ID: nht91-1.25

DATE: January 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol Zeitlow -- Manager, Engineering Services, Oshkosh Truck Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-21-90 from Carol Zeitlow to Taylor Vincon (Vinson) (OCC 5550)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of December 21, 1990, to Taylor Vinson of this office, in which you ask a question about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have also asked for confirmation of your understanding with Mr. Vinson with respect to three other aspects of motor vehicle safety regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

With respect to Standard No. 108, you believe that our letter to you of August 27, 1990, stated that "the hazard warning signal should always override the stop lamp signal when both are red in color." Mr. Vinson, by telephone on October 9, said that he believed that at some time previous the override feature had been at the option of the vehicle manufacturer. You have asked the date that Standard No. 108 changed, and "in which section of the regulations can I find the ruling."

Actually, our letter of August 27, 1990, did not state that the hazard warning signal should override the stop lamp signal. We explained that Standard No. 108 requires a turn signal lamp to override the stop lamps if the lamp optically combines stop and turn signals, and that because the hazard system operates through the turn signal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use. The specific wording of the regulatory requirement is "When a stop signal is optically combined with a turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing." You will find this in paragraph 4.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps August 1970, and in paragraph 4.4 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps September 1970, both of which are incorporated by reference in Table I and Table III of Standard No. 108. And a vehicular hazard warning flasher is a device which causes all the required turn signal lamps to flash; see Definition in SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher February 1966, also incorporated by reference.

We note that this regulatory requirement was not originally contained in Standard No. 108. The predecessor SAE Standards J586b June 1966 and SAE J588d June 1966 originally incorporated in Standard No. 108 did not include override language. Standard No. 108 was amended on January 5, 1976, to incorporate SAE J586c and SAE J588e, with an immediate effective date, but allowed compliance with the older standards until September 1, 1978 (41 FR 765). Thus, during the period January 5, 1976, to September 1, 1978, a manufacturer had the option of providing the override feature in a combination lamp in which the hazard and turn signal functions used the same circuit.

You have also asked whether a sun visor is required by the Federal motor

vehicle safety standards. The answer is no, if the vehicle is a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR that exceeds 10,000 pounds. However, if the GVWR of those vehicles is 10,000 pounds or less, or if the vehicle is a passenger car, paragraph S3.4 of Standard No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact requires that a sun visor be provided for each front outboard designated seating position.

In addition, you asked whether any regulation specified the type or quantity of horns required on a motor vehicle. The answer is no. Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays does not require that any motor vehicle be equipped with a horn. However, if a horn is provided, it is subject to the requirements of the standard for horn control location, identification, and illumination.

Finally, you asked whether Standard No. 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems contains "the percentage of area of the windshield that the windshield wiper must wipe", or specifies only the frequency of the wipers. Standard No. 104 does not specify wiped area percentages for windshield wiping systems on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses. However, it does specify percentages for passenger car systems, and it specifies the frequency for all motor vehicle windshield wiping systems.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht89-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/89

FROM: FREDERICK H. DAMBACH -- EXECULINE

TO: NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/26/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FREDERICK H. DAMBACH; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 217

TEXT: Dear Sirs:

Over a month ago, we purchased two 1985 Van Hool buses from an operating bus company in Florida. These vehicles have been operating for hire for the past three years.

When we brought the vehicles back to New Jersey, we were given a very difficult time by the N.J. Department of Transportation about the emergency exits on the bus.

N.J. DOT was incorrectly reading specification #571.217 and insisting that we needed push out windows to meet the emergency exit requirements. After speaking with Jeff Jiuseppe from the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, N.J. DOT finally agreed that w e did not need push out windows, and the existing emergency doors would meet the spec.

Now N.J. DOT is saying that although they will accept the doors to meet the requirements, they do not meet the total square inch requirement as outlined in 217.

It is my interpretation of 217 that we do meet the square inch requirements for emergency exits.

Paragraph S5.2, "Provision of emergency exits" (copy attached), explains the square inch requirements.

Our problem is when the spec. limits an opening to 536 sq. inches.

Our buses are 51 passenger capacity. We have over 9000 sq. inches between four exit doors. We have four roof hatches with over 960 sq. inches each. We have over 12,800 sq. inches of total exit space, only 3417 sq. inches are required by 217.

