ID: nht72-5.25

DATE: 12/01/72 EST.

FROM: Robert L. Carter; signature by Elwood T. Driver

TO: Hatch Imports Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 5, 1972, concerning approvals required by the Federal Government regarding the sale of safety glazing materials.

No approval by the Federal Government is required. Certification of conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 is self-certification. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 and Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

If you are not aware of State approvals, you may want to contact Mr. Armand Cardarelli, of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Suite 500, 1828 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036.

If we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to ask.

ID: nht72-5.26

DATE: 08/31/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 18, 1972, enclosing threesample Certification labels. Each of the three labels contains a line for inserting the gross axle weight rating for four axles. You ask whether the lines representing intermediate axles may be deleted through the use of X's for vehicles that do not have such axles.

The use of X's or similar markings to delete superfluous times is Certification labels of the type you enclose, is not prohibited by the Certification regulations. Consequently they may be used for vehicles having up to four axles.

ID: nht72-5.27

DATE: 09/18/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Assoc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: With reference to your phone conversation with Mike Peskoe on September 8, I have enclosed a copy of an NHTSA opinion which concludes that a person adding a snow plow to a completed vehicle is not required to certify the vehicle. In such a case, the existing certification label should be left in place. You should note that the opinion also states that if the mounting of the snow plow causes the vehicle not to conform to any applicable motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle is not brought back into conformity before sale, the person mounting the plow will be violating section 105(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and will be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions as prescribed in sections 109 and 110 of the Act.

ID: nht72-5.28

DATE: 02/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

TEXT UNAVAILABLE

ID: nht72-5.29

DATE: 08/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 5, 1972, requesting an opinion as to how manufacturers may take into account a vehicle's speed capability in establishing GAWR.

The Certification regulations do not specify particular speed criteria for establishing weight ratings. As a minimum, however, we believe the speed chosen should reflect the maximum speed at which it is reasonable to expect the vehicle to be driven. In the case where a vehicle is subject to some low-speed uses, such as seasonal use as a snow plow, we believe the figure on the certification label should be based on that use of the vehicle in which its expected speed is greatest. The regulations do not provide for variable ratings based on speed.

Finally, you ask whether cautionary labels dealing with GAWR and GVWR figures may be installed in the cab. The NHTSA does not object to the use of such labels. They may be used, as appropriate, to indicate permissable use of higher loads in low-speed applications.

ID: nht72-5.3

DATE: 05/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Garsite Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received the pictures of the airport refuelers which you manufacture. While these pictures were received after we had mailed our letter of April 17, 1972, to you, they confirm the opinion expressed in that letter that these vehicles are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and are considered to be trucks under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht72-5.30

DATE: 04/24/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1972, inquiring whether a State or its political subdivisions (in your particular case it is a county) may elect not to conform to any of the motor vehicle safety standards and the Certification regulations. You state that in the particular case in question the county orders new incomplete vehicles, and then transfers an old body onto the new chassis, creating a completed vehicle.

Under the existing regulations, one who transfers a used body onto a new chassis is, as you have apparently assumed, a final-stage manufacturer, and is responsible for compliance with applicable standards, and the Certification regulations. There is no exemption in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, or the standards or certification requirements, for countries or other State governmental units that manufacture completed vehicles. Consequently, the county is responsible in the situation you describe for completing the vehicles in question in such a manner that they conform to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, and for certifying conformity with the standards in accordance with the certification requirements.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht72-5.31

DATE: 09/28/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ingram Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I apologize for the delay in answering your letter regarding Part 585, Manufacturer Identification. You describe the vehicles you manufacture and ask whether you are a manufacturer within the meaning of the regulation and therefore required to submit information regarding your products.

Part 566 applies to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. "Motor vehicle" is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways". Since the portable tandem rollers you describe appear to be manufactured for construction or farm use you are not considered a manufacturer of motor vehicles and are not covered by Part 566. Therefore you are not required to submit information under that regulation. For similar reasons you are not covered by the certification requirements of Part 567 and 568 which you also mentioned.

ID: nht72-5.32

DATE: 06/06/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Garsite Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1972, regarding the application of the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) to tank truck manufacturers. Your questions are restated below, followed in each case by our response.

1. If a vehicle ends up with a gross weight over the GVWR of the chasis are we (or anyone in our industry) liable to prosecution?

If the loaded weight of the vehicle, or the weight on an axle system, exceeds the stated ratings, the vehicle may be found to contain a safety-related defect. While a vehicle manufacturer will not be liable to "prosecution", as that term is generally understood, the failure of a vehicle to conform to applicable standards may result in the imposition of a civil penalty against its manufacturer of up to $ 1,000 for each violation, and up to $ 400,000 for each series of related violations (15 U.S.C. 1398). If a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety is discovered in the vehicle, the manufacturer will be required to notify first purchasers (15 U.S.C. 1402).

2. Is it permissible to "derate" the volumetric capacity of a tank (by setting the liquid markers low) in order to stay within the GVWR?

In assessing the safety aspects of a vehicle, the NHTSA considers all factors in the situation. These factors would include both the manufacturer's rating and the true capacity of the vehicle. I should emphasize that it is the actual situation, rather than any artificial statements or rating, that we are primarily concerned with.

3. If we so "derate" a tank and the customer subsequently fills the tank, who would be responsible for the overweight?

The NHTSA does not regulate the user of a vehicle, although other State and Federal agencies do. The way in which a user loads his vehicle may, however, bring out a safety problem related to its load-carrying capacity. An important factor to be considered is the manufacturer's expectation as to how the vehicle is to be used at the time he sells it.

4. Due to the manufacturing variations in chassis weights, tank dimensions, etc., are we allowed any tolerance on the actual weight versus the GVWR or GAWR?

While your question is somewhat unclear, the answer generally is negative. Any "manufacturing variations" in components upon which these values are based must be taken into account by the manufacturer who assembles and labels the vehicle.

Finally, with reference to your complaint that certain of your competitors are not complying with the regulations, if you will furnish to us the names of the companies involved, we will be able to take whatever action is necessary to bring such companies into conformity with our requirements. We do not publish any booklets concerning the regulations, although various trade associations have undertaken to summarize them for their members.

ID: nht72-5.33

DATE: 12/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Crawford and Company Insurance Adjusters

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 19, 1972, concerning an accident involving a 1972 International tractor which you maintain was not certified by its manufacturer as complying with applicable Federal standards. You state that the accident may have been due to "insufficient gross vehicle weight".

The Certifications regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 558) do require final-stage manufacturers to certify the conformity of vehicles they complete, by affixing to them a label containing information specified in the regulations. In the case of vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, the regulations require that such information include a gross vehicle weight rating, and a gross axle weight rating for each axle. These ratings are set by the manufacturer based on definitional criteria found in the regulations (@ 563.3, 49 CFR @ 571.3). Your definition of a "final-stage" manufacturer, "anyone who installs a component that is not readily attachable", is correct only if the component installation is to an incomplete vehicle.

Your letter has been forwarded to our Office of Standards Enforcement, who will conduct whatever investigation is appropriate to determine whether violations of NHTSA regulations have occurred. Such an investigation does not include ascertaining the cause of any accident, or whether a particular vehicle may have been overloaded. It concerns only whether the respective manufacturers have complied with NHTSA regulations applicable to them.

If you wish to know the results of this investigation when it is completed, you may write our Office of Standards Enforcement, NHTSA, or call Mr. George Shifflett of that office at (202) 426-1693.