ID: 21281.ztv

C. Thomas Terry, Director
Safety Affairs & Regulation
General Motors North America
Safety Center (480-111-S56)
30200 Mound
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Terry:

On February 11, 2000, you wrote the Acting Administrator, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and petitioning for its amendment. This letter provides an interpretation of Standard No. 108. The Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards will inform you in due course whether he has granted your petition.

Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You asked "whether brake lamp illumination is required, prohibited, or allowed under other conditions." You set forth two such conditions where the brake pedal is not employed. The first condition is:

Service brakes applied with intent of decelerating the vehicle. An example in this category would be adaptive cruise control where the service brakes may be automatically applied (without driver application of the brake pedal) to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles.

We are providing an interpretation that covers only the system given as an example, an adaptive cruise control automatically applied "to slow the vehicle in order to preserve spacing between vehicles." The SAE Standards on stop lamps that are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, J586 MAY84 and J1398 MAY85, define stop lamps as "Lamps . . . [which] indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Since you state that the intent of the brake application in this context would be "to slow the vehicle," which would "diminish speed by braking" within the meaning of the applicable SAE standards, we conclude that activation of the stop lamps would be required under these circumstances.

The second condition you set forth is:

Service brakes applied with no intent to decelerate the vehicle. The best example in this category would be traction control, where the intent is to help accelerate, rather than decelerate, the vehicle. Electronic stability control is another technology that can momentarily actuate the service brakes with minimal or no vehicle deceleration.

The intent of the brake application under the first part of the second condition is not to stop the vehicle or diminish its speed. Therefore, activation of the stop lamps, as defined in the applicable SAE Standards, would not be required. In addition, S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. In our view, activation of the stop lamps for a purpose other than to indicate stopping or slowing will create confusion for the driver following as to the meaning of the signal, with the potential of causing that driver to apply the brakes in his or her vehicle inappropriately. Thus, illumination of the stop lamp during traction control would be an impairment of the stop lamp function within the meaning of S5.1.3. We have therefore concluded that installation of traction control systems, or any other equipment, that activates the stop lamps for purposes other than to indicate that the vehicle is stopping or slowing is prohibited by S5.1.3 and would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Regarding the second part of the second condition, electronic stability control, the same interpretation would apply if the vehicle speed was not diminished by application of the service brakes (or any part). It would not apply if the application of the service brakes resulted in deceleration. In that case, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

We realize that, under some circumstances, the driver's application of the service brake system to achieve the same result, i.e. not actually achieving a reduction in speed, will cause the stop lamps to illuminate, but this is an unavoidable consequence of the technology available for driver application of the service brakes. With the advent of sophisticated electronic systems, such as those that you mention, there is no need for them to provide false signals.

Also, you have asked that we "for the near term . . . agree that FMVSS 108 allows, but does not require or prohibit, illumination of the brake lamps under the two conditions described above" because a "strict 'required' or 'prohibited' interpretation could have the effect of raising compliance issues with current production vehicles." We cannot adopt a different interpretation for the near term than for the long term. We encourage manufacturers to write us for interpretations before introducing new systems into production so that compliance issues will not arise, or to file petitions for rulemaking where appropriate. If a manufacturer constructs a noncompliant vehicle based upon a misunderstanding of what is required by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, it must accept the consequences of its actions.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/26/00

ID: 001307.Bruno.cmc

Mr. Dick Keller
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
PO Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

This responds to your letter in which you ask about the application of the "make inoperative" provision to the removal of advanced air bag sensors during the installation of driver seats that accommodate individuals with disabilities. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action under the circumstances described in your letter.

In your letter you discussed the installation of a product your company calls the Turning Automotive Seat (TAS) to facilitate vehicle access by individuals with disabilities. You described the TAS as being offered in two models, but you explained that both models are essentially "a swivel seat base mechanism rotating approximately 90 degrees with articulation to clear the B-pillar during entry and egress."You stated that the TAS system is used with the originally equipped (OEM) seat belts and bolts into the OEM seat mounting points. Your letter explained that with the newer air bag systems relying on seat sensors to modulate air bag deployment, replacing the OEM seat with the TAS requires removal of these sensors. You asked if such modifications were covered by the make inoperative exemption in 49 CFR 595.7(c)(14).

By way of background, NHTSA has authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, NHTSA has recognized that it is appropriate to permit some modifications that could cause a vehicle to no longer comply in order to accommodate people with disabilities. 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart C, Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People with Disabilities, lists modifications of certain portions of specific FMVSSs that are exempt from the "make inoperative" provision in order to accommodate people with disabilities.

On May 12, 2000, the agency published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 208 by establishing requirements to reduce the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, especially to small women and young children, and to improve safety for all occupants by means that include advanced air bag technology. (65 FR 30680; Advanced Air Bag Rule.) Motor vehicles certified as complying with the provisions of the Advanced Air Bag Rule will be required to minimize air bag risks by automatically turning off the air bag in the presence of an occupant who is a young child or deploy the air bag in a manner less likely to cause serious or fatal injury to an "out of position occupant."Among the technologies used to comply with these requirements are a variety of seat position, occupant weight, and pattern sensors incorporated into the seat structure. The advanced air bag technology requirements are being phased in beginning September 1, 2003, with full compliance required starting September 1, 2006. ^[1]

While 49 CFR 595.7 includes some specific requirements of FMVSS No. 208 among the requirements subject to the "make inoperative" exemption, the provisions established under the Advanced Air Bag Rule are not included. As you are aware, the agency has granted a petition for rulemaking to include the provisions of the Advanced Air Bag Rule in the exemption list under Part 595. If the agency issues a final rule incorporating the advanced air bag requirements into Part 595, Subpart C, then a vehicle modifier that meets the conditions set forth in that subpart would be permitted to make such modifications as you described.

Until this rulemaking is completed, the agency will use its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action in the limited instance of a vehicle not complying with the advanced air bag requirements because of the installation of a replacement seat to accommodate persons with disabilities. This is conditioned on the vehicle modifier complying with the modifier and modification requirements of Part 595, including the label and documentation requirements of 595.7(b). If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208#595
d.4/8/04





---

^[1] A majority of vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that a percentage of their fleet complies with these requirements according to the following phase-in schedule, with credits for early compliance: September 1, 2003 to August 31, 2004--20 percent; September 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005--65 percent; September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006--100 percent.

ID: 006814drn

Jim Soucie, Director of National Sales
I.M.S., The Kiosk Company
1538 So. 139^th St.
Omaha, NE 68144

Dear Mr. Soucie:

This responds to your September 16, 2003, FAX inquiry asking if NHTSAs laws apply to companies that place commercial advertisements on school bus exteriors.

In your FAX, you write that your company "would like to place ads on the exterior sides of the bus, away from anything that moves; doors, mirrors or windows." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you want to place advertisements on only the exterior right and left sides of a school bus, and not on the vehicles front or rear. No advertisements will be placed in the school bus interior. The advertisements are to be made of vinyl, will be of as-yet unspecified dimensions, but will not completely wrap around the school bus. No school district or other school bus owner will place the advertisements themselves; instead, your company will arrange for a local contractor to apply the advertisements directly onto the school bus exterior, with no need for metal frames or brackets. The contractor will also remove the advertisements.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. Section 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with applicable standards. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties up to $5,000 for each violation. The maximum penalty for a related series of violations is $15,000,000.

The issue arising from your situation is whether placement of the advertisements on a school bus would "make inoperative" the compliance of the school bus with labeling requirements for the bus exterior. [1] FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, specifies labeling requirements for school bus emergency exits, which may be doors, windows, or roof exits. Among other things, the standard requires that:

• school bus emergency exits have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate, in letters at least 5 centimeters high, on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus (S5.5.3(a)); and that
• required school bus emergency exits "shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a retroreflective tape with a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters and either red, white or yellow in color " (S5.5.3(c)).

A person placing the advertisements on the bus may be subject to the make inoperative provision. Since the identification of the exits and doors of the school bus and the retroreflective tape are specified for safety reasons (i.e., to facilitate identification of the emergency exits and doors, especially in the dark), the advertisements must not obscure or cover the identifications of the exits and doors or the retroreflective tape.

Other identification requirements for school buses, including color, are established by each State or local jurisdiction. In NHTSAs Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," it is recommended that the word "school bus" be placed on the front and rear of the school bus between the 4-way/8-way flashing lights in letters as high as possible, and that no other lettering be on the front or rear of the vehicle. If any safety problems associated with schoolbus identification were to develop, NHTSA would consider regulatory requirements in the future.

If you have any further questions about NHTSAs laws or programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:571.3#217





---

[1] Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter [49 USCS 30101 et seq.] unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative."

ID: 04-004579drn

Stephen E. Selander, Esq.
Senior Counsel
Warner Norcross & Judd LLP
2000 Town Center, Suite 2700
Southfield, MI 48075-1318

Dear Mr. Selander:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your clients (Morbarks) products, portable brush chippers, are "motor vehicles" for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, including the TREAD Act. We will identify the relevant factors that should be considered in making such determinations.

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."

We have issued a number of 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.

You provided information about several models of brush chippers. You write that:"Eight of the models have axles, tires and wheels, and can be easily moved around a site or from site-to-site by towing."

You stated that Morbark believes that its portable brush chippers are not covered by the Vehicle Safety Act or the TREAD Act. You stated that Morbark brush chippers are designed primarily for use off-highway in helping to clear sites of trees and brush by chipping the brush, tree limbs, and small tree trunks.

You also stated that Morbark believes that its portable brush chippers are not trailers as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. That regulation defines trailer as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

We have reviewed the videotape you enclosed with your letter. We note that in some instances, the Morbark brush chipper and vehicle towing the chipper were depicted as parked on the side of the road in what appears to be a residential area. We also understand from the information you provided that some of these products are used by tree service and landscape companies. We have also reviewed information provided at Morbarks web site: www.morbark.com.

Whether Morbarks portable brush chippers are considered motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act depends on their use, i.e., whether they typically spend extended periods of time at a single site or, by contrast, use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis. By way of example, in a letter to DuraTech dated June 4, 1997, we took the position that mobile tub grinders are not motor vehicles because they stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months and very rarely for less than a week). Similarly, we have concluded that mobile waterjet cutting and cleaning equipment was not a motor vehicle, based on the fact that it appeared to stay on job sites for extended periods of time ranging from a week to over a year.

We do not have information concerning the specific usage patterns of each of Morbarks brush chippers to determine whether they are motor vehicles. Moreover, while we seek to be helpful in providing opinions about our statutes, we do not have the resources to provide a detailed review of the products of each company. However, if the brush chippers use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis, they would be motor vehicles. We would think that would likely be the case for at least some of Morbarks portable brush chippers, since tree service and landscape companies would tow the portable brush chippers by trucks to jobs, park them along the curb during work, and then tow them to the next job or, at the end of the day, return them to the companys facilities. Tree service company crews commonly complete one to two jobs per day. We also note that, in a letter to Lindig Manufacturing Corporation dated January 5, 1984, we took the position that brush chipper trailers are motor vehicles.

As to your question concerning the definition of trailer, we would consider the brush chipper itself to be the property being transported.

I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA102(4)
d.8/27/04

ID: 1982-2.6

DATE: 04/19/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M.A.N. Truck & Bus Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 1, 1981, letter asking whether it would be permissible to attach a label to a door stating "To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down". You indicate that the door is not an emergency door in compliance with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. You question whether the addition of the label in conformance to a contract with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) would make the door an emergency door that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA requires that door to be so labelled because it desires the door to be used as a means of escape.

The standard states that buses shall be equipped with a minimum number of emergency exits and that all emergency exits shall be labelled properly and comply with the requirements of the standard. One purpose of the standard is to provide sufficient emergency exits. Another purpose is to provide uniform emergency exit markings and operating instructions. You have stated that your vehicle has the requisite number of emergency exits, properly marked, so that the door in question is not required in counting the total number of exits for purposes of complying with the standard.

As you know, not all doors are required to be emergency exits. For example, the front entrance door of a vehicle need not be an emergency exit. If it is not labelled an emergency exit, it need not comply with the requirements of the standard relative to emergency exits. Similarly, the door to which you refer need not comply with the emergency exit requirements if it is not labelled as an emergency exit. However, since your proposed label refers to the emergency nature of the door, it appears to place the door within the category of an emergency exit that would be required to comply with the standard. The CTA intends the door to be used as an emergency exit and the label will indicate to riders that the door is suitable for such purposes. You may not, therefore, refer to the door as an emergency door unless the door complies with all of the requirements.

SINCERELY,

M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORPORATION

October 1, 1981

General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am writing today to ask for your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217 to the extent that it affects the language of an instructional decal that we intend to affix at the front and rear entrances of our new series of articulated transit buses.

As we understand it, FMVSS 217 is a standard whose intent is to prescribe the amount of emergency exit area to be provided on buses, the nature of the emergency exits to be provided, and the way in which such exits must be identified.

We further believe that the vehicles we are preparing to manufacture in the United States more than meet the requirements of the standard. That is, through a combined use of push-out side windows and escape roof hatches that function and are identified according to FMVSS 217, the escape area requirement is exceeded. Therefore, we believe that the main passenger doors are not also required as emergency exits to qualify the bus under the 217 standard.

However, the language of the specification describing the buses of our current contract with the Chicago Transit Authority demands that additional escape area be provided by the main entrances. Manual operation of the main doors is accomplished via a two-step procedure. First, an operator with a red ball handle, located overhead on the door engine compartment, is pulled to release the air pressure that keeps the door closed. Second, the door panels are pushed open by the passenger. (For a better idea of the conditions at the entrances, please refer to the enclosed sketch.)

CTA further requires that this manual operation of the main doors be described in the following way by an instructional decal that is placed in close proximity to the red-handled operator:

TO OPEN DOOR IN EMERGENCY PULL DOWN.

It is the language of this decal that concerns us. Specifically, though the bus easily exceeds requirements of FMVSS 217, without the inclusion of the main doors as emergency exits, we are unsure that those doors could qualify as emergency exits under 217, and we therefore seek assurance from your office that the use of the word "emergency" in the decal does not violate the standard, as you interpret it.

We thank you in advance for your early response to this question.

Joseph R. Karner Project Engineer

cc: M. R. HOWARD; L. K. MIKALONIS; G. E. PICKETT; L. ROGERS; K. M. SIMON

NOTE: THIS IS A GENERAL CONFIGURATION SKETCH, NOT INTENDED TO ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE DOOR AREA.

(Graphics omitted)

SKETCH OF DOOR ARRANGEMENT M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS CORP. (CTA) DRAWN BY: J. R. KARNER 10-1-81

ID: 1984-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. J. DiMaggio Manager, Gov. and Customer Relations The Firestone Tire a Rubber Co. 1200 Firestone Parkway Akron Ohio 44317

Dear Mr. DiMaggio:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1983, to the Administrator, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The noncompliance consists of omission of the "DOT" certification symbol. You have represented that tires so affected nevertheless meet Standard No. 117 in all other respects.

It has been the policy of this agency since 1977 to treat omissions of the DOT symbol ss failures to certify pursuant to Sections 114 and 108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act rather than as failures to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires or allows that method of certification. The symbol is not considered to establish a minimum standard of motor vehicle performance. This means that manufacturers who fail to provide the symbol are not required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, and that accordingly the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not required to publish notices of petitions requesting inconsequentiality determinations.

Your petition is therefore moot. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 8, 1983

Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FOR INCONSEQUENTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 117

Dear Ms. Steed:

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company hereby petitions, in accordance witn the provisions of 49CFR 556, for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a noncompliance with the requirements of FMVSS 117 (49CFR 571.117). The basis for this petition is that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it pertains to motor safety.

Section S5.2.3 (a) of FMVSS 117 requires that the symbol DOT be permanently molded onto the sidewall of each retreaded tire. Section S6.1 states that this symbol certifies that the retreaded tire on which it appears meets tne requirements of FMVSS 117. One mold, number 49, put into production at our retread plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, was found to have all the required stamping except the DOT symbol. The tire identification number area in this mold reads -R-DBL 49 XXX instead of DOT-R-DBL 49 XXX. All other molds in this size, L, LR7815 Town & Country were found to be correctly stamped.

The fact that the aforementioned symbol was missing was detected when a tire from the subject mold was submitted to our testing facility as part of our compliance surveillance program. The tire met all other requirements of FMVSS 117, indicating that the plant was eligible for continued certification of compliance insofar as the quality of the product was concerned.

Inventories in the plant of tires from the subject mold were impounded and branded correctly. It is estimated that in the period during which this mold could have been in use, a maximum of 1,340 retreaded tires could have been produced. During this period, weeks 320 to 373, the plant was producing product which was in compliance with the quality of product test requirements of FMVSS 117. Further, all casings used bore the DOT symbols indicating compliance of the original tire with the requirements of FMVSS 109. Only passenger casings with this DOT stamping are used by us for retreading.

The bases upon which this petition is being submitted are as follows:

1. The quality of the subject tires met the requirements of Firestone and NHTSA. Retreaded casings cured in the subject mold all were certified by the original tire manufacturer as being in compliance with FMVSS 109. The plant follows Firestone Retread Shop practices intended to produce high quality, safe retreads. These practices include submitting tires for compliance surveillance testing. 2. The symbol -R- is stamped in the mold in the vicinity of the serial, leaving no doubt that the tire can be identified as a retread. 3. The absence of the symbol DOT does not adversely affect the quality or safety capabilities of the tires cure in the subject mold.

In view of the above, we conclude that the stamping noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and respectfully request exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act.

Thank you for your consideration of this petition.

Very truly yours,

A. J. DiMaggio MANAGER, GOV. AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS

AJD:g

ID: nht76-2.5

DATE: 02/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Jeep Corporation's October 16, 1975, petition to initiate rulemaking to amend the present definition of "Unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR @ 571.3) which reads:

"Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

Jeep requests that the definition be amended to "indicate that the unloaded vehicle [weight] does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories." The Jeep petition argues that the impracticality of conducting some dynamic testing with "work-performing accessories" in place may force the discontinuance of some factory-installed accessories although factory installation may be more safe than a subsequent aftermarket installation.

The Jeep Corporation petition is denied. As a general matter, the NHTSA has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed. The NHTSA has evaluated the potential problems of dynamic testing with heavy or protruding accessories in place and concludes that a decision on the practicality and wisdom of so doing should be made on a "standard-by-standard" basis. As you noted, the NHTSA has provided for removal of work-performing accessories in conducting compliance tests under Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. If Jeep considers dynamic testing in other standards to be unjustifiably burdensome because of the necessity of testing with all accessories in place, it would be appropriate to petition for rulemaking to amend the standard in question.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

October 16, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: Petition For Rulemaking 49 CFR Part 571.3 - Definitions

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" contained in Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 571.3.

Currently, unloaded vehicle weight means the weight of the vehicle to be loaded with its maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for normal operation, but without occupants or cargo. This is the base vehicle condition used throughout the safety standards when vehicle dynamic performance is being evaluated. Jeep Corporation requests that this definition be revised to clearly indicate that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories which may be available as original equipment accessories. Currently, it is unclear whether a vehicle being subjected to a dynamic test should include such items.

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as "Jeep Special Equipment", are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modification which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle. Thus, it would be in the best interests of safety to allow Jeep Corporation to continue to provide approved special equipment.

This will not be possible, however, if future dynamic testing procedures in several safety standards require vehicles tested to be equipped with all types of special equipment accessories. To assure compliance to any Federal Standards with all possible vehicle equipment combinations would create a financial and testing burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which, as noted earlier, may not be in the best interest of public safety.

The NHTSA has, in the past, recognized the influence of certain work-performing equipment on vehicle dynamic performance. In Docket No. 73-29; Notice 1, published in 38 FR 33501, the NHTSA proposed the exemption of original equipment snow plows from vehicles being tested to the braking requirements of Standard (Illegible Word)

The concept of eliminating the effects of "work-performing accessories" from the unloaded vehicle weight was further confirmed by the NHTSA in its recent promulgation of Standard 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. In this standard, it is stated that, "(F)or the purpose of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" (49 CFR Part 571.3) such that the unloaded vehicle does not include work-performing accessories.

Jeep Corporation submits that for the reason stated above, such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.

Stuart R. Perkins Director Vehicle Safety

ID: nht76-5.17

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Etnyre & Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your letters of June 22, 1976, concerning the availability of NHTSA interpretation letters and the assignment by vehicle manufacturers of Gross Axle Weight Ratings.

Letters written by this agency that interpret the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or accompanying regulations are regularly compiled by standard or regulation number and placed in a public file (the "redbooks") in the Docket Section at Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. Copies of these letters are distributed informally by various trade associations, as you have noted. However, there is currently no subscription service available directly from the NHTSA. I recommend that you periodically (bimonthly, perhaps) telephone the Docket Section (202 426-2768) to find out whether entries have recently been made in the Redbooks under the standards and regulations that are of particular concern to you.

You have also asked several questions concerning the relationship between an axle's Gross Axle Weight Pating (GAWR) and the overloading of that axle when the vehicle is in use. GAWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as

the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

It is thus a rating assigned by the manufacturer at the time of manufacture. A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably forseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect. Such a vehicle would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1392 et seq.).

We cannot prescribe specific steps that a vehicle manufacturer must take to ensure that a GAWR would not be found so low that it would be a safety-related defect. For example, if a warning in the owner's manual against loading in a certain manner is likely to be ignored, then such a warning would not, by itself, be sufficient. The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of retraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading.

SINCERELY,

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA This matter refers to Part 567 "Certification" and Part 568 "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages" of 49CFR.

Many of the interpretations and comments dealing with "rated loads" refer to the circumstance of exceeding the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). However, the certification label also requires that the Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) also be noted. We have not as yet seen any question or interpretation dealing with the matter of overload on an axle. Our questions then are as follows.

1. Assume a tank type motor vehicle; which when loaded full to its rated cargo load; expressed as a volume of a specific commodity. (i.e., water); does not exceed the GVWR rating but the load is distributed such that a GAWR is exceeded. Is this a violation of the regulations?

2. Assume the same type vehicle loaded with a material whose specific weight varies over a limited range but does have an average acceptable value for general use (i.e. asphalt). If a GAWR is exceeded is this a violation of the regulations?

3. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 2, constructed of compartments for variable commodities and designed for a specific loading arrangement. If the loading arrangement is not followed by the user and the GAWR is exceeded but not the GVWR, is the manufacturer liable?

4. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 1, which is loaded full by the user with a material heavier than specified and designed for by the manufacturer and both the GVWR and GAWR are exceeded, is the manufacturer liable?

5. If a volumetric load of specific weight is considered by the manufacturer in rating the vehicle, what steps are necessary to protect the manufacturer from alleged violations of rating if other commodities are carried?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA

We have become aware of the process whereby interpretation to paragraphs of Parts of 49CFR (particularly Parts 567, 568 and 571) are distributed on an informal basis through various trade associations. We further note that they apparently are carried in your files under the designation of "N40-30".

Since our activities are not completely served by any one particular association and we are not prepared to join a multitude of associations, is there a compilation of interpretations which are available from NHTSA on a regular or subscription basis? If there is such a service we would appreciate hearing about it. If not, how do we assure ourselves that interpretations which are being made on matters of common concern are made available to us so that we can comply with these interpretations?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

ID: nht79-1.40

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 21 1979 NOA-30

Mr. J. C. Eckhold, Director Automotive Safety Office Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Eckhold:

This is in response to your letter of August 3, 1979, asking whether Ford may ship to distributors and dealers vehicles with bumper guards, needed for compliance with Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581), placed inside the vehicles for installation prior to sale of the vehicles to consumers. You state that the bumper guards, which would be attached by dealers and others making use of pre-processed mounting holes in the vehicle bumpers, would reduce railroad car capacity, if installed prior to shipment. You also suggest that absence of reference in the Customs regulations (19 CFR Part 12) to readily attachable components needed to comply with regulations issued under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901), may lead to complications in the importation of vehicles prior to installation of readily attachable bumper components.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to the shipment of vehicles with readily attachable bumper components stored in the vehicles for later installation, provided the components are attached before the vehicles are offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Further, regulations governing importation of motor vehicles (19 CFR 12.80) apply only to compliance with Federal Motor vehicle safety standards, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 571, and the question of compliance with Part 581, therefore, should not arise.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 3, 1979

Mr. Richard J. Hipolit, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hipolit:

This is to request an interpretation of Part 581, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, as to readily attachable and detachable equipment that constitute portions of the bumper system on passenger cars subject to the "Phase II" requirements of Part 581 that become effective on and after September 1, 1979.

Unlike regulations issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Part 581 does not expressly provide that a vehicle which conforms to the criteria of the bumper standard with readily attachable equipment installed -- such as bumper guards --is deemed also to be in conformity when shipped with the readily attachable equipment placed in the vehicle for installation by dealers or others prior to the first retail sale (by means of designated, pre-processed installation points on the vehicle, e.g., bumper guard mounting holes pierced in the bumper).

A number of practical problems can be expected to arise in the absence of appropriate interpretation of Part 581 to deal with the realities of manufacture and distribution. As Mr. D. G. McGuigan informed you last week, Ford has determined, for example, that substantial and wasteful transportation complications can be avoided on one of its 1980 model passenger car lines by shipping front and rear bumper guards inside the vehicles, to be installed by dealers prior to retail sale. That situation involves both tariff restrictions and limitations on the capacity of tri-level rail cars. For 1979 models of the cars in question, shipped without bumper guards, each tri-level rail car can accommodate 18 vehicles. The same capacity would be available for 1980 models if bumper guards were not installed until the vehicles reached their final destinations. If bumper guards are installed at the factory, however, only 15 units could be carried on each rail car, and the resulting three unit reduction in carrying capacity would increase Ford's requirement for rail car use, I am informed, by approximately 151 rail cars per month.

Similarly, in view of the fact that imported cars may be transported to this country with readily attachable equipment placed inside the vehicle to help minimize transit damage on the high seas, we foresee the possibility of unintended complications also arising for imported vehicles if the readily attachable equipment issue is not dealt with. Part 12 of Title 19, the Customs Service regulation jointly developed by the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, expressly recognizes and deals with readily attachable equipment for Safety Act purposes, but there appears to be no parallel provision concerning regulations, such as Part 581, established under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

We believe that the requested interpretation is consistent with the intent and purposes of Part 581 and is in the public interest because it will serve to avoid economic waste in the manufacture and transport of passenger cars while preserving for retail purchasers the protection that the performance requirements of Part 581 are intended to provide. Because production of 1980 models are in the process of manufacture and shipments expected to begin in the next two weeks, we should appreciate this request receiving expedited attention.

Sincerely,

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

ID: nht89-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: BYUNG M. SOH -- TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM BYUNG M. SOH TO TAYLOR VINRON; OCC 2648

TEXT: Dear Mr. Soh:

This responds to your letter of October 5, 1988, inquiring whether your "Starrace" hub cap violated Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @ 571.211) or any other of our safety standards. You explained that your self lighting hu b cap includes a motion activated LED light whose intensity varies according to the speed of the vehicle. You further noted that the LED, which has a maximum intensity of 40mmAmp, is designed for cosmetic rather than illuminating purposes. As explained below, your device would not appear to violate Standard No. 211. However, this device may present problems of compliance with Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR @ 571.108).

Standard No. 211 prohibits winged projections on wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. This prohibition extends to these items of motor vehicle equipment both as items of original equipment on new passenger cars and multipurpose vehicles and as items s old in the aftermarket as replacement parts for use on such vehicles. Judging by the picture enclosed with your letter, it does not appear that this hub cap has any winged projections. Nothing in Standard No. 211 explicitly prohibits LEDs on hub caps, wheel nuts, or wheel discs. Accordingly, your product does not appear to violate any provision of Standard No. 211.

However, the self lighting nature of your hub cap may raise questions under Standard No. 108. If this hub cap is marketed as original equipment to be installed before the initial sale of a motor vehicle, the vehicle with these hub caps installed must be certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 provides that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." As I stated in my September 13, 1988 letter to you with respect to different equipment, we interpret this requirement as follows:

"Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or ab ove the maxima permitted by the standard." (emphasis added)

Your product might impair the effectiveness of the required lighting by causing motorists to confuse its signal with the signal emitted by headlamps, stoplights, brakelights, taillights, side marker lamps, and other lighting devices. Such confusion is p ossible since your product is located on the wheels at approximately the same level as the lights required by Standard No. 108. This impairment of effectiveness would be especially likely if the hub cap lights were the same color (red, amber or white) as the lights required by Standard No. 108.

As for the aftermarket sale of your product, under @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, an element of design, s uch as lighting equipment, installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Again, if these lighted hub caps would impair the effectiveness of the lighting required by Standard No. 108, we would consider each aftermarket installation of the hub c aps by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to be a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the "render ino perative" provision. Please note that the Safety Act does not restrict a vehicle owner from modifying his or her own vehicle, even if the modification resulted in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108. Such modifications may, however, b e prohibited by State law.

Additionally, you should be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with defe cts related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and either:

1. repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

In either case, the manufacturer must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,