ID: nht72-6.32

DATE: 01/04/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ellwood T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 21, 1971, relating to the upcoming requirements for GVWR and (Illegible Word) on the vehicle label, under Part 567 of our regulations.

You discussed the difficulties some of your members have had in arriving at the proper values for gross axle weight ratings. To the extent that your discussion highlights the uncertainty that may in the part have existed with respect to the basic load-carrying capacity of vehicle components, it emphasizes the need for the regulation not only as a matter of information but also to ensure the proper design and selection of safety-related components. You asked specifically "what NHTSA would consider to be the requisite test factors which should be utilized for determining wheel ratings." Pending development of performance standards for wheels (or other components), we can only say that the ratings should reflect the manufacturer's own judgement as to the loads that the component can safely carry under the conditions expected to be encountered in use.

The diagrams that you enclosed setting forth basic weighing procedures for determining vehicle and axle loads appear to interpret the regulations correctly.

You mentioned the problem of a possible misunderstanding concerning the measurement of GAWR of a trailer and asked whether the tongue weight may be "deducted from GAWR in arriving at what GAWR should be." The answer is yes, since weight that is carried by the towing vehicle will not be carried by the trailer axle. We should add, however, that GAWR is a rating and therefore may be greater than the actual weight on the axle system when the vehicle is loaded to capacity.

Finally, you requested an "extension of the effective date of the GAWR and GVWR certification requirements to allow time to be sure the industry is advised of the procedure to follow." This request is denied. On the basis of the information available to this agency, it has been determined that our procedures, and the load time between issue and effective date of the regulations, have been fully adequate to allow affected manufacturers to prepare for compliance. Also, by a recent notice published in the Federal Register, we have allowed final-stage manufacturers using incomplete vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972, for which the weight rating information has not been made available, to omit the GVWR and GAWR values from their labels.

ID: nht72-6.33

DATE: 07/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Airport Truck Center Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 23 to Mr. Schneider regarding incomplete vehicle certification and your responsibility as a truck dealership.

The regulation to which you refer is 49 CFR parts 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. It applise to incomplete vehicle manufacturers, intermediate manufacturers, and final-stage manufacturers of vehicle manufactured to two or more stages. Truck dealers who perform these manufacturing functions are required to meet these requirements, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. The regulations do not apply to a truck dealer who does not modify completed vehicle received from a manufacturer or distributor.

Other federal motor vehicle safety regulations and standards are (Illegible Word) in Chapter V of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.

ID: nht72-6.34

DATE: 06/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1972, forwarding to us correspondence you received from Mr. Calvin D. Kunkle of FMC Corporation. Mr. Kunkle's question, as explained in a telephone conversation we had with him on (Illegible Words), is whether building vehicles whose actual loaded weight exceeds the gross vehicle weight rating of the chassis violates Federal Law. Mr. Knuckle stated that he believed certain manufacturers of fire-fighting vehicles were presently doing that.

If the loaded weight is clearly inconsistent with the definitions of GVWR and GAWR as specified in 49 CFR S71.3, the manufacturer will be in violation of the Certification regulations, 49 CFR Part 567) and may be subject to civil penalties. Also, if the loaded weight of the completed vehicle or the weight imposed on any of its axle systems exceeds the stated ratings, the vehicle might be found by NHTSA to contain a safety-related defect. In such a case, the manufacturer is required to mail notification of the defect to all the purchasers. In addressing whether such a safety defect exists, the NHTSA considers the situation as a whole, including such factors as the manufacturer's ratings, and the true capacity of the vehicles.

We advised Mr. Kunkle during our conversation that if he will furnish to NHTSA the names of companies he suspects are involved in this practice, we will take action to bring them into conformity with the requirements.

ID: nht72-6.35

DATE: 02/02/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Triple H Frame Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1971, stating that you are an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and asking for clarification of provisions of section 568.4 of Title 49. Code of Federal Regulations ("Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages"), that refer to standards. You indicated in a phone conversation of December 17, 1971, with Michael Peskoe of this office that you manufacture travel trailer and mobile home frames, which may be equipped by you with both tires and a trailer hitch before being sent to the subsequent manufacturer for completion.

The reference to "standards" in @ 568.4, as you were informed on December 17, is to the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR 571.101 et saq.; formerly 571.21 et seq.) which apply to motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. Copies of the standards, as you were also informed, may be purchased as indicated in the enclosed Notice of Publications Change.

You stated on December 17 that you planned to include the statement of 568.4(a)(7)(iii) as part of your certification label. Based on the information you have provided, this choice appears to be consistent with the requirements of Part 568. This is because the only motor vehicle safety standard presently applicable to trailers and mobile homes in Standard No. 108. (Illegible Words) Devices, and Associated Equipment. It appears quite possible that conformance to this standard would not be substantially determined by the design of the incomplete vehicle you manufacture.

We are pleased to be assistance.

ID: nht72-6.36

DATE: 02/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 20, 1971, asking whether the Certification regulations (Docket Nos. 70-6, 70-8, 70-15) apply to pole trailers. The Docket numbers you refer to also include the regulations concerning "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages."

As there are no motor vehicle safety standards presently applicable to pole trailers, neither the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) nor the regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Part 568) apply to them. As you were informally informed, however, pole trailers manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, that are equipped with air brake systems would be required to comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, and their manufacturers would be required to comply with the Certification regulations and, where applicable, the regulations governing Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

ID: nht72-6.37

DATE: 01/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 29, 1971, requesting our concurrence on three opinions you have furnished to the Recreational Vehicle Institute concerning the application of Part 567, "Certification," and Part 568. "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages, to certain recreational vehicles. The opinions, each the subject of a separate letter from you to Mr. Phillip H. Sharke or PVI, are discussed separately below:

1. Your first letter, dated November 18, 1971, concerns the possibility that travel trailers may be "vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and subject to Part 560 and the appropriate sections of Part 367. if an "assemblage" is purchased from a supplier for completion, as opposed to when only individual component parts are purchased. This interpretation is correct. Travel trailers, like other vehicles, would be vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, if an assemblage consisting of at least the components specified in the definition of "incomplete vehicle" (@ 566.3) in delivered to another person for completion. In addition, each of the first three "consequences" listed on pages 2 and 3 of your letter are essentially correct. With respect to consequence number 4, the party against whom the NHTSA would proceed should a defect be discovered in a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages would depend upon which manufacturer was responsible for the defect. In most situations, however, it is the final-stage manufacturer who would be contacted first, as this would be necessary to determine whether the defect resulted from his activities or the activities of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

2. Your second letter, dated November 22, 1971, takes the position that Part 568 applies to the situation where a completed panel or automobile type truck is modified into a motor home. This analysis is incorrect. The definition of incomplete vehicle is Part 568 (#568.3) specifies that such a vehicle "requires further manufacturing . . . to become a completed vehicle." This is not the same as modifying one completed vehicle into another, the case you describe. In such a situation the issue is only whether sufficient modifications are made to the original truck to consider the one who modifies it a manufacturer in his own right. As the type of vehicle is being changed, as you state, from a truck to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, this question would most likely be answered in the affirmative. In such a case, the manufacturer of the motor home bears full responsibility for compliance with all applicable standards, and stands in the same relationship to the truck manufacturer as all vehicle manufactures stand to their suppliers when components that must meet standards are involved. The burden would be on the modifying manufacturer to show that his modification did not affect the base vehicle's compliance with a standard, if a nonconformity were discovered. The same reasoning would apply in determining responsibility for safety related defects.

3. Your third letter of November 29, 1971, discusses two issues. The first is whether GVWR for trailers should include weight specified for each designated seating position. Based on the definitions of "designated seating capacity" and "designated seating position" in 49 CFR 571.3 you conclude that as state laws generally provide that for each designated seating position. You amplify this with regard to fifth wheel trailers, stating that if any state allows persons to ride in such trailers, then the appropriate weight for each designated seating position should be included.

Whether or not a trailer has "designated seating position" depends upon the manufacturer's intention in designing the trailer. If a manufacturer does not include designated seating positions, whether or not due to state law, then such weights need not be included in the gross vehicle weight rating.

Your second question is whether the hitch or (Illegible Word) weight is to be included in establishing GVWS. This question was answered in our letter of January 4, 1972.

Finally, with reference to inclusion of specific fluid in determining various weights, those fluids such as water, etc., used in recreational vehicles for purposes other than vehicle operation are considered to be cargo.

