ID: aiam4648

"Dear Mr. Hudyma: Thank you for your letter requesting a interpretation of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Specifically, you asked about certification requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles that will be assembled in Italy and in Michigan. I apologize for the delay in this response. The vehicles in question will be assembled in Italy to the extent that they will be 'complete with everything except the engine (and associated equipment such as ignition and air conditioning, etc.), transmission and transfer case in Italy.' These assemblies will then be imported into the United States where the vehicles will be completed. You state that both the operations in Italy and in Michigan will be performed pursuant to a contract with LAFORZA, who will have 'complete control over the manufacturing process at all times.' It is your understanding that in the fact situation described above, LAFORZA is considered to be the manufacturer of the vehicle and therefore LAFORZA is responsible for affixing the certification label on the completed motor vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. You asked us to confirm this interpretation. We cannot do so. Under our law and regulations, the company that completes the vehicles in Michigan is a 'manufacturer' of the vehicles in question. The information provided in your letter is inadequate to allow us to determine whether LAFORZA might also be considered a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles. The first issue to be addressed in our analysis is whether the products in question are 'incomplete vehicles' when they arrive in the United States. An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as: ... an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle. Your letter states that the products that arrive in the United States will not have an engine or transmission, which means they will not have a power train. Accordingly, 568.3 makes clear that these products would not be 'incomplete vehicles' for the purposes of our regulations. In previous interpretations, we have referred to products that do not qualify as 'incomplete vehicles' as an 'assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment'. In those previous letters, we have stated that the assemblage should be labeled as items of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States and that the importer of the assemblage must certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard complies with such standard. See the enclosed May 6, 1985 letter to Mr. Hayley Alexander. This finding also means that the Italian company that produces these 'assemblages of items of motor vehicle equipment' is not a 'manufacturer' of motor vehicles with respect to the vehicles in question. Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5), the Safety Act) defines a 'manufacturer' as 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.' In this case, the Italian company producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment has not manufactured or assembled any motor vehicles, nor has it imported any motor vehicles. Hence, it does not fit the statutory definition of a 'manufacturer' of the vehicles in question. After these assemblages are imported into the United States, the operations performed by the Michigan company will transform the items of motor vehicle equipment into a motor vehicle. Therefore, the Michigan company would be a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Since 567.4(g)(1) requires the certification label to include the name of the manufacturer, the vehicles could comply if the name of the Michigan company were shown on the certification label. The information in your letter was inadequate to allow us to make even a tentative determination of whether LAFORZA may also be considered a manufacturer of these vehicles. The agency discussed the issue of vehicles with more than one 'manufacturer' at length in its proposal to establish rules of attribution for determining which of the manufacturers would be responsible for complying with the phase-in requirements in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). In that proposal, NHTSA said: Since the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility of compliance with safety standards on manufacturers, the agency does not have authority to attribute a vehicle to a party other than one of the vehicle's manufacturers. However, the agency considers the language in section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer is 'any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles . . .' to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. For example, if a sponsor contracts for another manufacturer to produce a design exclusively for the sponsor, the sponsor may be considered the manufacturer. This follows from application of basic principles of agency law. In this case, the sponsor is the principal. On the other hand, the mere purchase of vehicles for resale by a company which also is a manufacturer of motor vehicles does not make the purchaser the manufacturer of those vehicles. 50 FR 14589, at 14596, April 12, 1985. According to your letter, LAFORZA has a contractual relationship with the company in Italy that is producing the assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and a contractual relationship with the company in Michigan that is assembling the motor vehicle. These contractual relationships led you to assert that '... LAFORZA Automobiles will have complete control of the manufacturing process at all times.' If LAFORZA merely has contractual relationships under which it purchases products for resale from the companies in Italy and Michigan, LAFORZA would not be considered the manufacturer of those vehicles. If you can provide us with information about any role LAFORZA has in producing these vehicles besides contracting with other companies to assemble the vehicles, we will review that information and offer our interpretation of whether LAFORZA could be considered a 'manufacturer' of these vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and our regulations. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. Hans W. Metzger LAFORZA Safety Consultant 6323 E. Turquoise Avenue Scottsdale, Arizona 85253";

ID: aiam4892

"Dear Mr. Albury: This responds to your letter of June 3, 199 concerning whether your company would be considered the manufacturer of certain vehicles. Your company is planning to use jeep conversion kits on Chrysler Corporation jeeps. Under one approach, your company would purchase the basic stripped down model jeep from Chrysler and add the body, stereo, air conditioning, tires, running lights, carpeting, and high visibility seats. You state that the body would be one solid piece and that your company would add wheel wells, doors, a solid or canvas top, and a windshield. Alternatively, your company would purchase the chassis, with engine and transmission, from Chrysler and add the above items. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I will address the responsibilities of your company under the Safety Act in each of the situations you described. First, if your company purchased a stripped down vehicle from Chrysler and made the modifications described, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as: A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified . . . other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale . . . . As an alterer, your company would be required to certify compliance of its vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567. The only exception would be if: 1. The modifications consisted solely of 'readily attachable components,' or 2. The modifications were only 'minor finishing operations.' Whether modifications involve 'readily attachable' components depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. In the past, the agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. Without extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve 'readily attachable' components. If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label would state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed. In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. Alterers also are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. Second, as an alternative, your company is considering buying a chassis from Chrysler. In that case, your company would likely be considered a final-stage manufacturer. Under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, a final-stage manufacturer is defined as: A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle. Under the regulation, incomplete vehicle is defined as An assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle. As a final-stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle: 1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle, 2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer, 3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards. After receiving this document from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, your company would be required to certify compliance with the safety standards. In addition to these certification requirements, a final-stage manufacturer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means a final-stage manufacturer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. In addition, final-stage manufacturers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations. I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5054

Dear Mr. Lawrence: This responds to your March 5, 1992 letter to th Administrator on the subject 'Petition for Rulemaking - FMVSS 108 Turn Signal Installation Requirements.' In that letter, Volvo GM petitioned 'for the revocation of the 'Figure 2' requirements published in the December 12, 1991, Register. . . .' However, the notice published on that date (56 FR 64733) was not an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Instead, it was only a denial of a petition for rulemaking to allow tail lamps on vehicles 80 inches or wider to be mounted at locations up to 24 inches forward of the extreme rear of the vehicle, and to allow turn signal and stop lamps to be mounted up to 60 inches forward of the rear instead of 'on the rear' as required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108 expresses the general requirement that lamps be located so as to meet the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE standard. Figure 2 was included in the notice to illustrate the agency's interpretation of the visibility requirements for stop, tail, and turn signal lamps set forth in specific SAE vehicle lighting standards incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. A copy of that figure is enclosed. However, Figure 2 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108 itself. Since Figure 2 is not part of Standard No. 108, a petition for rulemaking is not the appropriate way to address the problem you have raised. Accordingly, we are treating your letter as a request to change our interpretation of the SAE's specifications. As explained below, the agency is adopting a new interpretation that is consistent with your concerns and arguments. The rationale for the agency's denial of the petition was that the amendments requested would adversely affect the ability of the lamps to meet the SAE specifications incorporated into Standard No. 108 that the lamps on both sides of a vehicle's rear end be simultaneously visible from any angle between and including 45-degree angles to the rear left and right of the vehicle. As noted above, Figure 2 pictorially represents NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE's uniform geometric visibility requirements. Using the SAE standard for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles as an example, NHTSA provided the following quotation from J1395: 'Signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp. * * * To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface, excluding reflex of at least 13 sq. cm. measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' Since the SAE measurement of photometry is made at a distance of 3 meters from the lamp, NHTSA also stated that compliance with the visibility requirements is to be determined at a distance of 3 meters. NHTSA's interpretation of the SAE language quoted above, which Figure 2 illustrates, and which you have found objectionable, was: 'Thus, the turn signals on both sides of the vehicle must be simultaneously visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees originating at the left lamp, to the left to 45 degrees to the right originating at the right lamp measured at a radius of 3 meters.' You state that the term 'simultaneously visible' does not appear in the SAE specifications. You also argue that the 3 meter requirement has no connection to the 45-degree installation visibility. These issues have also been raised with us by the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA), which met with us to express its views, not only on turn signal lamps, but stop and tail lamps as well, and by Ford Motor Company, and Freightliner, Corp. in several telephone calls. We are furnishing copies of this response to these three parties, as well as to the original petitioner, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA). First of all, let me assure you that NHTSA had no intention of imposing any new requirements upon industry in its interpretation reflected in Figure 2, and that the reaction of industry to this interpretation came as a surprise to us. Although your letter concerns only the turn signal specifications for wide vehicles, we have reviewed this matter with respect to tail lamps and stop lamps as well, given the concern of other industry members. Our review has led us to place added weight on the fact that the SAE visibility requirements are not consistently expressed from SAE standard to SAE standard. This difference in expression particularly calls into question our interpretation regarding turn signals. This same difference has led MVMA to apply one interpretation to turn signals, and another to stop and tail lamps. We shall discuss these two interpretations separately, and compare them with NHTSA's single, across-the-board interpretation. Under NHTSA's interpretation, the minimum specified lens area of a left stop, turn signal, or tail lamp, as seen at 45 degrees to the left of that lamp, must also be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp, and at all degrees in between (and vice versa) when viewed at a 3-meter radius from the rear. As suggested above, MVMA does not believe that an across-the-board interpretation is appropriate, given the different expression of the turn signal specification for vehicles in J1395 and J588. SAE J1395 provides that visibility is 'from 45 deg. to the left for the left lamp to 45 deg. to the right for the right lamp.' (Emphasis added.) The first underlined passage suggests that the viewing angle is a left 45 deg. angle, using a line parallel to the vehicle longitudinal axis as the frame of reference for that angle, and that this viewing angle relates to the left signal lamp only. The passage says that the angle is 45 deg. to the left 'for' the left lamp, and not 45 deg. to the left of that lamp. The second underlined passage indicates a similar limitation on the applicability of the language regarding the 45 deg. angle to the right. Even more specific is the corresponding requirement in SAE J588 NOV84, Standard No. 108's specification for turn signals on vehicles less than 80 inches wide. It provides: 'signals from lamps mounted on the left side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the left and signals from lamps mounted on the right side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 deg. to the right.' For both wide and narrow vehicles, MVMA interprets the 45 degree left visibility requirement as applying only to the outboard side of the left turn signal lamp, and a 45 degree right visibility requirement only to the outboard side of the right turn signal lamp. NHTSA agrees that MVMA's interpretation regarding turn signal lamps is more fully consistent than NHTSA's interpretation with the language of these SAE standards. Adopting this interpretation moots the question of the particular distance at which visibility is to be determined. However, the fact that the SAE standard did not specify a measurement distance tends to strengthen the case for the MVMA interpretation since its interpretation obviates the need for a measurement distance, while the former NHTSA interpretation necessitated one. The MVMA and TTMA interpretations of the stop and tail lamp requirements are less clearly superior to NHTSA's in their faithfulness to the language of the SAE standards. Indeed, whether any of the competing interpretations is superior in this regard is harder to assess because the language regarding these lamps is more ambiguous. The SAE specifications for stop and tail lamps, incorporated in Standard No. 108, are respectively J586 FEB84 (narrow vehicles) and J1398 MAY85 (wide vehicles), and J585e Sept. 1977. Under all three of these SAE standards, 'signals from lamps on both sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle', which is specified as 'of 45 deg. to the left and to 45 deg. to the right' (J586), 'of 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right' (J1398), and 'from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right' (J585e). TTMA and MVMA restrict the left-right 45 degree visibility requirement to the individual lamp in a horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 1 of the December 1991 notice. Under this interpretation, the minimum specified lens area that is seen at 45 degrees to the left on the left lamp must be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the left lamp, but need not be seen at 45 degrees to the right of the right lamp (and vice versa). In MVMA's view, there was never an intent by the SAE to expect that the minimum lens area of both lamps would be visible from both sides of the vehicle. MVMA also argued that there was no justification to use the photometric measuring distance of 3 meters to determine visibility. Some aspects of the SAE standards regarding stop and tail lamps seem to favor the MVMA/TTMA interpretation, while others favor the NHTSA interpretation. For example, if these SAE standards are interpreted in light of the interpretation given above to the SAE turn signal requirements, then those stop and tail lamp standards will be interpreted as specifying angles of visibility whose frame of reference is each individual lamp instead of the vehicle as a whole. As in the case of the turn signal requirement, the absence of a specified measurement distance for stop and tail lamp visibility tends to support an interpretation that does not depend on such a distance being specified. On the other hand, the absence of any language, like that found in J1395, relating the angle or angles of visibility to any individual lamp, suggests a single continuous horizontal angle spanning the entire rear of a vehicle. NHTSA has decided to adopt the TTMA/MVMA interpretation of the stop and tail lamp visibility requirements. We have said that NHTSA did not intend to impose new burdens on industry by its interpretation, and there appears to be no present safety justification to do so. The existing level of rear lighting safety on the nation's roads is that which is represented by industry's interpretation of the SAE visibility requirements. Thus, there would be no derogation of the existing level of safety by concurring with an industry interpretation. Further, given the lack of clear support for either of the competing interpretations, any attempt by NHTSA to apply its former interpretation to enforce these requirements in a court of law could be very problematic. This letter will serve as notice to the industry that the agency will follow the interpretations stated herein in its future enforcement activities. The SAE visibility materials do not specify any measurement distance. Therefore, to carry the new interpretation to its proper conclusion, NHTSA is no longer specifying a measurement distance of 3 meters to judge compliance with the visibility requirements. Industry and NHTSA are both in agreement, however, that, wherever located, any of these lamps are required by S5.3.1.1 to continue to meet its photometric output at any applicable group of test points, unless excepted by the subsequent conditions of that paragraph. Finally, you comment that Table II 'does not require the turn signals be located on the rear except for trailers'. We do not understand your remark since Table II clearly specifies that turn signal lamps be located on the rear of all vehicles to which the Table applies, and not trailers alone. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association Ford Motor Company Freightliner Corp.;

ID: 6953

Mr. Robert Salton
Performance Friction Corp.
83 Carbon Metallic Highway
P.O. Box 819
Clover, S.C. 29710-0819

Dear Mr. Salton:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You stated that you are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade and recovery test baseline check stops, and that an interpretation would make it clear exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. You also asked what values of pedal effort would be "considered non-compliance," i.e., whether peak, average or sustained control force must be within the specified limits under section S5.1.4.1. You indicated in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff that you are primarily interested in the requirements for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests, each of which consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops or snubs, (2) fade stops or snubs (the heating cycle), and (3) recovery stops or snubs. The pedal force requirements for the baseline check stops or snubs are set forth in S5.1.4.1, which reads as follows: The control force used for the baseline check stops or snubs shall be not less than 10 pounds, nor more than 60 pounds, except that the control force for a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more may be between 10 pounds and 90 pounds.

S5.1.4.1 must be read in conjunction with S7.11.1, which sets forth the procedure for the baseline check stops or snubs. S7.11.1.1 provides the following procedure for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less:

Make three stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop. Control readings may be terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. Average the maximum brake control force required for the three stops.

The baseline check stops or snubs are thus made at a constant deceleration (10 fpsps), with the control force varying as necessary to maintain that constant deceleration. Under S5.1.4.1, the control force is required to stay within a prescribed range (10 pounds to 60 pounds for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds) throughout the entire stop or snub (from the time in which application is started until the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph, other than the initial momentary period it takes to go from 0 to 10 pounds). Thus, compliance with S5.l.4.1 is not determined based on peak, average or sustained control force. Instead, for a vehicle to comply with this test, the control force must never fall below 10 pounds or be above 60 pounds during any part of the test (for the period described above).

Your other question concerned how calculation of pedal effort during the baseline check stops or snubs is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. As indicated above, S7.11.1.1 specifies that an average is taken of the maximum control force for the three stops. The term "maximum" refers to the peak control force for each of the stops. I note that this average is not related to whether the vehicle complies with S5.1.4.1. Instead, as discussed below, this average establishes a baseline control force, which is used to derive certain of the control force limits for the recovery stops.

The requirements for the recovery stops are set forth in S5.1.4.3, which reads as follows:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable or making five recovery stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop, with a control force application that falls within the following maximum and minimum limits: (1) A maximum for the first four recovery stops of 150 pounds, and for the fifth stop, of 20 pounds more than the average control force for the baseline check; and

(2) A minimum of--

(A) The average control force for the baseline check minus 10 pounds, or

(B) The average control force for the baseline check times 0.60, whichever is lower (but in no case lower than 5 pounds). . . .

Thus, the minimum and (for one stop) the maximum control force limits for the recovery stops are calculated using the average control force for the baseline check stops or snubs. This average control force is the one calculated under S7.11.1.1 using the maximum control force of each of the baseline check stops or snubs.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref:105 d:4/14/92

ID: nht92-7.40

DATE: April 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Salton -- Performance Friction Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/5/92 from Robert Salton to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 6953)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You stated that you are unclear about the pedal force requirements during the first fade and recovery test baseline check stops, and that an interpretation would make it clear exactly what calculation of pedal effort is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. You also asked what values of pedal effort would be "considered non-compliance," i.e., whether peak, average or sustained control force must be within the specified limits under section S5.1.4.1. You indicated in a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff that you are primarily interested in the requirements for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests, each of which consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops or snubs, (2) fade stops or snubs (the heating cycle), and (3) recovery stops or snubs. The pedal force requirements for the baseline check stops or snubs are set forth in S5.1.4.1, which reads as follows:

The control force used for the baseline check stops or snubs shall be not less than 10 pounds, nor more than 60 pounds, except that the control force for a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more may be between lo pounds and 90 pounds.

S5.1.4.1 must be read in conjunction with S7.11.1, which sets forth the procedure for the baseline check stops or snubs. S7.11.1.1 provides the following procedure for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less:

Make three stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop. Control readings may be terminated when vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. Average the maximum brake control force required for the three stops.

The baseline check stops or snubs are thus made at a constant deceleration (10 fpsps), with the control force varying as necessary to maintain that constant deceleration. Under S5.1.4.1, the control force is required to stay within a prescribed range (10 pounds to 60 pounds for vehicles with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds) throughout the entire stop or snub (from the time in which application is started until the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph, other than the initial momentary period it takes to go from 0 to 10 pounds). Thus, compliance with S5.1.4.1 is not determined based on peak, average or sustained control force. Instead, for a vehicle to comply with this test, the control force must never fall below 10 pounds or be above 60 pounds during any part of the test (for the period described above).

Your other question concerned how calculation of pedal effort during the baseline check stops or snubs is used to verify compliance during the fade and recovery check stops. As indicated above, S7.11.1.1 specifies that an average is taken of the maximum control force for the three stops. The term "maximum" refers to the peak control force for each of the stops. I note that this average is not related to whether the vehicle complies with S5.1.4.1. Instead, as discussed below, this average establishes a baseline control force, which is used to derive certain of the control force limits for the recovery stops.

The requirements for the recovery stops are set forth in S5.1.4.3, which reads as follows:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall be capable or making five recovery stops from 30 mph at 10 fpsps for each stop, with a control force application that falls within the following maximum and minimum limits:

(1) A maximum for the first four recovery stops of 150 pounds, and for the fifth stop, of 20 pounds more than the average control force for the baseline check; and

(2) A minimum of--

(A) The average control force for the baseline check minus 10 pounds, or

(B) The average control force for the baseline check times 0.60, whichever is lower (but in no case lower than 5 pounds). . . .

Thus, the minimum and (for one stop) the maximum control force limits for the recovery stops are calculated using the average control force for the baseline check stops or snubs. This average control force is the one calculated under S7.11.1.1 using the maximum control force of each of the baseline check stops or snubs.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht80-1.49

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 12, 1979, to Mr. Vladislav Radovich asking whether your "Kar-Kot" rear seat extension must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering child restraints. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.

The Federal standard currently in effect for child restraints, Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.213), does not apply to "systems for use only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children." According to the literature you enclosed with your letter, the Kar-Kot "has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat" and was "developed for sleeping/resting". The literature warns that the product is not to be used for seating". Since the Kar-Kot is to be used only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, it is thus exempt from the current standard.

The upgraded version of the child restraint standard, Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979), is scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 1980. That standard applies to any device, including devices for use by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, "designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." If the "Kar-Kot" will only be used by children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, your product would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the literature accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for child using your product. If the Kar-Kot is not to be used by children under 50 pounds, it should be clearly and permanently labeled to show that it is to be used by a specific size and age range of children.

Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety-Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defects in the Kar-Kot.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.

February 12, 1980

Vladislav Radovich, Engineer -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Radovich: I appreciate the courtesy shown me via the telephone today. Per your request, we are asking for clarification of 49 CFR Part 571.213 Child Restraint Systems, in relation to our Kar-Kot rear seat extension.

Please note, prior to manufacturing this product, your Department of the D.O.T., the Highway Safety Institute of Ann Arbor, and All State Insurance Safety Department were contacted to insure the design of a safe product. All research and studies find that the safest spot of a car in case of collision is being recumbent on rear seat.

To further substantiate that conclusion, we requested the Highway Safety Institute to supply us with computer readouts of safety inherent in sleeping on the rear seat of car. As you know, these are real life accidents of the most serious nature and biased toward serious injury. (Readout copies enclosed.) Recap as follows: Total: Cars Vehicle Occupants 8,976 15,219

Total number of rear seat recumbent children ages 2-14: 60 children Ages 0-3 Ages 4-14 No treatment: 7 26 First Aid 8 15 Released after 24 hour hospital observation: 0 3 Unknown: 0 1

Our telephone log of numerious call to your division - Jerry Medlin, Bob Nelson and Bill Smith - indicated to us seat belt restraints would be more of a safety hindrance while lying on the rear seat, than a help and we were advised our Kar-Kot rear seat extension would not require restraints and would be in full conpliance with Revised 213 Spec.

Should you determine that through an oversight this product is covered by Spec. 213, we request an exception.

I would like to follow through with your suggestion and would appreciate a meeting be set up with your department for the end of week of February 18, if that's convenient, to bring this matter to a conclusion. I will call you on Tuesday, February 19, regarding this meeting.

Thank you again for sending the Spec.

Richard C. Stehlik -- President

P.S. Our Product Liability carrier has never received a complaint of any sort-safety or otherwise.

(Graphics omitted)

Kar-Kot has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat. However, due to the drivers positioning of the front seat, the area of back seat not covered by Kar-Kot will vary from car to car. A folded blanket, etc. can be used to level the uncovered seat area, should it be necessary.

Fig. 2

Instructions for Kar-Kot use:

1. Remove protective coating from metal frame with a dry, clean cloth

2. Position Kar-Kot over seat at shown in fig. 3. Leave 1/2 inch of space between leading edge of frame and back of front seat. Unit should be parallel to floor, with at least one-half of Kar-Kot supported by car seat.

3. Swing leg to standing position and readjust length of leg if necessary.

This unit has been developed for sleeping/resting; do not use for seating.

Note: Remove adjustable leg of Mini/Compact Kar-Kot for folding should height adjustment be too long.

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., Box 925 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-2.22

DATE: 02/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your petition for reconsideration of 49 CFR 575.103 dated January 12, 1973, you enclosed a copy of "International Camper's Manual for Truck-Camper Leading(Illegible Word) and asked whether its data content and format complied with the requirements, and especially @ 575.6.

Section 576.6 allows a document provided with a vehicle to "contain more than one table", but it "must clearly and unconditionally indicate which of the tables applies to the vehicle with which it is provided". Although pages 8 and 9 of the Guide explain how to use the tables, and page 6 refers the owner to the "capacity plate" for the proper weight rating, there appears to be nothing within the booklet itself that indicates which of the 16 tables applies to "the vehicle with which it is provided".

Other issues raised in your petition will be considered in the agency's response which will be published shortly.

Sincerely,

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY

MOTOR TRUCK DIVISION

January 12, 1973

Douglas W. Toms -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration -- 49CFR 575.103, Truck Camper Loading, Docket No. 71-7; Notice 5

Dear Mr. Toms:

International Harvester Company (IH) respectfully files this petition requesting the Administrator to amend the new Consumer Information Regulation as published in the Federal Register p. 26607 on December 14, 1972.

On August 15, 1972 the NHTSA issued a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Truck Camper Loading, with a mandatory effective date of January 1, 1973. On December 14, 1972 the NHTSA by issuance of 575.103 rescinded Standard No. 126 and enacted the new Consumer Information Requirements as a replacement for Standard No. 126.

IH is deeply concerned since it has put forth considerable time, effort and expense in developing and publishing information required to comply with the January 1, 1973 effective date of Standard No. 126. As a means of complying with Standard No. 126, production quantities of a 28-page IH Truck Camper Loading Guide (10 copies enclosed) were recently printed. We believe that this Camper Guide would be quite beneficial and effective in providing information to the consumer to assure proper selection of a compatible slide-in camper unit. In view of above, IH must support and favor the NHTSA's previous position of regulating requirements for truck camper loading information as a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard in preference to a Consumer Information Regulation.

It is apparent that revisions would have to be made to the above mentioned IH Camper Guide in order to comply with 575.103. We will not be able to implement these necessary revisions in time to meet the February 1, 1973 availability deadline as required by Docket No. 71-7, Notice 5. The amount of additional lead time needed by IH is, of course, dependent on the nature of the changes that would have to be made to the attached MVSS 126 Camper Guide to make it compliant with 575.103. Some of the obvious changes include certain references, definitions and effective dates that have been modified by NHTSA in the transition from MVSS 126 to 575.103.

There is one additional area in which some question exists. Heretofore IH has not been required to furnish consumer information under Part 575. We are therefore requesting an official interpretation from the NHTSA that the data content and format as presented in the attached IH Camper Guide - Part No. 1086777-R1 does in fact comply with 49 CFR Part 575. We are particularly concerned about Section 575.6.

As noted earlier IH will not be able to comply with the 3/1/73 effective date of 575.103 due to the time that would be required to revise and republish our Truck Camper Loading Guide. If the changes are of a minimal nature (i.e correction of references, definitions and dates) we will need approximately 60 days beyond the date that NHTSA responds to this Petition. If more extensive revisions are required, we anticipate that a minimum of six months lead time would be needed.

The following points will summarize the basic content of this Petition:

1. IH favors promulgation of subject requirements as Safety Standard No. 126 instead of a Consumer Information Regulation.

2. However, if NHTSA sees fit to implement as a Consumer Information Regulation IH is requesting a favorable interpretation that the basic content and format of the IH Camper Guide that has been developed to meet MVSS 126 would likewise satisfy the statutory requirements of 575.103. Consequently, if only minimal changes are required to the existing IH Camper Guide, the revised information can be made available within 60 days after the NHTSA response to this Petition is received by IH. If more substantive changes are required, it is estimated that approximately six months lead time will be required by IH.

IH would further point out that NHTSA's promulgation of 575.103 has, in fact, violated procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act in that interested parties were not provided opportunity to comment upon providing the subject information under Part 575 Consumer Information prior to final enactment of 575.103. Therefore, should NHTSA decide not to grant any of the alternative modifications requested herein, we request that the subject regulation be reissued as a Notice of Proposed Rule Making as stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act.

D. E. Schmidt -- Assistant Manager of Engineering

ID: nht73-1.22

DATE: 09/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 26 and August 7, 1973, requesting an opinion on the applicability of the emergency exit provisions (S5.3 to S5.5) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217), to buses that are of the same design as "school buses," but which are not manufactured (they are not painted yellow, nor do they have warning devices) nor used as school buses. You ask further that the standard exempt prison buses.

We interpret the exemption for school buses to include buses similarly designed, without regard to their intended use. School bus is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean,

"a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school . . . ."

We are of the opinion that buses which share the same design as buses that clearly fall within the definition of "school bus" are school buses under Standard No. 217, and are therefore exempt from the emergency exit provisions of the standard. No modification of the standard is accordingly called for.

With respect to your request regarding prison buses, we are presently considering similar requests previously received, and plan to respond by notice published in the Federal Register in the near future.

Yours truly,

August 7, 1973

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Vehicles U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Thomas Built Buses, Inc., High Point, North Carolina, a manufacturer of school bus bodies, respectfully petitions the Department of Transportation for a revision in wording of said Standard, particularly section S5.2.3 School Buses. We petition that the wording in this section be changed to read as follows: "The emergency exit requirements do not apply to school buses or buses of like design adapted for use for other than transporting children to and from school, but if such buses contain any pushout windows or other emergency exits, these exits shall conform to S5.3 through S5.5."

We base our petition on the fact that we as a body manufacturer do offer our base product design for other uses such as churches, activity buses for schools used for field trips and other school events, Boy Scouts, YMCA's, Salvation Army Clubs, etc. These units are constructed of the same basic design as what is termed a school bus but may vary as to color and omission of specific school bus safety warning systems. Our conclusion is that as the Standard is presently worded, it is a double Standard in that it states the Standard applies not to school buses but to those same buses if used for other than hauling children to and from school. We feel strongly that the Standard should apply to neither school buses or those of like design used by other groups or the Standard should apply to all buses including school buses. Due to the basic design of the product for school use, we are in agreement with the Standard as proposed but suggest the above additions.

In addition to the above, we respectfully submit to the Department of Transportation that prison buses which are vehicles manufactured to haul prisoners from one point to another, should not be included under this Standard. Prison buses should be exempt along with school buses and the others listed. The basis for this petition on prison buses is due to the fact that the Standard contradicts the specific purpose of a prison bus. In other words, prison buses are security vehicles with a minimum of escape possibility whereby the Standard increases escape possibility.

We would respectfully request your expediting a ruling on this petition since all body manufacturers have buses as described in this petition on order to build after September 1, 1973, and the effective date of said Standard is September 1, 1973. If further information is required by you, please advise us immediately.

Respectfully submitted,

James Tydings Chief Engineer

c.c. Berkley Sweet Executive Secretary School Bus Manufacturers Institute 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D. C. 20015

July 26, 1973

Berkley C. Sweet Truck Body & Equipment Association

Dear Mr. Sweet:

Kindly forward this letter to the Department of Transportation for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation on FMVSS #217 - Bus Window Retention and Release.

We request an interpretation on the definition of "School Bus" as applied to units which we sell to school bus route contractors. Many contractors use their buses for purposes other than just carrying school children. For example, they may carry a Sunday School class to the beach for a weekend. Will the requirement for a minimum number of emergency exits be applicable to a bus used in such a case?

We request that the "designated seating capacity" for a handicapped persons vehicle be taken as the number of wheelchair spaces plus the seated passenger capacity.

Are "School Activity Buses" required to have a minimum number of emergency exits? Such buses are used to carry sports teams to games and classes on field trips. These buses are owned by the schools and used because most states have laws that preclude the use of state owned route buses for such activities.

We request an exemption for buses which are sold to prisons on the basis that we sold less than 100 of them during 1972. We expect to sell approximately 30 such vehicles this year. Also, there is the reason of possible prison escape.

Thanking you in advance for your services, we remain

Very truly yours,

James Tydings Chief Engineer

ID: 19283.ogm

E. Pluribus Law Firm, P.C.
P.O. Box 326
Leland, MI 49654

Re: FMVSS 209

Dear Sir or Madam:

This responds to your letter concerning the test requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Your questions relate to provisions addressing the performance of seat belt buckles under this safety standard. Specifically, you ask several questions about what you describe as the "partial engagement" provisions of Standard No. 209. Your seven questions, and our response to each question are provided below.

l. How does NHTSA define "partial engagement" under FMVSS 209 3.21 & 5.27?

ANSWER: We note that Standard No. 209 does not contain either section you refer to in your question. However, S4.3(g) and S5.2(g) of Standard No. 209, respectively, each use the phrase "partial engagement" in describing the minimum performance criteria and the test procedures for assessing buckle performance. Under S4.3, a seat belt buckle with a metal-to-metal buckle must separate when subjected to a force of not more than 22 newtons 95 pounds) or less when in any position of "partial engagement." The meaning of the phrase "partial engagement" is not defined in Standard No. 209 and has not been previously interpreted by NHTSA insofar as it applies to this particular standard. We believe that "partial engagement" is that position where the male end and the female receptacle of a seat belt assembly is neither fully engaged and latched nor fully disengaged. Therefore, the two components are partially engaged when the male end is inserted into the receptacle but has not been inserted to the point where the latching mechanism has closed.

2. Is "partial engagement" one of the phenomena which NHTSA is concerned about in the language of FMVSS 209 3.5 - "Buckle release mechanism shall be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release"?

ANSWER: No. As used in this Standard, "partial engagement" is not a phenomenon but is a state in which the buckle assembly is placed to test the resistance of the assembly to separation or disengagement when it is not in the fully latched position. The requirement in S4.1(e) that buckle release mechanisms be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release is intended to provide some assurance that buckles will not be inadvertently released once in the latched position.

3. Is it correct that FMVSS 209 3.21 preclude [sic] certification of any buckle which requires more that 5 lbs. to release from any position of partial engagement? Specific reference should be made to the language "a metal buckle shall separate when in any position of partial engagement by a force of not more than 5 pounds (2.3 Kg)" in interpreting this provision.

ANSWER: Again, we note that Standard No. 209 does not contain the section cited in your question. However, the language cited in your question is found in S4.3(g) of the Standard. If this is, in fact, that section that your question refers to, the answer is yes.

4. Assuming no testing of maximum engagement is required under FMVSS 209 5.27 if it is determined that partial engagement is not possible "by means of a technique representative of actual use", how important is it to conduct a fair and adequate test of "representative use?"

ANSWER: In answering this question, we assume that you are referring to S5.2(g) of Standard No. 209. In certifying compliance with a standard, manufacturers must make efforts to ensure that they have exercised due care. If the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer must conduct a recall campaign to remedy the problem. In addition, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with the safety standards.

5. What is a fair and adequate test to determine "whether partial engagement is possible by means of a technique representative of actual use" under FMVSS 209 5.27?

ANSWER: This agency has long stated that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

6. Would the NHTSA interpretations provided above be the same in 1988-91 as they have been provided in response to the request for interpretation herein.

ANSWER: Yes.

7. If the response to request No. 6 is negative, please identify all interpretations which would have been different and the underlying basis for the change in interpretation between 1988-91 and present.

ANSWER: See the answer to item 6 above.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209
d.7/8/2000

ID: 18361.wkm

Mr. Malcolm Prestage
Legislation & Standards Engineer
Hawtal Whiting Engineering Ltd.
Southam Road
Leamington Spa
Warwickshire
CV31 1FQ, England

Dear Mr. Prestage:

Your electronic mail inquiry addressed to Ms. Donna Gilmore of this agency and with the notation "Please forward to Barry Felrice or Administrator for Part 523" was forwarded to this office for reply. You requested clarification of the phrase "static loaded radius arc" found in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 523.2, Definitions.

You also requested clarification of the phrase "and the tire inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure," which is part of the definition of "static loaded radius arc" found in 49 CFR 523.2. You asked whether that language refers to the tire inflation pressures recommended by the vehicle manufacturer rather than by the tire manufacturer. Following a telephone conversation with Messrs. John Finneran, safety assurance engineer, and Walter Myers of my staff on February 5, 1999, you sent a telefax to Mr. Myers stating that the tire pressures that you would use are within the tire manufacturers' load ranges, although slightly higher than the tire manufacturer's minimum pressures relative to the loads imposed. You sent a further telefax to Mr. Myers on February 12, 1999 in which you stated that your objective is to ensure that a 4-wheel drive (4WD) vehicle with off-road capability would qualify under Part 523 to be classified as a light truck for fuel economy purposes. You also cited the example of a 195/80R15 tire for which the customary minimum recommended inflation pressure would be 33.4 pounds per square inch (psi). By increasing the inflation pressure to 40.6 psi, the static loaded radius, and therefore the vehicle's ground clearance, would be increased by at least 7 millimeters. The 40.6 psi inflation pressure would then become the minimum pressure recommended on the tire label for that axle.

The term "static loaded radius arc" is defined in 49 CFR 523.2 as:

[A] portion of a circle whose center is the center of a standard tire-rim combination of an automobile and whose radius is the distance from that center to the level surface on which the automobile is standing, measured with the automobile at curb weight, the wheel parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and the tire inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure.

Although the term "static loaded radius arc" does not appear in Part 523 other than in the definitions section, the radius to which it refers is used to determine vehicle classification for purposes of fuel economy standards.

Note that the definition of "static loaded radius arc" includes the criteria by which the radius is to be determined:

1. Measured from the center of the tire-rim combination to the level surface on which the vehicle stands;
2. With the vehicle at curb weight;
3. With the wheel parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle; and
4. With the tire inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure.

The definition of "curb weight" in Part 523 refers to the definition of "vehicle curb weight" found in 40 CFR 86.082-2, which reads as follows:

Vehicle curb weight means the actual or the manufacturer's estimated weight of the vehicle in operational status with all standard equipment, and weight of fuel at nominal tank capacity, and the weight of optional equipment computed in accordance with 86.082-24; incomplete light-duty trucks shall have the curb weight specified by the manufacturer.

This agency has stated by interpretation that "curb weight" is calculated by adding the weight of the vehicle with all of its standard equipment, including its maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant and the weights of the air conditioner and optional engine, if the vehicle is so equipped. No other optional items of equipment are included, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options, nor are occupants and cargo included in calculating the curb weight.

Paragraph S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 110, Tire selection and rims, applicable to passenger cars, and paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, require vehicle labeling to include the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for the tires, such that the sum of the load ratings of the tires on each axle is appropriate for the vehicle's gross axle weight rating.

It is this agency's interpretation, therefore, that the static loaded radius arc is determined by making the measurement prescribed in Part 523 with the vehicle at curb weight and the tires inflated to the recommended inflation pressure specified on the vehicle's label. However, in no case may the inflation pressure used to determine the static loaded radius arc exceed the maximum rated inflation pressure specified on the tire sidewall.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:523
d.4/21/99