ID: nht74-2.22

DATE: 06/12/74

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

TO: Southern Railway System

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letters of January 10, 1974, and May 17, 1974, you have asked if a trailer would comply with S5.8 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, ("have a parking brake system. . . when the air pressure in the supply line is at atmospheric pressure") if its parking brake system contained a valve that allows manual release of the parking brake with the supply line at atmospheric pressure but automatically resets itself when the supply line is pressurized, so that the parking brake system operates as specified by S5.8. Such a valve would permit limited motion of trailers on flat cars to cushion shock experienced during transit.

Such a valve does not appear to conflict with the intent of S5.8 that the parking brake system apply when the supply line is at atmospheric pressure. The requirement is not intended to interfere with intentional manual release of the parking brakes after automatic application has occurred. The danger of inadvertent disablement of the parking brake system during subsequent highway travel is avoided by the automatic features which would return the system to normal operation as soon as the trailer is connected to a source of air pressure, i.e., a tractor.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 17, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Please refer to my letter dated January 10, 1974, and I also refer to my telephone conversations of May 17 and earlier with Mr. (Illegible Word) of your office, concerning the problems created for trailers to be used on railroad flat cars by the new requirements for parking brakes.

Attached is a memorandum dated May 17, 1974 from Southern Railway's Assistant Vice President - Engineering & Research C. E. Webb, explaining why there is a need for a parking brake system on a trailer which will allow it to move longitudinally along a flat car for a short distance during impact. Read literally, Section S5.8 of the new regulations would require a trailer to be equipped with a parking brake designed so that the trailer would be incapable of this short longitudinal movement on impact. Mr. Webb in his memorandum proposes parameters for a device, to be developed by the manufacturers and approved by DOT if necessary, which would achieve the purpose of the new regulation when the trailer was in over-the-road use, while at the same time meeting the need for a means to "cut out" the parking brake when the trailer is on a rail car. Mr.

Webb envisions a fail-safe device. I might add that by proposing the device described by Mr. Webb, Southern intends to take no exception to a change in the rules which would be more liberal, that is, allow devices to be put on trailers that would also allow the manual disabling of the parking brake in other situations where it may be desirable, e.g., in freight yards during hostling.

As I said in my January 10 letter, we believe @ 5.8 does not forbid installation of a device like that described by Mr. Webb. However, in order to interest manufacturers in developing the device, we feel it important that your agency indicate that it would be proper and permissible under your regulations. Therefore, we would appreciate receiving advice from you to that effect, if that is the view of your agency.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

William P. Stallsmith, Jr. Senior General Attorney -- SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM

ID: nht75-1.45

DATE: 10/06/75

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

TO: Joseph Lucas North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 29, 1975, asking whether two of your processes for labeling brake hose may be considered "permanent" for purposes of Standard No. 106-74.

As used in our standards and regulations, the requirement for a "permanent" label generally contemplates a label that will remain legible for the expected life of the product under normal conditions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects a manufacturer to make a reasonable, good-faith determination in this respect. The two labeling samples that you submitted as examples of your processes appear to be permanent.

We are presently re-examining the requirement for permanent labeling of brake hose, and a Federal Register notice in this area may be issued shortly.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

May 29, 1975

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

BRAKE HOSE LABELING METHODS

Although we have previously corresponded with you on the subject of brake hose labeling (see attached copy letters: JLNA of September 30, 1974 and NHTSA of October 10, 1974), this present letter seeks your opinion specifically on the method of labeling.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106 requires that brake hoses be permanently labeled, but we know of no standard against which this permanence can be measured.

We wish to continue using hydraulic brake hoses with a "herringbone" surface pattern. Samples are enclosed. Two methods of labeling are available to us and we hope that you approve both.

Method 1. The Hot Foil Process.

Our hoses have always used this process and these hoses have been certified by independent laboratories, the AAMVA and Pennsylvania as complying with regulations.

"Hot Foil" marking is a transfer process in which a heated platten with the legend embossed on it is pressed through a plastic foil on to the rubber hose after the herringbone pattern has been formed and after the rubber hose has been cured (vulcanized). This transfers the legend in plastic foil to the hose.

Sample X attached was labeled in this way.

Method 2. Offset Printing.

In this process, the legend in ink is applied to the hose after extrusion, but before the "herringbone" surface is formed and before the hose is cured.

We understand this process is common for such applications in the USA.

Sample Y attached was labeled in this way.

Since both of these methods are established processes for the purpose of labeling brake hoses, we hope that you will give your approval to them in principle as being acceptable means for "permanent" marking.

Yours truly,

JOSEPH LUCAS NORTH AMERICA INC. -- A. G. Burgess, Vice President (Technical)

Enclosures: Letters (2); Hose X; Hose Y;

cc: F. Redler, with enclosures

September 30, 1974

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

GIRLING HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSE

Girling Limited of Birmingham, England are assemblers of hydraulic brake hoses. These are sold as original equipment primarily to vehicle manufacturers in the United Kingdom. Some of these vehicles are exported to the United States.

Joseph Lucas North America Inc., imports Girling brake hoses for sale as service replacements in the USA.

Two samples of a 1/8" hydraulic brake hose are enclosed for your examination and confirmation that the markings are in accordance with FMVSS 106.

Yours truly,

JOSEPH LUCAS NORTH AMERICA INC. -- A. J. Burgess, Vice President (Technical)

Enclosures: 2 hoses.

ID: nht93-9.25

DATE: December 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Thomas Luckemeyer -- ITT Automotive Europe

TITLE: FAX 07142/73-2895

ATTACHMT: Attached to Fax dated 12/10/93 from Thomas Luckemeyer to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9418)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of December 10, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked the following questions with respect to the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars:

"Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the FMVSS 108."

Paragraph S5.1.3. of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation as original equipment of additional lamps such as rear fog lamps if the additional lamp "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard." The determination of whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit impairs the effectiveness of other lighting equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the lamp is installed. Unless such a determination is clearly erroneous, this agency will not question it.

We do not know whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit is permissible in all the States. Because a fog lamp is not required motor vehicle equipment under Federal law, each State in which it is used may regulate it according to its own laws. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, and suggest that you ask the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its FAX number is 001 703 522 1553, and its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

"Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?"

There are no Federal requirements that apply to rear fog lamps, and, as noted above, we are not conversant with state requirements. For your information, the latest specification of the Society of Automotive Engineers for this item of equipment is SAE Recommended Practice J1319 AUG87 "Fog Tail Lamp (Rear Fog Light) Systems."

"Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?"

No. The certification of the vehicle manufacturer is its representation that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. A State has no authority to question this certification.

However, a State is permitted to have a State vehicle lighting standard

provided that the State lighting standard is identical to the Federal lighting standard in those areas covered by the Federal lighting standard. Under these circumstances, a State may enforce the State lighting standard even if the vehicle is certified as conforming to the Federal lighting standard. Furthermore, a State may have its own State lighting standard in those areas where there is no Federal lighting standard, such as fog lamps.

"Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S."

AAMVA may be able to provide you with this information as we are unable to. Because State requirements must be identical with respect to the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, State specifications and prohibitions will differ only with respect to supplementary lighting equipment not covered by Standard No. 108 such as cornering lamps and front and rear fog lamps.

ID: 9418

Herr Dr. Thomas Lckemeyer
ITT Automotive Europe
Bietigheim-Bissingen
Dept. VER/LB

FAX 07142/73-2895

Dear Dr. Lckemeyer:

This responds to your FAX of December 10, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked the following questions with respect to the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars:

"Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the FMVSS 108."

Paragraph S5.1.3. of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation as original equipment of additional lamps such as rear fog lamps if the additional lamp "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard." The determination of whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit impairs the effectiveness of other lighting equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the lamp is installed. Unless such a determination is clearly erroneous, this agency will not question it.

We do not know whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit is permissible in all the States. Because a fog lamp is not required motor vehicle equipment under Federal law, each State in which it is used may regulate it according to its own laws. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, and suggest that you ask the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its FAX number is 001 703 522 1553, and its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

"Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?"

There are no Federal requirements that apply to rear fog lamps, and, as noted above, we are not conversant with state requirements. For your information, the latest specification of the Society of Automotive Engineers for this item of equipment is SAE Recommended Practice J1319 AUG87 "Fog Tail Lamp (Rear Fog Light) Systems."

"Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?"

No. The certification of the vehicle manufacturer is its representation that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. A State has no authority to question this certification.

However, a State is permitted to have a State vehicle lighting standard provided that the State lighting standard is identical to the Federal lighting standard in those areas covered by the Federal lighting standard. Under these circumstances, a State may enforce the State lighting standard even if the vehicle is certified as conforming to the Federal lighting standard. Furthermore, a State may have its own State lighting standard in those areas where there is no Federal lighting standard, such as fog lamps.

"Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S."

AAMVA may be able to provide you with this information as we are unable to. Because State requirements must be identical with respect to the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, State specifications and prohibitions will differ only with respect to supplementary lighting equipment not covered by Standard No. 108 such as cornering lamps and front and rear fog lamps.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:12/23/93

ID: 86-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ivan Chien -- President, Friendship Over Water, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 21, 1986 Mr. Ivan Chien President Friendship Over Water, Inc. 8F-6, No. 9, San-Min Road Taipei, Taiwan REPUBLIC OF CHINA Dear Mr. Chien: This responds to your letter seeking information about our requirements applicable to "hub covers and wheel covers". The only applicable requirement for those items is set forth in Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR 571.211; copy enclosed. That standard specifies that wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections. Hub covers and wheel covers that you manufacture for use on vehicles other than passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not subject to any standards issued by this agency. However, as a manufacturer of hub caps and wheel covers, you incur statutory responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; "the Safety Act"), even for those hub caps and wheel covers not subject to Standard No. 211. If either your company or this agency determines that some of your wheel covers subject to Standard No. 211 do not comply with that standard or determines that any of you wheel covers contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to notify your distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and remedy the noncompliance or defect. In the case of wheel covers, section 154(a)(2)(B) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) requires that, if there is a determination of a noncompliance or defect and remedy the noncompliance or defect, the manufacturer must notify distributors, dealers, and purchasers of the noncompliance or defect and must either: 1. repair the wheel cover so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or 2. replace the wheel cover with an identical or reasonably equivalent wheel cover that does not have a defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer of the wheel covers must bear the full expense of the recall campaign and cannot charge the purchaser for the remedy if the wheel cover was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign began. We have several regulations relating to defect and noncompliance notification and remedy campaigns. Those regulations are identified in the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. That sheet also gives you a broad overview of our statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to manufacturers. You also asked about obtaining necessary "approvals" before selling these products in the United States. For those items subject to Standard No. 211, NHTSA does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the products to be certified to a governmental entity and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States the manufacturer of the product must certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests; the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Once you have determined that your wheel covers comply with Standard No. 211, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires you to furnish to each of your distributors and dealers at the time of delivery of the wheel covers a certification that those wheel covers conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section further provides that your certification "may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered." You also asked how you apply for the approval of the SAE, AAMVA, and CHP. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is a private group that issues recommended practices for the design and performance of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. You are not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to obtain the approval of SAE prior to marketing your products in the United States. You obtain information about the SAE standards by contacting that group at the following address: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096, USA. The group may be contacted by telephone at (412) 776-4841. Various States may also have requirements concerning wheel covers. However, section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that "(w)henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or time of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard." Thus, any non-identical State safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211 would be preempted by the provisions of the Safety Act, making it leagally unenforceable. States do have authority to enforce identical standards related to the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 211, and some may exercise that authority. To learn more about this issue, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20036, USA. Their telephone number is (202) 296-1955. The Department of California Highway Patrol may be contacted at the following address: Enforcement Services Division, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804, USA. Their telephone number is (916) 445-1865. For your information, I an enclosing copies of two procedural rules that apply to all parties subject to the standards and regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment subject to one of our safety standards to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of motor vehicle equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days of the date the motor vehicle equipment is imported into the United States. The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. This regulation requires all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of 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 legal 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 that 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 agent appointed by the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. This designation must be received by this agency before your wheel covers are imported into the United States. If you need further information or a clarification of our regulations, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: nht95-1.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1995

FROM: Tillie Fowler -- Member, House Of Representatives

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Goodlife Motors Corporation

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/19/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO TILLIE FOWLER (VSA 102(3)); ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/4/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO FORBES HOWARD

TEXT: Dear Dr. Martinez:

Enclosed is a letter from my constituent, Dail Taylor, regarding the letter he received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Mr. Taylor is concerned that bringing his electric car into compliance with NHTSA guidelines would be too costly and force him to stop manufacturing the vehicles. He has requested that I contact you to request a review of this situation. As a courte sy to my constituent, I am respectfully requesting that you review his letter and the letter he received from your office and contact me with information I can provide him. Also, please provide me with any alternative options that may be available to Mr . Taylor regarding-his electric car.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

ENCLOSED LETTER:

March 6, 1995

The Honorable Tillie K. Fowler Member of Congress, 4th District, Florida 4452 Hendricks Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32207

Dear Tillie:

Goodlife Motors Corporation has made considerable progress toward the development of an electric car, since I gave you a ride in our first prototype vehicle at Fred Cone's home in late 1993.

I have enclosed photographs of our other prototype vehicles, and I will be sending you a video which demonstrates their performance and utility within the next two weeks.

We are now ready to manufacture the vehicles, but we have encountered a formidable roadblock by way of a letter ruling we received from the U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Administration, dated January 4, 1995 (copy enclosed).

As you will note, the letter requires our vehicle to comply with current safety standards. Alternatively, we may petition the agency for an exemption.

Tillie, if we are going to manufacture this electric car, we need your help. It would be far too expensive for our small business to comply with current safety standards. We could not even afford to go through the formal petition process with the USDOT .

Therefore, it appears that all of our efforts have been wasted, unless you can help us move forward. I would appreciate your advice on how to proceed.

Sincerely yours,

Dail A. Taylor, President

Enclosure

ID: nht75-1.46

DATE: 09/24/75

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Imperial-Eastman Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 28, 1975, in which you petitioned for the replacement of the "permanent" labeling requirement for brake hose in Standard No. 106-74 with a "weather resistant" test requirement. You also asked whether a series of dots may be included after the required date information on the hose, to indicate in coded form the day or manufacture.

With respect to your petition, this agency is reconsidering the permanency requirement for the labeling, and a notice is planned for issuance shortly on the subject. We do not find an additional test requirement for the labeling to be justified, on the basis of data presently before the agency, since the usefulness of the labeling is limited primarily to the pre-assembly period. Therefore, in the strict sense your petition is hereby denied. You may find, however, that the changes now being developed in our rulemaking proceedings will resolve your problem in this area.

The standard does not permit the use of coded dots indicating production date in the location specified for the required information. S5.2.2(c) specifies the following information as part of the required label:

The month, day, and year, or the month and year, of manufacture, expressed in numerals. For example, 10/1/74 means October 1, 1974.

Our interpretation of S5.2 (as incorporated in S7.2) is that the required information may not be interrupted by optional information. Therefore, the day of manufacture, if indicated as part of the S5.2.2 legend, must be expressed in numerals. You may, of course, use the coded dots if they appear on the opposite side of the hose.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Imperial-Eastman Corporation

May 28, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74

Gentlemen:

Please consider the following two areas of concern regarding the reference Standard:

1. The labeling requirements for air brake hose per S7.2, which refers to S5.2 on hydraulic brake hose, include the term ". . . shall be permanently labeled . . ."

Interpretation of the word "permanently" is creating a problem between suppliers and users because there is no test procedure to evaluate permanency.

To clarify the requirement, we hereby petition that the first paragraph of S5.2.2 be revised to the following:

"Each hydraulic brake hose shall be marked with a weather resistant label at intervals of not more than 6 inches, measured from the end of one legend to the beginning of the next, in block capital letters and numerals at least one-eight of an inch high, with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e). The label shall remain legible after 24 hours of exposure to salt spray. (S6.9)".

The title of S6.9 should correspondingly be changed to:

S6.9 End fitting corrosion resistance and label weather resistance test.

2. Please furnish an opinion on the legality of including a series of dots in the labeling of air brake hose. The dots would appear after the date (month and year) to indicate the working day of manufacture.

This system would allow us to satisfy internal needs for a lot coding system and avoid the extremely high cost of discarding the higher quality engraved marking wheels on a daily basis.

The dots would not interfere with or preclude the other required information.

Please give these two matters your prompt attention to allow us to confidently assure our customers of conformance to MVSS 106 with our C6 nylon air brake tubing.

Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to an expeditious reply.

Sincerely,

William J. Kronschnable -- Assistant Chief Engineer, Synthetic Products

cc: Fred Redler - National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration

ID: nht90-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MR. BRAD G. MAGOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/01/90 FROM BRAD MAGOR TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; OCC 4766

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 1, 1990, to the Department of Transportation with respect to your intended purchase of a Canadian truck or van which you will eventually import into the United States. You asked for information on the features requi red to meet the U.S. safety standards, and whether Canadian vehicles generally have these items.

There is a great similarity, but not identicality, between the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS), and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Manufacturers in both countries are required to affix a label to their vehicles certi fying compliance with all applicable safety standards. We understand that some Canadian manufacturers may have certified compliance of their vehicles with both the CMVSS and the FMVSS. If dual certification has occurred, it will be evident from reading the certification label on the vehicle (usually located in the driver door post area). If the vehicle bears a certification of compliance that includes the FMVSS, you should encounter no problems in importing, registering, and selling it in the United States.

However, if the vehicle is certified only to the CMVSS, you will encounter some difficulty in importing it, notwithstanding the substantial similarity of the CMVSS and FMVSS. By direction of Congress, a vehicle not originally manufactured to conform to the FMVSS may not be admitted into the U.S. unless two things have occurred. The vehicle must be on a list of vehicles that the Department has approved for conversion to the FMVSS. If this has occurred, then the vehicle can only be imported by a "regis tered importer" (i.e. converter), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to perform the conversion work. A bond equal to 150% of the entered value of the vehicle must be given to secure performance of the conversion work, which is cancelle d upon satisfactory evidence that the work has been performed.

The new directives of Congress were only effective on January 31, 1990, and we are still working to implement them. We have tentatively proposed an approved general list of vehicles that would include all Canadian trucks and vans manufactured since Janu ary 1, 1968, that were certified as meeting the CMVSS, and which are of the same make, model, and model year of any truck or van originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, or originally manufactured in the United States, and that were certified as meeting the FMVSS. For example, a 1990 Chevrolet truck manufactured in Canada to the CMVSS with a U.S. manufactured and certified counterpart would be covered by this general list. We have received no objections to treating C anadian vehicles in this fashion. A final determination should be published in the near future. We have also accorded registered importer status to a number of applicants. If you choose to buy a vehicle certified to the CMVSS for importation into the United States, we will be pleased to provide the latest list of registered importers as the time draws near for your departure.

The minor differences in the standards that may effect you are principally those regarding speedometer/odometers and lighting. The former must indicate miles and miles per hour (and may indicate kilometers and kilometers per hour). Vehicles must be equi pped with headlamps that meet the FMVSS and not those of the ECE. Thus, once a CMVSS-certified vehicle is imported, we do not anticipate that the conversion work should be lengthy or costly. Once the work has been satisfactorily performed and the conve rter's label attached, you should encounter no difficulties in registering the vehicle or in selling it.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht91-3.35

DATE: May 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Julia D. Darlow -- Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-10-91 from Julia D. Darlow to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5941)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 10, 1991, with respect to the acceptability of a proposed course of conduct under 15 U.S.C. 1397.

As your letter states, and as related to Taylor Vinson of this Office, your client imports certain "automotive after-market equipment" that does not meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The equipment is warehoused in the U.S. but not sold here, and is subsequently exported to Canada. A customer of your client wishes to purchase the equipment from your client and itself export the equipment to Canada, and is willing to stipulate in the sales contract that it is purchasing the equipment only for export to Canada. The equipment and its containers will be labeled for export, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5). The customer will provide written proof of export to your client. You believe that this arrangement will not be in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), and ask for a written confirmation.

Section 1397(a)(1)(A) prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce, or importation into the United States of any equipment item unless it is in conformity with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and is covered by a certification of compliance. However, section 1397(b)(3) (as redesignated by P.L. 100-562 (1988) states that the prohibitions shall not apply to equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the equipment, and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported.

It is clear that your client's importation of nonconforming equipment for subsequent shipment to Canada is an importation "solely for export" within the meaning of section 1397(b)(3), and that therefore the prohibition of section 1397(a)(1)(A) against importation of nonconforming equipment does not apply. The question is whether an otherwise prohibited sale of nonconforming equipment is also permitted under 1397(a)(1)(A) as modified by section 1397(b)(3), or whether the word "solely" is interpreted as barring any action other than transshipment for export.

Although the prohibitions and exception were enacted in 1966, only rarely has the agency been asked for interpretations of them, and no situation such as you posit has ever been brought to our attention. However, in 1975 we advised a tire manufacturer that the importation of nonconforming equipment for delivery to a truck manufacturer for installation on nonconforming vehicles intended for export would be permissible under section 1397(b)(3). Under this interpretation, we concluded that the importation of nonconforming equipment for delivery to a truck manufacturer for installation on a motor vehicle before its eventual

export as part of that vehicle was an importation "solely for export" for the purposes of section 1397(b)(3). By analogy, the importation of nonconforming equipment clearly marked in accordance with section 1397(b)(3) and its subsequent sale by the importer before its eventual export by another person would appear to be an importation "solely for export" within the meaning of that section. Thus, we concur with your interpretation.

We would, of course, be concerned if that purchaser failed to export the nonconforming equipment, and sold it in the United States. In that situation, the purchaser would appear to be in violation of section 1397(a)(1)(A), and subject to civil penalties. Although under section 1397(b)(1), the prohibitions of section 1397(a)(1)(A) do not apply to equipment "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale", it seems clear from your letter that such a "first purchase" would only occur after the equipment had been exported to Canada.

ID: nht90-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1990

FROM: BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH -- HARTLEY ASSOCIATES INC.

TO: HENRY J. NOWAK -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-2-90 TO GEN. JERRY RALPH CURRY, NHTSA, FROM CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. NOWAK; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-22-89 TO DEIRDRE FUJITA, OFC. OF CHIEF COUNSEL FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH, HARTLEY ASSOCS. INC. AND LETTER DA TED 3-16-90 TO BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; STD.213]

TEXT: Hartley Associates, Inc. is a woman-owned small business enterprise (WBE), certified by the State of New York, which is located in your Congressional District at 48 Heritage Court, Cheektowaga, NY 14225. The corporation was formed in 1986 for the purpos e of performing research, development, testing and evaluation in the field of automotive transportation safety and to provide consulting services to manufacturers of automotive restraint devices, both for children and adults.

In July 1989, Hartley Associates, Inc. was retained by Century Products Co., 9600 Valley View Road, Macedonia, Ohio 44056 for consulting services. Century Products Co. had recently developed an infant automotive restraint system equipped with a canopy s un visor (Model 580) and their concern was whether or not this design would meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 (FMVSS 213) - Child Restraints. We were requested to determine the FMVSS 213 requirements relevant to s un visors, perform whatever tests were deemed necessary and provide documentation ensuring that the Model 580 infant restraint complied with FMVSS 213.

Subsequently, we received two interpretations of FMVSS 213 regarding the use of sun visors which had been issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Chief Counsel (Mr. Dan Wilinsky, 12-31-86 and Mr. Bruce Smith, 6/4/8 7). Both of these interpretations stated that a sun visor attached to an infant restraint system must comply with FMVSS 213, Section 5.2.3.2. Two dynamic sled tests were performed according to the requirements of FMVSS 213 in August of 1989. The resul ts of these tests showed that the Model 580 infant restraint complied with FMVSS 213, Section 5.2.3.2.

On August 22, 1989, Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel was requested to issue an interpretation of S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS 213 with regard to the Century 580 infant restraint system with sun visor. A informed me that a meeting between NHTSA and Hartl ey Associates, Inc. was not necessary and that she would issue a letter of interpretation based on the information and test results provided by Hartley Associates, Inc.. During this seven month period, I have contacted Ms. Fujita five times by phone and once in person. She has informed me that the letter of interpretation was issued shortly after receipt of our letter but has been 'held up' by the approval process and she cannot anticipate a date for issuance.

I would sincerely appreciate any assistance you can provide in expediting this letter of interpretation. The lack of timeliness of the receipt of this interpretation is having a negative impact on the reputation of Hartley Associates, Inc. to provide a timely response to the requests of a customer.

If you have any questions I can be reached by telephone at (716) 892-6313 of by telefax at (716) 897-0515.