ID: nht78-3.36

DATE: 04/12/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hess and Eisenhardt Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the vehicle classification of a proposed new station wagon having a Cadillac commercial chassis. Specifically, you ask whether the vehicle can be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle on the basis that it has the same chassis that is used on hearses and ambulances, which are multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Based on your description, it is the agency's opinion that the proposed new station wagon would be classified as a passenger car. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is described in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." The vehicle you described does not meet either of the criteria of that definition. The fact that your vehicle would be built on the same chassis as hearses and ambulances does not affect its classification as a passenger car.

The classification of hearses and ambulances as multipurpose passenger vehicles was based upon specific policy considerations. The unique functions of these vehicles are accommodated by a strengthening of their chassis. Because of the special uses to which they are put, other aspects of the vehicles are designed in a manner which inhibits compliance with several passenger car standards. Given the chassis modifications and the special uses of these vehicles, the NHTSA determined that the policy considerations that led to the placing of vehicles with truck chassis into a category separate from passenger cars apply equally to ambulances and hearses, and that the chassis used for these vehicles may reasonably be considered truck chassis for purposes of classification. These policy considerations are not relevant to the vehicle you describe since it is apparently designed to function primarily as a passenger-carrying vehicle.

SINCERELY,

THE HESS & EISENHARDT CO.

March 1, 1978

N.H.T.S.A. Office of Chief Counsel

Dear Sirs:

The Hess & Eisenhardt Company would like the N.H.T.S.A. to give us an interpretation on vehicle classification for a proposed new vehicle.

This new vehicle will be a Cadillac Station Wagon. It will have nine designated seating positions forward of the rear axle with luggage storage rearward of the rear axle. We are questioning what type of vehicle it should be classified as.

The reason for our question is due to the station wagon chassis. The basic wagon chassis will be the Cadillac commercial chassis. This is a special limousine chassis with, among other things, bigger brakes, springs, wheels and tires. We currently use this chassis for hearses and ambulances. Since hearses and ambulances are classified as an M.P.V. would using an M.P.V. chassis make the wagon an M.P.V.? Or, since it looks like a station wagon, would it be classified as a passenger car? Also, if we increased the seating capacity to eleven people would it be classified as a bus?

As you can see, there are a couple of ways to look at our proposed vehicle. Possibly you cannot tell us what it should be classified as, but any advice that would give us a N.H.T.S.A. point of view in this matter would be appreciated.

James N. Miller Engineer, Special Vehicles

ID: nht78-3.37

DATE: 07/19/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert Hoppe

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 3, 1978, in which you request a determination as to whether the three-wheeled motor vehicle which you are designing is a "motorcycle" or an automobile ("passenger car") for purposes of complying with federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The vehicle falls within the definition of "motorcycle" set forth in regulations under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966:

"Motorcycle" means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheeles in contact with the ground. (49 CFR Part 571.3(b))

Accordingly, the vehicle would have to meet the requirements of safety standards applicable to motorcycles. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining where you can obtain federal standards and regulations.

I want to point out that in April 1974, this agency proposed a revision of the above definition of "motorcycle" under which this term would be limited to two-wheeled motor vehicles and to three-wheeled motor vehicles with handlebars and no passenger enclosures. I have enclosed a copy of this proposal. However, in view of the time that has elapsed since the proposal was issued, the agency has decided not to issue a final rule on this subject without providing another opportunity to comment.

SINCERELY,

Office of Chief Counsel Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

May 3, 1978

Gentlemen:

Enclosed is a drawing of a small vehicle I am presently designing. Would you please give me a determination as to whether it is a motorcycle or an automobile? I realize that if I only build a single car I won't have any trouble making it street legal, however if I want to produce it in quantity it will have to comply with the various safety laws. Obviously having definite knowledge of which safety laws I will have to comply with is basic to the design.

It is a three wheel vehicle. The single wheel in the rear is driven by the engine, the two front wheels steer. It will hold a single occupant who will sit in an automobile type seat and will steer with a normal steering wheel. Entry/exit is by a single gull wing type door on the left side. The windshield will be safety glass, provided with windshield wiper and defroster. Two headlights, tail lights, brake lights and turn signals will be included in the design. The frame will be welded box tubing with independent front suspension using motorcycle spring over shock absorbers. The wheels and tires will be standard 4.00 x 18 motorcycle. The fully enclosed body will be fiberglass. It will have a rear mounted motorcycle engine and standard swing arm. The engine will be a water cooled "V"-twin of 500 C.C. displacement and uses an enclosed shaft drive to the rear wheel.

My purpose is to produce an extremely economical commuter vehicle which will get one man and his briefcase back and forth to work as comfortably and as swiftly (55 mph) as a modern car while getting 100 miles per gallon of gas. I believe there will be an urgent need for such a vehicle in the near future.

A swift determination and any other information you can give me will be greatly appreciated.

SINCERELY,

Robert Hoppe

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-3.38

DATE: 11/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Briggs and Morgan

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 9, 1978, letter asking several questions concerning the modification and use of vans as school buses.

