ID: GF009666

Dick Keller, Director of Business Development
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066




Dear Mr. Keller:

This is in response to your letter regarding Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 202; "Head restraints".That standard provides several compliance options until September 1, 2008. You ask whether a vehicle modifier; i.e., (an entity that modifies a motor vehicle after the first retail sale) would be permitted to substitute seats in vehicles certified to one compliance option with seats that would enable the vehicle to meet a different compliance option during this period.

By way of background, on December 14, 2004, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule upgrading our head restraint standard. See 69 FR 74848.The new standard becomes effective September 1, 2008. In the final rule, we explained that between the date of issuance and September 1, 2008, vehicle manufacturers may comply with the existing NHTSA standard, the upgraded NHTSA standard, or the current European regulations pertaining to head restraints.

In your letter, you explain that Bruno is a manufacturer of motor vehicle devices designed to assist mobility impaired persons. One of your products is "Turning Automotive Seating" (TAS). The TAS is designed to swivel in order to allow easier egress/ingress for mobility impaired persons. The TAS is installed in place of regular seats provided by vehicle manufacturers. You state that vehicles equipped with TAS meet the requirements of the existing FMVSS No. 202, but not the requirements of the upgraded standard or the applicable European regulations. With respect to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2008, you ask whether replacing a seat in a vehicle certified to the upgraded standard or the applicable European regulations with a seat that enables vehicles to meet the existing FMVSS No. 202 would violate 49 U.S.C. 30122.

49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

With respect to FMVSSs providing several compliance options, it is our opinion that the "make inoperative provision" does not prohibit substitution of equipment in vehicles certified to one compliance option with equipment enabling vehicles to meet a different option. Thus, until September 1, 2008, the substitution of seats in vehicles certified to the upgraded or European requirements with seats enabling vehicles to meet the existing FMVSS No. 202 would not violate 30122 with respect to our standard on head restraints.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:202
d.4/7/06

ID: nht95-6.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Department, Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment, such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht81-1.10

DATE: 02/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Richard A. Rechlicz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 18, 1980, letter asking several questions about the application of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to school buses.

First, you refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.1 and question which paragraph establishes the minimum safety level. Since paragraph (a) was first proposed and subsequently modified by the addition of paragraph (b), you believe that paragraph (a) defines the minimum level of safety while paragraph (b) meets or exceeds that level of safety. This reading of the standard is not completely accurate. Paragraph (a) of that section was the first part of the section to be proposed. Before the rule became effective, however, the proposal was amended to include paragraph (b). Accordingly, both paragraphs must be read together as defining the minimum mandatory safety performance requirement.

Second, you ask for our opinion of the preemption clause in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). You state that your interpretation is that no State or local government may adopt a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard. An exception exists for standards applicable to vehicles purchased for the State's or the local government's own use. This is an accurate reading of the preemption clause, however, a major area of contention frequently arises around what constitutes the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard.

Third, you ask whether the Federal government, through Standard No. 217, has preempted States from regulating unobstructed openings for purposes of emergency exists. As you are aware, the standard states that the emergency exit opening must be of a certain size. Further, the standard specifies the location of one of the seats at the forward-most side of the emergency exit. These are the agency's only requirements relating to the unobstructed emergency exit opening. With respect to whether a State could regulate further in this area, it would depend upon the type of regulation the State adopted. For example, a regulation that governed the size of the opening or the location of the forwardmost seat would probably be preempted. However, a regulation that required an aisle leading to the side emergency door would not likely be preempted, since the Federal government does not regulate aisles in buses.

Your fourth question asks us to comment on whether a Wisconsin statute requires aisles in school buses. The agency does not issue interpretations of State statutes. You should contact appropriate State officials for this information.

Finally, you recite a Wisconsin definition of emergency door zone which states that it is "the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit . . . " You then ask whether there are any such zones on buses constructed with side emergency exits. The agency, as stated above, requires an unobstructed opening at each exit (S5.2.3.1). If Wisconsin defines this as a zone, then such a zone exists in buses for purposes of the Wisconsin statute.

SINCERELY,

RICHARD A. RECHLICZ

ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR

December 18, 1980

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

RE: Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release File No. 80-82

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Please be advised that the undersigned has been retained by and represents a corporation engaged in the manufacture of school buses throughout the United States, for the purpose of investigation certain issues that relate to standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release and the Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter MVD 17 entitled Transporation of School Children.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request a written legal opinion from your offices on the issues raised in this correspondence as they relate to standard 217 and MVD 17.

First, as I understand the legislative history of standard 217, S5.2.3.1 was first issued with only subsection (a). Later, as a response to and after opposition was voiced by certain west coast bus manufacturers using the "California window" due to rear mounted engines, NHTSA promulgated subsection (b). Thus, the present standard allows the manufacturer to choose either subsection (a) or subsection (b). Is it correct that subsection (a) established the minimum degree of safety and that subsection (b) either meets or exceeds that minimum standard?

