Interpretation ID: nht72-4.33

DATE: 02/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Diamond Reo Trucks Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1971, concerning the Certification regulations, and the regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Part 567, 568). You state that you do not believe the publication of December 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 23571), responds to certain questions you raised in your docket submission of October 27, 1971, and request that we clarify these points for you.

You stated that one problem not dealt with by the amendment of December 10 is that it is impractical for you to place multiple tire sizes (you use an example of nine sizes for one model line) on a small certification label. However, we believe the preamble to the notice of December 10 deals directly with the problem you raise. It said, "as on some vehicles it will be difficult to affix the required label in the designated location, because of space limitations, . . ." "multicolumn labels or adjacent labels in two or more parts are permitted." The provision for listing multiple tire sizes is optional with the manufacturer, and if it presents difficulties a manufacturer may list a single GAWR and GVWR based on the specific tires with which the vehicle, as manufactured, is equipped.

Your letter of October 27, 1971, indicates that you have traditionally furnished a vehicle identification plate with vehicles you manufacture which specifies a "maximum GVW rating" and you raise questions concerning possible discrepancies between the "maximum GVW rating" on the Vehicle Identification Plate and "GAWR" and "GVWR" on the Certification label. The position taken by NHTSA is that the only values that should be provided for gross vehicle or gross axle weight rating are those on the certification label. Any other capacity placed on the vehicle should be clearly and unambiguously described, and should not be represented in any way that it could be confused with GAWR and GVWR. Furthermore, while the GAWR and GVWR may be placed on a vehicle identification plate in the case of a vehicle for which you are the final-stage manufacturer, it may cause problems if the vehicle is an incomplete vehicle (unless pursuant to @ 567.5(b) and 568.7, you as the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assume the legal responsibility for the vehicle). The value on the identification plate might conflict with the GAWR and GVWR placed on the certification label affixed by the final-stage manufacturer.

The answer to the issues raised in your October 27 letter are as follows:

1. Your first problem appears to be that vehicles previously rated as Class 8 under State law, based on axle capability, will under the definitions of GVWR and GAWR now be Class 7 due to the tires generally furnished with the vehicle. The GVWR rating on the certification label is not intended to replace the method under which vehicles are classified under State laws. If States use GVWR as a basis for classification without understanding that the criteria for determining this figure differ from those used previously, the problem should be brought to the States' attention by affected parties.

2. Your second and third questions concern the differences between the vehicle identification plate and the GVWR on the certification label when the final manufacturer makes changes in the chassis equipment. Your question appears to assume that you will have the responsibility for the certification label on an incomplete vehicle. This is not the case. Except when the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes complete legal responsibility under @ 567.5(b) and 568.7, the certification label including GVWR and GAWR, is the responsibility of the final-stage manufacturer. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer's duty is to furnish information concerning weight ratings and conformity with the standards in the Part 568 document, in which you can easily provide as detailed information as you wish. Any permanent labels that you affix as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer are not part of our regulatory scheme and are your own responsibility. If your own "identification plate" causes you problems, discontinuing the practice would be a possible solution.

In your question 4, you ask whether the ultimate retail customer is considered a final manufacturer if he makes changes that affect GVWR and GAWR. The answer is that the ultimate retail customer is a final-stage manufacturer if he fulfills the definition of that category in @ 568.3. If the vehicle he purchases is an incomplete vehicle as defined in that section, then he has the same responsibility as any other final-stage manufacturer to affix a label with the correct GVWR and GAWR information. If he purchases a complete vehicle, then he is not a manufacturer and need not make changes in the labels regardless of what he does with the tires. Merely changing tires, or purchasing a vehicle complete except for tires, would not make such a purchaser a final-stage manufacturer.