First, you ask whether your client may purchase a van that transports fewer than 10 passengers, and add passenger seating to it without complying with the school bus safety standards. The answer to your question is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates the manufacture of motor vehicles. Further, the agency prohibits manufacturers, dealers, repair businesses or distributors from subsequently rendering inoperative compliance of a motor vehicle with the safety standards. However, the agency does not regulate modifications made by vehicle owners on their own vehicles.

Second, you ask whether buses manufactured after April 1, 1977, which were purchased to transport handicapped adults or other adults can subsequently be used to transport children to and from school even though the buses do not comply with the requirements. The answer to this question is the same as the answer to your first question. The agency regulates only the manufacture and initial sale of these vehicles and does not control the use of used vehicles.

Finally, you ask whether your client may purchase a 15 passenger vehicle and subsequently modify it in such a manner that it carries fewer than 10 passengers without complying with the school bus safety standards. Since the school bus safety standards apply only to vehicles carrying 10 or more passengers, a vehicle carrying fewer than 10 passengers is not required to comply with the requirements.

Although the Federal government's regulations do not prohibit the modifications that you propose in your letter, there are several other considerations of which you client should be made aware. First, although your modifications do not fall within our authority, in the case of your first and second questions the vehicles may fall within a State's definition of school bus and should comply with the school bus safety standards. Some States will not permit the registration of vehicles for school bus use if those vehicles should comply with the safety standards and do not. Therefore, you should check the appropriate State office to ensure that the vehicles you intend to modify can be used under existing State law. Second, there is a potential for increased private tort liability for accidents occurring in vehicles that should comply with safety standards but do not.

SINCERELY,

BRIGGS AND MORGAN

October 9, 1978

Roger Tilton Attorney Adviser National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Utilization of Multi-Purpose Vans in the Transportation of School Children

Dear Mr. Tilton:

As I indicated during our recent phone conversation, our office represents a Minnesota company whose operations include the transportation of handicapped school children in van-type vehicles. Prior to making final decisions regarding the purchase of additional vehicles and possible modification of others, our client has asked our assistance in seeking a clarification of certain statutory and regulatory provisions relating to the applicability of federal school bus safety standards.

As you may recall from our discussion, we have three rather specific inquiries:

1. May our client purchase van-type vehicles manufactured after April 1, 1977 which are designed to carry less than ten passengers and modify the vans so as to allow the seating of twelve or fourteen passengers without subjecting them to the federal safety standards for school buses?

2. The Company purchased a number of fifteen-passenger vans manufactured after April 1, 1977 for the purpose of transporting handicapped adults to and from their workplace. Subsequent to the purchase of these vehicles, the intended use was frustrated by the fact that the handicapped adult traffic ceased to be available. May the Company now utilize these fifteen-passenger vehicles in the transportation of school children without equipping them in accordance with the federal safety standards for school buses?

In a similar vein, the Company has considered the purchase of other fifteen-passenger vans for transporting persons to and from their jobs. If these vehicles were purchased primarily for that purpose, could they also be used for transporting school children without being equipped in conformance with the federal safety standards for school buses?

3. May the Company purchase fifteen-passenger vans and convert them to accomodate a combination of wheelchairs and regular seating not exceeding ten persons, including the driver, without application of the federal school bus safety standards?

Your initial reaction appeared to confirm our judgment that these questions may be answered in the affirmative. We would be greatly appreciative of a written response from your office which addresses the above questions in light of the applicable provisions of federal law.

I have attached a short Memorandum which was prepared in our office some time ago reviewing the applicable provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I have enclosed it here for your convenience.

Finally, if you find you need additional facts or a clarification of matters contained herein, please don't hesitate to call the undersigned at your convenience.

John B. Van de North, Jr.

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: nht78-3.39

DATE: 12/26/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Dominic S. Piacenza

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 9, 1978, asking whether a memorandum of understanding exists between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the apparent overlapping jurisdiction regarding tire marketing practices created by Section 203 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1423). You ask whether NHTSA's jurisdiction extends solely to safety-related issues.

NHTSA's authority is not confined solely to the area of motor vehicle and traffic safety. For example, under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901) the agency has been given authority over the areas of fuel economy and economic losses to consumers as they relate to automobiles. While the Safety Act is primarily concerned with safety issues, Section 203 of that law does provide NHTSA with limited authority over tire marketing practices. The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR 575.104), issued by NHTSA under the authority of Section 203, provide information to consumers in tire performance areas relating to both safety and economic issues.

While the FTC is aware of and supports NHTSA's efforts in the field of tire grading, no memorandum of understanding exists with regard to the scope of NHTSA's activities. Section 205 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1425) does state that, in the event of conflict between orders or regulations issued under the Safety Act concerning motor vehicle tires and FTC orders or interpretations, the orders or regulations issued under the Safety Act shall prevail.

ID: nht78-3.4

DATE: 04/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 16, 1978, asking whether the certification markings required on glazing materials by Safety Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation.

The answer to your question is no. There is nothing in the certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked his glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as these markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer there is no prohibition against covering the markings.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Cars & Concepts, Inc.

February 16, 1978

Mr. Oats -- Office of Chief Council, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Oats:

Regarding your conversations with Ed Myjack of my office, it is his understanding that the Department of Transportation markings on glass need not be visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle (providing the original manufacturer's marking do remain on the glass).

As we provide vinyl top design and installations on some OEM vehicles, some of the designs may cover these markings on the quarter glass and/or backlights.

Since we provide these type of installations to the OEM, they require written proof that such modifications are within the requirements of FMVSS No. 205.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Moe Pare, Jr. -- Director of Design

cc: D. Draper; E. Myjack

ID: nht78-3.40

DATE: 08/30/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Utah State Tax Commission

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 10, 1978, requesting approval to use Utah's proposed Certificate of Title as a substitute for the Federal odometer disclosure form required by 49 CFR Part 580.

The proposed Certificate of Title which you enclosed with your letter differs from the Federal odometer disclosure form in the following ways:

(1) The Utah Certificate of Title contains no reference to State or Federal law;

(2) the set of certifications relating to the distance the vehicle has travelled are shortened by adopting the format recommended by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators;

(3) the certifications relating to alteration of the odometer are deleted; and

(4) the transferee is not required to sign the statement.

The only suggestions that we have are that you include a reference to either State or Federal law and the signature of the transferee (buyer). The purpose of the reference to the law is to alert the purchaser to the fact that the odometer information is a legal requirement, the violation of which is punishable. The purpose of the transferee's signature is to ensure that he or she has seen the disclosure statement and to prevent him or her from later claiming that no statement was received. With these changes Utah's Certificate of Title will be in substantive conformity with the Federal odometer law, despite its differences from the Federal form. Therefore, pursuant to 49 CFR 580.4(f)(2), I hereby grant your request to use Utah's Certificate of Title, with the changes noted above, as a substitute for the Federal form.

ID: nht78-3.41

DATE: 02/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Minnesota Department of Public Safety

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 15, 1977, requesting an exemption from the Federal odometer disclosure regulations which will become effective as of January 1, 1978.

We appreciate the efforts of Minnesota to include odometer information on its certificates of title. However, we are not granting any exemptions for States which have not previously had odometer information on their titles. Since the citizens of your State have had to execute separate odometer disclosure statements in the past they will not be placed under any additional burden by this ruling. They will merely continue past practices until such time as Minnesota incorporates the revised odometer format on their titles.

ID: nht78-3.42

DATE: 11/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: McClintock Donovan Carson & Roach

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 1, 1978, requesting information on the Federal odometer disclosure requirements. You specifically asked what a lessor's responsibility is with regard to the certifications on the disclosure statement. The lessor, as transferor of a vehicle, is required to certify, to the best of his knowledge, as to the accuracy of the vehicle's odometer. A lessor should assume that an odometer is accurate unless he has reason to believe otherwise. Any reasonable belief that the odometer is wrong should be reflected on the disclosure statement by checking, in the first set of certifications, either box 2 or 3, as appropriate. In situations where the lessor has no knowledge as to the accuracy of the odometer reading, he should not state that the mileage is in error because to the best of his knowledge it is correct.

With regard to the second set of certifications, the lessor should check box 1 unless he altered or knows that the lessee or some other person altered the odometer. Since your client is concerned about the possibility that the lessee may alter the odometer, he may find it advisable to protect himself by requiring the lessee to indemnify him in the event of liability under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. He may also add a statement on the disclosure form that the vehicle was subject to a lease or was otherwise outside of his control.

ID: nht78-3.43

DATE: 06/21/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Mellon Bank

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent telephone conversation with Kathy DeMeter of my staff concerning the retention of odometer disclosure statements. The question you raised was in what order the statements should be retained. The two methods you proposed using were alphabetically by the name of the individual or organization to which you transferred to the vehicle. 49 CFR requires each dealer or distributor of a motor vehicle to retain the statements "in an order that is appropriate to his business requirements and that permits systematic retrieval."

Either method you propose would probably permit systematic retrieval and you may therefore select the method which best suits your business requirements.

ID: nht78-3.44

DATE: 06/28/78

FROM: John Womack; NHTSA

TO: McMullen & Porter

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 6, 1978, requesting an interpretation of the Feeral odometer disclosure requirements. The question you raised was whether the owner of a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of 64,000 pounds is required under Federal regulations to issue an odometer disclosure statement to the purchaser of the truck. 49 CFR @580.4, Disclosure of odometer information, requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to furnish to the transferee a written disclosure statement. 49 CFR@580.5 (a) (1), however, exempts a transferor of a vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 16,000 pounds from having to fulfill the requirements of @580.4

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in promulgating these regulations added this exemption section because buses and large trucks are routinely driven hundreds of thousands of miles, and their maintenance records, not their odometers, have traditionally been relied on by buyers as the principal guide to their condition. It is, therefore, the interpretation of the NHTSA that in the situation you describe in your letter, no disclosure statement was required to be issued under the Federal regulations.