ID: nht72-5.41

DATE: 07/19/72

FROM: CHARLES H. HARTMAN FOR DOUGLAS W. TOMS -- NHTSA

TO: Stutz Motor Car of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1972. As I understand it, your company purchases Pontiac Grand Prix models for conversion into vehicles bearing the Stutz nameplate. Your converter, however, has a number of vehicles in stock, the majority of which will not be converted until after September 1, 1972. You ask, in effect, that we require compliance only with those Federal standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the original Pontiac Grand Prix, and that we do not require compliance with standards which may have come into effect after that time and before completion of the State conversion.

The information contained in your letter indicates that the changes you make to the Grand Prix are confined to cosmetic changes such as alteration of the exterior sheet metal, reupholstering the interior, and replacement of the back light with glazing conforming to Standard No. 205. If the converted Grand Prix conforms to those Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which temporary exemptions was granted State (Standards Nos. 104, 201, 205, 210 and 212), we will consider it permissible for General Motors to continue to be the "manufacturer" of the vehicle for certification purposes. In that case, the date of manufacture is considered to be the date of completion by General Motors, and the original certification label should be retained on the car when converted.

The vehicle must nevertheless conform at the time of sale to all safety standards and other regulations (for example, 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information) that are applicable on its date of manufacture.

ID: nht72-5.42

DATE: 03/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Avis M. Hicks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1971, in which you ask certain questions relating to "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" (GVWR) as it would apply to our regulations, 49 CFR 567 and 568. Our requirement that certain weight ratings be applied to a label by vehicle manufacturers is a regulation and not a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Gross vehicle weight rating as defined in @ 568 of the regulations "means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." This was further clarified in the Federal Register on October 8, 1971, 36 (Illegible Words) "To preclude the possibility of understating a vehicle's GVWR, however, the certification regulation is herewith amended to provide that the stated GVWR shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." Unloaded vehicle weight has been defined as ". . . the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants," 36 FR 2511.

From the standpoint of the regulation itself, the only other limit on GVWR would be that it should not be more than the sum of the gross axle weight ratings (although it may be less), since otherwise the vehicle would obviously be supplied with axle systems inadequate for its carrying capacity.

Good engineering practice would dictate that weight ratings be based on the weakest component in the system regardless of what it, the weakest component, might be. Of course, weight distribution is one of the factors that must be considered in making these calculations. In the example you have cited, if a manufacturer supplied a rear axle on his vehicle with a stated axle weight rating of 13,000 pounds with tires on the axle having a sum total rating of something less he would be overstating the GVWR of a particular axle on his certification label. GVWR's should not be greater than the total tire capacity or as stated before the sum of the gross axle weight ratings.

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

ID: nht72-5.43

DATE: 08/23/72

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNIEDER FOR RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA

TO: Truck Body Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 20, 1972, concerning the Certification of vehicles having a dual purpose. You ask how you should determine weight ratings when a vehicle is intended to carry loads of varying weights, and cite as an example a vehicle designed to carry both gasoline and #2 fuel oil. You indicate that you are presently placing a second certification label on the vehicle, a copy of which you enclose, to inform the customer of the allowable weights.

The method you are using may not be consistent with the Certification regulations, as our position is that weight or axle values that may be confused with GAWP or GVWR cannot appear on the Certification (Part 567) label, or on adjoining labels. This will be the case if the "total" in the "chassis rated weight" column differs from the figure you provide on the Part 567 label for GVWR (assuming that the front and rear axle figures are identical to the GAWR figures on the Part 567 label). Gross vehicle weight rating is not necessarily the total of all axle weight ratings.

We recommend that the weight ratings be computed on the basis of the heaviest load that the vehicle is designed to carry, without attempting (for certification purposes) to anticipate the density of particular cargoes.

ID: nht72-5.44

DATE: 06/16/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Egger Manufacturing Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. (Illegible Word) has asked me to reply to your letter of May 25, 1972, in which you request information regarding tire, wheel and axle capacities as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations.

I am enclosing Part 567 of the Code which was amended effective January 1, 1972. The amendments require, among other things, that gross axle weight ratings be applied to the certification label. The capacities of the wheel and tire would be calculated into those ratings by our definition of the term. "'Gross axle weight rating' (GAWR) (Illegible Word) the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight on a single axle measured at the tire-ground interfaces . . . ." (emphasis added).

I am also enclosing the following information that might be of interest to you:

1. Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations - Manufacturer Identification

2. Part 568 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages

3. Part 573 - Defect Reports

4. Part 574 - Tire Identification

5. Notice of Publications (Illegible Word)

6. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

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

ID: nht72-5.45

DATE: 08/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Associated General Contractors

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht72-5.46

DATE: 09/18/72

FROM: JOSEPH S. GORMAN FOR FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA

TO: Pleasure Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1972, in which you ask for information in regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and Certification regulations that would apply to a combination boat trailer/water cruiser that you describe in your letter and brochure.

