ID: klein.rbm

Mr. Richard H. Klein
Consulting Engineers
P.O. Box 527, Fairway Drive
Johnson, NY 10933

Dear Mr. Klein:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration asking about the recordkeeping obligations of a motor vehicle manufacturer under 49 CFR 574.10. I apologize for the delay in our response. You wrote on behalf of your client, the National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM). You stated that you believed only tire manufacturers are required to retain records on purchasers of new tires.

49 CFR Part 574 has two separate recordkeeping requirements. Both sections have been in effect, largely unchanged, since 1971. The first, 49 CFR 574.7, applies to tire manufacturers and requires them to maintain tire registration records that they receive from tire dealers and distributors. The second section, 49 CFR 574.10, applies to motor vehicle manufacturers and requires them to maintain registration records on tires that they install on motor vehicles prior to first sale. These two recordkeeping requirements are separate requirements. Thus, NATM's members are required to keep records of all new tires they place on their motor vehicles prior to first sale subject to the requirements of 49 CFR 547.10.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:574
d.3/16/00

ID: knapheide.ztv

Mr. John D. Evans
Vice President Engineering
The Knapheide Manufacturing Company
P.O. Box 7140
Quincy, IL 62305-7140

Dear Mr. Evans:

We are responding to your letter of October 10, 2002, asking five questions with respect to interpretations of the "early warning reporting" final rule (49 CFR Part 579, Subpart C).

Your first question was:

Knapheide Manufacturing Company manufactures a wide variety of truck bodies. The vast majority of warranties, consumer complaints and field reports will be related to the truck body rather [than] to one of the vehicle systems defined by the Tread Act (numbers 1 through 22). According to the definition of "Structure" in Part 579.4, the body, doors, bumper and tailgate are included in this category (number 16), and all these items are included on a service body. Is it NHTSAs intent to have all issues related to a body that is installed by a final stage manufacturer be reported in the "Structure" category?

In adopting a definition of "structure," we observed that "we believe it is important to obtain information about problems with a vehicles structure, since many other systems and components attach to the structure" (67 FR at 45861). Section 579.22(b)(2) establishes reporting codes for 22 systems and components of medium heavy trucks and buses. Only "structure" is appropriate for reporting issues directly related to the body of a vehicle, so all reports regarding the body should be filed in the "structure" category. See also, response to final question below.

Your second question was:

If the answer to question 1 is yes, then consider the following. Many warranties regarding a truck body have nothing to do with vehicle safety. For example, dents and dings occurring during shipment, paint failure, water leaks, etc. If these types of issues are reported in the "Structures" category against specific vehicle makes and models, then the summary report could reflect a large number of warranties for a particular vehicle make and model when in fact the warranty issues had nothing to do with the vehicle as manufactured by the OEM. Is it NHTSAs intent to have these types of issues related to a body reported in the "Structure" category?

The purpose of the early warning reporting rule is to provide NHTSA with an earlier indication of potential safety problems in part through submission of the number of warranty claims relating to specified components and systems. These problems generally have their origin in the design or manufacture of a motor vehicle. They do not have their origin in events that occur after a vehicle has left the direct control of a manufacturer, such as dings in shipping, damage from leaking water (although "paint failure" cited by the commenter could indicate a deficiency in manufacturing), and the like, or, as Knapheide put it, warranty issues that have "nothing to do with the vehicle as manufactured by the OEM."

Your third question was:

"Structure" as defined in Part 579.4, means "any part of a motor vehicle that serves to maintain the shape and size of a vehicle." There are many accessories that can be installed inside of a service body that do not change the shape or size of the body. Examples include welders, generators, inverters, etc. Are warranties on these types of accessories reportable as a "structure" issue?

Generally, accessories that are installed inside of a service body would appear to have little potential for creating a motor vehicle safety-related defect. We therefore do not expect warranty claims on "these types of accessories" to be reported to NHTSA unless they do affect safety, such as a problem that creates the risk of a fire.

