ID: nht76-3.20

DATE: 01/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wenke; Burge; and Taylor

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to questions you raised in a January 7, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the determinations of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for a boat trailer.

GVWR is defined as:

the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. (49 CFR 571.3).

One constraint on this specification is found in the Certification regulation, which requires that the GVWR be

not less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity . . . . (49 CFR 567.4(g)(3))

"Rated cargo load" is not defined. If a manufacturer does not provide a cargo load rating to dealers or consumers, the NHTSA expects his determination of GVWR to reflect a good faith evaluation of the vehicle's load carrying capacity. In the case of a boat trailer, this evaluation should be made with the assumption that the trailer is attached to a towing vehicle and should include that portion of the trailer's load that is carried by the towing vehicle.

GAWR, on the other hand, is defined as:

the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

The GAWR of a boat trailer's axle system could thus be less than the GVWR, because some of the trailer's load would be carried by the towing vehicle. However, the NHTSA would consider a boat trailer with a GAWR that is less than the actual load on its axle system, when loaded to its GVWR and attached to a towing vehicle, to contain a safety-related defect, which is subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

The NHTSA expects to issue, in the near future, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire and rim selection for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.120). Until the effective date of that standard, however, we will continue to consider a vehicle with tires insufficient for its gross axle weight ratings to contain a safety-related defect.

ID: nht76-3.21

DATE: 04/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to White Motor Corporation's March 26, 1976, request for confirmation that the brake systems of incomplete and complete vehicles to which Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, applies, may be modified by White under provisions of paragraph 567.7 of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, or paragraph 568.5 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Paragraph 567.7 provides that a person may alter a previously certified vehicle prior to the first retail sale, and that the person must state that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with applicable standards if weight ratings or other than readily attachable components have been affected. The person may choose any point from the date of certification to the date alterations were completed as the date of the alterer's statement. The NHTSA would not consider White to be violating its certification responsibilities by alterations of the brake system that you describe, as long as White indicates the modifications under the provisions of paragraph 567.7.

Paragraph 568.5 of Part 568 provides that an intermediate manufacturer may modify an incomplete vehicle. Under this paragraph, the intermediate manufacturer must furnish an addendum to the incomplete vehicle document reflecting any changes that should be made in the document because of modifications by the intermediate manufacturer that have affected validity of certain statements. White could utilize this provision to modify the vehicle so long as the addendum of changes is furnished along with the incomplete document.

As a practical result of the changes you describe, the final-stage manufacturer will not, as is normally the case, be able to utilize any date between the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle and the date of final completion as the basis of certification. Therefore, it may be advisable for White to issue a new incomplete vehicle document to assist the final-stage manufacturer in its certification responsibilities. Whenever this is not practical, a notation that the final-stage manufacturer's choice of dates has been limited by White's modifications should be made in the addendum to the original document.

This discussion appears to conflict with the definition of intermediate manufacturer that appears in @ 568.3. However, the definition is not intended to prevent the modifications you intend to undertake, and an interpretative amendment is being considered to clarify the breadth of the definition.

ID: nht76-3.22

DATE: 07/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Plymouth Fire Department

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 22, 1976, request to know when Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, became applicable to firefighting vehicles, and whether the date of manufacture of the chassis or the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle is relevant for purposes of the standard's applicability. You also ask whether the chassis manufacture or the final manufacturer who completes the vehicle is responsible for complying with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 applies to firefighting vehicles manufactured on or after June 1, 1976. I have enclosed a copy of the standard, which includes a listing of effective dates in section S3, Applicability.

Because most trucks are manufactured in two or more stages, the NHTSA has issed a regulation that assigns responsibilities to the incomplete vehicle manufacture, intermediate manufacturers, and the final-stage manufacturer for ensuring conformity of the vehicle with safety standards (Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (49 CFR Part 568)). Section 568.6 of this regulation requires that the final-stage manufacturer complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to applicable standards. Section 568.6 does permit the final-stage manufacturer to treat as the time that manufacture is "completed" for the purposes of certification any date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the complete vehicle and no later than the date of completion of final-stage manufacture. For example, a firefighting vehicle that is completed on a chassis built before June 1, 1976, could be legally completed by a final-stage manufacturer at any future date without conformity to Standard No. 121.

ID: nht76-3.23

DATE: 06/30/76

FROM: BRUCE McDONALD

TO: Walter Motor Truck Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1976 providing us your views with respect to defect notification. You appear to have concluded that you were not required to provide either a certification label or an incomplete vehicle document to Advance Mixer, Inc. (AMI) with respect to the 50 mixer trucks in question, but acknowledge the fact that "the label furnished by us was . . . incorrect." You wish to correct the error "by requesting that the customer (AMI) remove the incorrect data plate from the vehicle."

We have reviewed the information supplied with your letter and your argument that Walter acted as a sub-contractor to AMI for the purposes of constructing and assembling a proprietary item. They do not alter our conclusion expressed on June 10, 1976, that Walter, as the certifying manufacturer of a motor vehicle, has the obligation to inform the purchaser of the defect in the vehicle, and to remedy it.

Mixer trucks are vehicles manufactured in two or more stages as that term is employed in 49 CFR Part 568. Their manufacture is begun by an "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" (Walter) and completed by a "final-stage manufacturer" (AMI). Certification of the completed vehicle, which is required by @ 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, may be accomplished by either party. If the final stage manufacturer is to certify the completed vehicle, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is required by @ 568.4 to furnish an incomplete vehicle document with its incomplete vehicle. No such document need be supplied where the incomplete vehicle manufacturer is the certifying party. Regardless of what you believe to be the "unusual circumstances" surrounding the construction of the 50 trucks, it appears that Walter nevertheless allowed itself to be the certifier of the trucks and supplied the incorrect labels that were affixed to them. Under those circumstances we believe that a court of law would find persuasive our argument that Walter was an incomplete vehicle manufacturer that had assumed "legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed on manufacturers by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act . . . with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured . . ." within the meaning of @ 568.7(a), or alternatively that, it had failed to provide the incomplete vehicle document required by Part 568.

One of the certifying party's obligations is to notify vehicle owners and remedy the defect upon determination of the existence of a safety-related defect in a motor vehicle. We assume, of course, that AMI will cooperate in providing Walter appropriate weight rating information for the labels and a list of the purchasers of the 50 trucks. To expedite this matter I am providing AMI's Washington counsel with a copy of your letter of June 18 and this response.

As you know, pursuant to Section 109 of the Act a maximum civil penalty of $ 1,000 may be imposed for each violation, and there are 50 trucks involved here. Since the error apparently "resulted from Walter's administrative misinterpretation" and not from an attempt to evade responsibilities, we would be willing to close our file without imposing civil penalties provided Walter conducts a suitable notification campaign. Otherwise we may institute proceedings under Section 152 to compel notice.

We request your further views within 20 days after receipt of this letter. We would be willing to help you initiate the campaign by critiquing a draft notification letter should you wish to submit it with your response.

ID: nht76-3.24

DATE: 02/27/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Northern Coach Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation of February 25, 1976, with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the certification of school buses.

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, this agency 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 vehicle manufacturer, including a final-stage manufacturer such as you. Your certification obligation, as a final stage manufacturer of school buses, is met if you fulfill the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, with which I understand you are already familiar.

An information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" is enclosed for your convenience. Please write if we can be of any further assistance.

ID: nht76-3.25

DATE: 08/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Modular Ambulance Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of July 26, 1976, petitioning for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75. When you forward the financial statements promised we shall prepare a notice for the Federal Register.

I would like to comment on two aspects of your petition. The first is that in our opinion, each manufacturer supplying you with a chassis is an "incomplete vehicle" manufacturer as defined by 49 CFR Part 568, and should be able to provide you with sufficient information, in the incomplete vehicle document accompanying each chassis, to enable you to insure that your ambulances upon completion conform with Standard No. 301-75. I enclose a copy of a recent letter that we sent General Motors expressing our views on this subject. Since your problem is basically similar, as part of your good faith efforts to meet Standard No. 301-75 you should attempt to obtain compliance information from your chassis manufacturers as soon as you can. We would like to be informed if you are unable to obtain this information.

My second comment is that your petition presents the "worst case" approach, based upon the presumed necessity to crash test each of the 11 models you manufacture. As a matter of clarification, there is no legal requirement that a manufacturer conduct a barrier test before he certifies compliance with Standard No. 301-75. He must, however, have a reasonable basis for certification that the vehicle, if barrier tested, would meet Standard No. 301-75. Many manufacturers prefer the assurance that is provided by testing according to a standard's procedure. However, engineering calculations, computer simulations, etc., can often provide a reasonable basis for certification. You may wish to reevaluate your petition's cost estimates in light of this.

ID: nht76-3.26

DATE: 03/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: NAFDEM

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1976, concerning procedures for the certification of trucks on which your member companies mount tanks for the transportation of food and dairy products. The letter requested our review of six procedures agreed to by your members for compliance with the Federal certification requirements. The procedures are restated below along with our comments.

1. "Member companies agree to assume the responsibility for notification and instruction of customers to select a truck chassis with a loaded and axle capacity rating equal to or exceeding the total weight of the completed truck chassis, i.e., chassis, tank, and payload, in order to comply with Federal safety standards."

We encourage this practice. Please note, however, that the customer himself has no duty under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended ("the Act"), the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or applicable regulations, to select a chassis with sufficient load ratings. The duty is your member companies', when presented with chassis of insufficient load ratings, to refrain from mounting tanks.

2. "Member companies agree to assume the responsibility for notification and instruction of a customer when his new vehicle is received to obtain an incomplete vehicle certification supplied by the truck manufacturer, and to retain this certification in the truck cab until his tank is mounted as a complete unit."

Assuming that by "incomplete vehicle certification supplied by the truck manufacturer" you mean the document referred to in @ 568.4 of 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, we encourage this practice as well. Please note once again, however, that the customer has no duty under applicable law to obtain or retain the document. Provision of the document is the duty of the chassis manufacturer. While your members are free to require of their customers the obtaining and retention of the document, this would be a solely contractual requirement.

3. "In the event that the customer has the chassis altered by an intermediate party such as lengthening the frame, adding an axle, or changing tire size and/or specifications, member companies agree to advise the customer of his responsibility for obtaining from the intermediate shop a certificate stating the new gross vehicle weight rating and new gross axle weight rating, and that the vehicle complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards."

This does not correctly state the applicable law, for the reasons discussed in #2 above. Pursuant to @ 568.5, it is the duty of the intermediate manufacturer to pass on the incomplete vehicle document. The customer's duty is a matter of private contract. Further, the incomplete vehicle document need not certify that the chassis complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It must simply provide the statements and information set out in @ 568.4(a), with such addendum as may be necessary.

4. "The member company, as a transportation tank manufacturer, at the time of mounting the customer's tank on the new truck chassis at his plant, will be responsible to certify through the preparation of a completed vehicle certification that the unit complies with requirements set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."

That is correct.

5. "When a new truck chassis is received at a member company's plant for mounting with no or improper "incomplete vehicle certification" documents, the vehicle will be certified for "no load" carrying capacity."

This practice is improper. A vehicle may not be certified for "no load" carrying capacity. @ 567.5 of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, requires that Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Ratings (GAWR's) be stated, @ 567.5(a)(5) explicity provides 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. . .

Further, where your member company mounts a tank that is designed to carry a particular commodity, the rated cargo load on which he bases the ratings should not be less than what he can reasonably expect the user to consider a "full load" of that commodity. The incomplete vehicle document is designed to protect the final stage manufacturer in his certification of the completed vehicle.

6. "When the gross vehicle weight ratings or gross vehicle axle ratings are less than the required rating for the capacity of the tank, the member company will state the limited carrying capacity to meet Federal standards on the certification document."

For the reasons discussed in #5 above, this practice is not necessarily proper. In particular, if it is reasonable to expect that the user will load the vehicle to its full volumetric capacity despite your member company's specification on the certification plate of a "limited carrying capacity", then the vehicle would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect, subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to write.

ID: nht76-3.27

DATE: 05/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Willamette Wheel Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your April 21, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the modification work that you perform on previously certified Datsun pickup trucks, which consists of converting them from two-wheel- to four-wheel-drive vehicles.

As indicated in the October 30, 1975, letter from Richard B. Dyson to you, you are a vehicle alterer who is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. That section requires that you affix a label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The Federal government does not certify or otherwise issue advance approval of motor vehicles. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, the statement on the label constitutes your certification of conformity. If you fail to provide this certification, or if in the exercise of due care you have reason to know that it is false or misleading, you are subject to civil penalties under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

All altered vehicles must comply fully with all applicable safety standards. Therefore, as Mr. Schwimmer further explained, you would not be relieved of the requirements of @ 567.7 simply by virtue of the fact that, as altered, the vehicle complied fully with the standards. You would be relieved of the requirements only if both of the following conditions were met:

(i) the alteration is performed solely by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as tire and rim assemblies, or by minor finishing operations such as painting; and

(ii) the stated weight ratings of the vehicle are still valid.

Because the conversion of the vehicles in question does not meet the first condition, you are subject to the requirements of @ 567.7. Please note further that, if your modifications affect the validity of the weight ratings assigned to the vehicles by Datsun, your label must show valid, modified ratings.

An information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" is enclosed for your convenience.

ID: nht76-3.28

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Recreational Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 16, 1976, request for information on the requirements for a manufacturer of a light utility trailer which is designed to carry snowmobiles. I regret that we have not responded sooner.

The information you request appears in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and I enclose an information sheet which explains how this material may be acquired.

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR Part 566), specifies identification information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of vehicles and equipment regulated by our standards.

Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag which must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards.

At this time the only Federal safety standards applicable to all trailers are Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, and Standard No. 120, Tire and Rim Selection for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The enclosed information sheet also explains how to acquire those regulations.

Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, became effective on January 1, 1975, in the case of trailers which the manufacturer has decided to equip with air brakes. Thus trailers which you manufacture on or after January 1, 1975, which utilize air brakes must meet the air brake standard.

After you have reviewed the regulations I have referred to, please contact me if you have any further questions.

ID: nht76-3.29

DATE: 03/12/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Maurice J. Sopp & Son

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1976, concerning the sale of a 1975 Chevrolet Step Van that has been modified by the addition of a "boiler" assembly.

@@ 567.4(g)(3) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, provide that the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) appearing on the certification label

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 . . .

Further, @ 567.7 provides that a person who, before the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, alters a previously certified vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid shall affix to the vehicle an additional label that certifies the modified weight ratings and the vehicle's continued compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your letter indicates that the unloaded weight of the van, as altered by Steamaster Boiler Co., exceeds the original 10,000 pound GVWR. From this information, it appears that there has been a violation of the Certification regulation. While we would have to investigate your role as the dealer in this transaction to determine your precise liability, we advise you not to sell the vehicle in its present condition.