The trailer depicted on the last page of your brochure is considered to be a "boat trailer" as defined in paragraph 571.3(b) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations which states, ". . ." Boat trailer' means a trailer designed in cradle-type mountings to permit launching of the boat from the rear of the trailer . . . ."

The "water cruiser" is considered to be cargo and not an integral part of the trailer. Therefore, it would not, nor would any part of it be regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you are not already aware of the Coast Guard regulations that might apply to the water cruiser you might wish to contact the United States Coast Guard, Office of Boating Safety, 400 - 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is the only FMVSS that applies to trailers at this time. Regulations that apply are as follows:

Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations - Manufacturer Identification

PART 567 - CERTIFICATION

Part 573 - Defect Reports

Part 574 - Tire Identification

Copies of the above are enclosed with a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and a Notice of Publications Change.

In regard to tongue weight and proper distribution, you might be interested in reviewing the "Recommended Practices and Standards Covering Boat Trailer Practices" in the American Boat and Yacht Council, Inc., publication "Safety Standards for Small Craft." The address of that organization is American Boat and Yacht Council, 15 E. 26th Street, Room 1603, New York, New York 10010.

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

ID: nht72-5.47

DATE: 07/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Normark Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 26, 1972, to the Office of the Regional Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the Bond Bug.

For purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the Bond Bug is classified as a "motorcycle" since it is a "motor vehicle . . . designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground". The only Federal standard currently applicable to it is Standard No. 108. Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems will apply to motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1974. I enclose a copy of each for your information. The new standard on motorcycle controls and displays, No. 123, does not apply to a motorcycle equipped with a steering wheel.

If you are interested in importing this vehicle on a commercial basis, I suggest that you write us directly for information on obligations of the manufacturer and importer concerning consumer information and safety-related defect notification.

ID: nht72-5.48

DATE: 11/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Dalmon Enterprises Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1972, in which you enclose a brochure describing your feed mover as requested by Mr. (Illegible Words), of my staff.

In (Illegible Word) of the material submitted would seem to indicate that your classification of the land owner as farm machinery is valid. We would not, therefore, consider it to be a "motor vehicle" within the (Illegible Word) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) based on the information furnished.

In addition to the Act (FL 87-563) and 49 C.F.R. 12.50, that you have requested, we are also enclosing Part 571 (formerly Part 371) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Of particular interest to you would be the interpretation on mini-bikes that set forth criteria to assist manufacturers in classifying their products insofar as off-road use is concerned.

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

ID: nht72-5.49

DATE: 02/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wickes Manufactured Housing

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 1971, concerning your conversation with Michael Peskoe regarding "the provisions of Section 566.5, Manufacturer Identification." You ask two questions, which concern that regulation, the Certification regulations, and regulations concerning "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Parts 567, 568).

Your first question is whether, "as a manufacturer of Modular Homes, which are built in a factory and then transported on a low-bed type trailer to the job site, are we required to label our units the same as a mobile home?" The requirements for labeling are found in Parts 567 and 568, and are part of the requirement that manufacturers certify compliance with all motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the particular vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment they manufacture. Modular homes are not motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C @ 1381 et seq.) and accordingly there are no requirements that they be certified or labeled.

Your second question is as follows: " . . . we do manufacture some of these low-bed trailers, they are strictly for our own use in transporting our modular homes, and in this case are we required to submit this report and also label any trailers we would build in the future?" Trailers are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and are required to comply with applicable standards. They are also required to be certified by the manufacturer in accordance with the Certification regulations (Part 567), and as a manufacturer of trailers you are required to submit the information specified in Part 566.

A copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and Parts 566, 567, and 568 are enclosed, as is a notice describing how to obtain a copy of the motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht72-5.5

DATE: 01/27/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Chesapeake Marine Products

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1971, in which you raised a question concerning the motor vehicle certification regulations, 49 CFR Part 967. You asked whether it would be permissible for you, as a distributor of boat trailers who receives those trailers in unassembled form from their manufacturers, to have the trailers shipped to you without the labels attached, and attach the labels yourself as the vehicles are assembled and sold.

We consider the action you suggest to be permissible under the certification regulations, as long as the affixing of the labels with the manufacturer's name is done with the consent, and on behalf of, the manufacturer. In so doing, you would be acting essentially as the agent of the manufacturer, fulfilling his legal responsibility under the statute and regulations.