ID: aiam4244

Dear Mr. Bond: This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of 49 CF Part 565, *Vehicle Identification Number--Content Requirements*. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.; The hypothetical situation discussed in your letter refers to corporation which has manufactured vehicle X for several years. The corporation forms a wholly-owned subsidiary to which it transfers the manufacturing operations of vehicle X. You state that the subsidiary corporation will continue to manufacture vehicle X and ask if the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is authorized to transfer the world manufacturer identifier (WMI) code for the corporation to the wholly-owned subsidiary.; In a telephone conversation with Elizabeth Harrison of this office, yo stated that Holiday Rambler is considering transferring the manufacture of commercial cargo trailers to a wholly-owned subsidiary. You also said that the new subsidiary would be responsible for certifying compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards and reporting any safety-related defects for these trailers.; Section 4(a) of Part 565 requires the first three characters of vehicle identification number (VIN) to identify uniquely the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. You indicated that less than 500 commercial cargo trailers are produced each year, therefore, the first three characters of the VIN together with the third, fourth and fifth characters of the fourth section of the VIN must uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of motor vehicle. As you know, SAE is authorized by NHTSA to assign manufacturer identifiers.; This agency has not authorized SAE to transfer WMI codes under th circumstances described above. If the WMI code for these trailers, which are now manufactured by Holiday Rambler, were transferred to a new subsidiary, then the WMI would no longer *uniquely* identify the manufacturer. Therefore, your corporation should request the assignment of a new WMI for the subsidiary and not use the WMI assigned to Holiday Rambler for these trailers, if the subsidiary is formed. The new identifier and the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in the VIN must be submitted to this agency under the reporting requirements of section 5 of Part 565.; Please note that the subsidiary must also inform NHTSA under 49 CF Part 566, *Manufacturer Identifier*, of its corporate name and the types of vehicles or vehicle equipment which it will manufacture, and comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 566, *Certification*.; I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2314

Dear Senator Hart: This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1976, forwarding petition for reconsideration of the recently issued Part 581 bumper standard from Gulf + Western Manufacturing Company. You ask that the agency provide Gulf + Western with cost-benefit data upon which the bumper standard was based and also supply you with any available information justifying promulgation of the standard.; All of the data upon which the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) based the Part 581 bumper standard, including several cost- benefit analyses, are in the public docket and available for public examination. A series of proposals preceded the issuance of the final rule, and information submitted in response to each of these proposals was closely reviewed and taken into account in reaching the finally adopted provisions.; Although we are prepared to provide you with the data that led to th issuance of the final rule, the volume of information is tremendous. Cost- benefit data are contained not only in several agency-prepared studies, but also in a large number of submissions from the automotive industry and other interested parties. I am therefore only enclosing the major agency studies on the costs and benefits of the bumper standard. You should note, however, that a considerable amount of additional information was considered. I am also enclosing copies of the *Federal Register* notices that preceded promulgation of the Part 581 standard. The preambles of these notices will give you an overview of the information upon which the agency based its bumper regulation.; It is the NHTSA's policy to issue a notice of action taken on petition for reconsideration within 120 days after publication of the final rule, unless action within that time is impracticable. I assure you that Gulf + Western's comments and the information contained in all of the petitions for reconsideration will receive thorough consideration. The agency's response to the petitions will be published in the *Federal Register*.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4772

