" of the original ones located below, or of any other required rear lighting equipment.





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.10/13/00

ID: 21971.ztv

Mr. Thomas J. Carter, P.E.
Carter Engineering
5735 North Lick Creek Road
Franklin, TN 37064






Dear Mr. Carter:

This is in reply to your fax of August 3, 2000, asking for a clarification of whether headlamp aiming mechanisms are required for motorcycles, and, if so, where they are specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You reference our letter of December 6, 1999, to Sig. Rotta of Piaggio in which we informed him that we did not intend S7.8.2 of Standard No. 108 to apply to motorcycle headlighting systems, and that we have never required these systems to have aiming mechanisms. You believe that this opinion is contradicted by SAE Recommended Practice J566, "Headlamp Mountings," January 1960, incorporated by reference in Table III of Standard No. 108.

I confirm my earlier statement that Standard No. 108 has never required motorcycle headlighting systems to have aiming mechanisms. SAE J566 requires that headlamps and headlamp mountings be designed and constructed so that:

"1.   The axis of the light beams may be adjusted to the left, right, up, or down from the designed setting, the amount of adjustability to be determined by practical operating conditions and the type of equipment.

2.   The adjustments may be conveniently made by one man with the tools ordinarily available.

3.   When the headlamps are actuated, the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service."

As S5.2.1 states, the words "it is recommended that" and "recommendations" or "should be" in SAE Standards and Recommended Practices are read as setting mandatory requirements. Although the word "may" used in SAE J566 is not included in this list, we intend that it be read as a mandate as well. Applying this construction to SAE J566, then, Standard No. 108 requires light beams on all headlamps to be adjustable with the tools ordinarily available, but in no way do I interpret this as imposing a requirement for an "aiming mechanism." The aiming mechanism requirements of Standard No. 108 are imposed by S7.8, and, as I indicated previously, we do not intend S7.8.2 to apply to motorcycle headlamps. We intend the paragraphs of S7.9 Motorcycles and their referenced materials to cover motorcycle headlamps. These do not require motorcycle headlamps to have aiming mechanisms as defined elsewhere in Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.9/29/00

ID: 21978ogm

Dear:

This is in response to your recent letter regarding a new product being produced by your company and the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Your letter describes your company's product as a supplemental pump/booster unit that is automatically activated to provide power-assist to a vehicle brake system if the primary power source for brake assist fails. You ask the agency to confirm that your system, which uses an electrically driven pump to provide vacuum boost to a conventional vacuum assisted brake booster, would meet the failed power-assist requirement of Standard No. 135.

After examining the information provided by your company, we agree that your company's design appears, in concept, to meet the failed power-assist requirements of Standard No. 135.

Paragraph S7.11.4 establishes the performance requirements for failed power-assist as follows:

The service brakes on a vehicle equipped with one or more brake power-assist units or brake power units, with one such unit inoperative and depleted of all reserve capability, shall stop the vehicle as specified in S7.11.4(a) or S7.11.4(b).

(a) Stopping distance from 100 km/h test speed: 168m (551 ft).

(b) Stopping distance for reduced test speed: S0.10V + 0.0158V.

In testing for this requirement, subparagraph S7.11.3(g) provides:

Disconnect the primary source of power for one brake power-assist unit or brake power unit, or one of the brake power unit or brake power-assist unit subsystems if two or more subsystems are provided.

Subparagraph S7.11.3(h) provides:

If the brake power unit or power-assist unit operates in conjunction with a backup system and the backup system is automatically activated in the event of a primary power service failure, the backup system is operative during this test.

In a vacuum-assisted brake system, the power or medium used to operate the brake power-assist system is vacuum, the primary source of which is the engine. Thus, the "primary source of power" of a vacuum-operated brake power-assist system is the engine intake manifold, which provides vacuum to the power-assist unit. Loss of vacuum generated by the engine constitutes a loss of the primary power source. The failed power-assist test of S7.11 seeks to replicate this loss and ensure that the driver will still be able to bring the vehicle to a stop in the required distance of 168 meters (551 feet) with the prescribed maximum brake pedal force of 500 Newtons. Therefore, in this test, the primary booster unit is disconnected and the system is depleted of all vacuum. The stopping tests are then conducted without reconnecting the brake power-assist unit to the vacuum source.

