Interpretation ID: nht68-3.5

DATE: 12/31/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: Brixtax (London) Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 9, 1968, in which you inquire about the certification responsibilities of equipment manufacturers under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

You state that it is your understanding that a vehicle manufacturer has the responsibility to certify the entire vehicle, including equipment that is produced by other manufacturers and covered by Federal safety standards, as complying with the applicable standards, and that the basis on which that manufacturer satisfies himself that equipment from suppliers conforms to the standards is a matter of his own discretion. I consider that statement to be essentially correct, with the caveat that the manufacturer must be able to show, under @ 108(b)(2) of the Act, that "he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care" that any included equipment was nonconforming. What constitutes "due care" must be determined in light of all the circumstances of a particular case. You are also correct in your understanding that approval by the States has no relevance to the question of compliance with this Federal law.

Finally, regardless of certification requirements all equipment must conform to applicable standards, and certification by the equipment manufacturer is required if the equipment is ultimately sold in the aftermarket.

I am pleased to be of assistance.