ID: nht72-4.28

DATE: 03/08/72

FROM: JOHN G. WOMACK FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: Volvo, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1972, in which you posed three questions concerning the test procedures of Standard 209.

Your first question concerns the passage in S5.2(j) which states that the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.70 within a period of 50 milliseconds. . . . ' Your question is whether the measurement of withdrawal begins at the caset of acceleration or at the point at which an acceleration of 0.70 is achieved. Our answer is that the measurement begins at the onset of acceleration. The withdrawal that occurs within the 50 millisecond rise time will be included in determining whether the 1 inch limit has been exceeded.

Your second question concerns the sequence in which the retractor locking mechanism will be activated under S5.2(k). It is your understanding that the 10,000 locking cycles will be evenly distributed among the total 50,000 cycles. Because the standard is silent as to the sequence of testing, an even distribution is not the only test method that could be used. At the present time, the agency has one contractor who is testing in this manner and one who is testing with 40,000 cycles of extension and retraction followed by 10,000 lockup cycles. If it should prove that the latter method is more severe, however, due to the excessive wear on the same spot that you anticipated, we would (Illegible Word) to use that method and conduct our tests by evenly distributing the lockup cycles.

Your third question concerns the manner in which lockup is to be achieved during the cycling test for retractors that lock either by acceleration or by tilting. The intent of the cycling procedures is to duplicate the usage actually encountered by a retractor in a vehicle. If the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal and to the acceleration of the vehicle, then the lockup mode that would be (Illegible Word) often stressed over the retractor's lifetime would be the webbing withdrawal mode and the 10,000 cycles would be cycles of lockup through webbing withdrawal. If the retractor is sensitive only to vehicle acceleration and to tilting,the most frequent cause of lockup would be vehicle acceleration and our tests will be conducted by accelerating the retractor. This is not to say that you are compiled to cycle year retractor by accelerating them. If the locking mechanism is the same for both modes (e.g. a pendulum), it may make little difference whether the retractors are accelerated or tilted. However, if our tests disclose a cycling failure, you will be obliged to show that your method was in fact equivalent to ours.

ID: nht72-4.29

DATE: 09/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cody Chevrolet Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 1, 1972, to the attention of Mr. Jerome Palist of our White Plains, New York Office, concerning certification requirements for a vehicle which you describe and indicate will be used by a college to transport ball teams and school personnel, but will not be equipped with flashing lights or other special school bus equipment. You apparently wish to know whether you must consider this vehicle as a school bus for purposes of certification to Federal requirements.

"School bus" is defined in the motor vehicle safety standards to mean a bus "designed primarily to carry children to and from school, but not including buses operated by common carriers in urban transportation of school children" (49 CFR 571.3). Based upon the description you provide, the NHTSA would not consider the vehicle you describe to be a school bus. For purposes of certification to Federal requirements (49 CFR Parts 567 and 568), therefore, "gross vehicle weight rating" should not be computed under the minimum values specified for school buses. In addition, the requirement that vehicle type be inserted on the certification label should be met by inserting, "BUS."

This letter should not be construed to mean that the NHTSA takes a position as to whether this vehicle need, under State law, conform to requirements for school buses. The State must determine the scope and application of its own laws.

ID: nht72-4.3

DATE: 09/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Docket 69-7

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: Interpretation of Dummy Placement for Crash Test Requirements of S4.1.2.3.1(d) and (e).

A Ford Motor Company representative has informally noted that Docket 69-7, Notice 16, published February 24, 1972, does not clearly indicate whether, in S4.1.2.3.1(d) and (e), three dummies are simultaneously placed in all front seating positions for a single crash test, or whether two separate crashes are conducted, with two dummies in the outboard front seats for a S4.1.2.3.1(d) crash and a single dummy in the center front seat for a S4.1.2.3.1(e) crash.

Although a manufacturer may choose, for reasons of convenience, to conduct a combined crash test or individual crash tests for S4.1.2.3.1(d) and (e), the test intended by S4.1.2.3.1 is a combined test and the NHTSA will therefore conduct its compliance tests with dummies simultaneously placed in all front seating positions.

ID: nht72-4.30

DATE: 11/02/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Fordyce; Mayne; Hartman; Renard; & Stribling

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1972, requesting information on requirements applicable to the trucking industry regarding the reporting of numbers of vehicles produced. You also ask whether a person who adds a fifth wheel to complete a truck is a manufacturer who is subject to the requirements.

Section 573.5(b) of NHTSA "Defect Reports" regulation (49 CFR Part 573) requires manufacturers of motor vehicles to report, on a quarterly basis, the total number of the manufacturer's vehicles by make, model, and model year, if appropriate, produced or imported during that quarter. This requirement applies to all manufacturers of complete or incomplete motor vehicles, including manufacturers of trucks. A person who adds a fifth wheel to an incomplete vehicle and completes the vehicle is considered to be a manufacturer under section 573.3 of the regulation, and is required to report production figures as part of his quarterly reports.

ID: nht72-4.31

DATE: 10/01/72 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Chesapeake Marine Products

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of September 21, 1972, you ask, "are there any "partial built" certification standards which would govern our operation as a boat trailer distributor?"

I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, for your review as to their applicability to your operations. They apply to manufacturers who initiate or complete the manufacturer of motor vehicles. They do not, however, impose an obligation upon a distributor of boat trailers who does not alter the vehicle he receives from a manufacturer in a manner that affects compliance with applicable standards.

ID: nht72-4.32

DATE: 12/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Intercontinental Equipment Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1972. You have enclosed a copy of a letter from Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd., dated September 14, 1972, in which it objects to the certification label that you propose to attach to Suzuki trucks imported by you for sale. The label shows Suzuki as the manufacturer and Intercontinental Equipment Corporation (IEC) as the importer of the trucks.

Suzuki bases its objection on the fact that:

". . . the vehicles as manufactured by Suzuki does (sic) not conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and it will be misrepresentation by our company to make such statement."

Suzuki also comments "the responsibility for compliance rests sorely (sic) on both IEC and Yachiyoda but this fact is not clearly shown on the label."

This agency's position is that the certification scheme you have described is an appropriate one for imported vehicles that have been modified after manufacture to conform to the standards.

We do not consider the certification label necessarily to be a representation by the original manufacturer. The question of who is responsible for the correctness of the certification, and for conformity, must be decided on the facts of the individual case. In this case, the representation is by IEC, not Suzuki, and IEC is responsible for conformity of the vehicle.

ID: nht72-4.33

DATE: 02/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Diamond Reo Trucks Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1971, concerning the Certification regulations, and the regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Part 567, 568). You state that you do not believe the publication of December 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 23571), responds to certain questions you raised in your docket submission of October 27, 1971, and request that we clarify these points for you.

You stated that one problem not dealt with by the amendment of December 10 is that it is impractical for you to place multiple tire sizes (you use an example of nine sizes for one model line) on a small certification label. However, we believe the preamble to the notice of December 10 deals directly with the problem you raise. It said, "as on some vehicles it will be difficult to affix the required label in the designated location, because of space limitations, . . ." "multicolumn labels or adjacent labels in two or more parts are permitted." The provision for listing multiple tire sizes is optional with the manufacturer, and if it presents difficulties a manufacturer may list a single GAWR and GVWR based on the specific tires with which the vehicle, as manufactured, is equipped.

Your letter of October 27, 1971, indicates that you have traditionally furnished a vehicle identification plate with vehicles you manufacture which specifies a "maximum GVW rating" and you raise questions concerning possible discrepancies between the "maximum GVW rating" on the Vehicle Identification Plate and "GAWR" and "GVWR" on the Certification label. The position taken by NHTSA is that the only values that should be provided for gross vehicle or gross axle weight rating are those on the certification label. Any other capacity placed on the vehicle should be clearly and unambiguously described, and should not be represented in any way that it could be confused with GAWR and GVWR. Furthermore, while the GAWR and GVWR may be placed on a vehicle identification plate in the case of a vehicle for which you are the final-stage manufacturer, it may cause problems if the vehicle is an incomplete vehicle (unless pursuant to @ 567.5(b) and 568.7, you as the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assume the legal responsibility for the vehicle). The value on the identification plate might conflict with the GAWR and GVWR placed on the certification label affixed by the final-stage manufacturer.