Under S7.11.3(h), a separate electric or vacuum accumulator that automatically activates in the event of failure of the primary power source would be a "backup system" that remained operative during the test. The system you describe in your letter, in which an electrically driven pump provides a source of vacuum, provides such a function. Thus, the electrically driven vacuum pump you described in your letter could be used to meet the failed power-assist requirement of Standard No. 135.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:135
d.11/17/00

ID: 22007.drn

Mr. Charles E. Carter
Fleet Sales Manager
DeRussy Motors
P.O. Box 2118
Bay St. Louis, MS 39521






Dear Mr. Carter:

This responds to your August 8, 2000, request for an interpretation whether it is permissible to sell a new 15-passenger van to a college or university for the transport of students. Assuming the college will be using the van to transport college students, the answer is yes.

Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. We do not consider buses sold for the transportation of college-age students to be school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/27/00

ID: 22036.ztv

Mr. Rodney Ehrlich
V.P. Engineering
Wabash National Corporation
P.O. Box 6129
Lafayette, IN 47903






Dear Mr. Ehrlich:

This is in reply to your three letters of August 8, 2000, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

1.   "Front Clearance Lamp Interpretation for van trailers over 80" wide"

You would like to use a combination front clearance and side marker lamp that would be mounted on the side of a van trailer at the top. You relate that it will be "recessed into the top rail, as far forward as practicable and still protected" from damage from tree limbs. You reference S5.3.1.1.1 of Standard No. 108 and express your belief that "the alternate mounting is permitted whereby the front inboard 45-degree requirement can be waived if the lamp is mounted for increased protection."

You are correct. Table II requires clearance lamps to be mounted "on the front." However, S5.3.1.1.1 specifies in pertinent part that "clearance lamps may be located at a location other than on the front . . . for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not meet the photometric output at any test point that is 45 degrees inboard" (they are, however, required to meet all other test points specified). We note that the location you describe on a van trailer would also appear to meet the other requirements for clearance lamps, that they be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle and as close to the top as practicable.

2.   "Sources of Stop Lamp Activation"

3.   "Can Stop Lamps be activated upon actuation of the trailer emergency braking system"

You have asked whether means other than application of the service brakes may be used to activate the stop lamps on a semi trailer. You point out that "today's ABS (antilock braking system) can be used to sense any deceleration rate and thus be used to apply the stop lamps in all braking' situations." You also point out that "another form of braking is the emergency brake that currently does not activate the stop lamps when applied," and ask whether the emergency brake system could be used for this purpose.

Your questions are similar to those we addressed recently in letters of May 26, 2000, to Eugene Farber and C. Thomas Terry, copies enclosed. Mr. Farber had asked whether it was permissible to illuminate the stop lamps when the brakes are automatically applied. We replied that when the specific purpose of a brake application is to diminish vehicle speed, the stop lamps must be illuminated. Mr. Farber had also asked whether it was permissible to illuminate the stop lamps when other mechanisms such as transmission downshifting or engine retarders are used to achieve vehicle decelerations in excess of the normally achievable coast-down deceleration. We replied that it was permissible to illuminate the stop lamps, but not required. Our letter to Mr. Farber references a letter of April 10, 1992, to Lance Watt on the same subject, and I am enclosing a copy of that as well.

You would like to install a trailer-mounted pressure switch that would activate the stop lamps when the emergency brake is activated and "significant deceleration of the vehicle can occur." As you will understand from our previous interpretations, it is permissible for the stop lamps to be activated upon activation of the trailer emergency braking system. You will note that the letter to Mr. Terry refers to his petition for an amendment to Standard No. 108. Mr. Terry petitioned for rulemaking to provide for automatic activation of the stop lamps when a certain rate of deceleration is reached. After review, the agency granted this petition in mid-September. As provided by 49 CFR 552.9(a), the agency will commence a rulemaking proceeding in accordance with applicable NHTSA and statutory procedures.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:108
d.9/29/00

ID: 22038

Mr. Ronald E. Kish
Plastics by Design
P.O. Box 220
Marcellus, MI 49067





Dear Mr. Kish:

This is in reply to a recent undated fax you sent Richard Van Iderstine of this agency about a license plate lamp design for a cargo utility trailer. The lamp would be mounted to the left of the door-mounted plate on the trailer frame.

The standard that applies to your question is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires trailers to be equipped with a license plate lamp, or lamps, in accordance with SAE Standard J587 OCT81, License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps), and located "at rear license plate, to illuminate the plate from the top or sides."

Conventional license plate lighting systems consist of either one lamp illuminating the plate from the top, or two lamps illuminating the plate, one from each side. These systems are intended to ensure a reasonably uniform distribution of light on the surface of the plate. We are not conversant with the use of a single lamp to illuminate the plate from one side only. The lamp must comply with SAE J587 and we cannot determine from your two-dimensional drawing whether it does so. I enclose a copy of SAE J587 so that you may make this determination. I call your attention to Paragraph 6.5 which specifies that:

When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg. to the plate of the plate, this angle being measured from the edge of the light emitting surface of the device farthest from the surface of the plate.

If you are asking whether a design is acceptable in which the lamp is mounted on a fixed part of the vehicle, and the lamp on a moveable part, our answer is yes, provided that SAE J587 is met. Compliance of the vehicle is determined with deck lids and doors shut.





Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

NCC-20 ZTVinson:mar:8/25/00:62992:OCC 22038
cc: NcC-01 Subj./Chron
interps std. 108; redbook -2
ztv; 22038; U:\ncc20\interp\108\22038.ztv

ID: 22040.drn

Mr. Robert Pitre
Nelson Technologies
200 E. Chestnut St. #1414
Chicago, Il 60611





Dear Mr. Pitre:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to the windshield wiper blades that your company is developing. I am pleased to provide the information you requested.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (The standards are codified at Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.) This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your windshield wiper blades in a new vehicle (before first sale of the vehicle to the customer) would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the device installed. An FMVSS that might be relevant to the blades is Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, which specifies a number of requirements for windshield wiping and washing systems. A vehicle manufacturer would need to ensure that if a vehicle had your windshield wiper blades, the vehicle's windshield wiping and washing system met all the requirements of Standard No.104.

No standards would apply to your windshield wiper blades to the extent they are sold as aftermarket equipment. However, Federal law prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard (Title 49 of the U.S. Code, section 30122). The blades could not be installed by such businesses if the installation adversely affected a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications made by owners to their own vehicles. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles. Also, individual States have authority to regulate modifications that a vehicle owner may make to his or her vehicle. We are not able to provide you with information on State laws. You should contact the individual States in which you intend to sell your product.

A source of information about State laws is the Automotive Manufacturers Equipment Compliance Agency, Inc. (AMECA), 1101 15^th St., N.W., Suite 607, Washington, DC 20005. Their telephone number is: (202) 898-0145, and their FAX number is: (202) 898-0148. The AMECA is a centralized voluntary agency that notifies government, industry and the public about items of motor vehicle safety equipment that have been tested by various laboratories in accordance with United States industry, state and federal standards.

Finally, the windshield wiper blades are considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" under Federal law. This means that you or whoever manufactures your blades would be subject to 49 U.S.C. sections 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama this address or at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:104#VSA
d.1/5/00

ID: 22041.drn

The Honorable Todd Tiahrt
United States House of Representatives
155 North Market, Suite 400
Wichita, KS 67202






Dear Congressman Tiahrt:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Office of Congressional Affairs, on behalf of Mr. Maurice Linnens, of Kansas Truck Equipment Co., Inc. Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for school buses, your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your constituent seeks clarification of the effect of Federal regulations on the sale of an "over-the-road activity bus" (motorcoach) to a Kansas school district. Mr. Linnens would like to sell a new motorcoach to a school district, but was told that Federal law would prohibit the sale, even though it would be permitted under Kansas law. You ask for our views on several letters from Kansas officials and from Mr. Roger Theis, Mr. Linnens' attorney, concerning Federal and state school bus regulations.

As explained below, under NHTSA's regulations, any new bus (including a motorcoach) that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events must comply with the standards for school buses issued by this agency under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (formerly referred to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). While Kansas apparently permits schools to purchase motorcoaches as "activity buses," Federal law would not permit manufacturers and dealers to sell a new motorcoach for this purpose unless the vehicle is certified as meeting Federal school bus safety standards.

NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Each new vehicle must meet all applicable safety standards or it cannot be sold. In a 1974 amendment to the Safety Act (Public Law 93-492), Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including school bus emergency exits, seating systems, window and windshields, and bus body structural integrity. The standards we issued became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to each new "school bus" manufactured on or after that date.

Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. ⁽¹⁾ 49 U.S.C. 30125. This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of the comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

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

Because our laws generally apply only to manufacturers and dealers of new motor vehicles, we do not regulate a school district's use of a bus to transport school children, even when the bus does not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each state has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.

The letters you enclosed from Kansas state officials reflect an opinion that a new motorcoach purchased and operated for transporting pupils to school-related activities is not a school bus ("route bus") under state law. A state's determination that a motorcoach is exempted from its school bus standards does not affect the Federal requirement that new buses sold by dealers for pupil transportation must meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Thus, Federal law would not permit the sale of a new motorcoach to the school district unless the vehicle were certified as a school bus. The views of Mr. Theis on this issue are essentially correct.

As you have pointed out in your letter, a school district can be sold a used motorcoach, even when the bus could not be sold when new. This is because our requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale," i.e., to sales of used vehicles. (See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1).) Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses.

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

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Womack, Esq., NHTSA's Senior Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/26/00

---

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