Document ID: NHTSA-2010-0055-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Cargo Carrying Capacity
Posted Date: 2010-04-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register: April 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 22532-22539]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ap10-12]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0055]

 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Cargo Carrying Capacity

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petitions for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document denies petitions for reconsideration of a final 
rule published December 4, 2007 which amended the Federal motor vehicle 
safety standards (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120 on tire selection and rims. 
The final rule addressed the problem of light vehicle, motor home and 
recreation vehicle trailer overloading by requiring manufacturers of 
light vehicles, motor homes, and recreation vehicle trailers to 
provide, among other matters, information to consumers about the 
vehicle's load carrying capacity.

DATES: The December 4, 2007 final rule became effective June 2, 2008. 
Today's document makes no changes to the regulatory text of that final 
rule

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 
Samuel Daniel, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-4921. 
His FAX number is (202) 366-7002.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the 
Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 
DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the December 2007 Final Rule
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
    a. The Information that Should Be Provided to Consumers
    1. Water Weight as Cargo
    2. Dealers Wanting To Require Manufacturers To Weigh Each RV
    3. Providing the UVW to Consumers on the RV Trailer CCC Label
    b. How the Information Should Be Displayed or Conveyed to the 
Consumer
    1. Owner's Manual Requirements
    2. Other Means of Informing Consumers
    c. The Weight That Can Be Added to a Vehicle After Final Vehicle 
Certification and Before First Retail Sale Without Triggering a 
Requirement To Re-Label the Vehicle
    1. Raising the Threshold
    2. 49 CFR Sec.  595.7
    3. Use of a Single Weight Threshold Only, Not Percentage of GVWR
    d. Applying FMVSS No. 110 Re-Labeling Requirements Only to 
Alterers
    e. Issues Outside the Scope of Rulemaking
    1. Dealers Changing Tire Placard
    2. Load Distribution
III. Conclusion

I. Summary of the December 2007 Final Rule

    On December 4, 2007 (72 FR 68442) (Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0040), 
NHTSA published a final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 110 and 120 to address the problem of motor home 
and recreation vehicle trailer overloading. The final rule took effect 
on June 2, 2008. Standard No. 110 was renamed, Tire selection and rims 
and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity 
information for motor vehicles with a GVWR [Gross Vehicle Weight 
Rating] of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Standard No. 120 
was renamed, Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle 
trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a 
GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). Among other things, 
the December 2007 final rule amended the standards to require all motor 
homes and recreation vehicle (RV) trailers to bear a label that informs 
the consumer about the vehicle's load carrying capacity.
    Over the years, the agency has received inquiries and complaints 
from the public about problems resulting from motor home and travel 
trailer overloading. Many overloading problems surface in the form of 
complaints about poor handling, reduced braking capabilities, tire 
failure and the premature failure of suspension components. NHTSA 
issued the final rule to address the problem of overloading, by helping 
consumers have a better idea of when the cargo carrying capacities of 
their motor homes and travel trailers are being met, and exceeded.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rulemaking commenced in response to a petition for 
rulemaking from Ms. Justine May, who asked NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 
120 in such a way that motor vehicles would be equipped with tires 
that meet maximum load standards when the vehicle is loaded with a 
reasonable amount of luggage and the total number of passengers the 
vehicle is designed to carry. Ms. May's reason for her petition was 
her family's personal experience with a fifth-wheel travel trailer. 
She stated that there was no information provided with her trailer 
stating its cargo carrying capacity. Ms. May believed that loading 
her vehicle with cargo for a trip placed it in an overloaded 
condition, resulting in tire blowouts. A discussion of motor home 
and recreational trailer loading problems can be found in the August 
31, 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking (70 FR 51707, 51708) (Docket 
No. NHTSA-2005-22242).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule addressed motor homes and RV trailers. The agency 
believed that many owners of these vehicles are unaware of their 
vehicle's cargo carrying capacity until a problem becomes apparent. 
State laws do not require motor homes and travel trailers to use 
roadside weighing stations as they do for heavy commercial vehicles. 
NHTSA believed that consumer information in the form of a required 
label will inform consumers of a motor home or travel trailer's cargo 
carrying capacity and will result in reduced overloading of the 
vehicles.
    For motor homes and RV trailers, the final rule required labels 
that display the vehicle identification number (VIN), the weight of a 
full load of water, the unit weight of water and a cautionary statement 
that the weight of water is part of cargo. The rule required motor home 
labels to display the maximum weight of occupants and cargo, and RV 
trailer labels to display the maximum weight of cargo. In addition, for 
motor homes, the label must show the seating capacity of the vehicle--
based on the number of safety belts in the vehicle--and must indicate 
that the tongue weight of a towed trailer counts as part of the motor 
home's cargo.
    To promote a consistent conspicuous label location, the final rule 
specified that permanent load carrying capacity labels be affixed to 
the interior of the forward-most exterior passenger door on the right 
side of the vehicle and be visible. As an alternative, to address 
aesthetic considerations, the rule permitted manufacturers to place a 
temporary label to the interior of the forward-most exterior passenger 
door on the right side of the vehicle and to apply a permanent label in 
the area of the vehicle specified by FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 for tire 
information.
    In addition, the final rule adopted a threshold for correcting load 
carrying capacity information on FMVSS No. 110 vehicle placards, motor 
home occupant and cargo carrying capacity (OCCC) labels and RV trailer 
cargo carrying capacity (CCC) labels of the lesser of 1.5 percent of 
GVWR or 100 pounds in FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120. When weight is added 
between final vehicle certification and first retail sale, the load 
carrying capacity values on the labels

[[Page 22533]]

must be corrected using one or a combination of the following methods: 
(a) Adding a load carrying capacity modification label within 25 mm of 
the existing vehicle (FMVSS No. 110) placard, and/or the motor home 
OCCC label, or RV trailer CCC label (FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120); (b) 
modifying the original permanent RV load carrying capacity label or 
vehicle placard with correct load carrying capacity weight values; or 
(c) replacing the original, permanent RV load carrying capacity label 
or vehicle placard with the same label or placard containing correct 
load carrying capacity weight values.

