ID: nht72-4.32

DATE: 12/11/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Intercontinental Equipment Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1972. You have enclosed a copy of a letter from Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd., dated September 14, 1972, in which it objects to the certification label that you propose to attach to Suzuki trucks imported by you for sale. The label shows Suzuki as the manufacturer and Intercontinental Equipment Corporation (IEC) as the importer of the trucks.

Suzuki bases its objection on the fact that:

". . . the vehicles as manufactured by Suzuki does (sic) not conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture, and it will be misrepresentation by our company to make such statement."

Suzuki also comments "the responsibility for compliance rests sorely (sic) on both IEC and Yachiyoda but this fact is not clearly shown on the label."

This agency's position is that the certification scheme you have described is an appropriate one for imported vehicles that have been modified after manufacture to conform to the standards.

We do not consider the certification label necessarily to be a representation by the original manufacturer. The question of who is responsible for the correctness of the certification, and for conformity, must be decided on the facts of the individual case. In this case, the representation is by IEC, not Suzuki, and IEC is responsible for conformity of the vehicle.

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.

ID: nht72-4.34

DATE: 09/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your note of September 5, 1972, I confirm that the format of the sample labels you submitted to us with your letter of August 18, 1972, is in accordance with our Certification regulations.

ID: nht72-4.35

DATE: 04/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Department of Engineering

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Carter has asked me to reply to your letter of March 3, 1972, in which you ask who has the responsibility for certification of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.

Paragraph 567.5(a) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations states, ". . . Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, each final-stage manufacturer, as defined in @ 568.3 of this chapter, of a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages shall affix to each vehicle a label, of the type and in the manner and form described . . . ." Paragraphs (b) and (c) are concerned with incomplete and intermediate manufacturers who assume legal responsibility for all duties and liabilities imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act), with respect to the vehicle as finally manufactured.

Paragraph 568.3 states. " 'Final-stage' manufacturer means a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle."

The subject is also dealt with in the Preamble to Part 568 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. " . . . By its definition, a completed vehicle is one that requires no further manufacturing operations in order to perform its intended function other than the attachments of readily attachable components and minor finishing operations. If a manufacturer installs a component that is not readily attachable, such as a fifth wheel, then he is a final-stage manufacturer even though his contribution to the overall vehicle may appear small . . .

"In the event that a 'readily attachable component' is a component regulated by the standards, such as a mirror or a tire, the final-stage manufacturer must assume responsibility and certify the vehicle even though he does not install the particular component. Otherwise, the installer of mirrors and tires would be considered a final-stage manufacturer, a status that he would probably find unacceptable and that would tend to make certification less meaningful . . . ."

I am enclosing Parts 567 and 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have further questions I will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht72-4.36

DATE: 05/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Lee Equipment Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 11, 1972, to our New York office, that has been referred to me.

Paragraph 568,3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations states," 'Final stage' manufacturer means a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle."

The subject is also dealt with in the Preamble to Part 568" . . . The definitions by which the regulation establishes the categories of 'incompete vehicle,' 'completed vehicle,' and the three categories of vehicle manufacturers provide a framework within which each may categorize himself and his products. Of necessity, the definitions are broad and may not clearly define individual situations . . . . In the usual case, it will be possible for the affected manufacturers to reach agreement between themselves as to their respective obligations . . . ." (emphasis added)

In the event that the matter is in dispute between yourself and the tank installer we would be inclined, based on the information in hand, to rule that the tank installer is the final stage manufacturer inasmuch as the equipment that you install would be "readily attachable."

Your obligations as a manufacturer would be the same whether the tank you install on the new chassis is new or used.

I trust this will answer your questions.

ID: nht72-4.37

DATE: 06/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dealers Truck Equipment Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1972, inquiring as to your responsibilities for the Certification of two types of vehicles you manufacture. In the first, you mount a winch behind the cab of the truck. The vehicles are then delivered to the Louisiana Highway Department who complete them by adding a fifth wheel and a tail roller. In this set of circumstances, we would consider you to be an "intermediate manufacturer", subject to the requirements of section 568.5 of the "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" regulations, a copy of which is enclosed.

The second operation you perform is mounting front winches on pick-up trucks. The NHTSA has taken the position that manufacturers such as you who merely add equipment to already completed vehicles may retain that vehicle's certification and need not (Illegible Word). However, if you cause the vehicle not to conform to any motor vehicle safety standard, you will be in violation of Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)) and may be subject to civil penalties.

ID: nht72-4.38

DATE: 07/27/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1972, requesting information on steps to be taken under the Certification regulations when a manufacturer considers a fifth wheel to be a "readily attachable component," and certifies the vehicle as a complete vehicle before the attachment of the fifth wheel. You ask what responsibilities apply to the person who ultimately attaches the fifth wheel when that person also affixes other components to the vehicle. You list as other components a third axle, the substitution of an air ride suspension for the regular suspension, and the addition of a "drum" unit (we assume that this is a dromedary unit).

The situations you have listed appear to resemble situations similar to those involving the possible use of the "altering distributor label" which we discussed in our letter to you of June 20. We said in that letter that if a person altering a completed vehicle does not make changes significant enough to make him a remanufacturer, he may satisfy the requirements by allowing the existing label to remain in place. If he does make significant changes, however, he must recertify the vehicle, but he may rely on the previous manufacturer's certification for those aspects of performance that are not affected by his alterations.

We would consider the addition of a third axle to be remanufacturing, and you were correct in advising your member to recertify the vehicle, utilizing the information on the existing label except as to the third axle. Strictly speaking, however, your member as the remanufacturer is responsible for the conformity of the entire vehicle. While he may rely on the information on the original label, if a noncompliance were discovered the burden in the first instance would be on him to show that his alterations were not responsible.

We cannot determine from the information you provide whether the "Substitution of an air ride suspension" would constitute remanufacturing. You can probably infer the answer based on your own knowledge of what is involved.

With reference to the drum unit we advised you by letter of March 24, 1972, that we consider the addition of a dromedary unit to be remanufacturing. A person who installs such a component on a new vehicle would be required to recertify the entire vehicle as a final-stage manufacturer. He may also rely on the previous certification for those aspects of performance which he does not affect.

You also ask whether, if the installation of the fifth wheel alters a component covered by a safety standard, the installer should recertify the vehicle. As you are assuming that the fifth wheel is a "readily attachable component," no further certification is necessary. However, the person installing the fifth wheel must ensure that the vehicle conforms to all standards when the work is completed.

ID: nht72-4.39

DATE: 12/07/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Bluefield Mack Trucks Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1972, requesting information on alteration, and installation of fifth wheels, on new trucks.

Persons who install fifth wheels on new trucks are generally considered to be "final-stage manufacturers" under NHTSA Certification regulations, and are required to certify that vehicles on which they install the fifth wheel conform to applicable Federal standards. The NHTSA has recently proposed requirements regarding persons who alter completed vehicles, and a copy of this proposal is enclosed.

Copies of NHTSA requirements may be obtained as indicated on the enclosure, "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations." The regulations regarding the certification of motor vehicles are found at Parts 567 and 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, (Item 1) and of the volume, "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" (Item 3).

ID: nht72-4.4

DATE: 08/25/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your request of August 7, 1972, for the data used to support the conclusions we announced in Notice 20 of Docket 69-7 concerning the ignition interlock for the center front position and the ability of seat belt systems to meet a 60g, 3-millisecond injury criterion in 1975.

In evaluating the petitions for reconsideration of the center seat interlock requirements, we followed the techniques of cost/benefit analysis adopted in our earlier studies of passive restraints (see General Reference items 42, 43, and 99). The anticipated incremental benefit from an interlock at the center position was $ 9.70 per vehicle, which, when divided by the incremental cost of $ 7.00 supplied by Ford Motor Company (N<16>-69-7-3), produced a favorable ratio of 1.4. Although the analysis was completed, it was used as a rough working paper and was not submitted to the docket. A typed draft of the analysis is being prepared for submission to the docket.

Although we decided to grant interim relief for belt systems from the 60g, 3-millisecond chest injury criterion, several manufacturers submitted data which indicated to us that their present systems were capable of meeting the criterion or that they were close enough that minor modifications would enable them to meet it. The data from your own organization (N<13>-69-7-16) showed that a number of cars were passing the criterion by comfortable margins. The Chrysler data, for example, revealed that in 9 tests no dummy recorded chest accelerations in excess of 50g's. Although General Motors, in its comment, submitted data on subcompacts which indicated a problem with chest accelerations, the data from their larger vehicles ranged between 38 and 52g's. (N<13>-69-7-20). Toyota also submitted test results with most accelerations in the range of 45-50g's, with only one test of a Corolla appearing to show a marginal condition (N<13>-69-7-23).

From our research contracts, a number of sled tests have been conducted at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (General Reference No. 135), and most of these produced accelerations of between 30 and 50g's. From other sources have come data indicating that such improvements in belt design as the use of tear seams can produce significantly lower accelerations (see, e.g., General Reference items 161, 166, and 167).

ID: nht72-4.40

DATE: 06/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Pennsylvania Recreational Vehicle and Camping Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 9 to Mr. Schneider asking whether mobile homes and modular homes which have (Illegible Words) can be exempt from (Illegible Word) and (Illegible Word) requirements.

It is my understanding that a mobile home is a structure which may be, and generally is, used more than once, from site to site, on its own wheels. Accordingly as determined several years ago that mobile homes are "motor vehicles" under its National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, however infrequent their use of the public roads. As motor vehicles, they must (Illegible Word) certification labels that specify (Illegible Words) ratings.

If a modular home on wheels uses the public roads "only for the (Illegible Word) trip to the (Illegible Word) lot," on your letter states, (Illegible Word) is planned on a permanent foundation, we would not consider it a "motor vehicle."