ID: 10673

Mr. Paul Pinoski
Project Engineer
SLP Engineering, Inc.
1501 Industrial Way North
Toms River, NJ 08755

Dear Mr. Pinoski:

This responds to your letter to me in which you requested an interpretation of the term "vehicle capacity weight," as defined in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110). I apologize for the delay in our response.

FMVSS No. 110 applies to passenger cars. Section S4.3 of the standard requires a placard to be placed on the door of the glove compartment or other accessible place on which shall be displayed, among other things, the "vehicle capacity weight." This term is defined in S3 as meaning "the rated cargo and luggage load plus 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." You asked how to obtain the "rated cargo and luggage load," so that you can calculate vehicle capacity weight.

The agency does not define the term "rated cargo and luggage load" or otherwise regulate how that load is determined. The term simply refers to the vehicle manufacturer's determination of the cargo and luggage carrying capacity of the vehicle. The choice of methodology to be used in making that determination is left to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer.

From a safety standpoint, the important issue is the overall value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a vehicle. That value is also known as the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The GVWR informs a vehicle owner how heavily he or she can load a vehicle. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." (Emphasis added.) "Rated cargo load" and "rated cargo and luggage load" are interchangeable terms.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:110#567#571 d:4/24/95

ID: 86-5.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/86

FROM: DALE T. FANZO

TO: DIANE STEED -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/02/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GERALD PETERSON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 202; LETTER DATED 05/17/88 FROM GERALD PETERSON TO ERIKA JONES, OCC - 2052; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM CARL C CLARK TO JERRY PETERSON

TEXT: Dear Ms. Steed,

"I hereby petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to change the requirements of Standard #202 to include head restraints on vehicles other than passenger cars. I feel that the listing of these mini vans as multi purpose evades the issue of safety. I am enclosing this copy of my letter to Lee Iacocca and Chrysler's response. A brief summary of my accident follows:

"On February 11, 1986 I was sitting at a red light on Route 22. A welding truck was in back of me and was struck by a milk tanker. The driver of the tanker dozed off at 50 mph, pusing the welding truck into me with me ending up 211 ft. from point of contact.

"The result from the accident was I had 0 degree head movement for 9 weeks and a A/C separation of the left shoulder. After seeing 4 doctors and 6 therapists I am able to move my head to the left, however, only 60 degree to the right. It is 7 months now and I may have permanent damage to my ligaments in my neck. I have been told that a normal whiplash is caused when your head goes back and it bounces off the head restraint. However, my 3 seated Voyager SE had no head rest which caused my head to snap over the seat causing my injury.

"Ms. Steed, my van is listed with the State as a station wagon and also with my insurance company. If you check to see how many SE Voyager and Caravans were purchased since 1984 you would find, I'm sure, 80%-90% with families. My purpose for this petition is to make sure that no other innocent party will have to go through what I have been going through. To make matters worse, I am a self employed individual who relys on sales by way of 40,000 miles a year to support my family."

In summary, I would appreciate your time and consideration towards this petition. I can be reached at the above address, or by calling (412) 831-8514.

ENCLS

ID: nht76-1.24

DATE: 01/20/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Walt Robbins, Inc.

COPYEE: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 7, 1975, request for an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars, as applied to the tire that you have described as a "Radial, Bias Ply Tire".

On that date, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Al Duduk, and the following NHTSA personnel in attendance: Dr. E. H. Wallace, A. Y. Casanova, and Mark Schwimmer. At the meeting, our letter to you, dated November 3, 1975, was discussed and alternative forms of labeling for this tire were explored. You presented, in substance, the following four examples of sidewall labeling and inquired about their compliance with Standard No. 109:

1. "POLYANGLE" accompanied by "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER 1 ARAMID"

2. "POLYANGLE" accompanied by "NOT A CONVENTIONAL RADIAL PLY TIRE" and "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY"

3. "RADIAL/BIAS" accompanied by "NOT A CONVENTIONAL RADIAL PLY TIRE" and "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY"

4. "RADIAL/BIAS" accompanied by "NOT TO BE USED WITH CONVENTIONAL RADIAL BELTED TIRES" and "3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 ARAMID RADIAL PLY"

Tires labeled according to your first example would be in compliance with the requirements of S4.3(g) of Standard No. 109. A strict interpretation of S4.3(g) would rule out the remaining examples because the word "radial" appears in all of them. However, the NHTSA recognizes that, with the development of new tire construction types, this section of the standard may not be adequate to serve its original purpose, to reduce the hazards associated with the mismatching of tires on a single vehicle. Accordingly, we are preparing to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the standard. For this reason and because the second, third, and fourth examples are in conformity with the spirit of S4.3(g), the NHTSA will, on an interim basis, consider tires so labeled to be in compliance. You may wish to consult with the Federal Trade Commission concerning the advertising of these tires.

