ID: aiam2603

Dear Mr. Wilkins: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter concerning Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) tire label requirements contained in Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. You address the situation in which it is not practicable to affix the information label to the door.; Location of vehicle certification labels and tire information labels i governed by Part 567.4(c). This section provides that the primary location of the required labels is either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the drivers (sic) seating position, or if none of these locations is practicable, to the left side of the instrument panel. Further, if none of the above locations is practicable, you may request an alternate location from the agency. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 explaining how to request an alternate location for the information label.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 11859.ZTV

Mr. Gerald Feldman
606 Victoria Avenue
Apt. 512
Saskatoon, Canada S7N 0Z1

Dear Mr. Feldman:

This responds to your e-mail to John Womack of this Office regarding your wish to import your 1991 Toyota Tercel passenger car into the United States later this year for use in the Washington, D.C. area. You have asked "what must be done or what papers must be obtained in order for me to properly register my vehicle in the U.S." You state that your vehicle has "a decal on the driver's doorpost clearly stating that the car DOES CONFORM to all federal safety and bumper standards in effect on the date of manufacture."

Because at the time in question Canada's certification wording requirements were identical to those of the Department of Transportation, the certification label on your car is ambiguous and can be read as a statement applicable to Canadian standards only, or to those of both Canada and the United States. For this reason, the U.S. Customs Service will allow entry of a privately-owned vehicle by the owner if the entry is accompanied by a letter from a vehicle's manufacturer attesting that the vehicle was manufactured in compliance with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, except for minor labeling variances (if that is the case). If the Tercel was manufactured in Canada, you should obtain a letter from Toyota's Canadian office. If the car came from Japan, a letter from either Toyota USA or Toyota Canada would suffice. If Toyota will not provide you with such a letter -- and we understand that this may be its policy -- you may import the vehicle through the registered-importer process described below.

However, even if it is willing to provide a letter regarding vehicles that conform except for minor labeling variances, Toyota cannot provide such a letter to you if the Tercel does not have either automatic restraints at each front outboard passenger seat, or, alternatively, an air bag at the driver's seating position. These are requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 that were in effect in the U.S. for the 1991 model year, but not in Canada. You can judge whether the vehicle was manufactured to meet these requirements by examining your car. In the event that it does not conform, you must contract with a "registered importer" (RI) to petition the agency for a determination that the Tercel is capable of being conformed to meet Standard No. 208, and to contract with the RI to conform the vehicle after entry if the petition is granted. The agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will provide you, upon your request, with the names of RIs in your area.

We are unable to advise you on the requirements of vehicle registration in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, and advise you to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles where you wish to register the Toyota.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:5/23/96

ID: nht72-5.1

DATE: 01/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Distributers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 24, 1971, in which you asked several questions concerning the weight rating requirements in the Certification Regulations that go into effect January 1, 1972.

Your first three questions are summarized in your third question, as follows:

"We are under the impression that the only way in which the CVW and GAW Ratings assigned to an Incomplete Vehicle by the Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer can be increased would be (a) if a third axle is added, or (b) if the component parts of the existing axles are increased. Is this correct?

The answer is no. The information supplied to the final-stage manufacturer by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer under Part 568 is to assist the final-stage manufacturer in completing the vehicle in conformity with the standards, and certifying in conformity with Part 567. There are no requirements, however, as to how the final-stage manufacturer uses this information. If he wishes to take it on himself to change the ratings in either direction, or to disregard the conformity information, that is his right. Of course, he will be assuming legal responsibility for whatever changes he makes, as indicated by the facts of the particular situation. Similarly, he has the right to make whatever physical changes he wishes in the chassis, and assures the normal responsibilities of a manufacturer in doing so. The Part 568 document offers him protection to the extent that he chooses to stay within its limits, but it is his choice to make.

You asked for a definition of "rated cargo load" as used in the Part 567 requirement that GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." We have not provided a definition for this term in the regulations. By it is meant simply any figure provided to the vehicle user as to the cargo-carrying capacity, by weight, of the vehicle. There is no requirement that such a figure be provided; but if it is, it must be consistent with the gross vehicle weight rating.

Finally, you asked whether it would be "illegal" to supply a body with a volumetric "capacity for holding eight tons of feed," on a vehicle whose GVWR only allowed for a cargo load of five tons. If no rating by weight is supplied, the labeling requirement would not be violated by the volumetric capacity of the body. As we stated in a recent letter on the same question, however, such action might have adverse consequences beyond the certification regulation:

"[Completing] the vehicle so that its apparent carrying capacity exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (section 113, 15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common-law product liability doctrines. In such a case, the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle might avoid liability, leaving it all on the final-stage manufacturer, by pointing out that the design of the vehicle as completed led the user to exceed the GVWR and GAWR furnished with the incomplete vehicle." (Letter from L. R. Echneider to E. W. Mentzer. October 26, 1971, filed in Interpretations Redbook, Part 567, 568.)

We are pleased to be of assistance. We are sorry that we will be unable to have one of our attorneys attend your meeting in Las Vegas.

ID: nht72-6.39

DATE: 01/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 24, 1971, in which you asked several questions concerning the weight rating requirements in the Certification Regulations that go into effect January 1, 1972.

Your first three questions are summarized in your third question, as follows:

"We are under the impression that the only way in which the GVW and GAW Ratings assigned to an Incomplete Vehicle by the Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer can be increased would be (a) if a third axle is added, or (b) if the component parts of the existing axles are increased. Is this correct?

The answer is no. The information supplied to the final-stage manufacturer by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer under Part 563 is to assist the final-stage manufacturer in completing the vehicle in conformity with the standards, and certifying in conformity with Part 567. There are no requirements, however, as to how the final-stage manufacturer uses this information. If he wishes to take it on himself to change the ratings in either direction, or to disregard the conformity information, that is his right. Of course, he will be assuming legal responsibility for whatever changes he makes, as indicated by the facts of the particular situation. Similarly, he has the right to make whatever physical changes he wishes in the chassis, and assumes the normal responsibilities of a manufacturer in doing so. The Part 568 document offers him protection to the extent that he chooses to stay within its limits, but it is his choice to make.

You asked for a definition of "rated cargo load" as used in the Part 567 requirement that GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." We have not provided a definition for this term in the regulations. By it is meant simply any figure provided to the vehicle user as to the cargo-carrying capacity, by weight, of the vehicle. There is no requirement that such a figure be provided; but if it is, it must be consistent with the gross vehicle weight rating.

Finally, you asked whether it would be "illegal" to supply a body with a volumetric "capacity for holding eight tons of feed," on a vehicle whose GVWR only allowed for a cargo load of five tons. If no rating by weight is supplied, the labeling requirement would not be violated by the volumetric capacity of the body. As we stated in a recent letter on the same question, however, such action might have adverse consequences beyond the certification regulation:

"[Completing] the vehicle so that it apparent carrying capacity exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (section 113, 15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common-law product liability doctrines. In such a case, the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle might avoid liability, leaving it all on the final-stage manufacturer, by pointing out that the design of the vehicle is completed led the user to exceed the GVWR and GAWR furnished with the incomplete vehicle." (Letter from L. R. Schncider to E. W. Mentzer. October 26, 1971, filed in Interpretations Redbook, Part 567, 568.)

We are pleased to be of assistance. We are sorry that we will be unable to have one of our attorneys attend your meeting in Las Vegas.

ID: NY_ bus_preemption

Robert A. Rybak, Associate Attorney
Office of Legal Affairs
State of New York
Department of Transportation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY12232




Dear Mr. Rybak:

This is in response to your letter and June13, 2005, facsimile asking whether the proposed changes to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) bus inspection procedures are preempted by Federal regulations. We apologize for the delay in responding, as your original correspondence was lost. In short, we conclude that except for certain limited circumstances, the proposed procedures would not be preempted by Federal regulations.

In your letter, you explain that the new inspection procedures would require aftermarket bus modifiers to provide certain documentation and certification as to the scope of the changes made to a modified bus. Specifically, if the certification label required by 49 CFR Part 567 is missing, or contains information that no longer accurately reflects the vehicle because of the extent of modifications, the new procedures would require the modifiers to provide "Certification of the Present Status of Vehicles Altered, Modified, or Remanufactured After First Sale".

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which all motor vehicle manufacturers, including bus manufacturers, are responsible for certifying that their vehicles meet all applicable FMVSSs. The certification label requirements are listed in 49 CFR Part 567. 567.4(g)(7) specifies that the certification label must indicate the type of the vehicle being certified (e.g., truck, bus, trailer).

With respect to your question, we first note that NHTSA does not generally regulate rebuilding or re-manufacturing of used motor vehicles, and thus, the States are not preempted from regulating these activities. However, if the rebuilding or remanufacturing involves sufficient manufacturing operations and new parts, the vehicle may be considered newly manufactured. This means that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of rebuilding (re-manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards. Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case-by-case basis.

We note that the preemption issue arises only with respect to the proposed NYSDOT requirements of certification. The States are not, of course, preempted from conducting inspections of all vehicles in question. We further note that, if a modified vehicle does not fall into the category of being deemed newly manufactured, the only other Federal requirement that is imposed on commercial entities that make modifications to used vehicles is that they "not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [the] vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." (49 U.S.C. 30122(b)).

Finally, please be advised that on June 22, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to amend the definition of "designated seating position" (70 FR 36094). If this proposal is adopted, it may affect your procedures with respect to determining seating capacity.

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,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:567
d.7/27/05

ID: 77-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Topeka Metropolitan Transit

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 4, 1977, letter posing several questions concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of school bus and its effect upon the use of transit buses to transport children to and from school.

You asked several questions in your letter:

(1) Are buses designed and sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation prohibited from use in school transportation services under Federal regulations?

Buses sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation (transit buses) are not prohibited from use in school transportation. The definition of "school bus" is not intended to include transit buses on regular common-carrier routes, although they may be used in some circumstances to transport school students to and from school and related events. This type of bus has never been considered a school bus under the motor vehicle safety standards for school bus construction or under the Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17 (43 CFR 1204) for school bus operation.

(2) If the answer to (1) is no, must such buses when used incidentally in school transportation services comply with any safety standards required of "school buses" under the Federal regulations and if so, from which are they exempt and to which must they comply? (of special concern is forward facing seats requirement of 49 CFR @ 571.222 - s5.1).

The answer to your question is no. As noted above, common carriers in urban transportation are excluded from the Federal definition of "school bus" and need not comply with any Federal school bus construction regulation. While Kansas has chosen to define "school bus" differently (and in a manner to include these transit buses), this state definition represents a voluntary decision to extend Federal construction requirements (such as forward facing seats) to a broader catagory of vehicles than dictated by Federal law and regulations.

(3) Do federal regulations encourage or discourage the incidental use of common carrier buses to help solve urban school transportation problems?

Federal safety regulations promulgated under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act neither encourage nor discourage the incidental use of transit buses to transport children to and from school.

(4) Is the Kansas law with regard to school buses, by its definition in K.S.A. 8-1461 (Supp., 1976), and its requirements of under K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp., 1976) (which include all safety requirements of the Kansas Transportation Manual, effective May 1, 1976) preempted, as applied to common carriers sold and designed for use in urban transportation, by federal law under 15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)?

The NHTSA responded to your question on preemption in our letter dated June 15, 1976. That response is still valid. With regard to your question concerning the preemption of the Kansas definition of "school bus," only state motor vehicle safety standards in conflict with Federal standards are preempted. State definitions of terms are not preempted by Federal definitions.

SINCERELY,

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

January 14, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

On May 17, 1976 the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority requested an opinion from your office concerning a proposed amendment to an existing Kansas statute and its possible conflict with Federal law. Your responsive opinion of June 15, 1976 was helpful but our efforts failed in the Kansas legislature.

Currently, under my understanding of Kansas law, the TMTA is prohibited from transporting any school child to or from school in its buses which were designed and sold for use as common carriers in urban transportation because of the Kansas definition of school bus (K.S.A. 8-1461 Supp, 1976), the requirement of forward facing seats (K.S.A. 8-2009 (a) Supp. 1976) and many other regulations issued by the secretary of transportation under authority of K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp. 1976) to which TMTA's common carrier buses do not comply.

Consequently the TMTA is proposing amendments to the Kansas statutes which prohibit the use of our buses in school related transportation. There is concern by the Director of Highway Safety that to allow utilization of TMTA's buses would violate Federal law and regulations, and in the 1976 legislature session he convinced the legislators of his belief.

To clear up this controversy we request an update of your last opinion by responding to the following specific questions:

(1) Are buses designed and sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation prohibited from use in school transportation services under Federal regulations?

(2) If the answer to (1) is no, must such buses when used incidentally in school transportation services comply with any safety standards required of "school buses" under the Federal regulations and if so, from which are they exempt and to which must they comply? (of special concern is forward facing seats requirement of 49 CFR @ 571.222 - s5.1).

(3) Do federal regulations encourage or discourage the incidental use of common carrier buses to help solve urban school transportation problems?

(4) Is the Kansas law with regard to school buses, by its definition in K.S.A.8-1461 (Supp., 1976), and its requirements of under K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp., 1976) (which include all safety requirements of the Kansas Transportation Manual, effective May 1, 1976) preempted, as applied to common carriers sold and designed for use in urban transportation, by federal law under 15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)?

Answers to these questions or as many of them as you feel is appropriate, will greatly clarify our position.

James N. Clymer Legal Staff

ID: aiam0789

Dear Mr. Kreuger: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1972, petitioning t amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' Your petition both requests that amendments be made to the standard, and comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking published May 26, 1971 (36 F.R. 9565). For the reasons indicated below, your petition is hereby denied.; You petition that the 4- inch-per-minute burn rate specified in th standard be changed to 12- inches-per-minute. Your argument is that a 4-inch-per-minute rate is unreasonable because variations in the burn rates of materials make it impossible, without averaging test results, to guarantee a 4-inch-per- minute rate for the majority of materials used in vehicle interiors. You suggest that a 12-inch-per-minute rate is reasonable because only 1.2 inches of material would burn in 6 seconds, the time you specify as necessary for a vehicle to be stopped from 70 mph, and maintain that a 12- inch-per-minute rate should at least be specified until the NHTSA compiles a list of approved fire retardant additives.; Your request to change the 4- inch-per-minute burn rate to one of 1 inches is denied. The 4-inch-per- minute rate was incorporated into the standard as a result of the agency's determination that it provides a flammability rate sufficiently low to provide adequate escape time from a vehicle, in the event fire should occur. In addition, the combustion by-products of some vehicle interior materials are such that the materials must burn at a rate that is low enough that vehicle occupants will not be overcome or panicked by harmful gases before they can escape from the vehicle. We believe that a 4-inch- per-minute burn rate is necessary to respond to this need. With respect to the justification you provide for a 12-inch-per-minute burn rate, the NHTSA does not agree that this test reflects adequate escape time. Testing at the University of Oklahoma has indicated, rather, that escape times that are needed exceed considerably the time needed to merely stop a moving vehicle. It must also be remembered that materials burn most slowly in the horizontal position, and therefore the laboratory horizontal burn rate cannot be used as a direct indication of how much material might be burned in an on-the-road event.; The NHTSA does not agree that the 4- inch-per-minute rate should b modified because the burn rates of identical materials may vary. While we understand that such variations do occur, this fact will be taken into account, along with the frequency and extent of test failures, in assessing whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in meeting the standard. It would not be appropriate, however, to respond to the problem of variability by relaxing the burn rate. Such an action would probably result simply in manufacturers choosing cheaper and less safe materials. With reference to your request that the standard provide for the averaging of burn rate results, the structure of the motor vehicle safety standards does not allow for the averaging of test results. This is because the NHTSA must be able to establish firmly that a material does not conform to the requirements, on the basis of a limited-sample test. This requires that each material meet the requirements when subjected to the test procedures of the standard. Again, minor and occasional deviations will be considered similarly to problems involving variability, in assessing whether a manufacturer has used due care.; Your request that the NHTSA approve flame-retardant treatments if th 4-inch- per-minute rate is maintained is denied. The NHTSA does not specify materials which manufacturers are to use to conform to standards. The responsibility for conformity rests with manufacturers and it is for them to determine which materials and treatments they should use to meet the standard's requirements.; You have requested a one-year delay in the effective date of th standard. This request is denied. The NHTSA believes the effective date of September 1, 1972, has provided sufficient time for manufacturers to conform to the standard's requirements.; With reference to the test procedures of the standard, you petitio that a test cabinet recommended by Daimler-Benz be substituted for the test cabinet specified in the standard, arguing that the Daimler-Benz cabinet provides better ventilation, faster dissipation of smoke, a lower heat buildup, and more uniform test results. The NHTSA will evaluate, as part of its compliance program, the test procedures of the standard. If the NHTSA determines that the test procedures should be modified to improve the reliability of results, the characteristics of the Daimler-Benz cabinet as well as other available information will be utilized in evaluating possible changes in these procedures. If manufacturers do use other test procedures, they should correlate, to support a showing of 'due care,' the results they obtain with results obtained using the procedures specified in the standard.; You also request that the standard be amended to provide for th conditioning of samples within a range of 73.5 degrees F. *+* 3.5 degrees, and a relative humidity of 50 *+* 5%. The standard presently specifies a conditioning temperature of 70 degrees F. at a relative humidity of 50%. This request is denied. Test conditions are specified as exact values in the motor vehicle safety standards because they represent a legal standard, not manufacturers' procedures. Manufacturers should design their tests, choosing their own procedures as necessary, to ensure that the materials will perform satisfactorily at the specified conditions.; You have also requested a more precise definition of the gas used i the test procedure, and that the standard specify a ventilated hood. These requests are denied. The NHTSA has judged the description of the gas to be used in the test cabinet to be sufficiently specific. With respect to ventilation of the test cabinet, manufacturers are free, subject to the limitations described above, to modify this aspect of the procedure as well.; You also request that the standard be amended to exclude smal components, and comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking of May 26, 1972, to the effect that neither testing both sides of materials nor testing separate padding materials should be required. Each of these points is being considered as part of our preparation of an amendment to the standard, based on the notice of May 26, 1971. Your comments on these matters have been considered in the preparation of this amendment, which we plan to publish in the near future.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 22691.drn

Mr. Robert L. Cumpstone
Manager of Motor Transport Services
Bureau of Public Transportation
State of Connecticut
Department of Transportation
2800 Berlin Turnpike, P.O. Box 317546
Newington, CT 06131-7546






Dear Mr. Cumpstone:





This responds to your letter asking whether a Connecticut requirement for four emergency exits per side for a bus operating in that State is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. As explained below, the answer is yes. Connecticut may not refuse to register buses that comply with FMVSS No. 217 on the basis of the State's push out window requirement.

You wrote to us after a private business tried to register a new 56-passenger touring bus in your State. Apparently, the bus did not pass a State inspection. In your letter, you stated that the bus did not pass inspection because the

... motor bus type vehicle manufacturer has changed the configuration of its vehicles, which eliminates the number of push out windows to less than the number required by the end user for a vehicle to be placed in motor bus service under our user requirements.

Specifically, you provided a copy of the Connecticut "user standard that applies to our regulated motor bus operators," which states in part:

All buses equipped with push-out windows and no emergency door ... and seating over thirty-seven adult passengers shall have at least four such windows on each side.

As you note, this "user standard" is not identical to the emergency exit requirements for buses established by FMVSS No. 217. The issue therefore is whether the State safety standard for four windows on each side of a new bus (seating more than 37 passengers) is consistent with Federal law. Under 49 U.S.C. Section 30103(b), Preemption:

(1) When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter [49 U.S.C. Sections 30101 et seq.], a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter ....

There is a "motor vehicle safety standard in effect under this chapter" that is "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle" as the State law, namely FMVSS No. 217. That standard establishes requirements applicable to the same aspect of safety performance; i.e., bus emergency exits.

Unlike the State requirement, FMVSS No. 217 does not specify a number of emergency window exits. Paragraph S5.2.2.1 of the standard specifies that non-school buses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits which collectively amount, in total square centimeters, to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus. At least 40 percent of the total required area of unobstructed openings, computed in the above manner, shall be provided on each side of a bus. In determining the total unobstructed openings provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area, shall be credited with more than 3,458 square centimeters of the total area requirement.

NHTSA safety standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30112.) Thus, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Connecticut could not establish a bus exit requirement not identical to that in FMVSS No. 217 that would apply to the manufacture or sale of new buses in Connecticut.

However, NHTSA does not regulate the operation (i.e., use) of motor vehicles, which is generally under the jurisdiction of the States. Connecticut is not required to impose operational requirements that are "identical" to the FMVSS. Nonetheless, there are limits on State operation requirements, in that general principles of preemption law apply. These principles preclude States from adopting operational requirements that are more stringent than the requirements applicable to new vehicles under the FMVSS, because more stringent State requirements would have the effect of precluding the use of a Federally compliant vehicle in that State. ⁽¹⁾ Thus, Connecticut may not refuse to register or allow the operation of buses that comply with FMVSS No. 217 on the basis of the state's more stringent push out window requirement.

This conclusion is not inconsistent with the statements made in my November 18, 1996 letter to Ms. Betsy Dittemore of the Iowa Department of Public Safety. That letter addressed an Iowa operating restriction, with respect to the light transmittance of vehicle windows, that was less stringent than the Federal requirement. Unlike the letter to Dittemore, the Connecticut user

standard is more stringent than the FMVSS. The more stringent Connecticut user standard conflicts with and frustrates the scheme of Federal law because it prevents the use of vehicles that comply with the FMVSS.

I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217
d.11/01/01






---

¹

However, these principles do not apply to a vehicle (such as a school bus) procured by a State or local governmental jurisdiction for its own use.

ID: 1985-04.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber -- Vice President, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive P.O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Thank you for you letter of August 12, 1985, to Administrator Steed, telling us of your plans to identify Mercedes-Benz vehicles which are equipped with your Supplemental Restraint System. You stated that, beginning with model year 1986, you plan to use the vehicle identification number (VIN) plate location for this purpose. The attachments to your letter depict a VIN plate which indicates whether the vehicle is equipped with an air bag for the driver or for both front seating positions. As long as the requirements of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, and Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements, are met, we believe your plan to use the VIN plate location to identify an air-bag equipped car in this manner should be useful. We agree that it should enable service departments, dismantlers, or recyclers to quickly and easily note that a vehicle is equipped with an air bag. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Acting Chief Council

ID: 008315drn

Mr. Thomas V. Kazyaka
Chief Executive Officer
T.V.K. Industries, Inc.
P. O. Box 1161
Gualala, CA 95445

Dear Mr. Kazyaka:

This responds to your letter asking for reconsideration of our October 15, 2003, interpretation letter to you. In that letter, we concluded that manual transmission shift levers need not be backlit or display the gear engaged in order to comply with S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.

In your new letter, you stated again that manual transmission shift levers may not be visible in a low light environment. After reviewing your letter, we have concluded it does not provide a basis for us to change our opinion.

As we stated earlier, S3.2 of FMVSS No. 102 specifies the following requirements for vehicles with manual transmissions:

Manual transmissions. Identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the drivers seating position.

While this paragraph requires identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, we affirm that it neither requires identification of the gear engaged nor backlighting. We also note that no other FMVSS requires vehicles with only manual transmission shift levers to identify the gear engaged or to have backlighting.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:102
d.12/9/03