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.

ID: nht72-4.37

DATE: 06/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dealers Truck Equipment Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1972, inquiring as to your responsibilities for the Certification of two types of vehicles you manufacture. In the first, you mount a winch behind the cab of the truck. The vehicles are then delivered to the Louisiana Highway Department who complete them by adding a fifth wheel and a tail roller. In this set of circumstances, we would consider you to be an "intermediate manufacturer", subject to the requirements of section 568.5 of the "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" regulations, a copy of which is enclosed.

The second operation you perform is mounting front winches on pick-up trucks. The NHTSA has taken the position that manufacturers such as you who merely add equipment to already completed vehicles may retain that vehicle's certification and need not (Illegible Word). However, if you cause the vehicle not to conform to any motor vehicle safety standard, you will be in violation of Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)) and may be subject to civil penalties.

ID: nht72-4.38

DATE: 07/27/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1972, requesting information on steps to be taken under the Certification regulations when a manufacturer considers a fifth wheel to be a "readily attachable component," and certifies the vehicle as a complete vehicle before the attachment of the fifth wheel. You ask what responsibilities apply to the person who ultimately attaches the fifth wheel when that person also affixes other components to the vehicle. You list as other components a third axle, the substitution of an air ride suspension for the regular suspension, and the addition of a "drum" unit (we assume that this is a dromedary unit).

The situations you have listed appear to resemble situations similar to those involving the possible use of the "altering distributor label" which we discussed in our letter to you of June 20. We said in that letter that if a person altering a completed vehicle does not make changes significant enough to make him a remanufacturer, he may satisfy the requirements by allowing the existing label to remain in place. If he does make significant changes, however, he must recertify the vehicle, but he may rely on the previous manufacturer's certification for those aspects of performance that are not affected by his alterations.

We would consider the addition of a third axle to be remanufacturing, and you were correct in advising your member to recertify the vehicle, utilizing the information on the existing label except as to the third axle. Strictly speaking, however, your member as the remanufacturer is responsible for the conformity of the entire vehicle. While he may rely on the information on the original label, if a noncompliance were discovered the burden in the first instance would be on him to show that his alterations were not responsible.

We cannot determine from the information you provide whether the "Substitution of an air ride suspension" would constitute remanufacturing. You can probably infer the answer based on your own knowledge of what is involved.

With reference to the drum unit we advised you by letter of March 24, 1972, that we consider the addition of a dromedary unit to be remanufacturing. A person who installs such a component on a new vehicle would be required to recertify the entire vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. He may also rely on the previous certification for those aspects of performance which he does not affect.

You also ask whether, if the installation of the fifth wheel alters a component covered by a safety standard, the installer should recertify the vehicle. As you are assuming that the fifth wheel is a "readily attachable component," no further certification is necessary. However, the person installing the fifth wheel must ensure that the vehicle conforms to all standards when the work is completed.

ID: nht72-4.39

DATE: 12/07/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bluefield Mack Trucks Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1972, requesting information on alteration, and installation of fifth wheels, on new trucks.

Persons who install fifth wheels on new trucks are generally considered to be "final-stage manufacturers" under NHTSA Certification regulations, and are required to certify that vehicles on which they install the fifth wheel conform to applicable Federal standards. The NHTSA has recently proposed requirements regarding persons who alter completed vehicles, and a copy of this proposal is enclosed.

Copies of NHTSA requirements may be obtained as indicated on the enclosure, "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." The regulations regarding the certification of motor vehicles are found at Parts 567 and 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, (Item 1) and of the volume, "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" (Item 3).

ID: nht72-4.4

DATE: 08/25/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your request of August 7, 1972, for the data used to support the conclusions we announced in Notice 20 of Docket 69-7 concerning the ignition interlock for the center front position and the ability of seat belt systems to meet a 60g, 3-millisecond injury criterion in 1975.

In evaluating the petitions for reconsideration of the center seat interlock requirements, we followed the techniques of cost/benefit analysis adopted in our earlier studies of passive restraints (see General Reference items 42, 43, and 99). The anticipated incremental benefit from an interlock at the center position was $ 9.70 per vehicle, which, when divided by the incremental cost of $ 7.00 supplied by Ford Motor Company (N<16>-69-7-3), produced a favorable ratio of 1.4. Although the analysis was completed, it was used as a rough working paper and was not submitted to the docket. A typed draft of the analysis is being prepared for submission to the docket.

Although we decided to grant interim relief for belt systems from the 60g, 3-millisecond chest injury criterion, several manufacturers submitted data which indicated to us that their present systems were capable of meeting the criterion or that they were close enough that minor modifications would enable them to meet it. The data from your own organization (N<13>-69-7-16) showed that a number of cars were passing the criterion by comfortable margins. The Chrysler data, for example, revealed that in 9 tests no dummy recorded chest accelerations in excess of 50g's. Although General Motors, in its comment, submitted data on subcompacts which indicated a problem with chest accelerations, the data from their larger vehicles ranged between 38 and 52g's. (N<13>-69-7-20). Toyota also submitted test results with most accelerations in the range of 45-50g's, with only one test of a Corolla appearing to show a marginal condition (N<13>-69-7-23).

From our research contracts, a number of sled tests have been conducted at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (General Reference No. 135), and most of these produced accelerations of between 30 and 50g's. From other sources have come data indicating that such improvements in belt design as the use of tear seams can produce significantly lower accelerations (see, e.g., General Reference items 161, 166, and 167).

ID: nht72-4.40

DATE: 06/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pennsylvania Recreational Vehicle and Camping Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 9 to Mr. Schneider asking whether mobile homes and modular homes which have (Illegible Words) can be exempt from (Illegible Word) and (Illegible Word) requirements.

It is my understanding that a mobile home is a structure which may be, and generally is, used more than once, from site to site, on its own wheels. Accordingly as determined several years ago that mobile homes are "motor vehicles" under its National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, however infrequent their use of the public roads. As motor vehicles, they must (Illegible Word) certification labels that specify (Illegible Words) ratings.

If a modular home on wheels uses the public roads "only for the (Illegible Word) trip to the (Illegible Word) lot," on your letter states, (Illegible Word) is planned on a permanent foundation, we would not consider it a "motor vehicle."

ID: nht72-4.41

DATE: 09/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Intercontinental Equipment Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1972, in which you raise several questions concerning Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. You state that Intercontinental Equipment Corp. (I.E.C.) is the United States importer and distributer of certain vehicles manufactured by Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. in Japan. You also state that I.E.C. has contracted with Yachiyoda Sangyo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo to acquire vehicles from Suzuki, remove non-complying equipment, install approved devices, and affix necessary labels of conformity and arrange for shipment.

The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. You ask whether the I.E.C. contract with Yachiyoda changes the status of Suzuki as manufacturer and I.E.C. as importer. It does not change the status with respect to our manufacturer identification and certification regulations.

2. You inquire as to the classification of Suzuki and Yachiyoda under Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Since Suzuki manufactures a completed vehicle, Yachiyoda is not considered a manufacturer under NHTSA regulations and is not required by the NHTSA to submit manufacturer identification or certification information.

3. You ask whether the label of conformity (Label #2) which you propose to have affixed to the vehicles is acceptable. The NHTSA finds it acceptable.

I enclose copies of Parts 566, 567, and 568 for your information.

ID: nht72-4.42

DATE: 08/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ryder Systems Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 31, 1972, concerning work to be performed on new trucks. Your three questions are answered below.

You ask, "What are the legal aspects of a road contractor doing the fifth-wheel work on a new truck?" The installation of a fifth wheel on a new vehicle would most likely make the installer a "final-stage manufacturer" under NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) and regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Part 568). Final-stage manufacturers bear the responsibility for certifying that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The procedure for certifying is specified in the Certification regulations, copies of which are enclosed.

Your second question is, "At what stage after purchase may a new truck be legally termed a used truck?" For our purposes, a used vehicle is any vehicle that has been purchased in good faith for a purpose other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

Your last question is, "Would the installation of extra lights or safety items be construed as final manufacturing?" The installation of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tires, is not considered to be an activity which makes the installer a final-stage manufacturer. We are of the opinion that the same would be true regarding the installation of "extra" lights (those not required pursuant to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, (49 CFR 571.108)). We cannot provide you with an opinion as to "safety items" as this term is too general. However, assuming that you are referring to items not required by a motor vehicle safety standard, our answer would most likely be the same. The manufacturer should determine whether the component he installs affects to a significant extent either the configuration or purpose of the vehicle. If it does not, (we will accept a manufacturer's reasonable determination in this regard) then the installer would not be considered a final-stage manufacturer.