I would like to point out that S4.3(d) requires Kevlar, if used as a cord material in a tire, to be identified by its generic name on the tire's sidewall. The generic name of Kevlar, as established by the FTC pursuant to the Textile Fiber Product Identification Act (15 USC 70), is Aramid.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

ID: 9443

Mr. Steve J. Brooks
Program Manager
IAD West Coast, Inc.
5761 McFadden Avenue
Huntington, Beach CA 92649

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your letter asking about the operation and classification of a commercial vehicle you wish to manufacture. The vehicle will carry fewer than 10 passengers and its GVWR will be 11,500 pounds. You were particularly interested in the type of operator's license that would be required of the driver.

Driver licensing requirements for vehicle operators are determined by state law. Since the vehicle's GVWR will be less than 26,000 lbs, and the vehicle will presumably be designed to carry fewer than 15 passengers, the driver will not be required, under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Commercial Driver Licensing (CDL) regulations, 49 CFR part 383, to qualify for a commercial driver license. However, some states require that drivers obtain a commercial driver license to drive vehicles that have lower GVWRs. The driver licensing requirements of the state in which the vehicle is registered, will apply. For more information about the CDL requirements, you can contact the FHWA Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0834.

Vehicle classification is relevant for the regulations and standards of our agency. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each FMVSS for motor vehicles applies to one or more particular types of vehicles, e.g., a standard might apply to passenger cars, buses, trucks, and/or trailers.

To determine which FMVSSs apply to their vehicles, manufacturers classify their vehicles using the definitions in 49 CFR part 571.3 of NHTSA's regulations. Under part 571.3 (copy enclosed), your vehicle, which you said is built in a bus/truck chassis, appears to be a "truck" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle." Under part 567, a manufacturer must state the vehicle classification on the vehicle's certification label and certify that its motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA may take issue with a manufacturer's vehicle classification in an enforcement proceeding if the agency does not agree with the manufacturer's classification.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:567#571 d:4/7/94

ID: 9679

Mr. Donald P. Green
809 Huasna Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420

Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking whether there is a State or Federal regulation prohibiting the use of passenger radial tires on recreational "pull type" trailers. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that you were told by various tire dealers that radial tires should not be used on trailers because the soft sidewalls of radial tires could cause an uncontrollable swaying that could result in a serious accident. You then state that while towing a trailer mounted with four radial tires, you were caught in a crosswind which caused the trailer to jackknife, resulting in a serious accident.

To begin, I am sorry to hear about your accident but am thankful that no one was hurt. The tire safety standards and regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require tires to be able to safely carry the load on a vehicle and to be labeled with important safety information, such as tire size, construction, and inflation pressure. There is nothing in our standards or regulations that prohibits the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers. In fact, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars," expressly permits the use of passenger car tires on vehicles like trailers, provided that adjustment is made to the tire's load-carrying capacity.

NHTSA also issues consumer advisories to alert consumers to certain practices that should be avoided, such as mixing radial and non-radial tires. However, we have never issued a consumer advisory on the use of passenger car radial tires on trailers, and we are not aware of any widespread hazard due to the use of such tires on trailers.

Your State could have requirements for the use of tires on trailers. We suggest that you check with the California Highway Patrol for information on that issue.

We regret we are unable to be more helpful. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:109#120 d:6/9/94

ID: 7614

Mr. Christopher Leone
NewBold Designs
765 Allens Avenue
Providence, R.I. 02905

Dear Mr. Leone:

This responds to your FAX of August 6, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for rules and regulations of the Department on electric vehicles. I understand that you talked with Mr. Vinson later in the day, and received an overview of the matter. I further understand that you intend only the construction of a single experimental vehicle, and have no plans for its production.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the introduction into interstate commerce, by any person, of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation, for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 may be imposed. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are set out in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. There are no standards that apply specifically to electric vehicles, and the standards that apply to your project car are those that apply to "passenger cars" in general.

However, the manufacturer of an electric vehicle may petition us for a temporary exemption (up to 2 years) from one or more of the safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle. The temporary exemption regulations are found at 49 CFR Part 555. An exemption covers up to 2,500 vehicles per year for any 12- month period that the exemption is in effect.

Regulations governing the licensing of motor vehicles are the prerogative of the individual States. Thus, you should inquire as to what Rhode Island requires for your contemplated vehicle.

There is a regulatory gap which your situation highlights, and that is the legal status of a person who intends to build only a single motor vehicle. Such a person is not a "manufacturer" under the Act, since the operative portion of the definition of "manufacturer" is one who manufactures or assembles "motor vehicles". The temporary exemption authority appears directed towards commercial enterprises and not single motor vehicles. Nevertheless, we believe we have the authority to exempt a single motor vehicle under these provisions.

If you wish to consult us further in this matter, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to help you.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:555 d:11/9/92

ID: nht80-2.30

DATE: 05/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVILABLE F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1980, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Section S4.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This section specifies requirements affecting school bus signal lamps "when the bus entrance door is opened." Blue Bird is designing an additional entrance door for its buses and you interpret S4.1.4 as requiring the same operational characteristics for the new door.

We confirm your interpretation that "entrance door" means any entrance door on the school bus. Obviously the purpose of the requirement is not achieved if it is restricted to the traditional entrance door on the right front side of the bus and excludes any other entrance door.

Thank you for your interest in safety.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

April 14, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 108

Blue Bird Body Company is in the process of designing an entrance door that will be located behind the driver on the left side of school buses. This entrance door will be in addition to the normal right front entrance door and will operate independently.

FMVSS 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, and Motor-cycles, Section S4.1.4 requires school buses to be equipped with signal lamps that, in addition to other requirements:

"The system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened."

From this statement, we interpret "entrance door" to mean any and all entrance doors. In the case described above, we interpret the standard as requiring the same operational characteristics of both the normal right front entrance door and the new left side entrance with regard to activation and deactivation of signal lamps. This letter seeks confirmation of this interpretation. Your early response will be apprecated.

Thank you!

Thomas D. Turner Supervisor Engineering Services Department

c: WILBUR RUMPH; JIM MOORMAN; BILL PIERCE

ID: nht81-1.42

DATE: 03/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. O. Willbrand, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Lawrence O. Willbrand, Esq. Suite 873 Paul Brown Bldg. 818 Olive Street St. Louis, MO 63101

RE: Ms. Sharon James

Dear Mr. Willbrand:

This is in reply to your letter of February 19, 1981, with respect to motorcycle tires.

The agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119), New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. This standard specifies requirements for new tires designed for highway use on motorcycles, among other vehicle types. I enclose a copy for your information. The agency has issued no standards for off-road vehicle tires such as trail bike tires as our jurisdiction is limited to those items produced for installation on vehicles manufactured primarily for use on the public roads.

If the motorcycle in question was originally sold with trail bike tires installed (i.e., any tire not stamped with a DOT symbol indicating its conformance to Standard No. 119), that sale might be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). But the Act does not prohibit the owner of an on-road motorcycle from putting off-road tires on his bike and using it on the public roads.

If you have any further questions, I would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 19, 1981

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards % Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591

RE: Mrs. Sharon James

Dear Sir:

Does your office possess or prepare standards relating to tires on a trail bike or and public road motorcycles.

Specifically I am seeking this material in connection with a tire for said vehicle which propells rocks because the tire was made with "knobs" for trails but was being used on the public roads and had equipment qualifying it to do so.

I would be happy to pay for such materials, references, or citations.

I am most appreciative for any attention you might give this matter.

Very truly yours,

Lawrence C. Willbrand

LCW: mw

ID: nht79-1.10

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Theodore Bargman Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Edward F. Tannery Theodore Bargman Company 129 Industrial Avenue Coldwater, Michigan 49036

Dear Mr. Tannery:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether doors on aftermarket top covers for American Motors Jeeps would have to comply with Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

Safety Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, which would include Jeeps. The standard applies only to completed vehicles, however, and not to aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the doors on aftermarket Jeep top covers would not have to have locks. Further, doors on new Jeep vehicles would also not have to comply with the standard if they are "designed to be easily attached to or removed from" the vehicle, as provided in section S4 of the standard.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 30, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th St., S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Hugh Oates Legal Counsel

Dear Mr. Oates:

On October 29, 1979 I had a phone conversation with Mr. William Smith discussing the legalities of door latches and their requirements for Jeep Motor Vehicles. I know the requirements for automotive, motor homes, etc., all all under the FMVSS No. 206 and test procedures of S.A.E. for transverse, longitudinal, inertia testing but on the American Motor Jeep, it has no top cover or a canvas type cover. There is only a handle latch without a first and second stop strike, and no locking mechanism. My question is, where can we find information covering such a top if they were to be manufactured or fabricated for the aftermarket by an independent company. Would this type of application require a safety lock or come under a different category?

I would appreciate any help you can give on door restraint handles and latches for either canvas tops with side curtains and canvas doors, or fiberglas tops with side doors (entrance doors) for Jeeps.

Sincerely,

THEODORE BARGMAN COMPANY

Edward F. Tannery Vice President of Manufacturing

iw

ID: nht79-1.42

DATE: 10/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. Specifically, you asked whether a "barely discernible" light on the headlamp control, which is activated when the ignition is turned to the "on" position, complies with the requirements of the standard. Under S5.3.3, "any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable . . . ." Since the light in question is not activated when the headlamps are activated, it need not meet the intensity requirements of S5.3.3.

SINCERELY,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA

JULY 27, 1979

Kathy Demeter Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80

Dear Kathy,

It is imperative that we obtain a response to the attached request for interpretation. We would appreciate its expeditious handling.

Charles F. Finn

ENC.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA

JUNE 26, 1979

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

Subject: Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80

Gentlemen:

Volkswagen requests your concurrence of our interpretation of FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays as it applies to the headlamp control.

Presently, as a courtesy to the driver, Volkswagen provides a barely discernible light on the headlamp control. This light is activated when the ignition is turned to the "On" position. This facilitates finding the switch in the dark.

It is our interpretation that this light complies with the standard as specified in Sections S5.3.1 and S5.3.3 and therefore is not required to be variable.

John Carson and Nelson Erickson of the NHTSA, in phone conversations with a member of my staff, indicated that they thought Volkswagen's interpretation was correct and believed that there already was an interpretation rendered by the Chief Counsel's office on this matter. Volkswagen would be desirous of obtaining this document.

Response to this request at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations