ID: nht73-4.12

DATE: 04/19/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Milwaukee Truck Center Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you ask several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds: a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico; (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date; (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.

It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issue underlies all your questions; that is, whether a final-stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.

A truck that is equipped at the tire of its manufacturer with tires inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.

The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped without tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case is within this exception.

ID: nht73-4.13

DATE: 04/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Anderson-Alford

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 3, 1973, inquiring whether there are licenses and forms that you must obtain before you may install old truck bodies on new trucks.

Persons who install used truck bodies on new trucks are generally considered to be "final-stage manufacturers" under NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR 567, 568). These regulations require final-stage manufacturers of multi-stage vehicles to certify the conformity of such vehicles to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Certification is accomplished by affixing a label to the vehicle. The requirements for both the location and content of the label are contained in the Certification regulations, and you may obtain copies of these regulations as indicated or the enclosed. "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations".

There are no licensing requirements, nor specified forms you must complete before you undertake these manufacturing operations. However, the NHTSA does have requirements, (Part 566, "Manufacturer Identification", copy enclosed) that company within 30 days after commencing manufacture.

ID: nht73-4.14

DATE: 05/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Leaseway Transportation Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated February 28, 1973 asking whether a planned wholly owned subsidiary of Leaseway Transportation Co. would be required to certify vehicles which it readies for service adding numerous components, including fifth wheels, for another company, also a wholly owned subsidiary of Leaseway Transportation Co. You state that under this arrangement title is always held by some component of the Leaseway organization.

Persons who install fifth wheels have generally been considered to be "final-stage manufacturers" under NHTSA certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). Final-stage manufacturers, including those who complete vehicles for their own use, are required to complete such vehicles in conformity with applicable Federal standards, and to certify that conformity pursuant to 49 CFR Parts 567, 568. The NHTSA position is that the status of the title does not affect the basic responsibility of final-stage manufacturers to certify the conformity of vehicles that they manufacture.

ID: nht73-4.15

DATE: 05/01/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Varadyne Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: As requested in your letter of March 27, enclosed is a copy of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation. As you will note the regulation is silent as to the question of payment of a fee for registering the tires. I do not think it would be illegal to charge a 50 cent fee for registering tires, however, we would certainly discourage the practice.

ENCLS.

VARADYNE INDUSTRIES, INC.

March 27, 1973

Dr. E. H. Wallace U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Sir:

I request a copy of "The Tire Registration Law". Retail outlet stores in this area are charging 50~ per each Recapped Tire sold as a registration fee. I question their Legal Grounds on this matter and need a copy of the law to solidify my position.

Sincerely,

D. Juve Q. A. Mgr.

ID: nht73-4.16

DATE: 05/03/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 22, 1973, concerning the conformity of buses manufactured by AM General Corporation with paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release." Your letter states, enclosing a drawing, that the side sash construction in these buses includes an aluminum tie bar that connects the upper and lower portion of the sash, and is located on the inside and at the center of the glass. You state this configuration precludes testing as specified in S5.1.1, which specifies that the head form applying the load be placed at the center of the glazing. You request that the standard be revised to permit testing with the head form located as close as possible to the center of the glazing.

Based on the information you have provided, we are of the opinion that the configuration of this window should be treated under paragraph S5.1 as two separate windows, even though only one sheet of window glazing is used. The tie bar appears to be an integral part of the window sash, and by preventing an occupant from contacting the window at that point, performs essentially the same function as a conventional divider strip. Consequently, we would expect to test this window configuration by applying the head form to the center of each half of the glazing surface.

Yours Truly,

AM General Corporation

March 22, 1973

FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

(49 CFR PART 571)

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 217

"BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE"

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

AM General Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Motors Corporation, is in the process of designing a transit bus for use by Transit Authorities in the United States.

The side window sash and rear window sash construction is so designed as to make it virtually impossible to conform to the required test procedure described in FMVSS No. 217 - Bus Window Retention and Release.

Paragraph S5.1.1 states: "An increasing force shall be applied to the window glazing through the head form specified in Figure 4, outward and perpendicular to the undisturbed inside surface at the center of each sheet of window glazing, with a head form travel of 2 inches per minute."

AM General's side sash construction is as depicted on the enclosed AMG Drawing No. 5955931. Your attention is directed to the center of the glazing which reflects that at this location you will find an aluminum "tie bar" which connects the upper and lower portion of the aluminum sash.

Since this "tie bar" is an integral functional item and its location is at the center of the glazing, but not integral with respect to the glazing, it is obvious that it precludes testing according to the aforementioned test procedure of Paragraph S5.1.1.

Therefore, AM General requests clarification whether it is permitted by this standard to locate the contact of the head form as close as possible to the normal center of the glazing, without coming in contact with the "tie bar," as shown on the enclosed drawing. Should this procedure not be allowed under the current Standard No. 217, AM General requests that the requirement be revised to permit an option to test with the head form located as close as possible to the normal center of the glazing.

A similar sash type rear window with a positive lock mechanism and with a "tie bar" as herein described will be used; and it is, therefore, requested that the offset(Illegible Word) be approved or revision to the standard apply also to rear windows.

We respectfully request your prompt attention and reply. Should you require additional information pertaining to our design, do not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

F. A. Stewart Vice President Safety & Reliability

Enclosure

Copy to Docket Section

ID: nht73-4.17

DATE: 05/03/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Service Industry Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1973, to Mr. George Shifflett of my staff, enclosing a letter from Mr. I. Warren Simpson of Standard Parts Corporation. Mr. Simpson's questions, as amplified in a phone conversation we had with him following your suggestion, are restated below, and followed by our responses.

1. When "glyder kits" are installed, is the installer considered to be a manufacturer and therefore responsible for certification? (We understand "glyder kits" to mean a cab with chassis, less power train and rear axle.)

Whether a vehicle must be certified depends upon whether it is a "completed vehicle", as that term is defined in 49 CFR @ 568.3 (Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages), copy enclosed. If the installation of a glyder kit produces a 'completed vehicle", the installer must certify the vehicle, as specified in 49 CFR Parts 567, 568, as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

In cases involving the refurbishing of a used chassis, the NHTSA considers the refurbished vehicle to be a used vehicle, for which no certification is necessary. However, the implication from your letter is that a glyder kit installation involves a new chassis (only the rear axle and power train are used) and consequently the completed vehicle will be a new vehicle which must be certified.

There is also the possibility that a glyder kit, when installed, will be an "incomplete vehicle" (also defined in 49 CFR 568.3). An incomplete vehicle is not certified. Rather, its manufacturer prepares, and ships with it pursuant to Part 568, a document containing information on steps that the final-stage manufacturer must take in order to bring the vehicle, as completed, into conformity with applicable Federal standards.

2. Are we required to know the first purchaser for purposes other than resale (users) of the vehicle when we complete the vehicle for a dealer?

Section 113(f) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1402 (f)) requires each manufacturer of motor vehicles to maintain records of the names and addresses of the first purchaser (other than a dealer and distributor) of motor vehicles produced by that manufacturer. In completing a vehicle for a dealer, you are the final-stage manufacturer of the vehicle, and are responsible for maintaining the names and addresses of first purchasers. The information can be obtained from the dealers for whom you complete vehicles.

3. If the vehicles are involved in a "defect notification" campaign are we, as final-stage manufacturer (we install fifth wheels), required to participate?

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer of motor vehicles is responsible for notifying owners of vehicles that he manufacturers. Usually, for multi-stage vehicles, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer will issue notification for defects covering those vehicle parts or components which he assembled or manufactured. Final stage manufacturers, like yourself, would do likewise. Under the Defect Notification regulations (49 CFR Part 577), if any one manufacturer who participates in the manufacture of a multi-stage vehicle conducts a notification campaign, the other manufacturers will not be required to do so. You may, however, be called upon to furnish to the manufacturer conducting the campaign the names and addresses of purchasers for vehicles you have completed.

4. "How can a distributor safety attach a fifth wheel? (Any frame failure is our liability since the OEM is very specific about neither, welding, drilling, or cutting the frame.)"

This agency is not in a position to give advice in this regard. The problem should be worked out between the incomplete and final-stage manufacturer.

We are enclosing the following pertinent publications: 1. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 2. Part 567, "Certification", and Part 568, "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages." 3. Part 573, "Defect Reports." 4. Part 577, "Defect Notification."

If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer them.

ENCLS.

ID: nht73-4.18

DATE: 05/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 21, 1973, in which you ask how retreaded tires are to be tested to the strength requirements (plunger-energy) of Standard No. 117 (S5.1.1, incorporating by reference S4.2.2.4 of Standard No. 109). You appear to believe testing to the requirement is precluded because Standard No. 117 contains no requirement that the cord material be labeled onto the tire, and the plunger-energy requirements specify different performance levels for differing cord materials.

While Standard No. 117 does not require the generic name of the cord material to be labeled onto the retreaded tire, we expect that it will be found on most tire casings and will be available to the retreader on all post "DOT" casings, and on many pre-DOT casings as well. If a retreaded tire is not labeled with its cord material, the strength test can still be conducted. It is not necessary to know the cord material before the plunger-energy values are obtained. Once they are obtained, a sample can be removed from the tire, from which the material can be determined.

March 21, 1973

Mr. Michael Pescoe, Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We would like to forward to you a question on Federal Retread Standard 117 raised by one of the companies in the industry: "As specified in S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength, each tire shall meet the requirement for minimum breaking injuries specified in Table 2, when tested in accordance with S5.3 of Safety Standard 109. My question is, the labelling specification S6.3 has no provision for fabric identification. Without cord type the Plunger Energy test, as specified in F.M.V. S.S. 109, cannot be performed because of the different minimum force values for different types of cord. In other words the minimum force is 1650 lbs. for a Rayon tire with a cross section of 6 inches or above. While the specification is 2600 lbs. for Nylon and Polyester cord with the same cross section width. Cord identification is required for testing in compliance with M.V.S.S. 117. What do we do now?"

As soon as we receive your answer, we will forward it on to the company that requested it.

Phillip P. Priedlander, Jr. Director of Communications

ID: nht73-4.19

DATE: 05/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Southern California Edison Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1973, in which you ask whether the installation of a truck body or derrick on a new chassis-cab by your company for its own use makes it a final-stage manufacturer subject to the identification and certification provisions implementing the Highway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Public Law 89-563.

The answer to your question is yes. The completion of a motor vehicle by a manufacturer for its own use does not relieve it of responsibility for certification.

As a final-stage manufacturer, you are required to submit the information specified in 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. I am enclosing a copy of Part 566 for your information. No specific format is required, and a letter report will suffice.

ENC.

ID: nht73-4.2

DATE: 04/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Yuma Tire & Recapping Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 28, 1973, requesting a detailed explanation of what you must do to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, "Retreaded Pneumatic Tires". You also ask whether there are record keeping requirements, such as to maintain the name and address of customers to whom tires are sold.

There are specific requirements for retreaders and their dealers to record and maintain the name and address of each tire purchaser. This is done through the use of a code number molded or branded onto each tire. These requirements (49 CFR Part 574, copy enclosed) have been in effect since May 22, 1971.

We have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 117. We regret that we cannot provide a detailed explanation of these requirements as you request. We refer you to either private counsel or to one of the many associations of retreaders whom we understand can assist you in implementing the standard. If after reading the standard you have questions of a specific nature regarding its provisions, we will respond to them.

ENC.

ID: nht73-4.20

DATE: 05/21/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Help of Nebraska, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1973, in which you ask whether an "infant car hammock" which you manufacture is required to conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. A picture of the hammock, which you enclosed, shows the hammock attached to both rear doors of a vehicle, and extended between them, with a child lying on it.

As pictured, the hammock is not subject to Standard No. 213. The standard applies, at present, to devices for seating and restraining a child being transported in a motor vehicle. Effective November 1, 1973, it will apply to all devices for seating a child being transported in a motor vehicle, irrespective of whether the device is used for restraint. Because the hammock is not designed to seat a child, it is not subject to the standard. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

We are presently developing proposed amendments to the standard that would apply to all types of infant and child restraints, including devices in which children do not sit. These proposals will be published in the Federal Register when completed.

We are enclosing a copy of our consumer information booklet, "What to Buy in Child Restraint Systems". Our recommendations for infant carriers and car beds are found at the center pages of the booklet.

We hope the information we have provided answers your questions and we appreciate your concern for child restraint safety.

Sincerely Yours,

ENCLS.

HELP OF NEBRASKA, INC.

April 30, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Gentlemen:

We have acquired the rights to an Infant Car Hammock from the inventor. We are making the first production run now. The question has come up as to whether or not Federal Standard 213 is applicable to this item. We have tried to obtain a copy of this Standard but no one in the Omaha area seems to have a copy.

A photo of the hammock as mounted in a car is enclosed. The hammock itself is made of poplin material which is 65% Kodel and 35% combed cotton. It is permanent press, mercerized and has a 1% shrinkage factor. There are two belts on top of the hammock, one of which goes around the childs waist, the other goes from one hip across the body to the opposite shoulder. These safety belts are stitched through the hammock and through another piece of belting on the bottom that has a "D" ring fastened to it. The "D" Ring is secured to a two inch wide piece of web belting by passing a one inch piece of web belting through the "D" ring and then stitching the two pieces of belting together. By stitching through all safety belts we have a solid base both for the two belts around the child and for the "D" ring. A separate belt with a snap hook is anchored through the floor of the car by placing a bolt through the floor and then through the heavy washer fastened to the end of this belt. The snap hook is then fastened through the "D" ring on the hammock. This gives a down pressure on the hammock and puts the steel tubing brackets placed in the window wells under tension. These belts are not shown in the enclosed photo.

If Federal Standard 213 does apply to this type device, please send us a copy of it. We will be more than happy to send you one of the hammocks for your inspection and/or testing.

Any assistance you can give us will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

John L. Wilson Jr. President

(Graphics omitted)