ID: nht76-3.13

ID: nht76-3.14

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: National Automobile Theft Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1976, concerning "track sheets" and "autotels."

Section S4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, lists those components of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements. I have enclosed a copy for your information. An "autotel" under the back seat, between the frame and the body, or pasted to the top of the gas tank does not fall within the ambit of the standard. Consequently, it is our view that this most important and effective deterrent to vehicle theft is not discouraged by any existing motor vehicle safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed that Standard No. 302 be amended to include all materials exposed to the occupant compartment air space. If this amendment is adopted, an "autotel" under the seat presumably would fall within the purview of the standard. In this case, the "autotel" could not burn at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. We believe that this would not prove an impediment to the continuation of the "autotel" program as flame-retardant paper is readily available.

If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE THEFT BUREAU

January 8, 1976

Dr. James Gregory, Administrator NYTSA Department of Transportation

We are writing this on behalf of our own investigative efforts as well as for law enforcement generally.

Each auto manufacturer in the United States when assembling a car uses what is called a track sheet or autotel. This piece of paper, and in some cases two pieces of paper, contains detailed information on the identification of various parts of the car being assembled and contains the numbers and information necessary to positively identify that vehicle.

Over the years, auto theft investigators, including our own investigators and those in law enforcement, have been able to identify hundreds of stolen cars by use of this material even though the numbers stamped into the frames and affixed to the dashboard have been changed or obliterated by thieves.

This paper is usually secreted in some portion of the vehicle, sometimes put under the back seat, sometimes between the frame and the body, and in one particular make of car is Scotch taped onto the top of the gas tank.

We have been informed that there is a possibility that this practice might be regarded as adding to the flammability of the interior of a car and, to our knowledge, at least one manufacturer has discontinued this invaluable aid to automobile identification because of the possibility that these tracks might be prohibited by regulation.

I would request that you consider the extreme value of the inclusion of auto tel in the vehicles and, also, consider the very minimum possibility of these contributing to any fire hazard in the car.

We would like a clarification of your Agency's position in this matter in order that we may request the manufacturers to continue these tracks.

We would appreciate any consideration you can give our request.

Michael J. Murphy President

cc: HON. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN -- SECY. OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. EDWARD LEVY -- ATTY. GENERAL; JOHN CARSON -- BRANCH CHIEF, CONTROLS & DISPLAYS, NHTSA

ID: nht76-3.15

DATE: 09/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bing Johnson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1976, in which you ask about our regulations concerning the modification of "vans" to make them suitable for camping. The modifications you propose to make include the installation of plumbing, water, electricity, and additional seating.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @@ 1381, et seq.) prohibits the manufacture, offer for sale, sale, introduction in interstate commerce or importation of a motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture. This prohibition does not apply (except for importation) after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale. Under these provisions, you are responsible for the compliance of any vehicle that you modify up to and including the time of first purchase for purposes other than resale.

The manufacturer must comply with all applicable safety standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). His certification appears on a completed vehicle. It would be your responsibility to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards after your modifications. Under Part 567 of our regulations, you must attach a label to the vehicle that states that, as altered, the vehicle continued to conform to the standards.

From the description of the modifications you describe, it appears that you might affect the compliance of the vehicle with the following standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. It should be noted that any additional weight created by your modifications or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.

We also would point out that if you modify a Ford "Econoline" in all probability you would change the vehicle classification from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle. This should be noted on the certification label that you attach to the vehicle.

I have enclosed an information sheet that explains where you may obtain copies of these regulations.

Sincerely,

Aug. 16, 1976

Dear Sir, I am interested in your policies and regulation for camping, vans. I am planning to do modifications of standard manufactured vans (e.g: Ford "Econoline") which would involve plumbing, water, electrical (no (Illegible Lines)) seating.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention.

Bing Johnson

ID: nht76-3.16

DATE: 05/12/76

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

TO: INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 18, 1976, concerning testing procedures pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

As you point out, S5.1.3 of the standard provides that thin, heat resistant wires are used to support a "specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning." One of your customers asserted that support wires should be used in testing his materials, and you have asked when the use of support wires is appropriate.

Your interpretation of the standard in this case is commendable, and your test practices are calculated to demonstrate clearly the exercise of due care that a particular product complies with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, an NHTSA July 19, 1971, interpretation of Standard No. 302 (copy enclosed) permits use of support wires when any bending of the tested material occurs. At the time of that interpretation, it was believed that the support wires would not influence the test results.

