ID: 10595

Mr. Mark Warlick
Four Winds International Corporation
791 C.R. 15 P.O. Box 1486
Elkhart, IN 46515-1486

Dear Mr. Warlick:

This responds to your letter asking how your company would certify compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. You stated that your company manufactures motor homes and purchases interior materials from various vendors for these vehicles. These vendors provide you with letters stating that the materials comply with the FMVSS. You enclosed one such letter, which states that "We have tested the panel ... that was made with COR63-AX-40. We used the MVSS 302 flame test, and obtained a flame rating of 0.64 inches per minute." You ask whether this letter provides a sufficient basis for your company's certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 302.

Some background information would be helpful. As you know, since Standard 302 applies to motor homes and other vehicles, Four Winds, as the vehicle manufacturer, is required to certify compliance with the standard. In the event NHTSA were to find an apparent noncompliance with Standard 302 when testing your vehicle to the requirements of the standard, Four Winds would be asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, Four Winds would be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, and did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)).

With regard to your specific question, we cannot tell you at this time whether Four Winds' s reliance on a letter from its vendor would constitute "reasonable care" on the part of your company in making its certification to Standard 302. NHTSA is unable to judge what efforts constitute "reasonable care" outside of the course of a specific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. In the situation you present, your vendor indicated that the burn rate of its material (0.64 inch per minute) is well within the limits of Standard 302 (not more than four inches per minute). The difference between the actual performance of a material and the required performance is a factor NHTSA would consider in making a determination of whether a manufacturer exercised reasonable care in making its certification. Another factor is whether the manufacturer should have determined whether the vendor's assurances were bona fide. Among other things, the expertise, reliability and experience of the vendor would be relevant for that issue.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref: 302 d:2/27/95 You should also note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers (i.e., "recall" the noncomplying vehicle or equipment).

ID: nht80-2.41

DATE: 05/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Bendix Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director, Engineering Heavy Vehicle Systems Group The Bendix Corporation 901 Cleveland Street Elyria, Ohio 44035

Dear Mr. Hildebrandt:

This responds to your April 8, 1980, letter asking for an interpretation of section 5.2.1.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In particular, you ask whether your system complies with the provisions of that section which require that vehicles have a reservoir capable of releasing the parking brakes in the event of an emergency failure of the service brake system. You indicate that your system is in compliance with the intent of this section but may not be in technical compliance with the actual requirements. Nonetheless, you believe that your system complies based upon a letter of interpretation made by the agency to Berg Manufacturing Company dated August 27, 1979.

The August letter to Berg to which you refer in your letter was conditioned upon our reading of the facts as stated by Berg in their letter. That letter as it applied to section 5.2.1.1 was not an interpretation of the standard, but rather an assessment by the agency as to whether we believed that time and based upon the given facts, we stated to Berg that we felt that their system would comply.

The agency has always been reluctant to issue such letters, because it is impossible to determine compliance based up a manufacturer's description of its vehicles or from vehicle drawings. It is necessary for the agency to conduct tests to be certain whether a vehicle will comply. Accordingly, the agency always indicates in its letters that any assessment of compliance is contingent upon the description made in the manufacturer's letter, and that our opinions only reflect our engineering expertise and in no way bind the agency should we test the vehicle and find a noncompliance. In fact, we have frequently indicated to manufacturers that these letters are of little or no value to them.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Berg letter, the agency has received a clearer picture of how the Berg system operates. We have notified that company that their system does not comply with the requirements of the standard. Berg has indicated to the agency that they consider their system to be as good as any that is in complete compliance with the standard and has petitioned the agency to amend the standard in a way that would permit their system. The agency is now looking into the Berg request. We suggest that you closely follow that rulemaking action.

With respect to your system, it appears that it too would not comply with the technical requirements of the standard, because your system does not have a reservoir capable of releasing the parking brakes in the event of service brake failure. Although the agency appreciates your argument that your system meets the intent of the standard for the release of parking brakes when the service brake system fails, nonetheless the standard is specific in its requirement that a reservoir be provided that is capable of releasing the parking brakes. We cannot by interpretation remove the reservoir requirement. Our rulemaking effort with respect to the Berg petition will address the question of whether the reservoir requirement remains necessary in the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

April 8, 1980

Subject: Request for Confirmation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; Air Brake Systems; Section 5.2.1.1

Gentlemen:

The Bendix Corporation, Heavy Vehicle Systems Group (Bendix) respectfully requests from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) confirmation of Bendix' conclusion that the trailer air brake reservoir system as set forth in Attachment A satisfies the intent and is in compliance with Section S5.2.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 (FMVSS 121). Bendix' conclusion of compliance is based upon the NHTSA August 27, 1979 interpretation issued to Berg Manufacturing Company (Berg) (Attachment B), and Laboratory Procedures for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121; TP-121-02, Test Data, page 47 (Attachment C).

The Bendix' trailer reservoir system, shown and described herein; utilizes standard industry accepted components to provide trailer service, emergency and parking brake capabilities. The air applied emergency vapability of this Bendix system is equal to or better than that required by FMVSS 121. Service air for trailer parking is applied through the relay emergency valve. In the event of a reduction in pressure of the service reservoir, spring applied braking would be a secondary means of braking for parking and emergency. The emergency parking brake is applied when the trailer supply line pressure is vented to atmosphere, and released when this line is pressurized to approximately 55 psi. Supply line pressurization for release of the trailer parking brake is unaffected by any single failure in the trailer's service brake system.

The submitted Bendix trailer reservoir system has parking brake release capability as stated in Section S5.2.1.1 of the Standard. Bendix supports the intent of Section S5.2.1.1.1 which promotes highway safety by requiring the towed vehicles parking brakes to have the capability of being released from the towing vehicle in the event of a trailer service system loss of pressure.

A trailer reservoir for the storage of air pressure used to release the parking brakes in event of a service failure per section S5.2.1.1 is redundant, as utilization of the stored pressure requires pressurization of the trailer supply line. In the Bendix' system, if a failure occurs in the service air system, such as a failure of the reservoir, air pressure used for release of the spring applied brakes is provided by the trailer supply line which is pressurized by the air system of the towing vehicle when charging the trailer.

After reviewing the NHTSA interpretation of August 27, 1979 (Attachment B) and the Laboratory procedure TP-121-02 (Attachment C) Bendix has concluded that a trailer brake system which provides parking brake release when the trailer supply line is pressurized is in compliance with S5.2.1.1.

A similar Bendix' trailer reservoir system, having anti-lock capability was submitted to the NHTSA with our letter of September 14, 1977 (Attachment D) petitioning for a revision of Section S5.2.1.1.

Bendix hereby respectfully requests concurrence from with the NHTSA that the Bendix trailer air brake reservoir system, discussed herein, complies with S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS 121. We would be pleased to discuss these Bendix systems in more detail at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Hildebrandt Group Director, Engineering

RWH:mnr

Attachments Omitted.

ID: 20053customhose.df

Ms. Terri Archibald
Custom Hose & Supplies, Inc.
805 66^th Avenue, SW
Cedar Rapids, IA 52404

Dear Ms. Archibald:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask about the labeling requirements for air brake hose assemblies made with end fittings that are attached by crimping.

The requirements for labeling such assemblies are set forth in Standard No. 106 as follows:

S7.2.3 Assemblies. Each air brake hose assembly made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly as specified in this paragraph, or at the option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in S7.2.3.1. The band may at the manufacturer's option be attached so as to move freely along the length of the assembly, as long as it is retained by the end fittings. The band shall be etched, embossed, or stamped in block capital letters, numerals or symbols at least one-eighth of an inch high, with the following information:

1. The symbol DOT, constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.
2. A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with [the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)]. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.

S7.2.3.1 At least one end fitting of an air brake hose assembly made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging shall be etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly and is filed in accordance with S7.2.3(b).

You first ask whether you are required to label the assembly at all, or whether you may "[l]et the markings that Weatherhead already has printed on their hose suffice." The answer is you must label the assembly. S7.2.3 requires each air brake hose assembly made with end fittings that are attached by crimping or swaging, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, to be labeled by means of a band or by marking an end fitting. In reference to a concern you raise, you are not required to mark an end fitting if you choose to label your assemblies using a band that meets S7.2.3.

You next ask whether a "permanent label" that you have sent us will meet the option in S7.2.3 that allows you to label your assembly by means of a band. You also provide product literature from Weatherhead, the manufacturer of the label, which describes the labels as -

self adhesive Mylar strips, 1" wide by 3-3/4" long, with a 1" X 1" white area on one end for printed information. . . . Procedure for applying the labels is simple:

1. Print the appropriate information on the label.
2. Wrap the tag around the hose assembly...printed end first.
3. Cover the printed end with the clear mylar tail of the label.
4. The clear tail will protect the printed area from the elements, even paint.

Our answer is the Mylar label would be permitted, subject to the following comments. We have long (since 1974) interpreted a band as a label which encircles the hose completely, and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it can not be easily removed. The label you are considering will encircle the hose completely and attach to itself. Our understanding of Mylar is that it is a durable material and not easily removable. When the markings on the label are covered with the clear Mylar tail of the label, as instructed by the label manufacturer, Weatherhead, the markings will not be easily removed or altered. In response to a concern you raise, S7.2.3 does not require the label to move freely, but simply permits one to so move as long as it is retained by the end fittings. For these reasons, we conclude that the Mylar label could be used to meet the labeling requirements for air brake hose assemblies, assuming that the marking is covered by the clear Mylar covering.

However, the particular sample you provided is not entirely satisfactory. S7.2.3 requires that "the band shall be etched, embossed, or stamped" with the symbol DOT and the manufacturer's designation. Writing the information by hand would not meet this requirement. The requirement is to improve the permanency of the information and its clarity. This is important because the designation assists NHTSA and hose users in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products. Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the option available to you would be to stamp the Mylar label with the required information. Further, the designation must also appear on the label as it appears on file at NHTSA. If a designation on file is printed, handwriting it on the brake hose assembly label could lead to confusion. Lastly, you need to include the DOT symbol on your label. In response to a concern you raised, you do not need to include the date of manufacture of the assembly.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:106
d.11/5/99

ID: nht68-3.20

DATE: 02/03/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Alan S. Boyd; NHTSA

TO: John E. Moss; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 30 regarding the Notice of Proposed Rule Making published that day in the Federal Register relative to the promulgation by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Transportation of regulations governing the importation of motor vehicles and equipment manufactured after December 31, 1967.

You have asked the statutory authority for "six proposed exemptions" set forth in proposed 19 C.F.R. Sec. 12.80(b). You will see from the enclosed copy of the final regulations published on January 10 that there are now seven exceptions in 19 C.F.R. Sec. 12.80(b). However, there are exceptions only from the requirement of paragraph (b) that a vehicle(Illegible Word) valid certification as a condition of entry into the United States. They are not exemptions from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards where compliance is required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. With specific reference to each of the seven exceptions to vehicle certification provided by 19 C.F.R. Sec. 12.80(b):

"(i) Such vehicle or equipment item was manufactured on a date when there were no applicable safety standards in force, a verbal declaration being acceptable at the option of the district director of customs for vehicles entering at the Canadian and Mexican borders;"

Section D8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits importation of a motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable safety standard is in effect unless the vehicle is in conformity with such standard. This section makes it clear to customs officer and the public that vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of a standard need not comply with the standard in order to be imported.

"(ii) Such vehicle on equipment item was not manufactured in conformity with applicable standards but has since been brought into conformity, such declaration to be accompanied by the certificate of the manufacturer, contractor, or other person who has brought such vehicle or equipment item into conformity which described the nature and extent of the work performed;"

No exemption from compliance is allowed and it is assumed from the statement of the responsible contractor submitted concurrent with the declaration that the vehicle fully conforms with the requirements of section 108(a)(1) at the time of its admission into the United States.

"(iii) Such vehicle or equipment item does not conform with applicable standards, but that the importer or consiance will bring such vehicle or equipment item into conformity with such standards;"

This temporary exemption is permitted by section 108(b)(3) of the Act which provides that nonconformity vehicles may be admitted upon terms and conditions sufficient to insure they are brought into conformity.

"(iv) Such vehicle is a new vehicle being imported for purposes of resale which does not presently conform to all applicable safety standards because readily attachable equipment items are not attached, but that there is affixed to its windshield a label stating the standard with which and the manner in which such vehicles does not conform and that the vehicle will be brought into conformity by attachment of such equipment items before it will be offered for sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale;"

Comments submitted by several European motor vehicle manufacturers in response to the Notice of November 30 indicated that exterior equipment items such as rearview mirrors and wheel covers, which are subject to breakage or theft, are commonly shipped separately from new motor vehicles. Additionally, one foreign manufacturer expressed its preference for utilization of American made passenger restraint systems and consequent installation of such systems after arrival of its vehicles in the United States. Since it is only in minor ways that the vehicles in the United States, the offer for sale of a nonconforming vehicle would be a violation of section 108(a)(1) of the Act, it seems appropriate to allow entry of there vehicles with an informational label stating the fact of nonconformance and that the vehicle will be brought into conformance before being offered for sale at the retail level.

"(v) The importer or consignee is a nonresident of the United States, importing such vehicle or equipment item primarily for personal use or for the purpose of making repairs or alterations to the vehicle or equipment item, for a period not exceeding 1 year from the date of entry, and that he will not resell it in the United States during that time; Provided, That person regularly entering the United States by a motor vehicle at the Canadian and Mexican borders may apply to the district director of custom for an appropriate means of identification to be affixed to such vehicle which will serve in place of the declaration required by this paragraph;"

"(vi) The importer or consignee is a member of the armed forces of a foreign country on assignment in the United States, or is a member of the Secretariat of a public international organization so designated pursuant to 59 Stat. 669 on assignment in the United States, or is a member of the personnel of a foreign government on assignment in the United States who comes within the class of persons for whom free entry of motor vehicles has been authorized by the Department of State and that he is importing such vehicle or equipment item for purposes other than resale;"

These exemptions are permitted by section 108(b)(4) of the Act which permit "temporary importation" of noncomplying motor vehicles. The Department of State informally advised that any interpretation of "temporary" as meaning a period of less than "one year" might not be in accordance with several international road and traffic Conventions to which the United States is a party. The Canadian-Mexican provision in item (v) is designed to facilitate entry and exit of vehicles owned by nationals of these countries who are employed in the United States, and who commute regularly to and from their jobs across the border.

"(vii) The importer or consignee is importing such vehicle or equipment item solely for the purposes of show, test, experiment, competition, repairs, or alterations and that such vehicle or equipment item will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads." This is not an exemption permitted by section 108(b) but an exemption granted on the basis that experimental, show, test, or competition vehicles have not been built "primarily for use on the public roads" and hence are not "motor vehicles" (within the definition of section 102(2) of the Act) subject to regulation by the Secretary.

I hope this will answer your questions.

ID: 3299yy

Air Mail

Richard Gray, Secretary Sports Car Club of New Zealand, Inc. P.O. Box 6282 Wellesley St, Auckland 1 New Zealand

Dear Mr. Gray:

This responds to your letter asking for information about whether certain motor vehicles manufactured in the United States and imported into New Zealand comply with the requirements of the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (MOT) is introducing new vehicle safety standards in an effort to align New Zealand's standards with those of the United States, Europe, Australia, and the United Kingdom. To that end, you stated that the MOT is requiring importers to ensure that the vehicles they import meet the relevant safety standards of these countries. You further indicated that you are responsible for providing proof to the MOT that certain privately imported, "low volume vehicles" (built in numbers less than 200 per year) comply with the requirements of their country of origin, or that the country has a special exemption for low volume vehicles. Accordingly, you asked for clarification of Standards No. 205 and 208, and other Federal regulations, as they would be applied to these vehicles. I am pleased to be able to provide the following information.

In the case of the United States, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue a number of safety standards. The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufactured or sold in, or imported into, the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into 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 and is covered by a certification issued under 114...

Generally speaking, then, to the extent that the vehicles you import are manufactured and sold in the United States, those vehicles would have to comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 208, regardless of the number of such vehicles produced by the manufacturer.

The fact that your letter is seeking proof that a motor vehicle actually complies with applicable safety standards may, however, indicate a misunderstanding of the certification process in the United States. The process of certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, many European nations require manufacturers to deliver motor vehicles to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the vehicle, the government approves the vehicle and assigns an approval code. In countries using such a pre-sale approval certification process, the governmental entity would have specific information about the actual compliance of vehicles with applicable standards.

In the United States, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to do any pre-sale testing or approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Consequently, NHTSA does not have any "proof of actual compliance" of vehicles. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards by permanently affixing a label to the driver's side door hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Among other things, that label must contain the statement: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above."

Under the self-certification process used in the United States, NHTSA does conduct periodic enforcement tests on vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by their manufacturer to ensure that the products do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. In order for this agency to determine whether any of the vehicles imported into New Zealand were subject to an enforcement test or a defects investigation by this agency, you would have to provide us with specific descriptive information about each of the subject vehicles, including the date of manufacture.

It should be a simple exercise for you to check the area around the driver's side door of the vehicles in question to see if the manufacturer affixed a U.S. certification label, stating that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the vehicle has such a label, there would not seem to be any reason for questioning the manufacturer's representation. On the other hand, if there is no such label, neither the vehicle's manufacturer nor anyone else has suggested that the vehicle conforms with the safety standards of the United States.

Finally, you asked whether the United States has any Federal regulations regarding the installation of registration plates on the front of vehicles. The answer is no; vehicle registration is a matter addressed by each of the individual States, not by the Federal government. Thus, the requirements for display of registration plates on the front of vehicles differ from State to State. If you are interested in further information on the requirements of the individual States, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, U.S.A.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:1/23/92

ID: nht92-9.39

DATE: January 23, 1992

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

TO: Richard Gray -- Secretary of Sports Car Club of New Zealand, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/11/91 from Richard Gray to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6724)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking for information about whether certain motor vehicles manufactured in the United States and imported into New Zealand comply with the requirements of the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (MOT) is introducing new vehicle safety standards in an effort to align New Zealand's standards with those of the United States, Europe, Australia, and the United Kingdom. To that end, you stated that the MOT is requiring importers to ensure that the vehicles they import meet the relevant safety standards of these countries. You further indicated that you are responsible for providing proof to the MOT that certain privately imported, "low volume vehicles" (built in numbers less than 200 per year) comply with the requirements of their country of origin, or that the country has a special exemption for low volume vehicles. Accordingly, you asked for clarification of Standards No. 205 and 208, and other Federal regulations, as they would be applied to these vehicles. I am pleased to be able to provide the following information.

In the case of the United States, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue a number of safety standards. The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufactured or sold in, or imported into, the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver 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 and is covered by a certification issued under S114...

Generally speaking, then, to the extent that the vehicles you import are manufactured and sold in the United States, those vehicles would have to comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 208, regardless of the number of such vehicles produced by the manufacturer.

The fact that your letter is seeking proof that a motor vehicle ACTUALLY COMPLIES with applicable safety standards may, however, indicate a misunderstanding of the certification process in the United States. The process of certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, many European nations require manufacturers to deliver motor vehicles to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the vehicle, the government approves the vehicle and assigns an approval code. In countries using such a pre-sale approval certification process, the governmental entity would have specific information about the ACTUAL COMPLIANCE of vehicles with applicable standards.

In the United States, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to do any pre-sale testing or approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Consequently, NHTSA does not have any "proof of actual compliance" of vehicles. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards by permanently affixing a label to the driver's side door hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Among other things, that label must contain the statement: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above."

Under the self-certification process used in the United States, NHTSA does conduct periodic enforcement tests on vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by their manufacturer to ensure that the products do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. In order for this agency to determine whether any of the vehicles imported into New Zealand were subject to an enforcement test or a defects investigation by this agency, you would have to provide us with specific descriptive information about each of the subject vehicles, including the date of manufacture.

It should be a simple exercise for you to check the area around the driver's side door of the vehicles in question to see if the manufacturer affixed a U.S. certification label, stating that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the vehicle has such a label, there would not seem to be any reason for questioning the manufacturer's representation. On the other hand, if there is no such label, neither the vehicle's manufacturer nor anyone else has suggested that the vehicle conforms with the safety standards of the United States.

Finally, you asked whether the United States has any Federal regulations regarding the installation of registration plates on the front of vehicles. The answer is no; vehicle registration is a matter addressed by each of the individual States, not by the Federal government. Thus, the requirements for display of registration plates on the front of

vehicles differ from State to State. If you are interested in further information on the requirements of the individual states, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, U.S.A.

ID: 16859.wkm

Mr. Donald L. Busey
Director of Dealer Services
Pennsylvania Automotive Association
1925 North Front Street
Post Office Box 2955
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2955

Dear Mr. Busey:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether a tractor that is converted to a straight truck is required to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121). In a telephone conversation with Mr. Myers on April 3, 1998, you stated that the trucks in question are new Mack tractors equipped with 3 axles with a 4th new axle normally added in the conversion, and that most are converted to dump or cement trucks.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. This agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with the standards. The agency also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If the vehicles or equipment pass, no further action is taken. If they do not pass, or if a manufacturer or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determines that a noncompliance or a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the noncomplying or defective product and remedy the problem at no expense to the consumer. Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to substantial civil penalties.

NHTSA considers that a motor vehicle or item of equipment is "new" from the date of its manufacture until its first retail sale. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that each new vehicle they produce complies, as of the date of manufacture, with all then-applicable FMVSSs. In this case, if a new tractor is converted to a straight truck prior to the vehicle's first retail sale, the company making the conversion would be considered an "alterer" under our regulations. A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle must further certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. See 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed).

Subparagraph S5.1.6.1(a) of Standard No. 121 requires single-unit vehicles, including "straight trucks," manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 to be equipped with ABS that directly controls the wheels of at least one front axle and the wheels of at least one rear axle. Other axles on the vehicle may be indirectly controlled by the ABS. With respect to truck tractors, subparagraph S5.1.6.1(b) requires that truck tractors manufactured on or after March 1, 1997 be equipped with ABS that directly controls the wheels of at least one front axle and those of at least one rear axle, with the wheels of at least one axle being independently controlled. Again, other axles may be indirectly controlled by ABS.

Under Part 567, an alterer of a tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997 must allow the original certification label required by Part 567 to remain on the vehicle, and shall affix an additional label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSSs affected by the alteration and in effect on a date no earlier than the original date of manufacture nor later than the date the alterations were completed. Thus, if a tractor is altered to a straight truck, the alterer must certify that it meets all applicable FMVSSs for straight trucks as of a date no earlier than the date of manufacture of the tractor nor later than the date of completion of the alteration, or any date in between. If this date is before March 1, 1998, the straight truck would not be required to be equipped with ABS. Further, if either the gross vehicle weight rating or any gross axle weight rating, as altered, are different from those shown on the original certification label, the alterer must provide those modified values.

Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref:121#VSA#571
d.5/13/98

ID: GF006627-2

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in response to your letter of September 8, 2004, in which you requested interpretation of the new tire information placard requirements in S4.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, as amended June 3, 2004 (see 69 FR 31306).

The standard currently applicable to the vehicles described in your letter (trucks and trailers) is FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 requires that the tire information must appear on the vehicle certification label or on a separate tire information label affixed to the vehicle in the same manner and location as the certification label (see 49 CFR 567.4).

Effective September 1, 2005, FMVSS No. 110 will apply to trucks and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.S4.3 of that standard will require that each vehicle contain either a single vehicle placard with a revised list of tire information, or a vehicle placard and a supplementary tire inflation pressure label, affixed to the drivers side B-pillar.Prior to September 1, 2005, compliance with the new requirements in S4.3 is voluntary.Thus, until September 1, 2005, the vehicles described in your letter with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less may comply with either S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120 or S4.3 of the amended version of FMVSS No. 110.

You ask whether a tire information placard, affixed to a previously certified vehicle that has been altered, may remain on that vehicle if it contains incorrect information because of the alteration.You also ask if it is permissible to remove or black out portions of the tire information placard that may contain incorrect information.Your letter does not specify whether the placard in question is one affixed pursuant to the current requirements of FMVSS No. 120 or the new requirements of FMVSS No. 110.Our answers follow.

First, irrespective of which tire information placard is affixed to the vehicle, the information on that placard must be correct. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a dealer may not sell vehicles or equipment that do not comply with applicable safety standards.Also, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits dealers, manufacturers, and certain other entities from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, a dealer must replace the tire information placard if, after the dealer installs additional equipment, the required information is no longer accurate. We note that, with respect to altered vehicles, S4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifically requires that a new tire information placard replace the original placard if the previously certified vehicle has been altered such that the information on the existing placard is no longer valid.

In the event that a vehicle contains a tire information placard affixed pursuant to S5.3 of FMVSS No. 120, and a placard affixed pursuant to the requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, at least one placard must contain accurate information and must fully comply with applicable requirements.The other placard may remain if it is accurate, or must be removed or replaced, if it is not.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has consistently stated with respect to labeling requirements that additional information may be present (unless specifically prohibited), provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose."In the case at hand, a second, voluntarily affixed placard containing incorrect tire safety information would confuse the meaning of the required information on the required placard.Accordingly, the second placard would have to be replaced, or be removed.

In sum, until September 1, 2005, the altered vehicles described in your letter must fully comply with current requirements in FMVSS No. 120 or the new requirements in FMVSS No. 110.In both instances, the tire information placard must contain accurate information.If both placards are affixed to the vehicle, neither placard may contain information that would confuse the meaning of the required contents.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.12/22/04

ID: 12198.ztv

J. Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Admin. Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This responds to your letter of July 3, 1996, to the Administrator asking for interpretations of 49 CFR Part 564 Replaceable Light Source Information. These questions pertain to the submissions by Philips Lighting to Docket No. 93-11 for D2R and D2S light sources. As you probably know, Part 564 was amended on May 7, 1996, with amendments effective June 6, 1996 (61 FR 20497).

Your first question is whether manufacturers of these light sources, other than Philips, "should be additionally submitted for the listing of Part 564 and ballasts to be used in combination with those discharge bulbs . . . ." As the agency recently commented (61 FR at 20498)

Any part 564 submittal for a light source requiring ballasts for operation must include information that specifically identifies all ballasts that will be used with the light source. Substitution of a ballast other than that identified with the light source in part 564 is not permitted."

This means that Philips must include with its submission a description of all ballasts that it will use with the D2R and D2S light sources. If a manufacturer other than Philips will manufacture these light sources using any of the ballasts identified by Philips, no submittals are required. However, if a manufacturer other than Philips intends to use the D2R and D2S light source with a ballast other than that listed by Philips, we regard this as a modification of a light source for which information has previously been filed, and the other manufacturer may submit an application in accordance with sec. 564.5(d).

You next ask who should be the applicant for the discharge bulbs and ballasts, the lamp manufacturer (original applicant), the manufacturer of the discharge bulb, or the ballast manufacturer. Under sec. 564.5(a), as amended, applications may be made by a "manufacturer of a motor vehicle, original equipment headlamp, or original equipment headlamp replaceable light source." This means that application can be made by the lamp manufacturer (original applicant), or the manufacturer of the discharge bulbs. If a ballast is required for operation of the discharge bulb, we regard the ballast as an integral part of the light source, but application may be made by a headlamp or bulb manufacturer, not by the ballast manufacturer.

Your next question refers to Appendix B of Part 564. You ask whether it is permissible to furnish only certain information with an application "because the rest of the information to be requested in Appendix B is the same as that of Philips." The answer is yes. Under sec. 564.5(d)(1), a manufacturer may request modification of a light source for which information has previously been filed in Docket No. 93-11 by submitting "[a]ll the information specified in Appendix A or Appendix B of this part that is relevant to the modification requested." This means that the regulation requires an applicant only to furnish information that differs from that already on file with respect to the light source for which modification is requested. For sake of clarity, NHTSA prefers that the submitter identify the specific drawing(s) or text on file in Docket No. 93-11 that is proposed to be changed, and list those desired changes in a tabular format or in text, e.g., item "x" is added to document "y", or is deleted or modified as indicated. If the changes are to the form where a new drawing is to substituted, the submission should be specific as to how the submission is being proposed, e.g., sheet "y" is added to or replaces sheet "x" in Docket No. 93-11, or sheet "y" is different from sheet "x" because [submitter to describe differences]. If the changes are to provide an optical configuration of the light source or a component of the light source, the submission must be clear on how that option is to be exercised and how it is to be identified as a version of the original form.

Your final question relates to the agency's language, quoted in the second paragraph, which prohibits substitution of a ballast other than that identified with the light source in Part 564. You ask whether this covers replacement equipment as well as original equipment. The answer is yes. Paragraph S5.8.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires replacement lighting equipment to be designed to conform to the standard for original lighting equipment. Paragraph S7.7 (as amended on Novermber 28, 1995, 60 FR 58522) requires that "[e]ach replaceable light source shall be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to part 564." A principal purpose of Part 564 is to ensure that replacement light sources provide performance that is equivalent to the original light source. This purpose cannot be ensured if a ballast has been substituted that differs from that originally supplied with the bulb, or if the ballast is not listed in Part 564.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-3566-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:8/20/96

ID: nht95-1.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 27, 1995

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

TO: Mark Warlick -- Four Winds International Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 12/16/94 LETTER FROM MARK WARLICK TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10595)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking how your company would certify compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. You stated that your company manufactures motor homes and purchases interior mat erials from various vendors for these vehicles. These vendors provide you with letters stating that the materials comply with the FMVSS. You enclosed one such letter, which states that "We have tested the panel . . . . that was made with COR63-AX-40. We used the MVSS 302 flame test, and obtained a flame rating of 0.64 inches per minute." You ask whether this letter provides a sufficient basis for your company's certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 302.

Some background information would be helpful. As you know, since Standard 302 applies to motor homes and other vehicles, Four Winds, as the vehicle manufacturer, is required to certify compliance with the standard. In the event NHTSA were to find an ap parent noncompliance with Standard 302 when testing your vehicle to the requirements of the standard, Four Winds would be asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, Fou r Winds would be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, and did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)). n1

n1 You should also note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsib ility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers (i.e., "recall" the noncomplying vehicle or equipment).

With regard to your specific question, we cannot tell you at this time whether Four Winds's reliance on a letter from its vendor would constitute "reasonable care" on the part of your company in making its certification to Standard 302. NHTSA is unable t o judge what efforts constitute "reasonable care" outside of the course of a specific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology , the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. In the situation you present, your vendor indicated that the burn rate of its material (0.64 inch per minute) is well within t he limits of Standard 302 (not more than four inches per minute). The difference between the actual performance of a material and the required performance is a factor NHTSA would consider in making a determination of whether a manufacturer exercised rea sonable care in making its certification. Another factor is whether the manufacturer should have determined whether the vendor's assurances were bona fide. Among other things, the expertise, reliability and experience of the vendor would be relevant fo r that issue.

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