ID: nht95-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1995

FROM: Orlando Ferreira -- Orion Bus Industries Ltd.

TO: J. Medlin -- FTA

TITLE: Urban Bus, GVWR more than 10,000 LBS For NYCTA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ORLANDO FERREIRA (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD 101)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Medlin,

This confirms our phone conversation of this afternoon.

The master switch (# 2 on page 12-Drivers side control panel) has 4 positions: Engine stop, Run, Lights and Park.

These positions are engraved so that a back light allow liability in might driving conditions.

My questions is to comply with FMVSS-101-Controls and Display these positions of the master switch have to be illuminated?

If yes, please indicate where this requirement is established?

Thank you in advance [Illegible Words] in this matter.

(Drawings omitted.)

ID: 1983-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Anton Ostermeier

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1983, supplying the further information we requested on January 28.

The 1955 Mercedes replica which you contemplate building is a hybrid of new and old parts. The body is of your construction and consists of new parts. You fabricate the chassis using new tubing; however, its front cross member may be either a new replacement Mustang part (1974-1978 models) or one actually taken from a vehicle in use. Similarly, the front suspension, differential and rear suspension, and transmissions may be new replacement parts or taken from vehicles in use. You will employ used rear wheel cylinders in the braking system and used engines (either a 1964 Chrysler Slant 6 or a 1969 Chevrolet V-8). Any equipment that has previously been used will be rebuilt to the manufacturer's specifications, and new parts will be incorporated where necessary.

As a general rule, the agency has no requirements for "used" vehicles. Whether a vehicle is treated as new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage consisting of a new body on the chassis of a vehicle previously registered for use on the public roads as a "used" motor vehicle and therefore not subject to the Federal motor vehicle standards. On the other hand, the agency will consider a truck newly manufactured when an old cab is replaced with a new one unless at least the engine, transmission, and drive axle of the assembled vehicle are not new and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

The vehicle you propose to manufacture is somewhat different from either of these examples, but we have concluded that it is a "new" motor vehicle and must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new passenger cars. Not only do previously unused parts appear to predominate in your plans, but, in addition, the old parts that are used will be rebuilt with new parts where necessary, to the manufacturer's original specifications. With the exception of the 1964 engine, the rebuilt components were originally used in vehicles manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and there appears no reason why your product may not also be manufactured to comply, even though it is a replica of a 1955 car.

Use of the 1964 engine could raise problems of compliance with Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, and with Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. However, in that event, we believe that you (as a producer of less than 10,000 vehicles a year) would be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from those standards, or any other standard where immediate compliance would cause you substantial economic hardship. I enclose an information sheet which tells you where you may obtain a copy of our regulations, including the standards and temporary exemption petition procedures.

If you have further questions, we would be happy to assist you.

ENC.

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 4, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt,

General Description of the products used in the construction of the 300SL Mercedes Replica by Gullwing Car, Inc. 19240 South Vermont Avenue, Gardena, Calif. 90248. (213) 324-9847 as follows.

Frame;

The frame is of square steel tubing construction, using new tubing. Sizes are as follows;

1" x 1" x .065

1" x 1" x .090

.75 x .75 x .065

.75 x .75 x .125

3" x 2.5" x .375

3/16" flat stock

The front cross member is 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11. This assembly is purchased both new old stock and used. It is welded into our frame assembly using original weld points, angles, forward aft locations and ground clearances. Even the axel weight has been maintained as prescribed for the 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 manufacturing specifications. This unit is assembled and jig built as shown by previously supplied pictures the Dept. of the Chief Counsel, this insures the product uniformity.

Bumpers both front and rear;

Bumpers are constructed of stamped nickel chrome plated steel as orginally manufactured for the 1953 thru 1957 Gullwing 300SL. It is bolted to the frame through spring steel brackets as was the original production car.

Front Suspension;

The front suspension used is the 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 and is used in its entirety. This suspension is purchased both new old stock and used. When purchased used, units are completely disassembled. Basic units are inspected to assure conformity to the original manufacturers specifications, then reassembled using new parts. i.e. all new bushings, all new bearings, bearing races and seals. The stearing gear is stock 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 rack and pinion and is installed as prescribed for the 1973 to 1979 Mustang 11 by the manufacturer. Front end alignment as to Caster, Camber, Toe-in, suspension travel and clearances are maintained as originally designed.

Differential and Rear Suspension;

The products used is the 1979 to 1983 Ford Fairmont rear suspension and differential, it is used in its entirety unaltered. It is installed in our frame to the exact same specifications as it would be installed in the 1979 to 1983 Ford Fairmont frame, i.e. clearance, mounting points, angles and travel. These specifications and locations are maintained by the jig building of our frame. These units are purchased both new old stock and used. When purchased used they are disassembled, inspected and rebuilt to original manufacturer specifications using new bearings, bearing races, seals, gaskets and gears where ever necessary.

Brakes;

The rear brakes are drum type 10" x 1 and 3/4" hydraulicly operated. They are the original brakes for the 1978 to 1983 Ford Fairmont. They are installed unaltered and in there entirety. New brake lining and wheel cylinders are used and assembled to the original manufacturers specifications. The front brakes are of Disc type and are used in there entirety as prescribed for the 1972 to 1979 Mustang 11. The lining is new and the wheel cylinders are rebuilt with new parts to original manufacturers specifications.

Brake Lines;

Flexible brake lines both front and rear are original equipment type.

Master Cylinder;

Master cylinder is the duel type vacuum boosted as used in 1979 to 1983 Ford Fairmont. Hydraulics to wheels is supplied through compatable differential valve and andoized double flared steel tubing and is of the sizes and routing using the practices of the manufacturers. note: Vehicle weight is between 2,050 lbs and 2,500 lbs.

The brakes system employed is capable of handling a 3,200 to 3,800 lb vehicle and is more than adequate.

Engines;

Two engines are available in our Gullwing Replica. They are 1964 225 cubic inch slant 6 Chrysler engine and the 1969 350 cubic inch V-8 Chevrolet engine. The engines are purchased used and rebuilt to the original manufactures specifications, using new parts where ever necessary.

Transmission;

The transmission selections are as follows, for the Chrysler slant 6 the Borge Warner 4 speed standard shift transmission and the aluminum automatic 3 speed torque flight transmission. For the Chevrolet V-8 engine the 4 speed Munci transmission and 350 hydromatic transmission are used. These units are purchased both new old stock and used. When purchased used they are completely disassembled, inspected and reassembled to manufacturers specifications, using new parts when ever necessary.

Body;

Body is constructed of four layers, first layer of epoxy, second layer of 2oz fiberglass matting and epoxy, third layer 4oz fiberglass matting and epoxy, fourth and inside final layer of 2oz fiberglass cloth and epoxy. Fiberglass sequence is layed up in a female mold and Kiln dried for optimum cure and strength. Through temperature control. note: enclosed in the windshield frame is a 3/4" x 3/4" x .090 square tubing. Center section of roof contains steel support and hinge box, a rear window support also of 3/4" x 3/4" x .090 square tubing. The center hinge box assembly is bolted to front and rear window support tubing. When completely assembled driver and passenger are protected 360 degrees with steel bolted to frame assembly. On both left and right sides by no less than 8 inches of bridged frame work, not to mention inner and outer epoxied fiberglass panels and padded leather upholstery.

Lights;

Headlights are seal beam type, rear tail light lens are the reflector type required. Fully automatic signal and hasard lights are incorperated.

Glass;

All glass is new. Front windshield is two layered safety glass as prescribed by D.O.T.S. Door glass left and right is of the tempered type required by D.O.T.S. Left and right 1/4 windows, is also of tempered type required by D.O.T.S. As is the back window glass.

Rims and Tires;

Rims and tires are both 14" and 15", customers obtion. They will be supplied new old stock and new only.

The above is a summary of my replica's construction. I hope this supplies you with the information you requested to assist me with my list of requirements. Please contact me for any further information you may require.

ID: nht90-4.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dean A. Palius -- Program Manager, Via Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-2-90 from D.A. Palius to S. Kratzke

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the effects of a procedural provision that appears in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, but not in the standard itself. Specifically, you asked whether crash testing under Standard No. 208 must be conducted only with a tow road 500 feet in length. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidel ines are called compliance test procedures. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency.

With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 when they are tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in various sections of the standard, including S5, S8, S10, and Sll. These sections specify that the vehicle shall be traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 miles per hour (mph). However, these sections do not specify any particular length for a tow road for crash testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 may be based on tests using a tow road of any length, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 208 are satisfied.

You correctly noted that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that the tow road should be at least 500 feet in length. This length was chosen for agency compliance testing to ensure the test dummies' positioning would not be affected by the acceleration of the vehicle and that the test dummies' positioning would be stabilized before impact. Tow roads of this length also allow sufficient room to abort the test if needed. Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to use a 500-foot tow road in its certification testing, a shorter tow road that affected the dummies' positioning might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

Please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions on this subject.

ID: 2665y

Mr. Dean A. Palius
Program Manager
Via Systems
1328 Cimarron Drive
Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Dear Mr. Palius:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the effects of a procedural provision that appears in the compliance test procedures for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, but not in the standard itself. Specifically, you asked whether crash testing under Standard No. 208 must be conducted only with a tow road 500 feet in length. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

Before addressing your specific question, it might be helpful to begin with some general background information. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the safety standards themselves, the agency has provided guidelines to the test facilities that the agency enters into contracts with to conduct compliance tests for the agency. These guidelines are called compliance test procedures. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between the various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, specify procedures and conditions that go beyond what is set forth in the relevant standard. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency.

With that background, I will now address your specific question. A manufacturer must certify that its vehicles will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 when they are tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in various sections of the standard, including S5, S8, S10, and S11. These sections specify that the vehicle shall be traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 miles per hour (mph). However, these sections do not specify any particular length for a tow road for crash testing. Accordingly, the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 may be based on tests using a tow road of any length, provided that all applicable conditions in Standard No. 208 are satisfied.

You correctly noted that NHTSA's compliance test procedures currently specify that the tow road should be at least 500 feet in length. This length was chosen for agency compliance testing to ensure the test dummies' positioning would not be affected by the acceleration of the vehicle and that the test dummies' positioning would be stabilized before impact. Tow roads of this length also allow sufficient room to abort the test if needed. Please note that, although a manufacturer is not required to use a 500-foot tow road in its certification testing, a shorter tow road that affected the dummies' positioning might not provide an adequate basis for certifying that the tested vehicle complies with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

Please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:9/l4/90

ID: 13622.ztv

The Honorable David L. Hobson
U.S. House of Representatives
212 S. Broad Street
Room 55
Lancaster, OH 43130-4389

Attention: Bob Clark

Dear Mr. Hobson:

This responds to your letter of December 20, 1996, to Ms. Carmen Rivers-Glagola of the Department, on behalf of your constituent, Stephen Reeves of Chillicothe. According to Mr. Reeves' letter to you dated December 12, he seeks "waivers or a change in the law for vehicle length."

None of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, laws, or other regulations of this agency establish limits on the length of a motor vehicle. Federal Highway Administration regulations impose certain length limits on combination vehicles with two or more cargo-carrying units (see 49 CFR 658.23 and Appendix C to Part 658). Most of the states also enforce overall length limits on straight trucks, but we are not conversant with state laws and therefore cannot advise you on this point. We suggest that Mr. Reeves contact the Ohio Department of Motor Vehicles in Columbus to see whether your state has or knows of restrictions of this nature. It should be noted, however, that Mr. Reeves' unwillingness to be specific about the vehicle in question makes it difficult to answer his question precisely.

If Mr. Reeves has been misinformed about our regulations, we would be pleased to try to clarify the matter for him. He may telephone Taylor Vinson of the Office of Chief Counsel at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571

d:4/14/97

ID: 9588

Mr. Allan Garman
M.F. Bank & Co., Inc.
2505 W. 2nd Avenue
Suite 14
Denver, CO 80219-1655

Dear Mr. Garman:

This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about the responsibilities of various parties after child restraint systems have been involved in a collision and fire during transit from the manufacturer (Gerry Products) to a retail outlet (Toys R Us). I apologize for the delay in responding.

You indicate in your letter that the child restraint manufacturer, Gerry Baby Products, has determined that the DOT certification on the child restraints is no longer valid because the restraints were subjected to potential stress by the impact of the truck accident. We understand from your letter that M.F. Bank is storing the child restraint systems damaged in transit, and is prepared to liquidate the stock if directed to do so by the insurer of the transit company. However, the insurer has asked that M.F. Bank ask this agency whether the child restraint systems involved in the loss can be sold as salvage to the public. You state your belief that the systems are salvagable because they did not experience structural damage in the incident.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. sections 1381 et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR '571.213) to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs or is not covered by a certification of compliance with the applicable FMVSSs. Thus, each new child restraint system must comply with FMVSS No. 213 and must be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold.

You first ask whether Federal law would prohibit the sale of the child restraint systems as salvage. The answer is yes, since according to your letter and telephone call, Gerry has indicated that its certification is no longer valid, and has thereby withdrawn the certification. If the child seats are not certified, selling them would violate '108(a)(1)(A). Section 109 of the Act provides any violation of Section 108 is punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations.

You ask in your telephone call whether Federal law prohibits Gerry from concluding that the certification remains valid. If your question is whether the Safety Act or our regulations require Gerry to withdraw the certification simply because the seats were involved in an incident, the answer is no. However, '108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from certifying that a child restraint system complies with Standard 213 if that person, in the exercise of due care, has reason to know that the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Gerry is therefore required by the Safety Act to withdraw the certification of the unsold seats if it believes the certification is invalid. If a manufacturer determines, for any reason, that the unsold seats do not comply, NHTSA will not second guess the decision to withdraw the certification.

Finally, you ask if it would be possible for NHTSA to send someone to your warehouse to inspect the child restraint systems to determine whether the systems comply with FMVSS No. 213. The answer is no; NHTSA does not inspect products for compliance outside the context of its enforcement activities. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which child restraint manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you need further information, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#VSA d:5/31/94

ID: 2633y

Mr. Roman L. Cepeda
P.O. Box 3571
Agana, Guam 96910

Dear Mr. Cepeda:

This is in reply to your letter of July 24, l990, to Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency. You wish to import 8 to 12 stainless steel parts. After importation, the parts would be put together to form a Jeep body. Ultimately, an engine, chassis, and all other parts, which are from Guam, would be added to form a completed motor vehicle.

You have asked for confirmation that "the stainless steel jeep body is not a motor vehicle and is not required to meet any provision of the U.S. 49 CFR Part 400 to 999." Apparently, you are having a misunderstanding with Guam Customs on this point.

We are pleased to provide confirmation of your interpretation. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the stainless steel body parts that you describe. This means that you may import them, as individual body parts, into Guam without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Under 49 CFR 591.5(i)(2), the appropriate declaration for entry is that they were manufactured on a date when no Federal motor vehicle safety standards were in effect that applied to them.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:59l d:8/29/90

ID: aiam2357

>>> Re: W.B. Marvin Manufacturing Co.<<< Dear Mr. Willcox: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1976, asking severa questions with respect to the applicability of 15 USC 1397(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) to a product manufactured by your client, the W.B. Marvin Manufacturing Company. This product is 'a screen which fits on the front part of the automobile and protects the radiator, headlamps and other lower parts of the car' from bugs.; W.B. Marvin would not be in violation of either the Act or Standard No 108 by manufacturing and selling these screens. Such liability as may exist centers on the installation of them. Standard No. 108 establishes requirements for lighting equipment on new motor vehicles, and for replacement equipment. One of the requirements of SAE Standard J580a, *Sealed Beam Headlamp*, June 1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, is that ' a headlamp, when in use, shall not have any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens.' Since the screen is positioned in front of the headlamps it would be an 'other feature' of the type intended to be prohibited by the standard if, as appears likely, it affects compliance with headlamp photometrics (SAE Standard J579) or headlamp aim (SAE Standard J580). If installation results in a noncompliance, the screen could not, therefore, be legally installed by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, or dealer as original equipment on a motor vehicle.; As for replacement equipment, under Section 1397 (a)(2)(A) of the Ac an automobile owner may himself modify his vehicle in any manner he chooses, but modifications performed at his request by others may not 'render inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' If installation of the screen affects compliance with headlamp photometrics or other requirements, then it would appear to 'render inoperative' a lighting device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, within the meaning of Section 1397(a)(2)(A). Installation by the auto service center of the retailer would therefore be prohibited, since such a facility is deemed a 'motor vehicle repair business.'; There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly appl to the screen as an item of motor vehicle equipment, nor do I know of any other Federal regulation affecting it.; I hope this letter is responsive to your questions. Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/21/94 From Allan Garman To Walt Myers

TEXT: Dear Mr. Garman:

This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about the responsibilities of various parties after child restraint systems have been involved in a collision and fire during transit from the manufacturer (Gerry Products) to a ret ail outlet (Toys R Us). I apologize for the delay in responding.

You indicate in your letter that the child restraint manufacturer, Gerry Baby Products, has determined that the DOT certification on the child restraints is no longer valid because the restraints were subjected to potential stress by the impact of the tr uck accident. We understand from your letter that M.F. Bank is storing the child restraint systems damaged in transit, and is prepared to liquidate the stock if directed to do so by the insurer of the transit company. However, the insurer has asked that M.F. Bank ask this agency whether the child restraint systems involved in the loss can be sold as salvage to the public. You state your belief that the systems are salvagable because they did not experience structural damage in the incident.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. sections 1381 et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new m otor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR @ 571.213) to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs or is not covered by a certification of compliance with the applicable FMVSSs. Thus, each new child restraint system must comply with FMVSS No. 213 and must be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold.

2

You first ask whether Federal law would prohibit the sale of the child restraint systems as salvage. The answer is yes, since according to your letter and telephone call, Gerry has indicated that its certification is no longer valid, and has thereby wit hdrawn the certification. If the child seats are not certified, selling them would violate @ 108(a)(1)(A). Section 109 of the Act provides any violation of Section 108 is punishable by civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

You ask in your telephone call whether Federal law prohibits Gerry from concluding that the certification remains valid. If your question is whether the Safety Act or our regulations require Gerry to withdraw the certification simply because the seats w ere involved in an incident, the answer is no. However, @ 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from certifying that a child restraint system complies with Standard 213 if that person, in the exercise of due care, has reason to know that th e certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Gerry is therefore required by the Safety Act to withdraw the certification of the unsold seats if it believes the certification is invalid. If a manufacturer determines, for any reason, that the unsold seats do not comply, NHTSA will not second guess the decision to withdraw the certification.

Finally, you ask if it would be possible for NHTSA to send someone to your warehouse to inspect the child restraint systems to determine whether the systems comply with FMVSS No. 213. The answer is no; NHTSA does not inspect products for compliance outs ide the context of its enforcement activities. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which child restraint manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you need further information, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam1898

Dear Mr. Hammond: This is in response to your letter of April 14, 1975, in which yo described two factors that you see as problems in the completion of air-braked trucks in accordance with Standard 121, by final-stage manufacturers.; The first problem you cited was that without knowing how this agenc will require air-braked trucks to be loaded for test purposes, specifically whether we will load them according to the chassis manufacturer's specifications, the final-stage manufacturer does not have a basis for certification. The answer to this implied question is that the NHTSA will use the chassis manufacturer's loading limitations for purposes of determining compliance. We agree that in many cases there is no practicable way for a final- stage manufacturer to ensure compliance other than relying on the chassis manufacturer's statements in the Part 568 document, and these statements are contingent on the loading conditions.; Secondly, you argued that 'If a tested and certified vehicle cannot b stopped in actual use in the required distance because the real load has a center of gravity higher than an unrealistic test load, an unsafe vehicle has been created, even though it complies to the safety standard.'; We completely disagree with that position, and know of no facts t support its validity. We have no reason to believe that vehicles that conform to Standard 121 will be unsafe when loaded the same as comparable pre-121 vehicles. In fact, we have much reason to believe they will be safer than pre-121 vehicles, with stronger, better modulated brakes, and in many cases stronger front suspensions to carry the forces imposed by high-CG loads in a braking situation. The required stopping distances are part of a large and complex package of test requirements, whose conditions and procedures must be precisely specified to meet statutory requirements of objectivity. They are designed to give rise to vehicles whose braking systems use the best of modern technology to provide excellent braking performance under a wide range of loading and environmental conditions. There is no implication from the standard that a vehicle that, under certain loading conditions, does not stop in the specified distance is necessarily unsafe. If the NHTSA discovers vehicles that are truly unsafe when normally loaded, because of unusual handling difficulties, for example, it will proceed against them under its safety-related defect jurisdiction.; Sincerely, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel