NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: nht88-4.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: I. ROBERT EHRLICH -- ENGINEER

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-5-88, FROM I. ROBERT EHRLICH, TO RICHARD STROMBOTNE, OCC-2077

TEXT: This responds to your letter addressed to Dr. Richard Strombotne, concerning side impact protection. You requested copies of our two January 1988 proposals, and stated that you are particularly interested in whether or not the proposed standards would a pply to stretch limousines. According to your letter, these vehicles are frequently covered by light sheet steel to fill in the gap created by lengthening a conventional passenger car. You stated that this leaves a wide, unprotected gap in the center.

Enclosed are copies of the two proposals. Your question concerning whether the proposals would apply to stretch limousines is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new 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, C ertification.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles. A defi nition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR Part 571.3.

The two January 1988 notices propose to amend Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, to upgrade its test procedures and performance requirements. Those amendments, like the current version of Standard No. 214, apply only to passenger cars.

A person who stretches a completed passenger car prior to its first sale to a consumer is considered a vehicle alterer under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. One issue which sometimes arises when a vehicle is altered is whether it remains the same "type" of vehicle after the alteration, and thus subject to the same standards. We w ould assume ordinarily that the "stretching" of a passenger car would not change the vehicle's classification. Under this assumption, an alterer who stretches a passenger car would be required to certify that the stretched vehicle continues to meet all standards applicable to passenger cars, including Standard No. 214. Thus, in this situation, the proposed amendments would apply to stretch limousines.

I note that it is conceivable that an alterer may be able to demonstrate, depending on the nature of the overall alterations, including alterations other than stretching, that a passenger car which is stretched has changed classification and is considere d a multipurpose passenger vehicle or bus instead of a passenger car. If this were the case, the alterer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all standards applicable to the vehicle type for which it is now classified. This would not include Standard No. 214, since, as indicated above, that standard applies only to passenger cars.

A person who stretches a used passenger car is not considered a vehicle alterer and is not required to certify that the modified vehicle continues to meet applicable safety standards. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repai r businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with an applicable F ederal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURES

ID: aiam3756

Dear Mr. Miller: The Department of Commerce has forwarded your letter of September 27 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office, for our reply. You have asked about Federal standards for motorcycle headlamps in connection with your investigation of an accident in Indiana involving a motorcycle reputedly equipped with 'a custom light approximately 2 1/2' by 5 '...smaller than a stock light.' Indiana Law requires that motorcycles be equipped with headlamps meeting Federal standards.; The principal Federal standard on motorcycle headlighting is SA Standard J584a, incorporated by reference in 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The standards do not list permissible sizes for motorcycle headlamps that are not sealed beam, specifying only that the light emitted comply with requirements at various photometric test points. Thus, the small size of the lamp in question is not indicative that it failed to meet Federal motorcycle requirements.; However, we are not aware that motorcycle headlamps are available i rectangular sizes smaller than those used on passenger cars, i.e., 4 inches by 6 inches. Perhaps the lamp in question was intended by its manufacturer for use as a driving lamp on passenger cars, its size is consistent with that type of lamp. But without further information I'm afraid we can be of no greater asistance (sic).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3326

Dear Mr. O'Connor: This responds to your letter of July 2, 1980, requesting informatio regarding manufacturing standards for front bucket seats on passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if there are any standards that were applicable to 1969-model Mustangs, particularly with respect to the pivot pin brackets on seats in these vehicles.; The initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were issued in 196 and became effective January 1, 1968. Included in these initial standards was Standard No. 207, *Anchorages of Seats--Passenger Cars* (copy enclosed). Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements in terms of overall seat strength. You will note that there are no requirements for specific components of the seat, however, such as pivot pin brackets. The Federal safety standards are generally specified in terms of performance requirements which allow manufacturers to use any designs they choose. If the Mustang with which you are concerned was manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the manufacturer would have had to certify that the vehicle was in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 207.; I am also enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 as it i currently written, since the standard has been amended several times since it was first issued. I hope you will find this information helpful.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5367

"Dear Mr. Carr: This responds to your question asking whether Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps, applies to 'motor vehicle equipment relating to light duty, medium duty, and heavy duty trucks or truck manufacturers.' As explained below, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. S2. Application of Standard No. 211 states the following: This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and passenger car and multipurpose passenger vehicle equipment. 'Multipurpose passenger vehicle' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less, which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. Since Standard No. 211 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and their equipment, Standard No. 211 does not apply to trucks, or truck equipment. 'Truck' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as a motor vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. Accordingly, manufacturers of trucks or truck equipment are not required to certify their trucks and truck equipment to the requirements of Standard No. 211. I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht68-1.24

DATE: 05/09/68

FROM: SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Counihan, Casey and Loomis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 4, 1968, to Mr. Edwin L. Slagle, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

Standard No. 205 requires that glazing materials manufactured for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles for sale in the United States on or after January 1, 1968, meet the requirements of ASA standard 226.1966. In addition, passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, for sale in the United States, must contain glazing materials that meet the requirements of ASA Standard 226.1-1966.

The following information is offered in answer to your qeustions:

Q. "We would appreciate your advice as to whether under Section (sic) 205, our members may install windshields manufactured prior to January 1, 1968, and containing a plastic interlayer of 0.015" subsequent to January 1, 1968?"

A. Yes, preformed or presized windshields manufactured prior to January 1, 1968, of 0.015 plastic interlayer may be used as replacement glass in used vehicles after January 1, 1968.

Q. "We would also appreciate your advice as to whether the fact that a glass dealer cuts a windshield to size from material manufactured prior to January 1, 1968, would alter your answer to our first question."

