ID: nht94-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 23, 1994

FROM: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef -- Attorney, GM

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Alternative To 9005 & 9006 Bulbs:

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/27/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef (A43; Std. 108)

TEXT: General Motors Corporation (GM), in conjunction with Osram Sylvania Inc., has developed alternatives to two existing HB3 and HB4 (9005 and 9006) bulbs approved for automotive use in FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The alt ernative bulbs have a different base configuration than the currently approved bulbs, but in all other ways are identical. The alternative configuration would allow packaging flexibility while still maintaining all photometric/output characteristics of the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

Since the alternative bulbs improve packaging flexibility without affecting the output of the lamps, GM would like the alternative bulbs to be interchangeable with the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We request your Office's guidance as to the most app ropriate method for seeking approval of the alternative bulb configurations.

BACKGROUND

The currently approved 9005-6 bulbs have bases that form right angles (see attachment 1). This configuration provided the most appropriate means of meeting automotive packaging considerations when these bulbs were originally approved.

Since then, however, aerodynamics and styling have dramatically affected the construction of the front of vehicles. In some instances it has become very difficult to package the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. In addition, the bulbs can be difficult t o access for replacement.

It occurred to GM and Osram Sylvania that the situation could be improved with a simple modification to the existing 9005-6 bulbs. By straightening the base of these bulbs (see attachment 2), while keeping all other design criteria the same, the packagi ng could be improved without affecting any performance characteristics of the bulbs.

Since the new configurations are identical with the currently approved bulbs in all ways other than the bases, GM believes it appropriate to allow them to be interchangeable with the existing 9005-6 bulbs. This would further enhance packaging flexibilit y by allowing alternative configurations which might be better suited to late program design changes.

The alternative bulbs will have little or no affect on the consumer. A vehicle will come equipped with one of the bulb configurations, and the operator's manual will reference the appropriate configuration. If the alternative bulb is inadvertently purc hased for replacement, it could be used in all cases except in the highly unlikely circumstance that the vehicle packaging is so restrictive as to prevent the bulb from being inserted. Once inserted it is designed to perform identically to the bulb that has been replaced, regardless of the configuration of the base. In the unlikely case that the bulb could not be inserted because of restrictive packaging, the owner would need only to return the inappropriate bulb for the bulb approved for his or her v ehicle - a situation that exists today.

To further minimize any confusion on the part of the consumer, we would recommend that the alternative bulbs have a unique identifier to distinguish them from the current bulbs. This could easily be accomplished by adding a character to the codes of the existing bulb. For example, HB3S and HB4S could be used to identify the alternative bulb configurations of HB3 and HB4.

APPROVAL PROCESS

GM believes there are three possible methods that could be used for seeking approval of the 9005-6 bulb alternative configurations. They are

1. Seek approval of the alternative configuration through 49 CFR Part 564.

The language of Part 564 suggest that we would be unable to maintain interchangeability between alternative configurations and the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. We understand these provisions were adopted to prevent interchangeability between bulb s with different photometric output, since such interchangeability could have drastic effects on headlamp beam patterns. This, however, is not the case with the alternative bulbs GM proposes. Except for the bases, they are identical in all respects to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs. Therefore, there is no photometric difference between the two sets of bulbs, and hence, no safety concern.

Still, the wording in Part 564 would suggest that the alternative bulbs we developed would require a new or different connector than 9005-6. We do not believe that this is appropriate in this instance, and seek clarification of whether Part 564 direc tly applies to this circumstance.

2. Petition for FMVSS 108 rulemaking to allow new bulb configurations as alternatives to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

While this appears to be a valid method for obtaining approval of the proposed configurations, it is our understanding that NHTSA is planning to transfer all bulb specifications from the body of FMVSS 108 into Part 564. Therefore, we believe that the agency may not welcome a petition to amend FMVSS 108 to comprehend additional bulbs (or new bulb configurations).

3. Request that the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs be placed in Part 564 with the alternative configurations included on the drawing. Attachment 3 contains a draft of what the drawings might look like.

Please confirm which method the agency believes is most appropriate for seeking approval of the new alternative bulbs which, as described above, except for their bases perform identically to the currently approved 9005-6 bulbs.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 15, 1994

FROM: Bob Graham -- U.S. Senate

TO: John Womack -- Chief Council, Legislation Division, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Bob Graham (A43; Std. 109); Also related to 1/17/95 letter from Philip Recht to Connie Mack (Std. 109; A43); Also related to 12/12/94 letter from Connie Mack to the DOT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. Howard Levy, who has concerns regarding guidelines used by states regarding tire tread requirements and whether they also apply to Puerto Rico.

I would appreciate your reviewing this situation and providing me with your comments. Please send your response to my state office: Post Office Box 3050, Tallahassee, Florida 32315, Attention: Sharon McLanahan.

I am grateful for your cooperation and assistance. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

With kind regards,

Sincerely

Enclosure 1:

December 6, 1994

The Honorable Bob Graham Post Office Box 3050 Tallahasse, FL 32315

Dear Senator Graham:

On October 6, 1994 I wrote to you about the proposed bill before the Senate in Puerto Rico, with the regards to the importation of used tires.

In these days of the N.F.T.A. and G.A.T.T. agreements it seams that the new tire manufacturers are pressing for a restraint of trade by pressing for the passage of this bill.

We have contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce they in turn have directed us to the National Highway Safety & Traffic Administration. We had written them on November 6, but as of today we have not gotten any response. We would like to get a copy of the laws regarding tire tread depth here in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico and we would like to know if they have jurisdiction in Puerto Rico. We need your help in getting this vital information.

If this bill passes it will surely mean the end of our industry in Puerto Rico

WE URGE YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER!!!!

Sincerely,

Howard J. Levy Vice-President, Used Tire International

Enclosure 2:

November 3, 1994

DR. Ricardo Martinez Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Martinez:

Used Tire International, INC. is an Exporter of Quality Used Tires Worldwide. There is a very serious situation that has arisen in Puerto Rico in regards to the importation of Used Tires, a proposed bill is before the senate there that would require all Used Tires being imported to have a minimum 5/32" tread depth and a tax of $ 10.00 each. The tread depth of 5/32" is 3/32" more than the 2/32" that is required by U.S. law. Does the NHTSA have jurisdiction over these laws in Puerto Rico or does the Pue rto Rican Senate control the regulations over highway safety.

If this proposed Bill is passed this would mean the end of the Used Tire industry on the island. This is an industry that many people count on there because many people cannot afford to purchase new tire which I will add some new tires only have 4/32" t read. To inact a law that would require a Used Tire to have more or as much tread as a new tire would further hurt our industry.

WE URGE YOUR AGENCIES HELP IN THIS MATTER!!!!!

Sincerely,

Howard Levy Vice President

Enclosure 3:

10/28/94

Mr. Howard J. Levy Vice-President Used Tire International 837 S.E. 8th Ave., Suite 202 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441

Dear Mr. Levy: On behalf of Secretary Brown, I am pleased to respond to your letter regarding a proposed bill in Puerto Rico which would change tread depth regulations for selling used tires.

The U.S. Government agency responsible for developing guidelines used by states regarding tread requirements is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The NHTSA would also be able to respond to your concerns regarding Puerto Rico. You may wish to contact directly the NHTSA:

Mr. Ricardo Martinez, M.D. Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 tel: (202) 366-1836

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

Sincerely,

Walter Bastian Director Office of Latin America and the Caribbean U.S. Dept. of Commerce

Enclosure 4:

December 5, 1994

Dr. Ricardo Martinez Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Martinez:

On November 3, 1994 I wrote to you about the proposed bill before the Senate in Puerto Rico. As of this letter I have not heard from you or your agency.

As I stated in my first letter to you this bills passage will mean the end of our industry in Puerto Rico.

WE NEED YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER!!!!!

Would it also be possible for you to send a copy of the laws pertaining to tread depth in the U.S. and it's territories.

Sincerely,

Howard J. Levy Vice-President

ID: nht95-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 30, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brad Rourke -- Director, Government and Community Affairs, The Electric Bicycle Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/4/95 LETTER FROM BRAD ROURKE TO PHIL RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rourke:

Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1995. I am pleased to answer your questions about the applicability of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to your electric-assisted bicycle.

