ID: nht76-3.33

DATE: 03/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Clarence J. Baudhuin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 29, 1976, letter to Secretary Coleman, concerning problems with your 22 foot Executive "MINI" Motorhome.

@@ 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, provide that a motor vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) shall

not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

Your letter and its enclosures indicate that your vehicle's weight is 9180 pounds, its designated seating capacity is six, and the GVWR specified by Executive is 9000 pounds. From this information, there appears to be a violation by Executive of Part 567. In addition, the possibility that the rear axle may be overloaded under normal conditions of use may constitute a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I have forwarded your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement for such further action as may be appropriate.

Please note that a final-stage manufacturer is not automatically prohibited from certifying a GVWR that differs from that specified by the chassis manufacturer. For the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, Executive is free to certify a lower GVWR, provided the above-cited constraint is observed.

The remaining questions presented in your letter are not matters over which we have jurisdiction, and probably are most appropriately handled by a private attorney.

ID: nht76-3.34

DATE: 06/22/76

FROM: T. W. HERLIHY FOR S. P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Wisconsin Trailer Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 2, 1976, request for written notification that the "heavy hauler trailer" exclusion of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, has been extended to September 1, 1977. You also request confirmation that manufacturers may assign multiple gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) in fulfilling their responsibilities under Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567) of our regulations, but that only ratings unqualified by speed restrictions will be permitted after September or October 1976.

I have enclosed a copy of the amendment that extends the "heavy hauler" exclusion of Standard No. 121 from September 1, 1976, to September 1, 1977. The date change in that amendment has been circled.

The NHTSA requires that the GVWR and GAWR placed on the certification plate in accordance with Part 567 be unqualified by speed restriction and be based on the 60-mph capabilities assigned to the tire and rims by the United States Tire and Rim Association. Other GVWR and GAWR values may be assigned by the manufacturer, but they must be listed after the information required on the Part 567 certification plate, and they do not form the basis of a vehicle's compliance with safety standards such as Standard No. 121.

In our November 20, 1975, letter to you on the same subject, we noted that we were considering a revision of the definition of GVWR and GAWR to conform to this interpretation. That proposal has been issued and a copy is enclosed for your information.

The proposal has not been made final as of the date of this letter. Please note that multiple ratings would continue to be permitted under the proposal, so long as the restricted rating appears first on the certification plate.

ID: nht76-3.35

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Henke Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, letter concerning the relationship between snow plows that you manufacture and the front-axle GAWR's of the vehicles on which they are mounted. Your questions and our answers are as follows:

Questions 1. "Somewhere I read where fire trucks are not governed by FMVSS121 or axle weight restrictions as an emergency vehicle. Is this true?"

Standard No. 121 does not apply to fire fighting vehicles manufactured before June 1, 1976. In addition, it does not apply to such a vehicle manufactured from June 1, 1976, to August 31, 1977, that either has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more, or has two or more front, steerable axles with a GAWR of 16,000 pounds or more for each axle. Further, the standard does not apply to any vehicle meeting any one of criteria (a) through (d), as follows:

(a) An overall vehicle width of 108 inches or more;

(b) An axle that has a GAWR of 29,000 pounds or more;

(c) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 33 mph; or

(d) (1) A speed attainable in two miles of not more than 45 mph, and

(2) An unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR, and

(3) No passenger-carrying capacity.

Question 2. "Do you consider a snow plow an emergency piece of equipment?"

There are no exemptions in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations for "emergency vehicles" or "emergency equipment".

Question 3. "Would a D.O.T. compliance officer require a plow to be raised for weighing to check the GAWR?"

In determining whether a vehicle equipped with a snow plow has been assigned an improper GAWR, the NHTSA will consider the load imposed on the axle system when the plow is in the raised position.

Question 4. "The box or fold down flap I mention in letter - would this be considered a legal method of meeting GAWR, assuming it was part of a snow plow procedure program?"

Our letter of May 9, 1974, explained that proper weight ratings depend on what you, as a vehicle alterer, know, or can reasonably be expected to know, about how the plow-equipped trucks are likely to be loaded. It stated further:

A warning to the buyer not to exceed the rated cargo load or the weight ratings. . .would not be sufficient if it were reasonable to expect that the vehicles would, in practice, exceed these ratings at normal full load despite the warning.

Similarly, if the volume-reducing purpose of the box or fold down flap described in your letter to county engineers is likely to be defeated (whether intentionally of accidentally), then neither would be sufficient to validate a GAWR that would otherwise be exceeded by a fully loaded axle. If, on the other hand, it is reasonable to expect that your recommended loading procedure will be followed, then it is permissible to base the GAWR on the correspondingly reduced "full" load.

Question 5. "When weighing a truck for compliance would a full load of ballast be required even though the snow plowing procedure of governmental bodies call out a less than full load of ballast?"

The considerations discussed in #4 above apply here as well.

Question 6. "When we bid to a State where drawings and or detailed specifications of snow removal equipment are called out and no axle sizes or dump box sizes are called out are we responsible for this plow overweighing a front axle? We do not mount any equipment, we furnish equipment as specified."

The primary responsibility for weight ratings is with the party who, by mounting the snow plow, is the vehicle alterer. If, however, your advertising or bids promote the use of the snow plow in situations where front axles are likely to be overloaded, then the plow may be considered to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, which would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

YOURS TRULY,

Henke MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

January 26, 1976

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I am sorry this letter is so late but I want to thank you for answering our questions of May 9, 1974, your reference number N40-30(MPP).

As a manufacturer that mounts some show plows and auxiliary equipment for Iowa governmental bodies, we have established definite procedures that we follow as to mounting and recommending equipment that does not overload axles.

I have enclosed a letter sent to County Engineers in Iowa regarding the purchase of trucks to comply with laws for their intended useage. I have also enclosed snow plow literature showing weights imposed on front axles, also a copy of a recent D/A bulletin from Cincinnati.

Question 1. Somewhere I read where fire trucks are not governed by FMVSS121 or axle weight restrictions as an emergency vehicle. Is this true?

Question 2. Do you consider a snow plow an emergency piece of equipment?

Question 3. Would a D.O.T. compliance officer require a plow to be raised for weighing to check the GAWR?

Question 4. The box or fold down flap I mention in letter - would this be considered a legal method of meeting GAWR, assuming it was part of a snow plow procedure program?

Question 5. When weighing a truck for compliance would a full load of ballast be required even though the snow plowing procedure of governmental bodies call out a less than full load of ballast?

Question 6. When we bid to a State where drawings and or detailed specifications of snow removal equipment are called cut and no axle sizes or dump box sizes are called out are we responsible for this plow overweighing a front axle? We do not mount any equipment, we furnish equipment as specified.

We would appreciate any suggestions you may have and any comments as to our statements or procedures.

Thank you for your consideration.

HENKE MFG. CORP.

Edward A. Green President

[Attachments Omitted]

ID: nht76-3.36

DATE: 03/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Inoue Rubber International Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office on February 25, 1976, concerning tires that you export to the United States and to the Soviet Union.

I understand that you export tires from Japan to the Soviet Union, to be mounted on motorcycles that are in turn exported to the United States. Representatives of the motorcycle manufacturer have requested a certification that the tires comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked Mr. Schwimmer how to obtain such a certification from the Department of Transportation.

This Department does not certify or otherwise issue advance approvals of motor vehicles, tires, or other motor vehicle equipment. Certification, under the applicable law and regulations, must be done by the manufacturer. The symbol "DOT", molded in the tire sidewall by you, pursuant to S6.5(a), constitutes your certification that your product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., in this case, Standard No. 119). If it is subsequently determined that your product does not comply with the standard, then the tires are subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The "DOT" symbol on the sidewall may very well be the certification that your Soviet customer has in mind. Please note that Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made. Our records indicate that Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. has not complied with this requirement.

The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agent pursuant to the Act require:

(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding on Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

(2) The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd;

(3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products of Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. that do not bear its legal name;

(4) A provision that the designation remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd.; (5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

(6) The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

Copies of these regulations and of Standard No. 119 are enclosed for your information and guidance.

ID: nht76-3.37

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Beachcomber Industries Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 31, 1975, letter concerning certification of the travel trailer that you manufacture.