Second, please advise as to the NHTSA position on the supremacy clause, 15USC section 1392(b). It was my belief that with respect to the directive of Congress to the NHTSA to address itself to the safety standards itemized in 15 USC 1395(i), where the NHTSA issued a safety standard thereon, the State could not adopt "any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of said vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard." (State owned and used vehicles excepted).

Third, and I believe this relates to question 2, as I read Standard 217, especifically 217 S5.2.1, it is my impression that all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more "shall meet the unobstructed openings requirements by providing side exits and at least one rear exit that conforms to S5.3 through S5.5". Has the federal government pre-empted the field as to what is unobstructed for the openings? For this example, please refer to the spec drawing enclosed: if the manufacturer meets the requirements of S5.4.2.1(b), can the State initiate a rule that the seating arrangement as shown in the drawing for the side door obstructs the opening? (Assume also that the seating arrangement meets federal specifications as to distance.)

Fourth, it is my belief that nowhere in the Wisconsin Administrative Code MVD 17, is there a requirement that buses must have aisles. From your reading of that chapter alone, and I suggest that the word aisle is used only in MVD 17.13(1) and 17.25(2)(b), do you find anywhere that MVD 17 either

(1) defines aisle? or

(2) requires aisles in school buses?

Again, I request the opinion on this aspect only from your reading of the provision, not from other outside factors.

Finally, MVD 17.06(3) defines "emergency door zone" as "the area inside the vehicle required by FMVSS 217 to be unobstructed at the emergency exit. . ." From a reading of this definition alone, could you please advise as to whether there are any emergency door zones on a bus that is manufactured with exists meeting FMVSS 217 S5.2.3.1(b) ("California window" and side door exit).

I understand that responses to all of these issues raised in this correspondence will require a considerable amount of time by your offices. Please realize that it is important that we have a response from your offices on each question.

Accordingly, if there is any question that is not clear to you as stated, please call.

Furthermore, I would request that you acknowledge receipt of this correspondence.

Your prompt and immediate attention to this correspondence is appreciated as we are currently experiencing certain time restraints.

I thank you in advance for your consideration and courtesies. Seasons greetings to you and your family.

ENC.

cc: THOMAS BUILT BUS, INC. ATTN: BRYCE HUNT; RODDY LIGON, JR.; WILLIAM G. LADEWIG, ATTY AT LAW;

NOTE:

THE SEAT JUST FORWARD OF THE SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR CAN NOT EXTEND BEYOND LEADING VERTICAL EDGE OF DOOR OPENING.

APPLIES TO:

"S" MODELS WITH SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR AND WITHOUT REAR EMERGENCY DOOR.

ALL GAUGES TO CONFORM TO AMERICAN IRON A STEEL INSTITUTE (AISI) SPECIFICATIONS

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC. HIGH POINT, N.C.

TITLE

SEAT LOCATION - SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR FMVSS #217

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 11007

VIA AIR MAIL

Mr. Isaias Rios Product Engineering Department Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V. Hidalgo No. 8 Esquina Plano Regulador Xocoyahualco, Tlalnepantla Estado de Mexico C.P. 54080 Mexico

Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS

applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment," such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:110#120#566

ID: GF008677

Mr. Bryce Pfister
Director of Operations
Collins Bus Corporation
P.O. Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946




Dear Mr. Pfister:

This is in response to your letter and subsequent e-mail regarding the placement of a tire safety information placard required by Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 110 "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less."Specifically, you ask if FMVSS No. 110 permits attaching the placard to the panel located above the drivers door in a raised roof vehicle, when the placard does not fit in the other locations specified in S4.3.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

S4.3  of FMVSS No. 110 reads, in relevant part, as follows:

"S4.3  Placard. Each vehicle, shall show the information specified in on a placard permanently affixed to the driver's side B-pillar. In each vehicle without a driver's side B-pillar and with two doors on the driver's side of the vehicle opening in opposite directions, the placard shall be affixed on the forward edge of the rear side door. If the above locations do not permit the affixing of a placard that is legible, visible and prominent, the placard shall be permanently affixed to the rear edge of the driver's side door. If this location does not permit the affixing of a placard that is legible, visible and prominent, the placard shall be affixed to the inward facing surface of the vehicle next to the driver's seating position" (emphasis added)

The photographs attached to your e-mail show a tire safety information placard that is considerably larger than the one contemplated by the agency, and used as an example in Figure 1 of the regulatory text.We note however, that a larger placard is not prohibited by FMVSS No. 110 because the Standard does not specify a particular size or a dimension for the placard. We also note that your placard would not be legible if affixed to the B-pillar, or to the rear edge of the drivers side door because it would have to bend along the edges of the door or the B-pillar.We conclude that locating the tire safety information placard on the panel above the drivers side door satisfies the requirement that the placard be affixed to the inward facing surface of the vehicle next to the drivers sitting position.In this location, the placard is clearly legible, visible and prominent.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.4/7/06

ID: nht95-6.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1995 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Department, Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other responsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment," such as wheels) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information required by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr.

Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht95-3.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Department, Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand ard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other resp onsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment, such as wheel s) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U.S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information r equired by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

ID: nht95-3.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 14, 1995 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Isaias Rios -- Product Engineering Department, Rines de Acero K-H, S.A. de C.V.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/29/95 LETTER FROM ISAIAS RIOS TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 11007)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rios:

This responds to your letter of June 29, 1995, to Marvin Shaw of this office requesting information on obtaining a certification from the U.S. that the wheels you supply to automobile manufacturers in Mexico comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand ard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120.

You explained in your letter and in telephone conversations with Walter Myers of this office that your company supplies steel and aluminum passenger car wheels to automobile manufacturers located in Mexico. You stated that Nissan Mexicana requires from you a certificate demonstrating compliance with FMVSS Nos. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, and 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your letter asked how to obtain such a certification and for information on other resp onsible U.S. government agencies and approved test labs.

On July 21, Mr. Myers telefaxed you copies of two interpretative letters previously issued by this office, one to Mr. Ralph Trimarchi dated February 11, 1985, and one to Mr. Jay D. Zeiler dated November 20, 1977. We explained in those letters that U.S. law requires motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers to self-certify their products and that the U.S. government does not test or certify products prior to first retail sale. Rather, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHT SA), randomly tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs. Mr. Myers also telefaxed you copies of FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 on July 24, 1995.

We would like to advise you of another issue. 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 566 (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (referred to in the regulation as "covered equipment," such as wheels ) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA. NHTSA requires that information from an equipment manufacturer even though the equipment manufacturer does not directly sell its products in the U .S. but supplies them to foreign vehicle manufacturers who sell their vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. K. Nakajima, dated January 6, 1972). Therefore, if your company has not already done so, please submit the information r equired by Part 566 to the Administrator of NHTSA within thirty days after receipt of this letter. No forms or prescribed format is required. A standard letter is sufficient.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr.

Myers at this address or by telephone (202) 366-2992 or telefax (202) 366-3820.

ID: 11379ADRN

Mr. Jon R. Jacobson, Claims Investigator
Risk Management & Insurance Department
Pinellas County Schools
301 Fourth St., S.W., Box 2942
Largo, FL 34649-2942

Dear Mr. Jacobson:

This responds to your letter concerning the transportation of students in school buses and other vehicles and the safety standards which apply to these vehicles. You asked for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA) definition of "passenger car," and in a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you also asked for NHTSA's definition of an MPV. You further inquired how one can determine whether an MPV meets the passenger car safety standards.

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety , NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles. We require any person selling a new vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is certified to all applicable FMVSSs. There are presently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS specifies the motor vehicles to which it applies.

The vehicle definitions we use for purposes of applying the FMVSSs are set forth at Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, section 571.3. "Passenger car" is defined in that section as:

a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is also defined in that section as:

a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.

Under Chapter 301, a motor vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. If the vehicle is an MPV, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle

meets the FMVSSs applicable to MPVs, but it need not certify compliance with FMVSSs, or portions of FMVSSs, that apply only to passenger cars. In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. Examples are Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, and Standard No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems.

There is no easy way to determine the extent to which a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, you should contact the MPV's manufacturer for information about a particular MPV's conformance with the passenger car standards.

You asked for "a list of the present vehicles that conform to [Federal] standards." NHTSA does not keep such a list. The law requires each new vehicle to meet all applicable FMVSSs. Therefore, a manufacturer who sells new passenger cars or MPVs in the United States must ensure that its vehicles conform to all applicable FMVSSs or be subject to substantial legal penalties, including the responsibility to recall the vehicle and remedy the nonconformance free of charge.

You also ask whether there are differences between the State's definition of "passenger car" and NHTSA's definition. While the State may choose to define "passenger cars" differently than NHTSA, it cannot thereby alter the applicability of the FMVSSs to a particular vehicle. It is NHTSA's definition that determines whether a vehicle will be subject to the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars or to those applicable to MPVs.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our December 26, 1995 letter to Ms. Jane Thornton Mastrucci, attorney for the Dade County School Board, which addresses issues similar to those you have raised. Further, because you asked about requirements for pupil transportation, I have enclosed a question-and- answer information sheet on frequently asked questions about NHTSA=s school bus requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:vsa#571.3 D:2/26/96

ID: nht70-2.48

DATE: 03/11/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Kurt Meier

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 1970, to Mr. John. M. Will of this offices, partaining to the identification of shift lever position of customatic transmissions as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102.

FMVSS No. 102 specifies that each shift lever position of automation transmission shall be identified and shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver. Your proposed shift lever position identification for future automatic tranmissions, as can be determined from your diagrammatical sketch, does not provide identification for the "neutral" position. Appropriate identification, whether it be the letter "N" or some other suitable designation, must be provided to satisfy the requirements of the safety standard.

It was noticed, from your setch, that the tranmission shift lever seque for the forward drive positions progresses from low to high gear from the neutral position. As background information for the National Highway Bureau's Compliance Test Program, we are interested in low you plan to certify a vehicle incorporating the proposed shift lever sequence for FMVSS 105 (Rydraulic Service Brake, Emergency Brake and Parking Brake Systems) during the 30, 60, and 80 m.p.h. Effectiveness Tests. Your response citing the above reference will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your interest in the safety program of the National Highway Safety Bureau.