Interpretation ID: aiam2335
Chief Engineer
Walter Motor Truck Company
School Road
Voorheesville
NY 12180;
REGISTERED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dear Mr. McRay: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1976 providing us you 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 you 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 tha 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 S 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 S 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 S 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 owner 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 penalt 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 thi 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.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel