ID: 12236.ztv

Mr. Roy Dickinson
Controller
Falken Tire Corporation
10404 Sixth Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Re: Petition for Exemption for an Inconsequential Noncompliance With Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

Dear Mr. Dickinson:

This is in response to your petition of May 20, 1996, for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements that apply when a manufacturer has determined that a noncompliance exists in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that it has produced.

Falken Tire has determined that a noncompliance with paragraph S4.3(d) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 exists in 13,000 tires that it has produced. The plies in the tread are shown as "1 polyester + 2 Stel" instead of "1 polyester + 2 Steel."

Paragraph S4.3(d) requires that tires be labeled with the generic name of each cord material used in the plies. In the opinion of the agency, Falken Tire has provided this information, albeit in a slightly misspelled form. Since there is no generic cord material called "stel," readers who observe the misspelling will understand that steel is meant. Therefore, in our opinion, the Falken tires in question conform with paragraph S4.3(d) of Standard No. 109, and its petition is moot.

This situation is to be distinguished from those in which a mistake is made in a numerical value on a tire sidewall label, such as reversal of ply counts, inflation pressure, or load rating. In these instances, a noncompliance exists because the typographical error provides incorrect and misleading information. The correct information may be vital to safety, and, when such an error occurs, it requires the manufacturer to notify and remedy, if not excused pursuant to the petition process.

We appreciate your concern over your minor mistake. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:556

d:8/22/96

ID: 1985-04.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert C. Blunt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert C. Blunt Papy, Poole, Weissenborn & Papy 201 Alhambra Circle Suite 502 Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Dear Mr. Blunt:

This responds to your two letters to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller in which you sought information concerning our Uniform Tire quality Grading Standards (UTQGS).

In your first letter, you enclosed a copy of a newspaper article that appeared in the Miami Herald. That article stated that a "Federal study" rated projected mileage for 134 different radial tires, and ranked the "best" and "worst" tires. You asked for a copy of this study, along with the standards used by the agency to grade treadwear, traction, and temperature-resistance for tires. Your second letter indicates you subsequently received a copy of our UTQGS (49 CFR S575.104), which sets forth the procedures the tire manufacturers use to grade their tires. As discussed below, the "Federal study" referenced in the newspaper article is merely information taken from tire manufacturers' UTQGS submissions to the agency.

As set forth in the UTQGS, this agency requires the tire manufacturers to assign grades to each of their tire designs. NHTSA then makes available to the public the grade assignments reported to it by the tire manufacturers. Hence, the tests to which the article referred were conducted entirely by the individual tire manufacturers, not by the Federal government.

Neither the tire manufacturers nor the agency made, or could make, any total tire mileage projections from the reported treadwear grades. If one were to project total mileage from the treadwear grade, one could say only that a certain tire might get x miles if driven over the same roads at the same speeds on the same vehicles with the same careful maintenance performed daily on those vehicles. A projection of a tire's treadlife which did not include all of these caveats would be misleading.

Finally, the agency does not categorize particular tires as the best or the worst based solely on the treadwear grades assigned by the manufacturers. Such an approach ignores the importance of the traction and temperature resistance grades, both of which have far greater significance from a safety standpoint than does the treadwear grade. Because of the many variables involved in selecting the most appropriate tire, this agency cannot state that any particular tire is the best for most drivers.

In your second letter, you stated that you had received a 1982 publication entitled "Tire Grading System Information," and requested a copy of the 1983 and 1984 updates of that publication. The agency did not update that publication during those years. Instead, all interested consumers have been provided with a complete listing of all grades which have been reported to the agency, together with an explanatory sheet telling how to use those grades. I have enclosed a copy of those grades for your information.

For your information, NHTSA suspended treadwear grading requirements under the UTQGS, effective February 8, 1983. This action was announced after the agency found high levels of variability in treadwear test results and in the grade assignment practices of the various tire manufacturers. This variability resulted in a substantial likelihood that treadwear information being provided to the public under this program would be misleading; i.e., that the assigned treadwear grades could, in many instances, incorrectly rank the actual treadwear performance of different tires.

