ID: nht94-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/19/94 From John Womack To Paul Anderson

TEXT: Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Section S5.5.3(c) reads:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color . . .

Your letter states that you are unable to continuously outline the perimeter of the rear emergency doors on your school buses due to the proximity of door hinges, tail light lenses, and a rubber gasket between the bottom edge of the door and the bumper. You ask:

Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continuous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and down the left and right side of the double door opening with bre aks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

As explained below, your planned placement for the top and sides of the door, and your alternative placement for the bottom of the door would be acceptable. In a July 7, 1993 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets,

2

rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers an d increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ab ility to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter . . . When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tap e immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

According to this July 1993 letter, interruptions in the retroreflective tape to avoid and/or accommodate hinges (such as the hinge on the side of the rear emergency door) and other functional components are permitted if the interruption does not negativ ely affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or does not reduce the conspicuity of the bus. NHTSA considers tail light lenses to be "functional components" which do not have to be covered by the retroreflective tape. (Indeed, placement of the ta pe on the tail light lense could affect the efficacy of the light.) The interruptions in the tape for these components would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. Thus, the interru ptions are permitted for the tape along the sides of your door.

With regard to the bottom of your door, based on the pictures provided with your letter, it appears that there is no location available for the placement of retroreflective tape outside of the door's bottom edge. Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door.

3

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

Sincerely,

ID: 10006

Mr. Paul L. Anderson
President
Van-Con Inc.
P.O. Box 237
Middlesex, NJ 08846-0237

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Section S5.5.3(c) reads:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color ...

Your letter states that you are unable to continuously outline the perimeter of the rear emergency doors on your school buses due to the proximity of door hinges, tail light lenses, and a rubber gasket between the bottom edge of the door and the bumper. You ask:

Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continuous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and down the left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

As explained below, your planned placement for the top and sides of the door, and your alternative placement for the bottom of the door would be acceptable. In a July 7, 1993 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets,

rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter... When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

According to this July 1993 letter, interruptions in the retroreflective tape to avoid and/or accommodate hinges (such as the hinge on the side of the rear emergency door) and other functional components are permitted if the interruption does not negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or does not reduce the conspicuity of the bus. NHTSA considers tail light lenses to be "functional components" which do not have to be covered by the retroreflective tape. (Indeed, placement of the tape on the tail light lense could affect the efficacy of the light.) The interruptions in the tape for these components would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. Thus, the interruptions are permitted for the tape along the sides of your door.

With regard to the bottom of your door, based on the pictures provided with your letter, it appears that there is no location available for the placement of retroreflective tape outside of the door's bottom edge. Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:6/8/94

ID: 1983-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pulse Marketing Group, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 3, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Thomas A. Kenny Secretary/Treasurer Pulse Marketing Group, Inc. P.O. Box 1324 Elkhart, Indiana 46515

Dear Mr. Kenny:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You are considering marketing a "fiberglass reinforced plastic part" that would replace rear windows in buses. You ask whether the standard would be applicable.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for all glazing materials used on motor vehicles, whether as original equipment or replacement parts. As a manufacturer or fabricator of glazing you would have to certify that your fiberglass product complies with all applicable requirements of the standard. Standard No. 205, and the ANS Z26 standard which is incorporated by reference, specifies three types of plastic materials which may be used in the rear windows of buses (including rear side windows). These are Items 4, 5, and 12 glazing materials. Your fiberglass window may only be used in the rear windows of buses if it complies with the performance requirements of one of these glazing types (Items), i.e., if it passes all of the tests specified for one of these Items. The fact that your product is opaque does not preclude its use, since Items 4, 5, and 12 glazing materials do not have to comply with any luminous transmittance requirements.

You also asked if any approvals are necessary before you market this product. The answer is no. The agency does not grant prior approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that it is the responsibility of the glazing manufacturer or fabricator to determine compliance and to certify that its product complies with all applicable requirements of Safety Standard No. 205. The certification and marking requirements are prescribed in paragraph S6 of Standard No. 205. (I am enclosing a copy of section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act, which is referenced in paragraph S6.)

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 23, 1982

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

PULSE, INC. represents a mnaufacturer of fiberglass reinforced plastic applications who is currently considering manufacturing and marketing a fiberglass reinforced plastic part that would essentially replace rear windows on buses in the aftermarkets.

Prior to the manufacture and marketing of this application, it is essential that we obtain all information pertaining to any legal requirements which may apply.

Our initial investigation resulted in contacting Mr. Doug Delve, Safety Compliance Engineer for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Mr. Delve forwarded a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205 which refers to window glazing materials under ANSI Z26.

After thoroughly evaluating STD 205 and ANSI Z26, we do not believe that they apply to our specific application.

As mentioned previously, the part would replace window glass located in the rear of various types of buses. We are also investigating side windows located near the rear of most buses. Unlike window glass, fiberglass reinforced plastic is opaque, eliminating rear window vision.

In our opinion, the applicability of STD 205 to our application is questionable due to the problems associated with defining a window.

In order that we may continue our manufacturing and marketing efforts, we would appreciate a legal interpretation outlining any Federal or state laws, regulations, or specifications which apply to the aforementioned application. If any approvals are required, please advise the necessary course of action and appropriate timing associated with gaining such approvals.

Thank you,

PULSE, INC.

Thomas A. Kenny Secretary/Treasurer

slj

ID: 20867.ztv

Sig. Alessandro Rotta
USA Project
Two Wheelers Platform
Vehicle Division
Piaggio & C. S.p.A.
Viale Rinaldo Piaggio 25
56025 Pontedera (Pi)
Italy

Dear Signor Rotta:

This is in reply to your fax of November 3, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

You ask for a clarification of two issues related to the possibility of your company entering the American market with its motor scooters.

You first ask whether your equipment suppliers should perform tests in accredited laboratories, and, if so, which ones. You want to ensure, "if any accident occurs because of a component failure," that Piaggio "is relieved from the consequences and the supplier of the item will be considered solely responsible." You ask for suggestions in order to avoid such troubles.

Your question relates to the responsibility of a manufacturer under both the Federal law of the United States, and the separate laws of the individual states. Under Federal law, Piaggio must ensure that its motor scooters comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and certify that the scooters meet those standards. We do not tell you how to ensure compliance and to certify. Piaggio may certify on the basis of test reports from its supplier, or it may conduct its own tests, or it may certify on a basis other than testing, such as conducting engineering or computer studies. We do not characterize laboratories as "accredited," nor do we make recommendations. However, for your information, we have used the following independent laboratories to conduct compliance testing for us, for the standards indicated. For Standard No. 108 (lighting equipment): CalCoast Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 8702, Emeryville, CA 94662-0702 and Intertek Testing Service, P.O. Box 2040, Cortland, NY 13045-2040 ; Standard No. 111 (rearview mirrors): General Testing Laboratories, Route 1 Box 310, Colonial Beach, VA 22443; Standard No. 119 (tires): Smithers Scientific Services, Box 351, Ravenna, OH 44266; Standard No. 120 (rims): Veridian Engineering, Inc., 4455 Genesee Street, Buffalo, NY 14225, and General Testing Laboratories (see address above); and Standard No. 122 (motorcycle brake systems): Carter Engineering, 1134 Beech's Tavern Trail, Franklin, TN 37064. A more complete listing of independent laboratories which are conducting (or have conducted) tests for us is on our website at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/procedures/testlabs.html.

Piaggio must also ensure that the motor scooters are free of safety related defects. In the event that a noncompliance or safety related defect is deemed to exist in its vehicles, Piaggio is required to notify us and the owners of the motor scooters, and to remedy the problem, even if the noncompliant or defective component was manufactured by one of your suppliers.

Liability for accidents is a matter to be determined under the laws of the state where the accident occurred. In the event of a crash attributable to a defective component in a Piaggio, it is possible that both Piaggio and the component supplier would face action in a state court of law, even if the supplier had certified that component as complying with a Federal regulation. In short, there is no way that Piaggio can ensure that a supplier would be "solely" liable. There may be steps that Piaggio can take to reduce its exposure to liability, but that is not a matter on which we can advise you. To consider this matter further, Piaggio should consult a lawyer in the United States whose specialty is product liability law.

Your second question relates to motorcycle headlighting. You comment that S7.9 of Standard No. 108 and SAE J584 do not require any vertical or horizontal aiming mechanism for motorcycle headlamps, but that S7.8.2 does require it for "motor vehicles." You believe that this requirement does not apply to motorcycle headlamps and ask that we confirm your interpretation. You are correct. Although S7.8.2 states that "each headlamp shall be installed on a motor vehicle with a mounting and aiming mechanism ," we do not intend this paragraph to apply to motorcycle headlighting systems. These systems are covered by S7.9 and the certification requirements of S7.2(a). Although S7.9 allows motorcycles to be equipped with one half of a headlamp system used on four-wheeled motor vehicles, the headlamps need not be manufactured with aiming mechanisms if they are intended for motorcycle use (provided that these mechanisms are on the four-wheeled vehicle when such headlamps are installed). We have never required motorcycle headlighting systems to have aiming mechanisms, and we did not intend to create such a requirement when we issued S7.8.2.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref.108
d.12/6/99

ID: nht80-4.20

DATE: 11/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan International Harvester 4O1 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1980, in which you ask whether compliance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, will satisfy the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115.

Section 4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 requires that the vehicle identification number (VIN) "appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part." S4.3.1 requires each character to appear in a capital, sans typeface. In the case of passenger cars and trucks of 10,OOO pounds or less GVWR, each character must have a minimum height of 4 mm. s4.4 specifies that the VIN for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR shall be located within the passenger compartment.

Section 567.4 of Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), requires that the certification label be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and display the vehicle identification number. Consequently, for all vehicles except passenger cars and trucks of lO,OOO pounds or less GVWR, compliance with S 567.4 of Part 567 would also effect compliance with S4.3 of Standard No. 115 so long as capital, sans typeface was used.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 1, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to request clarification of requirements which arise under Part 567 - Certification. S 567.4 requires each manufacturer of motor vehicles to affix to each vehicle a label which shall be permanently placed so that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it. The label is required to contain the vehicle identification number (VIN).

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 requires that each vehicle manufactured have a VIN which shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle or upon a separate plate or label permanently affixed to such a part.

International Harvester Company requests confirmation that compliance with the certification label requirements of Part 567 insures that there is also compliance with the VIN requirements set forth in FMVSS 115.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Stephen E. Mulligan

SEM:sh

ID: nht75-2.44

DATE: 12/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; illustration; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This replies to your letter of November 8, 1975, concerning the design of four headlamps as illustrated in the drawing attached to your letter.

In response to your questions, and also based on our review of your drawing, we offer the following comments:

1. FMVSS No. 108 permits the use of metal-backed headlamp units, provided the units are hermetically sealed.

2. Headlamp units must be indivisible without damage (units with replaceable bulbs do not meet this requirement).

3. Headlamps must be mechanically (Illegible Word).

4. The Type number (1, 2, 1A or 2A) of the headlamp unit must be molded in the lens (see SAE J57lb).

From our review of your drawing, it appears that except for the Type number markings, your headlamps will meet the above requirements and may be used on motor vehicles. This finding does not, however, exempt a manufacturer (of headlamps or vehicles) from certifying that his headlamps conform to all requirements of FMVSS No. 103.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

Elwood T. Driver, Director -- Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

November 8, 1975

Subject: Configuration and Definition of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units in use for Motor Vehicles

Dear Sir:

In reference to the sealed beam headlamp units specified in the applicable Standard SAE J579a (- Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles) which is incorporated in Table-1 of the current FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, we hereby would ask you to advise us about the following configuration.

In the sections of Scope and Definitions of the said SAE J579a, it is so prescribed that:

In Scope: "These specifications apply to sealed beam units (hermetically sealed) --------"

In Definitions: "Sealed Beam Unit - An integral and indivisible optical assembly with the name molded in the lens."

Our question is as to whether the four(4) kinds of headlamp unit configuration as shown in the attached sheet, designed under a conception of "hermetically sealed" and "an integral and indivisible optical assembly" could be used for motor vehicles.

These proposed headlamp units are not of All Glass Sealed Beam Units, but are so-called Metal-backed Sealed Units as shown in the attached sheet, and of course, those dimensional, phtometric and other electrical specifications are designed to comply with all requirements of the FMVSS No. 108 S.4.1.1.21, the applicable SAE J579a, J571b and J573d.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your favourable advice on applicability of these Metal-backed Sealed Beam Headlamp Units in use for motor vehicles would be highly appreciated.

Thanking you in anticipation of your prompt reply, and we remain,

Yours faithfully,

M. Iwase -- Chief

Overseas Technical Section, Engineering Department

Attached: Figs showing an proposed configuration.

(Graphics omitted)

FIG. 3:

Recutangular Headlamp Unit with the equivalent configuration to FIG. 1.

FIG. 4:

Recutangular Headlamp Unit with the equivalent configuration to FIG. 2.

ID: nht90-3.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Holscher -- General Sales Manager, Dreyer & Reinbold, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-18-90 from D. Holscher to T. Vinson (OCC 4796)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to whether your installation of a spoiler would be in violation of Federal regulations.

Specifically, one of your customers has "requested a factory design rear spoiler on their new Infiniti." This spoiler contains "a 3rd brake light which will illuminate during brake application." This would be in addition "to the existing rear window br ake light" which is not removable because of damage to the interior of the car.

The third brake light, or "center highmounted stop lamp" (CHMSL) to use its regulatory name, is an item of motor vehicle equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We understand that on the basic Infiniti Q45 the CHMSL is locat ed in the interior, while on a more upscale version, it is located in the rear spoiler. It appears that your customer is purchasing a basic model and wishes to add the spoiler from the more expensive model.

My initial comment is made on the assumption that the customer has not yet taken delivery of the car. In this circumstance, the dealer is required to deliver a car to the customer that remains in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard s after any modifications from its original state. The Federal lighting standard, Standard No. 108, permits the addition of supplementary lighting equipment such as a second CHMSL to the vehicle if it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the ligh ting equipment required by Standard No. 108. However, in your case, the supplementary CHMSL in fact is the complying lamp on other Infinitis and would be a complying lamp when installed on your customer's car. In this event, the original CHMSL becomes redundant, and you may disconnect it without violating any Federal requirement.

Somewhat the same considerations apply if tbe customer has already taken delivery of the car. Under this circumstance, the dealer may notperform alterations that render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accor dance with a Federal safety standard. Our usual interpretation of this prohibition is to equate impairment of effectiveness with at least a partial rendering inoperative. However, even if the supplementary lamp had this effect (for example, if the spoil er partially blocked the light from the lamp), it has become the primary complying lamp, and there would be no violation of the prohibition. For this reason, disconnecting the original lamp would then become permissible.

Finally, we see no safety problem or Federal violation if the original

lamp remains wired to be activated. However, vehicles in use are subject to State and local laws, and you should check with the Indiana motor vehicle authorities to ensure that there are no inspection or operational problems presented by this modificati on.

ID: 7117

Mr. George F. Reuss
Reuss Engineers, Inc.
P.O. Box 22
Waltz's Mills
Madison, PA 15663

Dear Mr. Reuss:

This responds to your letter addressed to Barry Felrice, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, concerning your recently patented vehicle that is designed to transport passenger cars. You requested information about which specific regulations and standards would be applicable to your vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing the agency's general information fact sheet for new manufacturers and a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures," which summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to various vehicle types.

You explained that your vehicle consists of a chassis with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds and a structural frame between the cab and rear wheels. This frame includes moveable forks that can be extended from the framework and inserted beneath a passenger car's tires. The forks can be raised and retracted into the framework, thus allowing your vehicle to transport the passenger car.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. I note that you may be considered a "final-stage manufacturer" under Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, because you purchase the chassis. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"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."

Based on the description in your letter, it appears that your vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. More specifically, it appears that your vehicle would be considered a "truck" under the agency's regulations. The term "truck" is defined, at 49 CFR Part 571.3, as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

Accordingly, your vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and be certified as conforming to those standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref: VSA d:4/29/92

ID: nht92-7.22

DATE: April 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George F. Reuss -- Reuss Engineers, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/92 from George F. Reuss to Barry Felrice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to Barry Felrice, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, concerning your recently patented vehicle that is designed to transport passenger cars. You requested information about which specific regulations and standards would be applicable to your vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing the agency's general information fact sheet for new manufacturers and a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures," which summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to various vehicle types.

You explained that your vehicle consists of a chassis with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds and a structural frame between the cab and rear wheels. This frame includes moveable forks that can be extended from the framework and inserted beneath a passenger car's tires. The forks can be raised and retracted into the framework, thus allowing your vehicle to transport the passenger car.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. I note that you may be considered a "final-stage manufacturer" under Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, because you purchase the chassis.

Section 102 (3) of the Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"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."

Based on the description in your letter, it appears that your vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. More specifically, it appears that your vehicle would be considered a "truck" under the agency's regulations. The term "truck" is defined, at 49 CFR Part 571.3, as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

Accordingly, your vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and be certified as conforming to those standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

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