A. A dealer who cuts a windshield to size is considered a manufacturer, hence after January 1, 1968, 0.015 plastic interlayer

[Page 2 Is Missing.]

ID: aiam1726

Dear Mr. Donnelly: This responds to your letter of May 30, 1975, concerning the standard applicable to a tire which you manufacture and sell with the designation L78-15LT, Load Range C.; You are mistaken in your assumption that a station wagon is classifie as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. Because it is constructed neither on a truck chassis nor with special features for occasional off-road operation, a station wagon is a passenger car rather than a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.; If, despite this misunderstanding, the L78-15LT tire in question i designated by you as primarily intend for use on lightweight trucks or multi-purpose passenger vehicles, then it is a light truck tire subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*.; Because a station wagon is a passenger car, Standard No. 110 require that its original equipment tires comply with Standard No. 109. Standard No. 110 is not applicable to used cars, so there is no prohibition on the use of the L78-15LT tire as replacement equipment on a station wagon. However, because the informational placard on a station wagon would suggest to its owner the use of inflation pressures which are dangerously inadequate for light truck tires, we do not wish to encourage the sale of such tires as replacement equipment for use on station wagons.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0265

Dear Mr. Borisoff: Reference is made to your letter of October 14, 1970 to Secretary Volp regarding our Consumer Information publication.; Concerning your comments on stopping distance, the wording used on pag 4 is the exact wording of this regulation. The category 'Stopping distance in feet with emergency brakes (partial service brake system)' is a generalization of the regulatory wording meant to convey the sense of this requirement to a consumer who may have no engineering background. The paragraph on page 193 paraphrases the regulatory wording. The title 'Partial Failure on One System' is, again, meant to convey the meaning to an otherwise uninformed consumer. I trust this clarifies the situation for you.; The reason many motorcycles are not listed is the fact that the dat was not received in time to be included in the book. I am enclosing copies of the data available for U.S. made motorcycles as you requested.; Volume 2, covering the 1971 makes and models will be availabl approximately November 15, 1970 and can be obtained from the Government Printing Office at a cost of $2.00. In addition two (2) new Consumer Aid publications entitled 'BRAKES - A Comparison of Braking Performance for 1971 Passenger Cars' and 'TIRES - A Comparison of Tire Reserve Load for 1971 Passenger Cars' will also be available at a cost of $.40 each.; Many thanks for your kind words and your interest in our motor vehicl safety program.; Sincerely, Rodolfo A. Diaz, Acting Associate Director, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam1550

Dear Mr. Semark: This is in response to your letter of May 15, 1974, requesting tha vehicles which seat 10 persons or less, but are of the same base design as buses specifically designed as school buses, be classified as school buses regardless of their intended use.; The vehicles that would be affected by the reclassification you reques are currently categorized as multipurpose passenger vehicles, since they provide seating positions for 10 persons or less. In general, the multipurpose passenger vehicle category is subject to more stringent safety requirements than either the bus or the school bus categories. Further, additional standards are becoming effective for multipurpose passenger vehicles in the near future as part of the NHTSA's overall plan to extend the requirements presently applicable to passenger cars. Thus, multipurpose passenger vehicles can expect increasingly higher safety performance levels, comparable to those of passenger cars.; Vehicles used to transport handicapped children should not b reclassified in such a way as to reduce the number or the stringency of the requirements to which they are subject.; On the basis of the above reasons, the NHTSA has concluded that th vehicles about which you are petitioning should not be reclassified as school buses and your petition is therefore denied.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam3405

Dear Mr. Schultz: This responds to your recent letter asking whether a 4-wheel driv pickup truck must comply with Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*. You also ask whether the definitions of vehicle classification under Federal regulations are mutually exclusive.; The application section of Safety Standard No. 216, section 3 specifies that the standard applies to passenger cars. This means that the standard applies *only* to passenger cars. Therefore, the standard does not apply to a pickup truck.; The definitions of the basic vehicle classifications found in 49 CF Part 571.3 are mutually exclusive. If a vehicle falls within the definition of a 'truck,' the vehicle is not also within the definition of a 'passenger car.' The definition of a passenger car does not specifically exclude trucks because the definition is based on the function of the vehicle. Thus, a passenger car is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying persons. A truck, on the other hand, is defined as a vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. Since a pickup is designed primarily for carrying property and not persons, it is a truck and not a passenger car. Each motor vehicle has a certification label attached to its door which specifies the vehicle's classification.; I hope this has clarified any questions you had concerning vehicl classification under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2037

Dear Mr. Donnelly: This responds to your letter of may 30, 1975, concerning the standard applicable to a tire which you manufacture and sell with the designation L78-15LT, Load Range C.; You are mistaken in your assumption that a station wagon is classifie as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle. Because it is constructed neither on a truck chassis nor with special features for occasional off-road operation, a station wagon is a passenger car rather than a multi-purpose passenger vehicle.; If, despite this misunderstanding, the L78-15t tire is question i designated by you as primarily intended for use on lightweight trucks or multi-purpose passenger vehicles, the it is a light truck tire subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars*.; Because a station wagon is a passenger car, Standard No. 110 require that its original equipment tires comply with standard No. 109. Standard No. 110 is not applicable to used cars, so there is no prohibition on the use of the L78-15LT tire as replacement equipment on a station wagon. However, because the informational placard on a station wagon would suggest its owner the use of inflation pressures which are dangerously inadequate for light truck tires, we do not wish to encourage the sale of such tires as replacement equipment for use on station wagons.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel