ID: nht76-3.14

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Theft Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1976, concerning "track sheets" and "autotels."

Section S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, lists those components of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements. I have enclosed a copy for your information. An "autotel" under the back seat, between the frame and the body, or pasted to the top of the gas tank does not fall within the ambit of the standard. Consequently, it is our view that this most important and effective deterrent to vehicle theft is not discouraged by any existing motor vehicle safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed that Standard No. 302 be amended to include all materials exposed to the occupant compartment air space. If this amendment is adopted, an "autotel" under the seat presumably would fall within the purview of the standard. In this case, the "autotel" could not burn at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. We believe that this would not prove an impediment to the continuation of the "autotel" program as flame-retardant paper is readily available.

If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE THEFT BUREAU

January 8, 1976

Dr. James Gregory, Administrator NYTSA Department of Transportation

We are writing this on behalf of our own investigative efforts as well as for law enforcement generally.

Each auto manufacturer in the United States when assembling a car uses what is called a track sheet or autotel. This piece of paper, and in some cases two pieces of paper, contains detailed information on the identification of various parts of the car being assembled and contains the numbers and information necessary to positively identify that vehicle.

Over the years, auto theft investigators, including our own investigators and those in law enforcement, have been able to identify hundreds of stolen cars by use of this material even though the numbers stamped into the frames and affixed to the dashboard have been changed or obliterated by thieves.

This paper is usually secreted in some portion of the vehicle, sometimes put under the back seat, sometimes between the frame and the body, and in one particular make of car is Scotch taped onto the top of the gas tank.

We have been informed that there is a possibility that this practice might be regarded as adding to the flammability of the interior of a car and, to our knowledge, at least one manufacturer has discontinued this invaluable aid to automobile identification because of the possibility that these tracks might be prohibited by regulation.

I would request that you consider the extreme value of the inclusion of auto tel in the vehicles and, also, consider the very minimum possibility of these contributing to any fire hazard in the car.

We would like a clarification of your Agency's position in this matter in order that we may request the manufacturers to continue these tracks.

We would appreciate any consideration you can give our request.

Michael J. Murphy President

cc: HON. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECY. OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. EDWARD LEVY -- ATTY. GENERAL; JOHN CARSON -- BRANCH CHIEF, CONTROLS & DISPLAYS, NHTSA

ID: nht89-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/89

FROM: SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT

TO: ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASINER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATI ON; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT, OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 08/26/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO TAK FUJITANI

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter, co-signed by other members of the Senate Commerce Committee, concerning the issuance of certain safety standards for light trucks and vans ("LTV's"), including sport utility vehicles. I share your interest in ensuring that occ upants of these vehicles are well protected. As I stated in my confirmation hearing, I place a high priority on the safety of all our transportation systems including motor vehicles used for personal travel. I wish to assure you that the Department is moving expeditiously to improve vehicle safety, including rulemaking for additional LTV safety standards.

The Department has carefully reviewed those passenger-car safety standards which do not currently apply to LTV's, as evidenced by our reports to Congress in May 1987 and April 1988. As noted in those reports, we are committed to prompt rulemaking action s and decisions. Specifically, the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has already issued Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to require both head restraints and rear-seat lap/should belts in LTV's, and an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to require side-impact protection in LTV's. In addition, NHTSA is currently preparing an NPRM to establish a minimum roof-crush resisance standard for LTV's.

In each of these four areas -- head restraints, side-impact protection, roof-crush resistance, and rear-seat lap/shoulder belts -- I expect to begin discussions within the Administration during the next 90 days on our recommendations for the next rulemak ing actions to be taken. These discussions will also address an NPRM to require automatic occupant protection for LTV's. I will advise you of the conclusion of these discussions.

NHTSA is also analyzing the research on how to enhance brake light performance on these vehicles, and expects to make a decision on requiring additional stop lamps by the end of the summer. Lastly, NHTSA has already granted a petition for rulemaking to d evelop a rollover protection standard and has a comprehensive data collection and research program under way to provide the basis for an effective regulation. Most of that research should be completed by year's end, and I assure you that we will not tol erate delays in the research schedule.

We note that the Department has initiated these and other vehicle safety rulemaking proceedings under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which provides a solid, effective, legal framework for these activities. Therefore, we do not believe that specific legislative mandates and timetables for LTV rulemaking projects are necessary or appropriate.

In closing, I appreciate your concern for improving the safety of vehicles and highway travel. Please be assured that this Department will continue to take whatever actions are needed to assure further progress in highway safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1986, with reference to the distance between a front turn signal lamp and a lower beam headlamp.

In brief, SAE Standard J588e, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 requires a minimum separation distance of 4 inches between the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lo wer bean headlamp. You have pointed out that a replaceable bulb headlamp does not have a retaining ring, and you have presented two possible substitutes as a measuring point. The first (your Item A) is the outer edge of the headlamp, and the second (your Item B) is the end of the effective area of the reflector. You believe that Item B is the more appropriate.

We concur with your interpretation. Of the two options, the distance to the edge of the effective area of the reflector is the one most similar to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the lower beam headlamp. The basis for this interpretation is the assumption that the headlamp lens between the outer edge of the headlamp and the edge of the effective area of the reflector is not used for production of the lamp's bean, has mo significant luminance, and therefore will not mask the turn signal.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 21, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

Re : Distance between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp)

In Motor Vehicle Safety Standard N0.108, Paragraph 4.3.1.7, the following is prescribed:

S4.3.1.7 The requirement that there be not less than 4 inches between a front turn signal lamp and a low beam headlamp, specified in SAE Standard J588e, "Turn Signal Lamps," September 1970, shall not apply if the sum of the candlepower values of the turn signal lamps Measured at the test point within each group listed in Figure 1c is not less than two and one-half times the sum specified for each group for yellow turn signal lamps.

According to the SAE Standard J588e, the distance is defined as from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam. This definition applies only to a standardized headlamp. What definition is appropriate for a replaceable bulb headlamp, in other words, an unstandardized headlamp? We think B in the following definition is appropriate.

A : From the filament center of the front turn signal lamp to the outer edge of a low beam headlamp

B : From the filament center of the front turn signal lamp to the end of the effective area of the reflector of a low beam headlamp

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

ID: nht87-1.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakemeguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1987, with respect to the mounting height of driving lamps and front fog lamps. Noting that these lamps are not equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, you have asked whether they need to be mounted within the range of height which the standard prescribes for headlamps, or may they be mounted, for example, at a height lower than 22 inches such as in the front bumper.

Any lamp that is not required by Standard No. 108 may be added to a motor vehicle and located wherever it appears suitable, provided that the lamp at its location does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Headlamps , parking lamps, and turn signal lamps are the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 on the front of a passenger car, and any other four-wheeled vehicle of less than 80 inches overall width. Although Standard No. 108 imposes a minimum mounting height of 22 inches on headlamps, it allows parking lamps and turn signal lamps to be mounted as low as 15 inches above the road surface, which means that they could be mounted in the front bumper, or otherwise close to the mounting location of fog lamps and driving lamps. Therefore, compliance with paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 would require a manufacturer of a vehicle equipped with fog and driving lamps to ensure that they do not impair the effectiveness of the headlamps, turn signal lamps, and parking lamps.

Because fog lamps and driving lamps are not covered by Standard No. 108, the individual States may have their own restrictions on the mounting height of these lamps. We regret that we are unable to advise you on these laws. However, the American Associat ion of Motor Vehicle Administrator (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., may be able to advise you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones,

Re : Mounting height of auxiliary driving lamps and front fog lamps

We have a question on mounting height of driving lamps and front fog lamps.

Do they need to be mounted within the range of height which is required for headlamps in FMVSS No. 108?

Although they help the function of headlamps, they are not required lighting equipments in FMVSS No. 108.

So we understand that they can be mounted in the lower position than 22 inches, the lower required height of headlamps; for example, into the front bumper, the height of which is less than 22 inches.

We would like to have your confirmation on this matter. We are looking forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Stanley Electric Co, Ltd.

T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

ID: nht88-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEORGE ZIOLO -- DOT PAPERWORK PROCESSOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/20/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM GEORGE ZIOLO RE HEADLAMP COMBINATIONS-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, FMVSS 108; OCC - 1932;

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ziolo:

This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1988, asking about the acceptability under Safety Standard No. 108 of modifying imported vehicles so that they are equipped with two Type 2D1 and two Type 1C1 headlamps. You have been informed by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that this is impermissible "because they are 'nonconforming' 'headlight systems'." You disagree because you believe that the minimum requirements of the Standard are satisfied by the Type 2D1 lamps, and that "S4.4 app ears to permit such a combination."

Paragraph S4.4 is not applicable to the situation you present as it refers to combinations of lamps serving different functions; in your discussion, the lamps serve the identical function of headlighting. Given the fact that the Type 2D1 sealed beam 7" diameter headlamps fulfill the headlighting requirements of the Standard, your question must be viewed as whether a supplement to the headlighting system is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the addition of nonrequired lighting equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the equipment that the standard requires. The two Type 1C1 5 3/4" diameter sealed beam lamps in a four lamp head lighting system form the major portion of an upper beam headlighting system. The two Type 2D1 lamps in a two lamp headlighting system form the whole of an upper beam headlighting system. Thus, a vehicle furnished with the systems you posit would be equ ipped with more than one upper beam headlighting system. The Type 2D1 system must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c DEC79 "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles." The SAE Standard establishes at two tes t points, H-V and 4 D-V, maximum allowable candela of 75,000 and 5,000 respectively for each Type 2D1 headlamp. This means that the maximum allowable candela for headlighting systems at these test points is 150,000 and 10,000 candela. The Type 1C1 head lamps will also be designed to conform to SAE J579c. Corresponding maxima at test points H-V and 4 D-V for Type 1C1 systems are 60,000 and 5,000. Thus, a vehicle equipped

with the lamps you have described could emit a total of 270,000 candela at test point H-V (when only 150,000 is permitted), and 20,000 at 4D-V (when only 10,000 is allowable).

Agency research has shown that candela readings in excess of 150,000 greatly increase the potential for glare with little increase in seeing ability. This glare would be visible both to the driver of an oncoming car, and the driver of the modified vehic le itself through creation of a "veiling" glare. The addition of the Type 1C1 headlamps would therefore impair the effectiveness of the Type 2D1 headlighting system, and is forbidden by S4.1.3.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ray August -- Auto Trends

TEXT:

Mr. Ray August Auto Trends 9818 Grinnell Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48213

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking "what is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, to be equipped with a supplementary stop lamp mounted on the centerline of the vehicle not lower than three inches below the rear window (six inches if it is a convertible). The standard specifies that the lamp shall have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle, and that it shall meet minimum candela values at certain specified test points. Under Federal law, the lamp must meet these requirements at the time the new car is sold. Thus, if the vehicle manufacturer or new car dealer equips a passenger car with a trunk rack, care must be taken to insure that the requirements are still met (obviously this depends both upon the location of the lamp and the configuration of the rack). If the rack prohibits the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it complies with all requirements of the standard.

After the sale of the vehicle, the owner may modify his car without reference to Federal law but a dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business cannot make modifications that "render inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment relating to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We would view dealer installation of a trunk rack on a used car with an original equipment center stop lamp as subject to this prohibition if the rack affects compliance with photometric and visibility requirements.

The question is frequently asked us whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no: compliance is determined without the load in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Dec. 12, 1985

Taylor Vinson Legal Consul NHTSA Room 5219 U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: New Brake Light - Rear Window

Dear Mr. Vinson:

In my discussion with Mr. Kagy of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, he recommended I write to you for a legal opinion in this matter.

Auto Trends is a manufacturer of luggage racks, both roof racks and trunk racks. What is the law pertaining to the new brake light at or by the rear window of the vehicle, and what effect, if any, would it have on After Market trunk racks?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Ray August, Plant Manager RA:ks cc:ra

ID: nht71-5.34

DATE: 12/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 3, 1971, concerning the preemption of State vehicle safety standards under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1592(d). We apologize for the oversight that resulted in not answering the letter until this date.

You asked whether State laws requiring that vehicles having two red tail lamps, mounted on the same level and as widely spaced laterally as practicable, are preempted by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In our opinion the answer is no. Standard 108 has many detailed requirements that go beyond those described. Among them, however, are requirements that are substantively identical to your example, though not stated in precisely the same words. We do not interpret section 103(d), which prohibits a State standard "which is not identical to the Federal standard," as requiring the State requirement to be a verbatin copy of its Federal counterparts substantive identity of requirements is sufficient. Also, we do not interpret the statute as requiring the State to adopt all the Federal requirements on a given aspect of performance. It is sufficient that there be a Federal requirement that is substantively identical to the State requirement in question.

You also asked about two other requirements, as to which the answer may depend on a more detailed examination of their purposes and the circumstances under which they are enacted. One was the requirement that the light from the tail lamps be visible from a distance of 1,000 feet to the rear; the other was that a vehicle have "at least one tail lamp."

The guiding principle that we would apply to this situation is that State requirements that regulate the design of motor vehicles must be identical to the Federal standards, with the qualifications stated above. It was clearly the intent of Congress to provide for uniformity of regulation of the manufacturers in areas where the Federal agency has acted, and they did so by the identity requirement of section 103(d). By contrast, State requirements concerning the condition or adjustment of vehicles generally do not affect the requirements placed on manufacturers, and therefore do not fall within the section 103(d) identity provisions.

Applying this principle to your question, if the visibility requirement is construed by the State, and reasonably appears, to be basically a quantitatively stated requirement that the tail lamps be in good working order and not nearly degraded by conditions encountered in use, we would consider the requirement not to be preempted by section 103(d). Similarly, if the one tail lamp requirement is essentially a statement of required minimum working condition (as it appears to be on its face), it would not be preempted.

The issue you mentioned concerning the preemption of State laws applicable to vehicles in use was dealt with in detail in(Illegible Word). Tens' letter to you of December 21, 1970. As stated in that letter, our position is that the preemption question does not turn on whether the State law applies to pre-sale or on-the-road vehicles, and we feel that this position was upheld by the clear and compelling implication of the Super Lite cases. In light of the interpretations set forth in this letter, however, we do not believe that the problems of State law and enforcement that you felt may arise will be realized.

ID: nht71-5.57

DATE: 05/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1971, regarding an interpretation for seat belt assemblies required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection.

It is our intent that an integral (3-point) lap and shoulder belt system, with a sliding attachment, could meet the requirements of the subject standard. Since paragraph S7.1.1 requires automatic adjustment by means of an emergency-locking retractor for this type of integral system (see S7.1.1.3), the sliding attachment friction could not unduly restrict adjusting movements of the belt, however, a nominal friction is permissible and is expected.

The seat belt assembly which you submitted to Mr. Clue Ferguson's Office of Crash Worthiness has been placed in Docket 69-7. This system would appear to have a nominal friction at the sliding adjustment, however, an actual vehicle installation is necessary to enable a full evaluation.

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

April 20, 1971

Doug W. Toms, Director National Traffic and Highway Safety Administration

Subject: Seat Belt Assemblies According to FMVSS 208

The Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 which will be effective January 1, 1972, requires that seat belt assemblies shall adjust to fit the occupant by means of an automatic or emergency locking retractor. The seat belt assembly being considered for installation in our vehicles has been designed to comply with the subject Safety Standard. We would, however, appreciate receiving your confirmation that the design complies with the aspect of performance described in S7.1.1 of the Standard prior to equipping our vehicles.

The subject assembly consists of a single piece of webbing permanently attached at the outboard floor anchorage, with the release/fastening mechanism at the inboard anchorage forming the pelvic restraining loop and a third anchorage behind the shoulder forming the upper torso restraint. The webbing is fed during extension by an emergency locking retractor through the upper shoulder restraint anchorage to provide freedom of movement for the occupant.

Application of this assembly around the occupant is achieved by pulling the "tongue" portion of the attachment hardware from its fully retracted position at the "3" pillar, across the occupant down to the fixed buckle or receptable at the inboard anchorage. The webbing passes loosely through a slot in the tongue to provide a sliding adjustment during this application.

We are requesting your confirmation that this sliding adjustment specifically, will not be considered in non-compliance with your requirement for adjustment by the retractor because of the small amount of friction occuring at the webbing and tongue. It is our opinion that the friction is adequately overcome by the retractor force to provide proper adjustment. Additionally, the assembly when extended for use, will be drawn across the occupant, thus a snug fit across the pelvic region will be provided upon application thereby minimizing the need for further automatic adjustment by the retractor.

A sample of an assembly incorporating this design has been left at Mr. C. Ferguson's office for further evaluation by your staff. Upon receipt of your evaluation of this design we will advise our parent company accordingly.

H. W. Gerth General Manager Product Engineering and Service

cc: Mr. Wilfert Dr. Reidelbach

ID: nht73-4.12

DATE: 04/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Milwaukee Truck Center Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you ask several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds: a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico; (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date; (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.

It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issue underlies all your questions; that is, whether a final-stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.

A truck that is equipped at the tire of its manufacturer with tires inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.

The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped without tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case is within this exception.

ID: nht74-3.10

DATE: 01/08/74

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DARROLL P. YOUNG -- PRESIDENT YOUNG'S MACHINE CO. MONTICELLO, UTAH 84535

TITLE: N40-30 (TWH)

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/26/73 FROM DARRELL P. YOUNG -- PRESIDENT YOUNG'S MACHINE COMPANY TO THE OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Young:

In place of the two standards which you requested in your letter of December 26, 1973, I am providing the following discussion of what vehicles qualify as "motor vehicles" subject to our regulations. If your vehicles are not "motor vehicles" under this definition, they are not required to conform to Standards 105a and 121. Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

Tracked and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment is another non-motor vehicle category, because Congress clearly did not intend to include them in its coverage. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. aircraft runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of his customers actually would use them on the highway.

Just as clearly, vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work-performing nature and as such their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, mobile drill rigs, and towed equipment such as brush chippers and pull-type street sweepers are examples in this area. Even if the equipment uses highways infrequently, it is considered a motor vehicle on the same basis as is a "mobile structure trailer" which is often towed only once from the factory to the home site. All these motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to several of the motor vehicle safety standards, and their manufacturer must comply with other regulations in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use of the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment such as lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles.

From these guidelines you should be able to determine whether your equipment qualifies as a motor vehicle, and if so, as a truck or a trailer. Please write again if you are unable to make this determination. I have enclosed an information sheet that advises you how to obtain an up-to-date copy of the regulations which apply to motor vehicles and their manufacturers.

ENCLOSURE

Yours truly,