NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: 11348

Jane Thornton Mastrucci, Esq.
Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair
4699 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
Coral Gables, FL 33146-2188

Dear Ms. Mastrucci:

This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet "all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars." As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the only way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are presently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies.

Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs.

In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars.

However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but specifies different requirements for each vehicle type.

There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, you should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN), which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position.

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

ref:vsa#571 d:12/26/95

ID: 11349Atxt

Sgt. Stephan C. Turner
Commander
Bus Inspection Unit
Michigan Department of State Police
300 North Clippert
Lansing, MI 48913

Dear Sgt. Turner:

This responds to your letter asking how Federal regulations apply to full-size passenger vans used for school transportation. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask us specific questions about information a local dealer provided you. You also pose hypothetical situations about how Federal law regulates the sale and lease of new vehicles with different seating capacities and configurations.

Some background information may be helpful in understanding our regulations. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress amended this statute (then called the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) to direct NHTSA to issue FMVSSs on specific aspects of school bus safety. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. The Act requires each person selling or leasing a new Abus@ for pupil transportation to ensure that the vehicle is a certified school bus.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture, sale and lease of new school buses, this agency does not regulate used vehicles, or the use of vehicles. The requirements that apply to the use of school vehicles are set by the State.

Your specific questions are set forth below, followed by our answers.

QUESTION #1: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to used vehicles, including 12-passenger vans?

ANSWER: No. While NHTSA has a statutory provision relating to the repair and modification of used vehicles, our statutory provisions and standards generally apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Since our standards do not apply to used motor vehicles--vehicles that have been purchased for the first time in good faith for purposes other than resale--sale or lease transactions involving used school buses are not covered by Chapter 301. Thus, there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling or leasing any used vehicle for school purposes, even if the vehicle does not comply with the school bus standards.

QUESTION #2: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to vehicles used only occasionally for school purposes (not for regularly scheduled pupil transportation)?

ANSWER: Our answer depends on how Aoccasionally@ the vehicle is used for pupil transportation. NHTSA does not prohibit the occasional rental of a van or other vehicle that does not meet the school bus standards. However, when the arrangement involves more than a one- time or very occasional rental for a special school activity, the use of the vehicle has to be examined to determine whether the bus is Aused significantly@ to transport students.

The starting point of our answer is section 30125 of Chapter 301, which sets forth the Congressional directive on school bus safety. That section defines Aschoolbus@ as:

a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school. (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has not defined the term Aused significantly@ as it is used in this statutory provision. Instead, we answer whether a motor vehicle is Alikely to be used significantly@ for transporting students on a case-by- case basis. Use of a vehicle to carry students Aseveral times a week@ to school-related events, as mentioned in your letter, appears to constitute a long- term relationship between the dealer and the school to provide school transportation, which may require a school bus. I have enclosed a copy of a July 22, 1985 letter to Mr. D. Leeds Pickering that discusses the issue of bus leases and rentals.

QUESTION #3: Do NHTSA=s school bus requirements apply to full-size passenger vans which have had a seat removed, reducing seating capacity from 12 to 8?

ANSWER: It may be helpful to keep in mind that anytime a dealer sells or leases a new Abus@ (a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a school, that bus must be a certified school bus.

If a dealer permanently reduces the seating capacity of a bus to less than 11, the modified vehicle is no longer a Abus.@ Because the dealer would not be selling a bus, the requirement to sell a school bus does not apply. However, a dealer modifying a new vehicle in this manner would have other responsibilities as a vehicle Aalterer@ under our regulations (49 CFR '567.7). The dealer would be changing the vehicle=s classification to that of a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and would have to certify that the vehicle complies to the MPV standards.

Hypothetical situations. You ask whether a dealer would be violating NHTSA=s school bus requirements in two hypothetical situations.

Hypothetical #1: A dealer leases or sells a new full size passenger van to be used for occasional use for high school sports teams transporting players to games. The full size van comes standard with 5 seating positions. The identical van (same length, width, and manufacturer) can also be ordered with 8 or 12 seating positions. Would there be any federal violations in this scenario with 5, 8, or 12 seating positions? Would it make any difference if the vehicle in this scenario were used for regularly scheduled pupil transportation to and from school? Would it matter if the vehicle was a used 1995 van?

ANSWER: The main issue raised by this hypothetical is whether a 12-passenger van is a Aschool bus@ when ordered with five or eight seating positions.

Anytime a dealer sells or leases a new bus to a school, the vehicle has to be a school bus. The 12-passenger van is a Abus@ (capacity of 11 or more persons, driver included) and thus any new 12-passenger van sold to a school would have to be a school bus.

If the van=s seating capacity were permanently reduced to less than 11 before the vehicle=s sale, the van is no longer a Abus@ and thus is not subject to our school bus standards. The modified vehicle is considered an AMPV@ instead. While the dealer may sell or lease a new MPV to the school, the dealer altering the vehicle from a bus to an MPV must certify the vehicle as an MPV and ensure that it complies with the MPV standards, or face substantial penalties under our statute.

My discussion in the first part of this letter should answer the issues you raise relating to Aused@ vehicles and the Aoccasional@ use of the vehicle for pupil transportation.

Hypothetical No. 2: The dealer reduces the number of passenger seats in the van from 12 to 8 by removing the back (last) seat in the vehicle. Would it matter whether the extra seat in the back is easily removable on a track or is permanently bolted to the floor?

Our answer is yes, the ability to easily remove the extra seat affects whether the van is a Abus@ (and subject to the school bus standards) or an MPV. A person who removes a seat that is designed to be readily removable is not an alterer under our regulations, and would not be changing the vehicle type from a bus to an MPV. Thus, the dealer would be selling or leasing a Abus@ which is subject to the school bus standards. If the dealer were permanently removing seats that had been bolted to the floor, our answer to hypothetical #1 applies.

You also ask additional questions about the meaning of certain terms in the Congressional school bus definition. "Designed to carry" refers to the number of seating positions in the vehicle, which the vehicle manufacturer generally determines. "Events related to such schools" includes any activity connected to a school whether on or off school grounds, including sports events, band concerts, field trips, and competitions such as debate or chess tournaments.

For your information, I am also enclosing an August 1995 question-and-answer sheet about school bus issues of interest to school districts. If you have any further questions regarding Federal school bus requirements, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#571.3 D:4/2/96

ID: 11357

Mr. Patrick Holmes
22235 Frontier Road
Clovis, CA 93611

Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, if you manufacture a motorcycle helmet for personal use, and ensure that your helmet meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 Motorcycle helmets, you may certify the helmet. Subject to qualifications explained below, the answer is yes.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the FMVSSs is Standard No. 218. In 49 U.S.C. section 30115, a self-certification system is established whereby the vehicle or equipment manufacturer is responsible for exercising "reasonable care" in certifying the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. Section 30115 states: "A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect."

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities for manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note the discussion on page two concerning manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, as noted on page two, Part 566 of our regulations requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., motorcycle helmets) to submit identifying information to NHTSA, with a description of the items they produce. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 and of Standard No. 218 for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:218 d:12/8/95

ID: 11361RWKM

Ms. Linda Stroud
Used Motor Vehicle and Parts Commission
Louisiana Department of Economic Development
3132 Valley Creek Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Dear Ms. Stroud:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff in which, referring to previous telephone conversations with Mr. Myers, you asked for written confirmation of several statements. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You requested confirmation that a dealer can sell new trailers either with new tires or no tires, but not with used tires. You also sought confirmation that if a manufacturer ships trailers with used tires to dealers, the dealer would have to remove the used tires prior to retail sale and the purchaser would be responsible for installing his/her own tires. You also asked certain other questions which I will discuss below.

Pursuant to your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on October 5, 1995, Mr. Myers sent you a copy of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, and copies of the interpretative letters previously issued by this office that are listed and synopsized in the Appendix to this letter.

By way of background, in general, paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that tires installed on new vehicles other than passenger cars, which includes trailers, must meet the requirements of either FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. As an exception, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120 provides that instead of tires that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 119, new trucks, buses, and trailers may be equipped with used or retreaded tires owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser and installed at the place of manufacture of the vehicle. Paragraph S5.1.3 also requires that the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2 and further requires that the tires were originally manufactured to comply with FMVSS No. 119 as evidenced by the DOT symbol. There is no requirement, however, that a vehicle subject

to FMVSS No. 120 must be equipped with tires and wheels at the time of sale (see letter to Mr. Steve Thomas, dated April 14, 1993, listed in Appendix).

Your letter stated that your main problem seems to be manufacturers who ship new trailers equipped with used tires. Assuming the conditions of S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120 are not met, that act is prohibited by 49 U.S. Code '30112 (copy enclosed), which provides in pertinent part:

[With certain exceptions] a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title.

Thus, manufacturers cannot ship and distributors and dealers cannot sell vehicles or equipment that do not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. As provided in paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120, used or retreaded tires can only be installed at the place of manufacture of the vehicle and only if owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser.

With respect to used or retreaded tires, distributors and dealers cannot install such tires whether or not the tires are owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser. If a distributor or dealer receives a trailer from the manufacturer equipped with used or retreaded tires that were installed not in accordance with paragraph S5.1.3, the distributor or dealer must either replace those tires with new tires or sell the trailer without tires, leaving tire installation to the vehicle purchaser.

Turning now to your specific questions, I will answer them in turn:

1. What is the definition of a trailer manufacturer? A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S. Code '30102(a)(5) as a person:

(A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or

(B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.

