ID: nht73-4.26

DATE: 06/08/73

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 May 11, 1973, in which you ask about the certification responsibilities for consecutive manufacturers of certain multi-stage vehicles that are intended for use by utilities. The facts as you present them are that a chassis-cab is purchased by a customer and delivered to a utility distributor, who installs a sub-base and a digger-derrick. The truck is then sent to a body-builder who installs a body consisting essentially of storage compartments, which are used to carry personal tools. The compartments are installed to the floor installed by the utility distributor. The unit is then returned to the utility distributor, who installs clearance and other lamps, reflectors, and other accessories, and hooks up hydraulic lines. Smaller vehicles are described as being manufactured in essentially the same manner.

It appears to us that the manufacturing operations you have described fit quite readily into the manufacturing categories established by Parts 567 and 568. The utility equipment distributor is an intermediate manufacturer; he performs manufacturing operations, but does not complete the vehicle, as further manufacturing operations, the installation of the body, are clearly contemplated for the vehicle to perform its intended function. The body-builder is the final-stage manufacturer. When he completes his work the vehicle is ready to perform its intended function, except for the addition of the lighting equipment and the other operations performed by the utility equipment distributor. These latter operations appear to involve "readily-attachable components" and if so the party performing them would not be a final-stage manufacturer.

The certification requirements do not operate differently because; in the case you describe, the utility equipment distributor performs operations on the vehicle at two separate times (installing the derrick, and later the lighting). His responsibilities each time are governed by the operation he then performs. However, inasmuch as the utility distributor appears to perform much of the heavy manufacturing, and because he is also the last person to modify the vehicle, he may wish to assume the responsibility for certification under section 568.7(b), in order that he may affix his name as the manufacturer to the certification label.

ID: nht74-5.17

DATE: 03/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1973, inquiring whether a manufacturer would be an intermediate or final-stage manufacturer if he installs truck bodies or material handling devices (frequently final-stage manufacturing operations) but he expects that a later manufacturer will either extend the chassis frame or add a third axle. These additions are necessary to make the vehicle safe to operate.

In most cases, we would consider the manufacturer in question to be an intermediate manufacturer. Under the definitions of "completed vehicle," "intermediate manufacturer," and "final-stage manufacturer" (49 CFR 568.3), the manufacturer would be a final-stage manufacturer only if, at the time he completes his manufacturing operation, the vehicle requires no further manufacturing to perform its intended function, unless the further manufacturing involves only "readily-attachable components."

In the case you present, the vehicle cannot perform its intended function unless further modifications are made. That it be able to perform its intended function implies that it be able to do so safely. The answer ultimately depends, therefore, on whether the additions that will be made to the vehicle involve only readily attachable components. We would not generally consider either an extension of the chassis or the addition of a third axle to involve only readily attachable components.

Of course, in those cases where no further modifications are necessary for safe operation, the crane or body installer will be the final-stage manufacturer.

ID: 22507.ztv

Mr. Peter Hoffman
President
I.D. Lite Products Group, Inc.
4645-A Southern Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33415





Dear Mr. Hoffman:

This is in reply to your letter of December 4, 2000, to the Chief Counsel, requesting an interpretation relating to your "patented product for vehicles, specifically commercial trucks such as tow vehicles."

You identify the product as "designed to back light customer signage by simply sliding in an insert that can be made by any reputable sign shop." The power source is "via cigarette lighter plug or direct connect to any 12vdc source." This indicates to us that your product is intended for sale in the aftermarket to individual owners of motor vehicles for installation by them, rather than for sale as original equipment to manufacturers of motor vehicles who will install it before sale.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment specifies requirements for lighting equipment on motor vehicles. Under Standard No. 108, the color of light emitted from lamps must be white, red, or amber. The color of the light emitted by your product is green. Standard No. 108 would not permit a green lamp on a motor vehicle.

However, because your product is not required as original equipment on motor vehicles, we do not regulate its manufacture and sale as either original or aftermarket equipment. Because your product is intended for installation by vehicle owners, it is exempted from a law that might prohibit it if it were installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business.

This means that the question as to the legality of its use is answerable under the laws of each State in which the product is likely to be used. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, but we believe that the color green may not be allowable in many of them.

I am enclosing for your information copies of three letters we have issued concerning devices which have similarities to your product (dated 5/4/00, to Mr. Browder, 8/13/93, to Mr. Ross, and 6/15/91, to Ms. Funk). The letters address additional issues which may be relevant to your product. (I note, however, that while the two earlier letters suggest contacting the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion about State laws, that organization has advised us that they no longer provide such opinions.) I am also enclosing a copy of a paper titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.4/10/01

ID: nht72-3.26

DATE: 07/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mercury Fabricators

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1972, in which you ask whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 206 (Door Locks and Door Retention Components) and 302 (Flammability of Interior Materials) apply to aluminum sleeper cabs which you manufacture for what appears to be installation on truck tractors.

Each motor vehicle safety standard is by its terms applicable to specific types of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each vehicle or item of equipment to which a standard applies must conform to the standard until its first purchase by a user. Components which are incorporated into vehicles before their first purchase are considered to be part of the vehicle, and as a practical matter must conform to all standards applicable to it.

Standard No. 302 becomes effective September 1, 1972, and applies to trucks, which includes truck tractors. If a sleeper cab you manufacture is incorporated into a truck before its first purchase by a user, then it must conform to the standard. Moreover, the components to which the standard applies (paragraph S4.1) include mattress covers, and if you determine the standard applies under the criteria we have provided, mattress covers which you furnish must conform to the standard. You indicate you have tested the flammability of the cab utilizing a torch. While you may test for conformity to the standard in any way you choose, whether or not your product conforms to the standard will be determined by NHTSA utilizing the test procedures specified in the standard. Manufacturers who utilize procedures different from those in the standard should take care to correlate the results they obtained to those that would be obtained using the standard's procedures.

Standard No. 206 also applies to trucks, and will become effective for all side doors leading to passenger compartments on September 1, 1972. Consequently, if the sleeper cabs you manufacture are incorporated into trucks before their first purchase the sleeper cabs must conform to Standard No. 206

Enclosures

ID: nht72-6.38

DATE: 07/18/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Brighton Truck & Equipment Sales Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1972, asking several questions regarding truck certification by final-stage manufacturers. We have repeated your questions below, responding to each.

1. When is the progressive manufacturing report for each vehicle required to be filed?

You appear to be referring to "incomplete vehicle documents," which are furnished by incomplete and intermediate manufacturers to final-stage manufacturers. These documents are not required to be filed, but are to be used by the final-stage manufacturer as a basis for his certification of the completed vehicle. We suggest you save these documents, however, should it be necessary for you to show that you exercised due care in completing and certifying a vehicle.

2. If we sell a tractor cab and chassis upon which the customer is to install the fifth wheel, who is the final manufacturer? How? And when?

In this case, the customer is the final-stage manufacturer and bears the responsibility for certification (the regulations provide otherwise in the exceptional case where the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes this responsibility). If you do no more than sell the incomplete vehicle as it is delivered to you, you may meet your responsibilities under the regulations by forwarding to the customer the incomplete vehicle documents which you receive. Certification by the customer should be accomplished by affixing the required label containing the information specified in section 567.4 of the regulations, at the time of the installation of the fifth wheel.

3. If we sell a cab and chassis for a van body which the customer plans to transfer a used body, who must make final certification, how and when?

The answer to this question is essentially the same as that to question 2.

4. Are the customers required to return vehicles to us after installation of fifth wheel or body for us to issue the final sticker?

No. A customer who completes the vehicle is responsible for affixing the required label.

ID: 1985-01.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Keith A. Sharp, Esq. Lillick, McHose & Charles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Keith A. Sharp, Esq. Lillick, McHose & Charles 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017

Dear Mr. Sharp:

This responds to your recent letter to Betsy Harrison of this office concerning the importation of unassembled components for bus chassis from Japan. According to the information in your letter, your client, Isuzu Truck of America, Inc. (IST), is considering importing these unassembled components from Isuzu Motors Limited in japan, and assembling them into bus chassis in the United States. Then, IST would sell the bus chassis to companies which would install bodies on the chassis.

You ask whether your client, IST, would be responsible for assigning a vehicle identification number (VIN) to the bus chassis, which are produced using the imported components. Based on the information given, the answer is yes. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, IST would be considered the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle, because IST would be assembling a frame and chassis structure which would require substantial additional manufacturing operations before it becomes a completed vehicle.

You also state that U.S. Customs may not release the unassembled bus chassis components to IST at the port of entry unless the components bear vehicle identification numbers. We are not aware of any customs regulation which requires a VIN to be affixed to unassembled chassis components.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 4, 1984 Betsy Harrison, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Vehicle Identification Numbers

Dear Ms. Harrison:

We are attorneys for Isuzu Truck of America, Inc. ("IST"). IST is the distributor of trucks and buses manufactured by Isuzu Motors Limited, a Japanese corporation, in the United States. IST is contemplating importing into the United States unassembled components for bus chassis. IST would assemble the components into bus chassis which would then be sold by IST to companies which would install bodies on the chassis and resell them to end-users.

