ID: nht87-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/08/87

FROM: ROSE TALISMAN -- JOAN FABRICS CORP

TO: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOC., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DOUG COLE; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 302; LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM JONATHAN JACKSON TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M. TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/23/87 FROM DOUG CO LE TO STEVE KRANTZKE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cole:

In accordance with our understanding from Mr. Irving Brown of C.M.I. Automotive, we are sending to your attention the specifications from both Ford Motor Company and General Motors in Detroit regarding the specific testing procedures required for meeting their codes for fire retardancy.

As you are well aware, we have run correlation studies on our pattern Passport with your recommended testing agency, Commercial Testing Company of Dalton Georgia. The test results have indicated a specific difference in correlation depending on the test method utilized. The method utilized and recommended to us by both Ford Motor Company and General Motors which requires the use of heat resistance support wires as stated on the attached specification are the direct guidelines we utilized in testing al l fabric designated for motorized product from our mill.

We certainly would be happy to discuss the rational and our specific methods for testing based on Detroit's specific requirements. Do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or need additional information.

Ford Laboratory Test Methods;

FLAMMABILITY TEST FOR AUTOMOTIVE INTERIOR MATERIALS

II. Small Parts (contd.)

A surrogate test plaque specimen made with a composition identical to that of the component material(s) shall be produced in the shape of a rectangle 4 inches (100 mm) wide, 14 inches (356 mm) long and the minimum thickness of the component up to 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) maximum, employing the same or equivalent process as used to produce the component part. The thickness of the plaque is that of the material as utilized in the vehicle except where it exceeds 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). In those applications, th e plaque is to be reduced to a uniform thickness of 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) to include the surface material exposed to the occupant compartment air space.

Test Procedure 1. Prior to testing, each specimen is conditioned for 24 hours at a temperature of 73.4 +/- 3.6 degrees F (23.0 +/- 2.0 degrees C) and 50 +/- 5% relative humidity and the test is conducted under those conditions.

2. Material is placed in the specimen holder as indicated below and tested in the direction (transverse or longitudinal) that produces the most adverse results. The specimen is oriented so that the surface closest to the occupant compartment air spa ce faces downward on the test frame.

(a) The standard test specimen (4 x 14 in (100 x 356 mm) x thickness) is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames (specimen holder) so that both sides of the specimen are held by the frames. The temperature of the frame in Figure 4 at the start of each test shall not exceed the conditioned temperature as stated above in Paragraph 1 of Test Procedure.

(b) Where the maximum available width of the specimen is 2 in (50 mm) or less so that the sides of the specimen cannot be held in the two matching U-shaped frames, it is to be supported by the use of 10 mil (0.25 mm) wires spanning the top surface of the bottom U-shaped frame at 1 in (25 mm) intervals, keeping such specimens from bending away from the horizontal at the flaming end, thereby allowing a more uniform and constant burn rate (see Figure 5). The bottom U-shaped frame shall always be positi oned so that the wires are "sandwiched" between the top and bottom frames.

(c) Samples tested with support wires: Flexible specimens, such as genuine leather, supported and unsupported vinyls, textile and backing fabrics, foams, textile padding[Illegible Word] compounds, etc., that frequently soften and bend at the flaming e nd so as to cause a non-uniform, uneven burn rate.

Samples tested without wires: Less flexible materials such as paperboard, carpets, rigid plastics, etc., seldom soften and bend at the flaming end; therefore, do not justify or necessitate support wires.

(d) Adjust ventilation hood door opening to approximately 23 in (580 mm) and regulate ventilation up to 110 CFM (0.052 m<3>/s) maximum air flow to prevent smoke and fumes from entering room.

ID: nht68-3.14

DATE: 05/24/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 5, 1968, (Reference 61.A218.A1115) addressed to Dr. William Haddon, Jr., concerning the location of clearance lamps on several styles of truck bodies manufactured by the Utility Body Company.

Rear clearance lamps mounted at the top corners of the sleeper cab of the vehicle in Figure 1 of the drawing attached to your letter would not be in conformance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. On this same vehicle, the required location of the front clearance lamps is at the top corners of the sleeper cab. The additional set of front clearance lamps on the truck cab would not be required or prohibited by Standard No. 103. Locations of rear clearance lamps on the vehicles shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 of the drawing are in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 108.

Our records do not indicate that we have furnished any evidence to the Utility Body Company regarding location of rear clearance lamps as shown in Figure 1. Under their letter of March 11, 1968, this company submitted to us a print of their drawing, which is identical to the drawing enclosed with your letter, and requested our comments on the proposed locations of their lighting equipment. The above information will be furnished to the Utility Body Company in reply to their March 11 letter and should serve as clarification of the requirements of Standard No. 108. This clarification also indicates that no conflict exists between the requirements of Standard No. 108 and the requirements of the California Vehicle Code with respect to location of your clearance lamps.

ID: 1983-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd. -- Kenneth M. Bush, Staff Engineer, Government Relations Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush Staff Engineer Government Relations Department Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. 3251 E. Imperial Highway P.O. Box 1100 Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Bush:

This is in reply to your letter of February 245, 1983, asking for an intepretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays.

The last sentence of paragraph S5.3.1 is:

"If a motorcycle is equipped with self-proportioning or antilock braking devices utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control."

You have asked if your interpretation is correct that this sentence does not preclude the use of single control braking systems which do not incorporate "self-proportioning" or "antilock" braking devices. Your interpretation is correct; The sentence establishes a requirement that applies only to those self-proportioning devices with single control. It does not require a second control nor does it preclude a single control system without proportioning devices.

You have also asked that we provide clarification as to what self-proportioning means. This term includes any brake input device the actuation of which applies braking torque to both the front and rear wheels. Use of such a self-proportioning device does not preclude additional brake actuation devices. Examples include certain current model Moto Guzzi motorcycles.

As you have requested, the publicly available copies of your letter and this response shall not include your name and address. If you have any further questions, we shall try to answer them.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Enclosed is a request for interpretation of a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Because this request related to specific future product designs, we ask that this letter not be made publicly available with the request. For the same reason, we ask that our name and address be deleted from publicly available copies of your response.

Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD.

Kenneth M. Bush Staff Engineer Government Relations Department

This is to request clarification of some of the language contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays (49 CFR 571.123). In particular, we have two questions concerning the last sentence of S5.2.1 which states "If a motorcycle is equipped with self-proportioning or antilock braking devices utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control.

First, we interpret this sentence not to preclude the use of single control braking systems which do not incorporate "self-proportioning" or "antilock" braking devices. Is this interpretation correct?

Second, we ask that you provide clarification as to what "self-proportioning" means as used in S5.2.1. If you could list examples of self-proportioning devices, this would be helpful.

ID: nht79-2.50

DATE: 01/23/79

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

TO: Esley Development Corporation

COPYEE: Don Morrison -- BMCS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1978, asking about your responsibilities, as the manufacturer of a snow plow headlamp holder, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Under the Act a truck, with or without snow plow attachment, is a "motor vehicle" and the plow itself and any associated equipment is considered "motor vehicle equipment" since it is an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. But Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, contains no requirements either for snow plow or accessory lighting, and your sealbeam holder therefore is not subject to regulation under the standard. However, as a manufacturer of "motor vehicle equipment," you are responsible for notification of purchasers and dealers, and remedy of any safety-related defects that may occur in your product. (Sec. 151 et seq. of the Act)

As to "what legal burden rests" with you as a "manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse" of your units once they leave your plant, we are uncertain what you mean by "misuse." If you mean that the holder is used in a way that you did not intend, then the question would appear to be one not answerable under Federal law. If the "misuse" is attributable to a defect in the sealbeam holder, then the question would arise whether the defect is safety-related. If the answer is affirmative, then you would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, for a reply to your question as to what Federal requirements must be met for use of your units "on inter and intra state highways."

Enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested, as well as a copy of the Act.

SINCERELY,

ESLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

December 21, 1978

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of an all rubber heavy duty auxiliary lighthousing used in off road mining, construction and logging. We are looking into manufacturing a snow-plow headlight with a turn signal attachment out of the same heavy duty rubber. It will be similar to the Yankee snow plow light and the Dietz snow plow light. It will be designed to hold a standard PAR 56 sealbeam of the 6014 or 6015 series as manufactured by G.E., Wagner Tung-Sol, and Westinghouse which are the standard sealbeams being used as OEM in autos and trucks for their primary headlights. Since we are not manufacturers of the sealbeams but just the holder of the sealbeam we would like your determination and response to the following questions:

-- Is a snow plow or truck using a snowplow attachment considered a motorized vehicle?