Your fourth question was:

Ancillary pieces of equipment can be added to a truck body to enhance its work performing capabilities. Examples include hoists, cranes, aerial lifts, ladder racks and material racks. Are warranties on these types of ancillary pieces of equipment reportable as a "Structure" issue?

Ancillary pieces of equipment added to the exterior of a truck body can be defective in themselves and they have the potential for creating a safety-related defect, and warranty claims involving them must be reported. Since there is no code under Section 579.22(b)(1) for reporting systems and components other than the 22 specified, "structure" is the appropriate reporting category.

You prefaced your final question with the explanation that Knapheide is a manufacturer of original and replacement truck body equipment that it sells through distributors. One of the distributors is Knapheides wholly-owned subsidiary while four others "have common shareholders" with Knapheide. These five entities are all final stage manufacturers (as well as distributors). You asked:

If all reports to NHTSA from Knapheide are based on the collective activity of the five above mentioned distributor corporations, can The Knapheide Manufacturing Company be considered as an equipment manufacturer and report only under paragraph 579.27?

We interpret this question as based on the assumption that each of the five manufacturing corporations will report to NHTSA separately. If Knapheide itself were not a final stage manufacturer, it would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment other than child restraint systems and tires, and subject to the less extensive requirements of Section 579.27. Its wholly owned subsidiary would have to report as a vehicle manufacturer, and if it manufactured 500 or more vehicles per year of any specified category, it would have to file comprehensive reports as under Section 579.21 and/or Section 579.22.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/11/03

ID: Koito.2

Mr. Takayuki Amma
Manager, Regulations & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Amma:

This responds to your recent letter, in which you asked whether it would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, to manufacture and sell a headlamp that automatically reduces intensity when the vehicle is stopped. Your letter stated that the lamp (which includes a fail-safe performance feature) would operate at full intensity when the vehicle is in forward motion, but that an electronic light source control gear would reduce the intensity once the vehicle comes to a rest. According to your letter, "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," and you further suggested that such headlamps would have the potential for significant energy conservation (about a 20-40% reduction in wattage), depending upon the optical design of the headlamps. As discussed below, we believe that the intensity-reducing headlamps described in your letter would not be permissible under FMVSS No. 108, because the would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (see 49 CFR Part 571). After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard.49 U.S.C. 30122.

As you are aware, the requirements for lighting equipment are contained in FMVSS No. 108, which provides in relevant part:

S5.5.10 The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a) Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b) Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c) A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d) All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means."

Your proposed headlamp would not fall within any of the standards express exceptions, and therefore, must be "steady-burning." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g., February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall). However, as stated in your letter, your proposed headlamp would routinely experience perceptible intensity changes resulting in a 20-40% reduction in wattage, so the lamp would not meet above definition of "steady-burning."

There are several reasons for the requirement for headlamps to be steady-burning. For example, several States have expressed concern that lights of variable intensity could be confused with emergency vehicles, which are allowed to have flashing headlamps. We also note that motorcycle headlamp modulation, while permitted under S5.5.10(c), must meet the requirements of S7.9.4; the modulation rate is regulated to prevent seizures in susceptible individuals. Furthermore, we believe that motor vehicle safety is best promoted by standardization of lighting signals.

In your letter, you pointed to our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein in support of your position that Standard No. 108 should permit headlamps that reduce intensity when stopped. The letter to Mr. Goldstein discussed "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions. You quoted from the portion of that letter which provides, "The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified".However, your letter omitted the immediately preceding sentence, which provided, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs".

The situation presented in your letter is distinguishable from the one presented in our letter to Mr. Goldstein. In the case of gradational DRLs, the lamps would be expected to determine an appropriate level of intensity based upon ambient lighting conditions and then maintain that level until conditions had changed sufficiently to potentially warrant a further change in intensity. In that case, intensity changes would be expected to occur infrequently and could occur gradually, such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers.