Your office has previously advised us, on an informal basis, that IST would be the party responsible for placing the required vehicle identification numbers on each bus chassis. We request that you now confirm your opinion in writing. We note that IST is concerned that U.S. Customs may not release the bus chassis components to IST at the port of entry unless the components bear vehicle identifi-cation numbers. We would appreciate your comments on the existence of such a problem.

If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

LILLICK McHOSE & CHARLES

By:

Keith A. Sharp

KAS:slm

cc: Art Sato Candy Watson

ID: nht79-3.17

DATE: 06/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert S. Ordman

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1979, in which you asked the status of Intermark Tire Company's petitions concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards. You also noted that Intermark's petitions have not been published in the Federal Register.

Intermark's petition for exemption does not qualify as a petition for temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards under Part 555 (49 CFR Part 555), and consequently was not published in the Federal Register, since that part applies only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. Intermark's petition for rulemaking was not published because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Associate Administrator for Rulemaking determined that public comment was not necessary to a determination on the petition (49 CFR 552.6).

NHTSA plans in the near future to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to exclude limited production tires from the applicatio of the UTQG Standards.

ID: nht79-3.19

DATE: 06/14/79

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pavia & Harcourt

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1979, in which you asked the status of Intermark Tire Company's petitions concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards. You also noted that Intermark's petitions have not been published in the Federal Register.

Intermark's petition for exemption does not qualify as a petition for temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards under Part 555 (49 CFR Part 555), and consequently was not published in the Federal Register, since that part applies only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. Intermark's petition for rulemaking was not published because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Associate Administrator for Rulemaking determined that public comment was not necessary to a determination on the petition (4p CFR 552.6).

NHTSA plans in the near future to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to exclude limited production tires from the application of the UTQG Standards.

ID: nht72-6.18

DATE: 08/31/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letters of May 3 and August 8, 1972, requesting that the NHTSA make available to insurance companies, such as State Farm, "vehicle identification numbers" (VIN's) which the companies could then utilize to independently notify policyholders whose vehicles have been subject to manufacturers' defect notification campaigns.

The NHTSA has reconsidered your request and has determined to propose, as an amendment to our Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573), that manufacturers be required to submit to the NHTSA the VIN's of vehicles subject to campaigns. The VIN's would be included in our public file and would be available to insurance companies and other groups who would wish to use them.

The NHTSA does not presently require manufacturers to submit the VIN's of campaigned vehicles (although the Defect Reports regulations do require manufacturers to compile the numbers for their own use). Because this will be a new requirement, the NHTSA is obligated by law to initiate rulemaking to provide for comments by interested persons, and to consider such comments in the decision as to whether the rule should be issued. We will take steps to publish the appropriate notice in the nearest possible future.

Your continuing interest in motor vehicle safety is, of course, greatly appreciated.

ID: nht88-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/14/88

FROM: DERRAL T. CRANCE -- AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEER, SALT RIVER PROJECT

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/03/89, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DERRAL T. CRANCE, REDBOOK A33 (2), STANDARD 121

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Recently Salt River Project ordered sixteen material/reel trailers and two transformer oil trailers. The trailers were built in 1987 by an out of state manufacturer and delivered to Salt River Project via a local vendor representing the manufacturer. A description of the two types of trailers is as follows:

A. Material/Reel Trailer

GVWR - 20,000 lbs.

Drawbar - Lunette eye

Length - 211 inches overall

Width - 92 inches

Height - 90 inches

Deck - 30 inches from ground

Axles - Tandem 10,000 GAWR each

Brakes - S-Cam air actuated

Parking Brakes - Spring applied air released

B. Transformer Oil Trailers

GVWR - 22,000 lbs.

Drawbar - Lunette eye

Length - 244 inches

Width - 90 1/2 inches

Height - 102 inches

Bottom of Tank - 24 inches from ground Axles - Tandem 12,000 GAWR each

Brakes - S-cam air actuated

Parking Brakes - Spring applied air released

I have attached a copy of a vehicle data record for a tank trailer and a photo of a material/reel trailer for clarification of the two types of trailers. Salt River Project's interpretation is that the trailers need to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety St andard No. 121 Air Brake System (as amended through Docket 79-03; Notice 4 - issued June 9, 1980). Our concerns specifically are in the reservoirs and the required protection system as set forth in FMVSS 121.

Please issue an interpretation to clarify the following items:

1) Are the trailers as outlined above required to conform to MVSS 121 (as amended through Docket 79-03; Notice 4 - issued June 9, 1980)?

2) If conformance to 121 is required, then is a protected reservoir for parking brake release required?

3) If conformance to 121 is required, then is it a requirement that the service reservoirs be protected by check valves or equivalent?

Sincerely,

Attachment

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

(PHOTOGRAPH OF TRAILER OMITTED)