ID: nht72-5.14

DATE: 11/22/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 15, 1972, and your kind words about my participation in your convention.

In your letter you asked a question that arose at the convention, concerning the responsibility of a tank manufacturer who completes a tank truck for a customer who carries both gasoline and fuel oil. You asked,

"Can a tank manufacturer by simply certifying the GVWR make a unit which will be legal at full load with gasoline, the lighter of the two products, and leave it to the user to ensure that he does not exceed the GVWR when he is carrying a mixed load or fuel oil only?"

On the specific and limited facts that you have given, the answer is that the manufacturer will not be in violation of the Certification regulations. There are two ways in which a manufacturer might find himself liable on slightly different facts, however. If in any way the manufacturer provides information to the purchaser, through owner's manuals, promotional materials, or otherwise, which could reasonably be considered a "rated cargo load", he will be in violation of @ 567.5(a)(5) if the GVWR does not reflect that figure. For example, if the vehicle were described explicitly as being capable of carrying 5,000 gallons of fuel oil, we would consider that to be the equivalent of a rating of that volume times the normal density of the oil.

The other possible liability would be for a safety-related defect. This would arise in a case where the vehicle was found to be unsafely equipped for carrying the loads that the manufacturer has reason to know would be imposed on it. Such a finding would depend on all the facts of an individual case.

Obviously, the best course for the manufacturer, from the standpoint of both safety and he avoidance of liability, is to equip his vehicles fully with equipment that is rated to carry the loads that he believes the vehicles will carry.

ID: nht72-5.15

DATE: 12/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Jerome Palisi; Highway Safety Management Specialist

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: YOUR MEMORANDUM OF NOV. 9, 1972, REGARDING THE CERTIFICATION REGULATION

In your memorandum of November 9 you discuss a statement in a TBEA Bulletin, brought to your attention by Mr. Edward Bristol of the Bristol-Donald Company, Newark, New Jersey, which Mr. Bristol interprets as holding a manufacturer responsible for a safety defect if an operator overloads a vehicle, exceeding its GVWR or GAWR's. You ask us to forward you copies of any correspondence with Mr. Bristol or TBEA regarding this matter.

We have attached a recent letter to TBEA, dated November 22, 1972, which clarifies our position, and should alleviate Mr. Bristol's concern. Our position on this issue has been that a manufacturer who properly derives his GVWR and GAWR cannot be held responsible for noncompliance with the certification regulations or a safety defect.

ID: nht72-5.16

DATE: 08/23/72

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

TO: James W. Callison

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1972, and your note of July 31, asking whether the following statement may be placed on an invoice to relieve a final-stage manufacturer making the statement of his responsibilities under the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567):

"Delivery of this unit was accepted by the undersigned with the understanding that the unit DOES NOT meet all requirements of the Nat'l. Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The undersigned assumes full responsibility for compliance."

In a conversation you had with Mike Peskoe of this office on July 31, you elaborated on your question. It appears that such a stamp might be used in either of two situations. First, a final-stage manufacturer might use the statement if he did not wish to certify the vehicle, attempting thereby to pass on the responsibility to the person to whom he delivers it, either a dealer or purchaser. In the second case, an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer has assumed the responsibility for conformity, and certification, pursuant to sections 567.5(c) or (d), and section 568.7, and the final-stage manufacturer is returning the vehicle to the party for whom he completed it, and wishes to make it clear that he is not responsible for certification.

A final-stage manufacturer whose responsibility for certification has not been assumed by an intermediate or incomplete manufacturer cannot remove himself from this responsibility, or require another to assume it for him. The regulations require such a manufacturer to certify the completed vehicle, and his failure to do so can subject him to civil penalties and other sanctions. The use of a disclaimer such as the stamp you enclose would be of no legal effect, even if signed by the person receiving the vehicle.

In the situation where an incomplete or intermediate manufacturer has assumed the certification responsibility, the use of such a stamp would be unnecessary. The final-stage manufacturer should obtain written assurance of that fact from the party assuming the responsibility. before beginning work on the vehicle. Also, the assumption of responsibility is reflected in special provisions regarding the certification label, in accordance with @ 567.5(c) and (d) of the Certification regulations. It would be advisable for any statement concerning this arrangement to make reference to the applicable regulations.

