ID: nht72-5.50

DATE: 03/30/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Champion Carriers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 25, 1972, wherein you state that you manufacture "off-highway vehicles for cranes, drill rigs and truck terminals" and request that we advise you of the requirements regarding manufacturer registration which became effective February 1, 1972. In a telephone conversation with Mr. David Fay of NHTSA on March 23, 1972, you indicated further that the type of vehicle you manufacture is represented by the picture at the bottom of your January 25 letter to us.

We would not consider these vehicles to be "off-highway vehicles." In our view they appear to be similar to truck tractors, and have a primary purpose of transporting other vehicles (which may be off-highway vehicles) over the public roads. Consequently, we would consider them to be trucks under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) and the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations issued pursuant to the Act.

As a manufacturer of such vehicles you must comply with the Manufacturer Identification regulations (49 CFR Part 566) and a copy of them is enclosed as you requested. Also enclosed is a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and information on how to obtain copies of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and regulations.

IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE WRITE.

ID: nht72-5.6

DATE: 09/26/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1972, requesting an opinion as to appropriate steps to take in certifying vehicles you complete when the chassis, as delivered to you, are equipped with tires which are inadequate for the loads the vehicles are intended to carry. You state you are presently certifying the vehicles on the basis of the load ratings of correct tires, arranging for these tires to be installed by the dealer, and requesting a notarized statement from him to that effect. As a basis for this procedure, you refer to our previous correspondence to you dated March 24, 1972, in which we authorized a somewhat similar procedure involving certain school buses.

As stated to you in our letter of March 24, the procedure outlined therein "is allowed only as to chassis that have already been received by Blue Bird as of the receipt of this letter . . ." Blue Bird is the final-stage manufacturer, and is responsible for the weight ratings applied to the vehicles presently in question. These ratings must be consistent with the definitions of those terms in the regulations, and must reflect the characteristics of the vehicles at the time of their sale to the consumer, assuming further manufacturing does not occur. Although you receive assurances from a dealer that he will change the tires, this will not absolve you from responsibility under the regulations should the dealer fail to do so. We are of the opinion that the best procedure for Blue Bird to follow is to replace the tires before delivery to the dealer.

ID: nht72-5.7

DATE: 03/30/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Schetky Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1972, in which you request clarification of the Certification requirements (49 CFR Part 567). You ask whether certification is necessary, mentioning specifically certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, when you install new dump bodies on used chassis manufactured both before and after January 1, 1968.

The motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new vehicles, and neither compliance with the standards nor "Certification" is required if you are installing truck bodies on used chassis.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht72-5.8

DATE: 03/07/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Mobile Housing Group

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1972, in which you enclosed a copy of a label you propose to use to fulfill your obligation under part 567 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The nomenclature does not meet the regulation. Paragraph 567.4(g) states "The label shall contain the following statements, . . ., in the order shown" (emphasis added). Your label does not identify (Illegible Words) from front to rear as specified in paragraph 567.4(g)(h)

An amendment to Part 567 was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 1971 (36 F.R.2. 23571) that allows manufacturers, of their option, to list more than one act of values for CVVR and (Illegible Word). However, the amendment contains specific language to be used in those circumstances.

We understand that your purpose is to supply only one label type to your various plants for installation on several models. The Certification regulations require each vehicle to be labeled with specific information applicable to that vehicle. We do not consider (Illegible Line) presented, to be consistent with (Illegible Word) requirements.

ID: nht72-5.9

DATE: 04/08/72

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

TO: Strick Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1972, enclosing sample certification labels and requesting our review and comments. The labels you have submitted follow correspondence to you from NHTSA dated February 18, 1972, wherein we disapproved an earlier format you wished to use. Your revised label consists of multiple listings using punched holes and overlays to indicate appropriate information.

We do not consider your revised label to be completely consistent with the Certification regulations (Part 567) in that the information is still presented in a way that is somewhat (and we might add unnecessarily) confusing. This confusion occurs because you do not fully delete information that is inapplicable to the vehicle in question. For example, regarding GVWR and GAWR in samples 2 and 3, you do not delete the entire number (leaving the zeroes and the suffix, lbs.) and it is not clear, in our view, whether the figures have been deleted or whether the label is disfigured. We believe the entire figure should be delted where it is not applicable. Similarly, in the case of month and year, and vehicle number, all the information you wish to omit should be completely deleted. This would require deletion of all months other than the month of manufacture and all numbers other than the vehicle number.

Finally, in using an overlay (sample 4), the overlay should be done in such a manner that the label does not give the appearance of having been tampered with.

We trust this clarifies the situation.

ID: nht72-6.1

DATE: 05/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: The United Methodist Church

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1972, in which you request information relating to your responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)and regulations issued thereunder.

Motor homes are not defined as such under the regulations. They fall in the category of a multipurpose passenger vehicle and would be subject to all of the standards that apply to that type vehicle.

I am enclosing the following publications. The answers to your questions can be found therein:

1. The Act

2. December 2, 1971, edition of the Federal Register - Recodification

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

4. Part 567 - Certification

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

6. Part 573 - Defect Reports

7. Part 574 - Tire Identification

8. Notice of Publications Change

In the event you purchase an incomplete vehicle (chasis) from Cadillac, they will furnish the documentation as required by Part 568. In modifying the chassis you assume the role as an intermediate manufacturer and the recreational vehicle manufacturer becomes the final stage manufacturer. All terms are defined in Part 568.

Federal regulations concerning anti-pollution emission control devices are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation, but of the Environmental Protection Agency. A copy of your inquiry is being furnished to the Director, Division of Certification and Surveillance, Mobile Source Pollution Control Program, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. He will, I am sure, forward such information as he deems appropriate.

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

SINCERELY, UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

Norman E. Douglas Pastor and Student Chaplain Alfred, New York

MAY 2, 1972

Motor Vehicle Programs Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Dear Sir:

I am interested in beginning a proposed project for modification of an available chassis for use as base for motor homes. The Cadillac commercial chassis is used by coach builders for hearses and ambulances. I have conceived the idea of suitable modifying this chassis for use by Recreational Vehicle Manufacturers for the use in motor homes. I have completed a pilot project, taking the chassis from a used hearse, and combining it with a commercially built travel trailer to make a 24 foot motor home. This vehicle has been registered in New York State, and had successfully completed over 4,000 miles, including a winter trip to Florida.

I am now in communication with the Cadillac Division of General Motors, seeking to persuade them of the suitability of this chassis for such use. The chassis changes I found necessary involved relocating the dash, driver controls and driver seating to a cab-forward, over-engine position. This involved re-routing steering, braking and engine controls. Beyond this the Cadillac chassis was used almost completely intact.

In anticipation of using new Cadillac chassis for such modification, could you please tell me what safety regulations, certifications and/or testing would be necessary prior to selling such modified chassis to the Recreational Vehicle trade? Would you please send me copies of what would be construed as applicable regulations, please?

Could you also outline for me, in rough fashion, the respective areas of responsibility of Cadillac Division as original manufacturer, of my own firm as chassis modifier, and of the Recreational Vehicle manufacturer as assembler of the final vehicle?

It appears at present that I will have to operate separately from the Cadillac Division, dealing directly with the (Illegible Words). If a large enough market appears, I will need to know what federal regulations must be complied with before our project can begin. Your help in this field will be gratefully appreciated.

VERY SINCERELY,

Norman E. Douglas

ID: nht72-6.10

DATE: 02/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Winnebago Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your quarterly report pursuant to section 573.5 of the Defect Reports regulations and note that you have marked "confidential" data submitted concerning a notification campaign conducted on your Model 04 motor home.

The NHTSA does not consider information regarding notification campaigns to be confidential under sections 112 or 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1401, 1402), and is making this information public. The only information that we have agreed to keep confidential, if requested, are production figures submitted pursuant to section 573.5(b).

ID: nht72-6.11

DATE: 01/28/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Holmes Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of September 15, 1971, and January 10, 1972, requesting that information received by NHTSA pursuant to section 573.5(b) of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573), concerning manufacturers' quarterly production figures be kept confidential pursuant to section 112(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1401(e)).

Manufacturers' quarterly production figures submitted pursuant to section 573.5(b) will be kept confidential if the manufacturer so requests. This will be true except in those cases where the NHTSA determines that disclosure is necessary to carry out the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

In the event it is decided to make public such information the NHTSA will, before release of the information, notify the manufacturer in question.

Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your letters.

ID: nht72-6.12

DATE: 03/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Service Industry Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1972, concerning the requirements of section 573.6 (Owner lists) of the Defect Reports regulations (49 CFR Part 573).

In your letter you describe a situation where manufacturers perform modifications to heavy duty vehicles for dealers and may have difficulty, for competitive reasons, in obtaining the name of the ultimate purchaser. You ask that in this situation, these manufacturers be permitted, in meeting the requirements of section 573.6, to list the dealer as the "first purchaser," ". . . so that if a defect arises, the owners of record will be notified -- and, where applicable, the owners of record could notify the ultimate owners (usually warranty holders) of the defective vehicles."

The requirement that an owner list be maintained under section 573.6 does not arise until a defect notification campaign is undertaken. The compilation of such a list at that time, however, would of necessity be based on some existing source of all owner names. One such source could be, and probably will be in most situations, a list compiled at the time of sale for warranty purposes. This is apparently the situation you have in mind.

If a manufacturer has only the name of his dealer as the first purchaser, then we would consider using that name in his compilation as meeting the owner list requirement. The manufacturer would still be responsible for maintaining and updating the list as specified in section 573.6, and for obtaining the updated information from the dealer if it is the latter who is correcting the vehicles in question. If the manufacturer is making the corrections, of course, the updated information will be readily available to him.

With regard to your assumption," . . . so that if a defect arises, the owners of record will be notified -- and, where applicable, the owners of record could notify the ultimate owners (usually warranty holders) of the defective vehicles," the requirement for notification of owners (Section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) is separate from the requirement for compiling owners lists, and specifically excludes notification of dealers. While manufacturers may make arrangements with dealers and distributors for conducting notification campaigns, the ultimate responsibility for conducting the campaign lies with the manufacturer, and he does not meet this responsibility by merely notifying dealers.

At the same time, we would expect to be notified at once should a dealer both insist on keeping his customer list confidential from the manufacturer and refuse otherwise to cooperate with the manufacturer, so that notification letters cannot be sent.

ID: nht72-6.13

DATE: 11/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Department of Commerce; State of Alaska

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 4, 1972, concerning the possible misuse by automobile insurers of vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) which would be available to them under a proposed amendment to NHTSA "Defect Reports" regulations (49 CFR Part 573). You believe that the availability of such numbers could be the basis for some companies to refuse to write or to cancel insurance, and suggest that we notify state insurance commissioners of that possibility.

We appreciate your concern over the possible misuse of information obtained as a result of NHTSA regulations. However, we have no evidence at this time that such practices are occurring, and we believe it inappropriate, without evidence, to take action which raises the implication of impropriety on the part of the insurance industry. Of course, if we find evidence of misuse of information obtained as a result of NHTSA regulations, we will take steps to remedy the situation.

Your letter and our response have been placed in Docket 69-31, which concerns the reporting of VIN's. We appreciate your writing to us regarding this matter.