ID: nht76-3.18

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your January 26, 1976, letter concerning your previous suggestion for an amendment to the definition of "permanently attached end fitting" in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses. Your July 18, 1975, letter suggested that brake hose end fittings attached by means of a dimensional interference fit be considered, along with those attached by heat shrinking, to be permanently attached for purposes of the standard. Please forgive our oversight regarding that letter. We have identified it as a petition for rulemaking and now find it to have merit. Accordingly, the petition is granted and a proceeding respecting the issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking has been commenced.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the requested amendment will necessarily be issued. A final decision concerning the issuance of a proposal to amend the standard will be made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria. We do expect to issue a proposal in the near future.

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

January 26, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74

A reply to our letter dated July 18, 1975 concerning the above subject has not yet been received. A copy of this original request for standard amendment is enclosed for your review.

Response at your earliest convenience would be greatly appreciated.

HEINZ W. GERTH

ID: nht76-3.19

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: NVT America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1976, in which you pose several questions concerning which of three companies participating in the construction of a motor vehicle would be considered the manufacturer for purposes of 49 CFR Part 566 and which would be responsible, therefore, for meeting the safety standards described in 49 CFR Part 571.

The term "manufacturer" is defined in section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." Therefore, the company that assembles a vehicle is considered the manufacturer regardless of the name under which the vehicle is marketed. This interpretation is not affected by which company owns the engineering rights or trademark to the vehicle. A controlling corporation, however, may assume responsibility for conformity with the standards and may substitute its name for the name of its assembling subsidiary.

Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires the manufacturer, as defined above, to submit identifying information and a description of the items it produces. You should further note that 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, requires the same manufacturer to affix a label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards.

I trust this fully responds to your questions.

ID: nht76-3.2

DATE: 07/16/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to Jeep Corporation's March 9, 1976, petition for rulemaking as supplemented by its letter of April 1, 1976. The petition requested an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, that would add the following sentence at the end of S7.1.6(b):

For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories.

The supplement to the petition included a list of 15 examples of such work-performing accessories. The amendment would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove these accessories before performing compliance testing pursuant to the standard.

In Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, (15 U.S.C. 1392 note), Congress directed that the fuel system integrity standard take effect in the form in which it had been most recently published. Conditions for amending the standard were specified in Section 108(b) as follows:

Amendment or Repeal of Standard. -- The Secretary may amend the standard described in subsection (a) in order to correct technical errors in the standard, and may amend or repeal such standard if he determines such amendment or repeal will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.

The practical result of the amendment requested by Jeep would be that certain vehicles would not, as is presently specified, be required to conform to the standard in the form in which they are actually delivered to purchasers and used on the highways. In fact, the presence of work-performing accessories could seriously degrade a vehicle's performance in the standard's barrier crash tests. We therefore cannot conclude that the requested amendment "will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety." Furthermore, the amendment goes beyond the mere correction of technical errors in the standard. Consequently, Jeep's petition must be and is hereby denied.

Despite this denial, however, the NHTSA interprets the term "unloaded vehicle weight" in a manner that provides some of the relief that Jeep has requested. The term is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as follows:

'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

The "weight of a vehicle" includes the weight of those accessories that are installed on a vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily removed. Among such accessories are the following: air bag suspension systems

draw bars

headlamp and radiator protectors

helper-springs

hitches

pintle hooks

power take-offs

push bumpers

step bumpers and side steps

tire carriers

wreckers

The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the "weight of a vehicle". Consequently, accessories in this latter group would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75. Among these are the following:

snow plows

spreaders

tow bars

Categorization of winches, the remaining accessory that you have listed, depends on the nature of the particular winch. One that is generally removed only when its presence interferes with other vehicle functions would be included in the evaluation of "unloaded vehicle weight". A portable winch that is ordinarily removed after use, however, would not be included in that evaluation.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

April 1, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

On March 9, 1976 the Jeep Corporation petitioned the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for rulemaking to exempt work-performing accessories from the test requirements of FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, as the standard applies to multi-purpose vehicles and light trucks. This letter transmits additional information to supplement our March 9 petition.

It has occurred to us that a summary of the types of available work-performing accessories referenced in our petition might be of benefit to you in your efforts to evaluate the merits of the Jeep petition. We, therefore, submit the following list of work-performing accessories, or work-related accessories, for your information and review:

Air bag suspension systems

Draw bars

Headlamp and radiator protectors

Helper springs

Hitches

Pintle hooks

Power take-offs

Push bumpers

Snow plows

Spreaders

Step bumpers and side steps

Tire carriers

Tow bars

Winches

Wreckers

In addition, we have attached copies of the booklet "Jeep Vehicle Special Equipment and Jeep Vehicle Accessories Catalog" which includes illustrations of the type of accessories and devices discussed above as well as descriptions of other factory-approved equipment and accessories that are available on these unique vehicles.

We request your prompt and favorable acceptance of this petition since less than five months remain before FMVSS No. 301 becomes effective as applied to MPV's and light trucks.

George E. Brown Executive Director - Vehicle Emissions & Safety

ATTACHMENTS Jeep Corporation

March 9, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Petition For Rulemaking Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity

On October 16, 1975, Jeep Corporation submitted a petition to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" so that work-performing accessories would not be included. That petition was subsequently denied (your letter N40-30) on the grounds that the NHTSA has adopted a policy of evaluating potential dynamic testing problems with heavy or protruding accessories on a "standard-by-standard" basis.

In accord with that stated NHTSA policy, Jeep Corporation, herewith, submits the attached petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include the work-performing accessories used on trucks and multi-purpose vehicles.

George E. Brown Executive Director Vehicle Emissions and Safety

March 9, 1976

PETITION TO AMEND FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD (49 CFR PART 301) FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include work-performing accessories for trucks and multipurpose vehicles. Thus, the test conditions for Standard No. 301 would then be consistent in this respect with those for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

The Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator's consideration of this petition for the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, for the following reasons:

Currently, the Test Conditions of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, Are Not Consistent with Those of Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion

In the preamble to the proposal for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, Docket No. 74-21; Notice 2, the Administrator stated:

"Finally, the NHTSA is continuing to promote compatibility and economy in barrier crash testing by adopting vehicle loading and dummy restraint requirements in Standard No. 219 identical to those set out in proposed amendments to Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, 49 CFR 571.301 (40 FR 17036, April 16, 1975)."

Jeep Corporation fully supports the Administrator's efforts to promote compatibility and economy in barrier testing; however, the requirements for Standard No. 219 and 301 do not provide the desired compatibility or economy.

Section 7.7b of Standard No. 219 referring to the test loading and dummy requirements for multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses states:

"For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work performing accessories."

Standard No. 301 does not provide for the exemption of work-performing accessories and, therefore, is not compatible with Standard No. 219 and thus requires clarification regarding the loading conditions for barrier testing.

Barrier Tests Including Work-Performing Accessories Would Not Be Representative of Normal Production Vehicles

Multi-purpose vehicles, because of their nature, are used in many ways with equipment not typical of normal passenger car usage. Barrier tests involving work-performing accessories would not be representative of most production vehicles. For example, the barrier test results of a truck with a snow plow on its front and carrying a salt spreader on its rear should not be used to depict base vehicles because of the possible protection offered to the base vehicle by its work-performing devices.

Excessive Barrier Test Requirements May Cause Some Accessories Specifically Engineered for Jeep Vehicles to be Removed From the Marketplace

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as Jeep Special Equipment, are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory-installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modifications which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle.

Marketing of these engineered accessories may not be possible, however, if the dynamic testing procedures of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, differ from the test procedures specified for other standard such as Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, and require multi-purpose vehicles to be tested with a myriad of special equipment accessories. Programs to assure compliance to any Federal Safety Standard specifying barrier testing with all possible equipment combinations would create a testing and financial burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which may not be in the best interest of public safety.

Summary

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator to amend Section 7.1.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, by adding the sentence underlined here:

". . . same. Each dummy shall be restrained only by means that are installed in the vehicle for protection at its seating position. For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

Jeep Corporation submits that such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.

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.