ID: nht94-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 4, 1994

FROM: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive and Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Dept. of The Army

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/17/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO LARRY W. OVERBAY (A43; STD. 121)

TEXT: We are requesting a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) written response to several questions we have concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121 and NHSTA Test Procedure TP 121-02. These questions were discuss ed in a telephone conversation between Mr. Dwayne Perrin, NHSTA, and Mr. Richard Kimball, this office, on September 19, 1994.

U.S. Army Combat Systems Test Activity (CSTA) is a test agency for the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM). One of the missions of CSTA is to test developmental tactical vehicles. Recently we were requested by U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Com mand (TACOM) to test for a vehicle manufacturer's compliance to FMVSS No. 121.

The vehicle under test is one variant of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). The vehicle is a three axle truck with a five ton payload capacity and a GVW of 32,000 lbs. According to our test results, the vehicle fails to conform to the re quired emergency, stopping distances. Our test procedures for assessing the performance of the emergency stopping distances involved disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. A pneumatic system schematic is provided as an enclosure. This essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops. The vehicle then became totally reliant on the front brakes for stopping.

Preliminary results were reported to TACOM who queried the manufacturer about their nonconformance. The response from the manufacturer stated that the test was invalid since the testing had not been conducted in accordance with the NHTSA Test Procedu re TP 121-02, which recommends rapid bleeding of the vehicle's air reservoirs. TACOM requested CSTA to solicit a NHTSA position on the issue.

We therefore request your position on the following:

a. Is the NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02 the governing document for single point failure testing or does FMVSS No. 121 take precedence?

b. What is the intended purpose of the NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02?

C. Does NHTSA consider the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifolded line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No . 121.

Due to test schedule constraints, a response within 60 days is requested. We look forward to your reply. The points of contact for our organization are Mr. Richard B. Kimball or Roger C. Link, (410) 278-5152 and (410) 278-4857, respectively.

ID: nht81-3.40

DATE: 11/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent letter to the Administrator, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and its related requirements for the comfort and convenience of safety belts.

You stated in reference to paragraph S7.4.4, Latchplate Access, that "the standard as written is design restrictive in not permitting inboard location of the latchplate when stowed by virtue of requiring the latchplate to be located within the outboard reach envelope . . ." You requested that the wording be changed to permit either inboard or outboard reach envelopes.

Paragraph S7.4.4 was not intended to limit the location of latchplates to outboard locations. Latchplates located in the outboard reach must be located within the reach envelopes as specified. However, the requirement would not be applicable to latchplates located inboard, since there should be no difficulty in reaching latchplates in this location. It should also be noted that the requirement is not applicable to automatic belts.

We believe the Agency's response to the petitions for reconsideration of the comfort and convenience requirements will answer your remaining questions. We expect to issue that notice in the very near future.

You requested an early announcement of the final content of FMVSS No. 208 as it would apply to automatic restraints. On October 23, 1981, the Department rescinded that portion of the standard that would require automatic restraints. We have enclosed a copy of the news release pertaining to that action for your information.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

OCTOBER 9, 1981

R. PECK -- ADMINISTRATOR, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS 208 - OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION

Dear Administrator,

As a company producing three models of car of wheelbase in excess of 114 inches Rolls-Royce Motors is closely affected by the continuing uncertainty in implementation of the automatic restraint requirements of standard 208. In addition to the uncertainty of introduction date the content of the rule is also subject to debate.

Rolls-Royce is in urgent need of guidance from NHTSA to permit us to use our limited resources in a constructive way to the benefit of our customers.

1. Comfort and Convenience Amendments

During 1979 Rolls-Royce commenced development of automatic restraints for production, both belts and ACRS. Following General Motors' decision late in 1979 to delay introduction of ACRS the Rolls-Royce programme was revised to install automatic belts in all models.

Production lead times dictated that parts for build in September 1981 should be given engineering release by March 1980. This meant that the proposed addition to standard 208 of comfort and convenience requirements were not accommodated in our initial production designs.

When the comfort and convenience amendments were finally adopted in the regulation on the 8th January with an effective date of September 1982 the necessary changes to our installation to ensure compliance were programmed in accordance with that 1982 date.

Amid the statements on regulatory reform announced by the Reagan administration early in 1981 was, on the 6th April a notice of intent to the Federal Register to "eliminate all requirements except belt tension and to defer the effective date for one year". (Actions to Help the U.S. Auto Industry, April 6 1981, NHTSA Action 8) Such action was promised for "on or about July 1". In anticipation of the promised action our programme was again revised. Since that time, over three months ago there has been no official action.

Some sources of information suggest that when the action on comfort and convenience amendments is announced the final ruling will contain accessibility requirements in addition to those for belt contact load. If this is to be the case we request further consideration of the following points concerning S7.4.4 which were not mentioned in the discussion of comments listed in the final rulemaking Docket 74-14 Notice 19.

1.1 The standard as written is design restrictive in not permitting inboard location of the latchplate when stowed by virtue of requiring the latchplate to "be located within the outboard reach envelope . . ." We request the wording be changed to permit inboard or outboard reach envelopes.

1.2 Some commenters requested clarification of the term "unhindered" referring to transit of the test block. In particular, is compression of soft surfaces permissible? In one of our installations compression by the occupant of the seat cushion will pre-empt compression by the test block, except that there is no occupant (dummy) specified for this test. Could you please clarify?

2. Automatic belt warning system

S4.5.3.3.(b)(1)(B) specifies two conditions for determination of the automatic belt being fastened, both requiring switching in the emergency release mechanism. This appears inconsistent with the permissible conditions for determination of a manual belt being fastened, for which S7.3(b) states "either by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened or by the belt not being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed position".

In the case of our design of automatic belt which employs a buckle as an emergency release on the door frame the standard as written at present necessitates routing a cable from the buckle and down the frame. An additional option permitting switching with the belt extended from its stowed position would allow a switch to be fitted in the retractor and wiring to be included in existing loops in that area of the car. The additional option would be of considerable benefit to ourselves.

We believe the only objection to the belt extension option is the possibility that the belt may be withdrawn and knotted to simulate the belt being fastened. This would be less convenient then obtaining a spare latchplate and inserting it in the buckle to disable the warning mechanism by the existing option.

We propose amending the wording of S4.5.3.3.(b)(1)(B) by adding the following wording between ". . mechanism not being fastened" and "or, if the automatic belt is non-separable . .":-

"or by the belt not being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed position".

3. On the 9th April 1981 NHTSA issued an NPRM (49 CFR Part 571 Docket No. 74-14 Notice 22) proposing further amendment to the implementation of automatic restraint requirements in Standard 208. The comment date was 26th May.

In comment on that proposal Rolls-Royce Motors requested "an early announcement of a decision" (BGR/JO DT 19th May 1981, filed in the Docket). Since that comment date over five months ago Rolls-Royce have been unable to commit long term resources to automatic restraints for fear of further change in requirements resulting in wasted money. For manufacturers such as Rolls-Royce who must meet the September 1982 introduction date the long delay in announcing the uncertain outcome of the comments and public hearings mean that production lead times are being eroded. We urgently request an announcement of the final content of Standard 208.

We would be grateful for a quick response to these points.

For and on behalf of Rolls-Royce Motors Limited;

John OSBORNE -- Project Manager - Passive Restraints

ID: nht74-5.25

DATE: 04/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 8, 1974, letter reviewing our disposition of Volkswagen's petition to add a new crash protection option to S4.1.2 of Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208). You requested a determination of whether the seat belt assembly described in that petition constitutes a passive restraint system for purposes of Standard 208, that is, one that requires "no action" by vehicle occupants.

The Volkswagen assembly consists of a single diagonal belt for restraint of the upper torso and an energy-absorbing knee bolster. Mounting of the upper torso restraint to the door causes the belt to move forward during occupant entry and then fall back across the occupant's torso when he is seated and the door is closed.

The NHTSA issued an interpretation of what constitutes a "passive" restraint system on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 4600):

The concept of an occupant protection system that requires "no action by vehicle occupants" as used in Standard No. 208 is intended to designate a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

Entry and exit action "that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present

2 in the vehicle" means that a person is not hampered in his normal movements by the presence of the belt system. A test of this is whether a human occupant of approximately the dimensions of the 50th percentile adult male finds it necessary to take additional actions to displace the belt or associated components in order to enter or leave the seating position in question. An example of impermissible action would be the necessity of manually pushing a belt out of the way to gain access to the seat. Displacement of the components incidental to normal entry and exit, or merely for the convenience of the occupant, would not be prohibited. Examples of permissible displacement would be brushing against the upper torso restraint during seating, or grasping the torso restraint to close the door.

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive restraint is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. At this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mi/h impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

The procedure for conducting this evaluation would be to have a human occupant enter the vehicle without taking any "additional actions" to displace the belt, to note the location of the belt on him before he exists, to position the test dummy in accordance with S8.1 of Standard 208, to position the belt as it positioned itself on the sample occupant, and then to conduct the impact tests. The exit evaluation would require the human occupant to be seated with the restraint normally deployed and then exit the vehicle without needing to take any separate actions to displace the belt.

This discussion is intended to permit you to evaluate your passive belt system under the language of the May 4, 1971, interpretation.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

March 8, 1974

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: The Volkswagen Passive Belt

This will refer to our telephone conversation of March 6, 1974, concerning Volkwagen's passive restraint system.

On October 1, 1973, Volkswagenwerk AG and Volkswagen of America, Inc. petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to add a new crash protection option to Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard 208 in order to permit use of Volkswagen's passive belt in 1975 as well as subsequent model year passenger cars and to make available other changes in Standard 208. A copy of Volkswagen's petition is enclosed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by Notice 1, Docket 74-4 published in 39 Federal Register 3834 dated January 30, 1974, denied that part of the petition that requested the additional option. The petition was rejected as unnecessary on the grounds that Paragraph S4.5.3 of Standard 208 already permitted the use of a passive belt system "to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option." The Notice further concludes that "thus, this language permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of Option 2 and to replace the required seat belt assemblies. Option 2 exists, in fact, to accommodate date the introduction of passive restraint systems like Volkswagens, which cannot yet meet all requirements of Option 1."

2

While we have recognized that Notice 1 is essentially a proposal for rule making without binding effect as a rule or regulation, it also disposes unconditionally of that part of Volkswagen's petition which sought the inclusion of an additional option. Nowhere does the Notice call upon interested persons to submit their comments with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's denial of Volkswagen's petition for rule making. Comments are invited only in regard to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's proposal for amending Paragraphs S4.1.2.2 and S4.5.3.3

Because questions have been raised regarding the qualification of Volkswagen's new restraint concept as a system that requires no action on the part of the occupant, I would appreciate your confirmation that the system described in our petition of October 1, 1973, constitutes a passive belt within the meaning of Paragraph S4.5.3 to meet the crash protection requirements of the second option set forth in Paragraph S4.1.2.2.

Sincerely,

Gerhard P. Riechel Attorney

Enclosure

cc: Philip Hutchinson

ID: 11-000612 M.Edie (Part 523)

ID: aiam3954

Dear Mr. Nakaya: Please forgive our delay in responding to your letter of May 30, 1984 asking for interpretations of Standard No. 108 as it applies to center high-mounted stoplamps.; In your letter you stated that the preamble to the final rule discusse the definition of 'window opening' and concluded that the rear window opening shall be the perimeter of the rear glazing that is unobstructed and free of opaqueness. You have presented two rear window designs in which (1) ceramic opaque dots descend in increasing size to the bottom of the glazing and in which (2) shaded material becomes progressively darker as it descends, though the material is translucent, not opaque. You also show a design with an interior-mounted windshield wiper, including motor and cover, placed on the rear vertical centerline above the bottom of the glazing. In each instance you have asked at what point would the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) consider an 'obstruction' exists for purposes of defining the bottom of the window.; The phrase 'window opening' does not appear in Standard No. 108. Th preamble discussion appears to be irrelevant with respect to the final rule, and was intended as a clarification of proposed location requirements which, in fact, were not adopted. The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 8, 1981, proposed a definition of 'daylight opening' as 'the maximum unobstructed opening through the glazing surface...,' relating to three alternative locations proposed for the lamp in which the term 'daylight opening' was used as a locational reference. For instance, in Alternative 1, proposed paragraph S4.3.1.9(a) would have placed 'the center of the lamp within 3 inches of the outside bottom edge of the rear window daylight opening.' When the final rule was adopted in October 1983, none of the three alternatives was judged acceptable and a requirement allowing more design freedom was adopted omitting all reference to 'daylight opening.' Paragraph S4.3.1.8 simply specified that 'no portion of the lens shall be higher than the top of the back window or lower than three inches below the bottom of the back window. The requirement was even further relaxed in the May 1984 response to petitions for reconsideration in which paragraph S4.3.1.8 was amended to allow mounting 'at any position on the centerline' (note, no limitation on upper mounting height relative to the rear window) and if 'mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars.' The preamble also clarified that, if the lamp were mounted on the interior, photometric compliance would be judged with the glazing in place.; Thus, whether glazing is opaque or obstructed is not the question manufacturer must ask in determining the location of the lamp with respect to the lower edge of the window. If the lamp is mounted on the interior, it must meet photometric and visibility requirements with the glazing in place, taking into account any graduated dots on or opaqueness of that glazing, and any wiper motor. If the lamp is mounted on the outside, its upper permissible height is determined by the height of the car and not by the window. The question of opaqueness or obstruction is irrelevant to the lower permissible height of 3 inches below the window. The window is the perimeter of its glazing, and 3 inches is measured from the lower edge.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: 3193o

Spencer A. Darby
State-Lite Mfg. Co.
6220-30 Gross Point Rd
Niles, IL 60648

Dear Mr. Darby:

This is a response to your letter asking for an interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR /571.125). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particularly interested in learning how Standard 125 affects the use of warning devices for vehicles that are 80 inches wide, and that travel in interstate commerce.

Before I answer your specific questions, I would like to present some background information about the authority of this agency which may help you better to understand my answers. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency authority to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. When a standard is established for items of motor vehicle equipment, such as Standard 125 is with respect to warning devices, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that "no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction, or import into the United States" any warning device manufactured after the effective date of Standard 125 that does not comply with Standard 125. Accordingly, Standard 125 regulates the manufacture, distribution, and sale of warning devices.

Note that Standard 125 does not regulate the use of warning devices, because the Safety Act does not give this agency any authority to regulate the operator or operation of any vehicle. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does have authority to regulate some motor vehicle operators and operations. Thus, to the extent that you have any questions about possible Federal regulations regarding the use of warning devices, you should address those questions to the Chief Counsel of the Federal Highway Administration, located in Room 4213, 400 7th Street, Washington DC 20590. I can only answer questions about how Standard 125 affects your company as a manufacturer of warning devices.

Your questions involve the correct interpretation of S5.1.5 of Standard 125, which reads as follows: S5.1.5. Each warning device shall have instructions for its erection and display. (a) The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed. (b) Instructions for each warning device shall include a recommendation that the driver activate the vehicular hazard warning signal lamps before leaving the vehicle to erect the warning device. (c) Instructions shall include the illustration depicted in Figure 3 indicating recommended positioning.

Figure 3, to which S5.1.5(c) refers, shows a disabled vehicle on the side of the road with the warning device positioned one hundred feet to the rear of the vehicle.

Your first question was why Figure 3 in Standard 125 shows a vehicle with only one warning device behind the disabled vehicle, since the FHWA requires vehicles over 80 inches wide to carry three warning devices. The answer is that Standard 125 applies to warning devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, not just those that are over 80 inches wide. Thus, the postioning shown for the warning device in Figure 3 is a recommendation for the proper positioning of a single warning device carried in any vehicle. I note that NHTSA originally proposed to require seven different Figures showing recommended positioning of warning devices for different vehicle types on various highway configurations. In the final rule establishing Standard 125, NHTSA decided that a single figure was sufficient to show the user how to position an erected warning device behind any vehicle type on any highway configuration. See 37 FR 5038, March 9, 1972.

As a part of your first question, you stated that your company includes figures showing how to position three warning devices for a disabled truck on a divided highway and on a non-divided highway in addition to Figure 3. You asked if these additional figures are permitted by Standard 125. The answer to this question is yes. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to provide additional information, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. In this case, we have no reason to believe that vehicle operators would be confused or misled by information about how to position three warning devices if they have them. Therefore, Standard 125 does not prohibit the inclusion of these additional figures in your instructions.

Your second question was whether you are required to attach the instructions to the warning device itself, on warning devices sold for use with vehicles under 80 inches wide. The answer to your question is yes. S5.1.5(a) explicitly states: "The instructions shall be either indelibly printed on the warning device or attached in such a manner that they cannot easily be removed." This requirement applies to all warning devices, not just to those for use by vehicles more than 80 inches wide. Thus, if the instructions were located on the inside cover of the container, as suggested in your letter, the warning device would not comply with Standard 125.

Your third question was whether NHTSA should amend Standard 125 to include additional illustrative figures showing recommended positioning for warning devices used in vehicles over 80 inches wide. We do not believe there is any reason to do so. As noted above, NHTSA proposed adopting seven figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices, but determined in the final rule that the single figure provided sufficient information to show users how to position the warning device in relation to any disabled vehicle. As also noted above, manufacturers of warning devices are permitted to include additional illustrative figures to show appropriate positioning of warning devices with particular vehicle types on particular highways.

If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:125 d:ll/7/88

ID: 23668.rbm

Mark S. Lore, President
Ride-Away Handicap Equipment Corporation
51 Wentworth Avenue
Londonderry, NH 03053

Dear Mr. Lore:

In a letter dated October 9, 2001, you asked three questions regarding compliance with 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5). This section sets forth certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in this section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds). I regret the delay in responding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This requirement was intended to address circumstances in which the cargo carrying capacity has been reduced as a result of the modification. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may be safely loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards.

The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." "Unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use." Although the term "rated cargo load" is not defined by regulation, generally it is the GVWR of the vehicle minus the combined weight of the occupied designated seating positions (150 pounds times the total number of designated seating positions) and the unloaded vehicle weight.

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

Although the term "load carrying capacity" was not specifically defined in the February 2001 final rule, the term was intended to convey the same meaning as vehicle capacity weight, as defined in FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims. "Vehicle capacity weight" is defined in that standard as the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. Simply stated, a vehicle's load carrying capacity is its GVWR minus its unloaded weight.

The number of designated seating positions used to determine the load carrying capacity may not be the same as the number of designated seating positions that were in the vehicle when the vehicle manufacturer or alterer assigned the GVWR. In many instances, one or more seating positions may be removed in order to make the modifications needed to accommodate a particular disability. When calculating the load carrying capacity under 49 CFR 595, if an original designated seating position is replaced by a wheelchair retention device that will be used to secure an occupied wheelchair, that position replaces the original designated seating position, i.e., 150 pounds must be allocated for that seating position but the weight of the removed seat may be deducted. If the original designated seating position is not replaced by another seat or a wheelchair retention device, it need not be considered as a designated seating position when calculating the load carrying capacity, and the weight of the removed seats, or other equipment, need not be considered.

The installation of a wheelchair retention device to restrain an unoccupied wheelchair as cargo does not qualify as a designated seating position, and a modifier would not be required to allocate a 150 pound capacity for that position. The vehicle modifier may include the weight of the wheelchair as part of the load carrying capacity. However, the modifier is required to tell the owner of the vehicle whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included when determining the reduced load carrying capacity and when specifying what available load capacity remains. Moreover, since wheelchair weights can vary by hundreds of pounds between manually operated and self-propelled models, a modifier must state the weight it used for any wheelchair included in its calculation of available load capacity. As discussed in the February 2001 final rule, the vehicle modifications contemplated by 49 CFR 595, subpart C are limited to modifications made for a specific customer. Accordingly, the customer should be able to provide the modifier with the weight of any wheelchairs that they expect the vehicle to transport.

You have asked three questions about the effect of the reduced load carrying capacity disclosure requirement of Part 595 on vehicle modifiers or alterers. Specifically, you asked:

1. If the modifier/alterer A adds 200 pounds, and modifier/alterer B adds 20 or more pounds - both doing that prior to final delivery, who, if anyone is responsible for notification to the consumer?

2. Often times conversion companies specializing in non-handicap equipment (RV's, custom vans, 4 wheel drive units, etc.) add in excess of 220 lbs. Or an amount that when added with a modifier will exceed the 200 pounds threshold. What are the requirements in the case in where there may be 3 or more modifiers each adding weight less than 220 pounds, but from aggregate level the amount exceeds 220 pounds? Who is responsible in this case for notification to the consumer?

3. Many times handicap equipment modifiers remove certain equipment and then add other equipment. The ruling in this provision would require that modifiers weigh each vehicle, and notify the consumer if the total added/deleted equipment exceeded 220 pounds. Is this the intention?

As noted above, Part 595, subpart C applies only to modifications made to accommodate a person with disabilities after the first retail sale. If the modifications were made prior to the first retail sale, the entity making the modifications would be an "alterer" and required to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS. We anticipate that, since the alterer's certification will specify the GVWR and GAWR as altered and since the label will be placed next to the original certification label, any subsequent modifier will be able to assess whether the modification to accommodate a person with disabilities has resulted in a total reduction in the load carrying capacity of more than 100 kg (220 lbs). The modifier will then be responsible for providing the required information to the consumer.

Similarly, any "conversion compan[y] specializing in non-handicap equipment" that alters a vehicle prior to its first retail sale is, again, an "alterer" responsible for placing an alterer's certification next to the original certification label. To the extent the vehicle has been modified after the first retail sale in a way that adds weight but does not affect compliance (such that no prior modification was required by Part 595), we anticipate that the owner of the vehicle or a modifier familiar with the base vehicle may be aware of the modification and that the modifier may be able to assess the amount of additional weight and gauge the extent to which the final modifications may have exceeded the original GVWR or GAWR. We expect that the modifier relying on Part 595 exemption will be able to assess whether the load carrying capacity of the vehicle, as wholly modified, has been reduced by more than 100 kg (220 lbs.) and will have sufficient experience and knowledge to determine in good faith whether the consumer must be provided with the Part 595 required information.

Part 595 was not intended to require the modifier to weigh each vehicle. It is intended, however, to ensure that if the consumer receives a vehicle that has a significantly reduced load carrying capacity, s/he will be aware of that fact so as not to overload the vehicle and experience tire, braking, suspension, stability, and/or steering problems. Any good faith method to determine the reduction in load carrying capacity may be used. Nonetheless, if the only means of determining whether the load carrying capacity has been significantly reduced (i.e., reduced by more than 220 lbs) is to weigh the vehicle, then we anticipate the modifier will do so.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.4/25/02

ID: aiam4453

"Dear Mr. Osborn: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1987 to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards of this agency in which you request a 'list of vehicles which have been determined by NHTSA to be excluded as motor vehicles.' The agency does not maintain a list of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a 'motor vehicle' as a vehicle, with or without motive power, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. This category includes vehicles capable of off-road use but which are nevertheless generally licensed for use on the public roads. Over the years, NHTSA has provided interpretations that the following types of vehicles are not 'motor vehicles': single seat racing cars, stock cars modified to the point that they are no longer licensable for use on the public roads, all-terrain vehicles, racing motorcycles and off-road motorcycles that are trailered over the public roads, golf carts, in-plant vehicles lacking doors and lighting devices, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and shuttle buses, snowmobiles, mobile homes, farm tractors, farm trailers whose use of the public roads is limited to crossing from one field to another, and trailers like mobile compressors which spend lengthy periods of time at an off road worksite and only infrequently travel by road to a new worksite. In addition, the agency does not consider construction cranes to be 'motor vehicles'. Finally, vehicles manufactured pursuant to military contracts, while 'motor vehicles', are nevertheless exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them, as well as furnish whatever other assistance you may require in formulating your Customs procedures. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: nht75-6.24

DATE: 04/16/75

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEOFFREY R. MYERS -- HALL & MYERS

TITLE: N40-30 (RED)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 01/01/75 (EST) LETTER FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHSTA CHIEF COUNSEL TO ALLEN B. FREDHOLD OF K-B AXLE COMPANY INC.; N40-30 (TWH); UNDATED LETTER FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHSTA CHIEF COUNSEL TO ADDRESSEE UNKNOWN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers:

This is in response to your letter of March 25, 1975, enclosing a circular to Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Association members, and a petition containing questions concerning the position of the NHTSA regarding conformity to Standard 121 by persons who alter chassis prior to their completion as trucks or truck tractors. You asked that we comment on your circular and answer the questions in your petition. In the interest of a rapid reply, I would like to respond in this letter to your request concerning your circular. We will answer separately the questions in your petition.

I will quote from our docketed memorandum of the meeting that we had on March 19:

"Under NHTSA interpretations and opinions of long standing, actual road tests are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard 121 or other standards, where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. The agency has recognized that small companies' such as many of the finalstage and intermediate manufacturers represented by the TEBDA, cannot be expected to test on the same scale or by the same methods as large integrated automotive manufacturers. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assemblers are expected to use statutory "due care" to see that their products conform."

You and the association have attempted to set forth our position to your clients, and I don't want to quibble over the precise form of words that you choose. On the other hand, I don't believe the agency should be in the position of appearing to endorse a description of its position that does not conform to its own statements.

Paragraph 5 of the circular represents us as having said that "road tests and the testing of brake release and actuation times are NOT REQUIREMENTS of the standard, but merely methods of assuring compliance." This point is not incorrect, but could be misunderstood out of context. Our position here is not limited to road tests or even Standard 121, but applies to all the requirements of all the motor vehicle safety standards. The standards describe the required capabilities of the vehicles in question; they are not instructions to the manufacturer as to how he ensures those capabilities. Thus, the standard does not specify who must test what and how. It requires that vehicles be capable of meeting the tests when the government tests them, and that manufacturers (including intermediate and final-stage manufacturers) use due care to see that they are so capable.

In the sixth paragraph, the circular states that

"you may still certify a vehicle under FMVSS 121 (even if you increase the GVW, move component parts and/or do not have available the height of the body's center of gravity), provided that your own expertise and judgment reasonably indicates to you that your work has not adversely affected the chassis maker's conformance statements. In other words, you must have no real reason to believe that the completed vehicle does not comply with FMVSS 121. (And this is true even if your reasonable judgment later proves to be wrong.)"

The key word in this passage is "reasonable." The judgment by which the alteration is made must indeed be reasonable to satisfy the due care test. The sentence beginning "In other words" may be misleading, if it leads the reader to believe that blissful ignorance is enough. In case of a failure to comply, a vehicle alterer should be prepared to show, where he used calculations, for example, that the calculations were a reasonable interpretation of the information that was available to him. If a company does not have the in-house capability of making such calculations and judgments, it should obtain it from outside sources such as suppliers or independent contractors. We noted at the meeting on which the circular was based that persons from the axle supplier represented indicated that they were prepared to assist their customers (such as the association members) in this regard.

You should note that our discussion of due care does not deal with the question of what action must be taken by a manufacturer by way of remedy, if a nonconformity is discovered in his vehicles that is not "inconsequential" within the meaning of section 157 of the Act (1974 Amendments). Except for the case of an inconsequentiality finding, the duty to remedy a nonconformity exists regardless of prior testing or any other measures taken by the manufacturer.

Yours truly,

ID: 1983-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/83 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: F. MICHAEL PETLER -- HEAD, ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, SUZUKI MOTOR

TITLE: NOA-30

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-20-83, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS NO. 210; SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the requirements for seat belt anchorages in passenger cars under Safety Standard No. 210. Specifically, you ask whether only Type 1 seat belt anchorages are required in rear seating positions in passenger cars.

The answer to your question is no. Under paragraph S4.1.1 of standard 210, Type 2 seat belt anchorages (for combination lap and shoulder belts) are required as follows: at each front and rear forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars other than convertibles; and at each front forward-facing outboard designated seating position in vehicles other than passenger cars where Type 2 belts are required by Safety Standard No. 208. All other seating positions in both passenger cars and other vehicles may be equipped with anchorages for either Type 2 belts or Type 1 belts (lap belts). Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires Type 2 belts only in front outboard designated seating positions in passenger cars, but passenger cars still must be equipped with anchorages for Type 2 belts in rear outboard designated seating positions.

As to your reference to discussion of anchorages in the agency's November 2, 1981 denial notice to Toyo Kogyo (46 FR 54391), that discussion was misleading because it did not provide complete information or distinguish adequately between passenger cars and other types of vehicles. The agency intended to refer to the type of belts required by Safety Standard No. 208, i.e., Type 2 belts in front outboard designated seating positions and Type 1 belts in front center and all rear seating positions.

I hope this has clarified any misunderstanding you may have had concerning the anchorage requirements. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,