ID: nht78-2.28

DATE: 01/17/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hendrickson Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 21, 1977, letter asking whether a school bus that is propelled by a propane-fueled engine is required to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75).

Paragraph S3 of Safety Standard No. 301-75 specifies that the standard applies to school buses that have gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds and use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. Since the boiling point of propane is below 32 degrees F, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would not be applicable to a school bus propelled by a propane engine.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

November 21, 1978

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: 571.301 Standard No. 301: Fuel system integrity

Dear Sir:

Hendrickson Manufacturing Company, as a manufacturer of custom school bus chassis over 10,000 GVWR pounds, requests a ruling that would determine if a school bus propelled by a propane fueled engine is required to comply with Standard 301, fuel system integrity.

HENDRICKSON MFG. CO.

Kenneth R. Brennan Engineer Mobile Equipment Division

CC: M. A. SIGNA; T. F. CRAMER; A. TABB

ID: nht78-2.29

DATE: 08/04/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Quinn Cuzzone & Geremia

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 29, 1978, concerning the requirements for designating an agent pursuant to section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1399(e)).

Title 49 CFR @ 551.45 specifies the procedural requirements for service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers. The purpose of these requirements is to enable the Department of Transportation to effectuate service of process on manufacturers who are outside the jurisdictional limits of the United States. It is not necessary for manufacturers or importers located within the United States to designate an agent for service of process. Therefore, the New York corporation which you represent need not make such designation.

This letter also confirms Ms. DeMeter's statement that Sprinter Moped Incorporated has not designated an agent. They will have to do so prior to the importation of the mopeds. Since the corporation you represent is the importer, it may be desirable for Sprinter to appoint that corporation or one of its officers as the agent.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not impose any requirements on domestic importers. However, they may want to make sure that the manufacturer complies with the regulations regarding manufacturer identification, certification, and applicable safety standards. I have enclosed two information sheets on the "Application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" and "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Enclosures

ID: nht78-2.3

DATE: 12/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 13, 1978 NOA-30

Mr. T. F. Brown Mack Trucks, Inc. Engineering Division P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Brown:

I regret the delay in responding to your August 31, 1978, letter requesting an interpretation of S5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. In that letter, you stated that you had been contacted by an employee of this agency's enforcement office and advised that the certification labels for Mack trucks did not comply with the requirements of that section. The reason given for this conclusion was that the labels used the word "on" between the tire and rim information instead of the comma shown in the example following S5.3.3.

S5.3 requires that the labeling information specified in S5.3.1 -S5.3.3 must appear in the format shown in the truck example following S5.3.3. This requirement does not mean that certification labels must be identical to the example in every respect. Minor variations are permitted. By "minor variations", I mean such things as a slight difference in punctuation or the substitution of a word for a punctuation mark that do not change or obscure the meaning of the label. Mack's substitution of "on" for a comma is such a minor variation and, accordingly, is permissible under the standard.

The label enclosed with your letter shows spaces to provide information for the front, rear and three intermediate axles. When this label is used on vehicles with fewer than five axles, you should stamp "Not applicable", or words of similar import, in the spaces provided for axles which do not exist on the particular vehicle which is being labelled.

Without this indication, the label could be confusing and so would fail to clearly provide the required information for that vehicle. An indication of nonapplicability would alert the reader to that fact.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 31, 1978

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation GAWR-Tire-Rim Labeling Requirements FMVSS 120 - Vehicle Certification Labels

Mack Trucks, Inc, a manufacturer of heavy duty diesel trucks of 26,000 pounds GVWR and greater, is requesting an interpretation of the specific GAWR-tire-rim labeling requirements of FMVSS 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

We were advised, by telephone, by a member of the NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance staff that there were several minor discrepancies found on one of our vehicle certification labels. Four items were noted as being incorrect. Three of these four items were well-taken, and steps to avoid a reoccurrence of these errors have been taken. The fourth item, however, is the reason for this letter.

Our certification labels set up the gross axle weight ratings, tire, and rim information as follows:

FRONT AXLE WITH TIRES ON RIMS AT COLD SINGLE

We were advised that we could not use the word "ON" as shown above, but should instead use a comma as is illustrated in the "Truck example" shown following Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS 120.

Paragraph S5.3 oF FMVSS 120 states that the information shall appear in the "format" set forth in the example following Section S5.3.

It is our contention that the GAWR and associated information on our certification labels, including the word "ON", does comply with the format set forth following Section S5.3 of FMVSS 120. The word "ON" actually makes the meaning of the statement clearer.

If you look closely at the attached sheet showing one of our labels and the "Truck example" from FMVSS 120, you will note that they are not exactly identical. Therefore, we wonder why only our use of the word "ON" was singled out. (NOTE: The other three items noted in the telephone conversation dealt with information that had been added to the certification label on the vehicle inspected by NHTSA.)

We believe we are presenting all the required information in a form substantially identical to that illustrated in the "Truck example", and that we are in compliance with the applicable regulations. Therefore, we are requesting an interpretation of the specific GAWR-tire-rim labeling requirements of FMVSS 120.

If further discussion of this subject is necessary, please contact the writer at 215-439-3877.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC,

T. F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy Attach.

Insert attachment here (FMVSS 120) found in card copy file.

ID: nht78-2.30

DATE: 09/22/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Fiat Research & Development - U.S.A. Branch

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 16, 1978, letter asking whether a manufacturer is permitted to list on the certification label required by Part 567, Certification, the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) in kilograms as well as pounds. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has permitted the use of kilograms on the certification label as long as the label continues to list the GAWR in pounds also.

ID: nht78-2.31

DATE: 02/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of N.A.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 1, 1978, letter asking whether your certification label complies with the requirements of Part 567, Certification.

Your certification would state the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings in both pounds and kilograms. In the past, the agency has permitted this approach for the purpose of international harmonization of measurements. Therefore, your proposed label appears to comply with the requirements.

ID: nht78-2.32

DATE: 04/05/78

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 21, 1978, letter asking whether section 567.5(c)(7) of Part 567, Certification, requires a manufacturer to use all of the described statements on its certification label.

The answer to your question is no. That section provides that the listed certification statements are to be used as appropriate. Therefore, it is anticipated that a manufacturer will select for inclusion on its certification labels only those certification statements in subparagraph (c)(7) that are appropriate for the certification of its vehicles.

ID: nht78-2.33

DATE: 05/31/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Ward Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 27, 1978, letter asking whether a sample certification label that you submitted complies with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Part 567, Certification.

Military vehicles are exempted from compliance with Federal safety standards. Therefore, the application of the safety standards to these vehicles is a matter of contract between a manufacturer and the military. Since the NHTSA does not mandate Federal safety standards for these vehicles, it is not necessary to put certification labels on them. If you choose to include a label with a vehicle, the label would not be required to comply with any Federal regulations.

ID: nht78-2.34

DATE: 04/07/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Ullman; Fowler & Jeffries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 6, 1978, letter asking about the compliance responsibilities of a final-stage manufacturer who mounts a body on a motor vehicle chassis. In the situation you describe, the chassis would have been tested for compliance with the standards by the chassis manufacturer and the body would have been tested by the body manufacturer. You ask whether the final assembler would be required to crash test the vehicle as assembled.

The chassis manufacturer has responsibilities for compliance with Federal safety standards that are outlined in Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Motor Vehicles Manufactured In Two Or More Stages, of our regulations. The chassis manufacturer must include with its chassis an incomplete vehicle document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the compliance of the chassis with Federal safety standards. Although not required by our regulations, body manufacturers often provide documents addressing the compliance of their vehicle bodies with applicable safety standards. If a body that complies with Federal standards is mounted in accordance with the instructions of the incomplete vehicle document, the final-stage manufacturer can ordinarily assume that the completed vehicle complies with the safety standards. Based upon this assumption, it can certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards.

By following the instructions of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer and relying upon the statements of the body manufacturer, the final-stage manufacturer would be considered to have exercised due care in ensuring that the vehicle complies. However, if the final-stage manufacturer does not follow the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions or in some way makes a major modification that would affect the compliance of the vehicle, it might become necessary for it to undertake some further testing to ensure continued compliance. The amount of further testing, in these instances, would depend upon the extent of modification of the vehicle body or chassis.

For your information, our safety standards and regulations are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 501 et seq. I am enclosing a sheet which details the applicability of Federal Standards to various vehicles.

If after reading this letter, you still have questions that require a meeting, contact Roger Tilton of my staff.

ID: nht78-2.35

DATE: 07/11/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: North Central Tank Repair

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 30, 1978, letter asking whether you are permitted to mount temporarily a body on a vehicle when you know that the body is of a greater load carrying capacity than is appropriate for the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You indicate that some other manufacturer would finish the mounting process and certify the vehicle for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has indicated on many occasions that vehicle overloading poses a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle, in particular, and the motoring public in general. Accordingly, the agency has stated its determination to hold manufacturers responsible for vehicles that they manufacture which will exceed their GVWR's when fully loaded with their intended cargo. The NHTSA considers such overloading to constitute a safety-related defect.

In the operation that you are considering, you would be considered an intermediate vehicle manufacturer. As such, you would be required to comply with all of the requirements in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, that apply to intermediate manufacturers. The NHTSA would consider you to be partially responsible for the construction of a vehicle that when loaded with its intended cargo will exceed its GVWR. Possible agency action might include a mandatory recall and remedy and civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per vehicle.

ID: nht78-2.36

DATE: 05/26/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Doug Mills

COPYEE: CHARLES H. BRADLEY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking additional questions concerning the responsibilities of a person converting a pick-up truck into a dump truck, under Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. This office explained the general responsibilities of a person who alters a certified vehicle in a letter to your associate, Mr. Henry Brown, dated February 1, 1978. You now ask questions regarding specific aspects of the conversion operation and whether they can be accomplished without destroying a vehicle's compliance with safety regulations.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to answer your specific questions. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer or vehicle alterer to determine whether his vehicle is in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that vehicle. The NHTSA cannot review an alteration procedure such as the one with which you are concerned and state that it can or cannot be done in compliance with Federal regulations. There are no safety regulations which require a specific number of bolts or specific bolt locations, for instance. Likewise, Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is specified only in terms of performance requirements, so the NHTSA cannot tell you whether a modified fuel filler neck will destroy a vehicle's compliance with the standard.

As stated in our previous letter, a person who alters a pick-up truck to convert it to a dump truck must certify that the truck remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. Further, the person who makes the conversion must assure that the alterations do not result in any "safety related defects" whether or not there is a specific safety standard that is applicable. Therefore, you must determine for yourself whether the number of bolts you use, the bolt strengths and the bolt locations will result in safety hazards.

I can answer your question number 8 regarding possible liability for removal and alteration of the truck bumper. The Federal safety standard for bumpers is only applicable to passenger cars, so you may alter a truck bumper with impunity provided the action does not result in a safety related defect.