"Dear Mr. Blackwell: This is in response to your letter asking whethe a certain vehicle that you plan to export to the United States would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You state that Liquidus has 'designed a system' by customizing an existing road tanker for 'overhead' loading. The vehicle you plan to export would be used for 'aircraft de-icing storage' and 'loading of aircraft de-icing tarmac vehicles while in a fixed location.' The road tanker used in your system was originally built in Canada by a firm that has since gone out of business. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new 'motor vehicles' and new items of 'motor vehicle equipment.' Accordingly, your vehicle is subject to the safety standards only if it is considered within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) 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. We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are also not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., certain airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. In addition, items of mobile construction equipment which use the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site are not considered motor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads. NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered motor vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. We would apply these principles to the vehicle identified in your letter as follows. Your letter stated that this vehicle will be immobilized after it reaches the airport. Assuming this immobilization occurs, this vehicle would appear to be designed and sold solely for off-road use, just like certain other airport runway vehicles. In this case, it would not be a motor vehicle, even though it is operationally capable of highway travel before the immobilization. However, if the vehicle were not subsequently immobilized, and were moved from airport to airport with only a limited stay at any job site, this vehicle might be considered a 'motor vehicle.' This conclusion would be even more likely if a significant percentage of the vehicle's purchasers were to use the vehicle by moving it from airport to airport, notwithstanding your company's intent that the vehicles not be so used. This situation would be analogous to the classification of dune buggies. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact John Rigby of this office by mail at the above address or by telephone at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0198

Dear Mr. Horii: Thank you for your letter of December 16, 1969, concerning th relationship between performance requirements of Standard No. 108 and the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards in Standard No. 108.; Public Law 89- 563 requires that the motor vehicle safety standards b stated in terms of what is to be accomplished rather than in terms of specific designs, and that they be objective, reasonable, practicable, and meet the need for motor vehicle safety. In addition, the law required that the initial safety standards be based on *existing* standards.; Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 was based on th *existing* SAE standards as specified in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108. In some instances, these specified SAE standards in turn subreference other SAE standards that are design oriented, particularly the subreferenced standards on bulbs, bulb sockets and sealed beam headlamp units.; As provided by an interpretation (copy enclosed) issued on August 12 1968, entitled, 'Bulbs and Bulb Sockets,' bulbs conforming to Table I of subreferenced SAE J573 and bulb sockets conforming to subreferenced SAE J567 *need not* be used in lamp assemblies meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108. Therefore, as an example, tail lamps need meet only the requirements of SAE J585c (including color test in accordance with SAE J578a) when tested in accordance with the specified Sections of subreferenced SAE J575c.; The above interpretation does not apply to sealed beam headlamps Paragraph S3.1.1 and Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 specify that headlamps shall be designed to conform to SAE J579a and J580a. These specified standards in turn subreference SAE J573b and J571b. The dimensional requirements of SAE J571b serve a need for safety in that replacement sealed beam units are readily available, and standardization of inspection equipment and procedures is possible.; In summary, the referenced and subreferenced SAE standards ar applicable except as specifically provided by the enclosed interpretation.; With reference to the last paragraph in your letter, it is recognize that a manufacturer of motor vehicles may, as part of his contractual relationship with a supplier, require that the supplier certify conformance of the items provided by the supplier. Currently Public Law 89-563 does not require Ichikoh to certify conformance to Standard No. 108 of the lighting equipment it provides. However, an amendment to the standard has been proposed which would make the standard directly applicable to certain items of lighting equipment. This proposal would require Ichikoh to certify conformance, but only if Ichokoh (sic) were shipping such items directly to distributors and dealers in the United States. I enclose a copy of this proposal for your information.; Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam3671

Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking abou the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR 571.119) (copy enclosed). Specifically, you are representing a towing trailer manufacturer which would like to mount aircraft tires on its trailers as original equipment.; Paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims fo Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*, 49 CFR 571.120) specifies that new trailers shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of either Safety Standard No. 109, which applies to passenger car tires, or Safety Standard No. 119. Your client intends to meet this requirement by equipping the trailers with tires which comply with Standard No. 119. However, your tests showed that the aircraft tires which the trailer manufacturer wants to use on the trailers could not pass the high speed test in Standard No. 119. You asked if the high speed test requirement could be avoided if those tires were speed-restricted to 55 miles per hour (mph) or less.; The answer is yes. Speed restrictions may only be placed on a tire b the tire manufacturer, and may only be specified at 35, 50, or 55 mph. To create a speed-restriction, paragraph S6.5(e) of Standard No. 119 requires the tire manufacturer to mark the notation 'max speed 55 mph' on both sidewalls. When a tire is so marked, it is speed-restricted for purposes of Standard No. 119. Paragraph S6.3 of Standard No. 119 states that the high speed test requirement 'applies only to motorcycle tires and non- speed-restricted tires.' Accordingly, no high speed tests are conducted on tires which are speed-restricted.; You should, however, be aware of the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567 *Certification* (copy enclosed). Specifically, section 567.4(g)(3) and (4) requires a vehicle manufacturer to show a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for each axle on the certification label required to appear on all new vehicles. The NHTSA requires that the GVWR and GAWR placed on the certification label be unqualified by any speed restrictions and be based on the 60 mph capabilities assigned to the tires and rims by the Tire & Rim Association. Other GVWR and GAWR values may be assigned by the manufacturer, but they must be listed after the information required on the certification label, and they do not form the basis for testing a vehicle's compliance with safety standards, such as Standard No. 120.; Finally, I wish to emphasize that if these towing trailers are likel to be used at speeds in excess of 55 mph, the use of tires which are speed-restricted to 55 mph might well be determined to constitute a safety-related defect in the vehicle, under the terms of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). When a determination is made that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, section 154 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414) requires the manufacturer to repair or replace the defective vehicle or item without charge to the purchaser.; Should you need any further information on this matter, please contac Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 571.226--modified roof--Summit Bodyworks

Mr. Mike Arnett

Summit Bodyworks

County Rd 8

Fort Lupton, CO  80621

Dear Mr. Arnett:

This responds to your inquiry asking whether your vehicles are “modified roof vehicles,” a type of vehicle that is excluded from the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 226, “Ejection mitigation.”  As explained below, our answer is yes. 

Paragraph S2 of FMVSS No. 226 excludes “modified roof vehicles” from the standard.  The term “modified roof” is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 226 as follows: “‘Modified roof’ means the replacement roof on a motor vehicle whose original roof has been removed, in part or in total, or a roof that has to be built over the driver's compartment in vehicles that did not have an original roof over the driver's compartment.”

You state that you “purchase Transit cargo vans from Ford direct and then upfit the interior” to produce recreational vehicles.  You state that you do not remove the roof of the vehicle “in total,” but cut a 14-inch by 14-inch hole in the roof for an electric exhaust vent.  You ask if we would consider your modification to constitute a removal of the original roof “in part.” 

Discussion

Our answer is yes, we consider you to be removing the original roof “in part” when you remove the 14- by 14-inch section of the roof to install the electric exhaust vent. 

In an August 1, 2019 telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you explain that the exhaust vent is part of an air ventilation and/or conditioning unit that is used when the vehicle is providing temporary living quarters.  It is evident to NHTSA that the unit is important for the comfort of occupants and to the vehicle’s functionality as a recreational vehicle.

After considering the information you provide, we conclude that your vehicles are “modified roof vehicles” under FMVSS No. 226.  Our conclusion is consistent with the agency’s

March 22, 2016 interpretation to Mr. Richard Coon of the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association where NHTSA affirmed that vehicles with roofs modified by the addition of “vents with moveable covers, exhaust or air circulation fans” would be modified roof vehicles under FMVSS No. 226.

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/27/19

Ref: FMVSS No. 226

ID: aiam4399

Dear Ms. Brown: This responds to your letter seeking confirmation of your understandin of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, as it relates to convertibles. You asked that we verify your understanding in two specific areas. These were:; 1. NHTSA has decided to exempt convertibles from the automati restraint requirements set forth in Standard No. 208 for passenger cars during the phase-in period (September 1, 1986 to August 31, 1989).; This statement is correct. In a final rule published October 17, 198 (51 FR 37028, copy enclosed), the agency announced its decision to exempt convertibles from the automatic restraint requirements for passenger cars during the phase-in period. In a subsequent notice terminating further rulemaking on this subject, the agency announced its decision to retain the automatic restraint requirements for convertibles manufactured on or after the first day after the end of the phase-in period, i.e., September 1, 1989 (52 FR 10122, March 30, 1987, copy enclosed). Thus, convertibles manufactured on or after that date will be subject to the same requirements as all other passenger cars.; You also asked about the exact requirements for restraints i convertibles. Prior to September 1, 1989, convertibles must comply with the requirements of section S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208. However, convertible manufacturers may, at their option, choose to certify that convertibles manufactured before September 1, 1989, comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in section S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. After September 1, 1989, Standard No. 208 draws no distinction between convertibles and other passenger cars. Section S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 provides that all passenger cars, including convertibles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, shall comply with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1, unless section S4.1.4 is rescinded pursuant to S4.1.5.; 2. A manufacturer does not have to count convertibles as part of it passenger car production volume when determining its annual production during the phase-in period.; This statement is also correct. The October 17, 1986 amended Standar No. 280 and 49 CFR Part 585, *Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting*, to explicitly provide that manufacturers may exclude their production of convertibles that do not comply with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208 from the calculation and reporting of annual production during the phase-in period.; If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free t contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 (sic).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4761

"Dear Mr. O'Donnell: This is in response to your letter to this offic asking whether NHTSA's safety standards apply to vehicles in service on the public roads. Specifically, you were interested in the applicability of NHTSA requirements to a 1977 school bus that was converted to a 'recreational vehicle/house coach' that is now only for personal and family use. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) promulgated by this agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The requirement that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable FMVSS applies only until the product is first sold to a consumer. Both before and after a vehicle or item of equipment is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to that product are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which states: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . . If any of the commercial entities identified in section 108(a)(2)(A) were to make modifications that resulted in a 'render inoperative' violation, the violating commercial entity would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that this 'render inoperative' provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard. Please note also that the individual States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles within their borders. Additionally, the individual States have the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to a vehicle by its owner. You may wish to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles for the State of New York to learn if the State has established any requirements applicable to your use or registration of this vehicle in New York. I hope you have found this information helpful. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3191

Dear Mr. White: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requeste an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.; Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall b labeled with '*one* size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used.' With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacements sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.; Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred t as 'dual-size markings.' Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements o Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard, *see* 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.; I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean tha NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2084

Dear Mr. McCarthy: This is in response to your August 30, 1975, letter concerning th Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to tires which the manufacturer expects to be used in both passenger cars and trailers.; >>>S2. of Standard No. 109 specifies: This standard applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger car manufactured after 1948...; Similarly, S3. of Standard No. 119 specifies: This standard applies to new pneumatic tires designed for highway us on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, busses, *trailers* and motorcycles manufactured after 1948...(emphasis added)<<<; These standard are mutually exclusive. Therefore, dual marking indicating compliance with the performance requirements of each are not permitted. A tire whose predominant contemplated use is on passenger cars is subject to Standard No. 109, even if the manufacturer knows it will also be marketed as a trailer tire. The choice of standard to which the tire will be certified should be made by the manufacturer. The NHTSA will accept a manufacturer's good faith determination of the applicable standard. You should note that if the tire is certified as conforming with Standard No. 119, its use as original equipment on passenger cars is prohibited by Standard No. 110. (the proposed Standard No. 120, however, would permit the use of passenger car tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, subject to a 10 percent load rating correction factor.); Please note further that a tire which is subject to Standard No. 10 must be of a size designation listed in Appendix A of that standard. Conversely, any tire labeled with a size designation which is listed in that appendix is subject to Standard No. 109.; The final paragraph of your letter discussed 'certain types and classe of equipment [determined by the NHTSA to be] non-trailers by definition.' You appear to be referring to vehicles which are not 'trailers' because they are not 'motor vehicles' or items of 'motor vehicle equipment' as the latter terms are defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. No Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to units which are neither motor vehicles nor motor vehicle equipment. The manufacturers of such units may equip them with tires of their choice.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt. Acting Chief Counsel