-- What legal burden rests with us as a manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse of our units once they leave our plant?

-- What federal requirements or regulations must be met for use of our units on inter and intra state highways? $-- Please send us a copy of Federal Standard 108.

Gentlemen, it takes 6 to 8 months to develope a product such as this prior to going into production. We are aiming at the 79-80 winter season and would therefore appreciate receiving your reply and any other advise you care to pass along as soon as possible.

Stephen E. Hall President

ID: 19584.ztv

Mr. Saul Cohen
Chief Executive Officer
Innovative Brake Lighting Systems cc
P.O. Box 968
Morningside 2057
South Africa
FAX +27 11 784-3109

Dear Mr. Cohen:

We have received your letter of February 16, 1999, in which you informed us about your "intelligent" brake light, and asked that we confirm the legality of it.

We cannot do so as it is presently configured. As you describe it, the device is a center high-mounted stop lamp, with extensions which progressively activate from the outside of the lamp towards the center as foot pressure increases on the brake pedal. You state that "At all times, when the brake switch is activated, at least the outer segments are constantly illuminated without any flashing or flickering, and intensity is maintained." You conclude by saying that "the additional segments will illuminate incrementally towards the middle as braking pressure is increased.

In the United States, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment is the regulation governing motor vehicle lighting equipment. Standard No. 108 requires a center high-mounted stop lamp as original equipment for certain motor vehicles, and specifies requirements for the lamp which must be met by replacement equipment as well. The center lamp must activate when the brake pedal is applied. Your letter indicates that the center of the lamp is the last portion of your device to be activated when the brake pedal is applied, thus, the design does not comply with Standard No. 108.

However, your device could be redesigned to comply in the following manner. There must be a central separate lamp that illuminates first and that meets Standard No. 108's requirements in and of itself, including photometrics. This lamp must not be combined with any other lamp, including the adjacent lamps. The adjacent lamps can illuminate outward from the center lamp as brake pressure is applied, but must not be brighter than the center lamp. As we see it, the illuminated extensions of the device are supplementary lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 allows supplementary lighting equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment. The test for aftermarket equipment is similar; it must not "make inoperative" any lighting equipment required by the standard. If you follow the guidelines set forth in this paragraph, then your device would be an acceptable lighting supplement under S5.1.2. We have previously given an opinion that a center lamp with adjacent extensions may be acceptable under Standard No. 108 (see enclosed letter of May 8, 1991, to Keith Salsman).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.4//21/99

ID: nht94-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Donald P. Green

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack To Donald Green (A42; Std. 109; 120)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

I am seeking official professional advice regarding the use of passenger radial tires on recreational--pull type--trailers.

I have made numerous inquiries to various tire dealers and in nearly every case they have refused to consider the installing of passenger radial tires on a trailer, stating that this tire's construction with a soft sidewall could cause an uncontrollable swaying condition that could result in a serious accident. They would only install special trailer tires or light truck tires that have stiff sidewalls and are designed to operate at higher pressures resulting in a harder ride but stable condition.

I had the misfortune, in an emergency situation, allowing a professional tire dealer to install a set (4) passenger radials (P215-75R15) on a 1989 trailer, since they did not have one tire to match the F78-15ST "C" rating tires that were supplied with th e trailer from the manufacturer.

The result was that several months later I became the victim of an upset of the trailer and the towing vehicle, that was triggered by a cross-following wind that caused the soft sidewall tires to squish to one side, forcing the tow vehicle into the adjoi ning left lane of a two lane divided highway. When I attempted to correct the tow vehicle the trailer reversed its attitude, overcame the Reese anti-sway systems and went into a horrifying jackknifing that ended with both trailer and tow vehicle overtur ned. My passenger and I were using lap and shoulder harnesses and escaped without injury. No other vehicles were involved. The 1990 GMC Suburban received $ 8,000.00 damage, the trailer was cashed out by the insurance company.

I have checked with the dealer that installed the passenger radials and he claims no responsibility or negligence, saying tires were of correct size and load carrying capacity, and that there is no regulation, local, state or federal, that prohibits inst alling radial passenger tires on a trailer. It does seem odd that this application is allowed since it seems to be the opinion of most tire dealers that the use of these tires on trailers is a hazard to both the driver of the tow vehicle and other appro aching or passing vehicles.

I do not believe that I was an isolated case, and have since heard of similar accidents happening from the same cause.

Your advice and reply would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht94-8.17

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Donald P. Green

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack To Donald Green (A42; Std. 109; 120)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

I am seeking official professional advice regarding the use of passenger radial tires on recreational--pull type--trailers.

I have made numerous inquiries to various tire dealers and in nearly every case they have refused to consider the installing of passenger radial tires on a trailer, stating that this tire's construction with a soft sidewall could cause an uncontrollable swaying condition that could result in a serious accident. They would only install special trailer tires or light truck tires that have stiff sidewalls and are designed to operate at higher pressures resulting in a harder ride but stable condition.

I had the misfortune, in an emergency situation, allowing a professional tire dealer to install a set (4) passenger radials (P215-75R15) on a 1989 trailer, since they did not have one tire to match the F78-15ST "C" rating tires that were supplied with the trailer from the manufacturer.

The result was that several months later I became the victim of an upset of the trailer and the towing vehicle, that was triggered by a cross-following wind that caused the soft sidewall tires to squish to one side, forcing the tow vehicle into the adjoining left lane of a two lane divided highway. When I attempted to correct the tow vehicle the trailer reversed its attitude, overcame the Reese anti-sway systems and went into a horrifying jackknifing that ended with both trailer and tow vehicle overturned. My passenger and I were using lap and shoulder harnesses and escaped without injury. No other vehicles were involved. The 1990 GMC Suburban received $ 8,000.00 damage, the trailer was cashed out by the insurance company.

I have checked with the dealer that installed the passenger radials and he claims no responsibility or negligence, saying tires were of correct size and load carrying capacity, and that there is no regulation, local, state or federal, that prohibits installing radial passenger tires on a trailer. It does seem odd that this application is allowed since it seems to be the opinion of most tire dealers that the use of these tires on trailers is a hazard to both the driver of the tow vehicle and other approaching or passing vehicles.

I do not believe that I was an isolated case, and have since heard of similar accidents happening from the same cause.

Your advice and reply would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht92-6.18

DATE: June 3, 1992

FROM: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TO: Michael Perel -- Research and Development, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Steven Henderson (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your advice during our telephone conversation of May 19, and for your fax of May 20. The following letter, although originally written before our conversation, has been modified after consideration of the DOT regulations contained in your fax. I hope this letter contains sufficient information for evaluation by your legal department. Please excuse my reiteration of information from our previous conversation.

My name is Steven Henderson. I am a PhD student at McGill University, studying in the field of visual perception. I am requesting your assistance in advancing the examination of a U.S. patent application for a motorcycle hazard signalling device (filed the week of March 23, 1992). I also wish to know the opinion of your legal department regarding the extent to which DOT regulations apply to the signalling device.

About 4000 motorcyclists die every year in North America. I believe many of these deaths are due to the small size and low visibility of motorcycles, and, in collaboration with my coinventor David Kernaghan, have developed a device giving motorcyclists and bicyclists the capability of temporarily increasing their conspicuity to automobile drivers when circumstances warrant. The device is a flasher system that, in addition to signalling turns in the standard fashion, flicker the headlight, tail light, and signal lights at a rate of 10 flashes per second whenever the horn button is pressed. This flicker in the visual periphery of the car driver will initiate a reflexive saccade toward the motorcycle's location. (Vision researchers have found the human eye to be maximally responsive to a flash frequency of 10 Hz.) If the horn button is pressed while a turn is being signalled, the headlight flickers at a rate of 10 Hz, and only the actuated signal light gives out 2 Hz bursts of 10 Hz flicker. (My experience and those of other riders is that a motorcyclist is often aware of a developing dangerous situation one or two seconds before an approaching car driver sees the motorcycle, giving the device-equipped motorcyclist the opportunity to avoid an accident by signalling his or her presence to the car driver.) A photocell prevents the headlight from flickering at night. The device is also intended for use with automobile signal lights (but not automobile headlights).

The first question I wish to pose concerns the legality of the device under Section 571.108 S5.6 of the DOT regulations. On the face of it the device does appear to be proscribed by these regulations. However, the regulations are clearly intended to govern the characteristics of headlamp systems that are continuously modulated over extended periods of time, while my proposed system will be used only for very brief intervals (when the horn is sounding). The transitory nature of a signal such as a horn allows its use, even though the continuous blowing of the same horn would be considered a nuisance, and would surely be in violation of noise abatement bylaws. Indeed, the presence of a

working horn is mandated by law for all licensed vehicles, showing that a device that would be illegal if used continuously, can even be required by law if its utility as a warning device is recommended. Furthermore, the device does not violate the spirit of laws governing flashing lights and emergency vehicles, as its use would certainly not cause a motorcycle to be mistaken for an emergency vehicle. (The lights displayed at the front of an emergency vehicle are of a different color, flicker frequency, and intensity.) Finally, this DOT section may prohibit transient headlamp flicker without prohibiting transient signal light flicker at all.

The second question concerns the advancement of a patent application of the device. I strongly believe that in the interest of public safety, the device should be tested, and if found effective, should be made available to the motoring public as quickly as possible. However, as any competent technician or motorcycle mechanic could easily copy the device upon seeing it in use, I feel that patent protection must be secured before a test program is begun. Unfortunately, under normal circumstances the U.S. patent office takes about eighteen months to render a judgement after a patent application has been filed. If you and your legal department agree that the public interest is served by the advancement of examination in this case, I ask that immediate action be requested, in accordance with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 708.01. The section states:

37 CFR 1.102.Advancement of examination.

(a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of the Commissioner to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of a request under paragraph (b) of this section ...

(b)Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason, may be advanced for examination.

Furthermore, the current U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL states that:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established to carry out a congressional mandate to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from auto accidents on the Nation's highways... (p.464)"

I believe that this congressional mandate indicates that the proposed invention should be "deemed of peculiar importance" to the NHTSA, and I therefore ask that the director of an appropriate department within the NHTSA make request for an advanced application under section 708.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, by supplying to me a letter addressed to the US Patent Office, which my patent attorney will forward, along with supporting documentation, to the U.S. Patent office.

I understand that such a letter is not an endorsement of the device by the NHTSA, and that the intent of the letter is solely to facilitate a research program to determine the device's lifesaving potential. Your letter would be communicated only to the U.S. Patent Office, and would never be used in a

publicity campaign or to in any way suggest that the device had received the endorsement of the NHTSA. I would certainly be willing to sign a letter to that effect.

Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht93-5.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1993 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Zaher A. Obeid -- President & CEO, Petrobeid of Syria

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/17/89 from Stephen P. Wood to Alan S. Eldahr (Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 7/14/93 from Zaher A. Obeid to NHTSA (OCC 8864)

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of July 14, 1993, asking for comments on the "Zatalite" which you would like to sell in the United States in the near future.

The Zatalite is a message board intended to be installed in the rear window of motor vehicles. We have been asked before about this kind of device, and I enclose a copy of our letter of August 17, 1989, to Alan S. Eldahr explaining the circumstances under which installation of an electronic message board is and is not permissible under U.S. Federal law.

Your Figure 3(c) shows the Zatalite controls built into a steering wheel. We believe that you should review this method of installation to ensure that it does not affect compliance of vehicles equipped with airbags (installed in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208), or, if the vehicle has no airbag, with Standard No. 203 (requirements intended to protect the driver in an impact with the steering control system).

I hope that this information is useful.

ID: nht78-2.35

DATE: 07/11/78

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

TO: North Central Tank Repair

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 30, 1978, letter asking whether you are permitted to mount temporarily a body on a vehicle when you know that the body is of a greater load carrying capacity than is appropriate for the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You indicate that some other manufacturer would finish the mounting process and certify the vehicle for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has indicated on many occasions that vehicle overloading poses a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle, in particular, and the motoring public in general. Accordingly, the agency has stated its determination to hold manufacturers responsible for vehicles that they manufacture which will exceed their GVWR's when fully loaded with their intended cargo. The NHTSA considers such overloading to constitute a safety-related defect.

In the operation that you are considering, you would be considered an intermediate vehicle manufacturer. As such, you would be required to comply with all of the requirements in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, that apply to intermediate manufacturers. The NHTSA would consider you to be partially responsible for the construction of a vehicle that when loaded with its intended cargo will exceed its GVWR. Possible agency action might include a mandatory recall and remedy and civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per vehicle.