ID: 77-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ASTM Subcommittee F9.10

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 2, 1977, letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) still emphasizes or frequently conducts tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating tests as authorized by Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires.

As you know, the bead unseating test procedure was adopted from the Society of Automotive Engineers Practice J918. It is our understanding that the SAE continues to use this procedure for tire performance tests. The NHTSA is of the opinion that the bead unseating test procedure is a viable laboratory evaluation of the compatibility of a tire and rim combination. This has become especially important since 1975, when the table of approved alternative rims of Appendix A of Standard No. 110, Tire and Rim Selection, was deleted, and the tables of standards organizations were adopted. The bead unseating test provides an additional verification of the tire and rim combinations listed in the yearbooks of these organizations.

Standard No. 109 requires several tire performance tests: physical dimensions, resistance to bead unseating, strength, endurance, and high speed performance. The NHTSA compliance testing is conducted on a random selection basis. In the case of tires, not every test is conducted on each brand of tire selected for compliance testing. Therefore, the bead unseating test is not always conducted during compliance testing. However, the agency does conduct bead unseating tests whenever appropriate and will continue to do so.

SINCERELY,

ASTM

March 2, 1977

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The ASTM Subcommittee F-9.10 on the Structural Integrity of Tires has been developing a Standard Test Procedure for Unseating the Bead of a Tubeless Passenger Car Tire from the Rim. The draft of this Proposed Standard Test Procedure was approved by the Subcommittee and submitted to the F-9 Main Committee for ballot. The Test Procedure is essentially that of the Bead Unseating Test contained in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration test MVSS 109 put in ASTM format.

Discussion of five negative ballots which were received disclosed that there exists considerable doubt concerning the validity of the Bead Unseating Test among the engineers representing the tire producing companies. The principal objections to it are:

a. It is believed that the unseating test does not reflect actual field results, nor performance characteristics.

b. The test is not functional for all current sizes (profiles, construction, etc.) of tires.

c. The origin and data base of the bead unseating test, as well as the reasons for its incorporation into the repertoire of testing, are not clear to the persons presently involved in tire test work.

d. That the regulatory bodies no longer emphasize nor do they frequently conduct the test.

The Task Group is planning a survey to obtain information from the tire producing companies which will assist in the resolution of (a) and (b) above. Since the test originated with the motor car companies and was developed by their representatives in the tire committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers, the Task Group expects to obtain the early history of the test from the SAE group to resolve (c).

It is the purpose of this inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to determine whether that regulatory group no longer emphasizes nor frequently conducts the test as stated in (d) above. Is this the present situation? Does NHTSA consider that this test has lost significance since it was adopted as part of the original MVSS 109.

The ASTM Subcommittee F-9.10 would appreciate a response from NHTSA to clarify the situation in which the passenger tubeless tire bead unseating test is presently considered and conducted by them.

Louis Marick, Chairman Subcommittee F-9.10

ASTM

March 2, 1977

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from ASTM subcommittee F9.10 on the Structural Integrity of Tires questioning the validity of the "Bead Unseating Test Procedure MVSS109" which is being considered for development as an ASTM Standard.

The purpose of my letter is to request your response to the problem presented and ask that you reply directly to:

Mr. Louis Marick, Chairman ASTM Subcommittee F9.10 339 Merriweather Road Grosse Pointe, Mich 48236 Your assistance on this standards development project will be sincerely appreciated.

William T. Cavanaugh Managing Director

CC: L. MARICK; F. CECIL BRENNER -- NHTSA

ID: 1984-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation -- Jack DiMaio

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack DiMaio Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you asked three questions about the size markings required for truck tires. As a general matter, Standard No. 119 leaves the question of the appropriate size marking to the discretion of the individual manufacturer or to the manufacturers collectively, through the several standardization organizations. To be certain that I fully address your concerns, however, I will answer each of your questions in the order you presented them in your letter.

1 . Please clarify whether it is allowed to market a low profile tire with a size marking of 280/80 R22.5.

At the outset, I wish to clarify one point. In this and your other questions, your size designations do not include a letter designating the tire load range. In prior interpretations of Standard No. 120, which relates to tire selection and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, I have indicated that the load range is considered a part of the size designation. This conclusion was based on the fact that many truck tires have identical dimensions, but widely varying load carrying capacities, depending on the load range. Hence, this answer and the two following assume that the size markings on the sidewall of these tires would include a letter indicating the load range assigned to the tires, as required by paragraph S6.5(j) of Standard No. 119.

Paragraph S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specifies that each tire subject to that standard shall be marked with the tire size designation shown "in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires that tire manufacturers provide the public with a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire size the manufacturer produces. The manufacturer is given the option of itself individually furnishing such a listing to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to the public upon request or relying on the listings shown in the publications of the standardization organizations. A standardization organization is a voluntary association composed of representatives of each of its member tire companies. The purpose of standardization organizations is to establish and promulgate sound engineering standards for tires, rims, and their allied parts.

In the case of the 280/80 R22.5 size marking, you may rely on the listings published for that size by any of the standardization organizations shown in S5.1(b) or submit the listings directly to this agency and to each of your dealers. A check of the 1984 publications of the Tire & Rim Association and the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association by this agency did not show any listing for this size designation. It is possible that this size marking is listed by one of the other standardization organizations shown in S5.1(b). If not and if you wish to sell tires with this size designation, you will have to submit a listing of the size rims which may be used with this tire to this agency and to each of your dealers, as specified in S5.1(a).

2. Can the marking 280 R22.5 be used eventually?

If you wish to submit the rim matching information directly to your dealers and to this agency, pursuant to S5.1(a) of Standard No. 119, that marking may be used at the present time. However, it would be preferable if the tire manufacturers, through the standardization organizations, could agree on one size marking for tires with the same physical dimensions and load carrying capacity. This would lessen confusion on the part of consumers and tire service shops. The confusion on the part of those persons was one of the reasons the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published the tire tables for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109. Notwithstanding the agency desire that tire manufacturers use the standardization organizations to resolve tire sizing questions, there is no requirement that they do so, provided that they satisfy the requirements of S5.1(a) for disseminating the sizing information.

3. Do standardization instructions exist which say that only marking 275/80 R22.5 is possible?

No such instructions exist in Standard No. 119. It is possible that this is the only size marking which has been approved by a standardization organization and thus the only marking which can be used if the manufacturer wants to meet the sizing dissemination requirements under S5.1(b) of Standard No. 119. However, as stated above, the individual manufacturer is free to follow the dissemination requirements of S5.1(a) for tire sizes not listed in standardization organization publications.

Should you have any further questions, or need further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by a telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 28, 1984 NHTSA Rm. 5219 Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attn: Steve Kratzke Dear Mr. Kratzke, We at Continental are in preparation of our own version of the new Low Profile truck tire. Some questions have arisen that you may be able to answer regarding size markings. 1. Please clarify whether it is allowed to market a low profile with marking 280/80 R22.5. 2. Can the marking 280 R22.5 be used eventually? 3. Do standardization instructions exist which say that only marking 275/80 R22.5 is possible? Should you have any questions or need more information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Jack Di Maio Continental Products Corporation Main Office 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 (201) 460-0200; Telex: 133 391

