ID: nht88-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1988

FROM: RICHARD W. WARD -- VICE PRESIDENT; K-D LAMP COMPANY

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED NOV. 3, 1988 TO RICHARD W. WARD, V. P., K-D LAMP CO., FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TEXT: This is in reference to your letter of Aug. 19, 1988 to Paul Scully regarding the exclusion of reflex reflector area when calculating minimum square inch lens area. Apparently your letter has caused a future customer of KD Lamp Co. to reconsider and rej ect the use of a Turn Signal Lamp of ours which has a lens area of 8 square inches. The following information and enclosed documentation is offered for your evaluation, and I respectfully request your reply to clarify the requirement of minimum square i nch lens area for Turn Signal and Stop Lamps.

In S1. of Purpose & scope FMVSS 108 the standard covers requirements for original and replacement lamps. When a new lamp is designed the requirements of 108 in effect at that time are naturally incorporated into the design. The present requirements of 108 shown in Table #1 for vehicles 80 or more inches wide indicates the applicable SAE standard is J-588e Sept. 1970 for Turn Signal Lamps and J-586c Aug. 1970 for Stop Lamps. Both of these SAE standards in section 3.2 require a minimum lens area of 8 s quare inches (rear lamps) for a single compartment lamp. The device in question meet the J-588e and J-586c, however, our customer has interpreted your letter that 12 square inch minimum lens area is the requirement. Their conclusion is based on the 2nd paragraph of your letter wherein you make reference to S4.1.1.7 of FMVSS 108 and 12 square inch lens area.

It is our position that S4.1.1.7 and S4.1.1.6 of FMVSS 108 is not the present requirements but rather an exception or a permissable use of an old SAE J-588d June 1966 and J-586b June 1966 for lamps used on vehicles manufactured between 1973 and 1978 (ref . page 28238 Fed. Reg. Aug. 6, 1986). If the full context of S4.1.1.7 and S4.1.1.6 is taken into consideration it is apparent the intent, particularly the words "may also be designed", of these sections is to cover vehicles of older manufacture.

After your review of the above and attachments, I would appreciate your comments so the immediate problem as well as any future questions in this regard can be resolved.

Thank You.

ID: nht89-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BLANCHE KOZAK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 03/29/89 FROM CHESTER G. ATKINS -- HOUSE TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT, RE MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM BLANCHE KOZAK TO BERRY FELRICE; LETTER D ATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED; LETTER DATED 08/09/88 FROM BLANCHE G. KOZAK TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Kozak:

Thank you for your letter concerning the applicable classification and regulation of a three-wheeled vehicle manufactured by Cushman. I was saddened to learn that your husband died while operating such a vehicle at his job.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information about this agency's laws and regulations. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized by the National Traffi c and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as:

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

According to your letters, there are two different models of the three-wheeled Cushman vehicle. One of these models is intended solely for off-road use. This model would not be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so NHTSA has no aut hority to regulate this model. The other model is intended for use on the public roads. According to your letter, your husband was operating the on-road model at his job. The on-road model plainly appears to be a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of th e Safety Act.

Cushman and every other manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. Both eighteen-wheel tractor trailers and motor scooters are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, but the safety standards specify different requirements for those two types of vehicles. To determine the applicable requirements in the safety standards, one must determine into which of several vehicle classes the vehicle in question will fall. As our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking explained in his July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio, the on-road model of the

2 Cushman three-wheeled vehicle would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle" for the purposes of our safety standards.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The Safety Act also required Cushman to certify that each of its on road three-wheeled vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1403. Additionally, the Safety Act requires Cus hman to recall and repair those vehicles if either Cushman or this agency determine that the vehicles contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419. It is the individual State, Massachusetts in this case, that has authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles in that State.

I would now like to respond to the particular statements and concerns expressed in your letters.

Statement One: You said: "I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on the Public Highways and the person required to operate should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit." (emphasis added)

Response: As explained above, NHTSA cannot regulate the operation or use of these vehicles. That is a question that is entirely within the authority of the State of Massachusetts. You may wish to express to the appropriate persons in the State of Massa chusetts your belief that the State ought to regulate the operation and use of these vehicles.

