ID: nht72-4.9

DATE: 01/26/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: As noted in your letter of January 18, 1972, the section of Standard 208 dealing with passive belts states, in S4.5.2.3, that passive belts furnished under S4.5.2 do not have to conform to S7.4 of the standard. As you correctly note, the standard as it presently exists does not contain a section S7.4.

The section to which S4.5.3.3 refers is the S7.4 proposed in the notice regarding seat belt interlocks. Until such time as the interlock proposal is adopted, the reference to S7.4 should be disregarded. Since the reference will serve a purpose when the interlock provisions are adopted, we do not intend to delete it at this time.

ID: nht72-5.1

DATE: 01/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Distributers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 24, 1971, in which you asked several questions concerning the weight rating requirements in the Certification Regulations that go into effect January 1, 1972.

Your first three questions are summarized in your third question, as follows:

"We are under the impression that the only way in which the CVW and GAW Ratings assigned to an Incomplete Vehicle by the Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer can be increased would be (a) if a third axle is added, or (b) if the component parts of the existing axles are increased. Is this correct?

The answer is no. The information supplied to the final-stage manufacturer by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer under Part 568 is to assist the final-stage manufacturer in completing the vehicle in conformity with the standards, and certifying in conformity with Part 567. There are no requirements, however, as to how the final-stage manufacturer uses this information. If he wishes to take it on himself to change the ratings in either direction, or to disregard the conformity information, that is his right. Of course, he will be assuming legal responsibility for whatever changes he makes, as indicated by the facts of the particular situation. Similarly, he has the right to make whatever physical changes he wishes in the chassis, and assures the normal responsibilities of a manufacturer in doing so. The Part 568 document offers him protection to the extent that he chooses to stay within its limits, but it is his choice to make.

You asked for a definition of "rated cargo load" as used in the Part 567 requirement that GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." We have not provided a definition for this term in the regulations. By it is meant simply any figure provided to the vehicle user as to the cargo-carrying capacity, by weight, of the vehicle. There is no requirement that such a figure be provided; but if it is, it must be consistent with the gross vehicle weight rating.

Finally, you asked whether it would be "illegal" to supply a body with a volumetric "capacity for holding eight tons of feed," on a vehicle whose GVWR only allowed for a cargo load of five tons. If no rating by weight is supplied, the labeling requirement would not be violated by the volumetric capacity of the body. As we stated in a recent letter on the same question, however, such action might have adverse consequences beyond the certification regulation:

"[Completing] the vehicle so that its apparent carrying capacity exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (section 113, 15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common-law product liability doctrines. In such a case, the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle might avoid liability, leaving it all on the final-stage manufacturer, by pointing out that the design of the vehicle as completed led the user to exceed the GVWR and GAWR furnished with the incomplete vehicle." (Letter from L. R. Echneider to E. W. Mentzer. October 26, 1971, filed in Interpretations Redbook, Part 567, 568.)

We are pleased to be of assistance. We are sorry that we will be unable to have one of our attorneys attend your meeting in Las Vegas.

ID: nht72-5.10

DATE: 04/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: G. and W. Body Works

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your "Manufacturer Identification Registration Report" with which you submitted a sample of a certification label that you intend to use to fulfill your obligations under Part 567 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, soliciting our advice.

The nomenclature on the label fulfills the requirements. However, there is some question as to whether the material would meet the permanency requirements of section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act).

The subject is further addressed in the Preamble to the certification requirements that became effective on September 1, 1969, ". . . The intent of the requirement is that the label last for the life of the vehicle . . . ," (34 F. R. 7031) copy enclosed.

You should assure yourself that the material used will meet those requirements.

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.

ID: nht72-5.12

DATE: 02/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: City of Lynchburg

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of December 20, 1971, and January 4, 1972, concerning dump trucks recently purchased by the city of Lynchburg. You state that the trucks have a 24,000 GVW rating (rear axle 17,500 pounds, front axle 7,000 pounds), and were delivered with 8.25-20 tires, and ask whether there is a Federal requirement that restricts GVW rating according to tire size.

Beginning January 1, 1972, Federal regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) have required all motor vehicle manufacturers to affix a label to their vehicles that contains both a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and a gross axle weight rating for each axle (GAWR). These ratings are to be established by the manufacturer based upon all vehicle systems including tires. The requirements apply to the manufacturer, however, and not to the purchaser, if the vehicle is completed when he receives it. Nor is the regulation designed to regulate vehicles-in-use, which are subject to State regulation, but it is possible that some States may use these figures as a basis of determining whether vehicles are overloaded.

With reference to your particular trucks, it appears that they were manufactured before January 1, 1972, and the regulations are therefore not applicable to them. However, according to the 1971 Tire and Rim Association Yearbook, which sets recommended load and inflation pressures for all vehicle tires, the 8.25-20 10-ply tire has a recommended maximum load, for dual usage, of 3,550 pounds at 75 psi. Assuming 4 tires on the rear axle, this would be equal to a load rating of 14,200 pounds, lower than the 17,500 pounds at which the axle is rated. For single usage, the tire is rated at 4,050 pounds at 85 psi. Assuming 2 tires on the front axle, the maximum load for the axle would be 8,100 pounds, which, unlike the rear axle, is greater than the load rated for the axles.

A copy of our Certification regulations, which contain the requirements for GVWR and GAWR is enclosed for your information.

ID: nht72-5.13

DATE: 03/22/72

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 6, 1972, forwarded to us by Tom Pieratt, wherein you discuss certain situations which have arisen regarding the GVWR of chassis you have purchased for completion by adding bodies.

As far as I can determine from the facts you provided in your letter, the chassis manufacturers are doing nothing that is contrary to our regulations. Your complaints seem to be that (a) some chassis that you believe to be identical bear differing weight ratings in their accompanying literature; and (b) you have received some chassis that do not have the weight ratings that you want and believed you were ordering. Both problems appear to be matters of communication between you and the manufacturers or their dealers, which might be resolvable by clearly specifying the desired weight ratings in your purchase order.

Your general statements concerning the effect of the Vehicle Safety Act and the regulations issued thereunder are essentially correct.

ID: nht72-5.14

DATE: 11/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 15, 1972, and your kind words about my participation in your convention.

In your letter you asked a question that arose at the convention, concerning the responsibility of a tank manufacturer who completes a tank truck for a customer who carries both gasoline and fuel oil. You asked,

"Can a tank manufacturer by simply certifying the GVWR make a unit which will be legal at full load with gasoline, the lighter of the two products, and leave it to the user to ensure that he does not exceed the GVWR when he is carrying a mixed load or fuel oil only?"

On the specific and limited facts that you have given, the answer is that the manufacturer will not be in violation of the Certification regulations. There are two ways in which a manufacturer might find himself liable on slightly different facts, however. If in any way the manufacturer provides information to the purchaser, through owner's manuals, promotional materials, or otherwise, which could reasonably be considered a "rated cargo load", he will be in violation of @ 567.5(a)(5) if the GVWR does not reflect that figure. For example, if the vehicle were described explicitly as being capable of carrying 5,000 gallons of fuel oil, we would consider that to be the equivalent of a rating of that volume times the normal density of the oil.

The other possible liability would be for a safety-related defect. This would arise in a case where the vehicle was found to be unsafely equipped for carrying the loads that the manufacturer has reason to know would be imposed on it. Such a finding would depend on all the facts of an individual case.

Obviously, the best course for the manufacturer, from the standpoint of both safety and he avoidance of liability, is to equip his vehicles fully with equipment that is rated to carry the loads that he believes the vehicles will carry.

ID: nht72-5.15

DATE: 12/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Jerome Palisi; Highway Safety Management Specialist

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: YOUR MEMORANDUM OF NOV. 9, 1972, REGARDING THE CERTIFICATION REGULATION

In your memorandum of November 9 you discuss a statement in a TBEA Bulletin, brought to your attention by Mr. Edward Bristol of the Bristol-Donald Company, Newark, New Jersey, which Mr. Bristol interprets as holding a manufacturer responsible for a safety defect if an operator overloads a vehicle, exceeding its GVWR or GAWR's. You ask us to forward you copies of any correspondence with Mr. Bristol or TBEA regarding this matter.

We have attached a recent letter to TBEA, dated November 22, 1972, which clarifies our position, and should alleviate Mr. Bristol's concern. Our position on this issue has been that a manufacturer who properly derives his GVWR and GAWR cannot be held responsible for noncompliance with the certification regulations or a safety defect.

ID: nht72-5.16

DATE: 08/23/72

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: James W. Callison

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1972, and your note of July 31, asking whether the following statement may be placed on an invoice to relieve a final-stage manufacturer making the statement of his responsibilities under the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567):

"Delivery of this unit was accepted by the undersigned with the understanding that the unit DOES NOT meet all requirements of the Nat'l. Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The undersigned assumes full responsibility for compliance."

In a conversation you had with Mike Peskoe of this office on July 31, you elaborated on your question. It appears that such a stamp might be used in either of two situations. First, a final-stage manufacturer might use the statement if he did not wish to certify the vehicle, attempting thereby to pass on the responsibility to the person to whom he delivers it, either a dealer or purchaser. In the second case, an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer has assumed the responsibility for conformity, and certification, pursuant to sections 567.5(c) or (d), and section 568.7, and the final-stage manufacturer is returning the vehicle to the party for whom he completed it, and wishes to make it clear that he is not responsible for certification.

A final-stage manufacturer whose responsibility for certification has not been assumed by an intermediate or incomplete manufacturer cannot remove himself from this responsibility, or require another to assume it for him. The regulations require such a manufacturer to certify the completed vehicle, and his failure to do so can subject him to civil penalties and other sanctions. The use of a disclaimer such as the stamp you enclose would be of no legal effect, even if signed by the person receiving the vehicle.

In the situation where an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer has assumed the certification responsibility, the use of such a stamp would be unnecessary. The final-stage manufacturer should obtain written assurance of that fact from the party assuming the responsibility. before beginning work on the vehicle. Also, the assumption of responsibility is reflected in special provisions regarding the certification label, in accordance with @ 567.5(c) and (d) of the Certification regulations. It would be advisable for any statement concerning this arrangement to make reference to the applicable regulations.

ID: nht72-5.17

DATE: 04/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1972, in which you ask whether a Certification label "which is made of some kind of hard material other than paper and affixed on the required place by using only one rivet and by gluing" will meet the requirements of section 567.4(b) of the Certification regulations.

We would consider such a label to be riveted, and consequently to meet the requirements of section 567.4(b).