ID: nht90-3.78

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Samuel Kimmelman -- Engineering Product Manager, Ideal Division, EPICOR Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 from S. Kimmelman to P.J. Rice (OCC 5074)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 2, 1990, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

It is your understanding that, when a vehicle is delivered to its purchaser with dealer-installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You interpret the standards as requiring thre e specific aspects of performance, and you ask whether we agree with those interpretations. These aspects are:

"1. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer ."

This is essentially correct. However, it is not the flasher that is certified but the vehicle in which the flasher is installed; Standard No. 108 does not require certification of original equipment lighting items, only replacement equipment items. Sta ndard No. 108's requirements for turn signal flashers are those of SAE Standard J590b, Automotive Turn Signal Flasher, October 1965, which are incorporated by reference. Under the Standard's Scope, the flashers "are intended to operate at the design loa d for the turn signal system as stated by the manufacturer." If a vehicle is designed for towing purposes, and its manufacturer offers an optional trailer hitch and associated wiring, then that manufacturer must equip the vehicle with a flasher capable of meeting a minimum load equal that of the vehicle turn signal load, and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer. That will be a variable load turn signal flasher. The manufacturer of the vehicle is the person responsible for ensu ring that the flasher meets the vehicle's design load requirements, and that the vehicle is certified as conforming to Standard No. 108.

"2. The hazard warning signal flasher must be certified as meeting the requirements of FMVSS-108 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer."

This is also essentially correct, and our comments are similar. Standard No. 108's requirements for hazard warning signal flashers are those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February 1966, which are incorporated by reference. The Practice's Scope specifies that the flashers "are required to operate from two signal lamps to the maximum design load. . . . as stated by the manufacturer. Thus, in

order for the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard No. 108, it must equip the vehicle with a flasher that operates over a load range of two lamps to the total hazard warning system load of the vehicle plus the trailer.

"3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle."

This is correct. Under section S5.5.6 of Standard No. 108, any vehicle equipped to tow trailers and which uses a variable-load turn signal flasher is exempted from the failure indication requirements of the SAE standards on turn signals.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: 2631y

Mr. Samuel Kimmelman
Engineering Product Manager
Ideal Division
EPICOR Industries, Inc.
3200 Parker Drive
St. Augustine, FL 32084-0891

Dear Mr. Kimmelman:

This is in reply to your letter of August 2, l990, with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

It is your understanding that, when a vehicle is delivered to its purchaser with dealer-installed trailer hitch and associated wiring, it must conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You interpret the standards as requiring three specific aspects of performance, and you ask whether we agree with those interpretations. These aspects are:

"l. The turn signal flasher must be certified as meeting the FMVSS-108 requirements of a variable load turn signal flasher, over a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer."

This is essentially correct. However, it is not the flasher that is certified but the vehicle in which the flasher is installed; Standard No. l08 does not require certification of original equipment lighting items, only replacement equipment items. Standard No. l08's requirements for turn signal flashers are those of SAE Standard J590b, Automotive Turn Signal Flasher, October l965, which are incorporated by reference. Under the Standard's Scope, the flashers "are intended to operate at the design load for the turn signal system as stated by the manufacturer." If a vehicle is designed for towing purposes, and its manufacturer offers an optional trailer hitch and associated wiring, then that manufacturer must equip the vehicle with a flasher capable of meeting a minimum load equal to that of the vehicle turn signal load, and a maximum load equal to that of the vehicle plus the trailer. That will be a variable load turn signal flasher. The manufacturer of the vehicle is the person responsible for ensuring that the flasher meets the vehicle's design load requirements, and that the vehicle is certified as conforming to Standard No. l08.

"2. The hazard warning signal flasher must be certified as meeting the requirements of FMVSS-l08 over a load range of 2 lamps to the combined hazard warning loads of the vehicle plus the trailer."

This is also essentially correct, and our comments are similar. Standard No. 108's requirements for hazard warning signal flashers are those of SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher, February l966, which are incorporated by reference. The Practice's Scope specifies that the flashers "are required to operate from two signal lamps to the maximum design load . . . as stated by the manufacturer." Thus, in order for the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard No. l08, it must equip the vehic1e with a flasher that operates over a load range of two lamps to the total hazard warning system load of the vehicle plus the trailer.

"3. The requirement to provide turn signal outage is voided due to the trailer towing capability of the vehicle."

This is correct. Under section S5.5.6 of Standard No. l08, any vehicle equipped to tow trailers and which uses a variable-load turn signal flasher is exempted from the failure indication requirements of the SAE standards on turn signals.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/3l/90

ID: nht69-2.8

DATE: 02/25/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: General Propulsion

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters dated January 20 and 28, 1969, in which you supply Certification information.

It is our opinion that the nomenclature, as stated on your certification label for use on the multi-purpose passenger vehicle, does fulfill the requirements of Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the new Certification requirements effective with vehicles manufactured after August 31, 1969. The same label could be altered for use on the van trucks, see paragraph two of Mr. O'Mahoney's letter to you dated February 5, 1969. A copy is enclosed.

The label you propose to use on the chassis-cab does not fulfill the requirements set forth in 49 C.F.R. @ 371.13, formerly 23 C.F.R. @ 255.13, which states in part, "Identifies the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with which its manufacturer states the chassis-cab fully complied for the principal end uses of such vehicle."

Your statement, "This cab-chassis conforms with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above for the principal and use intended. End use .," or other structure has adequate information with which to meet his statutory responsibilities. A copy of the Federal Register, Volume 33, Number 250 is enclosed. Chapter III, Subchapter A contains all of the pertinent details.

We trust the reply will be of assistance to you in your desire to comply with existing requirements of the National Highway Safety Bureau.

ID: nht94-1.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry Karas -- T. K. Auto Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/5/93 from Terry Karas to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 5, 1993.

You have asked whether a Canadian car that was accompanied by a Canadian manufacturer's letter stating that the vehicle complies with U.S. safety standards can be imported as a conforming vehicle under Box 2.

Box 2 on the HS-7 importation form is the importer's declaration under 49 CFR 591.5(b) that the motor vehicle to be imported complies with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bears a certification label or tag to that effect, affixed by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. Because some Canadian vehicles may be virtually identical to those manufactured in the United States, and hence may comply with U.S. safety standards even if not bearing a specific certification to U. S. safety standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has accepted, in lieu of specific certification to U.S. safety standards, a letter from the Canadian manufacturer stating that the vehicle to be imported was manufactured to comply w ith the U.S. safety standards.

If a manufacturer's compliance letter accompanies a vehicle manufactured for sale in Canada at the time such vehicle is offered for importation into the United States, the vehicle may be entered under Box 2 as a conforming vehicle, without the interventi on of a registered importer or the issuance of a bond. However, the manufacturer's compliance letter must contain the VIN of the specific vehicle that is to be imported, and an unqualified statement that the vehicle, as manufactured, complied with all a pplicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Customs will then forward the HS-7 form and manufacturer's letter to this agency. However, if customs wishes us to review the manufacturer's letter, it is the prerogative of Customs to defer entry of the vehicle until it has received our views as to whe ther entry under Box 2 is appropriate.

You have also asked whether it makes "a difference if it is being imported for commercial or private purposes." Any Canadian vehicle that is accompanied by an acceptable manufacturer's letter of compliance is eligible for entry as a conforming vehicle u nder Box 2, regardless of whether the intent of importation is the commercial sale of the vehicle, or the retention of the vehicle for private use. However, if the letter is not an acceptable statement of compliance and the importation is for commercial purposes, the vehicle may only be imported under bond by a registered importer who must satisfy NHTSA that the vehicle complies, or has been brought into compliance, with the U.S. safety standards. Even though the registered importer's compliance work may be minimal, it is important to remember that the registered importer is also the person

responsible by statute for implementing notification and remedy campaigns in the event that noncompliances of the original manufacturer or safety related defects are discovered in the Canadian vehicle.

ID: 23847.ztv

Captain Bruce Bugg
Special Projects Coordinator
Law Enforcement Division
Georgia Department of Motor Vehicle Safety
P.O.Box 80477
Conyers, GA 30013-8047





Dear Captain Bugg:

We are replying to your letter of December 13, 2001, and to your e-mails of December 21 and December 27, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

The primary issue that concerns you is the mounting height of retroreflective sheeting on the side of tank trailers. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states that the tape shall be located "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface at the stripe centerline." The latter dimension is the equivalent of 60 inches. The drawing of a tank trailer shown in Figure 30-4 of Standard No. 108 depicts the sheeting at a height above 60 inches. However, at a mounting height of 60 inches, the sheeting will be canted downwards. In the case that prompted your letter, the tape on a trailer certified to Standard No. 108 had the sheeting located at approximately 74 inches above the road surface.

We e-mailed you a copy of an interpretation of this Office, dated October 14, 1994, to Victor Larson. We advised Mr. Larson that manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance on a vertical plane and that therefore the material should be mounted on a vertical plane or as close to it as the trailer shape allows. If that vertical mounting area was higher than 1525 mm, we would consider that the conspicuity material had been mounted "as close as practicable" to the maximum specified mounting height. The conspicuity material that is mounted approximately 74 inches above the road surface, as shown in photos attached to your e-mail of December 21, 2001, appears appropriately located within the meaning of our interpretation to Mr. Larson.

Citing the need for clarity with the advent of the corresponding conspicuity requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (49 CFR 393.13), in your e-mail of December 27, 2001, you asked two additional questions:

"1. If a cargo tank trailer does NOT have a frame or other suitable surface below the 1525 mm (60 inch) height, is it permissible for the conspicuity treatment on the side of the trailer to be mounted at a height above 1525 mm (60 inch) and still meet the practicability requirement?"

Yes. As the Larson letter indicates, if a trailer does not have a vertical mounting surface within the 375 mm (15 inch) - 1525 mm (60 inch) range, the manufacturer must locate the side conspicuity material at the height that is as close as practicable to that range while allowing the treatment to be mounted vertically.

"2. If a cargo tank DOES have a frame or other suitable surface within the 375 mm (15 inch) - 1525 mm (60 inch) range, is a trailer with the conspicuity treatment above the 1525 mm (60 inch) height in violation of the requirements of 49 CFR Sec. 571.108 S5.7?"

If a frame or other vertical mounting surface exists within the range specified in S5.7, a vehicle with its conspicuity treatment above 1525 mm would not comply with the standard.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.2/4/02

ID: sundown.ztv

Mr. Vic R. Cook
Sundown Trailers
HC 61 Box 27
Coleman, OK 73432

Dear Mr. Cook:

This is in reply to your inquiry that was filed on November 14, 2002, in our public docket on the early warning reporting (EWR) rulemaking (49 CFR 579, Subpart C). You have asked five questions with respect to this rule. The first question was:

The one time historical report requires production information for the previous (10) years; make, model, model year and service brake type. Is this correct and if so how should we handle missing information such as service brake type or possibly all information on such units? Do we submit partial information or leave those units out?

Under the one-time historical reporting provisions (Section 579.28(c)), Sundown Trailers (Sundown) must provide data as specified in Section 579.24; i.e., information "with respect to each make, model, and model year of trailer manufactured during the reporting period and the nine model years prior to the earliest model year in the reporting period, including models no longer in production" with respect to information required under Sections 579.24(a) and (c). Under Section 579.24(a), if a trailer model is or has been manufactured with more than one type of service brake system (i.e., hydraulic or air) production information must be reported by each of the two brake types. We do not understand how a manufacturer would not know what type of service brake system was installed on its vehicles. However, we note that in the preamble to the July 10, 2002, final rule (67 FR at 45859), we stated that "if a medium-heavy vehicle, bus, or trailer has a type of service brake system not readily characterized as an air or hydraulic brake system . . ., the manufacturer should indicate hydraulic service brakes on its report (Code 03)." This would also apply to any "unknown" type of service brake system.

The one-time historical report required by Section 579.28(c) also involves furnishing information with respect to warranty claims and field reports for a specified three-year period. Your second question was related to the first, how should Sundown treat warranty and field reports where certain required information is "missing." This information presumably would be identification of the system or component covered by the warranty claim or field report, specified by codes 02 through 21 in Section 579.24(b)(2), or a fire (code 23). We do not understand why this information would be missing, since it would be specified in the warranty data or on the field report. We note, however, that neither Section 579.24 nor Section 579.28(c) establish a code number for reporting where the system or component is unknown. However, if the component or system involved is not specified in such codes, and the incident did not involve a fire, Section 579.24(c) specifies that "no reporting is necessary." Your third question concerned field reports: "if they do not fall in any of the listed categories we are not required to list them?" That is correct; as noted above, if the component or system involved is not specified in such codes, and the incident did not involve a fire, Section 579.24(c) specifies that "no reporting is necessary."

Your fourth question also related to field reports: "we are to submit in conjunction with require data full reports of each entry. What format will be required? Will there be option for more than one?" I assume that this refers to non-dealer reports. As specified in Section 579.29(b), documents "may be submitted in digital form . . . or as an attachment to an e-mail message . . . ." However, this section also provides that "such documents may be submitted in paper form." Please note that we anticipate establishing a naming convention for field reports which will be set forth in the near future on the Office of Defects Investigation website.

Finally, you asked "what is a manufacturer to do if they either have no internet capabilities or have nothing more than a regular phone line service in their area? I understand that they cannot submit their report by mail." The regulations include vehicle production thresholds such that relatively small vehicle manufacturers will not be required to report, except as to claims and notices for incidents involving death (and injuries in an incident involving death). A small manufacturer that produces a quality product should expect few if any of these claims. In any event, a regular phone line will support internet access. A manufacturer could use an internet connection at a public facility, such as a library. In view of the number of manufacturers covered by the EWR regulations, and the volume of reports and data that they are required to provide, the only practicable way for NHTSA to receive these submissions is through standardized reporting templates on the NHTSA website transmitted electronically into the agencys central data repository.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/30/03

ID: 77-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of August 19, 1977, we advise you that your mistake in referencing S4.5.2 of Standard No. 108 instead of S4.5.1 in your earlier letter of May 13, 1977, does not alter our previous interpretation of June 16, 1977.

Your design appears to meet the specifications of J564a allowing compliance of the headlamp beam switching system with S4.5.1 when installed in a motor vehicle.

YOURS TRULY,

AUGUST 19, 1977

Ref NOA-30

Joseph J Levin, Jr Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject Lucas 21SA Headlamp Switch Circuit

We thank you for your opinion on the subject switch circuitry that we requested in our letter dated May 13, 1977.

Inadvertently, we had referred to section S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 108 when requesting your help, instead of section S4.5.1 of standard 108.

Section S4.5.1 referes to the SAE recommended practice J564a "Headlamp Beam Switching" and it is part 4 of this standard which we are primarily concerned with, that is, "the switch shall be designed so that the headlight circuits are never maintained open" (The absence of a dead spot).

We again submit the wiring circuitry for the subject headlamp switch and ask that you re-evaluate this circuit as per section S4.5.1 and forward your opinion to us.

Eric E Gough Staff Assistant (Technical)

cc: K. J. JONES 21SA HEADLAMP BEAM SWITCH CIRCUIT

[Graphic omitted) (Illegible Text) (Illegible Text)

JUN 16 1977

Eric E. Gough Staff Assistant (Technical) Lucas Industries North America, Inc.

DEAR MR. GOUGH:

This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1977, to the Administrator asking whether the circuitry diagram that you enclosed would allow compliance with S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.5.2 requires that "each vehicle shall have a means for indicating to the driver when the upper beams of the headlamps are on that conforms to SAE Recommended Practice J564a, April 1964 . . . ." Your diagram appears to meet the specifications of J564a allowing compliance of the system with S4.5.2 when installed in a motor vehicle. The entity legally responsible for compliance with S4.5.2, of course, is the vehicle manufacturer who must certify that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

YOURS TRULY,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

cc: MR. VINSON; MR. CARTER

MAY 13, 1977 The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our sister company in Birmingham England, Lucas Electrical Limited, requests clarification of Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment - and SAE Recommended Practice J564, which is referenced in Standard 108, Section 4.5.2.

We submit a diagram of a four headlamp installation in which a Lucas Model 21SA switch and a normally closed relay is used to ensure that the headlight circuits cannot be held in the open condition. Manual and auto reset switches are also included in the circuit to ensure correct circuit operation. We are also submitting traces showing the transient voltage conditions when switching from:

a) Main beam to dip beam

b) Dip beam to main beam

This circuitry we have developed allows, as far as we are aware, for us to comply with Section 4.5.2 of Standard 108. We look forward to receiving whatever comments you deem applicable and will be pleased to supply additional material if you so desire.

LUCAS INDUSTRIES NORTH AMERICA INC

Eric E Gough Staff Assistant (Technical)

ENC

21SA HEADLAMP BEAM SWITCH CIRCUIT

[Graphics omitted)

b) LUCAS 21SA SHY DIP BEAM --> MAIN BEAM

(Graphics omitted) (Illegible Text)

ID: 2354y

Richard A. Kulics, Esq.
401 S. Woodward - Suite 370
Birmingham, MI 48009

Re: Request for Ruling Imported Vehicles - FTZ

Dear Mr. Kulics:

This is in reply to your letter of December 5, l989, to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office, on behalf of your clients Liphardt Associates and Pierre Enterprises, Inc.

You have informed us that Liphardt is an Independent Commercial Importer (ICI) under EPA regulations. The vehicles it imports are modified by Pierre. Both entities have the identical mailing address. This location is within a Foreign Trade Zone. You have also informed us that Liphardt/Pierre (L/Pe) will apply for status as a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592. It is the practice of L/PE to transport its nonconforming vehicles directly from the vessel into the Zone, to perform conformance modifications in the Zone, and then file a consumption entry, post bond, and submit conformance documentation to DOT. After DOT and EPA have released the vehicle, it is delivered to its owner.

You have requested that L/Pe "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 [transportation of the vehicle into the Zone], so that it may enter the vehicle as 'conforming.'" Under this plan, the current method of operation would remain much the same, except that L/Pe would prepare an HS-7 Declaration Form at the time the vehicle is transported into the Zone. This Form would be submitted to DOT along with a conformity package, for review and release, if appropriate. Then, when the actual consumption entry is filed, the vehicle would be entered as "conforming" merchandise. The purpose of this request "is to eliminate the costs associated with posting a special bond purely for DOT purposes", and to speed "up the process of importation, thus reducing the costs associated with storage." As you state, "What L/Pe proposes is that it be allowed to close out the obligation while the vehicle is still in the custody of the Customs Service."

In substantiation of your request, you have called our attention to certain provisions of l9 CFR Part l46 Foreign Trade Zones, specifically section 146.2 outlining the obligations of Customs' supervision, section 146.10 providing for examination of merchandise necessary to facilitate the proper administration of any law that Customs is authorized to enforce, and section 146.31 stating that admission of merchandise into a Zone is subject to the regulations of the Federal agency concerned.

Under the facts as stated in your letter, we have concluded that your clients must provide a DOT bond under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966 (l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), as amended by the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988 (P. L. 100-562), but that there is no legal reason why its obligations to DOT may not be satisfied before the conformed vehicle enters the customs territory of the United States.

As we understand it, the Foreign Trade Zone Act of l934 (l9 U.S.C. 81a et seq.) is intended to establish areas into which merchandise may be imported temporarily, "without being subject to the customs laws of the United States", before being sent "into customs territory of the United States" (section 81c(a)). A Zone therefore is a legal fiction established solely for the administration of customs laws. Section 2(a) of the l988 Act repealed the authority of the Customs Service over the importation of vehicles subject to the l966 Act. Accordingly, the new regulation governing the importation of nonconforming motor vehicles on and after January 31, l990, 49 CFR Part 591, is not a "customs law" (unlike the existing regulation which is a joint regulation with DOT that specifically applies to importation into the customs territory of the United States (19 CFR 12.80(b)).

In pertinent part, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the l966 Act (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(10(A)) prohibits the importation "into the United States" of nonconforming vehicles. Although a Zone is not generally considered customs territory, in this instance they are both within the United States, and an arrangement which defines the "United States" as comprising both customs territory and foreign trade zones has been upheld as valid (Klockner, Inc., v. United States (1984) 8 CIT 3, 590 F. Supp. 1266). Under section 108(c)(1) of the l966 Act, as amended (l5 U.S.C. 1397(c)(1)), a nonconforming vehicle "shall be refused entry into the United States" unless "an appropriate bond" has been furnished to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into conformity within a reasonable time after such importation."

Therefore, because 49 CFR Part 591 is not a "customs law", any distinction between a Zone and customs territory is legally irrelevant for purposes of the l966 Act. Further, because both a Zone and the customs territory are physically within the boundaries of the United States, an importation of a nonconforming vehicle into either a Zone or the customs territory requires an accompanying DOT conformance bond.

Nevertheless, the l988 Act does not impose any restrictions upon either DOT or your clients that prohibits them from entering conformed vehicles into customs territory. However, we see the procedure a bit differently than the one you discussed. The HS-7 Form and its accompanying bond must be completed not later than the admission of the vehicle into the Zone. Customs retains its role of sending these documents to DOT. When conformance work is completed, L/Pe provides certification to DOT. Because of the current low volume of nonconforming imports, we anticipate that our review will be completed within two weeks of receipt of the certification. If the certification is acceptable, the bond is released, and L/Pe may then enter the vehicle as no longer subject to DOT conformance regulations (or, as you express it, "conforming merchandise"). Thus, L/Pe will be able to close out its obligation while the vehicle remains in the custody of Customs, even though it is not freed from the bond requirement.

As a final comment on the time factor, we intend to require complete documentation only for the initial make, model, and model year (assuming that the initial submission is acceptable). Although L/Pe must keep verification records on each vehicle it conforms, certifications subsequent to an initial submission need not be accompanied by documents, and could be transmitted by FAX. As we see it, these simple certifications would not require extensive review, improving our ability to respond in a more timely manner.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:59l d:2/22/90

ID: 1985-02.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 15, 1985 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This responds to your recent letter to this office seeding an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). Specifically, you asked whether center high-mounted stop lamps are required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. They are not required to do so. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 lists all the components in new vehicles which are required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. They are not required to do so. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 lists all the components in new vehicles which are required to comply with the flammability requirements of the standard. The only item on the list in Section S4.1 which might conceivably apply to center high-mounted stop lamps is "any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash." Assuming that your center high- mounted stop lamps are not designed to absorb energy on contact by an occupant, they would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302. Although interior lights are not required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, the agency has noted that almost all such lights now in production use fire-resistant plastic lenses and fixtures. Liability might be found under State and common law if the newly required center high-mounted stop lamps were to incorporate highly flammable plastic components, while the other interior lights incorporated fire-resistant plastic components. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions in this area. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: nht69-1.36

DATE: 05/20/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey; Bureau of Forestry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 13, 1969, in which you ask if there is any way you might legally use the Dodge Power Wagon Model M 300.

This Bureau does not control the end use of the vehicle after sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Public Law 89-563, Section 108, states in part, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in Interstate Commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard." A copy of Public Law 89-563 is enclosed.

In short the Chrysler Corporation, under this law cannot manufacture for sale after the date a standard takes effect, a vehicle for use under the circumstances in which you describe unless the vehicle conforms to the applicable standard.

The vehicle, to which you make reference, can be classified in two different categories as follows:

1. Multipurpose passenger vehicle, which means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off the road operation or:

2. Truck, which means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.

Although other standards are applicable to the above classifications, the collapsible type steering column is not. We are enclosing a copy of "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards with Amendments and Interpretations thru August 6, 1968," in which you will find the applicable standards.

Regulations concerning control of anti-pollution emission devices are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation, but of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. By copy of this letter, Mr. William H. Megonnell, Acting Associate Commissioner for Abatement and Control, National Air Pollution Control Administration, DOT, 801 North Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22200, is being requested to forward such information as he deems appropriate.

We trust this reply will be of assistance to you.