ID: nht75-2.34

DATE: 06/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Beller Alfred Teves GMBH 6 Frankfurt/Main 2 Postfach 119155 Germany

Dear Mr. Beller:

This responds to your May 20, 1975, request for confirmatioin that reversal in the specified order of two required reservoir labeling statements on 40,000 labels produced for Alfred Teves GMBH will not be considered a violation of S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, when used on motor vehicles which must comply with the standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has reviewed the sample label enclosed with your letter. The requirement of the standard in question reads:

S5.4.3 Each vehicle shall have a brake fluid warning statement that reads as follows, in letters at least 1/8 of an inch high: "WARNING, Clean filler cap before removing, Use only -------------- ---fluid from a sealed container". . . .

It is possible that the words "statement that reads as follows" could have been misconstrued to permit a variation in the order of the two statements. As a general matter, the NHTSA does not consider any deviation from the illustrated order of labeling statements, where they are set out in quotation marks as in this standard, to be allowable. Because a letter of interpretation has been necessary in this case, however, the agency will not consider labels printed with reversed statements prior to receipt of this letter to be out of conformity with S5.4.3. The NHTSA will assume that further printings of the reservoir labeling statements will conform to S5.4.3 in all respects.

Sincerely,

James C. Schultz

Chief Counsel

By Air Mail

U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA Attn.: Mr. Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

Washington U.S.A.

TEV-Ballw./A. 908 May 20, 1975

Subject: Identification According to FMVSS 105a Hydraulic Brakc Systems

Dear Mr. Dyson,

Due to an error in transmission within our company, on app????? 40,000 adhesive labels which were to be identified according to FMVSS 105a, the text was mixed up.

S.5.4.3 specifics: warning Clean filler cap before removing Use only DOT 3 Fluid from a ???? container.

Our text reads : Warning Use only DOT 3 Fluid from a ???? container. Clean filler cap b???? removing.

The order of the prescribed sentences was confounded.

After the error had been detected, printing of these labels was stopped and the proper text was inserted. Unfortunately 40,000 labels had already been printed. An oral inquiry ad??? by our representative, Mr Paul Utans, to your Office resu??? in the decision that these labels could be used for once the text was complete.

Due to the fact that our customers are asking for a written firmation of this oral consent, we wouldd like to ask you to forward us a corresponding consent.

Thanking you for your kind assistance we remain,

Your sincerely,

ALFRED TEVES GMB

ID: nht75-2.4

DATE: 06/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Co. of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your requests for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119.

Your letter of March 3, 1975, presented the following two questions:

1. Say a person with a vehicle which has Canadian or Mexican license plates is driving this vehicle in the United States. If the tires do not comply with the FMVSS No. 119 is it illegal for this vehicle to be operated in the United States Territories?

Under Part 12 of the Customs Regulations, 19 CFR Sec. 12.80, a person may import such tires if he files a declaration that the importation is primarily for his personal use for a period not exceeding one year and that he will not resell the tires within the United States. For persons regularly entering the United States at the Canadian or Mexican borders, there is a special provision for simplifying the declaration procedure. The relevant portion of the regulation is Section 12.80(b)(2)(v) (copy enclosed).

2. Say a driver is vacationing in Canada or Mexico and receives an unrepairable puncture on one tire. If this new tire does not comply with the FMVSS No. 119, is it legal for him to re-enter the United States with this tire on his vehicle (Illegible Word) run the tire for the remainder of its tire life?

It is not legal for the driver to reenter the United States with this tire. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits the importation of such non-complying tires, with certain exceptions specified in Section 108(b). None of the exceptions is applicable to the situation which you have described.

Your letter of April 18, 1975, requested clarification of the testing requirements resulting from the use of the word "any" in the definition of "test rim" in Standard No. 109. That definition is as follows:

"Test rim" means, with reference to a tire to be tested, any rim that is listed as appropriate for use with that tire in accordance with S4.4 . . .

Standard No. 109 does not specify the testing which you must do; it does specify the performance levels which tires must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance. You have presented the example of tire size JR78-15, for which five rims are approved by the Tire and Ram Association. In this situation, each tire must be capable of meeting all of the Standard's performance requirements with whichever of the five rims the NHTSA chooses to use in its compliance testing. While the surest way for you to be confident of compliance would be to conduct tests with all five rims, you are not legally obligated to do so. The legal requirement is that you exercise due care in assuring yourself that, when tested by the NHTSA with a rim chosen by the NHTSA from among the five possibilities, the tire will meet the specified performance levels. You may do this by whatever means you determine to be reliable and necessary.

The letter of March 14, 1975, from Mr. Ohgiya of the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturer's Association, Inc., was responded to on May 22, 1975, by Mr. E. T. Driver of this agency. I have enclosed a copy.

ID: nht75-3.3

DATE: 10/22/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 8, 1975, to Mr. Berndt requesting an interpretation of the visibility requirements specified in paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you ask whether a front turn signal lamp which is partially obscured by the radiator grille as shown on a drawing that you enclosed would meet the specified visibility requirements, if . . .

"1. The lamp met the photometric requirements under the state of being equipped on the vehicle.

2. We could easily observe through all the photometric test angles that the lamp was activated."

If condition 1 above is met, the lamp would appear to comply with the visibility requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1.

For condition 2 above, SAE Standard J588d, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, specifies in part that signals from lamps mounted on the left and right sides of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle of 45 degrees to the left and right respectively. To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding that portion of the lens that may serve as a reflex reflector, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. If your design meets the specified requirement, the lamp would also be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1.

As you were informed in a meeting with Messrs. Leysath and Vinson of this agency on September 8, 1975, it is not necessary that the entire lamp as partially obscured comply with Standard No. 108. If either the upper or lower portion of the lamp meets the photometric and visibility requirements, that is sufficient for conformance. If certification is based upon the lower portion alone, however, the center of the lower portion must be mounted not less than 15 inches above the pavement.

Yours truly,

September 8, 1975

Frank Berndt -- Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt: This is to ask your interpretation regarding the visibility requirement stated in S 4.3.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

In the case of the turn signal lamp, installation requirements of SAE J5882 referred to FMVSS 108, states:

When one turn signal is used on each side of the front and rear, visibility of the front signal to front and the rear signal to the rear shall not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle throughout the photometric test angles for the lamp.

Even if a part of the turn signal lamp is covered with the radiator grill as shown in the attached drawing, may we understand under the following conditions that the turn signal lamp meets the visibility requirement?

1. The lamp met the photometric requirement under the state of being equipped on the vehicle.

2. We could easily observe through all the photometric test angles that the lamp was activated.

Your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. -- Tokio Iinuma, Staff, Safety

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht95-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Randal K. Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretations of FMVSS 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/3/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RANDAL K. BUSICK (A43; STD. 210)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is to request a clarification of several aspects of FMVSS 210 location requirements

1. Section 4.3 states that "Anchorages that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 . . . . are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

In a Federal Register notice of December 5, 1991, the agency stated that: "Since a March 14, 1988 interpretation letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber of Mercedes-Benz, the agency has considered a manual 3-point belt installed at a seating position equipped with an SIR system to be exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210 . . . . the agency is amending S4.3 to clarify, consistent with agency interpretation this section, that the anchorages for all seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are exempt from the location requirements."

Does this mean that if a vehicle with 2 front seating positions is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and this restraint system meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the air bags alone and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested under FMVSS 208, that the seat belt assemblies are exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210?

2. Could you please clarify what is meant, in sections S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2, by an installation in which the "belt bears upon" or "does not bear upon" the seat frame? In addition to an explanation, a few examples would be useful.

3. As regards a rear non-adjustable seat, would the anchorage system set forth in the attached photographs and diagram comply with the location requirements of S4.3.1.1(a)? We believe that it would because the relevant angle is from the seating referen ce point to the point where the end of the belt fastens to the bracket (labeled "belt and buckle pivot/fixing").

On April 30, 1990, NHTSA amended section 4.3.1.1(a) to read: "If the seat is a nonadjustable seat, then a line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt WITH THE HARDWARE ATTACHING IT TO THE ANCHORAGE shall . . . ." (Em phasis added.) By notice dated December 5, 1991, the agency deleted the phrase" hardware attaching it to the anchorage", because in that same notice, NHTSA amended the definition of "anchorage" to include "attachment hardware". The agency specifically stated that t he above phrase was therefore superfluous. This deletion, however, should not have changed anything substantively, and because the attached design would comply with the section as worded on April 30, 1990, we believe that the design complies with sectio n 4.3.1.1(a) as it reads today.

We look forward to your reply. Kindly direct your response or any questions to our Colorado office, P.O. Box 1015, Golden CO 80402-1015 (Tel. 303 279 0203). Thank you.

ID: nht95-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ed Irvine -- Midwest Conservation Systems

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/20/94 letter from Ed Irvine to Phillip Recht

TEXT: Dear Mr. Irvine:

This responds to your letter asking whether a newly manufactured commercial utility trailer must be equipped with an emergency breakaway system. You state that your customer wishes to purchase a trailer without the battery powered breakaway system that comes with the trailer. Instead, you would like to install your solar energized breakaway system. In a December 7, 1994 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the trailers in question are typically small utility traile rs that do not rely on the use of air pressure. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicable requirements issued by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). You may also wish to request an interpretati on of 49 CFR 393.43 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which is the agency that issued that regulation.

By way of background information, NHTSA and FHWA are both part of the United States Department of Transportation. Each agency has the authority to issue regulations related to your question. NHTSA, which regulates newly manufactured vehicles, has the a uthority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) which apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. FHWA, which regulates the use of commercial motor vehicles, has the authority to issue Federal Motor Carrier Saf ety Regulations (FMCSRs), which are applicable to commercial motor vehicles and their operators. We have referred your letter to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Office of Motor Carrier Standards, since that agency issued 49 CFR 393.43.

While NHTSA has the authority to issue FMVSSs, the agency has not issued any FMVSS that would directly affect the braking performance of a small utility trailer, unless the trailer relies on air pressure. Therefore, if the trailers in question are not a ir braked vehicles, then you would not need to certify that such a trailer's braking performance complies with an FMVSS, since no applicable FMVSS exists.

Please note that your solar energized trailer breakaway system would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the statute administered by NHTSA. If this system contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. If you wish to contact someone in the FHWA's Office of Chief Counse l concerning the motor carrier standards, please call Charles Medalen at (202) 366-1354.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: 11283

Mr. Tom Byrne
Vice President
Goodridge (USA) Inc.,
20309 Gramercy
Torrance, CA 90501

Dear Mr. Byrne:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106; Brake hoses. According to your letter, you plan to sell a brake hose assembly for hydraulic brake systems that you refer to as "Stainless Steel Braided Brakelines." You then asked several questions about selling your product in this country.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hose assemblies. Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). This process requires each manufacturer to determine 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. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities you must meet as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and 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. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above.

You first asked NHTSA to "confirm" that an independent laboratory certification is valid for the United States. As explained above, NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or conduct pre-sale testing of their products. In the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS's.

You then asked NHTSA to confirm that such a brake hose assembly can be used with an adapter into the master cylinder or caliper. Your brake hose assembly can be used at any place in a motor vehicle, provided that in installing it, a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business does not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, a vehicle or item of equipment which is in compliance with any applicable safety standard. Specifically, inclusion of your brake hose assembly could not modify a hydraulic brake system subject to FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to the extent that it no longer complies with the standard.

Your next question asked whether there are any special marking requirements for brake hose assemblies manufactured for sale in the United States. Section S5.2.4 sets forth labeling requirements for brake hose assemblies.

Section S5.2.4 states that

Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, 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 S5.2.4.1. The band may at the manufacturer's 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:

(a) The symbol DOT constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

(b) A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance 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.

In addition, section S5.2.4.1 provides as an option that at least one end fitting be etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly.

I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States. The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enclosure ref:106 d:12/12/95

The standard defines a "brake hose assembly" as a "brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system..."

ID: nht95-7.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 12, 1995

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

TO: Tom Byrne -- Vice President, Goodridge (USA) Inc.,

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/3/95 letter from Tom Byrne to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106; Brake hoses. According to your letter, you plan to sell a brake hose assembly for hydraulic brake systems that you refer to as "Stainless Steel Braided Brakelines." n1 You then asked several questions about selling your product in this country.

n1 The standard defines a "brake hose assembly" as a "brake hose, with or without armor, equipped with end fittings for use in a brake system . . ."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hose assemblies. Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). This process requires each manufacturer to determine 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. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities you must meet as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and 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. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above.

You first asked NHTSA to "confirm" that an independent laboratory certification is valid for the United States. As explained above, NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or conduct pre-sale testing of their products. In the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS's.

You then asked NHTSA to confirm that such a brake hose assembly can be used with an adapter into the master cylinder or caliper. Your brake hose assembly can be used at any place in a motor vehicle, provided that in installing it, a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business does not knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, a vehicle or item of equipment which is in compliance with any applicable safety standard. Specifically, inclusion of your brake hose assembly could not modify a hydraulic brake system subject to FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, to the extent that it no longer complies with the standard.

Your next question asked whether there are any special marking requirements for brake hose assemblies manufactured for sale in the United States. Section S5.2.4 sets forth labeling requirements for brake hose assemblies.

Section S5.2.4 states that

Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, 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 S5.2.4.1. The band may at the manufacturer's 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:

(a) The symbol DOT constituting certification by the hose assembler that the hose assembly conforms to all applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

(b) A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance 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.