The answer to the issues raised in your October 27 letter are as follows:

1. Your first problem appears to be that vehicles previously rated as Class 8 under State law, based on axle capability, will under the definitions of GVWR and GAWR now be Class 7 due to the tires generally furnished with the vehicle. The GVWR rating on the certification label is not intended to replace the method under which vehicles are classified under State laws. If States use GVWR as a basis for classification without understanding that the criteria for determining this figure differ from those used previously, the problem should be brought to the States' attention by affected parties.

2. Your second and third questions concern the differences between the vehicle identification plate and the GVWR on the certification label when the final manufacturer makes changes in the chassis equipment. Your question appears to assume that you will have the responsibility for the certification label on an incomplete vehicle. This is not the case. Except when the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes complete legal responsibility under @ 567.5(b) and 568.7, the certification label including GVWR and GAWR, is the responsibility of the final-stage manufacturer. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer's duty is to furnish information concerning weight ratings and conformity with the standards in the Part 568 document, in which you can easily provide as detailed information as you wish. Any permanent labels that you affix as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer are not part of our regulatory scheme and are your own responsibility. If your own "identification plate" causes you problems, discontinuing the practice would be a possible solution.

In your question 4, you ask whether the ultimate retail customer is considered a final manufacturer if he makes changes that affect GVWR and GAWR. The answer is that the ultimate retail customer is a final-stage manufacturer if he fulfills the definition of that category in @ 568.3. If the vehicle he purchases is an incomplete vehicle as defined in that section, then he has the same responsibility as any other final-stage manufacturer to affix a label with the correct GVWR and GAWR information. If he purchases a complete vehicle, then he is not a manufacturer and need not make changes in the labels regardless of what he does with the tires. Merely changing tires, or purchasing a vehicle complete except for tires, would not make such a purchaser a final-stage manufacturer.

ID: nht72-4.34

DATE: 09/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your note of September 5, 1972, I confirm that the format of the sample labels you submitted to us with your letter of August 18, 1972, is in accordance with our Certification regulations.

ID: nht72-4.35

DATE: 04/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Department of Engineering

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Carter has asked me to reply to your letter of March 3, 1972, in which you ask who has the responsibility for certification of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.

Paragraph 567.5(a) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations states, ". . . Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each final-stage manufacturer, as defined in @ 568.3 of this chapter, of a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages shall affix to each vehicle a label, of the type and in the manner and form described . . . ." Paragraphs (b) and (c) are concerned with incomplete and intermediate manufacturers who assume legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act), with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured.

Paragraph 568.3 states. " 'Final-stage' manufacturer means a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle."

The subject is also dealt with in the Preamble to Part 568 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. " . . . By its definition, a completed vehicle is one that requires no further manufacturing operations in order to perform its intended function other than the attachments of readily attachable components and minor finishing operations. If a manufacturer installs a component that is not readily attachable, such as a fifth wheel, then he is a final-stage manufacturer even though his contribution to the overall vehicle may appear small . . .

"In the event that a 'readily attachable component' is a component regulated by the standards, such as a mirror or a tire, the final-stage manufacturer must assume responsibility and certify the vehicle even though he does not install the particular component. Otherwise, the installer of mirrors and tires would be considered a final-stage manufacturer, a status that he would probably find unacceptable and that would tend to make certification less meaningful . . . ."

I am enclosing Parts 567 and 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have further questions I will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht72-4.36

DATE: 05/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Lee Equipment Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 11, 1972, to our New York office, that has been referred to me.

Paragraph 568,3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations states," 'Final stage' manufacturer means a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle."

The subject is also dealt with in the Preamble to Part 568" . . . The definitions by which the regulation establishes the categories of 'incompete vehicle,' 'completed vehicle,' and the three categories of vehicle manufacturers provide a framework within which each may categorize himself and his products. Of necessity, the definitions are broad and may not clearly define individual situations . . . . In the usual case, it will be possible for the affected manufacturers to reach agreement between themselves as to their respective obligations . . . ." (emphasis added)

In the event that the matter is in dispute between yourself and the tank installer we would be inclined, based on the information in hand, to rule that the tank installer is the final stage manufacturer inasmuch as the equipment that you install would be "readily attachable."

Your obligations as a manufacturer would be the same whether the tank you install on the new chassis is new or used.

I trust this will answer your questions.