This Department does not certify or otherwise issue advance approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Certification, under the applicable law and regulations, must be done by the manufacturer. The Canadian and U.S. motor vehicle safety standards are not identical, so you must ensure that your travel trailers do in fact comply with all of the latter that are applicable. A pamphlet summarizing the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification. The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Please note that Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made. Our records indicate that Beachcomber Industries Ltd. has not complied with this requirement.

The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agent pursuant to the Act require:

(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding on Beachcomber Industries Ltd. under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

(2) The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of Beachcomber Industries Ltd.;

(3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products of Beachcomber Industries Ltd. that do not bear its legal name;

(4) A provision that the designation remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Beachcomber Industries Ltd.;

(5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

(6) The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

Please note further that you are required by 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit certain information to the NHTSA not more than 30 days after your vehicles begin to be imported into the United States. Copies of this regulation and the procedural regulations for designation of agent are also enclosed for your convenience.

ID: nht76-3.38

DATE: 12/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: NAFDEM

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 23, 1976, request for clarification of certification responsibilities in the case of trucks that are manufactured in two or more stages. By virtue of our earlier correspondence, you are aware of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) regulations for the assignment of these responsibilities (Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages).

With regard to the first two questions in your letter, the NHTSA considers the mounting of a used body on a new cab-chassis to be the manufacture of a motor vehicle that requires certification. In these cases, the incomplete vehicle document is provided along with the new cab-chassis. The replacement of a used body with a new one is not considered to be a manufacturing operation that requires certification of the vehicle as completed.

Your second and third questions ask whether the final-stage manufacturer of a tank truck may assume what commodity will constitute the cargo (e.g., bulk milk) as the basis for assiging the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Section 567.4 (g) (3) specifies that the GVWR determination be based on the "rated cargo load" which is determined by the final-stage manufacturer. It would appear reasonable for the final-stage manufacturer to use the weight of bulk milk as the basis for its calculation of rated cargo load, particularly where the tank was used for milk previously, and when the vehicle is completed by a member of a trade association specializing in food and dairy equipment manufacture.

Your fourth question raises the difficulty of certifying a completed vehicle in the case where the incomplete vehicle document is missing from the cab-chassis. You object that the final-stage manufacturer bears "the ultimate burden" of certification, when he does not have control over the entire manufacturing operation.

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403) mandates that the manufacturer of a vehicle certify compliance, and this constitutes a statutory requirement which is not subject to the control of the NHTSA. Part 568 requires provision of the incomplete vehicle document and represents the agency's judgement of the means by which the final-stage manufacturer can best be assisted in meeting the statutory obligation to certify compliance. The agency believes that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be in a position to supply a substitute document in the event the original document is lost.

In answer to your last question, @ 568.5 of our regulations provides that an intermediate-stage manufacturer (such as a person that adds or moves an axle) shall, if such changes affect the validity of statements in the incomplete vehicle document, furnish an addendum to the document that indicates appropriate changes that should be made in the document. Thus the intermediate-stage manufacturer that affects the weight rating set forth in the incomplete vehicle document must provide an addendum explaining the effect of the modifications. The responsibility for certification continues to remain with the manufacturer, who is the person exercising ultimate control over the components used in the axle system.

If, after having digested these comments, you still feel a meeting is necessary, please get in touch with our Engineering Systems Staff ((202) 426-2817) and one will be arranged.

ID: nht76-3.39

DATE: 06/21/76

FROM: THOMAS L. HERLIHY FOR STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jack Roadman

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of February 26 and March 8, 1976, concerning the certification of a truck that you wish to build with a chassis that you have purchased from International Harvester. You have indicated that the chassis did not include an engine, transmission, or radiator. You installed a diesel engine, transmission, and a new driveshaft, and made various modifications to the chassis. You have had difficulties in persuading a body manufacturer to install a truck body.

The source of your difficulties appears to be a misunderstanding of the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) and the accompanying certification regulations. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards apply to completed motor vehicles and to certain items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses, tires). The manufacturer of a motor vehicle or an item of equipment to which a standard applies is required by Section 114 of the Act to certify that his product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

"Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

An incomplete vehicle is, strictly speaking, an item of motor vehicle equipment. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply directly to these particular equipment items, and thus there is presently no certification requirement for incomplete vehicles. The manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle is required by Part 568, however, to furnish an "incomplete vehicle document". This document, which is described in @ 568.4, must indicate the conformity status of the incomplete vehicle with respect to each standard that applies to the vehicles into which it may be completed.

The chassis that you bought from International Harvester (IH) was an item of motor vehicle equipment to which no standards apply. Therefore, IH was not required to furnish you with a certification of compliance. Further, the chassis was not an incomplete vehicle because it lacked an engine and transmission. Therefore, IH was not required to furnish an incomplete vehicle document. Because of your operations on the chassis, you are the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle. You, therefore, are the person required to furnish an incomplete vehicle document.

Your letter also indicated a concern they you were not given a "certificate of origin" by International Harvester when you purchased the chassis. Federal law does not require the issuance of a certificate of origin. Unless you intended to refer to the Section 114 "certification" discussed above, I assume that you have in mind a document that would be the subject of Pennsylvania state law.

Copies of the Act and the certification regulations are enclosed for your convenience.

ID: nht76-3.4

DATE: 03/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Inertia Switch, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your March 9, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the meaning of "GVWR" as it appears in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity.

"GVWR" or "Gross vehicle weight rating" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

One constraint on this specification is found in @ 567.4(g)(3) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, which requires that the GVWR shall not

be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. . . .

An information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" is enclosed for your convenience. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

ID: nht76-3.40

DATE: 01/20/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Department of the Army

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 11, 1975, request for copies of the Federal laws relevant to the use of trucks as carriers for snowplows and spreader bodies.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) primarily regulates the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment pursuant to authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. You requested copies of the Federal laws pertinent to the "use" of a particular motor vehicle, but standards or laws regulating use are promulgated by the jurisdiction in which a motor vehicle is registered or driven.

It might be noted, however, that motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to the installation of snowplows and spreader bodies on new trucks. For example, paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment (49 CFR 571.108), specifies that if motor vehicle equipment, including snowplows, would otherwise prevent compliance with the Standard by any required lamp or reflective device, an auxiliary lamp or reflective device meeting the requirements of the Standard must be provided. Similarily, when a spreader body is installed on a chassicab, the completed trucks must comply with all applicable Federal standards.

The truck dealer or other person who installs motor vehicle equipment on a truck that is certified as being in compliance with motor vehicle safety standards, prior to first sale of the vehicle, is responsible for ensuring that the truck remains in conformity. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the responsible party to the civil penalty provisions and other sanctions of the Act.

When a truck has been sold and is in "use", the Act prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from making alterations that render inoperative any devices or elements of design installed in compliance with the Federal safety standards.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY

DECEMBER 11, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

In a study of snow removal equipment technology we are making for an NSF RANN project we have need for the federal laws applying to use of trucks as carriers for snowplows and spreader bodies (as well as dump bodies). Please furnish us with copies of the relevant laws, or a list which can be used to obtain them from other sources.

Thank you.

L. DAVID MINSK Research Physical Scientist Applied Research Branch

ID: nht76-3.41

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. J. W. Lawrence

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your July 19, 1976, letter requesting an interpretation of @ 567.4(g) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, with respect to the listing of pound and kilogram weight ratings.

You have cited my June 30, 1976, letter to Toyota Motor Sales, which stated that weight ratings may be expressed in both pounds and kilograms, provided that each kilogram rating appears "after" the corresponding pound rating. You have also cited 49 CFR Part 567.4(g), which specifies that "Gross Axle Weight Rating" or "GVWR" be "followed by" the pound ratings for each axle, identified in order from front to rear.

If A and B are two items of information on a label, the NHTSA interprets "A is followed by B" to mean "B appears to the right of A or below A or both." We consider "B appears after A" to have the identical meaning.

The pairing of pound and kilogram ratings that is permitted by the interpretation in the Toyota letter must appear hierarchically within the sequence of axle ratings specified in @ 567.4(g). For example, the following listing is permitted:

GAWR FRONT 2000lbs/907kgs Rear 2200lbs/998kgs while the following listing is not permitted:

GAWR FRONT 2000lbs REAR 2200lbs (907kgs/998kgs).