Statement Two: You then noted that "similar units are presently being used in the Commonwealth without a seat belt despite the fact that the Registry of Motor Vehicles considers them to be motor vehicles and not motorcycles."

Response: This statement suggests that you may have some uncertainties about the relationship of the vehicles called "motorcycles" to the larger vehicle group called "motor vehicles." As explained above, for the purposes of Federal law, "motorcycle" is a subset within the broad category of "motor vehicles." Other subsets of "motor vehicles" include "passenger car," "truck," and "bus." Thus, for Federal purposes, all motorcycles are motor vehicles.

Our July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio indicated that the on-road version of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle is a motor vehicle that would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle." Our safety standard that requires most motor vehicles to be equip ped with safety belts or other types of occupant crash protection is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). However, this standard does not apply to vehicles classified as motorcycles. Accordingly, none of our safety standards requ ire Cushman to install safety belts on these vehicles.

Statement Three: You noted that this vehicle "does not have a solid door, only a canvas one."

3 Response: Our safety standard that specifies requirements for side doors on vehicles is Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). Standard No. 214 currently applies only to passenger cars. Since the vehicle in question is a "motorcycle," our safety standards do not require the manufacturer to provide doors on it.

Statement Four: You suggested that the hospital and its employees "were possibly subjected to a fraudulent act," because the vehicle did not indicate a helmet is required when operating the Cushman vehicle.

Response: You are correct in assuming that the State of Massachusetts has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders. If you are interested in learning more details about that law, you may wish to contact the appropriate persons in the Massachusetts sta te government.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: 05-008918drn

Dr. Ing. Pavel Vokl
Type Approval Tests and Technical Regulations,
Patents, Licences and Trademarks
Technical Development
SKODA AUTO a.s.
Tr. Vclava Klementa 869
293 60 Mlad Boleslav
Czech Republic




Dear Dr. Ing. Vokl:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems, and of the definition of "seating reference point" in 49 CFR Part 571.3.You have two questions relating to the 2002 version of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard J1100 (SAE J1100), which are addressed below.

In responding to your letter, I note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide interpretations of SAE standards alone. SAE standards are developed by the SAE, a private organization. NHTSA has authority to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.If an SAE standard (in whole or in part) is incorporated by reference by an FMVSS, NHTSA will provide an interpretation of the FMVSS, and any applicable SAE standard included in that FMVSS.

Your first question relates to FMVSS No. 104. You asked whether, within the intention of SAE J1100, the daylight opening is reduced by the area of the projected internal mirror on the windshield.You state your belief that the area of the projected mirror on the windshield may have influence on the mandatory percentage of the area (especially area A according to FMVSS No. 104) to be wiped.

Our response is that SAE J1100 is not incorporated by FMVSS No. 104.However, FMVSS No. 104 includes a definition of "daylight opening" that is taken from another SAE standard, paragraph 2.3.12 of section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963.

Paragraph 2.3.12 of that SAE standard states:

The term "Daylight Opening" (abbreviated DLO) refers to the maximum unobstructed opening through any glass aperture, including reveal or garnish moldings adjoining the glass, according to a given direction or projection. If not specified the dimension will be the vertical projection.

The definition does not provide that the area it describes is to be reduced by the area of the projected internal mirror on the windshield.

Your second question is whether the 2002 version of SAE J1100 has been incorporated by reference into the definition of "seating reference point" (SgRP) at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions in the FMVSSs.The answer is no, the SgRP definition continues to reference the June 1984 version of SAE J1100.NHTSA has not announced rulemaking to include the 2002 version of SAE J1100 into the definition of SgRP.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:104
d.4/7/06

ID: aiam4755

Dear Mr. Stone: This is in response to your telefax to Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, concerning the definition of a walk-in van. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. You requested a definition of the term 'walk-in van,' particularly with regard to floor to roof height requirements, bulkhead requirements, step height requirements, and the presence of a front passenger seat. Although Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 uses the term to describe a specific type of vehicle, neither that standard nor any other agency regulation defines the term. None has been necessary to date since the term is largely self-defining. For a vehicle to be regarded as meeting the term, it must be possible for a person to enter the occupant compartment in an upright position. Examples of walk-in vans include the GMC Step Van, and the large delivery vans used by the U.S Postal Service and the United Parcel Service in this country. If you need further information concerning whether the vehicle you propose to import would be considered a walk-in van, I suggest that you provide this office with information concerning the configuration and dimensions of the vehicle. Photographs of its interior and exterior would be helpful as well. I hope you have found this information useful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0465

Dear Mr. Mentzer: This is in response to your letter of October 8, 1971, in which yo expressed concern over the implications of the gross axle and gross vehicle weight ratings to appear on certification labels, beginning January 1, 1972. You requested our assurance that 'the GVWR will not be interpreted so strictly as to make liable the manufacturer whose body, if loaded to its nominally rated capacity, would exceed the GVWR indicated on the certificate.'; The GVWR and GAWR values are, within limits, to be supplied by th vehicle manufacturer based on his own knowledge of the vehicle's capacity. In the amendment to the certification regulations published October 8, 1971 (36 F.R. 19593), a requirement was added that the GVWR figure 'shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' From the standpoint of the regulation itself, the only other limit on GVWR would be that it should not be more than the sum of the GAWR's (although it may be less), since otherwise the vehicle would obviously be supplied with axle systems inadequate for its carrying capacity.; Thus, the GVWR must not be less than a figure that reflects the ful 'rated cargo load' of the completed vehicle. Obversely, if you supply a rated cargo load, the weight of the vehicle when carrying that load must not exceed the GVWR. If you supply no rated cargo load, but only the volumetric capacity, the capacity would not on its face lead to a violation of the certification regulations, since as you note the specific weight of the material carried varies considerably.; You should be aware, however, that completing the vehicle so that it apparent carrying capacity exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (section 113, 15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common-law product liability doctrines. In such a case, the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle might avoid liability, leaving it all on the final-stage manufacturer, by pointing out that the design of the vehicle as completed led the user to exceed the GVWR and GAWR furnished with the incomplete vehicle.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht93-1.1

DATE: 01-01-93 EST

FROM: A. F. Zang, III

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-18-93 from John Womack to A. F. Zang, III (A41; Std. 213; FMVSS 302)

TEXT: I am planning to produce a product for children. I am concerned about meeting all governmental rules concerning products for children. The product is made out of a fabric that is plastic coated, and is an after market child's car seat cover. My main concern is the flammability restrictions that the government places upon fabrics that are used for children's goods. I am writing to your agency because my product will be used on the highways.

Where can I go to get the fabric tested? What are the test specifications? Are these questions something that are already available from the factory? I want to be able to state on the packaging that the fabric has been tested and found to be within governmental regulations. I feel that it is important for parents to feel safe about the products they are purchasing for their children.

Any information that you could send me concerning governmental regulations for children's products would be greatly appreciated, thank you.

ID: aiam0871

Dear Mr. Humphreys: This is in reply to your letter of August 18, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to motor homes.; You ask whether the standard would be applicable to wood flooring tha lies immediately under carpeting which is attached to the wood flooring by staples and which forms an interior floor covering over either the wheel housing or over the flooring in general. Paragraph S4.1 lists 'floor coverings' among the components required to meet the requirements of the standard. Since carpeting is a floor covering, it would have to meet the requirements of the standard. The flooring underneath the carpeting would not be considered a 'floor covering' and, accordingly, would not have to meet the requirements. Because the flooring is not listed as a component to which the standard applies, the issue of whether the carpeting-flooring-staples combination is a composite material under Paragraph S4.2(b) of the standard does not arise.; In general, any method of joining materials may be a 'mechanica attachment' subject to the standard if it achieves an intimate joining of separate materials in any given component. The question is not so much how the attachment is made, but how closely spaced are the attachment points.; You ask further whether the standard would apply to wheel housin covers where the wheel housing or a portion thereof would not be exposed to the interior of the vehicle. Although wheel housing covers are included in Paragraph S4.1, any component subject to the standard must also be included within the general language of that Paragraph, which only refers to materials used in 'vehicle occupant compartments.' If the wheel housing cover or any portion of it is or may be exposed to the occupant compartment, such as by the folding of seats, beds, or other movable components, then it is subject to the requirements of the standard. If it is fully separated from the occupant compartment by a nonremovable barrier when any interior component is used (including folding or convertible seats or beds), then it is considered to be outside the occupant compartment and not subject to the requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 15308.jeg

Mr. Jiro Doi
Vice President and General Manager
Mitsubishi
1111 19th Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Doi:

This responds to your letter concerning Standard No. 208's requirements for passenger air bag manual cut-off devices. As you note in your letter, S4.5.4 of the standard permits these devices in vehicles which either do not have rear seats or have rear seats that are smaller than a specified size. You stated that you are studying the feasibility of installing retrofit cut-off switches on such vehicles, and ask two questions concerning this matter.

First, you ask us to confirm your understanding that installation of retrofit cut-off switches in these vehicles would not violate the provision in Federal law that prohibits manufacturers and other commercial entities from making required safety equipment inoperative.⁽¹⁾

Your understanding is correct. Because Standard No. 208 would have permitted these vehicles to be manufactured with passenger air bag manual cut-off devices when new, and so long as the devices used for retrofit meet all of the requirements specified in the standard for such devices, there would not be any violation of the "make inoperative" provision.

Second, you ask about S4.5.4.3's requirement that the telltale light for the cut-off device be "on the dashboard." You state that you believe the location of the manual cut-off device depicted in an attached drawing "is clearly visible from all front seating positions and may be considered a part of the dashboard." You state that you therefore believe that "placing the telltale lamp and air bag cut-off switch in the attached location between driver and passenger seating positions may comply with the requirements of S4.5.4.3."

As discussed below, we do not agree that the location shown in your drawing is considered a part of the dashboard. Therefore, the design would not comply with S4.5.4.3.

Your drawing shows the location of the manual cut-off device, including both the telltale lamp and air bag cut-off switch, as being on a low-lying portion of a center console which ultimately rises to meet the dashboard. We have previously issued interpretations addressing the issue of where the center console ends and the dashboard begins in the context of Standard No. 201. (Enclosed are copies of an October 27, 1986 letter to Mr. Tsuyoshi Shimizu and a July 21, 1988 letter to Mr. Hiroshi Kato.)

While we recognize that there is sometimes difficulty in determining the dividing line between a dashboard and an adjoining console, we believe the location shown on your drawing is on the console. This conclusion is based on the fact that location appears to be on a low-lying portion of the console, and before any significant rise toward the dashboard. We also note that, while it is difficult to tell from your drawing, there appears to be an indentation or gap that separates the instrument panel from the console. The location shown on your drawing is well below, and apparently rearward of, the indentation or gap.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208

d.9/15/97

1. You cite 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) as the statutory reference for this provision. I note that this section was subsequently codified, without substantive change, at 49 U.S.C. 30122.

ID: aiam3511

Dear Mr. Sweet: Since you represent the School Bus Manufacturers Institute, I a writing for your assistance. We are reinterpreting the requirements of S5.3.3 of Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, as they apply to audible warning devices and would like your assistance in disseminating this interpretation.; As you know, the standard requires that a continuous warning soun shall be audible at both the driver's seating location and in the vicinity of the unclosed door. In the preamble to the notice implementing this requirement, the agency stated that section S5.3.3 requires two warning devices, one located at each position. The agency made this interpretation based upon the then available data indicating that a single warning device in a bus might not be audible in both locations.; In the years that this requirement of the standard has been in effect the agency has reexamined the issue in light of experience and finds that it is possible to have only one warning device audible at both locations. We have determined that this device can be heard even when a bus is loaded with noisy children. In accordance with this finding, the agency is reinterpreting the language of section S5.3.3 to permit one warning device if that device is audible at both locations. We caution manufacturers to ensure that their warning devices will be audible at both locations even when the bus is loaded.; Thank you for your assistance in providing this information to you members and others in the school bus industry.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 24115.rbm

Mr. William Gest
Vice President of Engineering and Quality
Vantage Mobility International
5202 South 28th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85040

Dear Mr. Gest:

This responds to your request for clarification of the responsibilities set forth in 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5) regarding certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in this section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds). You are specifically interested in determining whether the disclosure requirement applies to vehicle alterers, i.e., persons or companies that modify a vehicle prior to its first retail sale.

The short answer to your question is that alterers do not have to specifically disclose a reduction in load carrying capacity that is the result of their alterations. They do, however, have to take adequate load carrying capacity into account when they determine whether the alterations have changed a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the GVWR.

NHTSA's regulations impose certain requirements on those who alter a vehicle that has been previously certified by a manufacturer but not yet sold in good faith for purposes other than resale. Alterers are considered to be manufacturers and are responsible for ensuring that the vehicle continues to meet all applicable federal safety standards when delivered to the first retail customer. Alterers must determine whether their modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must apply a label adjacent to the original manufacturer's certification label stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable standards.

Alterers must also determine whether their modifications affect the manufacturer's stated GVWR, gross axle weight rating (GAWR), and vehicle type. If such a change has been made, the alterer must specify the new GVWR, GAWR, or vehicle type in a manner consistent with the capability of the vehicle to comply with applicable standards and operate at higher weight rating and/or as a different type of vehicle. NHTSA expects both manufacturers and alterers to assign GVWR and GAWRs that reflect the manufacturer's or alterer's good-faith evaluation of how the vehicle's braking, load bearing items (including tires), suspension, steering, and drive train components will react to the vehicle's weight, size, cargo-carrying capacity and intended use.

The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may be safely loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards.

The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that 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." "Unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use." Although the term "rated cargo load" is not defined by regulation, generally it is the GVWR of the vehicle minus the combined weight of the occupied designated seating positions (150 pounds times the total number of designated seating positions) and the unloaded vehicle weight.

Those who modify a completed vehicle after the first retail sale are considered to be repair businesses by NHTSA and are typically called "modifiers" by the industry. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA may assess a civil penalty to enforce this provision. NHTSA may also, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption.

An underlying premise of Part 595 is that the individual for whom the modifications were made is unlikely to realize that the vehicle, as modified, may no longer meet all applicable FMVSS and may have a different load carrying capacity than listed in the owner's manual or on a tire placard. These vehicle changes could have an effect on the overall performance of the vehicle. Accordingly, we determined that vehicle modifiers who decide to take advantage of the exemption set forth in 49 CFR Part 595 should be required to provide the customer with certain safety information and place a permanent label on the vehicle. The language for the label is set out in 49 CFR 595.7(d), and a detailed breakdown of the required information is contained in 49 CFR 595.7(e). One of the required pieces of information is the vehicle's load carrying capacity when it has been reduced by 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or more.

This requirement was intended to address circumstances in which the load carrying capacity has been reduced as a result of the modification. Although the term "load carrying capacity" was not specifically defined in the February 2001 final rule, the term was intended to convey the same meaning as vehicle capacity weight, as defined in FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims. "Vehicle capacity weight" is defined in that standard as the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle's designated seating capacity, i.e, the number of designated seating positions.

The vehicle capacity weight for passenger cars is stated on a placard located on the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location. For other vehicles, such as vans, vehicle capacity weight and/or rated cargo load and luggage values may be stated on a label voluntarily affixed by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer or in the owner's manual. If no information is provided, a vehicle's load carrying capacity prior to modification is its GVWR minus its unloaded weight. Likewise, the term "available load capacity" means that load carrying capacity that remains after the modifications are completed. For a comprehensive discussion regarding the determination of "reduction in load carrying capacity," see the enclosed letters to Mark S. Lore and Kenneth Conaway, dated April 25, 2002.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.7/15/02