ID: aiam2648

Dear Mr. Rutherford: This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1977, and your subsequen conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff, concerning the certification of tank type vehicles. You suggest that a vehicle certification label as specified in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification*, be required to state the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) in pounds.; You apparently have misinterpreted our regulations to require that th GVWR and the GAWR be in something other than pounds where a vehicle is designed to carry liquids. Since the density of liquids is not constant, the weight of customary liquid measurements would depend upon the type of liquid being carried. Since liquid measurements have no precise weight value, designating load ratings by those measurements would not ensure that vehicles would not be overloaded. It has always been the policy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require that the GAWR and GVWR be stated in pounds.; Title 49 CFR Part 568 prescribes the method by which manufacturers o vehicles manufactured in two or more stages must ensure conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A final-stage manufacturer is described as one who 'performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.' Both 'incomplete vehicle' and 'completed vehicle' are defined in Section 568.3 of that regulation.; Section 568.6 of Title 49 requires each final-stage manufacturer t certify that the entire vehicle conforms to all applicable standards, in accordance with Section 567.5. That section requires each final stage manufacturer to affix a label to the vehicle containing, among other things, the GVWR and the GAWR. The GVWR is the value in pounds, which is not less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. The GAWR is the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load- carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.; When a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages 49 CFR 568. requires the incomplete manufacturer to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document containing the GVWR and GAWR for the completed vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle is intended. These ratings are generally used by the final-stage manufacturer in certifying the vehicle. If he chooses to exceed the stated GVWR and GAWR ratings he must also certify that the vehicle will continue to meet all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.; It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem o 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 come 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 subsequen overloading of the vehicles you manufacture would be determined by the reasonableness of your GVWR's and GAWR's, 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 over-loading 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, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 22042.drn

The Honorable Jerry Moran
United States House of Representatives
1200 Main St. Suite 402
P.O. Box 249
Hays, KS 67801-0249






Dear Congressman Moran:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Office of Congressional Affairs, on behalf of Mr. Richard Cain, Assistant Superintendent for Finance of Unified School District 489 in Hays, Kansas. Mr. Cain seeks assistance in purchasing an "over-the-road activity bus" (motorcoach) that apparently does not meet Federal school bus standards. The manufacturer of the bus has apparently stated that based on the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the bus cannot be sold to your constituent's school district. Insofar as another school district, USD 457 apparently purchased an identical bus in 1998, Mr. Cain wants to know "whether NHTSA's standards have changed" since that time.

Because NHTSA administers Federal regulations for school buses, your letter has been referred to my office for reply. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses.

Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. ⁽¹⁾ 49 U.S.C. 30125. This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

The great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of "school bus." More specifically, any new "bus" (including a motorcoach) sold to a school district, or to a school bus contractor, is considered to be a "school bus" when sold for pupil transportation, and as such must comply with the school bus safety standards. A dealer or distributor who sells a new bus to a school district or school bus contractor that does not meet school bus standards is subject to penalties under the statute. There has been no change in NHTSA's laws on dealers' sales of new buses to school districts in the past two years. We plan to look into whether the sale of a similar bus to USD 457 in 1998 violated our laws.

Because our laws generally apply only to manufacturers and dealers of new motor vehicles, we do not regulate a school district's use of a bus to transport school children, even when the bus does not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each state has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.

As Mr. Cain has pointed out in his letter, a school district can be sold a used motorcoach, even when the bus could not be sold when new. This is because our requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale," i.e., to sales of used vehicles. (See 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1).) Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Womack, Esq., NHTSA's Senior Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#571.3
d.9/27/00


---

1. NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events.

ID: nht72-6.60

DATE: 11/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Plaskolite, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 1, 1971, to Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning an interpretation relative to the determination of(Illegible Word) of lamps.

Both of your interpretations are correct. The location of lamps and reflective devices is determined with the vehicle at its curb weight, which is the weight of a motor vehicle with standard equipment; maximum capacity of engine, fuel, oil, and coolant; and, if so equipped, air conditioning and additional weight optional engine.

The overall width is determined with "doors and windows closed" per the interpretation of 32 F.R. 8088, June 21, 1967.

The visibility requirements for lamps and reflective devices will therefore be determined with trunk lids, tail gates, hoods, and rear gates in the normal driving, or closed, position.

ID: nht94-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 25, 1994

FROM: J L Steffy -- Triumph

TO: Dave Elias -- Office Of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack To Jerry Steffy (A42; Part 567)

TEXT: MESSAGE:

DEAR DAVE --

LUKE LOY IN COMPLIANCE SUGGESTED THAT I CONTACT YOUR OFFICE WITH A QUERY.

I WANT TO KNOW IF THE NHTSA CERTIFICATION LABEL THAT IS REQUIRED TO APPEAR ON MOTORCYCLES CAN BE POSITIONED IN AREAS OTHER THAN THE HEADSTOCK AREA?

I SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR ASSISTANCE WITH THIS MATTER.

BEST REGARDS,

ID: nht94-8.4

DATE: February 25, 1994

FROM: J L Steffy -- Triumph

TO: Dave Elias -- Office Of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack To Jerry Steffy (A42; Part 567)

TEXT: MESSAGE:

DEAR DAVE --

LUKE LOY IN COMPLIANCE SUGGESTED THAT I CONTACT YOUR OFFICE WITH A QUERY.

I WANT TO KNOW IF THE NHTSA CERTIFICATION LABEL THAT IS REQUIRED TO APPEAR ON MOTORCYCLES CAN BE POSITIONED IN AREAS OTHER THAN THE HEADSTOCK AREA?

I SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR ASSISTANCE WITH THIS MATTER.

BEST REGARDS,

ID: nht95-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

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

TO: Forbes Howard -- Goodlife Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 6/2/94 from Forbes Howard to John Womack (OCC 10074)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the "super golf car" your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusua l configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle.

In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars "will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour." You enclosed three photographs, each of "one model of our vehicles." One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of t he man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars.

The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straig ht sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mir ror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile.

Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your "super golf cars" to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has regis tered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates.

The FMVSS apply to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

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

In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maxi mum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the "super golf cars" do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your "super golf cars" make them re semble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller.

Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric "super golf car" and 950 lbs. for the gas powered "super golf cars") is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehi cle from being regarded as a "motor vehicle." At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule pub lished May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808) (copy enclosed).

Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a "motor vehicle." Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

For these reasons, we conclude that the "super golf car" as described above is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable FMVSS.

As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 final rule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweigh t vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted.

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

Sincerely,

ID: 10074yes

Mr. Forbes Howard
Goodlife Motors Corporation
Route 3, Box 250-5
Boone, North Carolina 28607

Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the "super golf car" your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusual configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle.

In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars "will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour." You enclosed three photographs, each of "one model of our vehicles." One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of the man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars.

The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straight sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mirror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile.

Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your "super golf cars" to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has registered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates.

The FMVSS apply to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. '30102(a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

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

In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the "super golf cars" do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your "super golf cars" make them resemble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller.

Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric "super golf car" and 950 lbs. for the gas powered "super golf car") is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehicle from being regarded as a "motor vehicle." At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule published May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808)(copy enclosed).

Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a "motor vehicle." Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

For these reasons, we conclude that the "super golf car" as described above is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable FMVSS.

As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 finalrule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweight vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA d:1/4/95

ID: aiam2328

Dear Mr. Rogers: This is in response to your March 26, 1976, letter concerning th certification label requirements in S5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; You have pointed out that the example shown in S5.3 presents rim inflation, and maximum speed information after the Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings (GVWRs) as well as after the Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWRs). You have suggested that the text of S5.3 merely requires such information to appear after the GAWRs and urged such an interpretation. It appears that you have misunderstood the text.; In its present form, S5.3 requires each listed GVWR and GAWR to b followed by the information specified in paragraphs S5.3(a) through (d). Paragraph (a) is divided into subparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) in order to specify different items to follow GVWR and GAWR, respectively. Paragraphs (b) through (d) (which specify rim, inflation, and maximum speed information) are not subdivided because the same items are intended to follow GVWR and GAWR.; Several petitions for reconsideration of the standard have requeste and amendment of S5.3 to eliminate the requirements that tire and rim information appear after the GVWR. Your suggestions on this matter, as well as the other suggestions in your letter, are being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the preparation of its response to those petitions.; Please note that the effective dates of several of the standard' requirements, including that of S5.3, were delayed in a Federal Register notice published on May 6, 1976 (41 FR 18659, Docket No. 71-19, Notice 4). A copy of that notice is enclosed for your convenience.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel