ID: nht94-8.13

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Gary D. March -- Director, Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Gary D. March (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the safety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion corresponds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She indicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in- between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be

delivered and perhaps have bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: nht94-8.18

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: March, Gary D. -- Director, Illinois Department Of Transportation, Division Of Traffic Safety

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/01/94 (EST.) Letter From John Womack To Gary D. March (A42; STD. 217; Part 586)

TEXT: On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the safety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion corresponds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She indicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in-between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be delivered and perhaps have bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: Davis_8129-2

Douglas Davis, Vice President
Davis Aircraft Products Co. , Inc.
1150 Walnut Avenue
Bohemia, NY 11716-0525




Dear Mr. Davis:

This responds to your letter in which you ask about the load requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. In your letter you suggest that there is an "overtest" condition with regard to one of the upper torso restraint components under the agencys test procedure (TP-209-05, January 17, 2003). As explained below, FMVSS No. 209 requires that a D-ring withstand the required force in the context of the test procedure specified in the standard, which is reflected in TP-209-05. As such, the procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 does not result in an "overtest".

FMVSS No. 209 specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies to ensure that such assemblies provide occupants with a minimum level of protection in a crash. As noted in your letter, S4.4 of the standard establishes the performance requirements for seat belt assemblies. S4.4(b)(2) requires structural components in an upper torso restraint to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N when tested in accordance with S5.3(b) of the standard. The S5.3 test procedure applicable to S4.4(b)(2) is illustrated in Figure 10 of the laboratory test procedure, TP-209-05 (copy enclosed). We note that a revised version of the test procedure has been issued, TP-209-05 (August 22, 2005), but that no revisions have been made to Figure 10.

In your letter, you stated that under the test procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 Figure 10, a D-ring would experience a resultant force greater than 6,672 N. You stated that this resultant force created "an over test condition".

We disagree that the test procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 results in "an over test condition". As indicated above, S4.4(b) specifies that, with certain exceptions not relevant to your question, the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must meet specified requirements "when tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b)". (Emphasis added. ) While S4.4(b) requires certain components (including a D-ring) in the upper torso restraint to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N, the procedure with respect to how that force is applied is specified in S5.3(b).

S5.3(b)(2) specifies that the 6,672 N force is applied as a tensile force in the manner prescribed in S5.3(b)(1). Through referencing S5.3(a)(2), S5.3(b)(1) specifies that the assemblys attaching bolts are attached to an anchorage bar in a manner that results in the angle nearest to 90 degrees between webbing and attachment hardware, except that eye-bolts are vertical. This procedure is represented in Figure 10 of TP-209-05.

We recognize that the resultant force exerted on a D-ring is greater than the tensile force applied to the seat belt assembly. However, S4.4(b)s performance requirement is written in the context of a specified test procedure for the entire seat belt assembly. The higher force experienced by a D-ring is the result of the specified test procedure. As such, the illustrated test procedure does not result in an "overtest".

If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:209
d.12/8/05

ID: GF005899

Ms. Robin C. DesCamp
Blount International, Inc.
PO Box 22127
Portland , OR 97269-2127

Dear Ms. DesCamp:

            This responds to your August 26, 2004, letter and subsequent e-mail to George Feygin of my staff. You ask whether various items manufactured by your company for logging purposes would be classified as “motor vehicles” and subject to the agency’s early warning reporting (EWR) regulations (set forth in 49 CFR Part 579) or to our vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements (49 CFR Part 565).  As explained below, based on the information you provided, we do not consider the items to be motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations. Thus, the EWR and VIN requirements do not apply.

           Title 49 U.S.C Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines “motor vehicle” as:

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

NHTSA has issued several interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

In the present case, the information you have provided describes specialized cranes and loaders made for delimbing and loading logs. Although the cranes are equipped with wheels, the pictures and the description of the logging cranes indicate that they are intended to remain at a single location for prolonged periods of time. Your letter confirms that these cranes are moved only infrequently between logging sites.

Based on this information, it appears that the logging cranes are akin to airport runway vehicles or items of mobile construction equipment that do not travel on highways on a recurring basis. Accordingly, we find that the logging cranes described in your letter are not “motor vehicles.” Because these machines are not motor vehicles, they are not subject to our regulations and requirements, including those of the EWR and VIN programs. 

I hope you find this information helpful.  If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

ref:571

d.11/5/04

ID: 77-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

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

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 25, 1977, letter asking whether two sample certification labels you submitted comply with the requirements of Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The two labels you submitted do not follow the format required by Part 567 for certification labels. Therefore, they do not appear to comply with the requirements. Your method of stating tire and rim sizes differs from that required in Part 567 and Standard No. 120. For example, you state your tire and rim information as follows: "10-20-F-Tires-7.5 Rims at 75 PSI Cold Dual." By the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 as they apply to certification labels, this information should read: "10.00-20(F) tires, 20x7.5 rims, at 75 psi cold dual." Further, the statement after GAWR "maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below" should be deleted from the certification label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 for your information.

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

May 25, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. U.S. Department of Transportation

We would appreciate an opinion on the following proposed certification plates for compliance with FMVSS-120. Effective September 1, 1977.

PLATE "B" - This plate would service 98% of our production, in that 10:00-20 "F" tires are the lowest capacity-rated standard tires installed-the other option, i.e. 11-22.5, 10:00-22, 11-24.5 "F" tires are all capacity rated above the 19,040 lbs. GAWR that we certify on the plate. The 10:00-20 "R" tires are included because the psi rating changes, we still rate the "R" tires at the same 19,040 lbs. which is consistant with the GVWR shown on the plate.

PLATE "C" - This plate would be used in the other 2% of our production. The tire selection in these cases is always of a lower capacity-rated tire than the 19,040 lbs. GAWR for the 10:00-20 "F" tire shown on Plate "b". The GAWR used on this plate would be according to the tire manufacture's rating and the GVWR would be decreased accordingly.

We feel that Plate "B" meets the full intent of FMVSS-120, in that it states the maximum GAWR for the smallest standard tire used in the majority of our production. Even though the trailer is equipped with a higher capacity-rated tire we do not increase the GAWR above the 19,040 lb. figure The use of the term "All Axles" readily identifies, and would be much clearer to the end user.

With a 45 day leadtime on procurement of certification plates, your timely response will be appreciated so that compliance requirements may be achieved by the September 1 deadline.

Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering

American trailers, inc. OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

ID: nht75-4.21

DATE: 10/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Tiffin Metal Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for an opinion on the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 to a road grader intended for use in highway construction.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." Therefore, our regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 102(3) of the Act defines 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.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

Tracked and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. aircraft runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of his customers actually would use them on the highway.

Just as clearly, vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work performing nature and as such their manufacturer comtemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, drill rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers are examples in this area. Even if the equipment uses highways infrequently, it is considered a motor vehicle. An exception to this is that occasional use of the highway in the immediate periphery of the work site, as is the case with some farm and construction equipment, would not by itself case a finding that the vehicle is a motor vehicle. The motor vehicles described above generally qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to several of the motor vehicle safety standards, and the manufacturer must comply with other regulations in Chapter V of Title 49, code of Federal Regulations.

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use of the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. This would appear to include road graders whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour, if intended for use in highway construction.

From these guidelines you should be able to determine whether a piece of equipment qualifies as a motor vehicle. Please write again if you are unable to make this determination.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Tiffin METAL PRODUCTS

August 11, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Commission Mr. Hunter

Dear Mr. Hunter:

Per our telephone conversation of August 11, 1975, please forward to me in writing the ruling stating that the Huber Cab for road construction does not have to meet STD 205.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Joe Steininger -- Inventory Control Manager

cc: W. Heddles; M. Smith

ID: nht73-4.12

DATE: 04/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Milwaukee Truck Center Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you ask several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds: a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico; (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date; (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.

It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issue underlies all your questions; that is, whether a final-stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.

A truck that is equipped at the tire of its manufacturer with tires inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.

The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped without tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case is within this exception.

ID: nht74-3.10

DATE: 01/08/74

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

TO: DARROLL P. YOUNG -- PRESIDENT YOUNG'S MACHINE CO. MONTICELLO, UTAH 84535

TITLE: N40-30 (TWH)

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/26/73 FROM DARRELL P. YOUNG -- PRESIDENT YOUNG'S MACHINE COMPANY TO THE OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Young:

In place of the two standards which you requested in your letter of December 26, 1973, I am providing the following discussion of what vehicles qualify as "motor vehicles" subject to our regulations. If your vehicles are not "motor vehicles" under this definition, they are not required to conform to Standards 105a and 121. Section 102(3) of the Act defines 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.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

Tracked and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment is another non-motor vehicle category, because Congress clearly did not intend to include them in its coverage. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. aircraft runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of his customers actually would use them on the highway.

Just as clearly, vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work-performing nature and as such their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, mobile drill rigs, and towed equipment such as brush chippers and pull-type street sweepers are examples in this area. Even if the equipment uses highways infrequently, it is considered a motor vehicle on the same basis as is a "mobile structure trailer" which is often towed only once from the factory to the home site. All these motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to several of the motor vehicle safety standards, and their manufacturer must comply with other regulations in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use of the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment such as lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles.

From these guidelines you should be able to determine whether your equipment qualifies as a motor vehicle, and if so, as a truck or a trailer. Please write again if you are unable to make this determination. I have enclosed an information sheet that advises you how to obtain an up-to-date copy of the regulations which apply to motor vehicles and their manufacturers.

ENCLOSURE

Yours truly,

ID: nht74-5.13

DATE: 03/12/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: McIntosh & Boynton

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 19, 1974, forwarding to us for approval a draft notification letter regarding the Checker front seat adjuster (CIR-727).

The one remaining problem we have with your letter is in the second paragraph. Because Checker is a manufacturer of motor vehicles, the appropriate determination by Checker pursuant to @ 577.4(b)(1) is that the defect exists in the motor vehicles in question. Your second sentence should be changed, and may be changed to read, "The Checker Motors Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in some 1972 model Checker vehicles manufactured from December 9, 1971, through April 5, 1972, and results from improperly installed front seat adjuster assemblies."

We have decided to accept notification letters in which the reference to "some" vehicles (@ 577.4(b)(2)) is placed in the sentence required by @ 577.4(b)(1).

SINCERELY,

Dear Checker Owner:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The Checker Motors Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the front seat adjuster. This defect exists in some 1972 model Checker vehicles manufactured from December 9, 1971 through April 5, 1972 and results from improperly installed front seat adjuster assemblies.

Your vehicle is equipped with an adjuster assembly which allows selective fore and aft positioning of the front seat (see attached illustration). The seat is secured at the selected position by the engagement of a pawl and notch on the right and left hand seat adjuster track. The right hand pawl is engaged by a spring and disengaged by a wire attached to both the left and right hand pawl. If tension was introduced in the wire during installation, it may not allow full engagement of the pawl and notch at the right hand seat adjuster track. If a vehicle with only partial engagement between the pawl and notch is involved in an accident or is suddenly decelerated, the seat could slide forward and cause injury to the front seat occupants from impact with the vehicle interior (windshield, dashboard and steering column).

You are urged to take your vehicle to a Checker dealership to have the front seat adjuster installation checked for proper operation. Should your seat adjuster require repair, your Checker dealer will at "no cost" to you:

1. Using the prescribed template, drill four (4) 3/16 diameter holes through the center section of the seat frame.

2. Install a new pawl actuator wire.

3. Anchor the pawl actuator wire with a 1/8 x 1 cotter pin at the hole which removes the minimum amount of slack necessary to accurate the right hand pawl.

In the majority of cases, the actual work described above will take less than 30 minutes, however, prior to taking your vehicle to a Checker dealership, it is suggested that you contact the dealer's service department and determine when service time will be available. The necessary parts and instructions will be available at Checker dealerships by March 1, 1974. Presentation of this letter will assist you in obtaining this service.

CHECKER MOTORS CORPORATION

ID: 8317

Mr. Milford R. Bennett
Acting Director
Automotive Safety Engineering
GM Environmental and Energy Staff
Box 9055
Warren, MI 48090-9055

Dear Mr. Bennett:

We have received the petition by General Motors (GM) for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures.

First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until "resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . ." We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV.

We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be "slightly below" the minimum requirements "at a few test points". Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points?

Similarly, GM has argued that "preliminary testing has indicated that" the GMEV will "substantially comply" with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide ". . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . ." Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition.

Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that "the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles." The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above.

When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:555 d:3/15/93