ID: nht72-5.17

DATE: 04/14/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 29, 1972, in which you ask whether a Certification label "which is made of some kind of hard material other than paper and affixed on the required place by using only one rivet and by gluing" will meet the requirements of section 567.4(b) of the Certification regulations.

We would consider such a label to be riveted, and consequently to meet the requirements of section 567.4(b).

ID: nht72-5.18

DATE: 04/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Messrs. Busby Rivkin Sherman Levy and Rehm

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of April 5, you ask whether certain items of lighting equipment that you listed must be certified as conforming to applicable Federal standards, even though the assemblies of which they are a part may require certification.

This will confirm your understanding that the listed items need not be certified. The items of lighting equipment requiring certification are those equipment items specified in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht72-5.19

DATE: 09/12/72

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

TO: Gardner-Denver Company

COPYEE: E. ROBERT ANDERSON -- REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA REGION VI

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1972, to our Regional Office in Fort Worth, Texas, that has been referred to me, in which you request information concerning intermediate and final stage manufacturers.

I am enclosing, among other things, a copy of Part 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations that specifies the responsibilities of intermediate and final stage manufacturers. The final stage manufacturer applies the "Gross Axle Weight Rating" to the certification label in accordance with paragraph 567.5 of the Certification Regulation, a copy of Part 567 is also enclosed. The Preamble to Part 568 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, states ". . . By its definition a completed vehicle is one that requires no further manufacturing operations in order to perform its intended function, other than the attachment of readily attachable components and minor finishing operations . . ."

"In the event that a 'readily attachable component is a component regulated by the standard, 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. . . ." Persons who change tires, that are furnished by the final-stage manufacturer, prior to delivery to the user are not responsible for certification. However, he should assure himself that the tires he installs are compatible with the weight ratings on the certification label affixed by the final-stage manufacturer.

Final-stage manufacturers can rely on the documentation supplied by the incomplete and/or the intermediate vehicle manufacturer in establishing his weight ratings as long as he has no reason to believe it is false or does nothing in his operation that would change the ratings. Good business practices would dictate that a manufacturer would retain information supplied by other manufacturers that he uses as a basis for his certification.

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

ID: nht72-5.2

DATE: 04/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Garsite Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 8, 1972, concerning the application of Federal standards and regulations to airport refuelers. In a conversation with Michael Peskoe of this office on March 30, 1972, you amplified certain questions you asked in your letter, which are dealt with below.

Initially, you asked whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to airport refuelers. In the conversation of March 30, you indicated that these refuelers are similar to most tank trucks, and that while operated on or about airports, may frequently be driven on public roads such as perimeter roads between oil tanks and the airport. We would consider these vehicles to be motor vehicles within the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act because of their use on public roads, and would consider them to be trucks under the motor vehicle safety standards.

Your second question concerned the fact that, at present, curb weights of chassis furnished to you are not accurately reflected by the manufacturer's specifications, the latter generally being lower than the former. We indicated to you in our phone conversation that the Certification requirements which became effective January 1, 1972, will eliminate this problem by requiring manufacturers to provide gross vehicle and axle weight ratings.

Your third question concerns a chassis which you ordered before the Certification regulations became effective, on which you planned to install a specific tank. The chassis has now been delivered, and it has a GAWR for the rear axle which is 400 pounds less than the weight of the fully loaded tank. While the establishment of both GVWR and GAWR for the vehicle when completed is the responsibility of your company as the final-stage manufacturer, we would consider mounting the tank on this chassis without modifying the latter to accommodate the additional load to raise substantial questions as to the safety of the completed vehicle. If the chassis cannot be modified, we strongly recommend against installing the tank on it.

You ask how you can recognize chassis that have been manufactured after January 1, 1972. Each such chassis, if an incomplete vehicle under the regulations, must be delivered to you with an "incomplete vehicle document" specifying the date of manufacture. A chassis-cab manufactured before that date must bear a label stating its date of manufacture.

Finally, you ask whether in some situations the chassis manufacturer can become the final-stage manufacturer. Sections 567.5 and 568.8 of the regulations provide for a situation where an incomplete vehicle manufacturer may assume all responsibility for the vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. In such a case the incomplete vehicle manufacturer will have the responsibility for certification otherwise borne by the final-stage manufacturers.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht72-5.20

DATE: 06/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 9, 1972, in which you asked several questions concerning certification of multistage vehicles.

Your first set of questions concerned the "altering distributor" label of @ 567.6. In the course of administering this regulation, we have come to regard this as an "optional" label -- one that is not absolutely required in any situation. If a person altering a completed vehicle does not make changes significant enough to make him a remanufacturer who recertifies the vehicle as a manufacturer, he may satisfy the requirements by allowing the existing label to remain in place. In the four examples that you provided in paragraph 2 of your letter, we would consider the first two examples (bumper and tail gate loader) to be marginal ones in which we would probably accept a good-faith determination either way by the person making the alterations, while the last two (brake fluid and fenders) appear to be minor enough that no recertification would be necessary. This also answers your last question.

(Paragraph 4) You are right in suggesting that once a vehicle purchaser takes possession of the vehicle, the standards and regulations no longer apply.

(Paragraph 5) It is true that if a person manufactures a vehicle and uses it himself, it must still conform when he sells it at a later time. To hold otherwise could create a loophole, whereby a manufacturer could make nominal use of his vehicles before selling them.

(Paragraph 6) The passage of the article on my discussion mentioning "liability" dealt with a question on remanufactured vehicles. I don't have a transcript, but it looks as though he was quoting a couple of sentences out of context (although the article was generally good reporting). I was making the point that there could be a level of "rebuilding" a vehicle where the work done, the parts replaced, are so extensive that we would consider it to be manufacturing. It would be an unusual situation. I was indeed referring to compliance with the standards and regulations, not product liability.

Your discussion of installation of third axles seems to reflect a proper understanding of our rules.

With reference to your question in paragraph 8 about the period of time a vehicle must be held by a customer before he can have non-standard alteranations made in it, there is no set period of time. After he has "purchased" it, he can have done with it what he wants. However, the Vehicle Safety Act @ 108(b)(1), does have one important phrase on that subject: "in good faith." If we found that a dealer or distributor were using the first-purchase clause as a ruse to do things that the standards and regulations would not otherwise allow, we would probably do everything we could to stop it--to show that it was not in good faith.

I am glad to be of help to you and your members. I hope, however, that you will limit your questions to situations that have actually arisen, since we do not have the resources to grapple with hypothetical questions.

ID: nht72-5.21

DATE: 03/24/72

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 March 6, 1972, concerning the certification of pickup trucks that are modified while still in the hands of a dealer. You describe a situation in which the dealer removes the pickup body and sends the vehicle to a final-stage manufacturer for fitting with a service body.

We would consider modifications of the type you describe to be manufacturing under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567). Because a completed vehicle is involved regulations governing Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages (Part 568) do not apply.

One who remanufactures a completed vehicle assumes the responsibility of any manufacturer of completed vehicles. The extent to which he may safely rely on the original GVWR, GAWR, and statement of conformity depends on what he has done to alter the vehicle. He is required to certify the vehicle by affixing his own label, and must take into account the effects of any modifications he makes.

ID: nht72-5.22

DATE: 02/07/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Downs-Clark

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1971, concerning whether you must comply with the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) in cases where you "re-barrel" or "re-deck" trailers. You describe these processes as installing a new tank (re-barreling) or platform deck (re-decking) on a used trailer under construction furnished by your customer, which includes axles, tires, wheels, springs, hangers, and internal brake assemblies, in serviceable condition.

You are not required to certify these vehicles as they are manufactured on used chassis and are considered by this agency to be used vehicles under section 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1)).

We are pleased to be of assistance.