ID: nht95-6.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: Fred H. Pritzker -- Pritzker and Meyer

TO: Kenneth Weinstein -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 1/3/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Fred H. Pritzker (A44; Std. 208; VSA 5108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: I represent a young man who sustained serious brain damage in a motor vehicle collision on July 9, 1994.

At the time of the collision, my client was a rear, driver-side passenger in a 1993 GEO Tracker. The driver of that vehicle apparently fell asleep at which time the vehicle left the roadway, rolled over several times during which time my client and the other vehicle occupants were ejected.

Approximately one month before the collision, the teenage son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics "super store" to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. The installer suggested that optimal output could be obtained if the rear vehicle's seat bench was removed and replaced by a large speaker box. The teenager whose father owned the vehicle agreed and the rear seat was removed and the entire rear portion of the vehicle was fitted with a large speaker enclosure. In doing so, the "female" portion of the seat belt buckle was removed, therefore rendering inoperative the safety restraint system on the vehicle.

The installer who removed the seat and designed the speaker box was not a certified installer and had been on the job for a relatively short period of time. He had never removed automobile safety equipment in previous installations and made no attempt to find out if this was an acceptable practice.

A drawing of the side profile of the speaker enclosure box accompanies this letter. As you can see, there is a ledge on the speaker enclosure not unlike a bench-type seat. Aside from that ledge, there is no other room in the rear portion of the vehicle (with the speaker box in it) to allow passengers to sit. The installer acknowledges that the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on. It was also carpeted. The installer also acknowledges that he anticipated that someone might sit on the speaker box and therefore, felt the need to warn the teenage operator not to let anyone do so. He acknowledges, however, that at the time the vehicle operator picked up the vehicle after the installation, he asked the installer if it were possible to affix the female seat buckle into the speaker box (which the installer refused to do).

It was on this speaker box that my client was sitting at the time of the accident.

I have carefully reviewed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The definitions of a dealer, distributor and manufacturer at section 30102 would seem to apply to the electronics company whose employee removed the seat and rendered inoperative the safety restraint system, designed and manufactured the speaker enclosure box and installed it into the GEO Tracker. According to the definition, the electronics company is a "dealer" because it sells and distributes motor vehicle equipment. For that same reason, it is a "distributor" and "manufacturer." Obviously, the installed items are "motor vehicle equipment" because they were sold for "replacement or improvement of a system, part or component or as an accessory or an addition to a motor vehicle." It would also appear that the electronics company does repair work and, in fact, removed the prior speaker boxes, cannibalized some of the parts from that and then placed those parts in the new enclosure box installed shortly before the collision. Thus, it would appear that the electronics company meets the definition of a motor vehicle repair business as defined at section 30122.

Clearly, the electronics company violated the statutory prohibition at section 30122(b). It knowingly made inoperative the rear seat and rear safety restraint system installed in the GEO Tracker by the manufacturer. The speaker box was then placed in a "designated seating position" and obviously, failed to comply with the regulations establishing standards for automobile seats and safety restraint systems.

Thus, it would appear that there are two violations of the Act: the removal of the original safety devices and then replacing them with a piece of equipment that was likely to be used as a seat and obviously failed to comply with the regulations for the seat and the safety restraint system.

I would appreciate it if you would call me to discuss the facts of this case and my interpretation of the law applicable to those facts. I am specifically not requesting a written opinion from your agency. At this time, I am merely asking to speak with you about it.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Drawing and photo omitted.

ID: nht95-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: Fred H. Pritzker -- Pritzker and Meyer

TO: Kenneth Weinstein -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 1/3/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Fred H. Pritzker (A44; Std. 208; VSA 5108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: I represent a young man who sustained serious brain damage in a motor vehicle collision on July 9, 1994.

At the time of the collision, my client was a rear, driver-side passenger in a 1993 GEO Tracker. The driver of that vehicle apparently fell asleep at which time the vehicle left the roadway, rolled over several times during which time my client and the other vehicle occupants were ejected.

Approximately one month before the collision, the teenage son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics "super store" to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. The installer suggested that optimal ou tput could be obtained if the rear vehicle's seat bench was removed and replaced by a large speaker box. The teenager whose father owned the vehicle agreed and the rear seat was removed and the entire rear portion of the vehicle was fitted with a large speaker enclosure. In doing so, the "female" portion of the seat belt buckle was removed, therefore rendering inoperative the safety restraint system on the vehicle.

The installer who removed the seat and designed the speaker box was not a certified installer and had been on the job for a relatively short period of time. He had never removed automobile safety equipment in previous installations and made no attempt t o find out if this was an acceptable practice.

A drawing of the side profile of the speaker enclosure box accompanies this letter. As you can see, there is a ledge on the speaker enclosure not unlike a bench-type seat. Aside from that ledge, there is no other room in the rear portion of the vehicle (with the speaker box in it) to allow passengers to sit. The installer acknowledges that the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on. It was also carpeted. The installer also acknowledges that he anticipated that someone might sit on the speaker box and therefore, felt the need to warn the teenage operator not to let anyone do so. He acknowledges, however, that at the time the vehicle operator picked up the vehicle after the installation, he asked the installer if it were possible to af fix the female seat buckle into the speaker box (which the installer refused to do).

It was on this speaker box that my client was sitting at the time of the accident.

I have carefully reviewed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The definitions of a dealer, distributor and manufacturer at section 30102 would seem to apply to the electronics company whose employee removed the seat and rendered inoperativ e the safety restraint system, designed and manufactured the speaker enclosure box and installed it into the GEO Tracker. According to the definition, the electronics company is a "dealer" because it sells and distributes motor vehicle equipment. For t hat same reason, it is a "distributor" and "manufacturer." Obviously, the installed items are "motor vehicle equipment" because they were sold for "replacement or improvement of a system, part or component or as an accessory or an addition to a motor veh icle." It would also appear that the electronics company does repair work and, in fact, removed the prior speaker boxes, cannibalized some of the parts from that and then placed those parts in the new enclosure box installed shortly before the collision. Thus, it would appear that the electronics company meets the definition of a motor vehicle repair business as defined at section 30122.

Clearly, the electronics company violated the statutory prohibition at section 30122(b). It knowingly made inoperative the rear seat and rear safety restraint system installed in the GEO Tracker by the manufacturer. The speaker box was then placed in a "designated seating position" and obviously, failed to comply with the regulations establishing standards for automobile seats and safety restraint systems.

Thus, it would appear that there are two violations of the Act: the removal of the original safety devices and then replacing them with a piece of equipment that was likely to be used as a seat and obviously failed to comply with the regulations for the seat and the safety restraint system.

I would appreciate it if you would call me to discuss the facts of this case and my interpretation of the law applicable to those facts. I am specifically not requesting a written opinion from your agency. At this time, I am merely asking to speak with you about it.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Drawing and photo omitted.

ID: aiam0114

Dear Senator Miller: Thank you for your letter of August 13, 1968, calling my attention t Mr. Paul Johnston's comments and suggestions on the requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; As Mr. Johnston pointed out, Standard No. 108, effective January 1 1969, provides for optional use of either the eight-lamp or four- lamp signal system. This optional provision was adopted after careful consideration of the comments and recommendations which were received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making as published in the *Federal Register* on February 3, 1967. The 'Minimum Standards for School Buses', as published by the National Conference on School Transportation, and the regulations governing minimum standards for school buses in various states were also considered during development of the optional provision for signal lamp systems. Results of our studies and investigations indicated that approximately forty states were using either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system. Other states were using the adopted system with only minor variations in the installation and operational requirements.; Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, was published in th *Federal Register* on December 16, 1967. Under the procedural rules of the Federal Highway Administration, any person adversely affected by this order may petition the Administrator under Part 216, Subchapter B, Section 216.31 or Section 216.35, published in the *Federal Register* on November 17, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed. No petition of the adopted requirements for school bus signal lamps has been filed.; Although we do not dispute the safety benefits which Mr. Johnsto claims for a six-lamp system, I must emphasize that our long-range objective is the adoption of one nationwide system. Even with the presently adopted systems, a motorist could be faced with the problem of interpreting two sets of signals during a very short time period. This problem will become more prevalent with the anticipated increase in rapid interstate traffic. To permit the use of a third optional system, six-lamp or other, would further complicate the situation.; Standard No. 108 applies only to new school buses manufactured on o after January 1, 1969. Retrofitting of buses presently in operation is not required. Since Iowa's fleet of buses is presently equipped with a six-lamp system, it appears that considerable data on the effectiveness of this system could be accumulated from this fleet during the next several years, or until such time that a single nationwide system is proposed. We will be pleased to carefully review and consider any such data which Mr. Johnston can provide in the future.; In summary, it is the position of this Bureau that the provision o Standard No. 108 permitting optional use of either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system is reasonable, practicable and in the interest of highway safety. Therefore, we do not believe that a change in this provision to permit optional use of a third or six-lamp system is justified.; We have reviewed our files with respect to the written and persona contacts Mr. Arthur Roberts, Director of Pupil Transportation, has had with this Bureau.; This review indicates that the correspondence from Mr. Roberts wa submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Standard No. 112 (subsequently combined with Standard No. 108) as published in the *Federal Register* on February 3, 1967. It is not the practice of the Bureau to reply individually to the numerous responses received from published rule making notices, which often run to thousands of pages. However, a summary of the comments represented by the responses and the disposition of these comments is presented in the preamble to Standard No. 108 as published in the *Federal Register* on December 16, 1967. With respect to Mr. Roberts' visit on May 7, 1968, the topics of discussion related primarily to the technical requirements of Standard No. 108 and other information relative to the merits of converging Iowa's school buses to either the four-lamp or eight- lamp system. Our understanding was that Mr. Roberts received the information he was seeking at the time of his visit and that no follow-up correspondence was necessary on our part.; Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Director

ID: nht79-3.45

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pacific & Atlantic Marketing Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 21, 1979, request for information on how to obtain the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) approval for a child seating device, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion, you wish to market in the United States.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), a copy of which is enclosed, does not authorize NHTSA to approve products. Section 114 of the Act requires "self-certification" by manufacturers that their products comply with applicable standards.

According to your letter, the product you wish to market is "designed primarily to raise children to see out the windows of an automobile" and is meant for children in the 5-10 year old age group. You also state that the device can be used with a lap or lap-shoulder seat belt or a child harness to restrain a child.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, establishes performance requirements for items of equipment used to seat a child being transported in a motor vehicle. Although the G.T.A. Booster Cushion does not have an integral restraint system, it could be covered by Standard No. 213 if it is designed to seat a child.

Standard No. 213 does not currently specify the size or age range of children to which the standard is applicable, while NHTSA's proposed Standard No. 213-80, a copy of which is enclosed, does specify a size range. In previously interpreting Standard No. 213, however, the agency has stated that the standard is intended to apply only to child restraints or seats for children weighing 50 pounds or under.

If the G.T.A. Booster Cushion will only be used by children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the advertisement accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for children using the seat. Further, the agency is concerned that even if the seat and advertisement clearly indicated such limitations, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion will be bought for and used by children smaller and younger than those limits. Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, 1420) would apply to any safety-related defect in the G.T.A. Booster Cushion.

The agency is interested in learning of any test data that you have concerning the protection provided by use of the G.T.A. Booster Cushion. In particular, the agency is interested in learning of any tests comparing the protection provided by use of the G.T.A. Booster Cushion in conjunction with a lap or lap-shoulder seat belt, with the protection provided by use of only a lap or a lap-shoulder seat belt. Copies of that information should be sent to:

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, Chief Crashworthiness Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

PACIFIC & ATLANTIC MARKETING SERVICES

JUNE 21, 1979

Associate Administrator for Rule Making, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Sir,

I would appreciate you delineating the correct procedure I should follow to gain your Department's investigation and approval to market a new concept in Automobile Child Seating, for the 5-10 year old age group.

The G.T.A. Booster Cushion has performed excellently in both dynamic tests and real-life situations in Australia for the past 18 months, (see attached leaflet herewith, and product samples with Mr. V. G. Radovich), was designed primarily to raise children to see out the windows of an automobile, thus alleviating child stress and enabling everyone in the automobile to have a safer, comfortable and more enjoyable trip. The G.T.A. Booster Cushion can be used with the adult lap, lap sash seat belts or child harness restraints. The Booster Cushion raises the child virtually into the adult height position, where the design ensures the correct location of the adult seat belt restraint across the child's lap or in the case of lap sash, across the child's neck, chest and lap, therefore alleviating the danger of the buckle harming the child in those areas during a sudden impact or stop.

Additionally, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion has two notches, one located at either side where the back and base pieces are joined. These designed patented notches ensure that on a forward or rear impact, the lap section of the seat belt grips in these notches and stops any torpedoing action (as happens with regular household cushions) of either the child or the Booster Cushion.

The G.T.A. Booster Cushion is also extremely comfortable, lightweight and requires no installation. Sir, I would appreciate it if you would consider my request and advise direction at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Graham Budrodeen President

THE GTA BOOSTER CUSHION (Brochure omitted.)

ID: 9775

The Honorable Chuck Chvala
Wisconsin State Senator
State Capitol
P. O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707-7882

Dear Senator Chvala:

This responds to a letter from U.S. Senator Russell D. Feingold on your behalf, asking whether a pending redefinition of Wisconsin's "school bus" definition would violate Federal law. Senator Feingold contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because our agency administers the Federal requirements for school buses.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns. As explained below, my review leads me to conclude that Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus would not conflict with Federal law, insofar as the redefinition relates to the operation of school buses. However, an area of possible conflict relates to the requirements for mirrors on school buses.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSS's on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The legislation requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting the school bus FMVSS's. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state regulation.

NHTSA defines a "school bus" as a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, and defines a "bus" as a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons. 49 CFR 571.3.

We understand that the new definition contemplated by Wisconsin would exclude some vehicles that are school buses under our definition. Information from Mr. Doug Burnett of your staff indicates that the new definition would define a school bus as "a motor vehicle which carries 16 or more passengers (in addition to the operator)." Thus, a motor vehicle that can carry 11-16 persons (including the driver) would be a "school bus" for Federal purposes, but apparently not for Wisconsin's purposes.

Since the States, and not NHTSA, regulate the use of vehicles, the inconsistency would be immaterial with regard to requirements adopted by Wisconsin pertaining to the use of school buses. Wisconsin may set the operational requirements for those vehicles the State defines as "school buses" without regard to our school bus definition.

However, the inconsistency would matter at the point of sale of a new school bus. The FMVSS's specify requirements for school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR part 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. A decision by Wisconsin to adopt a definition other than the Federal definition of a school bus has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to a vehicle. Any person selling a new "bus" (a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school must sell a certified "school bus," regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under Wisconsin law. The vehicle would have to be equipped with the safety features NHTSA requires for school buses.

The information provided by Mr. Burnett indicates that Wisconsin would redefine "school bus" for two purposes. First, Wisconsin would prohibit the operation of a "school bus"--a vehicle with a capacity of 17 persons (including the driver)--unless the bus has a specific type of mirror. (Section 347.40) As explained above, this requirement would not affect NHTSA's requirement that vehicles considered to be "school buses" under our definition must be equipped with the mirrors and other safety features we require for school buses, even if the vehicles are not "school buses" under Wisconsin law.

Chapter 301 further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). A State standard for mirrors that is not identical to the Federal standard is preempted unless it imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use (e.g., public school buses). Wisconsin's requirements for school bus mirrors could be preempted, depending on the type of mirror required and whether the vehicles equipped with it are public buses.

We understand that the second purpose of Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus is to require privately-owned vehicles carrying 15 or fewer students to be insured by a policy providing specified minimum coverage. (Section 121.555). This provision concerns matters wholly within State law and would not conflict with Federal law.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact me or Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: The Honorable Russell D. Feingold United States Senate 502 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

ref:571 d:8/4/95

ID: aiam0998

Dear Mr. McPhail: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1973, concerning you safety belt interlock system.; Paragraph S7.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, requires that the belt system at each occupied seating position be operated after the occupant is seated in order to start the engine. It is our opinion that a system such as yours, which senses whether the safety belt is properly buckled around the occupant before allowing the engine to start would meet the above requirements and could be used under the option described in S4.1.2.3.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4260

Dear Ms. Wahus: This is in response to your letter of September 16, 1986, to Laurett Carlson in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regional office in Seattle, Washington. You asked for the Agency's position concerning automobile dealers who, when issuing an odometer disclosure statement, certify that the mileage is unknown in order to protect themselves against the possibility of future evidence of rollbacks.; Congress found that purchasers rely on mileage as an indicator of th value and condition of vehicles and enacted Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S1981 *et seq*. Section 1988(a) of the Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe rules requiring any transferor to give a written disclosure (1) of the cumulative mileage registered on the odometer or (2) that the actual mileage is unknown, if the odometer reading is know to the transferor to be different from the number of miles the vehicle has actually travelled. To carry out this mandate, Federal regulation 49 C.F.R. Part 580 was promulgated. Furthermore, Section 1988(a) states that no transferor shall violate any rule prescribed under the section or give a false statement to a transferee in making any disclosure required by such rule.; A Senate report interprets Section 1988 as placing duty on auto dealer to alert purchasers of irregularities in odometers when, in the exercise of reasonable care, they would have reason to know the odometer reading is inaccurate. S. Rep. No. 92-413, (92nd Cong., 2nd Sess.), 1972 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3971- 3972. If a purchaser receives an odometer statement in which his transferor certified that the odometer reading does not reflect the actual mileage and should not be relied upon, that purchaser, when selling the vehicle, should certify the same. However, if a purchaser receives an odometer statement in which his transferor certified that to the best of his knowledge the odometer reading reflects the actual mileage the vehicle has been driven, and he has no reasonable suspicion that the reading is inaccurate, when selling the vehicle, he should not certify that the reading is inaccurate. If transferors certify the reading as inaccurate in the latter situation, it is the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that they violate the regulations prescribed under Section 1988, 49 C.F.R. S580.4.; The Federal regulations provide for the inclusion of two sets o certifications on odometer disclosure statements. If the dealers truly wish to insulate themselves from liability when they have a reasonable suspicion that the mileage on the odometer has been altered, they *should* certify that the reading is not accurate, and check the third statement in the first set of certifications. However, none of the three statements in the second set covers a situation where a transferor suspects that an odometer reading is inaccurate, but the odometer was not altered, set back or disconnected in his possession. The Agency allows a transferor to check the first statement and cross out the lines which read, 'and I have no knowledge of anyone else doing so' provided that though crossed out it can still be read. Alternatively, we have no objection to a transferor writing and checking a fourth statement which would read:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer of said vehicle was not altered set back, or disconnected while in my possession.; <<

ID: aiam5476

"Dear Sir: We have received your letter of December 8, 1994, wit respect to the applicability of two Federal motor vehicle safety standards to electric vehicles. With respect to Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity, you believe that the language of S3 implies that 'it applies to all passenger vehicles, but to only those trucks with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F.' You conclude, however, that 'this standard appears not to apply to electric vehicles with no liquid fuel.' Under S3 of Standard No. 301, the standard applies to certain specified vehicles that 'use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F'. The use of the fuel is not stated. Obviously, electric vehicles do not use liquid fuel for propulsion, but some of them do use a small amount of liquid fuel in their heating systems. Standard No. 301 would apply to an electric vehicle with a fuel-fired heating system. With respect to Standard No. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, you ask for 'a clarification of this standard with regard to single speed transmissions' and, if it is applicable, ask that S3.1.3 'be rewritten or interpreted to include the initial activation of EV motor controllers as well as engine starters.' NHTSA has previously concluded that electric vehicles with single speed transmissions are excluded from Standard No. 102 (58 FR at 4646). I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice reflecting this conclusion. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 12089.MLS

Mr. William Shapiro
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
15 Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your inquiry about the labeling requirements in S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid (49 CFR §571.116). You ask whether the wet boiling point marked on a package of DOT 4 brake fluid should be "the minimum wet boiling point of the DOT brake fluid in the container," or the minimum wet boiling point that DOT 4 brake fluid must meet under the standard, i.e., 311 degrees F. The answer is the former.

Section S5.2 of Standard 116 sets forth packaging and labeling requirements for brake fluid containers. Section S5.2.2.2(f) requires each container to be marked with "The minimum wet boiling point in Fahrenheit of the DOT brake fluid in the container." (Emphasis added). Under S5.1.2, the wet equilibrium reflux boiling point ("wet boiling point") of DOT 4 brake fluid must not be less than 311 degrees F.

Because section S5.2.2.2(f) specifically requires the labeling to be of the wet boiling point of the DOT brake fluid "in the container," the value for the brake fluid in the container is marked on the label. This interpretation is consistent with a February 7, 1975 letter to Mr. Paul Utans in which the agency concluded that a label that specified a wet boiling point of 320 degrees F. "meets our requirements."

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

ref:116
d:7/24/96

ID: 08_004614 209