ID: nht95-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1995

FROM: Tamera Reuvers -- Quality Assurance Manager, Viracon/Curvlite

TO: Philip Recht -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO TAMERA REUVERS (A43; STD. 205)

TEXT: Mr. Recht,

I am respectfully requesting an official ruling/interpretation of 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-91 Edition) section 571.205 Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. The section in question is section S6. Certification and marking, S6.1 states "Each prime glazing mate rial manufacturer, except as specified below, shall mark the glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with section 6 of ANSI Z26. The material specified in S5.1.2.2 . . . . shall be identified by marks AS 11C, . . . . respectively. A prime glazi ng material manufacturer is one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." Below is our scenario:

We purchase bent tempered product from fabricator "X", which is standard AS-2 designation material according to ANSI Z26. We laminate a piece of SentryGlas tm to the bent tempered product. This now will make the material an AS-15B designation according to ANSI Z26. My question is how should this product be properly marked. Should the primary tempered supplier, fabricator "X", have their marking (AS-2, model number and DOT number) on the product in addition to our marking (AS-15B, model number and Do t number)?

I have never seen a piece of automotive glass with two markings on it. I understand, if we only put our designation on the product, we will be fully responsible for the product. Would it be appropriate to have both prime manufacturers markings on it?

With any inquiries, please feel free to contact me. My hours are 7:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday. My number is 800-533-0482 Ext. 373.

Immediate attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht95-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 14, 1995

FROM: Merridy Gottlieb

TO: Mary Versailles, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NHTSB Letter of Exemption

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MERRIDY R. GOTTLIEB (A43; STD. 207; STD. 208; VSA 108(A)(2)(A))

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles:

Per our conversation today, I am requesting a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration letter of exemption for a modification to my 1995 Chrysler Concord. I am disabled and need 3-4" of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent at the knees for long periods of time. I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all t he way out, there is no pain at all.

Mr. Robert Kitts of Auto Access has agreed to make the slight modification if I can secure your letter of exemption. His service is not local, but he will make a trip to Baltimore for this purpose.

Incidentally, the Automobile Accessibility hotline at Chrysler apparently does not know of your existence and was not aware of any exemptions that could be issued. After repeated phone calls, they said they could not help me and referred me to the Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Board hotline who was also unaware of any exemptions I could get. She was quite adamant that the design alteration would interfere with the functionality of the airbag and could not be done. When I again mentioned in closi ng that I was disabled and asked if anything at all could be done, referred me to "Ms. O'Neill" at the handicapped office in Washington. It turned out that she gave me the wrong name, but I did eventually find Ms. Dalrymple and she lead me to you. Plea se send a memo to the Chrysler Accessibility hotline supervisor and the NHTSB hotline operators informing them that you do exist for these types of problems. It may prevent someone less tenacious than me from giving up and accepting the many years of pa in.

Thank you very much for your quick telephone response.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 15, 1995

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108, S.4 Definitions, bonded [Illegible Words]

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO TILMAN SPINGLER (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Request for interpretation:

Dear Chief Counsel,

We ask you kindly to check if this proposal for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108.

Thanks in advance for your efforts Best regards

ID: nht95-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. Harold Sousa

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/31/94 letter from Harold Sousa to NHTSA Counsel

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sousa:

This responds to your letter asking about whether you can import a product into the United States. You stated that the product uses air pressure from a vehicle's brake system to "prevent the air from escaping from the tires of trucks and buses" and "kee ps air pressure in the case of puncture (sic)." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how this agency's requirements apply to the manufacture and importation of such a product. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regulates the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under our governing statute, the manufacturer must certify that its vehic le or equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Importers are included in the definition of "manufacturer" under our statute.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering a tire pressure device such as you describe. However, since this device is tied into a vehicle's air brake system, it could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

If the device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

One relevant issue is whether your device is considered an integral part of the brake system in the sense that it would need to comply with certain of Standard No. 121's requirements. A related issue is whether certain parts of the device are considered brake hoses and therefore subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses.

We do not have sufficient information about your device to specifically address these issues. I can advise you, however, that your device would not be considered part of the braking system if it were separated from the vehicle's main braking system by a check valve in such way that the main braking system would not be affected by a leakage failure in the device. Moreover, if your device is not considered to be part of the braking system, it would not be subject to Standard No. 106.

If the device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a repair shop, the repair shop would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device o r element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

You should also be aware that all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process, notices, orders, and decisions. This designation is to be mailed to the Chief Counsel of NHTSA. In accordance with 49 CFR 551.45, the designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

7. The signature of one with authority to appoint the agency. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

ID: nht95-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 15, 1995

FROM: Lee Rabie -- President, Enerco, Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Vehicle Air Bag Restraint Systems

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO LEE RABIE (A43; STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/19/90 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LINDA L. CONRAD (STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT A. ERNST

TEXT: Dear Sirs

The purpose of this letter is to obtain information from you and your Agency regarding any legal requirements or regulations of the Federal government for recycling/remanufacturing of vehicle Air Bags.

First, let us introduce ourselves. Enerco, Inc. is an industrial electronics firm that manufactures a line of industrial electronic products. Enerco has been in the electronic design and manufacturing business for over twenty years. Please find enclose d some of our data sheets that show a few of the products we manufacture which are used by local, state and federal governments for traffic control.

For some time we have been interested in vehicle Air Bags and the possibility of recycling Air Bags. We are aware of the performance requirements for active and passive restraint systems for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes as promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, in 49 CFR Ch. V, Section 571.208; Standard No. 208; Occupant Crash Protection). We know that recycling of the Bags is physically possible because we have developed a me thodology for doing so. However, we are concerned about any requirements of the laws and regulations which your Agency has oversight responsibility as they relate to the acceptance and performance of recycled Air Bags.

Air Bag systems are being required be installed in all cars sold in the United States. An Air Bag Restraint System is extensive and is comprised of the Air Bag and it's associated controls, sensors, computers, cables and indicators. The cost of the Bags themselves (2 Bags will be required for all cars) as purchased new from each manufacturer is very high. As the time period in which these systems have been required increases, and as the number of newer vehicles on the road increases, the number of Bag s which have actually been deployed in crashes is dramatically increasing.

As it stands now, after a vehicle crashes with deployment of an Air Bag, the Bag is removed form the vehicle and is replaced with a new Bag supplied by the manufacturers. The original Bag goes to waste. Additionally, disposing of the blown Air Bag is a lso a problem due to fact that other environmental health regulations prohibit (actual label on the side of the Bags) the placement of Bags in landfills. Therefore wrecking yards and repair shops have a problem of disposing the Bags.

In addition to the waste of reusable equipment and disposal problems there is another large expense problem. As indicated above the cost of a new Bag is very high. This is because the Bag is not recycled and usually the original manufacturers are the o nly source for the replacement Bags. The high replacement cost must be paid by the vehicle owner or his insurance company, even if the vehicle in which it deployed did not sustain major damage. All this points to the fact that there is a dramatic need in our society to have the choice of purchasing from a secondary source quality recycled Air Bags.

Our proposed recycling program would take the original blown Bags which were made and supplied by the original manufacture of the vehicle, and remanufacture them to the original standards. Blown Air Bags and the vehicles in which they have been blown ha ve been examined by us. The vehicles metal structure and steering wheel are designed to withstand the Air Bag deployment. The Bag has a valve to allow deflation without damaging of the Bag. This means that washing, cleaning, refolding, supplying of a new squib and new chemical charge and resealing of the flap that is made to open to allow Bag deployment, would be the focus of the recycling/remanufacturing process.

Enerco would appreciate any facts, information, discourse, thoughts or opinions from your department regarding our proposal to recycle/remanufacture Air Bags. This would include your opinion on whether the present law and regulations would allow recyclin g/remanufacture of the Air Bags (Bags only, not the sensors or computers) to the same MTBF standards using existing, proven technology.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. Your timely reply will be very much appreciated.

Brochures omitted.

ID: nht95-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 16, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Randall B. Clark

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/17/95 LETTER FROM RANDALL B. CLARK TO OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE (OCC 10671)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 17, 1995, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. You have asked for a clarification of the stop lamp requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.1.27(a), and Tables III and IV.

Your car "has the normal two stop lamps and has a spoiler with a stop lamp built into it." In addition, it "has a stop lamp mounted inside the back window which is not currently hooked up due to the fact that 'Subaru of America' thinks the procedure is a gainst the law." You would like a statement "that an automobile with four stop lamps is perfectly legal in the United States."

For the reasons given below, the legal situation is of sufficient complexity that we cannot provide a blanket statement of this nature. We shall begin with a possible explanation of Subaru's position. We assume that when you refer to Subaru of America you are referring to the manufacturer of your car. In producing and selling your car, Subaru was obliged to conform to Standard No. 108 (and all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards), and to certify that it conformed to those standard s. The three provisions of Standard No. 108 that you reference above required Subaru to equip your car with a center highmounted stop lamp in conformance with the photometric performance and location requirements of Standard No. 108. Ordinarily, this w ould be the lamp inside the rear window. When a vehicle has a spoiler in the rear deck area as original equipment, a manufacturer will frequently locate its center stop lamp in the spoiler instead, since the spoiler might partially block a lamp located in the rear window and thereby create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. We surmise that Subaru, to facilitate the production process, found it preferable to equip all cars with a window mounted lamp, and to disconnect it on vehicles where a lamp is in the spoiler. The spoiler lamp thereby became the conforming lamp required by S5.1.1.27.

In this circumstance, Standard No. 108 treats the window mounted lamp as a supplemental stop lamp. There are no requirements for a supplemental center stop lamp; however, under S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, any supplemental lamp is permissible, provided t hat it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The impairment decision is made by a vehicle manufacturer and is reflected in its certification of the vehicle. For whatever reason, Subaru chose to certif y your car with the window stop lamp disconnected.

We do not know whether this represented an affirmative determination by Subaru that the window mounted lamp would impair the effectiveness of other rear lighting equipment (such as overloading the stop lamp circuit and diminishing the light output of the other lamps). But dealers are reluctant to engage in any activity that might negatively affect a manufacturer's certification of compliance. This reluctance is based upon a statutory prohibition forbidding manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and mot or vehicle repair businesses against "making inoperative" equipment on a vehicle already in use, which was installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In our opinion letters, we have generally equated the "impairment" test for new vehicles with the "inoperative" test for those in use. In short, Subaru or its representative could believe that connecting the inoperative stop lamp might create a noncompliance that did not exist when the vehicle was certified, thereby putting the m in violation of the prohibition directed against modification of safety equipment on used vehicles.

Obviously, another manufacturer could leave the original window lamp connected and offer a spoiler one as well, its certification being a representation that one lamp meets all requirements and that the supplementary one does not create an impairment of any of the required rear lighting equipment. In this circumstance, four stop lamps would be "legal" under Federal law.

The prohibition against modifications does not extend to the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA discourages vehicle owners from making modifications that reduce the safety of their vehicles. Moreover, state law may restrict such modifications.

I hope that this clarifies the situation for you.

ID: nht95-1.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 17, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Manager, Vehicle Regulations, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/94 LETTER FROM DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: This responds to your follow up request for an interpretation of marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, for high theft vehicle lines' replacement parts. I apologize for the delay in our response. We rei terate our position in a July 1, 1994 letter to you, that Volkswagen is required to continue marking replacement parts of the Corrado line, in model year 1995 and thereafter. The reason for this position follows.

In your earlier request for an interpretation, you explained that the Volkswagen Corrado line, a high theft line, was parts marked (pursuant to 49 CFR part 541) in model years (MYs) 1990 through 1994. For MY 1995, NHTSA granted a part 543 exemption from parts marking for the Corrado line, based on the inclusion of an approved antitheft device as standard equipment on all models in the Corrado line. (58 FR 28434, May 13, 1993). However, you informed us in your letter that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for MY 1995.

In a July 1, 1994 interpretation letter to you, we determined that since Volkswagen will not sell the exempted MY 1995 Corrado line with the antitheft device in the United States, the part 543 exemption would not apply, and Volkswagen must continue to ma rk the replacement parts for the Corrado line.

In your follow up letter, you wrote that the MY 1994 Corrado line has, as standard equipment, the antitheft device that was the subject of the part 543 exemption for MY 1995. You state that since the Corrado line with the approved antitheft device was s old in the United States, replacement parts for the Corrado line should not be subject to marking in MY 1995 and thereafter.

We do not agree with your position. 49 CFR @ 543.7(d) specifies that part 543 exemptions apply only to lines that: (1) are the subject of the grant; and (2) are equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based. The MY 1994 Corr ado line does not meet the first condition, i.e., it is not the subject of a grant of an exemption from parts marking. The part 543 exemption for the Corrado line begins with MY 1995. (See 58 FR 28434). You have earlier written that no MY 1995 Corrado line with the exempted device, will be sold in the U.S. As stated in our July 1, 1994 letter, since no exempted line equipped with the antitheft device will be sold in the U.S., Volkswagen must continue to mark any Corrado replacement parts, subject to part 541, as long as the replacement parts are offered for sale in the U.S.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 17, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brigitte Neifer -- Sekurit Saint-Gobain Deutschland GmbH & Do. KG

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/4/94 TELEFAX FROM BRIGITTE NEIFER TO DAN COLHEN (OCC 10413)

TEXT: Your telefax to Mr. Dan Cohen of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Vehicle Safety Standards has been forwarded to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You asked about two topics: the agency's plans for further rulemaking related to Docket 89-15, and NHTSA's regulations related to testing for compliance with an industry standard that is incorporated by reference into a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Stand ard (FMVSS).

Issue One: Docket 89-15 You first asked whether NHTSA is planning any further rulemaking activity with respect to NHTSA Docket No. 89-15. Docket No. 89-15, which began January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496), pertains to a notice of proposed rulemaking that addresses the light transmitt ance requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles. NHTSA has not reached a final decision on this proposed rulemaking. Any questions you may have about this rulemaking can be addressed to Mr. Patrick Boyd, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20590. Mr. Boyd's telephone number is (202) 366-6346.

Issue Two: Establishing Compliance with FMVSS No. 205 You ask several questions about FMVSS No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You first ask for confirmation that the "5-year rhythm of renewal" was "an AAMVA [American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators] procedure and not an official requirement." Your u nderstanding is correct. Moreover, this program, which was administered by AAMVA and which was never "officially" NHTSA's, has been discontinued. You can contact the AAMVA at 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22205, telephone (703) 522-4200 for further information.

You also requested information about NHTSA's requirements related to compliance with FMVSS No. 205 and the material it incorporates (ANSI Z26.1, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways"). You state that you "intend to have [your] products regularly tested by independent laboratories" and ask whether "DOT inspectors in [the] USA will accept (cars equipped with) our glazings when accompanied only with a test report."

Some background information about NHTSA would be helpful in answering your question. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, there are no "DOT inspectors" that are charged with either accepting or rejecting vehicles or equipment certified as meeting the FMVSSs, prior to the first sale of the product.

NHTSA does test new vehicles and equipment for compliance with the FMVSSs by purchasing products on the market. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the ve hicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. n1 However, manufacturers are not required to test t heir products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency acco rding to the procedures specified in the standard.

n1 Since FMVSS No. 205 incorporates ANSI's Z26.1 by reference, the test procedures and performance requirements set forth in ANSI Z26 are considered to be part of FMVSS No. 205.

If NHTSA testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120, the manufacturer is required to notify owners and remedy the noncompliance at no cost to the owners. The manufacturer is also subject to civil penalties unless it can estab lish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacturer of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance. n2

n2 While the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties for the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance free of charge.

Your use of independent test laboratories to evaluate the performance of your product could support an initial showing of "reasonable care." However, the agency is unable to determine what efforts constitute "reasonable care" outside of the course of a s pecific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 17, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive and Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Department of the Army

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/4/94 LETTER FROM LARRY W. OVERBAY TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10407)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems, and NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02. You stated that your organization recently tested a vehicle's compliance to the emerg ency stopping distance requirements in FMVSS No. 121 by disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. You further stated that this action "essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops" making the vehicle totally relian t on the front brakes for stopping. According to your letter, the vehicle manufacturer contends that the manner in which you conducted the test is invalid since it was not done in accordance with NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02, which specifies rapid blee ding of the vehicle's air reservoirs.

In addition to general questions about FMVSS No. 121 and the NHTSA Test Procedure, you asked whether the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is conside red by NHTSA to be a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No. 121. After providing background information that responds to your general questions about testing of motor vehicles, I will respond to your specific q uestion about test conditions applicable to the emergency stopping requirements.

Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (Formerly, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30303) NHTSA, however, does not appro ve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies performance requirements for the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA has provided instructions, known as "compliance test procedures," to the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests f or the agency. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance char acteristics of the product being tested, not differences between various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, provide additional detail beyond what is s et forth in the relevant FMVSS. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. The agency has generally stated that the test procedures are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s) and that in some cases the test procedu res do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements.

With this background in mind, let me respond to your specific questions. As for your first question, the requirements in FMVSS No. 121 take precedence over the TP 121-02. As noted above, TP 121-02 contains instructions issued by NHTSA to provide inform ation to agency contractors about how to conduct compliance tests. In contrast, the law requires manufacturers to certify their vehicles to Standard No. 121.

As for your question about FMVSS No. 121's emergency stopping test requirements, those requirements are set forth in section S5.7.1. However, those requirements are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers, as the result of the U.S. Court of Appe als decision in PACCAR v. DOT, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978). (see S3 of 49 CFR 571.121). The agency retained the language in S5.7.1 so that those manufacturers that wish to construct their vehicles in accordance with the non-mandatory sections of the standard will have the necessary information to do so.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 24, 1995

FROM: David T. Holland -- President, Europa International, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Via fax # 202-366-3820 RE: Request for clarification of passive restraint phase-in requirements of FMVSS 208.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/3/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO DAVID T. HOLLAND (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles,

This letter is to follow up our recent phone conversation where-in you acknowledged that if Europa International, Inc. (R91-002) imports Canadian specification MPV's, such as the Chrysler Minivan, that meets the MPV passive restraint phase-in requirement s of FMVSS 208, Europa will be in compliance as it can count these vehicles toward the required percentage.

Please acknowledge this letter by signing below and faxing back or by a letter from your office.

Thank you for your assistance.

Acknowledged by:

Mary Versailles Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA