ID: 77-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 23, 1977, letter asking whether three proposed labels satisfy the requirements for label identification found in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120. A review of the labels you supplied indicates that you have used a different format than illustrated in our notice of February 7, 1977 (42 Federal Register 7140). For example, the amended Standard No. 120 does not require the words "with the tires listed below" or even the word "with" before the tire size. The deletion of such superfluous words from the label requirements of Standard No. 120 resulted from comments by manufacturers, particularly motorcycle manufacturers, that unnecessary words needlessly increase the size of the label.

The example of label information shown in S5.3 of the standard is intended only as a guide to manufacturers. A manufacturer can vary the illustrated format somewhat as long as the requirements of S5.3 are satisfied. Since the additional words on your labels do not obfuscate the certification statement, the labels appear to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 and Part 567.

SINCERELY,

U.S. SUZUKI Motor Corporation

February 23, 1977

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

Having reviewed the notice published in a recent issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER covering FMVSS no. 120 we are submitting examples of our proposed certification labels for your inspection. For this purpose please see attachment. We believe that any of these three proposals meet the requirements of 49 CFR ss571.120 S5.3 (label information) as amended.

Since the notice cited above did not address motorcycle certification labels specifically (the notice gave an example for trucks) we felt it is important that we have some clarification on this subject. The effective date, September 1, 1977, is fast approaching. Your response will be greatly appreciated.

Jeffrey L. Link Supervisor, Product Safety Safety and Legislation Department

MFD BY: SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD MFD IN: (Illegible Word)/76 THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE. GVWR 847 LBS WITH THE TIRES LISTED BELOW GAWR/FRONT 315 LBS WITH 3.25H19-4PR TIRES, 19X1.85B RIM AT 18PSI COLD. GAWR/REAR 532 LBS WITH 4.00H18-4PR TIRES, V.I.N. (Illegible Word) 18X2.15B RIM AT 25PSI COLD. GT750-(Illegible Word) MOTORCYCLE MADE IN JAPAN

MFD BY: SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD

MFD IN: (Illegible Word)/76

GVWR 847 LBS WITH THE TIRES LISTED BELOW GAWR/FRONT 315 LBS WITH 3.25H19-4PR TIRES, 19X1.85B RIM AT 18 PSI COLD. GAWR/REAR 532 LBS. WITH 4.00H18-4PR TIRES, 18X2.15B RIM AT 25 PSI COLD. THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE. V.I.N. GT750 (Illegible Word) MOTORCYCLE MADE IN JAPAN

MFD BY: SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD MFD IN: (Illegible Word)/76 GVWR 847 LBS WITH THE TIRES LISTED BELOW GAWR/FRONT 315 LBS WITH 3.25H19-4PR TIRES, 19X1.85B RIM AT 18 PSI COLD. GAWR/REAR 532 LBS WITH 4.00H18-4PR TIRES, 18X2.15B RIM AT 25 PSI COLD. THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE. V.I.N. (Illegible Word) GT750 - (Illegible Word) MOTORCYCLE MADE IN JAPAN

ID: 77-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Collins Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your April 19, 1977, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the definition of school bus.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defined school bus in a notice issued on December 31, 1975 (40 FR 60033) to mean "a bus that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." This definition incorporates by reference the definition of bus (49 CFR Part 571.3) which is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Therefore, by definition a school bus is a vehicle that carries more than 10 persons (e.g., 10 passengers and a driver). This does not preclude smaller vehicles from transporting school children. Vehicles carrying 10 or fewer persons would not have to comply with the school bus construction requirements.

I am enclosing a copy of the notice that established the school bus definition. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact us.

ID: 77-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/77

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

TO: Chief Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We seek your help in the clarification and interpretation of federal certification regulations, with specific emphasis on the assignment of responsibilities to the final manufacturer of trailerized and truck mounted tanks. A number of serious problems are encountered in the fulfillment of the responsibility for certification. For example, after a customer picks up his tank and leaves our premises it is impossible to know exactly what changes in tires and chassis or what product and what quantity of product he may haul in the tank.

Tanks may haul such products as ice cream mix, whey, frozen orange juice, wine, additives and various other products that have considerable variation in density. Recently, a number of our tanks were used for hauling water in place of bulk milk or cream, due to the drought conditions existing in Wisconsin. Therefore, it is our firm conviction that the manufacturer should show on the certification both the gross vehicle and axle weight rating in pounds for the completed vehicle. It would then become the responsibility of the operator of the vehicle to see that the volume of product hauled in relation to density is within the vehicle load carrying limitations. It is certainly within control of the operator to limit the loading of his vehicle, to select replacement tires required to handle the load and to replace the chassis for his tank that meets the load carrying requirements of his vehicle.

So that each vehicle is operated safely and within federal safety regulations, we urge your interpretation of the certification regulations whereby the final manufacturer would certify the ratings of the completed vehicle in the amount of weight specified, as a better and more workable certification procedure.

ID: 77-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1977, letter asking whether the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, extend to contactable surfaces 30 inches forward of the seating reference point of the front passenger seat behind the driver.

The head protection zone requirements are outlined in S5.3.1.1 of the standard. This section requires that the zone extend 30 inches forward of the seating reference point. The fact that the requirement may extend the head protection zone into the driver occupant space and thus involve contactable surfaces does not diminish the applicability of the requirements to contactable surfaces within that space. Contactable surfaces within that 30-inch zone, as shown on your sketch, must meet the requriements of the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Wayne Corporation

April 1, 1977

Frank R. Berndt -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This inquiry is in reference to FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Apart from the 3.00 dimension, do the requirements of sections S5.3.1.2 and S5.3.1.3 apply to surfaces located in "Zone A" shown on the enclosed sketch?

Your prompt attention to this matter and an early reply will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Kurre -- Director of Engineering

Enclosure

[Graphics omitted]

ID: 77-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's February 8, 1977, petition for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" and to add a new definition to 49 CFR Part 571.3 for "special purpose vehicle." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.

Your petition requests an amendment of the term "unloaded vehicle weight" similar to that proposed by Chrysler's December 20, 1976, petition. Both petitions recommend that, for purposes of barrier crash testing of certain vehicles, the unloaded vehicle weight be the lesser of the weight of a completed comparable model vehicle from which the particular vehicle is derived or 5,500 pounds. Further, you request an additional definition of "special purpose vehicle" that would distinguish vehicles designed for a specific work function from other vehicles produced from the same chassis. We have determined that the effect of creating such a vehicle category as special purpose vehicle in conjunction with the establishment of arbitrary weights for vehicles when undergoing compliance testing would, in some situations, undermine the effectiveness of the motor vehicle safety standards. Vehicles falling into the category could, according to your suggested scheme, be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight as equipped.

In the case of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, such a result would possibly violate Congress order in the 1974 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) that the NHTSA not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard.

To allow certain vehicles to be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight, would permit the operation of vehicles which, as equipped, could fail the requirements of the standard.

You should note that the agency intends to proceed with the rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" as recommended in a petition from Chrysler dated November 20, 1976. This amendment will incorporate changes in the definition previously made by the NHTSA through interpretation.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC

February 8, 1977

Petition to Define "Special Purpose Vehicle" and Amend the Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The Truck Body and Equipment Association (TBEA) on behalf of nearly one thousand final and intermediate manufacturers of trucks, truck bodies and allied truck equipment wishes to petition the NHTSA to add the definition of "Special Purpose Vehicles" and to amend the definition "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" to Part 571 -- Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The existing term "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" (U.V.W.) is used in several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to establish the weight (mass) of a vehicle to be barrier crash tested.

In the past, barrier crashes were only specified for passenger cars, but with the (Illegible Word) of FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity, barrier testing was extended to include trucks of up to 10,000 pounds GVWR.

The majority of the vehicles produced by our industry now are subject to the requirements of FMVSS 301 including the requirement to be able to survive a 30 mph head on barrier crash without spillage of a significant amount of fuel.

This crash test alone has necessitated the review and often total redesign of the specialized equipment produced by our industry, i.e. ambulances, dump trucks, farm trucks, utility trucks and tow trucks.

The Truck Body and Equipment Industry does not object to the intent of a fuel system performance standard but we do object to the manner in which any FMVSS requiring crash test is applied to the many final stage manufacturers of multistage manufactured vehicle.

It is apparent that the latest series of FMVSS will be much more complex than those initially issued. Even though truck production will be regulated by these standards it appears that the present definitions are directed to the passenger cars and pickup trucks but not to multistage manufactured vehicles. Our objection to the present test requirements is based on the fact that the NHTSA views both the manufacturer of an automobile and the manufacturer of a tow truck as final stage manufacturers.

By definition a "Final Stage Manufacturer" is "any person who performs such manufacturing on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle".

In the truck manufacturing industry, this procedure is commonly referred to as taking a chassis (an incomplete vehicle) and making it "road ready". The process by which an incomplete vehicle is made "road ready" may vary from mounting a farm (Illegible Words) lights, to modifying a chassis cab into a complex piece of fire fighting equipments.

The network of truck manufacturers is immense, beginning with a handful of chassis manufacturers and extending outwards through thousands of final manufacturers. The most common type of final manufacturer is the truck body and equipment distributor. A distributor takes a chassis cab and installs a body or a piece of equipment on it and certifies that this completed vehicle complies with all existing federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of manufacture. These small businesses (averaging less than 24 employees) are not in a position to do extensive engineering studies on each of their various types of vehicles. In order to comply with the numerous stands relating to their product, they rely heavily on support data from the chassis manufacturers. This component certification insures the distributor that when assembled the completed vehicle will comply with all applicable standards.

The back bone of the completed vehicle is the truck chassis. It is through this component, that the final manufacturer complies with many of the FMVSS. The chassis itself is extremely flexible allowing hundreds of body and equipment combinations to be installed on a single chassis type.

The light duty truck chassis, under 10,000 pounds GVWR, is an off shoot from the mass produced pick-up truck. Less than one in ten light trucks is scheduled for production as a truck chassis or incomplete vehicle. These low production numbers do not justify individual testing of each vocational type of truck produced, thus all available certification data is based on the pick-up truck. This is the point at which the (Illegible Word) "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" impedes our certification program.

The NHTSA defines "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" as:

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

This term therefore results in low test weights based on the light pick-up body weight. As an example, a typical well equipped pick-up chassis with a 10,000 pound GVWR may weigh 4,400 pounds and its body may weigh 500 pounds for a total unloaded vehicle weight of 4,900 pounds. The truck chassis manufacturer would most likely test this vehicle at 5,000 pounds to insure S301 compliance.

Although the pick-up truck in this example is equipped with a vocational body designed to transport a cargo, many of the special purpose vehicles manufactured by our industry are designed to transport a piece of equipment such as an ambulance, a cherry picker, or a wrecker. These special purpose vehicles have a much higher unloaded vehicle weight. An example of one of our special purpose vehicles would be a utility vehicle equipped with a cherry picker or manlift. The same 10,000 pound GVWR chassis used for the pick-up at 4,000 pounds would be completed with an 1,900 pound utility body and a 2,500 pound aerial device for a total UVW of 8,800 pounds.

The higher UW causes a potential problem when considering any type of barrier (Illegible Word) test. When any vehicle is impacted into a stationary barrier, the vehicles entire energy or motion must be disipated through structural deformation, or crash.

The amount of crush realized during a barrier crash is proportional to the vehicles weight (mass) therefore two identical chassis with bodies of different weight, will receive different amounts of crush, the heavier the vehicle the more the crash. With the increase of crush, the chance of (Illegible Word) or separating some parts of the fuel system also increases. At some increases test weight, compliance with the barrier test requirements becomes questionable. This break point falls somewhere between 1.500 and 8.500 pounds for the present generation of pick-up chassis. In other words a chassis loaded to 7.000 pounds and crashed into a wall at 30 mph will most likely pass a 301 test where as a chassis loaded to 9.000 pounds won't.

Again, our objection to the barrier test is not with the intent, but with the procedure. In the real world condition, the pick-up truck loaded with a cargo of 3.900 pounds will react in the same manner as a utility vehicle when subjected to an actual accident.

Several years ago, the chassis manufacturers successfully demonstrated to NHTSA that carrier crashing of pick-up type vehicles at their GVWR's was questionable if not impossible. By the use of the present UVW definition, the NHTSA is requiring the many small final manufacturers within our industry, to assume the responsibility for certifying a completed vehicle to a performance level already questioned by the Agency and the chassis manufacturers.

At present, our only solution to the crash problem is to go to a larger chassis, above the 10.000 GVWR limit. This next step in chassis size may mean an increase of several thousand dollars per vehicle, not including the 10% Federal Excise Tax that then becomes effective.

We are concerned that in order to legally produce a vehicle with the same inherent safety qualities as a loaded pick-up, we are forced to purchase a larger chassis. pay 10% FET on the entire unit and still end up with a pre 301 vehicle. Why should a utility company be forced to purchase a $ 20,000 aerial device when the same piece of equipment could be produced for $ 15,000?

In an effort to alleviate this inequity place on our industry, we request that the Agency barrier test vehicles for standard compliance with weights more closely allied to the basic pick-up trucks.

This change could be accomplished by adopting a new definition for "Special Purpose Vehicles" and adopting Chryslers proposed definition for "Unloaded Vehicle Weight".

Special Purpose Vehicle -- means a motor vehicle of less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, designed to perform a specific work function, manufactured in two or more stages, and whose incomplete vehicle portion is derived from a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Unloaded Vehicle Weight -- means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. For purposes of barrier impact testing special purpose vehicles which are derived from multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, the unloaded vehicle weight shall be either that of the completed comparable model vehicle from which the special purpose vehicle is derived or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less.

The Truck Body and Equipment Industry has always demonstrated concern when considering the design and production of road safe vehicles.

The adoption of this amended definition would allow the many conscientious final manufacturers of trucks and related truck equipment to utilize test data already available through the chassis manufacturer.

It is also our contention that the adoption of this amended definition will pose no diminished level of motor vehicle safety.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: 77-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 29 and December 20, 1976, petitions for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grants your November 29 petition for rulemaking and denies your December 20 petition.

The NHTSA, in a letter of interpretation to the Jeep Corporation, stated that "unloaded vehicle weight" does not include the weight of accessories ordinarily removed when they are not in use. Your November 29 petition for rulemaking suggests that we formally incorporate this interpretation into the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" for purposes of clarity. The agency agrees that this change should be made. Accordingly, we intend to commence rulemaking in response to your petition.

Your December 20, 1976, petition amended your November 29, 1976, petition by suggesting that the agency permit barrier testing of specified vehicles at the lesser of the unloaded vehicle weight or 5,500 pounds. We have determined that this proposal would establish arbitrary weights for vehicles undergoing compliance testing which could result in vehicles being subjected to crash tests in a condition which is not representative of their actual on-road condition. Your suggested change in the definition could thus result in a reduction in the effectiveness of some motor vehicle safety standards. In Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the Congress mandated that the agency not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard. Your proposal, if implemented, could violate that Congressional mandate since vehicles could be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight. Therefore, the recommendations advanced in your December 20 petition are denied to the extent that they differ from those originally proposed in your November 29 petition.

SINCERELY,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

December 20, 1976

Mr. John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Amendment Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 - Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

A number of petitions have been submitted to the NHTSA requesting a delay in the effective date of the amended requirements of MVSS 212 - Windshield Mounting as they apply to light duty multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

Chrysler Corporation supports those requests and urges the Administrator to grant this delay.

We believe, however, that the requested delay in the effective date of Standard 212 is only a part of a much broader issue that must be addressed by the NHTSA with respect to special purpose vehicles. These vehicles usually are completed by independent body builders who may install any one of a number of different types of bodies to meet the needs of the final purchaser, and generally are classified as vehicles manufactured in two or more stages for purposes of the safety regulations. In many cases very specialized bodies are added to produce such vehicles as wreckers, hydraulic aerial ladder trucks, mechanical road service trucks, etc. Most of these bodies, by their very nature, have essentially no load carrying capability. On the other hand, because of their heavy weight, the addition of these bodies will cause the unloaded vehicle weight to be very close to its gross vehicle weight rating. This situation is exemplified by the following comparison of weights for our D300 pickup truck and a D300 chassis-cab with a utility body and hydraulic aerial ladder.

Gross Unloaded Vehicle Chassis Body Vehicle Weight Truck Weight Weight Weight Rating D300 Pickup 4309 lbs. 458 lbs. 4767 lbs. 10,000 D300 Chassis-Cab with Utility Body 4309 lbs. 3481 lbs. 7800 lbs. 10,000 and Hydraulic Aerial Ladder

Standard 212, as well as Standards 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion and 301 - Fuel System Integrity, currently requires the barrier impact testing of completed light duty trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles at essentially their unloaded vehicle weight. Recognizing that the forces generated in a barrier impact test are directly proportional to vehicle weight, it is obvious that the requirements are much more severe for vehicles equipped with heavier specialized bodies than for the standard production base vehicles, even though both types may be operated on the highway at the same overall vehicle weight.

Previous industry responses to notices of proposed rulemaking on MVSS 301, Docket 70-20, discussed in detail the reasons why it would be more reasonable and practical to conduct barrier impact tests on light duty trucks, MPV's, and buses at their unloaded vehicle weight. It was pointed out that while conducting these tests at the GVWR may simulate a very small number of severe accidents, the overall ramifications of such a requirement, when viewed in terms of total highway injury reduction, do not support such a severe test. Even though these vehicles are at times loaded to their maximum capacity, the type of accident circumstances encountered and the frequent unloaded or partially loaded usage of light duty trucks, MPV's, and buses hardly justifies a fully loaded fixed barrier collision test. Moreover, the structural changes required to increase the overall stiffness so that a fully loaded vehicle might comply would tend to make it a "battering ram". We estimate that the overall stiffness of a 10,000 lb. GVWR truck may have to be increased 2.25 times. This may have the effect of subjecting vehicle occupants to higher deceleration loadings, and in fact may increase the risk of injury to occupants in other vehicles involved in vehicle to vehicle collisions. In view of these facts and the possible

adverse effects on highway safety, the NHTSA determined that testing these vehicles at theirunloaded vehicle weight would produce a more reasonable and practical test condition. Because of the way the cited standards are written, however, this rationale is not applied to special purpose vehicles which still must be tested at a weight very close to their GVWR.

Unless this problem is corrected in the various standards cited, the effect in many cases will be to impose a real hardship on the many small body manufacturers who must certify that the vehicles they complete meet all of the applicable safety requirements. The alternative is for the users of these special purpose vehicles to purchase vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs. which are not required to meet these safety provisions, are much more expensive - $ 1,000 to $ 2,000 more, and are less fuel efficient. No useful purpose would be served by forcing users to purchase larger, more expensive vehicles which are not covered by these standards. We believe the NHTSA should recognize the problem created by the standards as written with respect to special purpose light duty vehicles, and should amend the regulation to allow their testing at a more reasonable test weight approximately equal to their pickup truck, van, or other vehicle counterpart.

One way to accomplish the above would be to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" by establishing a maximum unloaded vehicle weight for purposes of conducting barrier impact tests on special purpose vehicles which are derived from trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. This approach would allow vehicles equipped with specialized bodies to be tested at the same weight used for testing the high volume pickup trucks and vans from which these vehicles are derived. Most special purpose vehicles will have a base vehicle counterpart and will fall under this category. For those few which may not, we recommend that an upper limit of 5,500 lbs. be established. In our opinion this is a reasonable alternative limit since practically all light duty production completed trucks and vans have an "unloaded vehicle weight" of less than 5,500 lbs. On this basis Chrysler Corporation petitions the Administrator to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" to that show below. We also have included the change in the definition which we requested in our petition for amendment dated November 29, 1976, copy attached.

"Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. For purposes of barrier impact testing special purpose vehicles which are derived from multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less, the unloaded vehicle weight shall be either that of the completed comparable model vehicle from which the special purpose vehicle is derived or 5,500 lbs., whichever is less.

In our opinion the adoption of this definition is in the public interest and would not depreciate motor vehicle safety.

S. L. TERRY Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

November 29, 1976

John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Amendment Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Chrysler Corporation recently became aware of the NHTSA's July 16, 1976 response to Jeep Corporation's petition requesting that MVSS 301 - Fuel System Integrity be amended to allow the removal of all types of work-performing accessories prior to conducting the required impact tests. The response denied Jeep's petitions, but at the same time provided an interpretation permitting the removal of certain work-performing accessories. This interpretation is of significant concern to us.

For several years we have been marketing a light duty, four-wheel drive truck equipped with a factory-installed snow plow. The continued production of this vehicle after September 1, 1976 necessitates that it comply with the applicable requirements of MVSS 301. Our certification test program for this model vehicle was based on several previous NHTSA interpretations on the testing of vehicles equipped with optional work performing accessories. On February 9, 1976 the NHTSA responded to an earlier Jeep Corporation petition regarding work-performing equipment by stating, "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" (underlined for emphasis). Similar responses provided to General Motors on March 1, 1976 and to Chrysler Corporation on August 27, 1976 also clearly indicated that vehicles must be capable of meeting the requirements of MVSS 301 when equipped with whatever optional equipment is installed on the vehicle at the time of sale. Accordingly, our compliance tests were conducted on this model vehicle with the snow plow blade installed.

Now, however, the NHTSA has provided a new and substantially different interpretation of these same requirements by stating to Jeep Corporation:

"The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the 'weight of a vehicle'. Consequently, accessories in this latter group [snow plow, spreaders, and tow bars] would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75."

Under this new interpretation vehicles equipped with snow plows would be tested with the blade removed rather than with it installed as required by the NHTSA's previous interpretation. This is a substantive change in the requirements which could materially affect compliance with MVSS 301.

Rather than making this substantive change by interpretation, we believe the new provisions should be incorporated in the basic regulations. Specifically, we request that the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" be amended so that the interpretation is clearly recognized as part of MVSS 301 as well as any other standards that involve testing at unloaded vehicle weight. To accomplish this we recommend that consideration be given to adopting the following new definition for "unloaded vehicle weight": "Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use.

S. L. TERRY Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs

ID: 77-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Caron Service Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1977, letter asking where you can obtain vehicle certification forms and a permit to undertake modifications of trucks to lengthen and shorten their frames.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates regulations pertaining to vehicle safety. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to comply with the requirements of the agency. The NHTSA does not license manufacturers or alterers. Accordingly, you need not obtain a Federal permit to alter trucks in the manner you propose. Similarly, the NHTSA does not supply forms for vehicle certification. You may have these forms printed in the form provided by Part 567, Certification, of our regulations (copy enclosed).

The type of manufacturing operation you describe would place upon you responsibility, as an alterer of the vehicle prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale, to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards after your modifications. Under Part 567 of our regulations, you must attach a label to the vehicle that states that, as altered, the vehicle continues to conform to the standards.

I am enclosing an information sheet detailing where to obtain motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

SINCERELY,

VEHICLE CERTIFICATION

COMPLETED VEHICLE MANUFACTURED BY:

DATE OF COMPLETION: INCOMPLETE VEHICLE MANUFACTURED BY:

DATE INC. VEHICLE MFG GROSS VEH. WEIGHT RATING GROSS AXLE WEIGHT RATING

THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS IN EFFECT IN

VEHICLE ID NUMBER: TYPE VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION: ( ) TRUCK ( ) BUS ( ) MPV

ID: 77-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Video Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 15, 1977, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, as it relates to a device you wish to market called "Remote Auto-Start."

Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, requires that when the key is removed, normal activation of the car's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility of the car is prevented (49 CFR 571.114, S4.1(a) and (b)). According to the material which you forwarded, your device results in the following characteristics which differ from what we consider to be normal activation:

1. The engine deactivates when a door is opened.

2. The steering column and gear shift remains locked until the actual key is inserted.

3. The logic circuitry deactivates the engine after 15 minutes.

Consequently, we have determined that your device does not result in a "normal" activation of the car's engine.

Thus, it appears that the characteristics of the "Remote Auto-Start" system are not in conflict with Standard No. 114.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VIDEO RESEARCH CORPORATION

March 15, 1977

Frank Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Last week I had the opportunity of talking to Mr. Tilton in regards to interpretating a law which covers various states, as well as federal, concerning cars left unattended with the motors running.

Sometime back, the American Medical Association contacted me in regards to heart patients that have to use a motor vehicle in extremely hot or cold weather. Since it is a stress on the heart when temperatures vary greatly, they felt if possible we could make an item that would heat or cool the vehicle for 15 to 20 minutes before entering same.

We came up with a tentative item called Remote Auto-Start. By reading the enclosed sheets covering this item which was written by our Director of Engineering, you will note that at no time can the vehicle be operated without the ignition key.

We would appreciate it, after you read the enclosed specifications, if you would let us know whether any federal or state laws will affect us.

Looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible so we can continue with this particular product.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely yours, Martin Fleischman -- Chairman

[Enclosure Omitted]

ID: 77-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lansdale; Carr & Baum

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 25, 1977, letter asking whether your proposed tire registration card to be used by your retail tire stores meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approvals of compliance with agency standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give an informal opinion as to whether your registration card appears to satisfy the requirements of the regulation.

The proposed card that you submitted is similar to the example presented in Figure 3 of Part 574. Accordingly, it appears to comply with most of the requirements of that regulation. The actual seller of the tires, however, is not identified on the form. Since Part 574.7 requires that the tire seller be identifiable to the tire manufacturer, the form should disclose that information. Naming only the corporate office is insufficient, since that does not readily identify the store through which the tire was sold. The NHTSA suggests that the actual seller's name and address be provided on the card as shown on Figure 3.

It is our understanding that the tire seller will forward the cards to you who will then forward the information to the manufacturer. This process is acceptable to the NHTSA as long as the information is forwarded to the manufacturer within the time frame specified in Part 574.8.

SINCERELY,

Landsale, Carr & Baum advertising, marketing & management

March 25, 1977

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs US Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Adminstration

We wish to submit the enclosed design for your approval to be used as a universal DOT identification card throughout our chain of retail tire stores.

This card was designed to conform to the requirements of Section 574.8 of the department's directive on universal formats, dated May 22, 1971.

We would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible so that we can proceed with this project.

Paul Ideker

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Text)

FIG 3. UNIVERSAL FORMAT

@ 574.8 Information requirements -- tire distributors and dealers.

(a) Each distributor and each dealer selling tires to tire purchasers shall submit the information specified in @ 571.7 (a) to the manufacturer of the tires sold, or to the manufacturer's designee.

(b) Each tire distributor and each dealer selling tires to tire purchasers shall forward the information specified in #571.7(a) to the tire manufacturer, or person maintaining the information, not less often than every 20 days. However, a distributor or dealer who sells less than 10 tires, of all makes, types and sizes during a 30 day period may wait until he sells a total of 10 tires, but in the event longer than 6 months before forwarding the tire information to the respective tire manufactures or their designee.

(c) Each distributor and each dealer selling tires to other tire distributors and dealers shall supply to the tire distributor or dealer to whom he sells tires a (Illegible Words) the information specifical in @ 571.7(a), unless such a means has been provided to that distributor or dealer by (Illegible Word) person or by a manufacturer.

(d) Each distributor and each dealer shall immediately stop selling any group of tires when so directed by a notification issued pursuant to Section 113 of the Act (13 U.S.C. 1102).

@ 574.9 Requirements for motor vehicle dealers.

(a) Each motor vehicle dealer who sells a used motor vehicle for purposes other than resale, or who leases a motor vehicle for more than (Illegible Word) days, that is equipped with new tires or newly retreated tires (Illegible Word) for purposes of this

ID: 77-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John W. Kourik

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, incorporates by reference the SAE Recommended Practice J941 as of November 1965 or as amended through February 1975.

As you note in your letter, Part 571.5 (49 CFR 571.5) of our regulations establishes guidelines for materials incorporated by reference. That section states that materials which are subject to change, such as the SAE Recommended Practice you mention, are incorporated by reference as they are in effect on the date of adoption of the standard unless otherwise specified. Standard No. 107 refers specifically to the 1965 version of the SAE Recommended Practice. Subsequent amendments of that document by the SAE Technical Committee have no effect upon the Federal standard.

Thank you for your offer of assistance in amending Standard No. 107 to reflect more recent changes in the SAE Recommended Practice. We will keep your offer in mind should we determine that a change in the standard is warranted.

SINCERELY,

April 4, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Roper Tilden

We discovered a typographical mistake on the second line of the original March 24, 1977 letter mailed to the Office of the Chief Counsel and would appreciate your substituting this attached copy for the original if it doesn't create any delay in processing the request for interpretation.

John W. Kourik

March 24, 1977

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I would appreciate a statement of interpretation concerning the use of SAE Recommended Practice J941, November 1965 in S571.107 Standard No. 107; Reflecting Surfaces.

Standard No. 107 was promulgated on February 3, 1967 [32 FR 2411] and in accordance with "S571.5 material incorporated by reference" the November 1965 J941 material was designated therin. Since that time the basic SAE 1941 document has been revised as follows: J941a August 1967 J941b February 1969 J941b June 1972 J941d February 1975

In the current Title 49 - Transportation Code of Federal Regulations, Standard No. 107 still identifies the reference as SAE J941, November 1965.

Is it a correct interpretation that the NHTSA is referencing only J941 November 1965 and does not intend J941a or any subsequent revisions to be applicable unless the Standard No. 107 reference is changed by appropriate rulemaking action and final publication of a notice in the Federal Register?

If there is an interest in exploring the rationale for the four (4) revisions to SAE J941, I would be glad to establish a contact with the appropriate SAE Technical Committee.

John W. Kourik