Interpretation ID: nht79-1.23

DATE: 09/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 20 1979

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your August 30, 1979, letter asking how to comply with Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. That regulation states, in part, that a manufacturer may choose as the date of manufacture of a vehicle, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of manufacture of the final vehicle, or any date between those two dates. You ask whether this choice is available to manufacturers that manufacture both the incomplete vehicle and the final-stage vehicle. The answer to your question is no.

As you noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued an interpretation in 1974 stating that manufacturers of both incomplete and final-stage vehicles could not choose the date of manufacture of their completed vehicles. Those manufacturers must use only the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle.

The 1974 interpretation stated that manufacturers of both incomplete and final-stage vehicles do not need a choice of manufacture dates. That choice is only appropriate when a manufacturer of a completed vehicle does not have control over the manufacture of the incomplete vehicle. In such cases, a final-stage manufacturer might order an incomplete vehicle which would be constructed prior to the effective date of new safety standards but received after the effective date of such standards. If the incomplete vehicle were not in compliance with the new standards, it might be impossible for the final-stage manufacturer to use it in the construction of a completed vehicle. When a manufacturer is in complete control of both units, however, it can ensure that the incomplete vehicle will comply with the appropriate safety standards that will be in effect on the date of manufacture of the completed vehicle.

Our 1974 interpretation stated that the certification requirements would change as a result of the Rex Chainbelt decision. As you are aware, the agency significantly modified its regulations in accordance with that decision. However, the sections relating to the date of manufacture of a vehicle were not changed. Accordingly, our 1974 interpretation of those sections limiting the choice of dates of manufacture for a manufacturer that produce all stages of a vehicle remains in effect.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 30, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: N40-30 (MPP) dated February 26, 1974; copy attached for easy reference.

Dear Mr. Berndt,

The referenced letter indicates that as manufacturers of chassis and bodies (incomplete and complete vehicles) we cannot use the Part 568 certification scheme for two stage manufacturers. However, the letter goes on to say that the Rex Chainbelt case may have an impact on this.

Our question is this. Now that the Rex Chainbelt case is settled, do we now have a choice of either the Part 567 or Part 568 certification schemes or must we continue to use the Part 567 scheme as expressed in the referenced letter?

Thank you for your early reply.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

oct

enclosure In reply refer to: N40-30 (MPP)

Mr. W. G. Milby Project Manager Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This is in reply to your letter of December 19, 1973, asking whether Blue Bird may use the manufacturing date of incomplete vehicles it manufactures, to be completed at a later time, as the date by which conformity to applicable safety standards is to be determined. You indicate that Blue Bird manufactures both incomplete and complete vehicles.

The Certification and Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts, 567, 568) allow only final-stage manufacturers to certify conformity to applicable standards as of the manufacture date of an "incomplete vehicle." A person who manufactures the Entire vehicle, including the chassis, is not a final-stage manufacturer within the intent of the regulation, and such a vehicle must be certified as of the date of its completion.

Part 568 clearly intends that multistage vehicles will be manufactured by more than one party. As your letter points out, the documentation required by Part 568 is unnecessary when only one manufacturer is involved. Moreover, the justification in the regulations for allowing a final-stage manufacturer to utilize the manufacture date of the incomplete vehicle is based partially on the fact that he has no control over the configuration of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer has no control over when and how the vehicle is completed. This justification does not exist when a single party builds the entire vehicle.

To permit a manufacturer of a complete vehicle to choose a date other than the completion date for purposes of conformity would present this agency with serious enforcement problems.

Which standards would apply would depend on how "separate" were a single company's manufacturing operations. Due to the endless possibilities that may arise in this regard, it is difficult to envision fair and objective critieria by which this decision could be made. Finally, providing the relief you request would allow a manufacturer to avoid compliance with a forthcoming standard by manufacturing large numbers of incomplete vehicles for completion by him at a later time.

You should note that the legal status of Parts 567 and 568 is unclear, due to the recent Court decisions in the Rex Chainbelt case. You will encounter no problems, however, by continuing to follow the regulations until further agency action is taken.

Sincerely,

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel