ID: nht93-2.41

DATE: March 31, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Philip Trupiano --Auto Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-18-93 from Philip Trupiano to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8417)

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of March 18, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You seek an interpretation of provisions of 49 CFR Parts 591 and 592. You have supplemented your letter by FAXing us on March 23, 1993, a letter from Ford Motor Company dated September 17, 1992, and a copy of a work order from the Louisville Truck Centre in Canada dated September 30, 1992.

Auto Enterprises is a Registered Importer (RI) under Part 592. It has contracted to represent a person who wishes to import a 1984 Ford 9000 heavy duty truck of Canadian manufacture. The truck would be imported across the border shared by North Dakota and Manitoba. The truck appears to have been manufactured as a chassis cab in the United States, and subsequently completed as a truck in Canada. Ford's letter states that the completed vehicle will comply with 18 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that it "was designed to meet FMVSS 108 as fully as possible for the vehicle configuration as delivered at the assembly plant", and that to comply "with FMVSS 121 it may be necessary to do the following: Add a quick release valve. Eliminate the control line to the limiting valve. Use 6 or 8 hose from foot control to quick release valve." The work order from Louisville Truck Centre states that "(t)he necessary changes have been made to comply with safety standard FMVSS 121" in accordance with Ford's letter." We assume, of course, that Ford's letter identifies the truck in question as your letter did not convey the VIN of the vehicle. You wish to proceed as follows and ask for our concurrence under Parts 591 and 592. Because of the distance involved in driving the truck to Michigan and back (approximately 4,000 miles), you wish to facilitate entry by mailing Auto Enterprise's RI certification label to its customs broker at the contemplated port of entry to be affixed there. Appropriate photographs of the certification would be taken and submitted to NHTSA as part of the RI conformance package required for bond release. During the period before release of the bond, the truck would be in the custody of the importer. However, because the truck cannot be registered in North Dakota without a copy of the bond release letter, the importer would be effectively prohibited from licensing it for use.

The truck involved was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It may not have been completed to meet the lighting standard. In addition, modifications were recently made with the intent of conforming it to the U.S. standard on air brakes for trucks. While Ford's letter is informative, it falls short of a manufacturer's certification of compliance. Although the vehicle could in fact now conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that fact must be verified by Auto Enterprises as the applicable RI, and its certification of that fact provided to NHTSA. This agency's initial interpretation of The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 was that it forbade conformance work to be performed outside the United States, but that conformance work could be

performed in the United States either by the RI or its agent. However, Part 592 as adopted reflects a modified view. It allows conformance work outside the U.S. subject to verification by the RI. As NHTSA stated in the preamble to the final rule (54 FR at 40084) a principal obligation of the RI is "(1) to bring those vehicles into compliance, or to demonstrate that they have been brought into compliance before importation." Further, as NHTSA noted at 40086, after consideration of comments it did not adopt "those aspects of the proposal that countenanced delegation of conformance responsibilities to an agent." In light of the above, we do not believe that Auto Enterprises can, in good faith, affix its certification of compliance to the Canadian truck without verifying its compliance, and we do not believe that it can delegate that task to the Customs Broker who would thereby become its agent for this purpose.

With respect to whether the importer may have custody of its vehicle, The Safety Compliance Act appears to require that it is the RI who has custody, for it clearly states that RIs shall not release custody of any motor vehicle for which they have responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)(3)(E)(i)) until after they certify approval and have been notified by NHTSA that the conformance bond is released.

Given the possibility that the truck in question may be in de facto compliance with the safety standards, and in recognition of the practical problems involved, we suggest that Auto Enterprises send an employee to inspect the vehicle on the day that it is entered under bond. If your employee concludes that the truck apparently now conforms to Standards Nos. 108 and 121, as well as remaining in compliance with the 18 other applicable standards, (s)he may then affix the certification of compliance. When this is done, your employee may complete and FAX the compliance documentation to NHTSA. We will endeavor to accord this submission priority treatment so that, if it is in order, we can release the bond without delay, probably within one workday. In the interim, the truck would be in the custody of your employee. We believe that this course of action would meet both the law and your practical concerns.

ID: nht74-2.7

DATE: 07/24/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Bendix's June 10, 1974, request for interpretation of the Standard No. 121 requirement in S5.5.1 that "on a vehicle equipped with an antilock system, electrical failure of any part of the antilock system shall not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes." You ask whether this language permits use of a separate device that senses electrical failure in the antilock system and automatically reduces pressure to the front brakes as a safety measure. The device would increase brake actuation and release time.

S5.5 is addressed to antilock systems and S5.5.1 mandates that antilock systems be designed not to interfere with air brake performance if they fail electrically. S5.5.1 does not prohibit separate safety devices which are designed to operate in the event of antilock electrical failure to compensate for that failure. Therefore the Bendix automatic front axle limiting system, as we understand its operation, is not prohibited by S5.5.1 simply because it operates when it senses an antilock electrical failure.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BENDIX HEAVY VEHICLE SYSTEMS GROUP

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

June 10, 1974

Subject: Request for Interpretation

Re: S5.5.1 (Antilock System Failure) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121

Gentlemen:

As a result of the adoption of the stopping distance provisions of FMVSS No. 121, higher torque brakes on front axles were required. On certain vehicles, these higher torque brakes created wheel lockup/stability problems which were to be solved or controlled by the use of an antilock system. The Automotive Industry concerns with vehicle stability, as expressed in petitions submitted to NHTSA, are directed towards antilock reliability and stability problems that may be amplified by an antilock system failure.

The concern with vehicle stability due to high torque front brakes are recognized by NHTSA in Docket 74-10, Notice 1, wherein a manual control for limiting front axle braking was proposed. Such proposal was, however, subsequently withdrawn in Docket 74-10, Notice 2, primarily, we suspect, because of the manual control feature.

The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group, has developed an automatic front axle limiting system, separate from the antilock system itself, that will sense an electrical failure of the front axle antilock system and "automatically" reduce front axle braking to 50% of that normally provided. Attention is invited to the performance comparison (Enclosure 1) wherein the automatic limiting curve reflects that 120 psi rear axle pressure is required to reach 60 psi at the front axle. While Bendix' system does not introduce an air line restriction, it does limit the level of front axle braking pressures so that the 60 psi and 95 psi pressure levels set forth in Section 5.3.3 (Brake Actuation Time) and Section 5.3.4 (Brake Release Time) respectively, are not achieved, nor are the corresponding actuation and release times realized.

Section 5.5.1 (Antilock System Failure) provides that an ". . . electrical failure of any part of the antilock system shall not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes." Bendix is of the opinion that since the affect on response time is caused by a system separate from the antilock system itself, it is not within the purview of, and hence not in conflict with Section 5.5.1.

An official interpretation is requested from NHTSA as to whether it concurs with Bendix' opinion that the Bendix Automatic Front Axle Limiting System is not covered by the provisions of, and is not in conflict with Section 5.5.1.

We would be happy to discuss the details of this matter if you feel additional information is necessary.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt -- Group Director of Engineering

Attachment

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON

Standard (Non Limiting) System Vs: System With Automatic Limiting Upon Antilock Failure

(Graphics omitted)

Rear Axle Brake Pressure (PSI)

ID: nht88-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Captain Robert W. Barthelmess

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Captain Robert W. Barthel Box 5744 APO, NY 09633

Dear Captain Barthelmess:

This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1987, to this agency with respect to the requirements for importing tires without the DOT symbol.

You have asked whether the DOT symbol must still appear on the tires of vehicles that conform to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is yes; there has been no change in the requirement that the DOT symbol appear on the sidewall of tires manufactured as either original or replacement equipment. The DOT is the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In your letter, you stated that one individual at the Army Air Force Ex change Service indicated that the DOT symbol had been replaced by a series of numbers. This individual may have confused the requirement for the DOT symbol with a different Federal requirement for an identification number to appear on tires. The tire ide ntification number, along other things, assists in the tracing and recalling of tires which may prove to be noncomplying or defective. The requirement for the tire identification number is in addition to, not in place of, the requirement for the DOT symb ol.

You have also asked (with reference to service personnel like yourself who recently bought non-DOT marked tires for your U.S. type automobiles) whether there is a technical possibility of denial of entry to vehicles certified as meeting U.S. safety speci fication but equipped with tires not bearing the DOT symbol. The general procedure is that when a motor vehicle arrives at the port of entry it will be inspected to see whenever it bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance (generally in the dr iver's door post area). We do not know whether Customs makes it a practice to inspect vehicles of U.S. origin for this certificate when a serviceman is returning to the States. If an inspection occurs and the vehicle bears the certification, the vehicle is admitted without further inspection. It is possible, of course, that a Customs inspector could happen to notice in passing the lack of the DOT symbol on the tires. In this instance, as the vehicle would not be in conformity with all applicable standar ds, the Customs inspector could require entry of the vehicle under bond, which would be released upon the importer's production of a statement to this agency that the noncompliance had been corrected. Although we are not aware of any instance in which th is has actually happened, you may wish to contact Customs with respect to its inspection procedures. You may also wish to write GoodYear asking for a statement that the Vector tires comply with Standard NO. 109, which could be presented to Customs should questions arise.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

ID: 77-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 25, 1977, letter asking whether two sample certification labels you submitted comply with the requirements of Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not issue advance approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The two labels you submitted do not follow the format required by Part 567 for certification labels. Therefore, they do not appear to comply with the requirements. Your method of stating tire and rim sizes differs from that required in Part 567 and Standard No. 120. For example, you state your tire and rim information as follows: "10-20-F-Tires-7.5 Rims at 75 PSI Cold Dual." By the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 as they apply to certification labels, this information should read: "10.00-20(F) tires, 20x7.5 rims, at 75 psi cold dual." Further, the statement after GAWR "maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below" should be deleted from the certification label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567 and Standard No. 120 for your information.

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

May 25, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. U.S. Department of Transportation

We would appreciate an opinion on the following proposed certification plates for compliance with FMVSS-120. Effective September 1, 1977.

PLATE "B" - This plate would service 98% of our production, in that 10:00-20 "F" tires are the lowest capacity-rated standard tires installed-the other option, i.e. 11-22.5, 10:00-22, 11-24.5 "F" tires are all capacity rated above the 19,040 lbs. GAWR that we certify on the plate. The 10:00-20 "R" tires are included because the psi rating changes, we still rate the "R" tires at the same 19,040 lbs. which is consistant with the GVWR shown on the plate.

PLATE "C" - This plate would be used in the other 2% of our production. The tire selection in these cases is always of a lower capacity-rated tire than the 19,040 lbs. GAWR for the 10:00-20 "F" tire shown on Plate "b". The GAWR used on this plate would be according to the tire manufacture's rating and the GVWR would be decreased accordingly.

We feel that Plate "B" meets the full intent of FMVSS-120, in that it states the maximum GAWR for the smallest standard tire used in the majority of our production. Even though the trailer is equipped with a higher capacity-rated tire we do not increase the GAWR above the 19,040 lb. figure The use of the term "All Axles" readily identifies, and would be much clearer to the end user.

With a 45 day leadtime on procurement of certification plates, your timely response will be appreciated so that compliance requirements may be achieved by the September 1 deadline.

Jerry W. McNeil Director of Engineering

American trailers, inc. OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

ID: nht79-2.29

DATE: 11/08/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Veeder-Root Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Alan L. Sinder Manager Vehicle Products Group Veeder-Root Company Hartford, Connecticut 06102

Dear Mr. Sinder:

This is in response to your letter of August 21, 1979, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, Speed-ometers and Odometers, applies to your product, the Veeder-Root 7-Day Tachograph, and whether the odometer provisions of the standard would apply if your product were installed in vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of less than 16,000 pounds. You also asked whether a tachograph installed in a school bus as a replacement for the speedometer and marked with speeds from 0 to 50 mph on both the dial and on the inside chart would comply with Safety Standard 127.

Section 4.1.1 of Safety Standard 127 requires that "each motor vehicle shall have a speedometer that meets the requirements . . ." of the standard. Section 4.2.1 requires that "each motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 16,000 pounds or less shall have an odometer that meets the requirements . . ." of the standard. Therefore a tachograph installed in lieu of the speedometer and odometer in a new vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 16,000 pounds or less must meet both the speedometer and the odometer requirements of Safety Standard 127. If the new vehicle in which the tachograph were installed had a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 16,000 pounds the speedometer requirements of Safety Standard 127 would apply but the odometer requirements would not.

If the tachograph were installed in a new vehicle as a supplement to an existing speedometer and odometer which meet the requirements of Safety Standard 127, the provisions of Safety Standard No. 127 would not apply to the tachograph.

Section 4.1.4 of Safety Standard 127 provides that:

No speedometer shall have graduations or numerical values for speeds greater than 140 km/h and 85 mph and shall not otherwise indicate such speeds.

Although this section specifies the maximum speed indication which may appear on the dial of a speedometer, it does not prohibit the use of a lower maximum speed indication. Section 4.1.5 of the standard provides that "each speedometer shall include the numeral '55' in the mph scale." However, this provision assumes that the speedmmeter dial will have calibrations for speeds in excess of 55 mph. If the speedometer dial will not include calibrations for speeds of 55 mph and above, then there is no requirement that the numeral 55 be included in the mph scale. This follows from the rationale on which Safety Standard 127 is based, which is to reduce the temptation for drivers to test the top speeds of their vehicles and to induce greater compliance with the national maximum speed limit of 55 mph.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been greatly inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 21, 1979

Ms. Kathleen DeMeter Office of Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street, So. West Washington, D. C. 20591

Dear Ms. DeMeter:

Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Office of Crash Avoidance suggested that I write you seeking a legal opinion concerning the coverage of FMVSS-127 in regards to Tachographs.

The enclosed literature describes our products. The Tachograph sometimes is used by itself and sometimes in conjunction with the existing speedometer. I would like to know if 127 is applicable to these products and whether the odometer sections of 127 would apply if these units were installed on vehicles of less than 16,000 pounds GVW.

We are currently working with a School Bus Authority whose installations specify a unit whose dial face shows from 0 to 50 MPH. It is probable that this unit would replace the current speedometer. Must the Tachograph face show from 0 to 85 MPH with 55 highlighted or can this School District specification stand as written ( 0 to 50 MPH on a dial and 0 to 50 on the inside chart)? The specifications also call for road speed - electro mechanical engine - governors permanently set at 45 MPH maximum.

I would appreciate your response as soon as possible as the specification for this School District requirements are in the process of being finalized.

Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

VEEDER-ROOT COMPANY

Alan L. Sinder Manager Vehicle Products Group

ALS/gsb

Enclosure

ID: 006814drn

Jim Soucie, Director of National Sales
I.M.S., The Kiosk Company
1538 So. 139^th St.
Omaha, NE 68144

Dear Mr. Soucie:

This responds to your September 16, 2003, FAX inquiry asking if NHTSAs laws apply to companies that place commercial advertisements on school bus exteriors.

In your FAX, you write that your company "would like to place ads on the exterior sides of the bus, away from anything that moves; doors, mirrors or windows." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you want to place advertisements on only the exterior right and left sides of a school bus, and not on the vehicles front or rear. No advertisements will be placed in the school bus interior. The advertisements are to be made of vinyl, will be of as-yet unspecified dimensions, but will not completely wrap around the school bus. No school district or other school bus owner will place the advertisements themselves; instead, your company will arrange for a local contractor to apply the advertisements directly onto the school bus exterior, with no need for metal frames or brackets. The contractor will also remove the advertisements.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. Section 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with applicable standards. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties up to $5,000 for each violation. The maximum penalty for a related series of violations is $15,000,000.

The issue arising from your situation is whether placement of the advertisements on a school bus would "make inoperative" the compliance of the school bus with labeling requirements for the bus exterior. [1] FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, specifies labeling requirements for school bus emergency exits, which may be doors, windows, or roof exits. Among other things, the standard requires that:

• school bus emergency exits have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate, in letters at least 5 centimeters high, on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus (S5.5.3(a)); and that
• required school bus emergency exits "shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a retroreflective tape with a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters and either red, white or yellow in color " (S5.5.3(c)).

A person placing the advertisements on the bus may be subject to the make inoperative provision. Since the identification of the exits and doors of the school bus and the retroreflective tape are specified for safety reasons (i.e., to facilitate identification of the emergency exits and doors, especially in the dark), the advertisements must not obscure or cover the identifications of the exits and doors or the retroreflective tape.

Other identification requirements for school buses, including color, are established by each State or local jurisdiction. In NHTSAs Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," it is recommended that the word "school bus" be placed on the front and rear of the school bus between the 4-way/8-way flashing lights in letters as high as possible, and that no other lettering be on the front or rear of the vehicle. If any safety problems associated with schoolbus identification were to develop, NHTSA would consider regulatory requirements in the future.

If you have any further questions about NHTSAs laws or programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:571.3#217





---

[1] Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter [49 USCS 30101 et seq.] unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative."

ID: nht93-6.10

DATE: August 13, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alan Niedzwiecki -- Director of Business Development, EDO Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/93 from Alan Niedzwiecki to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about this agency's activities related to cylinders for "compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle on-board motor fuel storage." According to your letter, EDO is developing an all-composite cylinder that has a safety factor of 3.5. You further explained that your company is planning to begin a conversion program using these cylinders.

Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff discussed your letter with your associate, Mr. John Vincenzo. Mr. Vincenzo said that EDO knows that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is conducting a rulemaking related to CNG cylinders. Mr. Vincenzo seeks confirmation that, until a rule results from that rulemaking, there is no Department of Transportation regulation with which your company is required to comply before you start your conversion program.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG cylinders or any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such cylinders. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, you are correct that you are not required to comply with any NHTSA safety standard related to CNG fuel systems.

However, please be aware that manufacturers of CNG tanks and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the tank or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done. I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR S567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's "render inoperative" provision (S 108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to

work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed ... in compliance" with any FMVSS. Please contact us if you have further questions relating to the enclosed discussion.

I also note that the enclosed discussion is based on the FMVSS's that are currently in effect. As you know, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993). If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the "render inoperative" issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG cylinders, all cylinders manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

With regard to present requirements for vehicle conversions, you should also note that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

You were particularly interested in NHTSA's proposed rule for CNG tanks and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. In response to that proposal, the agency received over 55 comments (including one from your corporation), which we are currently analyzing. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. In addition, please be aware that the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule.

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

ID: 10173

Mr. C.H. Je
Doosan Corporation
Pusan Branch
5KA-50
Chungang-dong
Chungku, Pusan
KOREA

Dear Mr. Je:

This responds to your letter identifying your company as a "trading company" and asking for permission from the U.S. Department of Transportation to sell air bags in the United States. As I explain below, no such permission is necessary, but there are some requirements you should be aware of before you begin importing air bags.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. '30102(5)(B) as "a person . . . manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment [or] importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has exercised its authority under Chapter 301 to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR '571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Also, a phase-in of automatic crash protection requirements for light trucks is in progress. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is

determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like.

It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as original equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag 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 installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the "make inoperative" prohibition in U.S. Code Section 30122(b), which provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the U.S. Code. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials. Please note the regulations concerning manufacturer identification and designation of agent.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d:10/12/94

ID: nht89-2.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ALAN S. ELDAHR, -- OPTIMUM BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/08/88 FROM ALAN S. ELDAHR -- OPTIMUM BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES TO ERICA JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2404

TEXT: Dear Mr. Eldahr:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a "small LED display reader board for use in private vehicles." This device can be incorporated with the center highmounted stoplamp, or installed as a separate unit, also to be placed in the rear window. In the latter configuration, messages can be displayed continuously, or stop when the service brakes are applied. You have concluded that the device will not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar d No. 108. You have asked for our comments. I regret the delay in responding.

Our first comment is that the device cannot be combined with an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp, or with an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp used to replace original equipment center lamps, installed on vehicles manufactured on an d after September 1, 1985. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 forbids combining the center stop lamp with any other lamp. We view the LED reader board as a type of signal lamp within the meaning of the prohibition.

The legality of a combined LED-center stop lamp for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, is not determinable under Standard No. 108, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Its installation by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses would be permissible under Federal law if the installation does not render inoperative in whole or in part any element of design, or device, installed in accordance with a safety standard. However, it would still remain subject to regulation by any State in which it would be sold or operated. We cannot advise you on State laws. You may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203).

As for the device's legality as a separate unit in the rear window area, when installed as an item of original equipment, it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. If it creates a noncompliance with the field of view requirements of

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors, an outside rear view mirror must be provided on the passenger's side. As an aftermarket item, it is subject to the render inoperative provisions of the Act. We believe that an additional original equipment light in th e rear window, whether red or amber, and whether or not operating simultaneously with the center lamp but sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp. For the same reason, we believe that as an aftermarket item installed on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, your device could render the original equipment center lamp on those cars partially inoperative by distracting att ention from its function. As for installation on vehicles that were manufactured before that date and thus lack center lamps, this again is a question to be answered under State laws. At all times, the field of view requirements of Standard No. 111 must be maintained, regardless of whether the car was manufactured before or after September 1, 1985.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/89

FROM: RICHARD A. KULICS

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR RULING IMPORTING VEHICLES MODIFIED IN FTZ AS "CONFORMING"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/22/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RICHARD A. KULIGS; RE REQUEST FOR RULING IMPORTED VEHICLES - FTZ; REDBOOK A35; PART 591; VSA 108

TEXT: This letter is written on behalf of Mr. Peter DiBernardi, a principal of the entities "Liphardt Associates" and "Pierre Enterprises, Inc.", located at 15 Trade Zone Drive, Ronkonkoma, New York 11779. Liphardt Associates is an Independent Commercial Impo rter ("ICI") under the EPA regulations. The vehicles imported under Liphardt's certificate are modified at Pierre Enterprises, 15 Trade Zone Drive, Ronkonkoma, New York 11779. (Liphardt/Pierre Enterprises will be applying for status as "Registered Impo rters" under 49 CFR 592). The location is within the LI/MacArthur FTZ #52 (Islip FTZ Authority). Pierre Enterprises has been approved as a bonded cartman, i.e., a "Custodian" of bonded merchandise, by the U.S. Customs Service. (Exhibit 1)

The method of operation of Liphardt/Pierre Enterprises (hereafter "L/PE) is as follows: (1) Nonconforming vehicles are unladen from vessel; (2) Vehicles are transported directly into Foreign Trade Zone as "nonprivileged foreign" merchandise (Exhibit 2 , FTZ entry); (3) Appropriate modifications are performed on the vehicles in order to bring them into conformity with U.S. law; (4) Consumption entry filed (as "nonconforming" vehicle), bond posted, conformity package submitted to DOT; (5) After release by EPA and DOT, custody of vehicle given to owner.

REQUEST

L/PE requests you to rule that it be allowed to submit conformity packets to your agency prior to the submission of the consumption entry package, i.e., upon submission of the FTZ entry (step 2, above), so that it may enter the vehicles as "conforming ".

SUPPORT FOR REQUEST

The obvious reason for the request is to eliminate the costs associated with posting a special bond purely for DOT purposes. It would also have the effect of speeding up the process of importation, thus reducing the costs associated with storage.

The purpose of the bond is to "assure that he vehicle has been or will be brought into conformity." (DOT HS 807 144, rev. 12/87, at 3). It is a "promise that you will modify the vehicle to Federal Standards". (id., 5). In regard to DOT, the obligat ion of the importer is to bring the vehicle into conformity and submit an appropriate statement of conformity when it is due (id. 5). If this is not accomplished, Customs is required to issue a redelivery notice (id., 5).

It is apparent, then, that the obligation is to either conform the vehicle or return it to Customs custody. The bond is the method of enforcing that obligation. What L/PE proposes is that it be allowed to close out the obligation while the vehicle i s still in the custody of the Customs Service.

Though established under the Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a), and generally under governed by 15 CFR 400 ("Foreign Trade Zones Board"), for purposes of this request, the appropriate regulatory language is contained in 19 CFR 146 ("Foreign Trad e Zones", i.e.. "admission of merchandise into a foreign trade zone, manipulation, manufacture, or exhibition in a zone; exportation of the merchandise from a zone; and transfer of merchandise from a zone into Customs territory).

146.2 states the "district director [of Customs] in whose district the zone is located shall be in charge of the zone as the representative of the Board. Section 146.4 outlines the criteria for supervision, storage and handling of merchandise by the o perator of the zone. He must permit any customs officer access to a zone, he must maintain records, he must scure the merchandise in accordance with Customs standards and specifications. He must provide guard service. He is also responsible for comply ing with all requirements for "admission, manipulation, manufacture, exhibition or destruction, shortage or overage . . . transfer to Customs territory, and "other requirements as spcified in this part."

146.10 provides:

The district director may cause any merchandise to be examined before or at the time of admission to a zone, or at any time thereafter, if the examination is considered necessary to facilitate the proper administration of any law, regulation, or instr uction which Customs is authorized to enforce.

146.31 Conditionally admissible merchandise provides "the admission of this merchandise into a zone is subject to the regulations of the Federal agency concerned.

There is no question, then, that should DOT want to physically inspect the vehicles on the premises of L/PE, they could readily do so.

It cannot be overemphasized that the entire time the vehicles are in the foreign trade zone, they are under the custody and control of the U.S. Customs Service. They cannot be moved out of the zone unless a consumption entry is filed or a special per mit allows movement for a particularized purpose. Even then they must be moved via a Customs bonded carrier.

Regulations are one thing, however, and sometimes reality is another. Please look at the established integrity of L/PE when reviewing this proposal. L/PE have been conforming vehicles for years. They have had no outstanding claims for liquidated da mages. They are one of the very few entities that is not required to post triple value bonds for nonconforming vehicles. This is because they have established a "track record". They are recognized as an ICI, permitted to import vehicles for EPA purpos es. They have qualified to be issued a warranty policy by their insurance company to meet their EPA obligations. Your own records should reflect that they have been conforming a huge number of vehicles in the most professional manner. They are able to withstand the most stringent scrutiny by the three government agencies with which they have constant contact-DOT, EPA and Customs.

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY OF OPERATION

The current method of operation would remain substantially intact, save for the following: L/PE would prepare an HS-7 at the time of filing the FTZ entry. Each HS-7 would have a unique number (provided by L/PE's Customhouse Broker), which would also b e placed in block 17 of the FTZ entry (Form 214). This number could probably be the same as the actual Customs Entry Number if you feel that is necessary. This HS-7 would be submitted to DOT along with a conformity package. DOT would then review the p ackage and issue a release letter, if appropriate.

When the actual consumption entry is filed, the vehicle would be entered as a "conforming" vehicle, with the release letter attached to the entry. No bond need be posted specifically for DOT purposes. (In most cases, save for an "informal" entry, a bond would be posted anyway, to assure compliance with all other requirements. There is quite a difference in cost, however, between a bond for a "conforming" as opposed to a "nonconforming" vehicle.

Please consider this request and issue a ruling as soon as possible. This is essentially a duplicate of a request I had prepared earlier which somehow became lost. Since L/PE fully intends to be a registered importer under your new regulations, we t rust any ruling you issue would have future application under the new regulations.

Please send any response to this office at the address indicated in the letterhead. [ATTACHED CUSTOMS BOND FORM OMITTED]