In contrast to gradational DRLs, the changes in intensity that would accompany your proposed headlamp design would be anticipated to result in frequent modulation, particularly during instances of stop-and-go city driving. Assuming that the intensity change is perceptible, we believe that such a design could be a source of distraction to other drivers, which could have negative consequences for safety. Accordingly, we believe that the headlamp design presented in your letter would not meet the requirements of S5.5.10 of FMVSS No. 108.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.8/1/05

ID: Koito.2followup

Mr. Kiminori Hyodo
Deputy General Manager, Regulation & Certification
Koito Manufacturing Co. , Ltd.
4-8-3, Takanawa
Minato-ku Tokyo
Japan




Dear Mr. Hyodo:

This responds to your recent letter requesting further clarification of our August 1, 2005, letter of interpretation to Mr. Takayuki Amma of Koito Manufacturing Co. (Koito), in which we stated that your companys proposed intensity-reducing headlamps would not meet the "steady-burning" requirement of S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. As described in Koitos earlier letter, the proposed headlamp would automatically and perceptibly reduce intensity (with approximately a 20-40% reduction in wattage) when the vehicle is stopped, thereafter returning to full intensity once vehicle motion resumed. Your latest letter asked whether a headlamp would be permitted to change in intensity, so long as the light is "perceived to be a steady beam and essentially unvarying in intensity, as well as occurring gradually (e.g. by setting some phase period) such that the change would not be perceptible to oncoming drivers". Presuming that this new design, consistent with your earlier design, would be such that "[a]t all times through the change of the intensity, the lamps provide sufficient level of intensity and will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified in FMVSS No. 108," the answer to your question is yes.

To reiterate the relevant provision of FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S5.5.10 provides:

S5.5.10   The wiring requirements for lighting equipment in use are:
(a)   Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash;
(b)   Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes;
(c)   A motorcycle headlamp may be wired to allow either its upper beam or its lower beam, but not both, to modulate from a higher intensity to a lower intensity in accordance with section S5.6;
(d)   All other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning.

In short, S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 requires that all lamps must be "steady burning," unless otherwise permitted, and while S5.5.10(b) does permit headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes, we note that paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 108 defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means." Through our interpretations, we have explained that the "steady-burning" requirement under the standard means "a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity" (see e.g. , February 9, 1982, letter of interpretation to Dr. H.A. Kendall).

We further clarified the requirement in S5.5.10(d) in our March 10, 1994 letter of interpretation to Mr. Joe de Sousa. That letter involved the permissibility of daytime running lamps (DRLs) that operated by using the vehicles lower beam headlamps at less than full intensity through "pulse width modulation," a technique which cycles the headlamps "on and off faster than the eye can detect". In our response to Mr. de Sousa, we stated that although a modulating headlamp technically is not a steady-burning one, for purposes of this requirement under S5.5.10(d), we have concluded that there is no failure to conform if the modulating light from the lamp is perceived to be "steady-burning. "

In our July 21, 1998, letter of interpretation to Mr. Ian Goldstein, we stated that "gradational" daytime running lamps (DRLs), devices that are capable of modulating the intensity of the DRLs according to ambient light conditions, are permissible under FMVSS No. 108. In that letter, we stated, "A DRL with a gradational feature would continue to provide the steady-burning light that is required for DRLs. The standard does not prohibit changes in intensity, which we presume will be within the parameters of the minimum and maximum values of candela specified. "

In sum, if an intensity-reducing headlamp operates in a manner that meets all of the other applicable requirements of the standard and is perceived as being steady-burning, we believe that such a design would be permissible under the standard, and we would not expect it to be a source of distraction to other drivers.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.11/5/05

ID: kroger.ztv

Mr. Richard C. Kroger
Corporate Counsel
Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 330
Sealy, TX 77474

Dear Mr. Kroger:

This is in reply to your letter of April 15, 2003, addressed to David "Comen" (Coleman), which we received on May 5. You seek clarification as to whether you are subject to the TREAD Acts early warning reporting (EWR) requirements set out in Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579.

Your company manufactures trucks exclusively for the United States Army. You asserted that feedback reports you receive from the Army on your trucks are usually "purposely vague and prevent any meaningful review or truck evaluation." In the event that negative information might be received regarding a trucks performance, you pointed out that furnishing us with this information could result in an enemy gaining knowledge that it could put to tactical use. You argued that "it would seem that the intent of the Act (protecting the consumer public at large) is inapplicable to our situation."

The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) recently observed that under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles manufactured for, and sold directly to, the military need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NTEA asked whether such vehicles should be counted as part of a manufacturers production and included in reporting of warranty claims, consumer complaints, field reports, etc. We replied on May 14, 2003, that:

The exclusion of Section 571.7(c) is limited to compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and does not extend to [the defect program or] other NHTSA regulations applicable to motor vehicles. We would expect manufacturers of vehicles that they would otherwise be required to certify, such as staff (passenger) cars and some trucks, to submit reports under the EWR regulations in the same manner as manufacturers of non-military motor vehicles certified by their manufacturers.

By "some trucks," we mean trucks that are the counterparts of trucks that a manufacturer produces for non-military use. Thus, reports would not be required under the EWR rules for military personnel carriers. On the other hand, reports would be required for pickup trucks, vans, and sedans that have civilian counterparts.

You have informed us that your company does not produce trucks for civilian applications. In other words, there are no civilian counterparts. Based on this information, we do not consider your company subject to the EWR requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:579
d.5/21/03

ID: kronosport.ztv

Mr. Edward A. Kron
President & CEO
Kronosport
Mellon Bank Center
1735 Market St., Suite A500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Dear Mr. Kron:

This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 2003, describing four-wheeled pedal-electric vehicles that you manufacture which travel at a maximum speed of 12 miles per hour. You have asked for "an exemption to NHTSAs speed requirement in order to allow our vehicles to be legally operated on roadways that have a posted speed limit of 35 mph or under."

NHTSA has no "speed requirement." We have established a category of motor vehicle called "Low-Speed Vehicle." In part, a Low-Speed Vehicle is defined as a four-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose speed attainable in l mile is more than 20 mph and not more than 25 mph. In adopting this definition, we made it clear that the individual States have the authority to prescribe requirements for the registration and use of Low-Speed Vehicles, including whether to allow Low-Speed Vehicles at all on roads under their jurisdiction, or to limit the roads on which they can be used.

Because the maximum speed of your vehicle is 12 mph, it is not a "Low Speed Vehicle." We do not know whether any State permits use on its public roads of vehicles with a maximum speed of 12 miles per hour. We suggest that you consult with each State in which you intend to market your vehicle to determine whether your vehicles may use the public roads in that State.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:500
d.5/22/03

ID: label on booster seat

ID: label_color1307

Lori J. Crouzillat, Safety Advisor
E-Z-On Products, Inc., of Florida
605 Commerce Way West
Jupiter, FL 33458

Dear Ms. Crouzillat:

This responds to your letter asking about the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.213, Child restraint systems, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted in an October 1, 2002, final rule (67 FR 61523; corrected 69 FR 11337). The rulemaking sought to provide for clearer and simpler child restraint system (CRS) labels.

To inform users about the consequences of not following CRS instructions, the October 2002 rule required, among other matters, that a CRS be affixed with a label that has an alert symbol and a heading, "WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur," followed by bulleted statements regarding proper use (S5.5.2(g)).The agency required one portion of the heading (an alert symbol and the exclamation "WARNING!") to be in black text on a yellow background, as specified in S5.5.2(k)(3)(i) ^[1] for the air bag warning label required for rear-facing child restraints.

Yellow Background

You first ask whether the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" must be on a yellow background. The answer is no. In the preamble to the October 2002 final rule, the agency recognized the similarity between the new heading required for CRS warning labels and that of the air bag warning label. So that manufacturers may take advantage of this similarity when designing or producing labels, S5.5.2(g)(2) of FMVSS No. 213 specifies that the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" may be printed on either a yellow or a white background, at the manufacturers option. Accordingly, the warning label required by S5.5.2 must have either: (a) the alert symbol and the entire statement, "WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur," on a yellow background with black text; or (b) the alert symbol and the word "WARNING!" on a yellow background with black text, and the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" on a white background with black text.

Separate Labels

You next ask if the warning label heading and bulleted points are required to be on a single label or if a portion of the heading could be on a separate label placed directly above the remaining label components. Our answer is the warning label heading may be on a separate label, provided certain requirements are met.

The agency explained in the preamble to the October 2002 final rule that separate label components are permissible so long as the separate components are attached to the CRS in the correct order with no intervening labels. 67 FR at 61526, col. 2. ^[2]As such, your company is permitted to have a label component printed with the alert symbol and the exclamation "WARNING" placed directly above a second label component printed with the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS injury can occur," followed by the applicable bulleted statements. The separate label components must meet the provisions of S5.5.2(g)(3).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.3/31/04





---

[1] The October 2002 final rule inadvertently referenced S5.5.2(k)(4)(i) instead of subparagraph (k)(3)(i). We have corrected this reference in a document published on March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11337)(copy enclosed).

[2] See also S5.5.2(g)(3), which was added to FMVSS No. 213 by the March 2004 final rule.

ID: Label_legibility001589

Mr. Randy Kiser
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your February 5, 2004, letter following up on recent correspondence between you and this office concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems.

Your earlier letter asked about the requirement in S5.5.1 and elsewhere in FMVSS No. 213 that child restraints be "permanently labeled" with certain information. You asked if we would consider the permanency requirement met if attempting to remove the label caused certain results, such as tearing of the label. We replied that, if the label met the described criteria and remained legible for the life of the restraint, we would consider it permanently attached.

In your follow up letter, you ask about a procedure you use to determine the legibility of the labeling. You state that the procedure, which you say was suggested by Transport Canada, involves applying three different cleaning solutions in sequence to the label with a piece of cheesecloth. After each solution is applied, you assess the legibility of the label and deem the wording legible if it is "legible to an observer having corrected visual acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) at a distance of 305 mm." You state that this language is used in FMVSS No. 116, "Brake fluids," regarding legibility of labeling. You wish to know if such a procedure is acceptable for evaluating legibility under FMVSS No. 213.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, persons are prohibited from manufacturing or selling any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. However, this prohibition does not apply to a person who had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that the vehicle or item of equipment does not comply (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)). In our opinion, using the procedure you describe would be an exercise of reasonable care in making your certification. We assume that the procedure would expose the labeling to cleaning solutions representative of those used in the U.S.

If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.5/11/04

ID: nht74-2.37

DATE: APRIL 26, 1974

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Granning Suspensions Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 21, 1974, request for an explanation of your certification responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as a manufacturer of liftable and "additional" axles which are installed on completed vehicles by an independent truck equipment dealer or, in some cases, by the vehicle manufacturer at the factory.

Your responsibilities under Standard 121, Air brake systems, are largely the same as your responsibility for certification of the GAWR of an axle under 49 CFR Part 567, although somewhat more complicated. It is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard 121 (49 CFR Part 567.4), and if the completed vehicle is altered, it is the responsibility of the vehicle alterer (49 CFR Part 567.7). The addition of an axle will change the GAWR-GVWR and the brake performance of the altered vehicle and will require recertification by the dealer who undertakes alteration.

A dealer is normally not equipped to recertify an altered vehicle, except on the basis of certification information supplied to him by the manufacturer of the component that is being added. A component manufacturer like yourself might issue a performance guaranty which relies on the information that is supplied to him by the manufacturer of the basic parts (e.g. brakes, axles in your case) and which is conditioned on the observance of certain limits on installation. For instance, the reservoir volume requirement (S5.1.2.1) might be exceeded if the liftable axle manufacturer did not qualify his information by stating that a certain tank volume must be provided to serve the air chambers on his axle system. Another qualification could refer to brake actuation and release time as complying only if it did not reduce the brake actuation and release timing of the vehicle as a whole. The effect of your axle on each of the requirements would have to be determined.

We do not require certification of the axle by you as its manufacturer.