ID: 04-009159drn

David Ring, Operations Manager
Fluid Connector Products, Inc.
3342 N.W. 26^th Avenue
Portland, OR97210

Dear Mr. Ring:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106). In particular, you asked about the most current version of FMVSS No. 106 and FMVSS No. 106 requirements for assemblers of crimp style air brake assemblies for aftermarket customers.

In responding to your letter, I note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

FMVSS No. 106 applies to brake hoses, 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. The various requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose fittings are set forth in S7 of FMVSS No. 106.

You ask if FMVSS No. 106 requires your two associate distributors, which are independent contractors, to "register their unique symbols" if they are purchasing materials from Fluid Connector Products to manufacture crimp-style air brake assemblies for their aftermarket customers. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the two associate distributors are not permitted to label the air brake assemblies with "FCP" and that Fluid Connector Products does not assume responsibility for assemblies manufactured by the associate distributors. With this background, the answer is yes, the two associate distributors must "register their unique symbols". FMVSS No. 106 at S7.2.3Assemblies states:

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 manufacturers 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: Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Vehicle Dynamics Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.

[The mailing address has changed to: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Equipment Division NVS-222, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC20590. This new address is reflected in the December 20, 2004 brake hose final rule and is the preferred address.]

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).

Where a distributor of brake hose parts assembles them into an air brake hose assembly, the distributor would be the manufacturer of the assembly. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person "manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment". The enclosed letter of May 13, 2002 to WIRA Fahrzeug-und Maschinenteile GmbH explains additional requirements for manufacturers of brake hoses.

On December 20, 2004 (69 FR 76298), NHTSA issued in the Federal Register, a final rule updating FMVSS No. 106, including the requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. No changes were made to S7.2.3 or to S7.2.3.1. The final rule takes effect on December 20, 2006. However manufacturers that wish to do so may begin complying with this new rule beginning on February 18, 2005.

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to the above, I am also, enclosing a information sheet for new manufacturers and a copy of the December 20, 2004 final rule updating FMVSS No. 106. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:106
d.1/13/05

ID: 1983-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 15, 1982 letter regarding the applicability of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, to two proposed cowl designs.

FMVSS 219 provides that no part of a vehicle outside the occupant compartment, "except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield," may penetrate a specified protected zone template on the windshield during a vehicle test crash. In your letter, you present two possible vehicle designs in which the cowl would directly contact the windshield. In one design, the contact would occur across most of the width of the windshield, while in the other, the contact occurs only at the outside edges of the cowl.

Both designs appear to fall within the exception in the standard for components "designed to be normally in contact with the windshield," and therefore the cowl would be permitted to penetrate the protected zone template. Nevertheless, I should mention that your second design does raise some concerns. It is difficult to determine from the drawings enclosed with your letter the extent of the windshield-cowl contact in your second design. If this contact were for such a short distance that it would be apparent that the design was intended to circumvent FMVSS 219 by establishing only minimal contact, the agency would consider taking appropriate action to assure that the intent of the standard is carried out.

SINCERELY,

MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC. Detroit Office

November 15, 1982

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda respectfully submits this letter to request an interpretation of the requirements (S5.) of FMVSS 219, Winshield Zone Intrusion. The requirement states, ". . . . .No part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, . . . . . . . . . . ."

Mazda is developing a new model in which the cowl, by design, contacts the lower portion of the windshield. There are two designs being considered, as shown in the attached sketches.

According to our interpretation of the standard, the cowl would be part of "other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield".

We would appreciate your interpretation with regard to this matter at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

H. Nakaya Manager

CASE I - Complete contact with windshield

Windshield

CASE II - Partial contact with windshield (contact at left and right side)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht88-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Derek Nash -- Artech Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/14/76 letter from Richard B. Dyson To Tom Welland

TEXT:

Mr. Derek Nash Artech Corporation 2901 Telestar Court Falls Church, VA 22042

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and follows up on the April 1, 1988 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff in which additional information augmenting your letter was provided. I apologiz e for the delay in responding.

In your letter, you said that you are refurbishing a type of passenger vehicle that has first produced 20 years ago. Your letter raises questions about Federal requirements for persons modifying used vehicles which I will address in the latter part of th is letter and about Federal requirements for the design of the vehicle's chassis.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA also has the authority to in vestigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that the manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not clear from the information which you have provided us whether the vehicle you are refurbishing would be treated as a new or used vehicle under the Safety Act. A vehicle with a new body and new chassis would be a new vehicle required to meet the standards in effect on the day that manufacture of the vehicle is completed. A vehicle with a new body and old chassis would be a used vehicle.

Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., persons holding themselves out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that any person in the above categories m odifying a new or used vehicle must do so in a manner that ensures the continued compliance of the vehicle with applicable safety standards. This prohibition affects vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the date on which the first Federal s afety standards became effective. For instance, a commercial business that installs a new fuel system in a passenger car manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of Standard No. 301) must ensure that the new system at least meets the level of safety performance required of the fuel system originally installed on the vehicle. Persons violating section 108 are subject to potential civil penalties of $1,000 per violation.

In instances in which a new vehicle body is installed on an old chassis, section 108(a) (2) (A) requires that the reassembled vehicle meet the Federal safety standards that had been in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle. I have enclosed a c opy of a January 14, 1976 letter to Mr. Tom Welland that describes generally the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to refurbished motor vehicles. Please note that the first situation referred to in the Welland letter addresses the m odification of a vehicle by its owner. The prohibition in section 108(a) (2) (A) does not apply to the modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I will now address the questions you expressly posed in your letter. Your first three questions asked:

What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of a passenger-carrying motor vehicle?

What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger-carrying motor vehicle chassis?

What form or test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

As Ms. Hom informed you, our safety standards apply to new vehicles and are performance-oriented. NHTSA has not issued any design specifications that directly establish minimum static or dynamic loads for vehicle chassis. These design parameters are esta blished by the manufacturer independently of specific criteria set by the agency and might be available from the original manufacturer of the vehicle you are refurbishing. However, manufacturers of new vehicles are required by NHTSA to determine and spec ify the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings of their vehicles in the manner set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 of our regulations. I have enclosed a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Chassis manufacturers must be aware, however, of the following two considerations relating to the static and dynamic load capacities of vehicles and NHTSA's regulations. First, because manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that their vehicles hill p erform to the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, manufacturers must ensure that chassis design is compatible with the vehicle' s ability to comply. Some of our safety standards specify that the performance of requisite vehicle safety systems will be evaluated in dynamic (i.e., crash) tests which enable the agency to evaluate the synergistic effect of a range of variables on a vehicle's compliance therewith. Manufacturers of new vehicles would therefore have to ensure that the design of the chassis will have no negative effect on their vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards.

Second, as mentioned above, NHTSA has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and to require manufacturers to recall and remedy such defects free of charge. Chassis manufacturers must therefore en sure that their products contain no safety related defects, which might well include a chassis member that is incapable of carrying loads for which it is intended.

Further, the vehicle manufacturer who provides the GVWR and GAWR information required by Part 567 must ensure that the information relating to the chassis static loads is correct.

On a separate matter, your letter also asked about the requirements manufacturers must meet when installing a plastic fuel tank in a motor vehicle. The standard we issued for vehicle fuel system integrity (No. 301) sets performance requirements for fuel systems in new motor vehicles. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) specifies the test that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the requisite safety system (e.g. the fuel system) on new vehicles selected for i nclusion in its compliance test program. Manufacturers are not bound, however, to use the tests specified in the safety standards for evaluating the compliance of their vehicles or equipment with our standards. Instead, a manufactures may test in any man ner it chooses, so long as it can show that it has exercised due care in ensuring that its vehicles or items of equipment comply with the applicable Federal requirements.

In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed information that provides an overview of Federal requirements applying to manufacturers of new motor vehicles and instructions on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures omitted.

Ref: Passenger vehicle design parameters

Dear Erika:

In accordance with our telephone conversation I have listed some specific questions the have a direct bearing on an ongoing project. Our purpose is to produce a specification for refurbishment of a type of passenger vehicle that was first produced twenty years ago. Our request is for either direct answers to the questions below and/or references to available publications or regulations that are the authorities for the answer.

The questions are as follows:

1. What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of passenger carrying motor vehicle?

2. What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger carrying motor vehicle chassis?

3. What form of test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2) September 3, 1987

4. What data on characteristics and/or tests of a plastic fuel tank are required for approval of its use in a passenger carrying vehicle?

I thank you for your time and effort in supplying this information and hope to hear from you shortly.

In appreciation

ARTECH CORP.

Derek Nash Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht92-4.47

DATE: August 6, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mary C. Andrews

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/92 from Mary C. Andrews to NHTSA Legal Counsel (OCC 7439)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether a plastic cone design you are developing would comply with the Department of Transportation's requirements applicable to warning devices. You explained that your device is a 24 inch high inflatable cone with reflector strips on the sides. The cone would be weighted down with sand in an enclosed bottom. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed).

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

Standard No. 125 applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. See section S3. Your planned product appears to be such a device and would therefore need to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. As the enclosed copy of the standard indicates, your device would have to comply with specific requirements including those for minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements.

Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail

to comply with any applicable safety standards.

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

Attachments

Copy of standard.

NHTSA information sheet titled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

NHTSA information sheet titled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: 7439

Ms. Mary C. Andrews
2510 Glengyle Drive
Vienna, VA 22181

Dear Ms. Andrews:

This responds to your letter asking whether a plastic cone design you are developing would comply with the Department of Transportation's requirements applicable to warning devices. You explained that your device is a 24 inch high inflatable cone with reflector strips on the sides. The cone would be weighted down with sand in an enclosed bottom. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed).

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

Standard No. 125 applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. See section S3. Your planned product appears to be such a device and would therefore need to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. As the enclosed copy of the standard indicates, your device would have to comply with specific requirements including those for minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements.

Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 125 U:\NCC20\INTERP\125\7439.mls cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 (MLS), NRM-01, NEF-01 Interp.: Std. 125, Redbook (2)

ID: 1985-04.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/21/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: W.S. Deason -- Development Manager, IMI Norgren Enots Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W.S. Deason Development Manager IMI Norgren Enots Ltd. Enots Works, P.O. Box 22, Eastern Avenue Lichfield, Staffordshire WS 13 6SB ENGLAND

This responds to your June 14, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

You asked about "DOT Certification" of your air brake hose and fitting assemblies. Our agency does not certify or approve in advance motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, under tne National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This "self-certification" process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. This determination can be made by product testing. The tests in Standard No. 106 are performance requirements that your products must meet when tested by the agency for compliance.

The data forming the basis for your certification is retained by you, and does not have to be submitted to NHTSA for approval. Our agency investigates safety-related defects and noncompliances with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If a question should arise as to the compliance of your product with NHTSA requirements, you will be requested to produce records to show how you determined compliance. If you or the agency determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, you are obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge.

Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

We wish to emphasize that the definition of "brake hose" includes flexible conduits manufactured out of nylon tubing that transmit or contain the pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. To be sold in the United States, your brake hose assemblies consisting of nylon tubing and "push-in" type tube fittings must be certified as meeting all applicable requirements of Standard No. 106.

Under Standard No. 106, certification is accomplished when you mark one component of each of your reusable fittings with the "DOT" symbol, pursuant to paragraph S7.2.2. The DOT symbol is your representation that your products were manufactured in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You are also required by the standard to mark your products with a designation, identifying you as the manufacturer, that is filed in writing with the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. The designation is intended to identify the manufacturer or assembler of brake hoses in the event of a safety-related defect or noncompliance necessitated recall.

You asked whether there are standard forms for manufacturers to register their designation. The answer is no. Standard No. 106 describes the procedures for designation registration. NHTSA will accept any designation consisting of letters, numerals, or a symbol, or a combination of these. If your chosen designation has not been selected previously by another manufacturer, it is accepted and recorded by NHTSA.

I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which apply to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires your company to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days after you import your products into the United States.

The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of tne 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 the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and 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 agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation; and

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

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.

In addition to the copies of the materials described above, I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 106 with amendments to the standard. You will also find an information sheet describing Federal statutes and regulations affecting manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and information on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's standards and regulations.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Crash Avoidance Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW WASHINGTON DC 20590 United States of America

Gentlemen,

We are a UK based Company manufacturing pneumatic components, many of which are finding application on UK and European commercial vehicles.

In particular we manufacture a range of push-in type tube fittings, for use with SAE J 844 nylon tubing, and these are now becoming widely used for commercial vehicle pneumatic systems, including braking, by UK manufacturers. We should now like to widen our potential market for these fittings by fulfilling the requirements for Department of Transport Certification. We have confirmed by testing that tube and fitting assemblies, comprising our fittings and J 844 type nylon tubing, meet the requirements of FMVSS-106.

Could you please advise us whether this is sufficient for meeting the DOT Certification requirements and whether you have any standard forms for manufacturers to register details of their official designation?

We thank you in advance for your help in this matter. Yours faithfully for IMI NORGREN ENOTS LIMITED W S DEASON Development Manager

ID: nht75-2.32

DATE: 12/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 20, 1975, letter concerning the use of replacement parts which may affect a vehicle's compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is applicable only to vehicles.

You have presented the example of a vehicle that, if equipped with a door that does not have guard bars, would not be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214. Because that standard is applicable only to passenger cars, there is no prohibition on the mere sale of such doors for use as replacement equipment. However, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended ("the Act"), specifies that

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "motor vehicle repair business" means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.

Therefore, the installation of a door that does not have guard bars is a violation of the Act, if that installation is performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Installation of such a door by one of your dealers, for example, is not permitted.

Your letter also asked whether the use of such doors would be permitted in the future, in the event that Standard No. 214 is relaxed in a way that would permit the use of such doors on a new vehicle. It is the opinion of this agency that replacement of a door, or any other safety system installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, with a system mandated by a later safety standard (even if the later standard imposes a less stringent level of performance) would not violate Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, as amended.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

November 20, 1975

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration This is to ask your interpretation regarding the requirement for replacement parts in the case of FMVSS's which are applied to only the vehicle, such a FMVSS 105, 114, 208, 214, 215 and so on.

1) Since the above mentioned FMVSS's require that the vehicle must be in compliance with them at only the time of manufacture, may we understand that there is no requirement for replacement parts of the vehicle after retail?

(example)

When we replace the door of 1974 model vehicle, may we use the door without guard bars as the replacement part? ( In this case, this vehicle does not meet FMVSS 214 after replacement)

If the answer is no, is it due to the fact that there is Motor Vehicle Safety Act Sec. 108(a) (2) (A)?

2) When the requirement is relaxed, may we use the replacement parts which do not meet the requrement before relaxation?

(example)

If in the future, FMVSS 214 is relaxed and we need not use the door with guard bars as a result of relaxation, may we use the door without guard bars as the replacement part of the vehicle manufactured before relaxation?

Thank you for your attention to the above question. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above in the near future.

Tokio Iinuma Staff, Safety

ID: nht79-3.27

DATE: 04/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Valley Presbyterian Hospital

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 16, 1979 NOA-30

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President Valley Presbyterian Hospital 15107 Vanowen Street Van Nuys, California 91405

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1979, concerning the computerized anti-theft device developed by the BBJ partnership.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been developing over the past several years an upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, Theft Protection. I have enclosed a copy of the standard now in effect and our recent proposed amendment. You should be aware, however, that in response to comments this proposal may be modified prior to its issuance in final form.

The approach of the NHTSA in issuing motor vehicle safety standards is to establish minimum standards with which all manufacturers must comply. It is our hope that manufacturers will exceed these minimum standards in a way which offers the public greater protection, either throughout an entire vehicle line or by optional equipment which a purchaser may buy. Your device appears to fall in this latter category.

The NHTSA does not provide evaluations or approvals of inventions, and we would be unable to advise you whether a vehicle equipped with your device would comply with Standard No. 114 without a more complete description. Based on the information you have provided, however, your device does not appear to conflict with the Standard as currently established. Should you have any specific questions in this regard after reading the enclosed material, please call (202-426-1834) or write Frederic Schwartz, Jr. of my office who will be able to assist you further. You should also be aware that if your device is meant to be installed by the owner of a vehicle after the vehicle is sold by the dealer, the Standard would not apply.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 7, 1979

Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

I believe that, at times, the best way is the most direct. Cognizant of your long and dedicated search for improvement in traffic safety, I am encouraged to address one important aspect of that search - automobile theft and its concommitant social and economic impact.

Congress Henry Waxman was king enough to establish the initial contact. I would like now to follow up in some detail to evoke your evaluation.

BBJ, a California partnership in which I am involved, has developed an anti-theft device known as the CAT* (Computerized Anti-Theft) system. Briefly, it is our representation that the device will totally protect against theft of any automobile, except by towing even though the key be left in the ignition. This is accomplished by employing the most advanced micro-processor technology to control the automobile's electric system. Use of the vehicle is restricted to the owner and those to whom he may have made the special coding feature known. The owner may elect to activate the device or not; if he chooses "no activation", the car will perform in an entirely normal manner. When activated, however, the vehicle cannot be "wired around" tampered with or moved by any of the conventional methods used by professional or amateur thieves. It does, in effect, guarantee against all known methodologies of theft. This complete security system comes packaged in a unit the size of a hand-held digital calculator.

* Patent applied for

During the course of a telephone conversation last month with Mr. Carl Nash, he was kind enough to agree to send a copy of the 1981 anti-theft requirements with which the automobile industry must comply. While I have not yet received them, my understanding is that they deal largely with peripherical modification such as recessed door latches, steering wheel locks, hood latches and the like. While these undoubedly act as deterrents, they are not fool-proof. We believe that our device, which will permit the hood, trunk and doors to remain open with the key in the ignition, meets and surpasses the intent of the regulations -which is to prevent car theft.

Increasingly sophisticated systems are appearing, all ranging from $250 to $1,000 - well beyond the practical reach of most car owners. Our device, in production quantities, will have a manufacturing cost of $30.00 - $40.00 and a retail cost of about $100. Furthermore, all other systems of which we are aware can be "wired around" or otherwise thwarted; we stipulate that ours cannot.

It would be most helpful in introducing the "CAT" system as the ultimate solution to car theft to have your administration's evaluation as to whether the device does indeed meet the 1981 regulations as we believe.

Any guidance you might give will be warmly appreciated not only by BBJ, but by the tens of thousands who each year are subjected to the trauma and inconvenience - both physical and economic - of automobile theft.

Sincerely,

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President

HXJ:dds

ID: 14247.ogm

Mr. Michael D. Quinn
Vice President Consulting Services
Body Shop Video's Business Development Group
4346 Woodland Ave.
Drexel Hill, PA 19026

Dear Mr. Quinn:

This is in response to your letter asking several questions about automobile replacement parts. Specifically, your letter is directed to "crash" parts such as fenders, hoods, and other body components that are manufactured by companies other than the companies that manufactured the original equipment (O.E.M.) parts. Before responding to your specific requests, I would like to provide you with some background information regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)regulation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Pursuant to Federal law, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, NHTSA is responsible for promulgating and enforcing safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Under this authority, NHTSA has promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.  30112(a), a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with all applicable safety standards and is covered by a certification of such compliance. This prohibition applies to new vehicles and equipment. Section 30112(b) provides that the prohibition does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment for purposes other than resale.

Your letter notes that non-O.E.M. parts are often less expensive than O.E.M. parts and that body shops are often encouraged by insurance companies to use these less costly components. You have asked several questions which are repeated below and followed by an answer.

Question 1. Does the United States require that replacement crash parts on automobiles (e.g. fenders, bumpers, hoods etc.) be crash tested for crashworthiness?

No. The vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that vehicles and equipment they produce meet all applicable safety standards. Some of the vehicle standards set performance requirements for vehicles in certain types of crash tests. However, these standards apply to new vehicles and do not require testing of replacement parts such as fenders, bumpers and hoods that may be used to repair a vehicle. (Safety standards do apply to some replacement parts, such as lamps.)

However, 49 U.S.C. 30122 specifies (in pertinent part) that a motor vehicle repair business:

may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter...

This section prohibits repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a safety standard. However, it does not impose an affirmative duty on repair businesses to repair vehicles in a manner that restores their original performance. I note, however, that NHTSA has long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash. The individual States may regulate the repair of used vehicles.

Question 2. If not, should they be allowed on the streets and highways, posing a possible threat?

NHTSA has not conducted any studies of the effect, if any, that non-O.E.M. "crash" parts may have on the ability of vehicles to comply with applicable standards. If the design or configuration of a replacement part obviously compromises a vehicle's compliance with a standard, e.g., omitting or obscuring a side marker lamp, such a part should not be used by a repair business.

Question 3. Does the United States require product testing of imported goods for the safe use of its citizens?

Answer: Whether a particular imported product must be tested under federal law is dependent both on the product being imported and the regulatory scheme of any federal law or agency that regulates that product. In regards to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, Chapter 301 does not require testing prior to sale and does not authorize the agency to require such pre-sale testing. Instead, manufacturers (this term includes importers) are required to certify that all products sold in the United States, whether manufactured in the United States or abroad, comply with all applicable standards. These standards largely apply to completed vehicles rather than equipment or replacement parts and there are no standards that apply directly to sheet metal body parts unless these parts are integrated into a vehicle before sale to consumers.

Manufacturers are under a continuing duty to remedy any vehicles or equipment that do not comply with an applicable standard or contain a safety related defect. NHTSA routinely performs compliance testing to determine if vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards and, if evidence of a defect exists, conducts investigations to determine if manufacturers or importers should provide a remedy.

Question 4. Does the NHTSA, in its investigation of auto crashes have any data to support that non-original equipment automobile replacement parts will withstand an impact, as good as the original parts by the manufacturer? Thus, clearing these shops of this liability?

Answer: Assuming that your question is limited to "crash" parts as described above, NHTSA has not conducted any studies or investigations specifically dedicated to determining the ability of replacement body parts to withstand an impact when compared to O.E.M. parts. We suggest that you consult with a private attorney concerning potential liability.

I hope that this response is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA

ID: 1982-2.41

DATE: 08/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Weldon Incorporated -- Robert P. Donley (Columbus, Oh)

COPYEE: Raymond Peck

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1981, regarding continuing compliance of lighting equipment after repairs.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. If the original lens is replaced during a field repair by one not manufactured by the original manufacturer, would the lamp's original certification with FMVSS 108 be nullified?"

Repair of a vehicle in service is irrelevant to its certification. Certification is the assurance given by the manufacturer to distributors, dealers, and purchasers, that Federal standards are met by his product upon its sale when new. There is no requirement that the certification be valid for the life of the product.

"2. Must a lamp in use remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made?"

This is a good question, and the answer is no. When repairs are necessary there is no Federal legal requirement that the lamp remain in conformance afterwards. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not alter fully functional lamps in a manner that renders them nonconforming, or substitute nonconforming equipment. This prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner; his modifications are subject only to State and local restrictions.

"3. If the lamp must remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made, who is responsible for certifying same?"

As I stated earlier, repairs of used vehicles and equipment are not subject to conformance or certification. However, if a lamp is replaced in its entirety, the manufacturer of the replacement lamp is responsible for certifying conformity to Standard No. 108 because that standard covers replacement equipment of the types you mentioned ("e.g., stop lamp, turn signal lamp, school bus warning lamp, marker lamp").

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 10, 1981

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel

We are seeking an understanding of what would nullify the original certification of a motor vehicle lamp (e.g. stop lamp, turn signal lamp, school bus warning lamp, marker lamp) to conformance with FMVSS 108 as result of a certain field repair.

A motor vehicle lamp is a mechanical composite of its housing, lens, bulb and miscellaneous other parts. The lamp is designed to conform with FMVSS 108 as originally designed and manufactured.

On the basis of an approved independent laboratory report (sample enclosed) a lamp is certified by the original manufacturer as being designed to conform with FMVSS 108.

Specifically, we would like answers to the following questions:

1. If the original lens is replaced during a field repair by one not manufactured by the original manufacturer, would the lamp's original certification with FMVSS 108 be nullified?

2. Must a lamp in use remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made?

3. If the lamp must remain in conformance with FMVSS 108 after such repair is made, who is responsible for certifying same?

We respectfully request your reply by January 11, 1982. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Robert P. Donley President

[Text information omitted]

Sign off: 6:47 A.M. Eastern Time, FEBRUARY 7, 1996