ID: 77-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/77

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

TO: Walker Stainless Equipment Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/11/77 Letter from Walker Stainless Equipment Co. to NHTSA

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 11, 1977, and your subsequent conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff, concerning the certification of tank type vehicles. You suggest that a vehicle certification label as specified in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, be required to state the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) in pounds.

You apparently have misinterpreted our regulations to require that the GVWR and the GAWR be in something other than pounds where a vehicle is designed to carry liguids. Since the density of liquids is not constant, the weight of customary liquid measurements would depend upon the type of liquid being carried. Since liquid measurements have no precise weight value, designating load ratings by those measurements would not ensure that vehicles would not be overloaded. It has always been the policy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require that the GAWR and the GVWR be stated in pounds.

Title 49 CFR Part 568 prescribes the method by which manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages must ensure conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A final-stage manufacturer is described as one who "performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." Both "incomplete vehicle" and "completed vehicle" are defined in Section 568.3 of the regulation.

Section 568.6 of Title 49 requires each final-stage manufacturer to certify that the entire vehicle conforms to all applicable standards, in accordance with Section 567.5. That section requires each final-stage manufacturer to affix a label to the vehicle containing, among other things, the GVWR and the GAWR. The GVWR is the value in pounds, which is not less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. The GAWR is the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

When a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages 49 CFR 568.4 requires the incomplete manufacturer to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document containing the GVWR and GAWR for the completed vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle is intended. These ratings are generally used by the final-stage manufacturer in certifying the vehicle. If he chooses to exceed the stated GVWR and GAWR ratings he must also certify that the vehicle will continue to meet all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safety operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.

The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it comes to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, except the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.

In your particular case, your responsibility for any subsequent overloading of the vehicles you manufacture would be determined by the reasonableness of your GVWR's and GAWR's, given the size and configuration of your vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. In the case of flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) a manufacturer would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent over-loading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings specified appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads the manufacturer anticipates will be carried, its responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to it.

ID: 77-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/77

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

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Assoc., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 22, 1977, request for clarification of my July 21, 1977, letter to you stating that, in the case of brake and axle modifications to change the function of a used vehicle from that for which it was originally manufactured, it is the NHTSA's view that degradation of the brake system would only occur as prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (@ 108(a)(2)(A)) if portions of the brake system originally installed are removed, disconnected, or otherwise rendered inoperative. You asked whether a change in "function" of a vehicle would include a modification that simply increases the load-carrying capacity or stability of the vehicle to carry out the same task for which it was originally manufactured.

The answer to your question is no. In the NHTSA's view, the changes you describe would only increase the capabilities of the vehicle to perform its originally manufactured function. Thus, the "element of design" that constitutes the original braking system of the vehicle could be knowingly degraded by the installation of an additional axle that does not provide the capability that would have been required for it if installed in the new vehicle.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC

July 22, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In response to your letter of July 20, 1977, (see attachment #1), a question has arisen concerning the Agency's use of the term "function" as it relates to a truck.

It would appear that a change in a truck's function dictates whether or not an anti skid unit is applied to the additional axle installed on a used vehicle. (See attachment #2).

Whenever our industry adds an axle to any vehicle, our intent is always to change the function of the vehicle by either increasing the load carrying capacity or by increasing the vehicle's stability. A used moving van may be originally operated to transport furniture but upon resale to the second owner, an additional axle may be installed to allow the vehicle to transport heavy machinery. Just as in the original example cited in our letter of April 12, 1977, the addition of the second rear axle to the van type truck clearly changes the function of the vehicle.

We recognize that the Agency must ensure that no one deliberately attempts to circumvent the requirements of the Law by claiming that a vehicle is used and therefore not subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. But in the same sense, whenever a vehicle is reworked to provide a different service after it initially has been operated to perform a specific vocational duty, the vehicle has clearly established a new job function.

Therefore, with respect to your letter of July 20, 1977, are we correct in assuming that when referring to a used vehicle, the term "function", indicates either a physical or job related operational change?

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: 77-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/16/77

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

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to our letter to you dated September 17, 1976, denying your requested rulemaking on Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. It has been brought to our attention that you interpret our letter to require that tire dealers actually complete the tire information forms themselves.

Section 158 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1418) requires that

"[every] manufacturer of motor vehicles and tires shall cause the establishment and maintenance of records of the name and address of the first purchaser of each motor vehicle and tire produced by such manufacturer. . . . The Secretary may, by rule, specify the records to be established and maintained, and reasonable procedures to be followed by manufacturers in establishing and maintaining such records, including procedures to be followed by distributors and dealers to assist manufacturers to secure the information . . . ."

This section of the Act, therefore, places the responsibility for ensuring the establishment of these records upon the manufacturer who may be assisted by the dealer. Part 574 requires dealers to submit first purchaser information to manufacturers. The information that must be supplied to each manufacturer need not be entered on the required form by the dealer. The dealer may present the registration form to the purchaser and allow him to fill in the required information before he takes possession of the tire. Thus, the purchaser would complete the form prior to leaving the store, thereby obviating the need for additional store personnel to complete the forms. It is the dealer's responsibility, however, to ensure that the forms are filled out in their entirety.

ID: 77-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/01/77

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

TO: Texas Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 4, 1977, letter asking whether a dealer who assembles a "kit-car" on a chassis would be considered a manufacturer of a motor vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal safety standards.

Manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381) as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. . . ." Therefore, a dealer who assembles "kit-cars" would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of the Act since he is assembling motor vehicles. However, if the chassis on which the kit-car is assembled is from another used vehicle, the completed kit-car vehicle would be considered used and its assembler would not be considered a manufacturer under the Act.

The Act prohibits the manufacture for sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, if the vehicle the dealer assembles is going to be used as a means of transportation on the road, it must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. The mere use of a vehicle on public highways constitutes an introduction into interstate commerce and is prohibited unless compliance with the safety standards has been achieved.

Part 567.4(g)(1)(ii) of the certification regulations provides the producer of the kit with an option as to whether or not he certifies that the vehicle will comply with all applicable safety standards if completed according to his instructions. If the producer of the kit takes the responsibility of certifying the completed vehicle, the assembler of the vehicle must exercise reasonable care in following the instructions he provides.

For your information I have enclosed a sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" which will direct you to the proper source for obtaining a copy of the safety standards and regulations.

SINCERELY

texas automobile dealers association

August 4, 1977

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is an inquiry as to your construction of the term "manufacturer" as defined and used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

One of our members has inquired as to the applicability of the Act to the assembly and sale of so-called "kit cars". As we understand it, kits are manufactured and sold by the manufacturer to the dealers. The kit is composed of body members made primarily of fiberglass and designed as replicas of classic cars from the past. The kit is designed to be mounted on a Volkswagen chassis, without modification to the chassis.

These kits may be sold to the customer who assembles the vehicle himself on his own chassis or the dealer might assemble the vehicle on his chassis and sell both kit and chassis, fully assembled, to the customer. Our question is, if the dealer assembles the kit on his own chassis and sells the assembled vehicle to the customer, is he a "manufacturer" within the meaning of the Act and therefore subject to compliance with its provisions and of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations?

We would appreciate your assistance in providing the answer to this question.

David R. Sapp Assistant General Counsel

ID: 77-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/77

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

TO: Grove Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 17, 1977, letter concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) tire label requirements contained in Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You address the situation in which it is not practicable to affix the information label to the door.

Location of vehicle certification labels and tire information labels is governed by Part 567.4(c). This section provides that the primary location of the required labels is either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the drivers seating position, or if none of these locations is practicable, to the left side of the instrument panel. Further, if none of the above locations is practicable, you may request an alternate location from the agency. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 explaining how to request an alternate location for the information label.

SINCERELY,

February 17, 1977

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for deviation applicable to Part 567, and FMVSS #120 (Certification Labeling)

Reference: 42 FR 7140 dated February 7, 1977

As manufacturers of mobile hydraulic cranes it has always been our company policy to conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to the best of our ability. As you are probably aware, a self-propelled crane has unique features as regards their work function, and as such, manufacturers are obligated, morally and legally, to assure these features, both carrier and superstructure modes are properly placarded as to operation, maintenance, etc. and notwithstanding, safety which is always our prime concern.

The most important document that accompanies our product line to the ultimate user is the operators handbook. Not only do we supply such a document with the physical shipment of the crane but also provide a second set geared to the specific model involved to the buying distributor. The operators handbook must be fully understood and digested before a crane operator physically operates the equipment. It is to be noted, that the prime-mover (carrier) is equally important as to safety of operation as is the superstructure cranning function.

Tire and rim selection from the design Engineering viewpoint is rather unique within our industry in that, crane manufacturers per se do authorize limited "Lift" capability on rubber and subsequent movement of the load at a given maximum speed. Decal location of these "on rubber" limits are posted to the centerline of the driver side carrier door adjacent to the vehicle certification label. In addition, this information is fully cited in our operators handbook along with suggested substitutes of tires and rims with their recommended cold PSI for on rubber and highway functions.

One must also consider the usage factor of this type of equipment within the realm the real world. Construction companies and users of our type of equipment are considered unique in that usage of the equipment is primarily performed in an off-highway configuration, yet is capable of travel from the owners yard to the job site. However, in terms of odometer miles on the carriage in any given time-frame, it would equal merely a fraction of an over the road semi-tractor type piece of equipment.

Attached herewith as Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 are typical examples of our certification label and tire inflation chart decals. Attached as Enclosure 3 is a typical decal installation drawing on one of our crane families. Please note the many different types of decals ie, caution, warning, danger, etc. which we, as vehicle manufacturers, feel obligated to attach to our machine totally in the interest of safety to our users. To expand our present certification label to include suitable tire and rim information would increase the overall size by one-third. The label is presently sensitized to a metal mounting plate which is needed due to the acoustical package placed on the exterior of the door for noise abatement. The door therefore, would require extensive redesign along with an enlarged mounting attachment for the decal. Predicated on the type of equipment, work function, and limited highway travel mode, it is requested that your Administration reconsider the label information requirements under S5.3 for our type of equipment and keeping in mind that we have and are conforming to the standard and merely are asking relief as to location of the mandated information.

GROVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

R. G. Wilkins Product Safety & Reliability Analyst

cc: E. GARDENHOUR; W. KENNER; L. JOHNSON; F. KRUECK; H. BARRETT; B. SPANGLER

(Illegible Text)

ID: 77-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/77

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

TO: United Brake & Clutch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to United Brake and Clutch's June 1, 1977, request for confirmation that use of a brake chamber equipped with separate diaphrams for application of service brake air pressure and isolated air pressure, along with a mechanical device that automatically holds the brakes in the applied position once they have been applied by means of the protected source of air, would comply with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. The relevant provision of the standard states:

S5.6.3 Application and holding. The parking brakes shall be applied by an energy source that is not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system. Once applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unable to "approve" system designs for compliance with a standard in advance, because there is no way to establish that a vehicle so equipped actually meets the requirements until it has been manufactured.

From your description, it appears that the design would not violate any provision of the parking brake requirement. Our understanding is that the protected source of air pressure is connected separately to the brake chamber, that it is designed to operate even with failure of the service brake chamber diaphram, and that the mechanical holding device operates automatically whenever air pressure in the trailer supply line is at atmospheric pressure. We assume also, that the braking force developed by the protected source of air pressure and maintained by the mechanical device would comply with the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 of the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

UNITED BRAKE & CLUTCH

JUNE 1, 1977

JOE LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL

RE: PARKLOCK BRAKING DEVICE

DEAR MR. LEVIN: IN DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. TED HERLIKY AND MR. DUANE PERRIN, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE CONTACT YOUR OFFICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A DEFINITION AS TO THE COMPLIANCE TO SS 121 OF OUR DEVICE.

THE PARKLOCK BRAKING DEVICE FUNCTIONS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE BENDIX WESTINGHOUSE'S DD 3. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, FUNCTIONALLY. THE SAME PLUMBING ARRANGEMENT IS UTILIZED, THE BRAKE IS HELD IN APPLIED POSITION BY MECHANICAL MEANS. THE UNIT IS A DOUBLE DIAPHRAM UNIT, ONE FOR SERVICE AND THE OTHER FOR EMERGENCY OR PARKING. THE SOURCE OF ENERGY IN THE EMERGENCY OR PARKING APPLICATIONS, LIKE THE DD 3, IS A SEPARATE ISOLATED AIR SOURCE FROM THE SERVICE.

IF YOU CAN TELL ME IF THE UNIT I HAVE DESCRIBED WOULD COMPLY TO THE SS 121 LAW, FOR BOTH TRUCKS AND TRAILERS, IT WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL.

ENCLOSED YOU WILL FIND A DESCRIPTIVE BROCHURE ALONG WITH A BLOW UP OF YOUR PRODUCT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND YOUR EXPEDIENT ATTENTION WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

YOURS TRULY,

RICHARD P. SEIB, PRES.

[Enc. Omitted]

ID: 77-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/77

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

TO: J.A. Selsemeyer

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1977, letter asking several questions concerning a manufacturer's responsibility for tires installed as original equipment on a passenger car.

You asked the following questions in your letter:

1. Are there any laws now in effect which pinpoint responsibility for the quality of tires received as original equipment on a new car?

Section 159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places responsibility upon the vehicle manufacturer for compliance of original equipment with motor vehicle safety standards. However, Section 159 gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the authority to shift to the tire manufacturer the responsibility for compliance of tires with Federal safety standards. You should note that the Act establishes responsibility for compliance with Federal regulations and does not establish remedies for litigants in private law suits.

2. Is it true that there is a federal law which makes it mandatory for United States auto manufacturers to buy original equipment tires in equal amounts from each domestic manufacturer of tires? If so, may I have a copy of this law?

There are no Federal laws of which we are aware that require vehicle manufacturers to purchase equal numbers of tires from each tire manufacturer.

3. What is the current status of safety testing as provided by law in 1966, but never implemented? This law was to be effective January 1, 1976 for radial tires, July 1, 1976 for bias-belted tires, and January, 1977 for bias-ply tires. Was it? If not, what are the prospects?

The regulation to which you refer is known as Uniform Tire Quality Grading and is found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 575. The effective dates for implementation of tire quality grading standards for the three tire types you mention have been delayed by litigation. The agency intends to establish new effective dates shortly.

4. Can a customer of General Motors ask for and receive a service agreement for the tires at the time of sale of a car?

This is a contractual matter between the purchaser of a motor vehicle and General Motors. Federal regulations neither encourage nor discourage such arrangements.

ID: 77-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

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

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 6, 1977, letter asking whether two proposed labels satisfy the requirements for certification and information labels found in 49 CFR Part 567. Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approval of compliance by manufacturers with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. The agency, however, will give an informal opinion as to whether your sample labels appear to comply with NHTSA regulations. From the illustrations you present, it appears that you have closely followed the format suggested in our regulations, and therefore, the labels seem to comply with the agency's requirements. Section S5.3(b) of Standard No. 120 permits the use of both labels when affixed in accordance with Part 567.4(b)-(f).

ID: 77-4.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State Department of Education - Virginia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 77-4.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/77

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

TO: The Coachette Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 19, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, permits the use of two rear doors for the determination of the size of the required unobstructed rear exit opening.

The standard states in S5.4.2.2 that: "[a] school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall conform to all the provisions of S5.4.2, except that the parallelepiped dimension for the opening of the rear emergency door or doors shall be . . . ." This section specifically allows the determination of the required rear opening through the use of either one or two doors. Therefore, your interpretation that the standard permits the use of two rear doors is correct.

SINCERELY,

Coachette Company

August 19, 1977

Joseph Levin Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A.

RE: FMVSS 217

We urgently need a clarification on FMVSS 217, paragraph S5.4.2. and specifically sub-paragraph S5.4.2.2., as these and other referenced sections apply to a van type school bus rear emergency exit.

The school bus in question had two rear emergency doors side by side with the left hand (driver's side) door hinged on the left side and the right hand door hinged on the right side. The operation of these doors require the right hand door to be opened first, then the left hand door may be opened. However, with just the right hand door open, there are couple of minor protusions into the opening that prevent the parallelepiped from passing through.

The two doors have very simple labels and instructions for operating would be clear and concise. (See enclosed sketch.)

Is our interputation correct that we would be in full compliance with FMVSS 217 if both doors were utilized to obtain the required unobstructed opening?

An early reply is desired and anything that can be done to expedite this clarification will be greatly appreciated.

E.M. Ryan Design Engineer

ENC.

ward

SCHOOL BUS MFG., Inc. P.O. BOX 311 HIGHWAY 65 CONWAY, ARKANSAS 72832

DATE - 8-19-77 CHK - DRAFT: 40M ENGR: SCALE IN OR OUT PART ORDER NO. REV CHANGE BY DATE

MATERIAL-

TOLERANCE

(Graphics omitted)