ID: 77-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/77

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

TO: American Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 10, 1977, concerning a vehicle manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.

You make reference to a November 10, 1976, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.

The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.

The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it comes to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.

In your particular case, your responsibility for any subsequent overloading of the vehicles you manufacture would be determined by the reasonableness of your GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of your vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. In the case of flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) a manufacturer would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings specified appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads the manufacturer anticipates will be carried, its responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to it.

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

June 10, 1977

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

We have received a copy of your legal interpretation to Mr. Jackson Decker of E. D. Etnyre & Company (copy attached) in regards to GAWR rating and overloading of the same. Excerpts from your interpretation which is of concern to us is:

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

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

Since we are a manufacturer on several different types of General Purpose vehicles, i.e. Dry Freight Vans, Insulated Vans, Grain Vans, and etc. which can haul a vary of array products, we would like some suggestions on how to eliminate GAWR and GVWR overloading. Obviously, we cannot control what type of commodities or density of commodities that can be "stuffed into a box." Your reasoning on a specific vehicle designed to haul a specific density load is understood, but to insist on a general purpose vehicle manufacturer to control overloading "short of refraining from production" is unreasonable.

Can the auto manufacturers control how many people you haul in your automobile or how much sand you haul in your pickup bed?

Your prompt answer on any suggestions would be appreciated.

Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering

ID: 77-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. K. Hofferberth for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volkswagen's March 9, 1977, petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

Procedures for processing petitions for reconsideration are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 553. Part 553.35(c) states that "[the] Administrator does not consider repetitious petitions." Your March 9 petition raises two issues that were also discussed in your February 20, 1976, petition for reconsideration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) carefully considered those issues in our February 7, 1977 (42 FR 7140) response to petitions for reconsideration. Since the agency has considered these issues previously, the NHTSA declines to consider them again as you suggest.

SINCERELY,

Volkswagon of America, Inc.

March 9, 1977

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Docket 71-19, Notice 06; Docket 75-32, Notice 02 -- Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, FMVSS 120, Petition for Reconsideration

We respectfully submit enclosed the petition of Volkswagen-werk Aktiengesellschaft and Audi NSU Auto Union AG with respect to "Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars," as called for by the above docket.

Joseph W. Kennebeck Manager, Emissions, Safety and Development

VOLKSWAGEN PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, FMVSS 120, DOCKET 71-19, NOTICE 06; DOCKET 75-32, NOTICE 02

In our Petition for Reconsideration of February 20, 1976, Volkswagen requested, among other things, that the Administration reconsider those parts of FMVSS 120 that required rims be marked:

1. With the letter "D" for DIN, and, 2. With a rim size designation having the diameter preceding the width.

Docket 71-19, Notice 06; Docket 75-32, Notice 02 (42FR7140) denied our requests for amendment.

In the following, we present new facts and ask that the administration reconsider its decision not to amend the standard.

Specifically, we request that S 5.2 be amended so that the full letter abbreviation of the source organization be required to designate the organization, and that in the rim size designation, the width be required to proceed the diameter.

Attachment "A" shows a wheel we marked to comply with German law and our suggested changes to S 5.2 of FMVSS 120. As can be seen there is extremely little flat space on the disc to accept additional markings. Marking the other side of the wheel would require new tooling, and might interfere with the wheel/drum interface. In our previous petition, we explained the reasons for not being able to mark the rims.

In spite of the fact that ISO is considering a standard that would recommend specifying rims by diameter x width, which may or may not become part of the final standard, the DIN still specifies that one-piece, single-manufacturer wheels have their discs marked with the rim size and type, with the width preceding the diameter, (Ref. attachment 4 of our petition of February 20, 1976). This is in addition to the other DIN information.

In its response to Volkswagen's petition of February 20, the NHTSA stated, "This order of information is being considered as the uniform practice to be adopted by the International Standards Organization. For reason of uniformity, the requests are denied." According to our information, the draft proposal submitted by the U.S. delegation to ISO has not been voted upon, and there are other proposals from European delegates which would specify the designation order as width x diameter. This uniformity argument, then, does not apply.

In its denial of permission to use the letters "DIN" to designate the source organization, the Administration stated that ". . . they are undesirable in the interests of maintaining uniformity and comprehension." We submit that the addition of a new letter, e.g., "D", would upset the current uniformity achieved by accepted practice of using the letters "DIN," and interfere with comprehension since the "DIN" letters are well known in automotive circles around the world, while the letter "D" would not be understood, and, in fact, might be confused with load ratings. We note that under Notice 2, which proposed the use of "a designation to indicate the source of the published dimensions to which the rim conforms . . .," the "DIN" letters would have been acceptable. If the full letters of the abbreviation for the source organization were now required by the NHTSA, a greater uniformity would be achieved.

We suggest that it is contrary to logic for a standard to require that the acronym for an organization recognized by that standard be abbreviated when that acronym is already in use on subject equipment.

Regarding the rim designation, in 41FR3478, it is stated, "The tires must be fitted to rims which have been designated by the tire manufacturer, in accordance with S 4.4 of Standard No. 109 or S 5.1 of Standard No. 119, as suitable for use with those tires. The designations are made by listing the tire-rim matching information in one of seven industry-maintained publications . . ." In the case of the DIN maintained publications, the rim size is designated width x diameter. Further, S 5.1.1, states, ". . . each vehicle . . . shall be equipped . . . with rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires . . ." In the case of German tire manufacturers, the subject listing will be width x diameter.

We ask for your answer to this petition for reconsideration as early as possible because production lead time in wheel manufacturing is such that if retooling is required, it must be started no later than April 1 in order to comply with this standard's deadline of September 1, 1977.

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/77

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

TO: Timpte Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking whether your tire information label complies with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Part 567, Certification. Further, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expedite treatment of Docket No. 73-31; Notice 1, which, if implemented would simplify the certification and information labels.

Concerning Docket 73-31, the NHTSA published on June 20, 1977, a notice (42 FR 31161) implementing Notice 1 which proposed the use of the designation "all axles" rather than listing each axle individually on the certification label. The implementation of this regulation should resolve many of your problems.

Regarding the sample information label you submitted with your letter, the NHTSA does not give advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety regulations or standards. We will, however, give an informal opinion of whether your label appears to comply with the requirements. The label you submitted does not appear to comply with the requirements of Part 567 or Standard No. 120. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations for your information.

Your certification label should use the designation "all axles" not "each axle." The tire and rim information should follow that designation stated in the form presented in the examples in Standard No. 120 and Part 567.

SINCERELY,

TIMPTE, INC.

MAY 6, 1977

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

ATTENTION: JOAN CLAYBROOK, ADMINISTRATOR

WE ARE A MANUFACTURER OF SEMI-TRAILERS, BASICALLY REFRIGERATED VAN TYPE TRAILERS AS WELL AS GRAIN HAULING TRAILERS OF SEVERAL TYPES. THESE ARE HIGHWAY OPERATED UNITS AND ARE NON-EXEMPT FROM ANY FEDERAL STANDARDS INCLUDING 121. THE 60 M.P.H. RATING IS STANDARD ON ALL OF THEM AND IN THIS CONTEXT, WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT OUR PROBLEM AND ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING ACTION AS WELL AS ADVISING OF YOUR CONCURRENCE OR NOT WITH OUR INTERPRETATION OF PART 567, AS WELL AS STANDARD 120. AS YOU KNOW, IT IS NECESSARY THAT WE AS MANUFACTURERS, CHANGE OUR CERTIFICATION PLATES AND TIME IS NOW OF THE ESSENCE OF OBTAINING DELIVERY SO THAT IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE, IT BECOMES NECESSARY FOR US TO ACT RATHER QUICKLY.

PERTINENT TO THIS IS THE FACT THAT DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1 CLOSED COMMENT ON JANUARY 7, 1974 AND NO RESPONSE FROM NHTSA HAS BEEN FORTHCOMING, IN SPITE OF WHAT WAS APPARENTLY FAVORABLE POSITIVE COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULE-MAKING. THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO PART 567.4 AND 567.5 WOULD GREATLY SIMPLIFY THE LABEL ITSELF AND YET NOT DETRACT FROM THE INFORMATION THEREON. SINCE NEARLY ALL OF THE HIGHWAY TYPE SEMI-TRAILERS MANUFACTURED HAVE IDENTICAL AXLES AND TIRES AND HENCE, GAWR RATINGS, IT SEEMS ONLY APPROPRIATE THAT A SINGLE GAWR RATING BE ALLOWED INDICATING THAT THAT IS FOR EACH AXLE OR ALL AXLES ON THE TRAILER. COMPARE THIS TO THE NECESSITY OF HAVING TO LIST FRONT, INTERMEDIATE, AND REAR AXLE GAWRS INDIVIDUALLY WHEN, IN FACT, NEARLY 100% OF THE TIME THEY ARE THE SAME. ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENCE, THEN GAWR FOR THE DIFFERENT RATED AXLES WOULD BE REQUIRED. FURTHER, THIS NEED NOT MODIFY THE CONTEXT OF STANDARD 120 SINCE IN S5.3 (A) THE REFERENCE IS TO CERTIFICATION LABEL AS REQUIRED BY PART 567.4 OR 567.5.

ACCORDING TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF 120 AND WITH THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED IN DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1, OUR CERTIFICATION PLATE WOULD COMPLY AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED DRAWING 044-027A. S5.3.1 AND S5.3.2 CLEARLY ALLOW TIRE AND RIM DESIGNATIONS NOT NECESSARILY THOSE ON THE VEHICLE, BUT SUBSTANTIVE OF THE GAWR SHOWN. S5.1.2 IS COMPLIED WITH IN THAT 10:00X20F, RIMS 7.5 AT 75 P.S.I. COLD DUAL, IS THE MINIMUM TIRE THAT WILL GIVE THE GAWR OF 19,000 LBS. WHICH AGAIN IS THE MOST COMMON ONE IN USE TODAY DUE TO OTHER LIMITING FACTORS OF THE SUSPENSION, AXLE, WHEEL AND BRAKE SYSTEMS. OF COURSE, THE NEXT TO THE LAST SENTENCE WOULD BE COMPLIED WITH AND DOES ALLOW FOR TIRES FITTED TO THE AXLE NOT APPEARING ON THE CERTIFICATION LABEL. IN ALL CASES, THESE TIRES WOULD BE IN EXCESSIVE RATINGS OF THOSE WE WOULD HAVE PRINTED ON THE LABEL. FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, MANY OF OUR TRAILERS BEING SOLD THROUGH DISTRIBUTORS AND/OR DEALERS ARE EQUIPPED WITH TIRES OF A CERTAIN SIZE LEAVING OUR PLANT; HOWEVER AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WHEN HE DISTRIBUTOR OR DEALER IS SELLING THESE TRAILERS FROM STOCK, THEY MAY BE EQUIPPED WITH A DIFFERENT SIZE TIRE, YET ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THE GAWR.

THERE ARE TWO MORE POINTS IN REGARD TO THAT CERTIFICATION TAG AND ONE OF THEM IS POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF THE ABBREVIATION OF THE WORD MINIMUM PRECEEDING TIRES. WHILE IT IS FACTUAL, IT IS NOT INDICATED IN THE STANDARD. THAT CAN EASILY BE ELIMINATED IF IT WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STANDARD. THE OTHER ITEM THAT WE FEEL MIGHT BE DESIRABLE TO DO IS HAVE IN PLACE OF THE BLANK IN WHICH WE MUST STAMP NUMBERS OPPOSITE GAWR EACH AXLE, TO HAVE THAT PRINTED IN AT THE TIME OF THE MANUFACTURE OF THE LABEL IN THE SAME MANNER THAT WE WOULD THE TIRES AS SHOWN PRINTED IN. THE NUMBER WOULD BE 19,000 LBS. AS MENTIONED, THIS IS THE NEAR UNIVERSAL STANDARD RATING ON AXLES IN REGARDS TO VARIOUS OTHER LIMITING STANDARDS. THIS OF COURSE, LEAVES A MINIMUM OF ITEMS TO BE STAMPED IN ON THE PLATE AND STILL GIVES THE TOTAL INFORMATION REQUIRED. BUT FOR ANY POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS THAT MIGHT OCCUR, WE WOULD PROPOSE USING A PLATE SIMILAR TO 044-027, THEREIN WE WOULD BE STAMPING ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND WE WOULD SUSPECT THAT THIS WOULD ONLY BE USED POSSIBLY 5% OF THE TIME.

I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE ONCE AGAIN THE URGENCY FROM A STANDPOINT OF TIME AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ORDERING, MANUFACTURING AND DELIVERY OF THE CERTIFICATION PLATES TO US. EXPEDITED FAVORABLE ACTION ON DOCKET #73-31; NOTICE #1 WILL GREATLY CLARIFY THINGS FOR OUR ENTIRE INDUSTRY AND WHILE IN THE INTERPRETATION AREA, WE ARE SPEAKING OF OUR OWN PLATE, THIS TOO, WOULD BE CLARIFIED BY AN OPINION FROM YOUR OFFICE. THANK YOU.

JACK GROMER VICE PRESIDENT - TECHNICAL OPERATIONS

CC: TTMA

ID: 77-3.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1977

FROM: Joseph J. Levin, Jr. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Thomason -- State Purchasing Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to E. Kultgen (A36; VSA 108(b)(1); VSA 102(14); Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from E. Kultgen from S.P. Wood (OCC 4843); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to M.V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 3-27-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to B. Nanninga (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 8-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J.L. O'Connell (VSA 102(14))

TEXT:

Pursuant to your telephone conversation of June 9, 1977, with Roger Tilton of my staff, I am enclosing a copy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) interpretation that buses transporting people to and from college need not comply with the requirements of the new school bus safety standards.

You also asked whether buses used to transport people to and from vocational school would need to comply with the school bus safety standards. The applicability of the standards to vehicles purchased by an institution depends upon the nature of the particular institution. The school bus safety standards apply to vehicles purchased by "primary, preprimary and secondary schools." Since the vocational school you describe involves the training of adults and other post-high school students, it would not fall within the categories of primary, preprimary or secondary schools. Accordingly, buses used by that school would not need to comply with the school bus safety standards. However, vocational schools connected with secondary schools would fall within the ambit of the standards.

ID: 77-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Brock Adams; NHTSA

TO: Hon. R. J. Lagomarsino - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 16, 1977, letter enclosing correspondence from Mr. (Illegible Word) Smith concerning the safety of radial tires.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the Department of Transportation, promulgates safety standards requiring that tires meet minimum levels of strength and endurance. Should a tire not meet the performance levels prescribed in the tire standards, its manufacturer would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. (Illegible Word) 89-563) and subject to the penalties specified thereunder.

The NHTSA has not concluded that radial tires produced in the United States are less safe than those produced elsewhere. All tires, sold in the United States, both domestically and foreign-manufactured, must comply with (Illegible Word) safety standards.

The problem to which your constituent refers, the so-called "phoney steel belted radial," concerns steel belted radial ply tires that use only a single steel belt in their construction. As cited above, our standards specify performance and not design requirements. Thus, tire manufacturers may use whatever materials they choose in constructing tires that meet the prescribed performance level. Within our standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, we require the tire manufacturer to identify the generic name of the material used in the ply cords, and we require that the actual number of plies in the tread area be specified. Therefore, when a consumer purchases a new passenger car tire, he can identify whether the steel belted radial ply tire has one or two steel belts.

Since your constituent describes a situation of misleading advertising, I believe his letter should also be reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission. I suggest that you contact that agency for an opinion on the issue.

ID: 77-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

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

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1977, petitioning for temporary exemption, on behalf of an electric truck, from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 102 and 301.

Your petition is inadequate for consideration at this time. A manufacturer may apply for temporary exemption upon only one basis, while AM General's petition is an attempt to apply both on grounds of hardship (49 CFR 555.6(a)) and of low-emissions vehicle development (555.6(c)). On either basis the petition lacks the full complement of information required by Part 555.

In view of the fact that AM General has previously received an exemption (NHTSA Exemption No. 74-4) under 555.6(c) I suggest that you reapply on that basis, using the company's previous petition as a guide. Your present petition is inadequate under 555.6(c) because it does not provide "reasons why the failure to meet the standard does not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle" (555.6(c) (2) (iv)). It also does not supply the results of tests conducted on conforming vehicles to substantiate certification to Standards Nos. 102 and 301-75 (555.6(c) (2) (ii)); you have morely stated that AM General manufactures vehicles that meet these standards.

Under our general requirements for petitions, AM General must also provide its views why the granting of the petition would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (555.5(b) (7)).

We shall be pleased to consider your petition further when you have furnished the information requested.

ID: 77-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

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

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

May 25, 1977

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering

American trailers, inc. OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

ID: 77-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

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

TO: Busby and Rehm

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 21, 1977, requesting our office to advise the U. S. Customs Service that a new "camper" vehicle manufactured by Subaru would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in contradiction of a previous letter from the NHTSA to Customs.

As noted by Mr. Armstrong of this agency in his letter of January 17, 1977, to the Customs Service, the NHTSA does not assign or approve in advance a classification for a particular vehicle design. Any ultimate agency determination as to vehicle classification would generally arise only in the context of compliance or enforcement proceedings. The NHTSA does issue advance opinions concerning vehicle classification when requested to do so by vehicle manufacturers. These opinions are necessarily qualified, however, by statements that the opinion is based solely on the description of the vehicle as supplied by the person making the request. Our opinion as to classification is, of course, dependent on the manner in which the vehicle is described.

As defined in 49 CFR 571.3, a "truck" is a motor vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Section 571.3 as a vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less which is contructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. The Subaru "camper" is constructed on a truck chassis and has special features for off-road use (4-wheel drive), which would qualify it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Therefore, the determinative question is whether the Subaru vehicle is designed primarily for carrying property, in which case it would be classified a truck.

In spite of the Subaru vehicle's resemblance to a pick-up truck or Ranchero, there is a basic distinction in design. In the case of a pick-up or Ranchero truck there is a separate vehicle area that is clearly designed for cargo-carrying alone. In the case of the Subaru vehicle, however, the manufacturer has placed seats for two people in the area that would ordinarily be used for carrying property. Since the manufacturer has chosen to use that area for the purpose of carrying passengers, it cannot be said that the vehicle is designed primarily for carrying property.

Based on this rationale, the NHTSA concludes that the Subaru "camper" qualifies as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle," and that the preliminary opinion of the Office of Standards Enforcement was inaccurate. I would point out, however, that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles are equally as stringent as the standards applicable to trucks, if not more so.

SINCERELY,

BUSBY AND REHM

June 21, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

On behalf of our client, Subaru of America, Inc. (Subaru). we hereby request that you send a letter to the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) correcting advice that the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) gave Customs in light of incomplete and indeed misleading information furnished to NHTSA.

In the next few months, Subaru intends to import a new vehicle -- to be known as a camper -- that is a modification of its station wagon and has an open area in the rear with two permanent seats facing backwards. It is intended primarily to move people, rather than cargo, and will be used both on and off highway by hunters, fishermen, campers, and the like. In its letters to Customs dated March 19 and June 1, 1976, Subaru provided a full description of the design and operation of the vehicle, and copies of these letters are enclosed for your information. Also enclosed is a photograph of the rear area showing the permanent seats.

On October 1, 1976, Customs issued a formal ruling concluding that the Subaru camper is not a truck. A copy of this ruling is also enclosed. Recently, the District Director of Customs in Houston, Texas, has requested reconsideration of this ruling taking the position that the vehicle is a truck. In support of his position, he submitted his letter of December 15, 1976, to Mr. Robert Aubuchon of NHTSA and a letter of January 17, 1977, from Mr. Francis Armstrong of NHTSA, the letter stating that "we concur with your opinion that the vehicle is classifiable as a truck." Copies of these two letters are also enclosed.

We believe, first, that NHTSA was misled by the District Director's letter of December 15, 1976, and, second, that a review of all the encloures will make it clear that the Subaru camper is, under NHTSA's own definitions, not a truck, but rather a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

As to our first point, we would emphasize two portions of the District Director's letter, in particular. In the first place, he refers to "lightweight trucks, such as the type shown in the enclosed photograph [that is, the Subaru camper]." But the District Director fails to state that this vehicle had already been formally determined by Customs not to be a truck. In the second place, the letter states that Customs "has been informed by the manufacturer that the '. . . design or appearance of the . . . vehicle is that of the El Canino and Ranchero, domestically produced vehicles, but smaller.'" The El Camino and Ranchero are admittedly considered pickup trucks. But Subaru never made the statement attributed to it, as a review of its letters of March 19 and June 1, 1976, will reveal. More importantly, the statement was made in Customs' ruling, and it was in spite of its appearance that the vehicle was determined not to be a truck.

As to our second point, the following two definitions included in section 571.3(b) of NHTSA's regulations are pertinent:

"'Multipurpose passenger vehicle' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

"'Truck' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The Subaru camper is not a truck, since it is designed primarily for the transportation of people, not property or special purpose equipment. This was the critical conclusion of the last paragraph of Customs' ruling. That conclusion is wholly consistent with the design, intended use, and designation of the Subaru camper. It is designed as a modified station wagon with the rear seat facing backward rather than forward, and in the open rather than enclosed. It is intended to be used to carry persons and only a limited amount of equipment -- not exceeding 250 pounds with all four seats occupied. It will be designated and advertised as a passenger vehicle, with a special warning against using it as a pickup truck.

The Subaru camper clearly satisfies the definition of a multipurpose passenger vehicle. It is a vehicle designed to carry four persons, and it is constructed with special features for occasional off-road operation. These features include four-wheel drive and the open rear area.

The views of NHTSA will have a decided bearing on the decision of Customs whether to confirm its ruling of October 1, 1976. We believe that you will agree that NHTSA was not given a full and fair statement of the facts before Mr. Armstrong signed the letter dated January 17, 1977. We therefore respectfully request that you send a letter to Mr. Salvatore E. Caramagno, the signer of Customs' ruling, advising him that, based upon a review of the entire record, the Subaru camper is a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Such a letter would ensure both a sound and a fair disposition of the District Director's request for reconsideration.

John B. Rehm

cc: TAYLOR VINSON

ID: 77-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/15/77

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

TO: Algus Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 27, 1977, letter asking whether tires that you export for use on agricultural vehicles are required by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to be labeled with the letters DOT.

The answer to your question is no, unless the tires can also be used on vehicles other than agricultural vehicles. If the tires can be so used, they must be marked with the DOT symbol and meet any Federal requirements applicable to them.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Algus Enterprises, Inc.

June 27, 1977

J. J. Levin -- Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Your name was kindly refered to us by Mr. Casanova, in the Tire Division of the Department of Transportation, because we are in need of your assistance.

Our firm specializes in the exportation of tires. Our major market at this time is Venezuela, and we have a small problem there.

A short time back we made a shipment of Agricultural tires to one of our clients. He contacted us this morning informing us that his shipment has not allowed in the country by the government agency "COVENIN" which is responsable for verification of quality on imports to Venezuela.

The reason they objected was that the Agricultural tires did not have the letters D.O.T. on the actual tires. They do have the serial number and brand.

We informed him that Agricultural tires in the U.S. are not required to have the (D.O.T.) on them, only the registration number and tire brand are normal nomenclature on Agricultural tires.

He then informed us that the Venezuela government required a letter from the Department of Transportation confirming and explaining that Agricultural tires are not required to show the (D.O.T.) on the tire.

We respectfully request that you please send us a letter with the information they require, so that we may forward it to them.

It will supply the Venezuelan Government with proper information so that they may conduct their business properly.

In hopes that we may hear from you soon.

I remain,

Sincerely,

Gustavo R. Lima -- Vice-President

cc: files

ID: 77-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/15/77

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

TO: Patton, Boggs & Blow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 20, 1977, petition to amend Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. In your petition, you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permit the use of tires that have a maximum load rating of not less than 95% of the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and not less than 95% of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Your petition is denied.

The problem addressed by your petition concerns a revision in the 1977 Tire and Rim Manual that alters the load rating of tires. In effect, this revision will result in lower load ratings for certain tires. According to the facts you submit, the change in tire load rating will be implemented by tire manufacturers throughout the next few months which may not provide vehicle manufacturers sufficient time to correspondingly alter the GAWRs of their vehicles in accordance with the new tire load ratings. Therefore, for a short period of time, you allege that it will be impossible to obtain tires that correspond to the GAWR indicated on the vehicle.

To alleviate the above problem, you recommend rulemaking that would permit vehicle manufacturers to install on their vehicles tires with load ratings slightly less than the GAWR of each axle. The NHTSA cannot permit the relief you request even for the limited time you propose. The intent of our tire standards is to provide minimum requirements for tires to ensure adequate safety. One of these minimum requirements mandates that the tire load rating be at least equal to the GAWR. Your request would have us reduce this minimum requirement. Since the matching of tires on a vehicle with the GAWR of each axle is such a basic principle of safety, the agency concludes that it would not be in the interest of safety to grant your request. Further, such an amendment might violate Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.), which requires that motor vehicles be equipped "with tires which meet the maximum permissible-load standards when such vehicle is fully loaded. . . ."

As you may know, the label requirements of Standard No. 120 which become effective in September permit you to list suitable tire and rim combinations on the vehicle. You need not equip a vehicle, however, with the tires indicated on the label. In this case, you may equip a trailer with any trailer tire that has a load rating equal to or greater than the GAWR of its associated axle. This may help resolve part of your problem with respect to a short term problem with matching tires on the vehicle with those indicated on the vehicle label.