We have reviewed Adam Englund's memorandum of January 26, 1995, which you enclosed. In general, it is a complete and accurate statement of the applicability of our regulations to motor driven cycles. We have the following comments which I hope you will find helpful.

Certification label. The appropriate regulation is 49 CFR Part 567. The statutory authority that it implements, 15 U.S.C. 1403, was recodified last summer as 49 U.S.C. 30115 without any substantive change.

Vehicle Identification Number. "15 USC 565" should be 49 CFR Part 565.

Lighting. While the analysis is correct, we note that Tables III (required equipment) and IV (location of required equipment) give a reader an immediate ready reference to motorcycle lighting equipment.

Horn. This section can be included in the one following, on controls and displays. The reference to 49 CFR "571.125 Warning Devices" is incorrect. The warning device covered by that standard is a retroreflective triangle, not a horn.

We note also that if a motorcycle is equipped with a windshield, it must comply with Standard No. 205 Glazing Materials, and that motorcycles with hydraulic brake systems are required to be furnished with brake fluid meeting Standard No 116 Brake Fluids.

You also have asked three specific questions. The first relates to the requirement of Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays that the rear brake be operable by the left hand (or right foot) control and the front brake operable by the right ha nd control. This is the opposite of bicycle brake systems. You believe that most riders will expect the electric bicycle to brake like a conventional one and that accidents may occur as a result of confusion. For this reason, you would like to place th e rear brake control on the right handlebar, and the front brake control on the left.

The purpose of Standard No. 123 is "to minimize accidents caused by operator error . . . . by standardizing certain motorcycle controls and displays" so that a motorcycle operator can instinctively respond to threatening situations no matter what the mac hine. Your question raises the possibility that the purpose of the standard might be defeated with respect to the electric bicycle by strict application of Standard No. 123 when it is operated by those who are familiar with bicycle braking systems (thou gh this would not be the case if the operator is switching from a motorcycle to an electric bicycle). We do have authority to exempt manufacturers for up to two years from a requirement if it would promote the development or field evaluation of a low-em ission vehicle, or if compliance would prevent the manufacturer from selling a vehicle whose overall level of safety equals or exceeds that of a complying vehicle. The exemption procedures are contained in 49 CFR Part 555. Taylor Vinson of this Office will be glad to answer any questions you have (202-366-5263). You also may petition for rulemaking, as provided in 49 CFR Part 552, for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 123. However, in the absence of an exemption or a change in Standard No. 12 3, the braking system of the electric bicycle must operate as provided in this standard.

Your second question relates to headlighting requirements for motor driven cycles. You believe that the headlamp specified by Standard No. 108 will reduce the ability of the electric bicycle to perform at night, and, for this reason, would like to use " a high-power bicycle-type headlamp." SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, permits a motor driven cycle to be equipped with a single beam headlamp. If you wish to use a headlamp that does not comply with Standard No. 108's requirement s for motor driven cycle headlamps, you must petition for an exemption, and/or for rulemaking, as discussed in the prior paragraph. In addition to allowance of a single beam headlamp, paragraphs S5.1.1.21 and S5.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108 recognize the limitations of low-powered motorcycles and permit motor driven cycles whose top speed is 30 mph or less to omit turn signal lamps, and to be equipped with a smaller less powerful stop lamp.

Your final question relates to Standard No. 123 and your wish to use a spring-loaded thumb-lever throttle. This is permissible, and no requirements are prescribed for it by Standard No. 123. Your interpretation of Standard No. 123 is correct; a twist-g rip throttle is not required, but if it is provided, it must operate in the manner set forth in the standard.

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

ID: 77-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

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

TO: American Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 10, 1977, concerning a vehicle manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.

You make reference to a November 10, 1976, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.

The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.

The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it comes to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.

In your particular case, your responsibility for any subsequent overloading of the vehicles you manufacture would be determined by the reasonableness of your GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of your vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. In the case of flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) a manufacturer would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings specified appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads the manufacturer anticipates will be carried, its responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to it.

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

June 10, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. U. S. Department of Transportation

We have received a copy of your legal interpretation to Mr. Jackson Decker of E. D. Etnyre & Company (copy attached) in regards to GAWR rating and overloading of the same. Excerpts from your interpretation which is of concern to us is:

"A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's or reasonably forseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect. Such a vehicle would be subject to the notification and rememdy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1392 et seq.).

"We cannot prescribe specific steps that a vehicle manufacturer must take to insure that a GAWR would not be found so low that it would be a safety-related defect. For example, if a warning in the owner's manual against loading in a certain manner is likely to be ignored, then such a warning would not, by itself, be sufficient. The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading."

Since we are a manufacturer on several different types of General Purpose vehicles, i.e. Dry Freight Vans, Insulated Vans, Grain Vans, and etc. which can haul a vary of array products, we would like some suggestions on how to eliminate GAWR and GVWR overloading. Obviously, we cannot control what type of commodities or density of commodities that can be "stuffed into a box." Your reasoning on a specific vehicle designed to haul a specific density load is understood, but to insist on a general purpose vehicle manufacturer to control overloading "short of refraining from production" is unreasonable.

Can the auto manufacturers control how many people you haul in your automobile or how much sand you haul in your pickup bed?

Your prompt answer on any suggestions would be appreciated.

Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering

ID: nht74-5.49

DATE: 05/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Triboro Coach Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1974, concerning your request for an exemption from the roof emergency exit requirements (S5.2.1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217). We had denied an earlier request on March 27, 1974, following your letter to us of February 13, 1974.

We must again deny your request. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to motor vehicles (some apply to equipment only) specify safety requirements which apply to vehicle types generally (passenger cars, trucks, buses, etc.) and must of necessity be based on the use to which such vehicle types are generally put. The NHTSA has determined through the administrative rulemaking process that buses, including buses for use in urban environments, must have a roof emergency exit when a rear exit can not be installed due to the configuration of the bus. In most cases, including many urban situations, the roof exit can be an important safety feature, particularly when the bus is overturned on a side. While we do not dispute the facts you present, we view the situation as unsual, and not a suitable basis for modifying a requirement applicable to every urban bus. Our regulations do not permit exemptions from requirements for buses sold to one party.

However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @@ 1391 et seq.) under which Standard No. 217 is issued, a vehicle need not conform to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard after its sale to its ultimate user. Consequently there is no Federal prohibition to your modifying or eliminating the roof exits in these buses if you wish, after you receive them from the manufacturer.

SINCERELY,

Tribo Coach Corporation

April 4, 1974

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Att: Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

In reply to your letter dated March 27, 1974, N40-3 (MPP)

Subject: Roof emergency exit (S5.2.1) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217

I am sure that you are becoming increasingly familiar with problems of making buses safer; this has also been our prime concern. In your letter you stated in order that the requirements be modified, there must be a showing, that their cost is unreasonable in terms of the safety benefits achieved. Again we are not concerned with the cost ratio, safety is our and your prime concern. About the abuses which the buses are subject to, you must take into account exactly, that which is going on in the buses. Bus seats being torn off there mounting, then seat cushions being thrown out of the window, window frames being dismantled and thrown out, screws from internal panels being removed and panels thrown out of buses, glass being broken, whereby cost and replacing is almost impossible, seat being cut up so as to be unrecognizable.

You speak of possible alternative steps taken to develop designs that will minimize the tampering with. I would like at this time to say that it is my opinion, in order to achieve the safety that we are both looking for, we should first develop the means to modify this condition that I presently see as a very dangerous and hazardous condition. Visualize the roof hatch being opened and the pupils boosting each other thru this hatch. What do you think will happen when the driver discovers this? immediately he will hit the brake pedal and where do you think the pupils will wind up? also, think of the traffic following. The hitting of the brake pedal will not be deliberately on our drivers part.

In an accident such as a roll over the bus can land on one of four sides. If it lands right side up that is on four wheels, there will be one entrance and one exit door. Eight large picture frame windows, if it lands on the left side. It will have one entrance door and one exit door and four large picture frame windows. The entire front windshield and the entire rear windshield, which are set in rubber can be kicked out very readily in any of the four positions, making an opening large enough to walk out in a standing position, if it lands on the right side there are four large picture frame windows. Also remembering the front and rear windshields, the most important part to remember, is in a roll over the sides of the bus will be pushed in there by buckeling up the roof. Because of the structure of the vehicle which I believe will distort the roof hatch and make it inoperable. This has been proven to be a fact.

To give you a short resume of my experiences aroun buses, listed below are the following:

1. 42 years as Superintendent of all Equipment.

2. A graduate of Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York.

3. Triboro Coach Corporation operates 165 city coaches.

4. Varsity Transit Inc. which is a school bus operation only and operates 1,378 vehicles which includes 80 lift buses hydraulically operated for wheel chairs.

This resume is not intended to impress you, or that I am an authority on the subject, but rather to show that I am familiar with the importance of that which you seek.

William J. Cicero Supt. of Maintenance

ID: nht76-5.17

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Etnyre & Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your letters of June 22, 1976, concerning the availability of NHTSA interpretation letters and the assignment by vehicle manufacturers of Gross Axle Weight Ratings.

Letters written by this agency that interpret the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or accompanying regulations are regularly compiled by standard or regulation number and placed in a public file (the "redbooks") in the Docket Section at Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. Copies of these letters are distributed informally by various trade associations, as you have noted. However, there is currently no subscription service available directly from the NHTSA. I recommend that you periodically (bimonthly, perhaps) telephone the Docket Section (202 426-2768) to find out whether entries have recently been made in the Redbooks under the standards and regulations that are of particular concern to you.

You have also asked several questions concerning the relationship between an axle's Gross Axle Weight Pating (GAWR) and the overloading of that axle when the vehicle is in use. GAWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as

the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

It is thus a rating assigned by the manufacturer at the time of manufacture. A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably forseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect. Such a vehicle would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1392 et seq.).

We cannot prescribe specific steps that a vehicle manufacturer must take to ensure that a GAWR would not be found so low that it would be a safety-related defect. For example, if a warning in the owner's manual against loading in a certain manner is likely to be ignored, then such a warning would not, by itself, be sufficient. The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of retraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading.

SINCERELY,

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA This matter refers to Part 567 "Certification" and Part 568 "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages" of 49CFR.

Many of the interpretations and comments dealing with "rated loads" refer to the circumstance of exceeding the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). However, the certification label also requires that the Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) also be noted. We have not as yet seen any question or interpretation dealing with the matter of overload on an axle. Our questions then are as follows.

1. Assume a tank type motor vehicle; which when loaded full to its rated cargo load; expressed as a volume of a specific commodity. (i.e., water); does not exceed the GVWR rating but the load is distributed such that a GAWR is exceeded. Is this a violation of the regulations?

2. Assume the same type vehicle loaded with a material whose specific weight varies over a limited range but does have an average acceptable value for general use (i.e. asphalt). If a GAWR is exceeded is this a violation of the regulations?

3. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 2, constructed of compartments for variable commodities and designed for a specific loading arrangement. If the loading arrangement is not followed by the user and the GAWR is exceeded but not the GVWR, is the manufacturer liable?

4. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 1, which is loaded full by the user with a material heavier than specified and designed for by the manufacturer and both the GVWR and GAWR are exceeded, is the manufacturer liable?

5. If a volumetric load of specific weight is considered by the manufacturer in rating the vehicle, what steps are necessary to protect the manufacturer from alleged violations of rating if other commodities are carried?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA

We have become aware of the process whereby interpretation to paragraphs of Parts of 49CFR (particularly Parts 567, 568 and 571) are distributed on an informal basis through various trade associations. We further note that they apparently are carried in your files under the designation of "N40-30".

Since our activities are not completely served by any one particular association and we are not prepared to join a multitude of associations, is there a compilation of interpretations which are available from NHTSA on a regular or subscription basis? If there is such a service we would appreciate hearing about it. If not, how do we assure ourselves that interpretations which are being made on matters of common concern are made available to us so that we can comply with these interpretations?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

ID: nht79-1.40

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 21 1979 NOA-30

Mr. J. C. Eckhold, Director Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Eckhold:

This is in response to your letter of August 3, 1979, asking whether Ford may ship to distributors and dealers vehicles with bumper guards, needed for compliance with Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581), placed inside the vehicles for installation prior to sale of the vehicles to consumers. You state that the bumper guards, which would be attached by dealers and others making use of pre-processed mounting holes in the vehicle bumpers, would reduce railroad car capacity, if installed prior to shipment. You also suggest that absence of reference in the Customs regulations (19 CFR Part 12) to readily attachable components needed to comply with regulations issued under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901), may lead to complications in the importation of vehicles prior to installation of readily attachable bumper components.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to the shipment of vehicles with readily attachable bumper components stored in the vehicles for later installation, provided the components are attached before the vehicles are offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Further, regulations governing importation of motor vehicles (19 CFR 12.80) apply only to compliance with Federal Motor vehicle safety standards, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 571, and the question of compliance with Part 581, therefore, should not arise.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 3, 1979

Mr. Richard J. Hipolit, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

This is to request an interpretation of Part 581, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as to readily attachable and detachable equipment that constitute portions of the bumper system on passenger cars subject to the "Phase II" requirements of Part 581 that become effective on and after September 1, 1979.

Unlike regulations issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Part 581 does not expressly provide that a vehicle which conforms to the criteria of the bumper standard with readily attachable equipment installed -- such as bumper guards --is deemed also to be in conformity when shipped with the readily attachable equipment placed in the vehicle for installation by dealers or others prior to the first retail sale (by means of designated, pre-processed installation points on the vehicle, e.g., bumper guard mounting holes pierced in the bumper).

A number of practical problems can be expected to arise in the absence of appropriate interpretation of Part 581 to deal with the realities of manufacture and distribution. As Mr. D. G. McGuigan informed you last week, Ford has determined, for example, that substantial and wasteful transportation complications can be avoided on one of its 1980 model passenger car lines by shipping front and rear bumper guards inside the vehicles, to be installed by dealers prior to retail sale. That situation involves both tariff restrictions and limitations on the capacity of tri-level rail cars. For 1979 models of the cars in question, shipped without bumper guards, each tri-level rail car can accommodate 18 vehicles. The same capacity would be available for 1980 models if bumper guards were not installed until the vehicles reached their final destinations. If bumper guards are installed at the factory, however, only 15 units could be carried on each rail car, and the resulting three unit reduction in carrying capacity would increase Ford's requirement for rail car use, I am informed, by approximately 151 rail cars per month.

Similarly, in view of the fact that imported cars may be transported to this country with readily attachable equipment placed inside the vehicle to help minimize transit damage on the high seas, we foresee the possibility of unintended complications also arising for imported vehicles if the readily attachable equipment issue is not dealt with. Part 12 of Title 19, the Customs Service regulation jointly developed by the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, expressly recognizes and deals with readily attachable equipment for Safety Act purposes, but there appears to be no parallel provision concerning regulations, such as Part 581, established under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

We believe that the requested interpretation is consistent with the intent and purposes of Part 581 and is in the public interest because it will serve to avoid economic waste in the manufacture and transport of passenger cars while preserving for retail purchasers the protection that the performance requirements of Part 581 are intended to provide. Because production of 1980 models are in the process of manufacture and shipments expected to begin in the next two weeks, we should appreciate this request receiving expedited attention.

Sincerely,

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

ID: Miller_tri-cycle 6102

Mr. Marshall V. Miller
Miller & Company P.C.
4929 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64112

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to a letter you sent to Mr. John Lewis of this agency, in which you asked if a three-wheeled, electric work cycle ("work cycle") your client is seeking to import would be classified as a "motor vehicle." As explained below, based on the information you provided us, our answer is no.

Title 49 U.S. Code 30112 prohibits the importation of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is not certified to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In previous interpretations we did not consider vehicles designed and sold solely for non-public road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) as motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. [1]

When a vehicle has on-road capabilities, the agency looks at five factors to determine if it a vehicle is a "motor vehicle." [2]These factors are:

1. Whether the vehicle will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it will be advertised exclusively for off-road use;
2. Whether the vehicles manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use;
3. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles;
4. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is intended for use on the public roads; and
5. Whether States or Foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

Taken as a whole, we have concluded that the work cycle is not a motor vehicle. Our conclusion is based on the following analysis of the five factors provided above.

As to the first factor, the vehicle will not be advertised for use on-road. Your clients business is primarily based on the manufacture and sale of work tractors used in industrialized settings. You stated that the work cycle would be solely advertised for use in similar off-road industrial settings.

Second, the work cycles U.S. dealer will not be assisting purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use. You explained that your client would be the sole dealer of the work cycle and that the company would not provide any certificate of origin or title documents sufficient to register the work cycles in any State.

Third, your client, the sole dealer of the work cycle, does not manufacture or sell any motor vehicles for on-road use.

Fourth, you stated that your client would place a warning label on each work cycle, in a prominent place, stating that the work cycles are not intended for use on public roads.

Fifth, while you did not state if the work cycle is permitted on public roads in China, you did state that to the best of your knowledge, no State has permitted the work cycle to be registered for on-road use. Further, you stated that because the work cycle does not have a VIN number, it is unlikely that any State would allow a work cycle to be registered for on-road use.

While we have concluded at this time that the work cycle is not a motor vehicle, we may re-evaluate our determination if we were to receive additional information indicating that the work cycles were being used on public roads on more than an incidental basis.

You may wish to consult the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to determine which, if any, OSHA regulations may apply to the work cycle.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:591
d.10/7/03





---

[1] See, Letter to Mr. Lane Francis, April 23, 2003 (A grain-vacuum manufactured primarily for use at agricultural sites is not a "motor vehicle."), and Letter to Mr. John L. Oberdorfer and Mr. Eric A. Kuwana, October 1, 1997 (a lift truck designed and manufactured to lift heavy loads on rough terrain and at industrial and construction locations is not a "motor vehicle.") [Enclosed]

[2] See, Letter to Mr. M. James Lester, June 26, 2001.[Enclosed]

ID: nht81-3.18

DATE: 09/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. V. J. Adduci Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Suite 300 1909 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Adduci:

On June 5, representatives of MVMA met with representatives of this agency to discuss various issues concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115. At that meeting, the MVMA representatives requested clarification of the agency's policy on correction of errors made by vehicle manufacturers in their vehicle identification numbers (VIN's). This letter responds to that request.

The agency shares your concern about the potential difficulties associated with correcting erroneous VIN's and will attempt to minimize the burdens involved with any required corrective action. Nevertheless, the agency must consider the safety benefits of an accurate, national VIN system, as well as the anti-theft and other benefits of such a system.

This letter focuses on some of the most likely VIN errors and discusses whether those errors in vehicles sold to consumers would be inconsequential as the errors relate to safety, and, if not, what type of remedy would have to be provided to vehicle owners. Corrective action involving the replacing of an erroneous VIN plate or label or the restamping of the VIN on part of the vehicle is the most desirable remedy. However, there may be less burdensome remedies that would be effective and satisfy the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

One type of error which could be easily corrected is an error in a single VIN character other than the check digit or a character monitored by VIN users. The agency would likely regard such an error as inconsequential if the vehicle manufacturer submitted the necessary corrected decoding information to the agency. The agency would place this information in a public file, thereby making it available to other VIN users. With this corrected decoding information available, the agency's safety research activities would not be impaired and manufacturers would still be able to conduct recall campaigns where necessary.

A second type of error involves an erroneous check digit or other character monitored by vehicle records systems of States or other VIN users. Erroneous check digits could adversely affect our ability to conduct research and to monitor recalls, since the error rate of VIN transcription would presumably be higher in the absence of a properly functioning check digit. Further, without some form of corrective action by the manufacturer (such as restamping or the use of a correction label), vehicle purchasers could face rejections by State, insurance, and other data-processing systems using the check digit to verify transcription accuracy. However, the agency is also concerned that the use of labels could create opportunities for auto theft operations to generate bogus VIN's. Therefore, the agency is presently inclined to treat erroneous check digits as inconsequential noncompliance if the manufacturer reports the errors to the agency. However, as discussed below, the agency is planning to invite public comment on this question before establishing a final position on the matter.

A third type of error involves the physical aspects of the VIN itself. For example, a manufacturer might use a type face other than the sans type face required by the standard. Although errors of this type would have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, they would likely be deemed inconsequential because they would present no problems to the agency, other VIN users, or vehicle owners.

The most difficult type of errors would involve a major error in numbering which would impair the safety and other uses of the VIN. An extreme example of such an error would be a situation where a manufacturer numbered many of its vehicles identically, or where the VIN's were totally illegible. An error of that magnitude could impair the manufacturers' ability to conduct recall campaigns and the ability of the agency to monitor them. It would also cause serious problems for all VIN users. In this type of situation (which should arise rarely, if ever), some form of corrective action would be necessary. The use of a correction label which meets all requirements of FMVSS 115 including indelibility would be one possible approach.

One final matter discussed at the June 5 meeting relates to the correction of VIN errors on vehicles already produced but still in the possession of the manufacturer. We would treat these vehicles the same as the vehicles already sold, i.e., if the noncompliance were inconsequential for the vehicles already sold, it would also be inconsequential for the vehicles produced but still in the manufacturer's possession. However, the agency would expect that once the error is detected, similar vehicles produced thereafter would fully comply with the standard. There is precedent for this approach, since the agency has previously treated as inconsequential noncompliance erroneous identification numbers on tires still in the manufacturer's possession, where an inconsequentiality petition has been granted with respect to tires already sold.

The agency will issue in the near future a notice inviting comment on MVMA's petition to change Standard 115 to a general regulation. In this notice, we will seek comment on the types on corrective action discussed above. If you have any thoughts on other means of making these types of corrections, we would of course be pleased to receive your views.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Earl J. Ogletree; John Gaski -- Harley Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Earl J. Ogletree Mr. John Gaski Harley Products Inc. 904 S Prospect Avenue Park Ridge, IL 60068 Dear Mr. Ogletree and Mr. Gaski: Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1986, asking how our regulations would affect a product you intend to manufacture both as an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment and as an item of original equipment on some vehicles imported into this country. You described the product as a sun visor that clips onto a vehicle's regular visor. You further explained that the sun visor has an extension arm that allows the visor to be moved to filter out the sun coming in through the window to the left of the driver, or moved below the original equipment visor or between the two original equipment visors. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations affect your proposed visor.

Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of your proposed sun visor in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (708 in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the sun visors described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install devices which could impair their vision and thus adversely affect safety. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

LEGAL COUNSEL NHTSB U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR SIR/MS:

I AM REQUESTING A RULING OR INFORMATION ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENTS POSITION ON THE LEGALITY OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING A NEW TYPE OF SUN VISOR* FOR USE ON AUTOMOBILES IN THE AFTER SALE MARKET IN THE U.S. ALSO WE ARE PLANNING TO INCORPORATE THE NEW SUN VISOR AS ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT ON AUTOMOBILES MANUFACTURED IN KOREA WHICH WILL BE SOLD IN THE U.S. SOLD.

* THE NEW SUN VISOR CLIPS ONTO THE AUTOMOBILES' REGULAR VISOR. WHAT MAKES THE NEW SUN VISOR DIFFERENT IS THAT THE TINTED SUN VISOR CAN BE MOVED TO FILTER OUT THE SUN VIA AN EXTENSION ARM THAT HOLDS THE TINTED SUN VISOR WITHOUT MOVING THE REGULAR OR ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR. WITH THE NEW SUN VISOR ONE CAN FILTER OUT THE SUN AT THE LEFT SIDE DOOR WINDOW, BELOW THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISOR AND BETWEEN THE TWO ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT VISORS.

PLEASE ADVISE US AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A FEDERAL ISSUE OR PROBLEM.

SINCERELY, EARL J. OGLETREE AND JOHN GASKI