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration from: The Association 
of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM); Mr. Dennis 
Myhre; the National RV Dealers Association (RVDA), and a ``joint 
petition'' submitted by the National Automobile Dealers Association 
(NADA) and Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) (hereafter 
referred to as ``NADA/SEMA'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Also signing the joint petition were the Automotive Service 
Association, the Marine Retailers Association of America, the 
National Marine Manufacturers, RVDA, the National Truck Equipment 
Association, and the Tire Industry Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issues raised by the petitioners can be categorized as relating 
to the following: (a) The information that should be provided to 
consumers; (b) how the information should be displayed or conveyed to 
the consumer; (c) the weight that can be added to a vehicle after final 
vehicle certification and before first retail sale without triggering a 
requirement to re-label the vehicle; \3\ and, (d) whether the re-
labeling requirement should only apply to ``alterers.'' There were also 
requests for changes that were outside of the scope of the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Several petitioners stated that the relief provided in the 
final rule, the lesser of 1.5 percent of vehicle GVWR, or 100 pounds 
was too low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed below, NHTSA is denying all of the 
petitions for reconsideration.

a. The Information That Should Be Provided to Consumers

1. Water Weight as Cargo
    The final rule specified that the motor home occupant and cargo 
carrying capacity label (OCCC) must state the weight value that the 
combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed. Among other 
information, the label must provide the weight of a full load of water 
and the unit weight of water, and must inform consumers that the weight 
of water is part of the cargo weight. The final rule specified that for 
RV trailers, the cargo carrying capacity label (CCC label) must specify 
the weight value that the weight of cargo must never exceed, the weight 
of a full load of water, the unit weight of water and a caution that 
the weight of water is part of the cargo weight.
    We explained in the final rule that information about on-board 
water weight is important because filled water tanks can be a 
significant portion of the vehicle's total cargo capacity. We stated 
that the level of on-board water can be assessed by the consumer. 
Further, campgrounds often provide water hook-ups, making it 
unnecessary sometimes for consumers to carry water. In such cases, the 
absence of water provides more capacity for cargo.
    In a petition for reconsideration, Mr. Dennis Myhre asks that on-
board water capacity be considered part of the unloaded vehicle weight 
(UVW) rather than cargo. He states that most owners fill their tanks 
completely before leaving home or a campground. He states: ``Partially 
filling the fresh water tank can have negative effects on the ABS 
[antilock] braking system and steering control, and encouraging the 
consumer to `drain' the fresh tank to compensate for carrying capacity 
is unrealistic and wasteful of our precious natural resources.'' The 
petitioner believes that manufacturers have told RV consumers for 
several years that fresh water is not part of the cargo carrying 
capacity of their RV, and consumers will now misunderstand the cargo 
carrying information provided by the new CCC label, and will overload 
their vehicle.
Agency Response
    This request is denied. Although voluntary industry labels have 
used the term ``CCC'' to refer to the residual cargo capacity of an RV 
with a full water tank, we believe that the labels specified in the 
December 2007 final rule improve the conspicuity and clarity of the 
previous labels. The new labels emphasize to the consumer that the 
weight of water is part of cargo. The label clearly states: ``The 
combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kg or 
XXX lb,'' followed by ``Caution: A full load of water equals XXX kg or 
XXX lb of cargo.'' These explicit statements should facilitate the 
consumer's understanding that they must consider the weight of water as 
cargo.
    An important part of the December 2007 final rule for motor homes 
and RV trailers is the requirement that either the permanent label or a 
temporary label must be displayed inside the front passenger door 
before the first retail sale of the vehicle. This requirement ensures 
that information about the vehicle capacity weight is noticed by the 
consumer. It is also intended to prevent consumers from buying RVs and 
later learning that the vehicle capacity weight does not satisfy their 
needs.
    With respect to the labels to which consumers were exposed in the 
past, it is uncertain that consumers have associated the weight of 
water with the unloaded vehicle weight simply because the industry 
label had done so. Previous labels were usually in an obscure location; 
RV owners who contacted NHTSA usually were unaware of the cargo weight 
capacity of their vehicles or whether water weight was considered part 
of the UVW or cargo weight. For example, Ms. Justine May, whose 
petition commenced the rulemaking resulting in the December 2007 final 
rule, attributed repeated tire failures of her RV trailer to the 
absence of information on cargo weight limits for her RV.
    We are denying the petition for reconsideration also because the 
presentation of water weight as a separate item on the label also 
highlights that there is a trade-off in useable cargo capacity between 
traveling with a full tank and traveling with a less than full tank. 
This information should enhance consumers' understanding that the 
amount of water carried in the water tanks affect the total load they 
wish to carry in their vehicles. With this information, consumers can 
make informed decisions about loading their vehicles for a particular 
trip (e.g., whether more or less water will be carried to compensate 
for other cargo).
    Accordingly, for the above reasons, we deny Mr. Myhre's petition 
requesting that the weight of onboard water be incorporated into the 
vehicle's UVW.

2. Dealers Wanting To Require Manufacturers To Weigh Each RV

    The final rule requires manufacturers to report the allowable load 
carrying capacity. In the final rule, we require the statement: ``The 
combined weight of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kg or 
XXX lbs'' on motor homes, and the statement: ``The weight of cargo 
should never exceed XXX kg or XXX lbs'' on RV trailers. These 
statements are required to state weights that will not overload the 
vehicle. These requirements allow manufacturers to understate (but not 
overstate) the weight value for load carrying capacity. This will 
assure that when the consumer loads the vehicle to the stated load 
carrying capacity, the vehicle's GVWR

[[Page 22534]]

will not be exceeded. When the manufacturer states that the load 
carrying capacity must not exceed a certain weight value, it means that 
the stated load carrying capacity weight value plus the UVW is less 
than or equal to the GVWR. The manufacturer must consider product 
variability to ensure that the load carrying capacity plus the UVW does 
not exceed the GVWR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The amended standards require manufacturers to report a 
vehicle capacity weight value that can be verified by NHTSA during a 
compliance test (FMVSS No. 110 paragraphs S9.3.2 and S10.2; FMVSS 
No. 120 S10.4.2), but the standards do not specify how the 
manufacturer must determine vehicle capacity weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition for reconsideration, RVDA requests that NHTSA 
require ``all recreational vehicles, regardless of weight, be weighed 
by the final stage manufacturer after all options and equipment are 
installed, and that the actual weight of the unit be used to calculate 
the cargo carrying capacity disclosed to the consumer.'' The petitioner 
(associated RV dealers) reports that manufacturers used an ``exemplar'' 
method \5\ to report the unloaded vehicle weight of RVs on a voluntary 
RV industry label, and that a dealer had been sued because it was 
discovered that the actual vehicle weight of some RV trailers was 
substantially greater than that reported on the label. RVDA is 
concerned that the exemplar method may not take into account unit-
specific options, running changes in construction and materials, 
variations in the density of material used in units built to the same 
plans, and increases in the weight of wood due to humidity absorption 
if the exemplar unit was weighed during a drier time of year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ According to RVDA's petition, the ``exemplar'' method of 
determining the unloaded vehicle weight appears to be the practice 
of weighing one vehicle and using its weight to represent all 
vehicles of that model regardless of differences in equipment, 
changes in materials or construction methods, or seasonal effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agency Response
    We are denying this request. In the past, manufacturers were not 
required by the FMVSSs to provide unloaded vehicle weights and the 
cargo carrying capacity (GVWR minus UVW, full fresh water and full LP-
gas weight) of RVs over 10,000 pounds GVWR. We believe that the 
December 2007 final rule will eliminate the practices that led to 
overstating the vehicle carrying capacity for these vehicles. The 
preamble to the final rule (at 72 FR 68456) stated:

    * * * we are requiring that the stated load carrying capacity 
not overload the vehicle. The GVWR of the vehicle must not be 
exceeded when the vehicle is loaded with the stated load carrying 
capacity. Manufacturers are permitted to understate the value of 
load carrying capacity to compensate for variances in manufacturing 
techniques, materials, and weighing techniques, however, under no 
circumstances is an overstated value of load carrying capacity 
permitted. Any inaccuracies due to scale tolerances and variances in 
manufacturing techniques or materials must be compensated for by 
appropriately increasing the safety factor between the allotted 
weight for occupants and cargo (or just cargo in the case of RV 
trailers) and the GVWR. Accordingly, the probability of moisture 
absorption by wooden structures before first retail sale should be 
considered in assigning the load carrying capacity.

    Manufacturers are free to weigh each unit and apply a factor of 
safety for expected moisture absorption to arrive at the vehicle 
capacity weight, or they can weigh an exemplar unit and adjust for 
differences in option content, construction details and variations in 
material density as well as moisture absorption, applying appropriate 
factors of safety. Regardless, the amendments to FMVSS No. 120 require 
manufacturers to determine the accurate vehicle capacity weight. We do 
not believe there is a need to also require manufacturers to weigh each 
RV individually and provide the weight of the vehicle to the consumer. 
Accordingly, the request is denied.

3. Providing the UVW to Consumers on the RV Trailer CCC Label

    The final rule does not require manufacturers of RV trailers to 
provide the unloaded vehicle weight (UVW) of the RV trailer on the new 
cargo carrying capacity (CCC) label, even though the UVW has to be 
obtained in order to calculate the cargo carrying capacity of the 
vehicle. In its petition for reconsideration, RVDA asks that NHTSA 
require that the UVW be disclosed on the RV trailer CCC label ``because 
this information is critical to consumers as well as dealers during the 
sale and/or use of a travel trailer or fifth wheel, (towable).'' 
According to RVDA:

    * * * during the purchase of a towable, the UVW is subtracted 
from the towing capacity of the consumer's truck or tow vehicle 
(``tow vehicle'') to determine how much cargo can be added to the RV 
without exceeding the towing capacity of the tow vehicle. This 
calculation is not addressed by the rule which deals exclusively 
with the cargo carrying capacity of the RV itself. (Emphasis in 
text.)

    RVDA states that without a UVW label, ``consumers and dealers will 
be forced to subtract the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of the RV from 
the towing capacity of the tow vehicle to determine the cargo capacity 
of the tow vehicle.'' The petitioner states that this situation could 
``mislead consumers into believing that their tow vehicles could not 
pull trailers or fifth wheels which they, in reality, could safely pull 
by utilizing less than the full cargo capacity of the RV.''
Agency Response
    We are declining this request. The December 2007 final rule was in 
response to a petition from an RV trailer owner whose trailer 
experienced safety-related failures as a result of overloading that the 
owner attributed to insufficient information on vehicle capacity 
weight. NHTSA believed that the overloading of RVs was problematic and 
to alleviate the situation, better information was needed. The August 
2005 NPRM (at 70 FR 51707) cited the Recreational Vehicle Safety 
Foundation's 2003 Annual Report to Industry, which found that 47 
percent of the 442 RV trailers it weighed \6\ in 2003 were overloaded. 
In contrast, the RVDA describes in its petition, a sales practice that 
results in customers buying trailers that are too heavy for their tow 
vehicle if they utilize the full cargo capacity of the trailer. We see 
no safety advantage to that situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Not claimed to be a scientific sampling, but an indication 
that overloading is very common.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the information sought by the petitioner (the UVW of 
the RV trailer) can be easily obtained by the dealer. We anticipate 
that RV dealers will now calculate the UVW of trailers by subtracting 
the vehicle cargo carrying capacity weight, which is now a labeling 
requirement, from the trailer's GVWR. Given that both the GVWR and the 
vehicle cargo carrying capacity weight are required to be labeled, and 
that the UVW can readily be determined by these factors, we see no 
safety reason to require manufacturers to also provide the UVW for RV 
trailers. For these reasons, the request is denied.

b. How the Information Should Be Displayed or Conveyed to the Consumer

1. Owner's Manual Requirements
    In its petition, AIAM raises a concern about the relationship 
between the December 2007 final rule (which amended FMVSS Nos. 110 and 
120) and 49 CFR part 575, Consumer Information. AIAM noted that 49 CFR 
575.6(a)(4)(v) requires manufacturers, for vehicles that have a GVWR of 
10,000 lb or less, to include information in the owner's manual (or if 
there is no owner's manual, in a separate document) \7\

[[Page 22535]]

regarding vehicle load limits, including instructions for locating and 
understanding the load limit information. Section 575.6(a)(4)(v)(B) 
requires the owner's manual to provide information for calculating 
total and cargo load capacities with varying seating configurations, 
including quantitative examples showing how the vehicle's cargo and 
luggage capacity decreases as the combined number of occupants 
increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For convenience, in this discussion we refer to both 
documents as the ``owner's manual.'' ``Owner's manual'' is defined 
in Sec.  575.2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AIAM asks NHTSA to clarify whether the part 575 consumer 
information vehicle loading information required in the owner's manual 
must be modified when the vehicle placard is adjusted in accordance 
with the requirements of the December 2007 final rule.
Agency Response
    Our answer is the Part 575 information is not required to be 
modified. It is not the intent of the part 575 owner's manual language 
to include load capacity values specific to a particular vehicle. The 
Sec.  575.6(a)(4)(v) requirement is for general information to be 
placed in the owner's manual, to inform customers about the capacities 
of their vehicles, the location of specific load capacity information 
(placard) on the vehicle, and how this information is calculated. 
Therefore, neither FMVSS No. 110 nor part 575 requires the owner's 
manual to have specific information regarding a vehicle's load 
capacities.
    Further, because the part 575 information required is general and 
not specific to a particular vehicle, the load capacity information in 
the owner's manual need not be revised when revisions are made to 
vehicle capacity weight values due to weight additions to a vehicle 
prior to first sale. The required owner's manual language directs 
consumers to the vehicle placard required by FMVSS No. 110 for specific 
vehicle load capacity information. When vehicle placards are adjusted 
in accordance with requirements of the December 2007 final rule, the 
corrected information will be available to the consumer.
2. Other Means of Informing Consumers
    In his petition for reconsideration, Mr. Myhre urges NHTSA ``to 
incorporate their final ruling information not only in their products, 
but also in sales literature and Web sites, to better inform the RV 
Consumer.'' This request by Mr. Myhre raises issues that were not the 
subject of the NPRM or the final rule, and so the issues are outside 
the scope of rulemaking. However, we note that RV dealers and 
manufacturers are not prevented by the final rule from voluntarily 
providing information about their vehicles' load capacity values in 
sales literature and Web sites.

c. The Weight That Can Be Added to a Vehicle After Final Vehicle 
Certification and Before First Retail Sale Without Triggering a 
Requirement To Re-Label the Vehicle

    The final rule addressed the obligation of manufacturers and 
dealers to re-label a vehicle when the manufacturer or dealer adds 
optional equipment and accessories to the vehicle after final vehicle 
certification and before first retail sale. The terms dealer, 
manufacturer, alterer, and service facility are used in this document 
to identify entities that are required to comply with the December 4, 
2007 final rule amending FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120. When such equipment 
increases the vehicle's weight and decreases the weight allotted for 
passengers and cargo, NHTSA's position is that the manufacturer or 
dealer making the addition is obligated to revise, as necessary, the 
information on the vehicle placard required by FMVSS No. 110 and 120 
that informs consumers of the vehicle's load carrying capacities. As to 
what is ``necessary,'' the agency believes that small increases in 
weight are insignificant, and that it would be unnecessarily burdensome 
to require dealers to reprint labels with new information each time a 
small amount of weight is added to a vehicle.
    To make clearer the obligation to re-label a vehicle, the December 
2007 final rule amended FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 to specify that, if 
weight equal to or less than the lesser of 1.5 percent of the vehicle's 
GVWR or 45.4 kilograms (kg)(100 lb) is added by the dealer before first 
retail sale, no additional action is required. If weight greater than 
the lesser of 1.5 percent of the vehicle's GVWR or 45.4 kg (100 lb) is 
added by the dealer before first retail sale, the dealer must take 
action (specified in the standards) to re-label the vehicle. The dealer 
is required to add a label that corrects or modifies the original load 
carrying capacity values.
    The final rule raised the threshold to the lesser of 1.5 percent 
GVWR or 45.4 kg (100 pounds) from the threshold proposed in the NPRM. 
The NPRM had proposed a threshold of weight equal to or less than 0.5 
percent of GVWR. That is, if weight greater than 0.5 percent of GVWR is 
added by the dealer before first retail sale, the dealer must add a 
label that corrects the original values.
    In raising the threshold from that proposed in the NPRM, the agency 
stated in the final rule that setting the threshold of weight at the 
lesser of 1.5 percent of GVWR or 100 pounds ``relieves passenger 
vehicle dealers of the responsibility for label changes in the vast 
majority of equipment sales without creating a practical safety 
problem.'' 72 FR at 68452. NHTSA stated: ``The most commonly installed 
heavy item by dealers before first retail sale is a heavy duty Class IV 
trailer hitch for a pickup truck. Such hitches have an advertised 
shipping weight of less than 36.3 kg (80 lbs). A relatively small 
pickup truck for this hitch application would have a GVWR of 2721.6 kg 
(6000 lbs) or greater. This installation would involve equipment 
representing 1.33 percent of the vehicle's GVWR or less.'' Id.
    NHTSA acknowledged that a vehicle with the maximum weight of added 
equipment of 1.5 percent of GVWR when also loaded to the maximum weight 
of passengers and cargo specified in the original label could exceed 
the tire load rating by 1.5 percent as a worst case. However, the 
agency determined that NHTSA tire research data (see, e.g., Docket 
NHTSA 2000-8011 item 22) shows that fully inflated tires are not very 
sensitive to small overloads. Even in a high speed test rigorous enough 
to fail a third of the tire samples, tires that were slightly 
overloaded (taking into consideration the curvature of the test wheel) 
performed comparably to a sample of the same tire make/models with 10 
percent less load. 72 FR at 68452. Thus, NHTSA determined a threshold 
of weight at the lesser of 1.5 percent of GVWR or 100 pounds reasonably 
balanced the interest of alleviating burdens on dealers and others to 
re-label the vehicle with load safety considerations.

Petitions for Reconsideration

1. Raising the Threshold
    AIAM, RVDA, and joint petitioners NADA/SEMA petitioned for 
reconsideration of the threshold of the lesser of 1.5 percent of GVWR 
or 100 pounds, seeking a much higher threshold for the amount of weight 
a dealer could add to a vehicle without having to correct the vehicle 
placard. The petitioners generally seek to increase the threshold level 
to the larger of 3 percent of GVWR or 100 kg (220 pounds). AIAM states 
that the weight of combinations of added equipment could exceed the 
threshold in the final rule so that in many instances the dealers would 
have to correct the vehicle placard. AIAM states that NHTSA ``presented 
no data to indicate the existence of a safety concern resulting from 
the addition of optional equipment for light vehicles generally or at 
the 100

[[Page 22536]]

kg [(220 lb)] level, and we are aware of none.''
    RVDA highlights what it believes to be a discrepancy in the final 
rule's discussion in the preamble and the regulatory text of S10.5 of 
FMVSS No. 120. Although throughout the preamble NHTSA consistently 
describes the threshold for re-labeling as weight exceeding ``the 
lesser of 1.5 percent of the vehicle's GVWR or 100 pounds'' for both 
FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120, RVDA points out that the regulatory text of the 
latter standard (S10.5.1 of FMVSS No. 120) refers to the threshold only 
as ``weight exceeding 45.4 kg (100 pounds).'' \8\ 72 FR at 68464.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The threshold of ``the lesser of 1.5 percent of GVWR or 45.4 
kg (100 pounds)'' is reflected in the text of FMVSS No. 110 (S10.1 
of FMVSS No. 110).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RVDA believes that the threshold should be uniform for both 
standards \9\ and that it should be increased to ``the greater of 3 
percent GVWR or 100 kg (220 pounds).'' The petitioner states that 
setting the threshold at 100 kg (220 lb) would be consistent with 49 
CRF 595.7, Requirements for Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People 
with Disabilities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ We note that FMVSS No. 120's (S10.5) reference to only 45.4 
kg (100 kg)--i.e., the absence of ``1.5 percent of the vehicle's 
GVWR''--was intentional. FMVSS No. 120 applies to vehicles with a 
GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. 1.5 percent of a vehicle with a GVWR of 
10,000 lb is 150 lb. Because it would be unnecessary for the 
threshold clause to state: ``the lesser of [150 lb or more] or 100 
lb,'' there was no need to include ``1.5 percent of the vehicle's 
GVWR'' in FMVSS No. 120.
    \10\ Part 595 provides limited exemptions from 49 U.S.C. 30122, 
the statutory provision prohibiting manufacturers, distributors, 
dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from ``knowingly 
mak[ing] inoperative'' any part of a device or element of design 
installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an FMVSS. 
Subpart C enables the above-listed entities to modify vehicles to 
enable persons with disabilities to operate or ride as a passenger 
in a motor vehicle. Section 595.7(e)(5) states that the modification 
label required in Section 595.7(b) must ``[i]ndicate any reduction 
in the load carrying capacity of the vehicle of more than 100 kg 
(220 lb) after the modifications are completed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NADA/SEMA also petitioned to increase the threshold to ``the 
greater of 3 percent GVWR or 100 kg (220 lb).'' The petitioners believe 
that the agency was mistaken in stating in the final rule that: ``Most 
commenters suggested that the threshold be the lesser of 3 percent GVWR 
or 100 kg (220 lb).'' NADA/SEMA state that it had urged NHTSA to adopt 
a threshold of ``the greater of 3 percent GVWR or 100 kg (220 lb), not 
the lesser.'' (Emphasis in text.) Petitioners state that it had sought 
``a single minimum safe harbor: 220 lbs. Dealers and installers working 
on heavier vehicles would be free to calculate potentially higher safe 
harbors (e.g., 3% of 10,000 pounds or 300 pounds).'' The petitioners 
also state that information contained in AIAM's comment to the NPRM did 
not support NHTSA's statement in the final rule that trailer hitches 
weighing 36.3 kg (80 lb) are ``the most commonly installed heavy item 
by dealers prior to first retail sale.''
    NADA/SEMA state that the 100 lb threshold ``provides no meaningful 
relief'' and does not relieve dealers of the responsibility to re-label 
in the vast majority of equipment sales. The petitioners state that 