N.J. DOT will only credit us with 1064 sq. inches per side, saying we need a total of 1366.8 per side. They will only count the exit doors, giving no credit for the roof hatches, saying that they are not on the side. We need an interpretation of the de finition of "SIDE" as used in 217.

According to Websters New World Dictionary (page attached), side means "the right or left half, as of the body".

It is my contention, when 217 says 40% of the total required area of unobstructed openings shall be provided on each side of a bus, they are saying each half of a bus. In other words, if you split the bus body down the middle, 40% would have to be on ea ch side. You would then have to split the area for the roof hatches and credit half to each side.

Under this interpretation, we easily exceed the number of sq. inches required by 217.

We need a ruling on this interpretation immediately, in writing, and sent to Vincent Shultz, Supervisor, N.J. DOT, FAX #201-648-6912.

Please do not delay this request.

These two buses are half of my fleet. We have already been going around with N.J. DOT on this for over a month. As a result, we cannot operate the buses and it is costing me a fortune. I can not survive much longer without getting these buses on the r oad.

If you have any questions, please call me at the above number.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

S5.2 Provision of emergency exits. Buses other than schoolbuses shall provide unobstructed openings for emergency exit which collectively amount, in total square inches, to at least 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the bus. At least 40 percent of the total required area of unobstructed openings, computed in the above manner, shall be provided on each side of a bus. However, in determining the total unobstructed openings provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area, shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. School buses shall provide openings for emergency exits that conform to S5.2.3.

ID: aiam4484

Dear Mr. Bunnell: This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1988 to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have provided diagrams of two types of deck lid spoiler installations, intended as either OEM or aftermarket equipment, and have asked how these relate to requirements for the center highmounted stop lamp. You understand that the spoiler itself does not have to meet the lighting standard, but would like to comply if possible. You are correct that the spoiler itself is not subject to the lighting standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108), however, its installation has the potential for creating a noncompliance with that standard. The basic requirements for the lamp is that it must meet the photometric intensities at each of the test points specified in Figure l0 of the standard, and the visibility (and other) requirements of paragraph S4.l.l.41. Photometric testing is conducted according to SAE Recommended Practice J186a, with the photometer at a distance of at least l0 feet from the lamp. Test points lie above and below the horizontal axis of the lamp, and to the left and right of the vertical axis. According to your first design, the spoiler is 'at or below the rear brake light using the 5 degree measurement as a guide.' You are correct in taking into account the necessity of meeting the 5 degree down test points. But compliance will be affected by the location of the lamp and slope of the deck lid as well as the shape of the spoiler. The second spoiler is designed 'to go over the horizontal intensity of the light.' We interpret this as recognition of the need to meet the test points lying 5 and l0 degrees above the horizontal. Our comments are the same as for the first spoiler. In short, if a spoiler design is not vehicle specific there may be no practicable way for you, as the manufacturer of the spoiler, to determine whether its installation would create a noncompliance. If your design is vehicle specific, the SAE photometric test could be conducted with the spoiler installed. The responsibility for compliance with Standard No. 108 is initially that of the vehicle manufacturer. If the spoiler is installed as part of the vehicle manufacturing process, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards would cover the center lamp with the spoiler in place. But the dealer also must ensure that a certified vehicle remains in conformance at the time it is delivered to its first purchaser. Therefore, a dealer could be reluctant to install a spoiler that is not vehicle specific in the absence of some showing that it does not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Once the vehicle is sold, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in effect forbids the dealer, or any motor vehicle repair business, from modifications that affect compliance of equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. This prohibition, however, does not extend to the vehicle owner, who may modify the vehicle as (s)he wishes, subject to State laws. We are not aware of any State laws that would forbid spoilers of the designs indicated. We have enclosed a copy of paragraph S4.l.l.41 and Figure l0 for your information, and appreciate your interest in learning more about Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: 77-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/77

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

TO: Grove Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) tire label requirements contained in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You address the situation in which it is not practicable to affix the information label to the door.

Location of vehicle certification labels and tire information labels is governed by Part 567.4(c). This section provides that the primary location of the required labels is either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the drivers seating position, or if none of these locations is practicable, to the left side of the instrument panel. Further, if none of the above locations is practicable, you may request an alternate location from the agency. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 explaining how to request an alternate location for the information label.