We define a "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another vehicle.

Under these definitions, a trailer manufacturer is one who manufactures or assembles trailers, as distinguished from a distributor who primarily sells and distributes motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment for resale (in other words, a wholesaler), or a dealer, who primarily sells and distributes motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment at retail.

2. Is a Utility Trailer included in this safety standard [FMVSS No. 120] or does it relate only to certain size trailers? Paragraph S3, Application, of FMVSS No. 120 provides that the standard applies to "multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles, . . ." (emphasis added). Neither the standard nor the trailer definition limits its application to trailers. Accordingly, all new trailers of any size, use, weight, or configuration, including new utility trailers, are subject to the requirements of the standard.

3. Could you indicate those trailers which are governed by this regulation? As indicated in the answer to question 2 above, all new trailers, including utility trailers, are included in the requirements of FMVSS No. 120.

4. Is there a specific length or width that falls under this safety standard? The answer is no. As indicated above, trailers are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 120 without limitation.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:120 d:2/8/96

ID: 11368DRN

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen
Mail Code 4F02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a single coil spring consisting of multiple strands of wire twisted together would meet the Standard No. 124 Accelerator Control Systems requirement that the control system have "at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3." Since we do not agree that each wire strand constitutes a separate source of energy, the answer is no.

Under specified temperature conditions, S5. Requirements, of Standard No. 124 states that the vehicle shall meet the following requirements when the engine is running under any load condition:

S5.1 There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

In your letter, you expressed your belief that a single coil spring consisting of multiple strands of wire twisted together would constitute the "two sources of energy" capable of returning the throttle to the idle position. You stated: "Assuming in the spring consisting of three strands of wire, that if only one strand is broken, the remaining two would have sufficient force to return the throttle to idle, we believe such a spring would comply with S5.1." You stated that a seven wire spring would provide even greater redundancy as the spring would have sufficient force to return the throttle to idle if up to three of the wire strands were broken.

We do not agree that a single spring consisting of multiple strands of wire meets Standard No. 124. A spring consisting of multiple strands of wire may be more resistant to fatigue than a spring consisting of a single strand, but the spring remains a single component. S5.1 requires two sources of energy that are separate, independent components. I note that the purpose of the requirement for "two sources of energy" was explained in a September 23, 1972 Federal Register document, in which NHTSA concurred with a petitioner's statement: "The intent of paragraph S5.1 is to eliminate the driver's dependence on a single accelerator return spring." (See 37 FR 20033, at 20034).

The components must also be independent of each other in order to meet S5.2, which specifies a return to idle if "any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point." (Emphasis added.) The disconnection of a single spring consisting of multiple strands of wire would make the accelerator control system unable to meet S5.2.

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 ref:124 d:1/19/96

ID: 11371

Mr. Richard L. Russell
12475 Central Avenue
Suite 352
Chino, CA 91710

Dear Mr. Russell:

This responds to your FAX of November 15, 1995, to Blane Laubis of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal lighting regulations as they may affect your plans to modify your 1956 Jeep.

You wish to add two additional auxiliary lights to supplement your upper beams, and you ask whether these lights are "required to be DOT approved." The answer is no; the DOT regulation on motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe requirements for lamps intended to supplement the headlamps, and thus the lamps of which you speak do not have to be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. As a matter of information, your use of the words "DOT approved" reflects a common misconception. We have no authority to approve or disapprove lighting equipment. Under our statute, a lighting (or vehicle) manufacturer is required to certify that its equipment (or vehicle) meets Standard No. 108 (if it is replacement equipment included in the standard), and the use of the DOT symbol on the item is the most frequently used method of certification. This means that the "DOT approved" headlamps on your 1956 Jeep are probably replacement sealed beams with DOT markings on them.

You ask whether there is any limitation to bulb wattage for auxiliary lamps used to supplement the headlamps when used on the upper beam. There is no wattage limitation; however, if auxiliary lamps were installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before its first sale, we would regard the vehicle manufacturer's certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver's ability to perceive the front turn signals.

Although your Jeep was manufactured long before the effective date of Standard No. 108 (January 1, 1969), we ask you to

consider this safety concern when adding auxiliary lamps. We do not know the local laws on this subject, and recommend that you seek advice from the Department of California Highway Patrol.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will answer them for you (phone 202-366- 5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:12/22/95

ID: 11372

Mr. Kenneth W. Easterling
Plan B Engineering, Inc.
26399 The Old Road 14-106
Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381

Dear Mr. Easterling:

This responds to your letter of November 16, 1995, asking for our opinion of "G-Lamps", ("proportional deceleration indicator lamps) intended as a rear end collision avoidance device. Your system would flash the stop lamps proportionally to the rate of deceleration.

Over the years, the agency has received many requests for interpretations of the laws which it administers as they relate to deceleration warning systems. Our reply has been that it is impermissible to wire the stop lamp system so that it flashes, no matter what the purpose of the flashing. I enclose for your information, as a representative reply, a copy of our letter of July 30, 1993, to Wayne Ferguson of the Virginia Department of Transportation, which fully sets forth our views and interpretations.

If you have questions about these matters, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this office at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108 d:12/22/95

ID: 11373JEG

B. Michael Korte, Esq.
Law Firm of John Schwabe II
St. Louis Office
The Locust Building--Suite 900
1015 Locust Street
St. Louis, MO 63101

Dear Mr. Korte:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal standards concerning the deployment of air bags. You asked whether AFederal regulations establish a minimum speed that vehicles must be traveling, below which an air bag will not deploy.@

The answer to your question is no. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, establishes a number of performance requirements for air bags and air-bag-equipped vehicles. However, neither that standard nor any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard specifies that air bags must not deploy in crashes below a specified vehicle speed.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:208 d:1/29/96 NCC-20 Eglancy:mar:1/3/96:OCC 11373

ID: 11378JEG

Roger C. Fairchild, Esq.
Shutler & Low
14500 Avion Parkway
Suite 300
Chantilly, VA 22021-1101

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the "one-truck credit" provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. I apologize for the delay in our response. You requested our concurrence that a multipurpose passenger vehicle equipped with an air bag and automatic seat belt at the driver's seating position, and a Type 2 manual belt at the right front passenger seating position, would count as a complying vehicle under the automatic restraint phase-in (through model year 1998), and asked how such a vehicle should be tested to comply with Standard No. 208.

The answer to your question differs depending on the model year. This difference relates to the fact that NHTSA is phasing in two separate requirements during this time period: (1) the requirement for light trucks to be equipped with automatic restraints (the phase-in for this requirement takes place during model years 1995-1997) and (2) the ISTEA requirement for light trucks to be equipped with air bags and manual lap/shoulder belts (the phase-in for this requirement takes place during model year 1998).

As discussed below, for purposes of the light truck automatic restraint phase-in, a vehicle with an air bag and automatic belt at the driver position would count as a complying vehicle under the "one-truck credit" provisions, provided that it met Standard No. 208's dynamic crash test requirements with the automatic seat belt detached. However, such a vehicle would not count toward the ISTEA requirement that 80 percent of a manufacturer's model year 1998 light trucks be equipped with an air bag and manual lap/shoulder belt. Thus, a manufacturer could produce such vehicles during model year 1998 only to the extent that such vehicles comprised 20 percent or less of the manufacturer's light truck fleet.

Under the "one-truck credit" provisions, a vehicle equipped with an air bag for the driver position and a manual safety belt for the right front passenger position is generally counted as a vehicle complying with the automatic crash protection requirements (for both the driver and passenger). The option was limited in duration so as not to delay the introduction of automatic crash protection for the right front passenger. See 56 FR 12480-81, March 26, 1991.

The specific language implementing the "one-truck credit" provisions, for the light truck automatic restraint phase-in, states that each vehicle "whose driver's seating position complies with the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type of seat belt and whose right front passenger's seating position is equipped with a manual Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of this standard" is counted as a vehicle complying with the automatic crash protection requirements. (S4.2.5.4(c) and S4.2.5.5(a)(2); emphasis added.)

In order for a vehicle with a driver side air bag and automatic seat belt to qualify under this provision, it would be necessary for the vehicle to comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) with the automatic belt detached. This follows from the language specifying that the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) must be met "by means not including any type of seat belt." Of course, the vehicle would also need to comply with Standard No. 208's crash test requirements with the dummy belted. See S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.5.3.

A vehicle with an air bag and automatic belt at the driver position would not count toward the ISTEA requirement that 80 percent of a manufacturer's model year 1998 light trucks be equipped with an air bag and manual lap/shoulder belt. As you correctly note, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 generally permits automatic belts to be used in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required under section 4 of the standard. However, S4.5.3.1 provides that an automatic belt may not be used pursuant to S4.5.3 to meet the requirements for "a Type 2 seat belt assembly at any seating position equipped with an inflatable restraint system pursuant to," among other references, S4.2.6.1. (Emphasis added.) S4.2.6.1 is the section which implements ISTEA's requirement that at least 80 percent of a manufacturer's model year 1998 light trucks be equipped with an air bag and manual lap/shoulder belt. While vehicles coming within the "one-truck credit" provisions generally could be used to meet the 80 percent requirement, S4.5.3.1 would preclude such vehicles from having an automatic belt at the driver position (the seating position that would be "equipped with an inflatable restraint pursuant to . . . S4.2.6.1").

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref: 208 d:4/24/96

Like your letter, our letter uses the term "model year" for purposes of simplicity. Standard No. 208's phase-in requirements are expressed in terms of production periods, which do not always correspond to model years.

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