On April 24, 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the agency's suspension of the treadwear grading requirements in Public Citizen v. Steed, 733 F.2d 93. Accordingly, the agency published a final rule reimplementing the treadwear grading require-agency published a final rule reimplementing the treadwear grading requirements on December 19, 1984 (49 FR 49293; copy enclosed). Hence, if you were seeking treadwear grades for 1983 and 1984, none were assigned during those years.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

August 8, 1985

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Commission 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20 90

Attention: Jeffrey R. Miller, Esq.

Dear Mr. Miller:

Thank you for the "Uniform Tire Quality Grade Consumer Information" documents and the Uniform Tire Grade Standards regulations.

Some time ago we received from you the 1982 bulletin entitled Tire Grading System Information. We would appreciate your advising us if there has been an update on that information for the years 1983 and 1984, which are the years when those studies and results would be most helpful to us. Should there be such new information on tire grading, would you please be so kind as to mail it to us. If there is a charge, please let us know and we would be more than happy to mail you a check by return mail.

Your cooperation is very much appreciated.

Very truly yours, Robert C. Blunt RCB:en

July 31, 1985

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Commission 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Jeffrey R. Miller, Esq.

Re: NHTSA Treadwear Testing - 1985

Dear Mr. Miller:

Reference is made to my letter to you of April 30, 1985 reference D.O.T.-HS-806 091.

Enclosed please find a copy of an article which appeared in the Tuesday, July 30, 1985 edition of the Miami Herald as a United Press International release.

Could you please be so kind as to forward to this office a copy of the complete study referred to in the UPI article along with any available standards used by your agency to grade treadwear, traction and temperature-resistance.

We will, of course, be happy to reimburse your agency for your cost in locating and copying the above-requested documents.

Your continued cooperation is appreciated. Very truly yours, Robert C. Blunt RCB:en cc: Mr. Art Casanova Mr. Joe Annis Enclosure

ID: nht89-2.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 14, 1989

FROM: Betsy Dittemore, Legislative Liaison, State of Iowa, Department of Public Safety

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-30-90 to B. Dittemore from P. J. Rice; (A35; Std. 205); and NHTSA bulletin dated 8-85 re Federal Auto Safety Laws and Motor Vehicle Window Tinting

TEXT:

I am requesting information regarding the interpretation of the federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting applicability.

Attached is a 1985 document from NHTSA stating in part "... light transmittance through the combination of tinting film and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility." That standard, referred to as Standard No. 205, applies to new vehicle manufacture. Also, "... no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add tinting to windows in a motor vehicle, if that tinting would 'render' inoperative the glazing' s compliance with Standard No. 205." While neither of these provisions applies to individual vehicle owners, they in turn must comply with applicable state law.

Legislation was proposed in 1989 (attached) that states that a sunscreen device (which includes a film material used in conjunction with safety glazing to reduce the effects of the sun) shall be nonreflective and shall have light transmission of not less than thirty-five percent. I would interpret that to mean that only 35% of the sunlight must pass through, which would not meet Standard No. 205. Also attached is supporting material that states that many states currently allow this level of light tran smission.

The NHTSA Bulletin, 1985, further states that "... states may not establish provisions regarding tinting or other vehicle window requirements which are either more or less stringent than those provided by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205." Iowa has adopted the federal standard for window glazing material.

I would appreciate your assistance in reviewing the attached Window Film Legislation and informing me of whether those levels are in compliance with federal standards. Also, whether the attached legislation would meet federal guidelines, Standard No. 20 5.

ID: nht90-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/30/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KENNETH E. TOMPOR -- AUTO BROKERS & LEASING LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/26/90 FROM KENNETH TOMPOR TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; RE IMPORT OF 1985 FERRARI 288 GTO AS OF TODAY, 04/26/90; OCC 4706; LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM KEN TOMPOR -- AUTO BROKERS AND LEASING TO JOSEPH THRASHER -- NEWPORT BEACH POLI CE DEPARTMENT

TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX of April 26, 1990. You would like a statement from this agency, for purposes of litigation that commences on May 1, that a 1985 Ferrari 288 GTO cannot be legally imported into the United States.

Pursuant to amendments made to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) by P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, a motor vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor veh icle safety standards, cannot, subject to the exception noted below, be imported permanently into the United States on and after January 31, 1990, unless the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that it is ca pable of being readily modified to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or that its safety features comply with or are capable of being modified to comply with all such applicable standards. The Administrator has made no det ermination with respect to the 1985 Ferrari 288 GTO.

However, no such determination is necessary if the following criteria are met at the time of importation.

The importer's assigned place of employment was outside the United States as of October 31, 1988, and (she) has not had an assigned place of employment between that time and the entry of the motor vehicle.

The importer has not previously imported a motor vehicle into the United States before October 31, 1988, that was not in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The importer had acquired (or had entered into a binding c ontract to acquire) the motor vehicle before October 31, 1988. The vehicle must be entered not later than October 31, 1992.

Only if an importer meets these criteria may (she) at the present time legally import a nonconforming 1985 Ferrari 288 GTO into the United States (subject, of course, to the obligation to bring it into compliance with the safety standards after its entry ).

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takashi Tohse -- Quality Assurance Group, Fabricated Glass General Division, Asahi Glass Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/7/95 LETTER FROM TAKASHI TOHSE TO MARVIN SHOW (OCC 10800; OCC 10706)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tohse:

This responds to your inquiry about whether various ways of marking your automotive glazing comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Specifically, you ask the agency to assess the merits of what you refer to as "plural company Ids" in your logo mark. By "plural company Ids," we assume you mean more than one distinctive designation or trademark. We also assume that you are a "prime glazing material manufacturer" which the Standard defines as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material."

Under Standard No. 205, a replacement windshield is required to be marked with information that includes the prime glazing manufacturer's "distinctive designation or trademark" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. See, S6.1 and S6.2.

You first ask, "Can a manufacturer use different kinds of Ids for different grades of products?" The answer to this question is yes. We understand that what you refer to as "Ids" is the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. As long as an item of glazing has a manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark, a manufacturer would comply with this requirement. The Standard does not prohibit a manufacturer from varying this distinctive designation or trademark among its different grades . (We note that each of your products would be marked with the same manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by NHTSA. This code mark will help NHTSA identify the manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall cam paigns.)

Your second question asks "Can a manufacturer used the same distinctive designation or trademark for two different companies?" The answer is yes. The requirements do not prohibit two companies from sharing a distinctive designation or trademark. As men tioned above, the glazing must be marked with the manufacturer's code mark that identifies the glazing's actual manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: 10706

Mr. Takashi Tohse
Quality Assurance Group
Fabricated Glass General Division
Asahi Glass Company
2-1-2 Marunouchi
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100 Japan

Dear Mr. Tohse:

This responds to your inquiry about whether various ways of marking your automotive glazing comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Specifically, you ask the agency to assess the merits of what you refer to as "plural company Ids" in your logo mark. By "plural company Ids," we assume you mean more than one distinctive designation or trademark. We also assume that you are a "prime glazing material manufacturer" which the Standard defines as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material."

Under Standard No. 205, a replacement windshield is required to be marked with information that includes the prime glazing manufacturer's "distinctive designation or trademark" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. See, S6.1 and S6.2.

You first ask, "Can a manufacturer use different kinds of Ids for different grades of products?" The answer to this question is yes. We understand that what you refer to as "Ids" is the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. As long as an item of glazing has a manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark, a manufacturer would comply with this requirement. The Standard does not prohibit a manufacturer from varying this distinctive designation or trademark among its different grades. (We note that each of your products would be marked with the same manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by NHTSA. This code mark will help NHTSA identify the manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns.)

Your second question asks "Can a manufacturer used the same distinctive designation or trademark for two different companies?" The answer is yes. The requirements do not prohibit two companies from sharing a distinctive designation or trademark. As mentioned above, the glazing must be marked with the manufacturer's code mark that identifies the glazing's actual manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:4/10/95

ID: nht95-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David O'Neil -- Hehr International Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/6/94 LETTER FROM DAVID O'NEIL TO PHILIP R. RECHT (OCC 10574)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, with respect to the labeling of glazing installed on transit buses. You stated that the passenger and driver side window glazing on certain transit bus es will be a glass-plastic composite consisting of 1/4 inch tempered glass with DuPont Spallshield 307 plastic laminated to the interior surface. You asked whether this glazing must be certified and marked as Item 15B/16B glazing or whether it is possib le to certify and mark the glazing as Item 2/3. You also asked whether taping the required cleaning instructions to the glazing satisfies the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2.10.

Question One: Must the glazing be certified and marked as Item 15B/16B or is it possible to certify and mark the glazing as Item 2/3?

The glazing described in your letter is tempered glass-plastic and therefore must be certified and marked as either Item 15B or 16B glazing. Item 2 and Item 3 glazing refers to glass, not glass-plastic glazing. It would be incorrect to certify and mark a glass-plastic item of glazing as glass.

Question Two: Does a label containing all required instructions which is taped to the glazing satisfy the requirements of paragraph S5.1.2.10?

Paragraph S5.1.2.10(a) states that

Each manufacturer of glazing materials designed to meet the requirements of S5.1.2.1, S5.1.2.2, S5.1.2.3, S5.1.2.4, S5.1.2.5, S5.1.2.6, S5.1.2.7, or S5.1.2.8 shall affix a label, removable by hand without tools, to each item of such glazing material. Th e label shall identify the product involved, specify instructions and agents for cleaning the material that will minimize the loss of transparency, and instructions for removing frost and ice, and at the option of the manufacturer refer owners to the veh icle's Owners Manual for more specific cleaning and other instructions.

S5.1.2.10(a) applies to your Item 15B/16B glazing since the glazing is required to comply with S5.1.2.6 or S5.1.2.8, S5.1.2.10(a) requires a manufacturer to "affix a label, removable by hand without tools . . . ." Taping the instructions to the glazing i s one way to affix a label to glazing that could be removed by hand without tools. Therefore, a manufacturer could comply with the requirements in S5.1.2.10(a) by taping the instructions to the glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: 10790

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Manager, Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 118, Power-operated window, partition, and roof panel systems. You asked whether the "squeezing force limitation" of S5 applies only to the first attempt to close a power operated window, partition, or roof panel system (power-operated system) and not to immediately following attempts to close. You explained that an operator may initiate more than one closing attempt in order to assure the closing of the power operated system under adverse conditions such as low temperature or the presence of ice in the power operated system's track. As discussed below, the S5 squeezing force limitation applies to each closing attempt.

By way of background information, Standard No. 118 requires that a power operated system, while closing, must comply with one of two alternative provisions. The first, S4, generally specifies requirements for situations where a person is expected to be in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle to supervise the closing. The second, S5, covers "unsupervised" closings, i.e., automatic closings or closings where the person initiating the closing is further away from the vehicle.

In the rulemaking establishing S5, NHTSA recognized that unsupervised closings increase the risk that persons, especially children, could be caught between a closing system and the frame. Therefore, to the extent that a power operated system permits unsupervised closings, the agency decided to require an automatic reversal mechanism that reverses the window direction upon its meeting an obstruction. More specifically, if an obstruction is between 4 and 200 mm from any part of the vehicle structure with which the closing system mates, S5 requires window reversal before a force of 100 Newtons is encountered.

S5 does not specify different squeezing force limitation requirements for different closing attempts. Therefore, a

power operated system must meet the same requirements for each closing attempt. We note that since the requirements of S5 address unsupervised closings, the same safety concerns about children being caught between a closing system and frame would be relevant to each closing attempt.

I note that NHTSA decided not to apply the S5 squeezing force limitation requirement to unsupervised closings within the area between 4 mm and any part of the vehicle structure with which the closing system mates. The agency recognized that injury from system closure is not possible in this area, and that unnecessary automatic reversal could result from the system's misalignment or obstruction from ice. Thus, during unsupervised closing, if the system encounters an obstruction less than 4 mm from any part of the vehicle structure with which the closing system mates, the power operated system need not reverse.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:118 d:5/17/95

ID: 86-5.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/13/86

FROM: FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- DIRECTOR OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT NHTSA

TO: PETER CAMERON

TITLE: NEF 32GSH

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/10/88 TO PETER CAMERON FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32; LETTER DATED 06/01/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM PETER CAMERON; OCC - 2120

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cameron:

This is in response to your recent request for information concerning legislation and regulations pertaining to the manufacture/importation of motor vehicles.

As a general rule, all motor vehicles must comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in effect on the date of manufacture. Refer to the enclosed Form HS-189 for the general requirements of the FMVSS.

Section 114 (15 USC 1403) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (th Act) and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567, (49 CFR 567), require that the manufacturer permanently affix a tag or label to a motor vehicle certifying that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

If you determine in good faith that any vehicle manufactured by you does not conform with an applicable FMVSS or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in accordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with section 154 (15 USC 1414).

You should also note that under 49 CFR 566, you are required to submit certain idntifying information and a description of your product to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Prior to offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment form importation into the United States, a foreign manufacturer is required to register an "Agent-for-Service" of process as set forth in 49 CFR 551 45 as well as furnishing the information required by 49 CFR 566.

Federal Regulations concerning anti-pollution emission control devices are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation. For guidance in this area, it is suggested that you write the Environmental Protection Agency, Director, Mobile Source Enforcement Division, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

[If at the time of importation the vehicle is in a kit form items of equipment contained therein for which there is an applicable standard must be certified at the time of importation. They are FMVSS Nos. 106, 109, 116, 205, 209, 211, and 213.]

Generally, completely assembled kit cars must meet all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture in order to be imported into the United States.

You are advised to carefully examine the Act, the FMVSS, as well as other regulations listed below to insure that you fully understand the extent of the responsibilities you incur upon the manufacture of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which there is an applicable FMVSS.

Enclosed for your information and guidance is a copy of the following:

1. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USc 1381 et seq.)

2. 49 CFR 555, "Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards"

3. 49 CFR 567, "Certification"

4. 19 CFR 12.80, "Importation Regulations"

5. "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations"

6. Form HS-189, "General Requirements of FMVSS"

7. Two Letters of interpretation regarding kit cars.

8. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

Should you have other questions, please contact Mr. George Shifflet, a member of my staff, on telephone number 202-426-3876.

Sincerely,

ID: nht72-5.11

DATE: 04/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: White River Distributors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1972, concerning your earlier letter to us of March 6, 1972, which we answered on March 22. You indicate that you have received trucks with identical specifications, but with different GVW ratings, and ask, why is it permissible for a manufacturer to place different GVW ratings on identical vehicles. You state further that, based on our letter, you have concluded that it is the responsibility of the user to see that the GVW rating assigned by the final-stage manufacturer is not violated.

As we indicated to you in our letter of March 22, 1972, there is nothing in the regulations that prohibits a manufacturer from placing different GVW ratings on identical vehicles, as long as the rating in each case meets the requirements of sections 567.4(g)(3) or 567.5(a)(5), whichever is appropriate. Manufacturers may have various reasons for changing the GVWR or GAWR of vehicles they manufacture, and the regulations allow them to do this. As we indicated to you previously, final stage manufacturers such as yourself might resolve this problem by specifying the desired weight ratings in your purchase order.

Your statement that it becomes the user's responsibility to see that the GVWR assigned by the final stage manufacturer is not violated is essentially correct. However, the requirement for affixing the GVWR and GAWR to a vehicle should not be confused with the requirements pertaining to the overloading of vehicles. The latter are presently primarily a matter of state enforcement, and do not affect the requirements of final stage manufacturers to affix GVWR and GAWR in accordance with Parts 567 and 568.