SINCERELY,

February 17, 1977

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for deviation applicable to Part 567, and FMVSS #120 (Certification Labeling)

Reference: 42 FR 7140 dated February 7, 1977

As manufacturers of mobile hydraulic cranes it has always been our company policy to conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to the best of our ability. As you are probably aware, a self-propelled crane has unique features as regards their work function, and as such, manufacturers are obligated, morally and legally, to assure these features, both carrier and superstructure modes are properly placarded as to operation, maintenance, etc. and notwithstanding, safety which is always our prime concern.

The most important document that accompanies our product line to the ultimate user is the operators handbook. Not only do we supply such a document with the physical shipment of the crane but also provide a second set geared to the specific model involved to the buying distributor. The operators handbook must be fully understood and digested before a crane operator physically operates the equipment. It is to be noted, that the prime-mover (carrier) is equally important as to safety of operation as is the superstructure cranning function.

Tire and rim selection from the design Engineering viewpoint is rather unique within our industry in that, crane manufacturers per se do authorize limited "Lift" capability on rubber and subsequent movement of the load at a given maximum speed. Decal location of these "on rubber" limits are posted to the centerline of the driver side carrier door adjacent to the vehicle certification label. In addition, this information is fully cited in our operators handbook along with suggested substitutes of tires and rims with their recommended cold PSI for on rubber and highway functions.

One must also consider the usage factor of this type of equipment within the realm the real world. Construction companies and users of our type of equipment are considered unique in that usage of the equipment is primarily performed in an off-highway configuration, yet is capable of travel from the owners yard to the job site. However, in terms of odometer miles on the carriage in any given time-frame, it would equal merely a fraction of an over the road semi-tractor type piece of equipment.

Attached herewith as Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 are typical examples of our certification label and tire inflation chart decals. Attached as Enclosure 3 is a typical decal installation drawing on one of our crane families. Please note the many different types of decals ie, caution, warning, danger, etc. which we, as vehicle manufacturers, feel obligated to attach to our machine totally in the interest of safety to our users. To expand our present certification label to include suitable tire and rim information would increase the overall size by one-third. The label is presently sensitized to a metal mounting plate which is needed due to the acoustical package placed on the exterior of the door for noise abatement. The door therefore, would require extensive redesign along with an enlarged mounting attachment for the decal. Predicated on the type of equipment, work function, and limited highway travel mode, it is requested that your Administration reconsider the label information requirements under S5.3 for our type of equipment and keeping in mind that we have and are conforming to the standard and merely are asking relief as to location of the mandated information.

GROVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

R. G. Wilkins Product Safety & Reliability Analyst

cc: E. GARDENHOUR; W. KENNER; L. JOHNSON; F. KRUECK; H. BARRETT; B. SPANGLER

(Illegible Text)

ID: 77-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

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

TO: Great Dane Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 5, 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. Since some of your vehicles are flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) you 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 you specify appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads you anticipate will be carried, your responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to you.

SINCERELY,

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

May 5, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In reference to your letter of November 10, 1976, you made some interpretations which we feel are unreasonable and find that it is impractical to meet compliance.

You indicated that "A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably foreseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety related defect." You further stated "The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading."

We, as a manufacturer, construct flat platform trailers and van type trailers. When these units are manufactured we certify both a GVWR and GAWR. We however, in most cases, have no way of knowing what products or mix of products will be carried on or in these vehicles.

We do know that most users of this type equipment will carry the maximum allowable payload by State and/or Federal laws. If we construct a vehicle with 10:00 X 20 tires our GAWR will be 19,040# per axle. The present Federal law will allow up to 20,000# per axle and states up to 22,000# per axle. From this we could conclude that many axles could be overloaded as compared to our GAWR. However, we have no real knowledge that this condition does exist but have strong suspicions that it may. We furthermore have no means of controlling how the vehicle is used during its lifetime.

It is definitely unreasonable for NHTSA to expect a vehicle manufacturer to be responsible for the actions and operations of truck lines and other trucking operations.

We feel that placing a specific GVWR and GAWR on the vehicle by the manufacturer is warning enough and that problems of overload is the responsibility of the user and should be controlled by Federal and State weight limits and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.

John Storz Director of Engineering

CC: DON VIERIMAA -- TTMA

ID: nht94-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Saburo Inui -- Vice President, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/12/93 from Saburo Inui to Robert Hellmuth (9205)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the test conditions for the dynamic side impact test of Standard No. 214, "Side Impact Protection." I apologize for the delay in responding.

The test conditions are set forth in S6 of the standard. S6.1 explains how to achieve "test weight:"

Test Weight. Each passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity, secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added test equipment is located away fr om the impact areas in secured places in the vehicle. * * *

You first ask whether the weight of the added test equipment inside the vehicle is added to the test weight, or whether parts of the vehicle (weighing the same as the "added test equipment") are removed to keep the vehicle weight at the "test weight." Th e answer is that parts of the vehicle may be removed, but only as a last resort. A brief explanation of how NHTSA calculates test weight follows.

Under S6.1, "test weight" is comprised of the combined weight of the vehicle with all fluids, the cargo and luggage weight, the test dummies, and nothing more. The cargo and luggage weight is derived by subtracting from the gross vehicle weight rating s pecified by the manufacturer the combined weight of the vehicle, fluids, and 150 pounds for each seating position.

There are subtractions and additions to the vehicle weight in preparation for the test. The fuel is replaced with Stoddard solvent, but only to approximately 93 percent of capacity, and all other fluids (oil, washer fluid, etc.) are drained. Thus, the vehicle is lightened by the weight of 7 percent of the

2

fuel and all of the other fluids. However, the added weight of cameras and any other necessary (non-dummy) test equipment usually more than compensates for the fluid weight loss, and the vehicle generally is slightly heavier than the test weight. There fore, other weight must be removed until the test weight is reestablished.

Please note that NHTSA will remove parts of the vehicle to compensate for the weight of the test equipment only as a last resort. The agency will first remove cargo or luggage ballast. If still more weight must be removed (i.e., in the unlikely event t hat the weight of the test equipment exceeds the weight of the removable cargo and luggage) the agency will remove parts of the vehicle. This is only likely to occur in vehicles with very small cargo capacities, such as sports cars. In this event, NHTSA would remove only parts of the car that play no part in the side impact test (e.g. bumpers).

You next ask about the "vehicle test attitude" specifications of S6.2. By way of background, NHTSA determines the attitude of the vehicle in its "as delivered" condition (i.e., the vehicle as received at the test site, filled to 100 percent of all fluid capacities and with all tires inflated to the manufacturer's specifications) and in its "fully loaded condition," under the vehicle test attitude specification of S6.2. Under S6.2, the vehicle's pretest attitude is equal to either the as delivered or t he "fully loaded attitude" or between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude.

You ask whether the term "fully loaded attitude" means the attitude of the vehicle in the "fully loaded condition." The answer is yes. Moreover, S6.2 specifies that "[t]he 'fully loaded condition' is the test vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1." As mentioned in our response to your first question, S6.1 explains how to load the vehicle to achieve the test weight.

You also ask whether the "as delivered" left-to-right attitude must be maintained when adding test equipment. The answer is also found in S6.2's specification that "[t]he pretest vehicle attitude is equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded attit ude, or between the as delivered attitude and the fully loaded attitude." This language describes a range of attitudes, including the left-to-right attitude, which the vehicle may be in at the time of the test. The vehicle must be capable of passing the test anywhere within the prescribed range. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a vehicle, the agency has leeway in maintaining the as delivered left-to-right attitude when adding test equipment. As long as the left-to-right attitude after adding equipment is so mewhere between the attitude in the as delivered condition and the fully loaded

3

condition, an acceptable pretest vehicle attitude will be achieved.

Finally, I would like to note that NHTSA's Enforcement Office prepares updates to its laboratory test procedures on an as required basis. The updates include rule changes and maintenance revisions. We project a maintenance update to the side impact tes t procedures (TP-214D-03) will be published within the next six months. During this update, issues addressed in this letter will be considered.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9205

Mr. Saburo Inui
Vice President
Toyota Motor Corporate Services
of North America, Inc.
1850 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Inui:

This responds to your letter asking about the test conditions for the dynamic side impact test of Standard No. 214, "Side Impact Protection." I apologize for the delay in responding.

The test conditions are set forth in S6 of the standard. S6.1 explains how to achieve "test weight:"

Test weight. Each passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity, secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added test equipment is located away from the impact areas in secured places in the vehicle. * * *

You first ask whether the weight of the added test equipment inside the vehicle is added to the test weight, or whether parts of the vehicle (weighing the same as the "added test equipment") are removed to keep the vehicle weight at the "test weight." The answer is that parts of the vehicle may be removed, but only as a last resort. A brief explanation of how NHTSA calculates test weight follows.

Under S6.1, "test weight" is comprised of the combined weight of the vehicle with all fluids, the cargo and luggage weight, the test dummies, and nothing more. The cargo and luggage weight is derived by subtracting from the gross vehicle weight rating specified by the manufacturer the combined weight of the vehicle, fluids, and 150 pounds for each seating position.

There are subtractions and additions to the vehicle weight in preparation for the test. The fuel is replaced with Stoddard solvent, but only to approximately 93 percent of capacity, and all other fluids (oil, washer fluid, etc.) are drained. Thus, the vehicle is lightened by the weight of 7 percent of the

fuel and all of the other fluids. However, the added weight of cameras and any other necessary (non-dummy) test equipment usually more than compensates for the fluid weight loss, and the vehicle generally is slightly heavier than the test weight. Therefore, other weight must be removed until the test weight is reestablished.

Please note that NHTSA will remove parts of the vehicle to compensate for the weight of the test equipment only as a last resort. The agency will first remove cargo or luggage ballast. If still more weight must be removed (i.e., in the unlikely event that the weight of the test equipment exceeds the weight of the removable cargo and luggage) the agency will remove parts of the vehicle. This is only likely to occur in vehicles with very small cargo capacities, such as sports cars. In this event, NHTSA would remove only parts of the car that play no part in the side impact test (e.g. bumpers).

You next ask about the "vehicle test attitude" specifications of S6.2. By way of background, NHTSA determines the attitude of the vehicle in its "as delivered" condition (i.e., the vehicle as received at the test site, filled to 100 percent of all fluid capacities and with all tires inflated to the manufacturer's specifications) and in its "fully loaded condition," under the vehicle test attitude specification of S6.2. Under S6.2, the vehicle's pretest attitude is equal to either the as delivered or the "fully loaded attitude" or between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude.

You ask whether the term "fully loaded attitude" means the attitude of the vehicle in the "fully loaded condition." The answer is yes. Moreover, S6.2 specifies that "[t]he `fully loaded condition' is the test vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1." As mentioned in our response to your first question, S6.1 explains how to load the vehicle to achieve the test weight.

You also ask whether the "as delivered" left-to-right attitude must be maintained when adding test equipment. The answer is also found in S6.2's specification that "[t]he pretest vehicle attitude is equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded attitude, or between the as delivered attitude and the fully loaded attitude." This language describes a range of attitudes, including the left-to-right attitude, which the vehicle may be in at the time of the test. The vehicle must be capable of passing the test anywhere within the prescribed range. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a vehicle, the agency has leeway in maintaining the as delivered left- to-right attitude when adding test equipment. As long as the left-to-right attitude after adding equipment is somewhere between the attitude in the as delivered condition and the fully loaded condition, an acceptable pretest vehicle attitude will be achieved.

Finally, I would like to note that NHTSA's Enforcement Office prepares updates to its laboratory test procedures on an as-required basis. The updates include rule changes and maintenance revisions. We project a maintenance update to the side impact test procedures (TP-214D-03) will be published within the next six months. During this update, issues addressed in this letter will be considered.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John G. Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:214 d:6/28/94

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: aiam5142

"Dear Mr. Bennett: We have received the petition by General Motors (GM for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures. First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until 'resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . .' We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV. We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be 'slightly below' the minimum requirements 'at a few test points'. Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points? Similarly, GM has argued that 'preliminary testing has indicated that' the GMEV will 'substantially comply' with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide '. . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . .' Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition. Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that 'the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles.' The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above. When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2968

Dear Mr. Tydings: This responds to your February 28, 1979, letter asking about th remanufacturing of vehicles using old chassis and new bodies. In particular, you ask whether these vehicles must comply with the new safety standards.; The remanufacturing operation that you mention need not comply with th new safety standards. Such a remanufactured vehicle may need to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis. Otherwise, there might be a rendering inoperative of the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards. I am enclosing a copy of an interpretation that discusses the remanufacturing issue.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel