ID: nht72-4.41

DATE: 09/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Intercontinental Equipment Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 27, 1972, in which you raise several questions concerning Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. You state that Intercontinental Equipment Corp. (I.E.C.) is the United States importer and distributer of certain vehicles manufactured by Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. in Japan. You also state that I.E.C. has contracted with Yachiyoda Sangyo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo to acquire vehicles from Suzuki, remove non-complying equipment, install approved devices, and affix necessary labels of conformity and arrange for shipment.

The answers to your questions are as follows:

1. You ask whether the I.E.C. contract with Yachiyoda changes the status of Suzuki as manufacturer and I.E.C. as importer. It does not change the status with respect to our manufacturer identification and certification regulations.

2. You inquire as to the classification of Suzuki and Yachiyoda under Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. Since Suzuki manufactures a completed vehicle, Yachiyoda is not considered a manufacturer under NHTSA regulations and is not required by the NHTSA to submit manufacturer identification or certification information.

3. You ask whether the label of conformity (Label #2) which you propose to have affixed to the vehicles is acceptable. The NHTSA finds it acceptable.

I enclose copies of Parts 566, 567, and 568 for your information.

ID: nht72-4.42

DATE: 08/21/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ryder Systems Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 31, 1972, concerning work to be performed on new trucks. Your three questions are answered below.

You ask, "What are the legal aspects of a road contractor doing the fifth-wheel work on a new truck?" The installation of a fifth wheel on a new vehicle would most likely make the installer a "final-stage manufacturer" under NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) and regulations governing "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" (49 CFR Part 568). Final-stage manufacturers bear the responsibility for certifying that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The procedure for certifying is specified in the Certification regulations, copies of which are enclosed.

Your second question is, "At what stage after purchase may a new truck be legally termed a used truck?" For our purposes, a used vehicle is any vehicle that has been purchased in good faith for a purpose other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

Your last question is, "Would the installation of extra lights or safety items be construed as final manufacturing?" The installation of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tires, is not considered to be an activity which makes the installer a final-stage manufacturer. We are of the opinion that the same would be true regarding the installation of "extra" lights (those not required pursuant to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103, (49 CFR 571.108)). We cannot provide you with an opinion as to "safety items" as this term is too general. However, assuming that you are referring to items not required by a motor vehicle safety standard, our answer would most likely be the same. The manufacturer should determine whether the component he installs affects to a significant extent either the configuration or purpose of the vehicle. If it does not, (we will accept a manufacturer's reasonable determination in this regard) then the installer would not be considered a final-stage manufacturer.

ID: nht72-4.43

DATE: 03/30/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of March 13 you ask for an interpretation of certification requirements applicable to remanufactured vehicles.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and 49 CFR Part 567 require only that certification of vehicle conformity be providal prior to the first purchase for purposes other than resale. On the basis of the work that you described as your "remanufacturing", specifically hat the vehicle retains its "original frame, cab, body, axles, and transmission", we concur in your interpretation that vehicles of this nature are not new vehicles requiring certification of conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht72-4.44

DATE: 08/24/72

FROM: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER FOR RICHARD B. DYSON

TO: Safety Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1972, in which you ask whether a person who installs on new vehicles a device you manufacture called the Safti-Stabilizer is required to recertify the vehicle.

A person will be required to recertify a new, completed vehicle if he modifies it in such a manner that he becomes a "manufacturer" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A person will be considered a manufacturer if the modifications he performs produce significant changes in the vehicle's configuration or purpose. While this determination is generally made on a case by case basis examples of modifications which the NHTSA has considered to be "manufacturing" include the addition of new axles, or the changing of a completed truck van into a motor home.

The NHTSA has taken the position, in close cases, that it will accept a good-faith determination of a person modifying new vehicles as to whether the modification is of such a nature so as to make that person a manufacturer. Based on the information you have provided to us, it appears that the installation of the Safti-Stabilizer does not significantly change the vehicle's configuration or purpose. Consequently, we would accept a determination that the installation of the Safti-Stablizer does not constitute remanufacturing, and a person who installs the device on new vehicles need not recertify them.

ID: nht72-4.45

DATE: 03/24/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1972, in which you discussed some problems that you have encountered with the regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 368), as applied to the school buses of which you are the final-stage manufacturer. Since the receipt of your letter, Mr. Rumph of your company and Mr. Sweet of the Truck Body and Equipment Association met with Mr. Dyson of this office to discuss the issues raised in your letter. Also, on March 8 you sent a sample letter that you proposed to send to your customers.

As we understand the problem from your letter and the subsequent discussion, it is essentially that you are receiving chassis-cowls from school bus buyers, for mounting of your bodies as a final-stage manufacturer, which are inadequate for the purpose according to the gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings now included with the incomplete vehicles under our multistage vehicle regulations, 49 CFR Part 568. The problem as you describe it appears to have arisen in the negotiation between the school bus buyers and the dealers from whom they bought the incomplete vehicles, in that the dealers sold chassis that were too lightly equipped with tires and axles for the loaded weight implicit in the buyer's specification, under both our certification regulations and accepted industry practice. You state that your company bears the immediate burden of the problem, because you have invested in the production of several dozen bodies whose installation is held up pending resolution of the problem.

From your discussion we assume that all parties are agreed that the bodies that the customers ordered (and you have built) are the ones that are to be used, and that the chassis that have been furnished to you can be economically modified to meet the requirements of our regulations and be safe for their intended use.

With these assumptions, we suggest the following course of action on your part:

1. Complete each vehicle as planned.

2. Affix a certification label to each vehicle as you normally do, stating on the label weight rating figures that will satisfy our regulations (Part 567) and the axle capacity requirements of the vehicle.

3. Deliver the vehicle, but concurrently send a written statement by certified mail to the vehicle buyer to the effect that the vehicle must be modified in order to conform to the GVWR and GAWR figures on the certification label, both for purposes of safety and to conform to Federal regulations. The letter should advise the buyer to take the vehicle to a dealer of the chassis manufacturer for these modifications immediately upon receiving it. The sample letter you sent on March 8 will be satisfactory if you modify the second and third paragraphs to read as follows: "Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, requires Blue Bird to certify the front and rear gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of completed vehicles, and specifies a minimum GVWR based on seating capacity.

"Your vehicle may be shipped as it is, however, the values of GAWR and GVWR shown on the certification plate will be contingent on the chassis modifications indicated above. These changes must, in the interest of safety, be made before the vehicle is placed into service, and you should take the vehicle to your chassis dealer as soon as you receive it."

4. Send copies of each such statement to (a) Office of Standards Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590; (b) the manufacturer of the chassis that was delivered to you; and (c) the dealer from whom the buyer ordered the chassis, if any and where known to you.

This procedure is allowed only as to chassis that have already been received by Blue Bird as of the receipt of this letter, and it should not be viewed as precedent for future action by any other persons. In the future, Blue Bird as the final-stage manufacturer must take responsibility for the vehicle as completed by it, to the extent of its knowledge of relevant facts.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht72-4.46

DATE: 05/25/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: National Association of School Bus Contract Operators

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 21, 1972, concerning problems some school bus manufacturers are having completing school buses manufactured with chassis ordered before January 1, 1972. You request our opinion as to whether these buses can be delivered even though they exceed by 350 pounds the GAWR specified for the rear axle of the chassis.

One purpose of the Certification requirements and the requirements regarding "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages," which went into effect January 1, 1972, and which require manufactures to specify GAWR and GVWR, was to prevent the construction of motor vehicles of insufficient capability to carry anticipated loads. In our view, a manufacturer who completes a vehicle whose loaded weight or axle loads are in excess of its weight ratings is manufacturing a potentially unsafe vehicle which could be subject to the defect notification provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The regulations apply to motor vehicles completed after January 1, 1972, and will apply to the school buses in question.

We do not consider the notice of December 28, 1971, to allow these manufacturers to omit GAWR and GVWR from their certification labels. That notice allows this to be done only when a final-stage manufacturer, using a chassis manufactured before January 1, 1972, does not have and cannot obtain the gross axle and vehicle weight ratings for particular vehicles. These ratings have evidently been furnished to the school bus manufacturers who are the subject of your letter, and as a consequence they are responsible for placing these values on the labels of the completed vehicles.

ID: nht72-4.47

DATE: 08/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 5 and July 18, 1972. In your letter of July 5, you ask whether manufacturers of school buses may delete any reference to seating capacity in establishing the gross vehicle weight rating in complying with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567).

The definition of gross vehicle weight rating, for school buses, requires the value used to include 120 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. "Designated seating capacity" is defined to mean "the number of designated seating positions provided," while "designated seating position" means "any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats" (49 CFR 571.3). While the definition refers to the manufacturer's intent as the determinant of the number of designated seating positions, the actual test, as in other legal determinations of "intent," is how that intent is objectively manifested. Because it is obvious that school buses, due to their anticipated use, must have positions where children will sit while riding, a school bus manufacturer could not successfully argue that his vehicles do not have designated seating positions. Accordingly, his failure to include the designated seating capacity in his computation of GVWR would be a violation of the Certification regulations and of section 108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 139(a)(3)). Violations of that section are subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 400,000, and other sanctions (sections 109 & 110 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1398, 1399).

Your letter of July 18 asks whether a vehicle will be in compliance with the Certification regulations if the axle load exceeds the front or rear GAWR, but the total load does not exceed the GVWR. Because the regulations do not specify minimum criteria for GAWR, a vehicle whose actual weight on an axle system exceeds the stated value will not fail to conform to the Certification requirements. It may, however, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, depending on the actual circumstances involved, and if so, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying owners pursuant to section 113 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1402).

We will consider the possibility of establishing minimum requirements for GAWR (as we have for GVWR), in light of the facts you have presented.

ID: nht72-4.48

DATE: 12/13/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 3, 1972, in which you ask whether a Certification label, a drawing (33-1-78) of which you enclose, will meet both the requirements of the Certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) and those of proposed Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. "Tire and Rim Selection and Rim Performance" (36 F.R. 142730). In our conversation of November 28, 1972, you asked two additional questions -- first, whether GAWR for trailers could be expressed as a single figure when the ratings for each axle are identical, and second, as followed up by your letter of November 30, what is the appropriate method for determining GVWR for a semitrailer having a "sliding-bogie" axle.

The Certification label you have submitted would conform to the requirements of Part 557, and proposed Standard No. 120 if "rim size" is moved from its location following GAWR and GVWR to the bottom of the label, in proximity to the "maximum rim load rating." The Certification regulation does not require rim size to be specified, and rim size would therefore have to appear after the information required by that regulation. The requirements of proposed Standard No. 120 are tentative only, as you must know, and manufacturers should not make permanent plans regarding them until a final rule is issued.

The NHTSA position with respect to GAWR being expressed as one figure when identical axles are involved is that such a method is not consistent with the Certification regulation. Each axle must be listed separately on the Certification label regardless of whether its rating is identical to that of other axles. We have no record of any oral statement to the contrary, and if one was made, as you seem to recall, we regret that it was in error. With respect to specifying GVWR for trailers having sliding-bogie axles, the NHTSA position is that a manufacturer is free to assume the axle to be in either position. If the manufacturer wishes to indicate at which position the rating is based, he may do so on the label, following all required information.

ID: nht72-4.49

DATE: 10/25/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Manitowoc Engineering Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I apologize for the delay in answering your letter regarding Part 566, Manufacturer Identification and Part 567, Certification. You describe the machines you manufacture and ask whether you are a final-stage manufacturer within the meaning of the regulation and therefore required to submit information regarding your products.

Parts 566 and 567 apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. "Motor vehicle" is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power for use on the public streets, roads, and highways."

Since the truck cranes you describe appear from the information you provide us to have a primary purpose of transporting the cranes on public highways, you are considered a manufacturer of motor vehicles and thus you are covered by Parts 566 and 567. Because you "mount the crane upperworks and outrigger assemblies to the carrier" you are a final-stage manufacturer as defined in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, and are required to submit information to us under these regulations. As a manufacturer of motor vehicles you are also required to submit information under Part 573, Defect Reports.

I enclose copies of Parts 566, 567, 568, and 573 for your reference. I have also attached a description of Government Printing Office documents services which cover NHTSA rulemaking developments.

ID: nht72-4.5

DATE: 03/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Dockets

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: Conversation with Jensen Motors representative on Monday February 7, 1972

Howard D. Panton, Chief Designer for the Jensen Motors Company, met with representatives of NHTSA to discuss rulemaking actions of concern to his company. Representing the NHTSA were Robert Crone, Office of Crashworthiness, and John Womack, Office of Chief Counsel.

The major areas of concern to Jensen are Standard 206, 208 and 214, and the proposed rulemaking on Standard 201.

Standard 206 bears on Jensen's plans to develop a car with gull-wing doors. Their problems with the test procedure are similar to those expressed by Mercedes and they were invited to submit suggestions for changes in the test procedure.

Standard 214 also affects the gull-wing car, which would have a very high sill. The company feels that a test with the ram five inches above the bottom of the door would require then to have an unsatisfactory height for the door structure, with corresponding reduction in the glass area. It was indicated that Jensen's problem could not be met by an interpretation of the standard, and that they would have to seek an amendment of the procedure. Panton indicated that the company would consider doing this.

Standard 208 is of particular concern due to the apparent need for impact testing of several cars. This is said to be a serious problem for a small company (1000 cars a year) with a high cost per car ($ 10,000 plus). The NHTSA representatives indicated that the agency was aware of the problem. On the question of exemption authority, which Jensen considered to be a possible remedy, they were told that the agency no longer has exemption authority but that if such authority were returned to the agency it might be used to give the smaller manufacturers additional time on complex standards if they can establish the need for delay.

The current proposal on Standard 201 concerns Jensen in several ways, most notably with respect to the proposed changes in the windshield header location. They were advised that this requirement is undergoing careful review and that any detailed comments they could make would be welcome.