ID: 8162

7

Mr. David H. B. Lee President, Lee Family, Inc. 701 East 30th Hutchinson, KS 67502

Dear Mr. Lee:

This responds to your letter of December 29, 1992, with respect to a "Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor", for which you have requested a review and testing. You have also asked for our comments and advice on the sale and promotion of this product. We assume that you would like to sell it in the aftermarket to vehicle owners.

We have reviewed the videotape you enclosed, and are able to advise you on this basis. The tape shows that the device is intended for installation by the owner of the vehicle, and, when installed, causes the center highmounted brake lamp to flash in proportion to braking effort (i.e., a panic or quick stop produces a higher flash rate than a stop made at a slower vehicle deceleration).

Motor vehicle lighting in the United States is subject to both Federal and State requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment are the Federal requirements to which I refer. Standard No. 108 prescribes requirements for center highmounted stop lamps that must be followed by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and met at the time the vehicle is sold by the dealer to its first owner. One of these requirements is that the center highmounted stop lamp be steady burning when it is in use. Because the Sensor creates a flashing light, a vehicle manufacturer would not be able to use it as original equipment on a vehicle subject to Standard No. 108's requirements for center lamps. These vehicles are passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, and light trucks and vans manufactured on and after September 1, 1993.

The Safety Act governs modifications to vehicles after their initial sale. This Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from modifications that affect compliance with Standard No. 108 (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). Thus, a vehicle owner may install the Sensor without violation of Federal requirements. However, we interpret the Safety Act as prohibiting the installation of the Sensor by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Under the Act, these persons shall not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In our view, this forbids the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the Act does not forbid the sale of componentry such as the Sensor which creates a noncompliance once it is installed. In summary, under Federal law, any person may sell your device, but only a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may install it.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State prohibit the use of a flashing center highmounted stop lamp, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We are returning your videotape and sample Sensors.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:108 d.1/26/93

ID: 21771.rbm

Stephen E. Van Gaasbeck, Esq.
1227 S.W. Military Drive
San Antonio, TX 78221





Dear Mr. Van Gaasbeck:

This responds to your letter asking whether you may replace the air bag in your 1997 vehicle with a depowered 1998 air bag. You specifically wanted to know whether replacing the air bag would violate any standards or regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

As discussed below, there is no legal impediment to modifying older vehicles so that they have the same kinds of redesigned air bags being offered on most new vehicles. However, depending on the vehicle, such modifications may be very complicated and potentially expensive. Additionally, since the replacement air bag is different from the one for the original occupant protection system was designed, such a modification may have a negative effect on the integrity of the entire occupant protection system. You may wish to ask your vehicle manufacturer whether it your vehicle can be modified in this manner without a degradation in overall safety and at what cost.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars as part of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. 30122).

A manufacturer, dealer or other business which modified the air bags on your 1997 Ford F150 would not violate the "make inoperative" provision if, after the modification, the vehicle continued to meet the relevant requirements in effect either on the date of manufacture or as later amended. In 1997, NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to make it easier for manufacturers to quickly redesign their air bags, e.g., by reducing the power as compared to previous years. Modifications that assured that the vehicle complied with the amended requirements would thus not violate the "make inoperative" provision, even if the vehicle might no longer comply with the requirements in effect at the time it was built. As noted earlier, however, the modifications that would need to be made to an existing vehicle so that it would have redesigned air bags could be very complicated and potentially expensive.

I have enclosed a copy of the NHTSA publication "Air Bags and On-Off Switches, Information for an Informed Decision." While this publication does not address your concerns directly, it does provide useful information on how one can reduce the risk of air bag injury.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.4/19/01

ID: 24564ogm_Nov18

Ms. Mary Lowry
982 Rollingwood Loop, Apt. 114
Casselberry, FL 32707

Dear Ms. Lowry:

This responds to your letter asking for permission to have an automobile repair shop disconnect a malfunctioning seat belt warning system in a 1993 model year passenger car.You state that the warning light and "beeper" in this vehicle have developed "a mind of its own."The warning light and audible warning in the car originally functioned properly and would cease operating when the belt was fastened, but now remain on after the seat belt has been latched.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer or repair facility would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning warning system.Further, Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt warning system.

Nevertheless, we strongly urge that you have the system repaired, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection for all occupants during the remainder of its life.Seat belt use is the single most important step that people can take to reduce their risk of injury while riding in a vehicle.We also note that dealers and repair facilities might be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection.

By way of background information, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1993 model year cars to be equipped with seat belt warning system that would remind occupants at the front outboard seating positions to fasten their seat belts when the key was placed in the ignition and moved to the "on" or "start" positions.

Whether a dealer or repair business could disconnect the seat belt warning system is determined by Section 30122 of Chapter 301 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 30122).Section 30122(b) prohibits certain businesses from disconnecting or otherwise defeating a required safety device:

(b)Prohibition. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .

However, since the belt warning system in your vehicle is malfunctioning and is already partially inoperative, we would not consider any subsequent disconnection of the warning system as making it fully inoperative.I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer or repair shop must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In closing, we ask that you contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The report that you make, and other vehicle owners may make, are important information that helps the agency in determining if other vehicles like yours are experiencing the same or similar problems.This information helps us to determine if vehicles contain defects that may have an impact on safety.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.11/19/02

ID: 2524y

Mr. Manuel R. Garcia
PSC Box 1865
APO NY 09406

Dear Mr. Garcia:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1990, to Ms. DeMeter of this Office, with respect to importation requirements for motor vehicles. You have recently bought a l974 BMW l602 made "overseas", and would like information on Federal safety (and EPA) requirements the car must conform to before it is shipped, or, alternatively, whether it is permissible to make the necessary repairs after the car arrives in the United States.

Changes in the law affecting importation of cars subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which were effective January 31, l990, have made the process of importing nonconforming vehicles much more difficult than before. In brief, your car can be imported only if this agency has made a determination that it is capable of conversion to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an affirmative determination has been made, you may import the vehicle only if you have a contract with an importer who has registered with this agency to undertake to conform the vehicle to meet Federal requirements. If the conversion work has been performed abroad, the registered importer is nevertheless responsible for submitting verification that the work has been done. At this early date in implementing the law, the agency has made no determinations of vehicle eligibility, and has appointed only a handful of registered importers. I believe that the regulations of the EPA are similar; importation is accomplished through an "independent commercial importer" (ICI). We are forwarding a copy of your letter to that agency for its response.

You haven't indicated when you anticipate importing the BMW. I suggest, as the time approaches, you write our Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. He can then provide you with the latest list of registered importers, and vehicles for which affirmative importation determinations have been made. If your car is not among them, you may persuade a registered importer to petition the agency on your behalf. However, there is a fee imposed for consideration of petitions (either $1,560 or $2,150, depending on the car). This is payable in advance, and is non-refundable if a petition is denied. Further, a vehicle owner is not eligible to submit such a petition.

You didn't say how "recently" you bought your car. However, if it was before October 31, l988, and you were stationed outside the U.S. at that time and have never before imported a nonconforming vehicle, the law allows you, until October 31, l992, to import the car personally, without a registered importer and without an importation determination, and to have conversion work done by anyone you choose.

You also asked for "the publication that covers the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register." I am not sure what you mean, but I am enclosing our new vehicle importation form, Form HS-7, which all importers of motor vehicles must execute upon arrival of their vehicles. It is, in essence, a concise form of the new importation regulation. I am also enclosing copies of that regulation, and the ones on registered importers, vehicle eligibility determinations, and fees.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:59l#592#593#594 d:6/26/90

ID: 2832o

Jerry Swisher, Esq.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
Findlay, OH 45840

Dear Mr. Swisher:

This responds to your letter of May 20, 1988, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.109). Specifically, you asked if either of three proposed courses of action would comply with the labeling requirements specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 109. That section reads as follows: "Each tire shall be labeled with the name of the manufacturer, or the brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer in the manner specified in Part 574." None of your proposed courses of action would satisfy this requirement, as explained below.

You first asked if it is permissible to have no identification on the sidewall as to the name of the manufacturer or the brand name owner, but to simply use the identification numbers assigned to Cooper Tire under Part 574. Section S4.3.2 of Standard No. 109 explicitly requires each tire to be labeled with the manufacturer's name or a brand name and the identification number assigned to the manufacturer. Tires that are identified solely by an identification number would not comply with this requirement.

Second, you asked if a tire could be labeled with three different brand names. Section S4.3.2 uses the singular tense to identify the name that must appear on the sidewall (name of the manufacturer or the brand name) and connects the alternative with the disjunctive "or." This grammatical structure indicates that only one name, either that of the actual manufacturer or the brand name owner, shall be labeled on the tire. The agency chose this grammatical structure to ensure that consumers would not be confused about the identity of the brand name or manufacturer of the tire. Accordingly, S4.3.2 prohibits Cooper from selling passenger car tires labeled with the names of three different brand name owners.

Third, you asked if a generic term such as "All Season" or "Performance" would satisfy the requirement of S4.3.2 that either the name of the manufacturer or a brand name be labeled on the tires. Clearly, a generic term like "Performance" is not the "name of the manufacturer," Cooper in this case.

The "brand name" refers to the name under which a tire is sold at retail, whether it is identical to the manufacturer's name (e.g., Firestone), a name owned by the manufacturer and used in place of its corporate name (i.e., a house brand, such as Falls that is manufactured by Cooper), or a name owned by someone other than the manufacturer (i.e., a private brand such as Atlas that is made by several manufacturers). My understanding of this proposed course of action is that the tires would be advertised and sold at retail as tires made by one of the three brand name owners, presumably using its brand name, not under the name "All Season" or "Performance." Therefore, these generic terms would not be considered brand names for the purposes of section S4.3.2.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:109 d:8/26/88

ID: 2867yy

The Honorable Bill McCollum
U.S. House of Representatives
1801 Lee Road, Suite 301
Winter Park, FL 32789

Dear Mr. McCollum:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Perry Faulkner. Mr. Faulkner requested a written interpretation about whether casings imported into this country are required to have the "DOT number." A "casing" means a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading. As explained more fully below, casings for retreaded passenger car tires must have the DOT symbol, but casings for tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars (referred to as "truck tires" in this letter) are not required to have the DOT symbol.

At the outset, I note that Mr. Faulkner's letter stated that the "DOT number" on a tire indicates that the Federal excise tax has been paid. That statement is inaccurate. The "DOT number" on a tire only represents the manufacturer's or retreader's certification of compliance with this agency's standards and regulations. If Mr. Faulkner wants further information about Federal excise taxes on tires, he may wish to contact the Internal Revenue Service, since that agency administers the Federal excise taxes.

Mr. Faulkner is mixing two different types of markings when he refers to a "DOT number." The first type of marking is the symbol "DOT." This marking by a tire manufacturer or retreader on a tire is a certification that the tire complies with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Federal safety standards applicable to tires include Standard No. 109 for new passenger car tires, Standard No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires, and Standard No. 119 for new truck tires.

Standard No. 117 (the retreaded passenger car tire safety standard) includes a requirement that all passenger car tire casings to be retreaded must include the symbol "DOT." See S5.2.3(a). Therefore, it is illegal to sell or import into this country any passenger car tire casings that are not marked with the symbol "DOT." However, none of our Federal safety standards set forth requirements for retreaded truck tires. Since there is no standard for retreaded truck tires, there is no requirement that casings for retreaded truck tires be marked with the DOT symbol. I have enclosed a June 18, 1981 letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield that offers a more detailed discussion of this issue.

The second type of marking to which Mr. Faulkner referred was the tire identification number specified in Part 574. This number identifies the manufacturer or retreader of the tire, along with the date of manufacture or retread and other attributes of the tire. A tire identification number is not required on any casing: Standard No. 117 does not require this marking on passenger car casings, and as explained above, there is no Standard for casings for truck tires. Please note, however, that Part 574 requires all finished retreads, including retreaded truck tires, to be marked with the retreader's identification number.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Jamie McLaughlin Fish Director, Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosure Ref: 117#119 d:3/l3/9l

ID: 7434

Mr. Eugene Welker
774 Harbor Island
Clearwater, FL 34630

Dear Mr. Welker:

This responds to your letter about a mirror system designed to improve a driver's view of areas behind a motor vehicle. You explained that a 35" vertical post would be bolted near a vehicle's rear bumper. This would result in a mirror being located a few inches above the top rear window stop light and facing forward at a 45 angle. You asked whether such a device would be legal. The following discussion and the enclosed information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," explain your responsibility under NHTSA's regulation.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve, endorse, or certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111, copy enclosed). Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that the vehicle manufacturer must certify that each vehicle it manufactures complies with the specified requirements. Standard No. 111 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror and a driver's side outside rearview mirror that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. A passenger's side outside rearview mirror is required in situations where the inside rearview mirror does not provide the specified field-of-view. Additional requirements for other vehicle types are set forth in S6, S7, and S8.

No provision in the Standard specifies requirements for a mirror that attaches to the vehicle's rear bumper. Accordingly, a mirror like yours would not be prohibited from being installed on any vehicle by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. Accordingly such a mirror would be permitted, but only as a supplement to the required mirrors.

In installing the mirror, one must take care to avoid obscuring the vehicle's lighting devices, including the center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL).

Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate vehicles while they are in use. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Blvd, Arlington, VA 22203 may be able to advise you about the laws of the individual States related to the use of equipment such as your own.

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 ref:111 d:8/7/92

ID: nht87-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Phil Rounds

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Phil Rounds, Esq. Rhodes, Hieronymus, Jones, Tucker & Gable 2800 Fourth National Bank Building 15 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119

Dear Mr. Rounds:

Thank you for your letter of October 22, 1986, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 20B, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to a model year 1982 vehicle. The answers to your two specific questions are discussed below.

You first asked about the requirements of S4.1.2.3 of the standard. You asked whether a manufacturer that has chosen to meet that provision of the standard by installing a Type 2 safety belt at each front outboard designated seating position is required to crash test those safety belts. As explained below, S4.1.2.3 does not require the Type 2 safety belts installed in accordance with that requirement to be subjected to a crash test.

S4.1.2 of the standard sets forth the requirements for passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1973, and before September 1, 1986. Thus, those requirements would apply to a model year 1982 passenger car. S4.1.2 provides that a manufacturer s hall meet the requirements of either S4.1.2.1, S4.2.2.2, or S4.1.2.3. Under S4.1.2.3, a manufacturer has the option of installing "a Type 2 seat belt assembly with a nondetachable shoulder belt that conforms to Standard No. 209" at each front outboard de signated seating position. Although Standard No. 209 establishes performance requirements for a safety belt, it does not require the crash testing of the belt.

You also asked whether lap belts installed in accordance with the requirements of S4.1.2.3 in a vehicle's rear seat must be crash tested. The answer is no, rear seat safety belts installed in accordance with S4.1.2.3 do not have to be crash tested. S4.1. 2.3 (c) sets the requirements for rear seats. It provides that a manufacturer may install either a "Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. . . ." As explained above, Standard No. 209 does not require crash testing for safe ty belts.

As you requested, we are providing you with a certified copy of this letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 400 Seventh Street SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: Interpretation Letter 49 CFR

Section 571.208 5.4.1.2.3

We are writing to request a certified copy of a letter of interpretation regarding conformity with FMVSS 208 as it applies to 1982 MY vehicles.

Specifically, please confirm that where a manufacturer of a 1982 MY vehicle has elected the third option (S.4.1.2.3) and employed type 2 seatbelts (i.e., three point belts), at each front outboard designated seating position, a dynamic crash test is not required. Further, that a 49 CFR Section 571.208 S 5.1 test is also not required with regard to lap belts in the rear designated seating positions where type 2 seatbelts are employed at each front outboard designated seating position.

Your immediate attention to this matter would be most appreciated. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $3.00 to cover administrative expenses.

Yours truly,

PHIL ROUNDS PLR/bv Enclosure

ID: nht78-2.1

DATE: 12/06/78

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

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Brian Gill American Honda Motor Co., Inc. P.O. Box 50 Gardena, California 90247

Dear Mr. Gill:

This is in response to your letters of October 9, 1978, and October 20, 1978, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

Since the agency was considering petitions for reconsideration when your letter was received, we concluded that it would be more helpful to respond to your letter after the revised standard was issued. A copy of the amendments to the standard and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to further amend the standard are enclosed.

The type face shown in the attachment to your letter of October 9, 1978, meets the requirements of S4.3.1. Since the standard does not specify a location for the placement of the VIN on motorcycles, it may be stamped on the certification label. However, Honda should also consider stamping the VIN on the cycle frame as well, to aid in recovery if the motorcycle is stolen.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Enclosures

October 9, 1978

Office of Chief Council NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20591

Dear Sir:

Attached are sheets showing the format of the type face which Honda Motor Co., Ltd. intends to use for the vehicle identification number required by FMVSS 115.

Please inform me as soon as possible whether this type face meets the requirement of S4.3.1 of Standard number 115.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

BG:lw

Enclosure

October 20, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation as to the suitability of a method for compliance with the requirement of section S4.3 of FMVSS 115, Vehicle Identification Number (V.I.N.). That section gives the general requirements for the part of the vehicle upon which the V.I.N. must appear.

Section S4.4 of the standard gives specific requirements for the location of the V.I.N. for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVNR but there is no such specification for other vehicles, such as motorcycles.

We respectfully request your confirmation that the requirements of S4.3 for motorcycles will be met if the V.I.N. is stamped on the label required by S 567.4 (e) of Part 567 - Certification.

Your earliest response will be appreciated. Please call me if you have any questions.

Yours truly,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

BG:rk

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