ID: nht72-6.38

DATE: 07/18/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Brighton Truck & Equipment Sales Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 20, 1972, asking several questions regarding truck certification by final-stage manufacturers. We have repeated your questions below, responding to each.

1. When is the progressive manufacturing report for each vehicle required to be filed?

You appear to be referring to "incomplete vehicle documents," which are furnished by incomplete and intermediate manufacturers to final-stage manufacturers. These documents are not required to be filed, but are to be used by the final-stage manufacturer as a basis for his certification of the completed vehicle. We suggest you save these documents, however, should it be necessary for you to show that you exercised due care in completing and certifying a vehicle.

2. If we sell a tractor cab and chassis upon which the customer is to install the fifth wheel, who is the final manufacturer? How? And when?

In this case, the customer is the final-stage manufacturer and bears the responsibility for certification (the regulations provide otherwise in the exceptional case where the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assumes this responsibility). If you do no more than sell the incomplete vehicle as it is delivered to you, you may meet your responsibilities under the regulations by forwarding to the customer the incomplete vehicle documents which you receive. Certification by the customer should be accomplished by affixing the required label containing the information specified in section 567.4 of the regulations, at the time of the installation of the fifth wheel.

3. If we sell a cab and chassis for a van body which the customer plans to transfer a used body, who must make final certification, how and when?

The answer to this question is essentially the same as that to question 2.

4. Are the customers required to return vehicles to us after installation of fifth wheel or body for us to issue the final sticker?

No. A customer who completes the vehicle is responsible for affixing the required label.

ID: nht72-6.39

DATE: 01/03/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 24, 1971, in which you asked several questions concerning the weight rating requirements in the Certification Regulations that go into effect January 1, 1972.

Your first three questions are summarized in your third question, as follows:

"We are under the impression that the only way in which the GVW and GAW Ratings assigned to an Incomplete Vehicle by the Incomplete Vehicle Manufacturer can be increased would be (a) if a third axle is added, or (b) if the component parts of the existing axles are increased. Is this correct?

The answer is no. The information supplied to the final-stage manufacturer by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer under Part 563 is to assist the final-stage manufacturer in completing the vehicle in conformity with the standards, and certifying in conformity with Part 567. There are no requirements, however, as to how the final-stage manufacturer uses this information. If he wishes to take it on himself to change the ratings in either direction, or to disregard the conformity information, that is his right. Of course, he will be assuming legal responsibility for whatever changes he makes, as indicated by the facts of the particular situation. Similarly, he has the right to make whatever physical changes he wishes in the chassis, and assumes the normal responsibilities of a manufacturer in doing so. The Part 568 document offers him protection to the extent that he chooses to stay within its limits, but it is his choice to make.

You asked for a definition of "rated cargo load" as used in the Part 567 requirement that 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." We have not provided a definition for this term in the regulations. By it is meant simply any figure provided to the vehicle user as to the cargo-carrying capacity, by weight, of the vehicle. There is no requirement that such a figure be provided; but if it is, it must be consistent with the gross vehicle weight rating.

Finally, you asked whether it would be "illegal" to supply a body with a volumetric "capacity for holding eight tons of feed," on a vehicle whose GVWR only allowed for a cargo load of five tons. If no rating by weight is supplied, the labeling requirement would not be violated by the volumetric capacity of the body. As we stated in a recent letter on the same question, however, such action might have adverse consequences beyond the certification regulation:

"[Completing] the vehicle so that it apparent carrying capacity exceeds the stated weight ratings may create some risks of liability beyond the certification regulations themselves. If, for example, the vehicle suffers a hazardous malfunction in use that can be traced to overloading of its axle systems, its manufacturer may be liable both under the defect provisions of the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (section 113, 15 U.S.C. 1402) and under common-law product liability doctrines. In such a case, the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle might avoid liability, leaving it all on the final-stage manufacturer, by pointing out that the design of the vehicle is completed led the user to exceed the GVWR and GAWR furnished with the incomplete vehicle." (Letter from L. R. Schncider to E. W. Mentzer. October 26, 1971, filed in Interpretations Redbook, Part 567, 568.)

We are pleased to be of assistance. We are sorry that we will be unable to have one of our attorneys attend your meeting in Las Vegas.

ID: nht72-6.4

DATE: 03/09/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 28, 1972, to the Administrator, in which you questioned the applicability of Federal seatbelt standards to the trucks operated by your company.

Your argument consists of two parts. In the first place you state that the trucks are not involved in interstate(Illegible Word), as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and that the standard therefore does not apply. Secondly, with respect to the crew compartments in these trucks, you state that Standard 208 would not apply in any event, since the seats. In these compartments are auxiliary seating accommodations," and are therefore not required to have belts.

We are not altogether certain whether you are primarily concerned with the installation of seatbelts in your existing fleet of trucks, or with the installation of belts in new trucks which you are planning to acquire. Our authority under section 103 of the Act extends only to the regulation of new vehicles. We cannot require vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of a standard to conform to that standard. To the extent that you are concerned with the company's existing fleet, therefore, you should address your question to the Dureau of Motor Carrier Safety, which has recently adopted regulations requiring installation of seatbelts in vehicles in the interstate commerce. (49CFR@393.93)

With respect to new vehicles, the "interstate commrce" referred to in the Act does not, as you inferred, refer to the purpose for which the vehicles are to be used. If it did, it would not cover the vast majority of vehicles in the country, which are passenger cars not used for the purposes of commerce, interstate or otherwise. It is perfectly clear from the legislative history of the Act that Congress intended to cover passenger cars. In our opinion, Congress was referring to interstate commerce in the broad Constitutional sense, which includes all transportation on the public roads of this country. In that sense, any vehicle introduced onto a public road is part of the stream of interstate commerce. It also includes the chain of manufacturing and distribution of the vehicles, which invariably involves transactions spreading over many states. Thus, the Act and the standards issued thereunder apply to your vehicles even though they may not be used in commerce that has been directly regulated by agencies such as the Interstate Commerce Commission. They will therefore be required by Standard 208 to have seatbelts at all designated seating positions.

Despite the apparent differences between the design of crew compartment seating and that of other seating accommodations, we cannot consider the crew compartment seats to be "auxiliary seating accommodations." It appears from your letter that the trucks are expressly designed to carry passengers as well as equipment, and that the primary, if not the only, function of the crew compartment is to carry passengers. Without the crew aboard, presumably, the usefulness of the truck would be impaired. Since the seats are essential to the use of the vehicle and since the passenger carrying function of the compartment is not secondary to some other use, it follows that the seats are not auxiliary and that they should be considered "designated seating positions" as defined in 49CFR@571.3. In new vehicles, therefore, the crew compartment must be equipped with seatbelts.

ID: nht72-6.40

DATE: 09/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E.T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: G.W. Balch

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter dated July 29, 1972, you advise us that your Southside Recapping and Tire Company with the assigned retread identification code mark "MBP" ceased operation on or about June 5, 1972, and that you wish the code mark cancelled. We have changed our records in accordance with your request.

Since your production ended at a specific time and the regulation requires that all retread tires be marked with the week and year of manufacture, the tires produced under your management and for which you are responsible are easily identified by the date code.

With proper application to the "Tire identification and Recordkeeping" of the "National Highway Traffic Safety Administration," if requested, the same code mark way be assigned to a new company in order to avoid the cost of reworking the matrices.

We would be pleased to service you with a new retread code mark if you recenter the retread business sometime in the future. We are also forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Buce, the present owner of the matrices, for his information.

SINCERELY,

July 29, 1972

Department of Transportation Tire Safety Section

Gentlemen:

This is to advise that I request you cancel my retreading number of DOT RMBP which was originally assigned to me, operating as Southside Recapping and Tire-Co, 255 East Fleming Road, Montgomery, Alabama 35106.

I ceased operations on or about June 5th or this year and produced no tires bear-the above stated DOT number or date code after that date.

I am particularly concerned about the cancellation of this number in that the landlord indicated that he anticipates commencing operation early in the month of August under a new name but he does not believe he will have to do anything to comply with your departments regulations. I certainly do not want to be liable for any of his production which conceivably could bear my DOT number with or without date code tag.

It is therefore requested that you notify him via letter that the DOT number MBP has subsequently been cancelled and that he must apply for his own identification.

You may contact him at the following address: Fred Buce 255 East Fleming Road Montgomery, Albana 36105

G W Balch f/d/b/a Southside Recapping and Tire