ID: 8047

Mr. Steve Flint
Century Products Co.
9600 Valley View Road
Macedonia, OH 44056-2096

Dear Mr. Flint:

This responds to your question about the registration form required by S5.8 of Standard 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

In telephone conversations with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you indicated that your registration form would have certain characteristics. The form would be identical to the ones shown in figures 9a and 9b of Standard 213 and required by S5.8 of the standard, except that cards bearing additional information would be attached to it. The additional information consists of French and Spanish translations of the instructions shown in Figure 9a for filling out the registration form, and a French version of the registration form shown in Figure 9b.

You stated that the Spanish instructions are for the Spanish speaking population in the U.S. You also said that the French form is required by Canada for restraints sold there, and that attaching it to the U.S. (English) form facilitates your compliance with both U.S. and Canadian standards.

We conclude that as long as the English form complies with S5.8 and does not bear any information or writing beyond that required to be on the form, cards bearing the French and Spanish information may be attached to the English form if the information on those cards is presented in a manner that is not likely to confuse consumers in this country about the meaning of the English form or the importance of owner registration. As to whether the additional information is likely to cause confusion, we note the additional information consists solely of French and Spanish translations of the information on the English form. We note further that you indicated to Ms. Fujita that significant numbers of your consumers have been filling in and mailing the tri-lingual registration cards. This return rate indicates that the additional information has not confused the consumers.

We appreciate your recognition of the differing language needs of your customers. NHTSA has suggested to manufacturers that they should consider providing consumer instructions on the use of child restraints not only in English, but also in other languages, to address a possible need for such information. (See, denial of petition for rulemaking from Mr. Mattox, 55 FR 48262, November 20, 1990.)

Please note, however, that NHTSA wishes to maximize the return rates for the registration forms. If information arises that indicates the French and Spanish information is confusing consumers or otherwise negatively affecting return rates, the agency will reconsider whether such information should be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:5/24/93

ID: 8049

Herr O. Schmidt
Hella KG Hueck & Co
Postfach 28 40
4780 Lippstadt
Germany

Dear Herr Schmidt:

This responds to your letter of November 20, 1992, to Richard L. Van Iderstine of this agency asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Please address your future requests for interpretation to the Chief Counsel.

You have asked for confirmation that the requirement that a center highmounted stop lamp "provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools" does not exclude sealed lamps "where long life light sources like long life bulbs, LED's and neon tubes are provided."

We are pleased to provide the confirmation you request. Although the agency has used the term "the bulb", the term is not meant to exclude more than one bulb, or a light source other than a bulb, for the center lamp. Sealed units (entire lamps) are permissible as long as such a lamp is replaceable without the use of special tools.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d.12/11/92

ID: 8054

Philip E. Stern, Esquire
Rand, Algeier, Tosti & Woodruff
Attorneys at Law
Courthouse Plaza
60 Washington Street
Morristown, NJ 07960

Dear Mr. Stern:

This responds to your letter of November 25, 1992, to this agency requesting information on placement of video cameras on school buses. You stated that you are the attorney for the Sussex Wantage Board of Education, a school district in Northern New Jersey, and that you are interested in speaking with other school districts that may use video cameras on their school buses.

This agency knows of no specific studies or tests that have been conducted on the use of video cameras in school buses from the standpoint of either motor vehicle or behavioral safety. With respect to the latter, this agency is also not aware of any data which would indicate any safety consequences resulting from passenger behavior on school buses. We have, however, had occasion recently to address the issue of the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the installation of "silent monitors" in school buses.

Please find enclosed, therefore, a copy of a November 17, 1992, letter of interpretation that we wrote to Ms. Shirley A. Stewart of Herndon, VA. Ms. Stewart explained that her company was installing "silent monitors," which she described as six- inch cubes of welded steel designed to hold video cameras, in school buses in Prince George's County, Maryland. Should you wish to discuss this issue with Prince George's County school officials, your point of contact would be Mr. David Lombardi, Transportation Director, Prince George's County Public Schools, 13300 Old Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20702, (301) 952- 6570. Another possible source of information is Ms. Marsha Sailesbury, Consultant, Pupil Transportation, State Board of Education, 100 North First Street, Springfield, IL 63777; (217) 782-5256.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Mr. David Lombardi Transportation Director Prince George's County Public Schools 13300 Old Marlboro Pike Upper Marlboro, MD 20702

Ms. Marsha Sailesbury Consultant Pupil Transportation State Board of Education 100 North First Street Springfield, IL 63777 ref:221 d.12/28/92

ID: 8056

Mr. Allan Ferver
Product Manager
Waekon Industries, Inc.
100 South Walnut Street
Kennett Square, PA 19348

Dear Mr. Ferver:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations would apply to a product which you call the "Universal Replacement Fuel Cap." You explained that this product is designed to replace lost fuel caps until the proper replacement can be obtained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is directly applicable to a replacement fuel cap. Nevertheless, you should be aware of Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, which may be relevant to your product. Standard No. 301 applies only to new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel system as a whole following crash tests. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to a replacememt fuel cap, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which you should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes fuel caps, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place your fuel cap on a motor vehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected. Whether your fuel cap could be installed on a vehicle by a person in one of those categories without taking the vehicle out of compliance with Standard No. 301 or any other applicable Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by the entity making the installation.

Please note that the prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, a vehicle owner may install or remove any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with the Federal safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the vehicle's safety.

We suggest that you also contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect you as the manufacturer of a fuel cap. The general telephone number for EPA is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:301 d.2/1/93

ID: 8067

Mr. Richard Langlais
Prelco Inc.
94 Boulevard Cartier
Riviere-Du-Loup
Quebec, Canada G5R-2M9

Dear Mr. Langlais:

This responds to your December 7, 1992, inquiry requesting information about the agency's requirements set forth in 49 CFR 551.45, Service of Process; Agents. In a November 26, 1991, letter to you, Ms. Kathleen DeMeter, NHTSA's Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, sent you a letter explaining your responsibilities pursuant to 551.45. You now have some additional questions related to Ms. DeMeter's letter. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your additional questions.

As our earlier letter explained, 551.45 sets forth this agency's requirements as they relate to the service of process on non-American manufacturers and importers. One such requirement provides that you must send a declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed and that agent must be a permanent resident of the United States. The agent may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation. You asked who could be appointed as your agent and whether we would recommend some agents or firms which specialize in this kind of service.

With respect to your first question, any individual, firm, or United States corporation may be an agent provided that it is a permanent resident of this country. With respect to your second question, this agency does not recommend or endorse entities which may serve as an agent. Nevertheless, the National Glass Association, a trade association whose members include automotive glass manufacturers, may be able to assist you. It is located at 8200 Greensboro Drive, Suite 302, McLean Va 22102, and its telephone number is (703) 442-4890.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:551#205 d:2/23/93

ID: 8069

Mr. Shafi J. Keisler
President
One More Run, Inc.
3657 Wildwood Road
Maryville, TN 37804

Dear Mr. Keisler:

This responds to your letter of November 24, 1992, with respect to the manufacture of a replacement taillamp lens for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger. You ask for "all safety standards information pertinent to the manufacture of this replacement lens", and inform us that you "will use only "current DOT and SAE safety approved material to build this item."

As Taylor Vinson explained to you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment was amended effective January 1, 1972, to apply to replacement lighting equipment for motor vehicles manufactured on and after that date (the standard had previously applied only to original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after January 1, 1969). This means that replacement taillamps designed specificially for the 1966-67 Dodge Charger have never been covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 does require that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, May 1970, with certain exceptions. Although this could be construed as requiring compliance of plastics used in any replacement taillamp lens, we do not interpret this as mandating compliance of plastic materials for a lens in a replacement lamp that is itself not subject to Standard No. 108. However, S5.1.2 is the Federal requirement that you would be obliged to meet were you manufacturing new or replacement taillamp lenses for contemporary motor vehicles. I enclose a copy of S5.1.2 and J576c for your information.

We appreciate your desire to meet current safety requirements. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:108 d.12/16/92

ID: 8073-1

Mr. Ron Marion
Sales Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your letter asking whether there has been any consideration given to excluding "non-route-type" school buses from Standard No. 131's requirement that school buses be equipped with a stop signal arm. You stated that, as a manufacturer of school bus bodies, you are getting numerous questions regarding the installation of stop arms on school buses not used on route service. According to your letter, a number of schools across the U.S. purchase school buses, paint them a color other than yellow, and use them exclusively for athletic trips. You stated that these buses pick up at the school and travel to another school to unload, and do not make stops for loading or unloading along the way and in no way attempt to control traffic. You stated that the purchasers of these school buses are concerned about paying for stop arms which are never used.

As you know, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, is a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard which requires all new school buses to be equipped with a stop signal arm. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce deaths and injuries by minimizing the likelihood of vehicles passing a stopped school bus and striking pedestrians in the vicinity of the bus.

To answer your specific question, this agency has not considered whether "non-route-type" school buses should be excluded from Standard No. 131's requirement for a stop signal arm. I note that this issue was not raised in the comments on our notice of proposed rulemaking.

We do appreciate the concern of a purchaser about paying for safety equipment that he or she believes will never be used. However, the limited information provided in your letter does not provide a basis for concluding that we should consider changing the standard.

We do not know how many school buses are used exclusively or primarily for "non-route-type" service, although we assume the number is small. Further, it would appear that there would be occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses used for such service. For example, these safety devices might be used while loading and unloading students when the school bus is parked on a school driveway or a road near a school, if the school bus is used to transport students to activities at locations other than schools, or if the school bus is sometimes used as a replacement for out-of-service regular route school buses. I also note that, assuming that there is occasion to use stop signal arms for some school buses which are primarily used for non-route service, it is not clear how the agency would distinguish, for purposes of a regulation, which school buses should be excluded from the requirement for stop arms.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:131 d:3/3/93

ID: 8079

John Paul Barber, Esq.
Legislative Counsel
American Association of Blood Banks
8101 Glenbrook Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-2749

Dear Mr. Barber:

This responds to your letter asking whether second stage manufacturers may affix additional certification labels with a new gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) on vehicles. You asked this question in the context of the Federal Highway Administration's commercial driver's license program which applies in part to commercial vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 pounds or more.

You stated in your letter that your organization has advised its members that second stage manufacturers that convert buses to bloodmobiles have the authority under 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 to affix an additional label with a new GVWR to newly converted vehicles as well as to vehicles already in use. You stated, however, that you have since received a legal opinion from a private party asserting that those regulations preclude affixing an additional label to vehicles already in use. You enclosed a copy of your earlier advice (American Association of Blood Banks Bulletin #92-5), which reads in part as follows:

Many bloodmobiles have a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds. This renders the bloodmobiles commercial motor vehicles requiring an operator with a commercial driver's license. However, options may be available to avoid the classification of bloodmobiles as commercial motor vehicles on the basis of their gross vehicle weight rating.

. . . When originally constructed, buses will be given gross vehicle weight ratings in excess of 26,000 pounds. When converted for use as bloodmobiles, their actual weight is reduced to two or three thousand pounds less than the 26,000 pound threshold, yet many converters do not change the gross vehicle weight rating.

By federal regulation, vehicle converters have the authority to affix an additional label containing a new gross vehicle weight rating, to newly converted vehicles as well as to vehicles already in use. Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 567 and 568.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, under the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

I will first discuss the issues you raise concerning new vehicles. Under NHTSA's certification regulations (Parts 567 and 568), manufacturers must assign a GVWR to a new vehicle. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the safety standards to which the vehicle must be certified, and at which NHTSA conducts any compliance testing. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight and load carrying capacity. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." See also section 567.5.

You asked about the authority of persons who convert buses to bloodmobiles to reduce the GVWR of the vehicle. I note that, assuming that the conversion takes place before the first sale of the vehicle for purpose other than resale, i.e., while the vehicle is still new, the converter would be considered either a "final stage manufacturer" or an "alterer," depending on the circumstances. A final stage manufacturer is a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a complete vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 568.3. An alterer is a person who modifies a previously certified, new motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 567.6, 567.7, and 568.8.

A final stage manufacturer is ordinarily responsible for making the final assignment of GVWR for a vehicle that it completes. See 49 CFR Part 567.5(c). (Special requirements apply if the incomplete vehicle manufacturer or an intermediate vehicle manufacturer assume legal responsibility for all duties imposed by the Safety Act.) However, as discussed below, a final stage manufacturer may, as a practical matter, need to assign to the completed vehicle a GVWR that is consistent with that specified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

Incomplete vehicle manufacturers (typically GM, Ford or Chrysler) are required to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document which specifies, among other things, the GVWR of the completed vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle is intended (i.e., the GVWR that is appropriate for the incomplete vehicle when completed) and statements concerning how the design of the incomplete vehicle affects conformity with safety standards. See 49 CFR Part 568.4. Moreover, manufacturers of chassis-cabs are required also to attach a certification label concerning the conformance of the chassis- cab with safety standards. See 49 CFR Part 567.5(a). (A chassis-cab is an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant compartment, that requires only the addition of cargo-carrying, work-performing, or load-bearing components to perform its intended function.)

If a final stage manufacturer wishes to base its certification on the incomplete vehicle document or other information furnished by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, as the vast majority of final stage manufacturers do in actual practice, the final stage manufacturer will likely need to assign to the completed vehicle a GVWR that is consistent with that specified by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. I note that, since most safety performance requirements are easier to meet at lower loads than higher loads, it is possible that a final stage manufacturer might be able to justify assigning a reduced GVWR to some vehicles. We would urge the final stage manufacturer to consult with the incomplete vehicle manufacturer about such an action. As indicated above, the reduced GVWR would need to comply with the requirement set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(3), and we would expect it to reflect the manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight and load carrying capacity.

I note that the final stage manufacturer is subject to the same basic requirements concerning GVWR as a single stage manufacturer. I have enclosed a copy of an April 29, 1991 letter to Mitsubishi which discusses the issue of reducing the GVWR of certain vehicles.

An alterer has a more limited certification responsibility. Under 49 CFR Part 567.7, an alterer must allow the original certification label to remain on the new vehicle and must affix an additional label which states that, as altered, the vehicle "conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration." If the GVWR of the vehicle as altered is different from that shown on the original certification label, the modified value must be provided. I note, however, that since an alterer only certifies a vehicle with respect to the alterations it makes, the alterer would only have a basis to change the GVWR if the alterations are relevant to GVWR.

You also asked whether manufacturers may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to vehicles after they are sold for purposes other than resale, i.e., after they become used vehicles. As discussed above, the term GVWR refers to "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle," and the GVWR is assigned by the vehicle's manufacturer as part of the certification process. Therefore, for purposes of NHTSA's regulations, a vehicle's GVWR is fixed as of the time of its first sale to a consumer. The only exception to this is if the manufacturer seeks to correct an error (e.g., calculation error or typographical error) regarding the originally assigned GVWR.

We recognize that certain modifications that might be made to a used vehicle (e.g., adding or deleting an axle) could make the originally assigned GVWR inappropriate for the vehicle as modified. While not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in such situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle.

You also asked whether the affixing of a new label with an adjusted GVWR would have the effect of rendering existing bloodmobiles noncommercial motor vehicles for purposes of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Since the commercial driver's license program is administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), I have referred this question to that agency. If you wish to speak to someone at that agency about your question, you may contact Charles Medalen, of the FHWA Office of Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-1354.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:571.3#567 d:5/24/93

ID: 8083

Air Mail

Mr. M.K. Chaudhari Director ARAI The Automotive Research Association of India Post Box No. 832 Survey No. 102, Vetal Hill Off Paud Road, Lothrud Pune-411 004 INDIA

Dear Mr. Chaudhari:

This responds to your follow-up letter of November 16, 1992, subsequent to our response, dated August 12, 1992, to your earlier letter. I am pleased that the information given you in our previous letter is proving helpful in your work. In your current letter you request information regarding DOT certification of automotive components in general, and "brake hose ends" in particular.

I would like to clarify the relevant points made in our last letter to clear up any misunderstandings. Neither the Department of Transportation (DOT), nor the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, a part of DOT) conduct any certification testing. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), a copy of which I have enclosed, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its components or vehicles are in compliance with NHTSA's safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products is also subject to civil penalties.

With respect to your specific question about "brake hose ends," Standard No. 106, "Brake Hoses," applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. A copy of the standard is enclosed. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above.

I have enclosed a copy of the test procedure manual used by the agency in its tests to verify compliance of the brake hoses. However, please see the Note on page 1 of the procedure manual regarding a manufacturer's certification testing.

NHTSA does not authorize testing agencies to perform certification procedures. Therefore, we cannot provide a list of the agencies in India or elsewhere that are capable of certifying motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information clarifies NHTSA's role in the certification process. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Our fax number is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:106 d:2/9/93

ID: 8084

Mr. M.M. Palkar
Senior Manager (Marketing)
Kalyani Brakes Limited
Aurora Towers, 4th Floor
9 Moledina Road, Pune 411 001
INDIA

Dear Mr. Palkar:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for the manufacture of brake hose assemblies. I am pleased to provide this information.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hose assemblies. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," copy enclosed) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hose is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities you must meet as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Standard No. 106, "Brake Hoses," applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above.

You ask that NHTSA "approve" your assemblies so that you can "punch DOT on the end fittings of the assemblies." As explained above, NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or conduct pre-sale testing of their products. In the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS's.

Your question about "DOT punching" seems to confuse two options for labeling brake hose assemblies specified in Standard No. 106. The "DOT" mark is used in the standard to constitute a manufacturer's certification of conformance with all applicable FMVSS's. For hydraulic brake hose assemblies It is unclear from your letter whether you will be manufacturing hydraulic brake hose assemblies, or air brake hose assemblies made with crimped end fittings. The labeling requirements for crimped air brake hose assemblies are similar to those for hydraulic assemblies (see S7.2.3, S7.2.3.1). The assembly would be labeled by either a band containing the DOT mark and a manufacturer designation, or by stamping the designation on an end fitting. , S5.2.4 of Standard No. 106 requires the DOT mark to be placed on a band (not an end fitting) around the hydraulic brake hose assembly, along with a designation that identifies the assembler. As an alternative to this requirement for a band, S5.2.4.1 permits manufacturers of hydraulic brake hose assemblies to label their assemblies by marking at least one end fitting with the manufacturer designation. Assembly manufacturers choosing to mark their assemblies only with a designation must separately furnish the certification of conformance with the applicable FMVSS's. The certification may be in the form of a label or tag on the completed brake hose assembly or on the outside of a container in which the assembly is delivered.

The manufacturer's designation that is marked on either the band or an end fitting of a hydraulic or air brake hose assembly is described in S5.2.4(b) and S7.2.3(b), respectively, of Standard No. 106. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products. You must file your designation (which may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division at the following address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. You may telephone Mr. Richard Carter of the Crash Avoidance Division at (202) 366-5274 if you have questions about filing your designation.

I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

1.A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2.The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3.Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4.A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5.A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,

6.The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

7.In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

You also asked whether you must obtain approval from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to sell your assemblies in this country. The answer is no. You must meet only NHTSA's requirements to sell your product in the U.S. Please note, however, that assemblies used on commercial vehicles operating in interstate commerce are subject to the requirements of our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). If you are interested in the FHWA's requirements for brake hose assemblies, you can write to that agency at the addressed provided in the enclosed information sheet.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:106#VSA d.2/4/93