ID: nht90-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 30, 1990

FROM: G. Nick Routh -- President, American Energetics

TO: Connie Mack -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from J.M. Fish to C. Mack (A35; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from G.N. Routh to NHTSA c/o J. Medlin

TEXT:

I have a small business that is engaged in the selling and distribution of solar control films throughout the United States. These films are designed to reduce radiant heat gain through windows thereby lowering the energy costs. Over the past ten years or so, the market for auto window film has grown significantly. The demand for these films has increased year after year due to the features they provide for automobiles. As you are aware, the design of cars has changed dramatically due to fuel use co nsiderations and other factors. Cars have become smaller with smaller engines and more glass has been added to give a more spacious feeling. The additional glass and smaller engines have placed a greater load on the air conditioners in automobiles. Th e use of film on auto windows helps reduce the heat gain through the glass area and allows the cars to be more efficient and more comfortable for the occupants. It also reduces the effects of ultra-violet rays on the interior, reduces glare, and makes t he glass more shatter-resistant.

The purpose of this letter is enlist your assistance in a very serious matter that could gravely affect our industry. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), through the U.S. Justice Department, has filed suits against six companies involved in the installation of film on autos in the state of Florida. The six companies named in the suits are all in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area. The basis for the suits is that these companies have violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Statute # 2 05 (FMVSS #205). This statute states that there must be a minimum of 70% visible light transmission through driver and passenger windows of new automobiles and cannot be tampered with even after first sale of the automobile since these windows are consi dered a safety aspect of the vehicle. The problem is that the State of Florida has a law on the books which allows companies to install film on automobiles as long as the film has a visible light transmission of 35% on the driver and passenger windows. Various other Sunbelt states have adopted laws similar to Florida's with no increase in accidents or additional problems with law enforcement officers. Our problem appears to be one of a "jurisdictional" nature in that NHTSA allowed the states to write laws that allowed these six companies and some 5,000 other businesses throughout the United States to be engaged in the business of applying films to automobiles and they are now saying that their statute preempts the state laws that are different from t he statute. I have enclosed a copy of a letter that I have sent to the people at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which will hopefully shed more light on the situation.

Basically, the suits that NHTSA have filed endanger the livelihoods of some 5,000 installers across the country along with some 30 distributors

and 7 manufacturers. We feel that this is an issue that is best left to the discretion of the individual states with regard to the use of film in the automotive aftermarket. In the states that allow darker film than FMVSS #205 would allow, there is no evidence that traffic safety has suffered or law enforcement personnel have been placed in any greater danger than they normally face in the pursuit of their duties. What has happened is that some half-million consumers per year are enjoying the benefit s of a product that is sorely needed in the automotive aftermarket.

Our industry has petitioned NHTSA to change their standard to more correctly reflect what is going on in many states which is the allowance of 35% visible light transmission film on the driver/passenger windows. While this may be one way to address the p roblem we currently face, it would seem to me that the simplest way to address this problem would be for NHTSA to address itself to the standards necessary for the manufacture of new automobiles and let the individual states legislate the requirements of items that are going to be added to automobiles after the car has been purchased and registered in a state.

I would humbly request that you look into this matter at your earliest convenience to see if you can determine what would be the best solution to this problem that is fair to all concerned.

ID: nht95-7.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr.Peter F. Marthy -- New York State Automobile Dealers

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/19/95 letter from John Womack to David Seagren

TEXT: This is in response to your letter requesting the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to explain the proper procedure to be followed in completing an odometer disclosure for a vehicle whose odometer had been previously been replaced and which has a sticker affixed to the inside left door jamb stating the actual mileage at the time the odometer was replaced. Specifically, you ask whether the transferee may enter on the disclosure statement a figure that is the total of the mileage on the new odometer and the mileage shown on the door sticker, and, if so whether the transferor can then certify that figure is the actual mileage the vehicle has traveled.

The reason that it is permissible to certify on the odometer disclosure that the total of the figure on the door sticker and the figure on the current odometer reading represents the actual mileage is that the combination of the sticker and the second odometer contains sufficient information from which the transferor can calculate with precision the total actual mileage on the vehicle. Under 49 U.S.C. @ 32704(a)(2), the door sticker must show the mileage at the time the odometer was replaced; and the transferor can ascertain the reading on the current odometer by visual examination. Of course, if the transferor has knowledge that either figure does not represent actual mileage, he or she may not certify that a total of the two figures is the actual mileage.

We consider this situation to be comparable to that in which a transferor converts an odometer registering kilometers to an odometer that registers miles, because in both situations, the transferor is able to arrive at the correct number of miles the vehicle has actually traveled simply by applying a mathematical formula to the numbers showing on the odometer. In a recent interpretation letter, the agency stated that a dealer which had converted a vehicle's odometer from kilometers to miles, and knew the kilometer reading before the conversion, could certify that the odometer reading in miles represented "actual mileage" because the dealer knew the number of kilometers before the change and could be accurately calculate the number of miles by multiplying that figure by 0.62. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information.

In answer to the question of whether or not the transferor should have the odometer replaced before the transfer with an odometer set to reflect the total number of miles on the vehicle, NHTSA believes that in the circumstances you describe, the transferor should replace the odometer with one that reflects the total miles the vehicle has travelled. Replacing the odometer with one that shows all the miles the vehicle has traveled on both odometers has the advantage of reducing the possibility that the transferee in this or subsequent transactions would be misled by the number of miles showing on the odometer, or confused by the difference between that figure and the total shown on the title. This approach does require removal of the door sticker to avoid further confusing a subsequent purchaser. However, it is not illegal to remove such a sticker when there is no intent to defraud. 49 U.S.C. @ 32704(b).

The alternative, which the agency believes is not desirable, would be to leave the present odometer in the car set at its present reding, and leave the sticker on the door jamb. The problem with this option is that the sticker does not provide as durable a record of mileage as the odometer. A sticker can fall off, fade or be removed, creating the potential for confusion when the odometer reading is compared with the information on the title. The same confusion is possible even if the sticker is present, because it might easily be overlooked.

I hope the information in this letter is helpful. If you have further questions concerning interpretation of the Federal odometer law and regulations, you may contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, either at the above address or by telephone at (202) 366-5263. Other questions concerning the odometer fraud or the Federal odometer disclosure program may be directed to Mr. Richard Morse, Chief of NHTSA's Odometer Fraud Staff, at (202) 366-4761.

(Letter from Peter Marthy to NHTSA is not available.)

ID: kim.ztv

Mr. Song M. Kim
C.M.O./Fanteks, Inc.
580 Sylvan Ave., Suite 1A
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Dear Mr. Kim:

This is in reply to your letter of August 18, 2003, regarding High Intensity Discharge (HID) conversion kits. You informed us that you have been selling such kits to local distributors and dealer shops.

Your first question is whether the use of aftermarket HID conversion kits is "going to be illegal," and, if so, the reason for it. I enclose a copy of our letter of November 18, 2002, to Jeff Deetz, who had supplied an HID conversion kit for our examination.We informed Mr. Deetz that his kit was "not a design that conforms to the Standard [No. 108] and could not be certified as conforming with [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard] (FMVSS) No. 108, nor imported into or sold in the United States."

HID conversion kits are illegal if any item in the kit does not comply with Federal requirements for vehicle lighting equipment.Please read the letter carefully and apply our analysis to the components of the kits you are selling. If one or more of these components does not comply with FMVSS No. 108, then you should cease the sale and distribution of this equipment. Your failure to do so could make your company liable for civil penalties for violations of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a).If your company manufactured or imported noncompliant HID conversion kits for resale, your company is required to notify this agency, dealers, purchasers, and owners of the kits and to remedy the noncompliance in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120 and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. I should advise you that we know of no HID conversion kit that can be certified by its manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 108.

You expressed your understanding that "D.O.T. is an approvable organization," and asked "if we would like to get your approval for HID conversion system, what will be the necessary procedures?"We have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicle equipment.We have authority, however, to order the recall of noncompliant motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The symbol "DOT" on an item of equipment is sometimes misconstrued as approval by the Department of Transportation.In fact, the symbol is the manufacturers certification that the item complies with all applicable FMVSS, as required by 49 USC 30115.

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. J. Edward Glancy of this office at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/26/03

ID: 23415

[       ]






Dear [       ]





This responds to your letter in which you ask whether a vehicle you are developing could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our answer is provided below.

You requested that certain information be kept confidential, to protect specific future product plans. As Mr. Dion Casey of my staff explained to you in a telephone call on March 8, 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide confidential interpretations. All of our interpretations are publicly available. In situations where future product plans are at issue, we can limit our discussion of the product to the minimum necessary to support the interpretation. We can also withhold the identity of the requester. In the aforementioned telephone conversation with Mr. Casey, you agreed to this approach and to the description below (to be made public) of the vehicle at issue.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may examine the appropriateness of the manufacturer's classification in the context of an enforcement action. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe the vehicle would be classified for the purposes of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements regarding classification are based solely on our understanding of the information presented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle described in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Thus, to meet the definition of multipurpose passenger vehicle, a vehicle must be constructed either (1) on a truck chassis, or (2) with special features for occasional off-road operation.

The vehicle you are developing would be constructed on a chassis that is substantially the same as the chassis used for a current 4-door SUV that is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The current 4-door SUV is available in both 4WD and 2WD. The manufacturer can classify the current vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle because it is constructed on a truck chassis. This chassis uses a ladder-frame construction and was developed to provide the vehicle with cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off-the-road vehicle operation. The new vehicle would use the same basic body but would be an electric vehicle. Other than the powertrain, only minor modifications to the chassis of the current vehicle would be made. For example, brackets would be added to hold the batteries. The new vehicle would have substantially lower running clearance due to the use of the space beneath the vehicle to provide storage for the vehicle's batteries.

Given the similarities between the existing SUV and the new vehicle, it is our opinion that, assuming that the existing SUV is properly classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by virtue of being constructed on a truck chassis, the modifications between the existing SUV and the new vehicle are sufficiently minor that the new vehicle can also be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.4/5/02

ID: nht92-7.34

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Al Twyford

TO: Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Al Twyford (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I would like to voice a complaint about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4), which operate at the same time. When approaching these vehicles at night, going in the opposite direction, it has the same effect as a car approaching my vehicle with the high beam headlights on. I have had conversations with the California Highway Patrol and Department of Motor Vehicles, and they claim that these headlamps are approved for auto manufacturers by your department. They claim they can do nothing about the problem, without a change on the matter by your agency.

If you are committed to Highway Safety, why would you approve these headlamps for automobiles? Night driving is bad enough, without adding more vehicles to the highway with these extra bright lights which have the effect of highbeam brightness. I would like to ask that you re-examine your approval of these extra headlamps, and do some further testing under night time driving conditions. I personally have responded to these automobiles with the four lights with a dose of my highbeams to get these drivers to turn off the extra set of headlights. This doesn't seem to work as they either don't realize what they are doing to oncoming traffic, or can't turn off the lower set of lights. I might add that from the rear of my vehicle, it's the same problem; the approaching vehicle has the effect on me of highbeam lights in my rear view mirror and side view mirror.

I would appreciate some feedback on this problem, and what you propose to do about it. If you do nothing, I plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators.

Thank you.

ID: nht88-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DENNIS G. MOORE -- PRESIDENT SIERRA PRODUCTS INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/06/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM DENNIS G MOORE, OCC - 1860

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moore:

This is in reply to your letter of April 6, 1988, bringing to our attention the differing definitions of Canada and the United States of "optically combined lamps." The Canadian interpretation of that term appears to prohibit export of your lamps to that country.

I have reviewed the materials you enclosed. They indicate that until recently the two countries interpreted the phrase identically. As the then Chief Counsel Frank Berndt advised the Trailer Manufacturer Association on June 18, 1979, "the phrase is not intended to prohibit the installation of two separate bulbs in a single housing and covered by a common lens," and on October 22, 1981, Canada informed you that "The Canadian and U.S.A. federal standards are identical with respect to optical combination ...." However, Canada has undertaken to define the term by regulation in its revised CMVSS No. 108 rather than by interpretation as we have done. Under an amendment adopted in December 1987, a lamp with two separate bulbs in a single housing and covered by a common lens would be "optically combined." Canada believes that this "harmonizes" with the intent of FMVSS No. 108, us consistent with ECE practice, and similar to the definition adopted in J587 by the SAE. You believe that Canada's action is inco nsistent with the "Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade" between the two countries.

It would appear that NHTSA's definition and interpretation of the term is more permissive than that of the authorities you quoted, and that lamps meeting U.S. requirements might be barred from sale in Europe as well as Canada. The issue of whether this situation presents a trade barrier is not one that is properly before this agency. Matters of trade policy, and particularly allegations of trade agreement violations are within the jurisdiction of the United States Trade Representative, who can be

contacted at 600 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20506 (202-395-3204). However, NHTSA is an active participant in ECE lighting discussions and I shall bring this matter to the attention of the responsible agency personnel.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-4.31

DATE: June 28, 1991

FROM: Dwayne R. Szot

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dwayne R. Szot (A38; Part 591)

TEXT:

I am writing to explain my situation regarding the importation of a Polish car, a Syrena, and to ask for special permission for this car to enter the United States. I am Dwayne R. Szot, a sculptor. I received my MFA from Cranbrook Arts Academy in 1989. The central theme of my work is the use of machinery as an expressive tool and a physical extension of ones'self. From October to June I was in Gdansk, Poland, working as an assistant sculpture instructor at the State Higher School of Fine Arts. It was during this time that I began the project known as "Kapsula Czasu" or "Capsule of Time." The capsule is the 10 year old Syrena that I mentioned. This car was painted red and white to resemble the Polish flag. It traveled throughout Poland collecting information and artifacts about peoples' hopes and dreams for the future, and their feelings about the past and the present. The car has been signed by hundreds of Poles. The objects placed within the car are, for the most part, private and will not be examined until the car is opened. These objects were, of necessity, shipped separately from the car, but will rejoin the car when it arrives. Objects within the car come from Solidarity, universities, school children, hospitals and politicians, the same people who signed or drew on the car. It was my original intention to entomb the car and leave it in Gdansk for 25 years, however, obtaining materials like the plexiglass necessary to encase the car, was impossible. It also became increasingly clear to me that the safety of the car could not be guaranteed. For example the present mayor of Gdansk could promise a safe place for the time capsule, but this promise would not be binding for the next mayor. This is a serious work. To have left the capsule in Poland would have been to risk its disappearance or destruction. I must say though, that the news of the cars' July 2 arrival came as a complete shock to my wife and myself. We had expected the car to be shipped in late August or early September, not June, and so we thought we had more time to prepare for its arrival.

Now, to outline my plans for the car in the U.S.. When the car arrives in New York, I will remove the engine to meet EPA approval. I view the car as being like an Egyptian sarcophagus in that it is not a car any more but a container, richly and artistically decorated. The car is not intended to be a mode of transportation on any highway or street, but to symbolize a journey through time. As a time traveler, it doesn't need an engine. There are practical considerations regarding this engine as well. This car can only go about 100 miles until it breaks down. Parts are difficult to get in Poland and would be impossible to get here and Syrena mechanics live a half a world away.

I would like to continue to collect information for the capsule from Poles living in the U.S.. This will be accomplished by transporting the car to Polish communities for scheduled showings. The car with its contents will then, be sealed in a plexiglass box marking the anniversary of Polands' first democratic election in November. The car will then be displayed at museums and art institutes but not removed from its box. Finally, after 25 years, the car will be returned to Poland and opened. In this way, the time capsule takes on international significance. I cannot claim to have a list of scheduled showings for the car yet, but I have begun contacting Polish-American organizations and various museums. I hope that I've convinced you that this car, Kapsula Czasu, is an art object and will not be driven or used for transportation. I realize that you would be allowing a very great exception by permiting the car to enter the U.S.. I have asked for professional letters of recommendation to be sent to you, knowing that you probably are not familiar with my work. I am also sending a copy of a newsletter put together by the children of one of the schools Kapsula Czasu visited. While you probably can't read this, and I don't know how well it will fax, you may still be interested in seeing it. My wife had a pleasant conversation with Mr. Taylor Vincent thursday about this matter, and we are hopeful. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Attachment A

Polish newspaper article regarding Kapsula Czasu (text and graphics omitted)

Attachment B

CRANBROOK ACADEMY OF ART

June 28, 1991

Chief Consul Paul Jackson Rice NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Dwayne Szot studied for two years at Cranbrook Academy of Art within the Sculpture Department and receive his Master of Fine Arts degree in May 1989.

During his two years at the Academy, I came to know Dwayne and his work well through student reviews and conversations that I had with him. He proved himself to be a hardworking and conscientious student. His work was imaginative and innovative.

Since leaving the Academy, I have kept in contact with Dwayne and followed the progress of his work. He has matured and has become a serious and dedicated artist.

Dwayne has spent the last nine months as a visiting artist in Poland. I look forward to seeing the work that he produced there.

Sincerely,

Roy Slade President

ID: nht80-3.49

DATE: 09/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Uniroyal Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1980, requesting interpretation of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR @ 575.104) with regard to the assignment of treadwear grades. You report that Uniroyal has encountered variations in treadwear test data derived from UTQG tests conducted by different testing organizations. You ask whether a tire manufacturer is obligated under the UTQG treadwear grading procedure to base its grades on those test results which produce the lowest treadwear grade, or may use any available test data as the basis for grade assignment.

Uniform Tire Quality Grading, as with other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations, involves a self-certification process in which manufacturers bear the primary responsibility for assuring that their products conform to required levels of performance, in this case the levels represented by their assigned grades. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) conducts testing to verify that various tires actually provide levels of performance consistent with their grades. When OVSC testing produces results at variance with assigned grades, the manufacturer involved is given an opportunity to provide justification for its grade assignments.

In determing that a product achieves a particular level of performance under the UTQG procedures, a manufacturer may exercise a considerable degree of discretion as to the amount of testing necessary to assure that its conclusions regarding compliance will withstand NHTSA scrutiny. In evaluating the performance of a product, NHTSA does not require that a manufacturer base its judgment on any particular piece of test data or on all available data. In fact, a manufacturer may disregard data from a particular source entirely, if the manufacturer can establish that other data provides a reasonable basis for grading.

However, a manufacturer cannot establish compliance by arbitrarily picking and choosing among available data to select results of that test which happened to produce the most favorable result. Data used to establish compliance must be reliable and consistently reproducible, and cannot have been derived through manipulative devices, e.g., abusive driving, or unexacting test procedures. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to base its conclusions on data demonstrably developed in full conformance with the requirements of the regulation.

NHTSA will provide confidential treatment for your letter of August 14, 1980, and the accompanying data.

ID: 2504y

Virve Airola
Oy Toppi Ab
Toppi Plast.
PL 25 P.O. Box
SF-02321 ESPOO
Finland

Dear Mr. Airola:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. We understand that you are interested in supplying your products to a vehicle manufacturer (Saab-Scania), who specifies that you must "register" with this agency as a brake hose manufacturer. You request information that would enable you to meet this product specification. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported into this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. 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. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Saab-Scania's product specification appears to relate to the labeling requirements of Standard No. 106. Under S7.2.1(b) of Standard No. 106, air brake hose manufacturers must label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brake hoses. There is no NHTSA application form for the designation; instead, the manufacturer simply files the designation in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division, at the address provided in S7.2.1(b) of the standard.

From your letter, it appears that Saab-Scania also specifies that your brake hoses must meet all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 106 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 they don't comply, the manufacturers are subject to civil penalties of $1000 per violation, and the notification and remedy provisions of the Safety Act. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information, photocopied from the October 1, 1989 edition of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 571.106).

In addition to the requirements described above, please note that your manufacture of brake hoses may also be affected by NHTSA's longstanding interpretation of our regulation on manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566; copy enclosed), if Saab-Scania sells vehicles equipped with your brake hoses in this country. This rule requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment"--e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which the equipment manufacturer supplies its products. NHTSA has interpreted this regulation to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplying their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the United States. (Enclosed is a copy of the agency's January 26, 1972 letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota Motor Company on this issue.)

Please note that Oy Toppi is not required to designate an agent for service of process under 49 CFR Part 551 (Subpart D), if Oy Toppi supplies its products only to a foreign vehicle manufacturer. This is the case even if the foreign vehicle manufacturer installs Oy Toppi's products on vehicles that will be sold in the United States. However, please keep in mind that Oy Toppi must designate an agent under Part 551 if Oy Toppi decides to offer its equipment for importation into the United States. I have enclosed a copy of this regulation for your information.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:106#VSA#566#551 d:5/3l/90

ID: nht76-5.74

DATE: 01/22/76

FROM: S. L. TERRY -- CHRYSLER CORPORATION VICE PRESIDENT-PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

TO: JAMES B. GREGORY -- ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA DOCKET SECTION

TITLE: DOCKET 70-27; NOTICE 17 NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT MVSS 105-75, HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO A LETTER DATED 2/10/76 FROM JAMES B. GREGORY -- NHTSA TO S. L. TERRY PRESIDENT PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS CHRYSLER CORPORATION; N40-30; 70-27-N17-004-A

TEXT: Dear Dr. Gregory:

Chrysler Corporation is very pleased by the direction indicated in the recent notice to amend MVSS 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems, that would permit either a gross loss of pressure indicator (GLPI) or a low brake fluid level indicator (BFLI) in satisfaction of the hydraulic failure indicator requirements of 85 3.1. We strongly support that proposed amendment. In our opinion adoption of the amendment will serve the best interest of the motoring public and will not adversely affect motor vehicle safety.

As Mr. Robert Sornson of my office discussed with Mr. Richard Dyson, your Assistant Chief Counsel, we recognize that it may have been necessary for you to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act since a substantive change in the standard is being proposed. However, the procedural delay in finalizing the change in the standard because of the rulemaking process will create a substantial hardship for Chrysler Corporation and probably for the rest of the industry. Since the notice did not cancel or delay the current requirements in the standard, we now find it necessary to continue to engineer and tool a fluid level indicator device in order to be certain that we will be able to build and sell cars conforming to the present standard after 9-1-76 in the event this proposal is not adopted. To insure against this possibility Chrysler Corporation will be spending approximately $ 150,000 per month for engineering and tooling of a fluid level indicator with a total program cost in excess of $ 600,000. In the event this proposed rulemaking is adopted most of the cost and manpower that will be expended on this program could be saved. However, we are naturally reluctant to stop work on this program on the basis of the new rulemaking where the consequences of another reversal could prevent us from building(Illegible Word)

We appreciate that NHTSA understands our problem and is willing to consider an approach that will allow manufacturers to keep their options open during the rulemaking process without incurring unnecessary and wasteful spending of manpower and money. As discussed with Mr. Dyson an acceptable method to do this would be for NHTSA to provide written assurance that the requirements of the current standard for a fluid level indicator, effective 9-1-76, will be delayed in the event that the proposed amendment is not adopted. In such an event we estimate that we would require 8 months lead time after the decision is published in order for us to reinstitute our tooling and engineering program and to get the necessary volume production required to equip the vehicles we manufacture with low brake fluid indicators.

In view of the time constraints involved we would appreciate written confirmation as soon as possible indicating that NHTSA will follow the procedure outlined above in the event MVSS 105-75 is not amended as proposed.

Sincerely,