dealers and installers often accessorize vehicles before first sale by 
``bundling groups of accessories in appearance or towing packages.'' 
``[T]hese combinations frequently exceed 100 pounds, but fall below 220 
pounds, demonstrating a clear rationale for a minimum 220 pound 
threshold.'' The petitioners state that the 100 pound threshold is 
arbitrary and that it is unaware of any overloading-related safety 
concerns associated with properly installed accessories. NADA/SEMA 
believe that the 100 kg (220 lb) threshold from 49 CFR Sec.  595.7 
should be used. Petitioners state: ``Simply put, if a 220 pound trigger 
threshold provides a level of safety for persons with disabilities, it 
should serve well for the motoring public generally.''
Agency Response
    NHTSA is denying the petitioners' request to amend the weight 
thresholds of the final rule. Increasing the weight thresholds as 
petitioners request is inconsistent with safety and the purposes of the 
rulemaking.
    The purpose of the applicability threshold of the load carrying 
capacity modification label is to relieve dealers and service 
facilities from having to correct load carrying capacity information 
when insignificant amounts of weight are added to light vehicles and 
heavy RVs between final vehicle certification and first retail sale. 72 
FR at 68452. The threshold is also geared toward ensuring that the load 
carrying capacity information remains reasonably accurate. That is, 
NHTSA determined that a safety risk would not be unreasonably 
heightened if the weight information provided on the original label did 
not reflect insignificant amounts of weight added by the dealer after 
the vehicle left the factory. As to what constitutes ``insignificant'' 
weight, the final rule sought to and provided dealers clear knowledge 
of what quantity of added weight triggers a requirement to re-label.
    It was not the purpose of the amendment to substantially reduce re-
labeling of vehicles by dealers when adding weight. The petitioners' 
complaint that the amendment ``provides no meaningful relief'' from 
dealers' responsibility to re-label is immaterial to whether the 
threshold should be increased. The governing factor for the agency in 
setting the threshold is whether failure to disclose the added weight 
on the consumer label withholds important safety information from the 
vehicle operator. Whether the final rule required dealers to re-label 
in a vast majority of sales or only in a small portion of sales is not 
the primary consideration of this rulemaking.
    The agency determined that the threshold for added weight of the 
lesser of 1.5 percent of GVWR or 100 pounds relieves dealers of the 
responsibility for re-labeling ``without creating a practical safety 
problem.'' 72 FR at 68452. NHTSA made this determination after 
considering data from the agency's tire research program showing that 
fully inflated tires were not very sensitive to ``small overloads.'' 
Id. Petitioners provided no data or information showing that the 
threshold could be increased--more than doubled \11\--without 
negatively impacting vehicle handling and tire performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 3 percent is double the 1.5 percent of GVWR specified in 
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency cannot agree that the weights suggested by the 
petitioners are insignificant. NADA/SEMA discussed the Subaru Outback, 
which has a GVWR of 4,545 pounds with accessories. The petitioners 
state that a dealer could equip the Subaru with a front license plate 
(one pound), receiver hitch (43 pounds), cargo organizer (4 pounds), 
all-weather mats (12 pounds), splash guards (one pound), roof rack (24 
pounds), roof bike mount (13 pounds), kayak carrier (11 pounds) and 
remote starter (3 pounds) for a total of approximately 112 pounds. 
Under the December 2007 final rule, since the total weight of these 
dealer-installed accessories would exceed the lesser of 1.5 percent of 
GVWR or 100 pounds,\12\ the dealer modifying the vehicle would have to 
re-label the vehicle with information that lists the total weight of 
added equipment. The consumer would use this information to understand 
how he or she should adjust the load-carrying capacity of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 1.5 percent of the Outback's GVWR is 68 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the petitioners' view, the threshold should be raised to 220 
pounds to relieve the dealer of the burden of re-labeling the 
vehicle.\13\ In our judgment, the dealer should be required to re-label 
the vehicle. It is noteworthy that the dealer's accessories

[[Page 22537]]

highlighted by the petitioners (trailer hitch, roof rack, kayak 
carrier) are designed to optimize the vehicle's cargo carrying 
capabilities. With these features, the consumer is encouraged to use 
the vehicle to carry as much cargo as possible. We believe that it is 
important to inform a consumer taking full advantage of these 
accessories that the dealer's accessories alone account for 112 pounds, 
a substantial amount that will impact the vehicle's overall cargo 
carrying capacity. The consumer should be made aware of this weight so 
that he or she will be able to account for it and adjust the amount of 
cargo or number of passengers eventually carried.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For the Outback, 220 pounds would be more than triple the 
68 pound weight triggering the requirement to re-label under the 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The weight threshold suggested by NADA/SEMA appears to unreasonably 
increase the risk of overloading for a number of vehicles. NHTSA 
evaluated a number of vehicles similar to the Outback to determine the 
effect of added weight when the vehicle is loaded to the limit of its 
occupant capacity. Taking the example of the Outback (4,545 pounds 
GVWR, vehicle capacity weight for passengers and cargo of 900 pounds), 
when the Outback is loaded to its 5-occupant capacity (assuming each 
passenger weighs 150 pounds), the residual cargo capacity for an 
unmodified vehicle is 150 pounds. When a dealer adds weight of 112 
pounds, the residual cargo capacity is reduced to 38 pounds (150 pounds 
minus 112 pounds). Applying the December 2007 final rule's 1.5 percent 
of GVWR limit (or, in the case of the Outback, 68 pounds), the dealer 
would have to re-label the vehicle. However, if a 220-pound threshold 
were used, the dealer would not have to inform the consumer of the 
added weight of the accessories and associated reduced load-carrying 
capacity of the vehicle. Further, given the 150-pound residual cargo 
capacity for the Outback, if 220 pounds of accessories were added by 
the dealer and no re-labeling were required, a vehicle would be 
overloaded by 70 pounds when loaded to the full occupant capacity (even 
without an additional cargo load). The load carrying capacity 
information provided with the original vehicle would be incorrect and 
fail to inform the consumer of the overloading.
    Listed below is information on representative model year 2005-2008 
passenger vehicles. Note the cargo capacity remains after the vehicle 
seats the full number of persons in its seating capacity. It is assumed 
each person weighs 150 pounds.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Cargo
                                                                      Seating         Vehicle     capacity (with
                     Vehicle                        GVWR  (lb)       capacity        capacity      5 occupants)
                                                                                    weight (lb)        (lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Yaris....................................            3300               5             845              95
Chevrolet Aveo..................................            3348               5             858             108
Toyota Corolla..................................            3585               5             850             100
Saturn Ion......................................            3664               5             899             149
Honda Civic.....................................            3671               5             850             100
Ford Fusion.....................................            4240               5             850             100
Hyundai Sonata..................................            4299               5             860             110
Ford FiveHundred................................            4800               5             950             200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A 220 pound threshold would result in the vehicles exceeding their 
GVWR when full passenger capacity weight is added even without an 
additional cargo load. With a 220 pound threshold, without the consumer 
knowing it, a vehicle could be overloaded simply by carrying the 
maximum number of occupants for which the vehicle is designed, even if 
no cargo were carried. Such an outcome is contrary to safety and 
contrary to the purpose of this rulemaking.
2. 49 CFR 595.7
    With regard to petitioners' view that the 220 pound threshold 
should be acceptable since it is used in 49 CFR 595.7, we disagree.
    NHTSA established 49 CFR part 595, subpart C, to assist persons 
with disabilities to operate or ride as passengers in motor vehicles. 
The regulation permits, to a carefully-regulated extent, the making 
inoperative of devices or systems installed in compliance with the 
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In issuing this regulation, the 
agency weighed carefully and sought balance between the interests of 
increasing the mobility of the disabled with the safety protections 
afforded by FMVSSs that could not be maintained by the modifications 
needed to accommodate a disabled person. The agency recognized that 
some components that are the subjects of specific FMVSSs (such as 
steering columns, air bags, and seats) might have to be removed. Unlike 
the components new passenger vehicle dealers sometimes add on to new 
vehicles, the modifications envisioned by the Sec.  595.7 regulation 
are usually substantial and involve a degree of reconstruction of the 
vehicle. Because the purpose and nature of the modifications 
contemplated by Sec.  595.7 and FMVSS No. 110 and 120 are different, 
the weight thresholds are different.
    The type of vehicle that is typically modified and how it is used 
after modification are different. Vehicles modified (in accordance with 
Sec.  595.7) to accommodate operators or passengers with disabilities 
have historically been full-size vans and mini-vans with GVWRs of 
between 6,000 pounds and 9,000 pounds and a vehicle capacity weight 
between 1,000 pounds and 2,500 pounds. After modifications, these 
vehicles are unlikely to be used to haul heavy cargo or large numbers 
of passengers because of their special use. Thus, it is less likely 
that the vehicle's load-carrying capacity will be overloaded by a 
modifier's addition of weight less than 100 kg (220 lb).
    Although there are differences between Sec.  595.7 and FMVSS Nos. 
110 and 120 that account for different weight thresholds, we note that 
the end result is similar: The modifications of the vehicle typically 
result in a re-labeling of the vehicle. Modifications made to 
accommodate the needs of handicapped drivers or passengers usually 
exceed 100 kg (220 lb). The Sec.  595.7 modifications needed to 
accommodate operators and passengers with disabilities include the 
addition of platform lifts, door operators, floor, roof, and seat 
modifications, and hand controls. Generally, these modifications are 
designed to accommodate a particular person's needs. Some extensive 
modifications can add up to 700 pounds to the unloaded vehicle weight 
of the vehicle. Thus, modifiers have had to label the vehicle with the

[[Page 22538]]

modification label required in Sec.  595.7(b) indicating the reduction 
in the load carrying capacity of the vehicle of more than 100 kg (220 
lb). It is also noted that Part 595 applies to used vehicles as well as 
new vehicles.
    For the reasons discussed above, we deny the requests to change the 
maximum threshold values to that of 49 CFR 595.7.
3. Use of a Single Weight Threshold Only, Not Percentage of GVWR
    To reduce the threshold weight calculation errors that could result 
from the requirement that the threshold value for added weight be 
assigned as a percentage of the GVWR (such as that specified in the 
December 2007 final rule of 1.5 percent), RVDA and AIAM recommended 
that NHTSA require a single value for the threshold weight be used for 
all light vehicles.
    We decline to make this change. NHTSA does not agree that a single 
value of threshold weight would be appropriate for all FMVSS No. 110 
vehicles. While a larger vehicle could accommodate additional weight up 
to the fixed value threshold without adjusting its vehicle capacity 
weight, for lighter vehicles, adding the same fixed threshold weight 
value without adjusting the vehicle capacity weight label, could result 
in significant overload. The vehicles \14\ we evaluated did not have 
the capacity to accommodate additional weight over the 100 pound 
threshold without being overloaded at vehicle capacity weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Toyota Yaris, Chevrolet Aveo, Toyota Corolla, Saturn 
Ion, Honda Civic, Ford Fusion, Hyndai Sonata, and Ford Five Hundred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA believes dealers will be able to calculate the weight limits 
correctly. As a practical matter, vehicles with a GVWR of 6,600 pounds 
or less are guided by the 1.5 percent of GVWR limit\15\ and vehicles 
with a GVWR above 6,600 pounds are limited to 100 pounds of additional 
weight. Calculating the weight limit of a vehicle (GVWR times 0.015) is 
straightforward and uncomplicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 1.5 percent of 6,600 is calculated by multiplying 6,600 by 
0.015, which results in 99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Applying FMVSS No. 110 Re-Labeling Requirements Only to Alterers

    As discussed above, S10 of FMVSS No. 110, addressing weight added 
to a vehicle between final vehicle certification and first retail sale, 
specifies that if weight exceeding a threshold amount is added to a 
vehicle prior to first retail sale, a vehicle placard (required 
generally for all vehicle by S4.3) and cargo carrying capacity labels 
must be corrected. FMVSS No. 110, at S4.3.2, specifies for ``altered 
vehicles'' that a new vehicle placard be affixed to an altered vehicle, 
before first purchase of the vehicle, containing accurate information.
    In 49 CFR 567.3, ``alterer'' is defined as a person who alters by 
addition, substitution or removal of components (other than readily 
attachable components) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of 
the vehicle other than for resale. Additionally, an ``altered vehicle'' 
is a completed previously-certified vehicle that has been altered other 
than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable 
components or by minor finishing operations, ``in such a manner as may 
affect the conformity of the vehicle with one or more [FMVSSs] or the 
validity of the stated weight ratings or vehicle type classification.'' 
Id.
    In their petition for reconsideration, NADA/SEMA petitioned NHTSA 
to amend S10 of FMVSS No. 110 to make it applicable only to vehicle 
``alterers''. Petitioners ask that S10.1 be revised to state only that 
the placard required by S4.3.2 or S4.3.5 would have to be corrected. 
The petitioners believed that only vehicle alterers should be required 
to correct vehicle capacity weight information. Under petitioners' 
view, vehicle dealers who would not be considered alterers could add 
weight in excess of the weight threshold (the lesser of 1.5 percent of 
GVWR or 100 pounds) and not be required to correct the labeled vehicle 
capacity weight numbers.
Agency Response
    We deny this request. The new requirements in FMVSS No. 110 at S10 
and in FMVSS No. 120 at S10.5 are intended to apply to all regulated 
entities, including dealers and alterers, who add weight to applicable 
vehicles in excess of the specified thresholds (lesser of 100 pounds or 
1.5 percent of GVWR) prior to first retail sale. Alterers make changes 
to vehicles that affect the vehicle to a greater extent than by adding, 
deleting, or changing readily attachable components, and must be held 
responsible for correcting vehicle labels as appropriate. At the same 
time, other regulated entities and dealers, who increase weight by 
adding ``readily attachable components,'' must be responsible for 
correcting vehicle capacity weight information if the added weight is 
above the stated threshold.
    The petitioners gave no safety rationale for their request to limit 
re-labeling requirements to alterers. To amend FMVSS No. 110 in the way 
the petitioners request would undercut the entire reason for the 
rulemaking that resulted in the December 4, 2007 final rule. For these 
reasons, the changes to FMVSS No. 110 asked for by the petitioners will 
not be made.

e. Issues Outside the Scope of Rulemaking

    The following issues raised by NADA/SEMA and by Mr. Myhre are 
outside the scope of rulemaking of the December 4, 2007 final rule.
1. Dealers Changing Tire Placard
    NADA/SEMA ask NHTSA to ``restore the version of 49 CFR Sec.  
571.110 S4.3(d) published in 2002.'' This issue relates to previous 
rulemakings, starting with a November 2002 final rule that amended 
FMVSS No. 110 to specify that the tire size listed on the vehicle 
placard match the tire size installed as original equipment by the 
vehicle manufacturer. The November 2002 FMVSS No. 110 final rule, at 
S4.3(d), did not address the possibility that tires could be changed 
between vehicle certification and first sale to the retail customer. A 
June 2004 FMVSS No. 110 final rule requirement addressed the 
possibility of tire change by not permitting the tire size to be 
changed between manufacturer certification and first sale without 
changing the vehicle placard. In the 2004 FMVSS No. 110 final rule, we 
explained that dealers are not permitted to sell non-complying vehicles 
or take actions which would take a vehicle out of compliance with any 
applicable FMVSSs. Therefore, if a dealer substitutes tires in such a 
way that the placard is no longer accurate, the dealer must affix a new 
vehicle placard.
    In the December 4, 2007 final rule on cargo carrying capacity, we 
noted that some commenters to the NPRM had re-raised old issues related 
to the previous tire placarding rulemakings. (See 72 FR at 68457.) 
Those comments were raising issues outside the scope of the rulemaking. 
In its petition for reconsideration, NADA/SEMA again commented on these 
issues. Since the issue is outside of the scope of the rulemaking at 
issue, we will not address the matter here.
2. Load Distribution
    Mr. Myhre stated that for proper braking and steering control of 
any vehicle, consumers should be provided information about the 
distribution of the unloaded weight. He suggests requiring that the 
vehicle capacity weight at each corner of the motorhome be provided.

[[Page 22539]]

Agency Response
    This issue is outside the scope of the rulemaking, as noted in the 
final rule.\16\ In the final rule, NHTSA stated that the rulemaking is 
intended to inform consumers of the load carrying capacity of the RV 
they are about to purchase and to remind them of the RV's load carrying 
capacity after purchase and during use. The agency recognized that the 
rule did not address requirements for providing information on how a 
particular vehicle's loads should be distributed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 72 FR at 68457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency will continue to review consumer complaints and crash 
statistics to determine the extent of the RV load distribution problem, 
both motor homes and trailers. If appropriate, the agency will initiate 
projects to provide consumers with additional vehicle load distribution 
information. As NHTSA stated in the final rule, however, manufacturers 
are urged to provide consumers with as much guidance as possible in the 
vehicle's owner's manual relative to the proper distribution of cargo 
loads.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA has denied the petitions for 
reconsideration. Today's document makes no changes to the regulatory 
text of the December 4, 2007 final rule.

    Issued on April 23, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-9981 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P