More recent testing by the agency demonstrates that the support wires do significantly affect burn rates, and the agency intends to issue an interpretative amendment of the standard that will limit use of support wires.

Thank you for your responsible approach to testing products that are required to conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

SINCERELY,

INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

February 18, 1976

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We are an independent testing laboratory, whose services include conducting the tests for flammability, including the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302. A question concerning the test procedure and method has been brought to our attention and we need an official interpretation.

The test method states, "A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat-resistant wires, spanning the width of the u-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals". We have always interpreted this statement to mean that if the material would have a tendency to become almost vertical upon ignition you would support the material with the wires, otherwise the wires would not be needed; as an example, a specimen of plastic or a headlining material would be supported by the wires. A large percentage of our testing is on materials related to carpeting, either woven or tufted, and we do not use the wires for support since the material does not have a tendency to become vertical during the test.

A manufacturer has sent us some material which is to be used as an upholstery fabric and asked us to conduct the test No. 302. We conducted the test according to the procedure; however, we did not use the support wires on this material as we felt the material was not covered under the above statement. The material was cut into four specimens, two specimens in the machine direction and two specimens in the "cross-machine" direction. Two specimens are tested with the "face up" in both directions and two specimens are tested with "face-down" in both directions, as we cannot determine prior to the test which will give us the most adverse results (para. S5.2.2). The material failed the test. We are enclosing a copy of the test results with the manufacturers name blotted out.

When the manufacturer received the report, he was quite upset, as a copy of his letter to us shows. The material, according to him, should be tested using the support wires which in this case allows the material to pass the test; however, if the support wires are not used, the material will almost always fail the test. We have told him that we do not conduct the test so that the results would always be beneficial to the manufacturer, but that we conduct the test in accordance with the standard and our interpretation of the test method which in some cases is not beneficial to the manufacturer. It is our opinion that flammability tests are not conducted in such a way as to suit a manufacturer because he wants a passing report, but that the test should be conducted under the most adverse conditions so as to give a true look at the material being tested.

I am enclosing a piece of the material in question and hope to have a ruling as soon as possible as to whether or not support wires should be used with this material. We have other tests to perform which we are holding until we hear from you.

Cornelius C. Setter

INDEPENDENT TEXTILE TESTING SERVICE, INC.

TEST NUMBER

-REPORT-

CONSUMER: (Illegible Words)

SUBJECT: (Illegible Words) (Illegible Text)

ID: nht76-3.17

DATE: 10/08/76

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

TO: Fachnormenausschuss Kraftfahrzeuge - FAKRA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 31, 1975, in which you recommended a modification of the testing procedures pursuant to Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your modification would require the presence of support wires in all tests. After consideration of the recently-complied test data on the use of support wires in the testing procedures, the NHTSA has decided that modification of the standard should be considered along the lines you suggest.

The NHTSA has interpreted Standard No. 302 to permit the use of support wires when any bending of the tested material occurred. At the time of that interpretation, it was believed that support wires would not influence the test results. More recent testing by the agency indicates that the use of support wires does significantly affect burn rates. For this reason, the agency is considering various possibilities in addition to the one you suggest.

Thank you for sending us a copy of your Draft International Standard. We appreciate your concern in this matter.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht79-2.1

DATE: 09/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tiger Trading Corporation International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 26, 1979, concerning an "after market" motor vehicle accessory you plan to distribute. You describe the accessory as an item of clear plastic that affixes to the inside of the rear window "to greatly improve the rear vision of the driver of a passenger vehicle."

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, establishes performance requirements for rearview mirror systems. The standard only applies to mirrors installed as original equipment in motor vehicles and does not apply to replacement equipment such as the aftermarket accessory you intend to distribute. However, since the device you plan to distribute is an item of motor vehicle equipment, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), as amended, (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defect in your mirror accessory. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

July 26, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

To Whom It May Concern:

We will be distributing a new automobile accessory to the retail trade selling "after market" accessories to the public. Following my brief phone conversation with Mr. Joseph F. Zemaitis, NHTSA, San Francisco, we deemed it advisable to check with your offices to determine if there will be any objections to the product.

Basically the article is made of plastic (clear) and is designed to greatly improve the rear vision of the driver of a passenger vehicle. The unit is affixed to the inside of the rear window by means of a self-adhesive mounting bracket. The driver when looking at the rear view mirror, with the field of vision passing through the unit rearward, then is capable of seeing objects on either side of their vehicle, which they cannot normally do so (Illegible Word) viewing through the rear view mirror.

The unit is 9"x3"x1" (rectangular) and is out of the way of any passengers. As it is not permanently mounted to the vehicle, it will break away upon impact. There are no sharp edges and the larger flat portion of the unit faces the interior of the vehicle. We have enclosed photocopies which will enable you to better understand the unit.

In light of the current problems with rearvision from the drivers seat, we believe the product is needed and timely. Your office's concern in this area as evidenced by Docket No. 71-3a;Notice 4 is indicative.

Your earliest comments will be appreciated.

David H. Lewis Import Manager

cc: Joseph F. Zemaitis

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

THIN METAL TO ELIMINATE SUN GLARE (FACES WINDOW)

CLEAR PLASTIC FACING INTERIOR OF VEHICLE

(Graphics omitted)

THIN METAL TO ELIMINATE SUN GLARE (FACES WINDOW)

PLASTIC

CLEAR PLASTIC FACING INTERIOR OF VEHICLE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.10

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dekalb County School System Service Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Harry W. Reynolds, Supervisor Fleet Maintenance Division DeKalb County School System Service Center 1780 Montreal Road Tucker, Georgia 30084

Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This responds to your July 27, 1979, letter which asked whether any Federal law or regulations would prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting the gasoline fuel systems in its school buses to propane fuel or dual propane/ gasoline fuel systems. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to school buses manufactured in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75 and with respect to school buses manufactured before that standard's effective date. You also asked which persons may perform the conversions. As explained below, the laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) neither prohibit such a conversion of a school bus, regardless of whether it was initially manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, nor specify which persons may perform such conversions.

Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, promulgated by this agency pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 ("the Act") specifies performance requirements for the fuel systems of new motor vehicles, including school buses, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (e.g., gasoline).

New vehicles, such as school buses, that have not yet been sold and delivered to a purchaser where the school district) for purposes other than resale and that have been manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 may be converted to propane and dual propane/gasoline systems. However, any person or entity, other than the purchaser, such as a manufacturer, dealer, or automobile repair business, who performs the conversion would be considered an alterer under NHTSA regulations.

An alterer is required to attach an additional label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). Upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a propane-powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would cease to apply since propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and the standard applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a higher boiling point. Therefore, the alterer would not be required to certify the school bus's continuing compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. However, upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a dual powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would remain applicable and the alterer would be required to certify the vehicle's continued compliance with that standard and all other applicable safety standards.

The installer of a propane or dual propane/gasoline system in a new vehicle would be responsible for any Safety related defects arising from the method of installation. The manufacturer of the system would be responsible for any safety related defects in the system itself. Thus, if a new school bus were found to contain a safety related defect following the addition of a new fuel system the installer or manufacturer, respectively, would be required to notify vehicle owners of any defects and to remedy these defects. (Sections 151 et seq. of the Act, see enclosure). Also, please note if a propane or a dual propane/gasoline system were installed in a used school bus and was later found to contain any safety related defects, the manufacturer of the system would be responsible for notifying vehicle owners of the defect and for remedying them.

Used vehicles manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of that standard, may also be converted. Nothing in the Act prohibits a vehicle owner from modifying his own vehicles. Moreover, no law administered by the NHTSA prohibits other persons or entities such as manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair business from modifying used vehicles.

This means that the DeKalb County School District would not be prohibited from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacture, to propane or to dual-powered buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business. none of these persons or entities would be prohibited from doing the work.

However, such persons and entities could be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, if they converted used vehicles No. 301-75. The section provides in relevant part that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device, or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with Safety Standard No. 301-75, if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modification of the safety systems in a vehicle that is being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the safety standards that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a used gasoline-powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) to a propane-powered school bus, the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to Safety Standard No. 301-75, since this standard, as noted earlier, does not apply to propane-powered school buses.

However, there could be liability under this section in connection with Safety Standard No. 301-75 if, for example, one of the listed persons or entities converted a used gasoline-powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) into a dual-powered school bus. In this situation, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would continue to apply to the school bus after the conversion. Thus, if in performing the conversion one of the listed persons or entities knowingly compromised the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75 while adding the propane system, that person or entity would have violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this response helpful.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 27, 1979

Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation National Highway Safety Traffic Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir:

The DeKalb County School System currently operates a fleet of 350 school buses which consume approximately 1,000,000 gallons of gasoline annually. We have been considering a number of proposals that would enable us to reduce our annual gasoline requirements. One concept that seems very appealing would be the conversion of gasoline school buses to liquid propane. As we consider liquid propane aa an alternate fuel source, we need the advice and counsel of your department, The following are some matters of concern, and any help you could give to us would be appreciated. 1. Are there any Federal laws or governmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting pre FMVSS-301 buses to liquid propane? 2. Are there any Federal laws or governmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting school buses equipped with FMVSS-301 fuel system? 3. Are there any Federal laws or govermmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from installing one propane tank and leaving the existing fuel system intact so the vehicle can be powered by a dual system of gasoline and liquid propane? 4. If these conversions can be performed, by whom may they be performed? (the manufacturer, a dealer, a propane supply, or the DeKalb County School System's Fleet Maintenance Division) Our concern for fuel conservation has prompted us to seek your advice and counsel. We have looked into this matter and find ourselves in an uncertain postre due to thhe regulations concernig safety systems originally certified as part of the school bus and by the Safety Standard FMVSS-301. Your counsel will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Harry Wayne Reynolds, Supervisor Fleet Maintenance Division HWR/mb

ID: nht79-2.11

DATE: 01/17/79

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

TO: J. R. Randolph

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 28, 1978, letter concerning an auxiliary fuel tank installed by the dealer on a 1978 Ford van that you purchased. You are concerned that the auxiliary tank represents a safety hazard due to the location of the tank's filler cap in the left rear wheel-well.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, specifies performance requirements for fuel systems on motor vehicles. Although the standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components, your dealer had to assure that your van complied with the standard. A person who mounts an auxiliary fuel tank on a new motor vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is a vehicle alterer under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations. That person is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix a label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Therefore, there should be an "alterer" label on your van in addition to the certification label placed on the vehicle by the original manufacturer.

Even if the vehicle complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75, the location and design of the auxiliary fuel tank could constitute a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer would also be responsible. I am, therefore, forwarding a copy of your letter to the agency's Office of Defects Investigation. That office will examine this situation and may be in touch with you at a later date.

Thank you for your letter and for bringing this matter to our attention.

SINCERELY,

December 28, 1978

Chief Counsel Office of the Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

I am writing this letter to inform you of what appears to me to be a definite safety hazard and requesting of you an interpretation of the regulations which authorize either a direct intervention or the issuance of a consumer advisory. This letter is a result of a discussion with, and at the suggestion of, Mr. C. G. Keiper of your Denver office.

On September 7, 1978, I purchased a new 1978 Ford Econoline 150 van from Lakewood Ford, Incorporated. I requested that an auxiliary gas tank be installed and the dealer included the installation on my purchase agreement. Upon delivery to me, I found that the filler cap for the auxiliary gas tank was located in the left rear wheel well. My concerns were responded to by statements which varied from "all after-market auxiliary gas tank installations are the same", to "it meets Federal criteria for a side impact crash".

I subsequently learned that a local dealer, other than Lakewood Ford, had installed the tank according to the manufacturer's directions. The tank is manufactured by ARA.

My concerns are twofold. First, the wheel well is one of the filthiest places on a van, and no reasonable person can keep dirt from entering the auxiliary tank. I have already experienced an engine failure which resulted from dirt in the auxiliary tank; fortunately, the breakdown occurred in the city and only consituted an annoyance. A similar breakdown in the Colorado Rockies, or anywhere else outside a metropolitian area, could conceivably result in explosion and possibly death.

My second concern is that if I were to use tire chains the one on the left rear tire could break, strike the filler cap and cause a fire or explosion.

In either event I am unable to use the product for its intended purpose except in a sterile environment -- normal driving is impossible using this tank except for careless and unthinking persons.

I have brought this matter to the attention of the dealership's president. As of this date, the dealer has not clearly indicated its willingness to either modify the installation to eliminate the hazards or to remove the tank and refund my money.

I will appreciate your consideration in this matter both for my own peace of mind and for the safety of myself and the many people who had the same installation without prior knowledge of the placement of the gas filler cap.

James R. Randolph

cc: JESS B. CARROWAY - LAKEWOOD FORD, INC.; C. G. KEIPER NHTSA, DENVER

ID: nht79-2.12

DATE: 12/14/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 14 1975

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

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your October 17, 1979, letter asking about the proper certification label for an intermediate manufacturer that alters the tires and rims on a chassis thereby affecting the gross axle and vehicle weight ratings. In your letter, you suggest an abbreviated certification label that would list the manufacturer's name and date of manufacture, and would make the statement that the vehicle will conform to certain standards if the incomplete vehicle document is followed. The agency agrees that this is a correct certification.

Intermediate manufacturers are required to attach labels to vehicles that they modify to indicate that some manufacturing operation has occurred on a vehicle between the manufacture of its chassis and its final manufacture. The intermediate manufacturer is permitted to select, from among a number of certification statements, the statement or statements that accurately represent the nature of the work undertaken by that manufacturer. Therefore, it is not necessary for an intermediate manufacturer to use all of the certification statements on its labels.

In the situation that you describe, the intermediate manufacturer will make a statement on its label identical to one of the statements made by the chassis manufacturer. Although this appears to be redundant, it is necessary to have the intermediate manufacturer's label on the vehicle making the required certification statement so that a final-stage manufacturer can continue to rely upon the certification labels and upon the statements made in the incomplete vehicle document.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 17, 1979

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

Dear Madam: Subject: Request for Interpretation 49 CFR Part 567, Certification Intermediate Manufacturer's Label Section 567.5(b)

Mack Trucks, Inc., a manufacturer of heavy duty diesel trucks, requests interpretation of 49 CFR 567.5(b) concerning the "Intermediate Manufacturer's Label".

In the heavy duty truck industry, the practice of changing the tires and/or rims from those originally furnished on the incomplete vehicle, before delivery to a final-stage manufacturer, is not uncommon.

If a dealer (distributor) changes the tires and rims on a Mack chassis-cab, and the change alters the GAWR's and GVWR of the vehicle, then the dealer becomes an intermediate manufacturer since the validity of the incomplete vehicle document is affected (ref: 49 CFR 568.5). Therefore, the dealer is required to affix an intermediate manufacturer's label to the vehicle.

The requirements pertaining to the content of this label are specified in 49 CFR 567.5(b). As we interpret this section, only one of the four (4) statements (567.5(b)(2)) specified in 567.5 (b)(1) through (b)(3) possibly applies to a tire/GAWR/GVWR change since the conformance status of the safety standards has not changed. Therefore, the intermediate manufacturer's label could consist of only the following:

1. "This vehicle will conform to Standard Nos. ------------ if it is completed in accordance with the instructions contained in the amended incomplete vehicle document furnished pursuant to 49 CFR Part 568."

2. "INTERMEDIATE MANUFACTURE BY" followed by the dealer's name.

3. The month and year of intermediate manufacture.

In the case of a tire/rim/GAWR/GVWR change, statement 1 above, when completed, is simply a restatement of a sentence on the "Chassis-Cab Label" and seems redundant since the only difference between the two statements will be the word "amended".

Mack Trucks, Inc. would appreciate the Administration's comments on what is required of a dealer (distributor) who changes the tires/rims/GAWR/GVWR of an incomplete vehicle.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer- Vehicle Regulations and Standards

vy

ID: nht79-2.13

DATE: 02/13/79

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

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 13 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1606 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This responds to your January 9, 1979, letter concerning a mistake on the certification labels of approximately 2000 Datsun trucks. You stated that the vehicles, although manufactured in 1979, were incorrectly dated on their certification labels as being manufactured in 1978. You propose to remedy the affected vehicles by crossing out the incorrect date and inserting the correct information.

Your proposed correction is acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety-Administration. As long as all other information on the certification label is correct, your modification of existing certification labels will comply with the agency's regulations.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

NOA-30 January 9, 1979

Mr. Roger S. Tilton Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of January 9th regarding the following problem.

We mistakenly attached the certification label (required by Part 567) on which "78" was printed in the space of year for FMVSS certification statement to the rear bodies of our DATSUN Pick-Up (620) manufactured in 1979. Approximately 2,000 vehicles are involved.

The method of correction which we are now planning to do is to cross out the digits "78" and add the digits "79" directly below as follows:

XX 79

During our conversation I requested your interpretation on whether our method of correction will be accepted by your office and your reply was yes.

We will be able to submit the list of VIN of the vehicles (DATSUN Pick-Up) which are involved in the problem within the next couple of weeks.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO.,LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

HM:mh