In addition, section S5.2.4.1 provides as an option that at least one end fitting be etched, stamped or embossed with a designation at least one-sixteenth of an inch high that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: 1984-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J.N. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. N. White 1300 California Drive Rolla, MO 65401

This is in response to your January 3, 1984, letter to Roger Fairchild of this office regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 (Rearview Mirror Systems). You have requested information on the applicability of that standard, particularly in regard to aftermarket mirrors.

FMVSS 111 is a rule or regulation (the terms are generally used interchangeably) establishing requirements for rearview mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles. Aftermarket mirror manufacturers do not have to certify compliance with our standards. However, the addition of an aftermarket mirror to a motor vehicle may be subject to certain legal requirements. Section 108(a)(2)( A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses cannot remove a rearview mirror installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard and replace that mirror with a noncomplying aftermarket mirror. Replacement by other individuals or organizations or replacement with a complying aftermarket mirror would be permitted.

With regard to your final question as to requirements applicable to the use of non-glare glass in mirrors, this agency issued on November 6, 1978, a notice of proposed rulemaking on possible upgrading of rearview mirror requirements (copy enclosed). One part of this proposal would establish image luminance criteria for rearview mirrors. The agency has not yet determined whether this requirement should be implemented, and no action is imminent on that proposal.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

January 3, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild Legal Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: FMVSS-111 -- Rearview Mirror Systems

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

I have some questions regarding FMVSS-111 and Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, suggested that I write to you for the specific answers.

1. Is FMVSS-111 a rule, regulation or law?

2. Does it apply only to new car/truck manufacturers?

3. As far as the sections that apply to rearview mirror systems, specifically convex mirrors, does it apply to "after market" manufacturers, where their product is sold through warehouse distributors, jobbers, mass merchandisers, etc., to the general, public?

4. Is there any pending "legislation" that might prohibit the use of "non-glare" glass in rearview mirrors?

I want to thank you in advance, for your time and efforts in helping me, with the answers to the above questions.

Sincerely,

J.N. White 1300 California Drive Rol1a, MO 65401 cc: J. L. Levenberg & Associates

ID: used_carseats

Ms. Shauna Sloan
Kid to Kid Franchise System
452 East 500 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111




Dear Ms. Sloan:

This responds to your letter asking whether there are Federal regulations applying to "the resale of used car seats or child restraint systems". Our use of the term "child restraint system" includes "car seats" and other types of child restraints.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child restraint systems," applies to new child restraint systems. The requirement under Federal law to manufacture and sell products that meet all applicable FMVSSs does not apply to the sale of a vehicle or item of equipment after the first purchase of the item in good faith other than for resale ("first retail sale").

Thus, the answer to your question is no, Federal law does not apply to the resale of used child restraint systems. However, while the FMVSSs apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, several of our programs affect used vehicles or equipment.

The "make inoperative" provision of our statute (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ) states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or 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." 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). This provision applies to new and used motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers, distributor, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses are not permitted to make inoperative a device or design installed on or in a new or used child restraint in compliance with FMVSS No. 213.

Also, under our statute, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment (including child restraint systems) must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. NHTSAs investigations of safety-related defects often originate from reports of problems from owners of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Finally, under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[. ]" This compliance requirement includes child restraint systems, which are subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 213.

You asked if states regulate the resale of used child restraint systems. States could regulate the sale and use of used child restraints. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide information of any such regulation state-by-state, as you requested.

For your information, I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes responsibilities of new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed information on NHTSAs policy regarding the re-use of child restraints after minor crashes. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Deirdre Fujita of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:213
d.10/28/05

ID: nht92-5.26

DATE: July 8, 1992

FROM: Andrew H. Card, Jr. -- NHTSA Secretary of Transportation

TO: Matthew G. Martinez -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/11/92 from Matthew G. Martinez to Andrew Card (OCC 7386)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter regarding Philatron International.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) closely examined Philatron's request and determined that the requested relief cannot be provided. The reasons underlying this conclusion are fully explained in a May 26, 1992, letter from NHTSA Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice to Anthony D. Padgett, counsel for Philatron.

In his letter, the Chief Counsel explained that Philatron, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, is not eligible to be considered for an exemption from compliance with the motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Chief Counsel also concluded that a proceeding resulting from Philatron's rulemaking petition must include a full notice and comment procedure. A copy of the letter is enclosed.

Let me assure you that the Department of Transportation supports and implements President Bush's deregulatory policies and initiatives. However, the President has emphasized that deregulation should not compromise safety. With respect to the issue at hand, interested parties have raised serious questions as to whether the oil resistance requirement of the standard should be eliminated and, if so, whether other requirements should be substituted. It is this concern for safety that compels NHTSA not to eliminate summarily the regulatory requirement in question.

Attachment

Letter dated 5/26/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Anthony D. Padgett, Esq., Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, regarding Philatron. Text of letter follows.

Dear Mr. Padgett:

General Curry has asked me to respond to your letter of April 24, 1992, in which you requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") to grant an "immediate temporary exemption" from the oil resistance requirements of section S7.3.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 106 to Philatron International, Inc. The purpose of such an exemption would be to permit Philatron to manufacture and sell its coiled brake hose products, which do not comply with S7.3.4, during the pendency of the rulemaking proceeding that NHTSA has commenced in response to Philatron's petition for rulemaking to amend that provision.

Section 123 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Act"), 15 U.S.C. S 1410, provides NHTSA with the authority to grant exemptions from safety standards under limited circumstances. However, we have concluded that Philatron would not be eligible to receive an exemption under that section. First, section 123 only authorizes exemptions to manufacturers of "motor vehicles," not to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as Philatron. You have suggested that "it would strain logical reasoning" to allow exemptions to be granted to manufacturers of complete vehicles but not to manufacturers of individual components. However, this is a distinction that Congress may make and has made. As you are aware, section 157 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1417, authorizes NHTSA to grant to all manufacturers, including manufacturers of equipment items, an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of sections 151-154 of the Act if the agency determines that a noncompliance or defect is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. Congress did not provide similar authority in section 123 regarding exemptions from section 108 of the Act, which precludes the manufacture and sale of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with applicable safety standards.

Second, even if NHTSA could exempt equipment items under section 123, the number of hose assemblies manufactured by Philatron would disqualify it due to the numerical restrictions established by section 123(d). Moreover, although you have not indicated which specific subsection of section 123 you believe would be applicable to Philatron, it is questionable whether the company could satisfy any of the substantive bases for an exemption under that section.

I should also point out that, pursuant to section 123(a), NHTSA must provide notice and an opportunity for public comment before it may grant an exemption. Since Philatron's sole reason for requesting an exemption is to enable it to continue to manufacture and sell its products during the pendency of the ongoing rulemaking proceeding, commencing a separate notice and comment proceeding to consider whether to grant a temporary exemption would not provide any real benefit to the company.

It is also clear that, notwithstanding your reference to cases involving other agencies, NHTSA does not have authority to grant exemptions except as provided under section 123. In the early years of the Safety Act, the agency claimed that it had inherent authority to grant to a single manufacturer (Checker Motors Corporation) an extension of the effective date for complying with a standard. On review, the courts held that such an extension was equivalent to an exemption from a safety standard and that NHTSA did not have authority to grant any exemptions except as provided under section 123.

As the District Court stated in Nader v. Volpe, 320 F. Supp. 266, 269 (D.D.C. 1970):

The Court notes that when the Act was originally adopted, Section 1410 did not exist. At first, the Department of Transportation did not feel that it had the statutory authority to grant single manufacturer extensions, but due to the hardship felt by some small manufacturers of specialty cars, the Congress enacted Section 1410. This section, however, is specifically limited to manufacturers who annually produce five hundred cars or less.

Thus, when there was an awareness on the part of Congress that special provisions should be made for single manufacturers, such provisions were restricted. Congress did not provide extensions for single car manufacturers across the board. In fact, from the action it did take, it is logical to presume that it never intended to have a single manufacturer extension for producers who exceeded the five hundred vehicle limit, and the Court so holds.

Although Congress subsequently amended section 123 to broaden the circumstances under which exemptions could be granted, the foregoing legal principle was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit. Nader v. Volpe, 475 F.2d 916, 918 (D.C. Cir. 1973):

And we think it clear, both under the version of Section 1410 initially before us and under Section 1410 as amended by Public Law No. 91-548, that the Secretary's sole authority to exempt a manufacturer from a safety standard, even if that exemption takes the form of a postponement of the effective date of the safety standard for a single manufacturer, derives from Section 1410. THERE IS NO IMPLIED AUTHORITY TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS IN SITUATIONS NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THAT SECTION (emphasis supplied).

Although your April 24 letter focussed on Philatron's request for a temporary exemption, you have also suggested that the agency could amend FMVSS No. 106 "without resort to the full (notice and comment) rulemaking procedure," citing 49 CFR S 553.13. Contrary to the implication of your letter, the fact that NHTSA has granted Philatron's petition for a determination of inconsequentiality with respect to the hose assemblies that were manufactured and sold before the company's determination of noncompliance does not automatically mean that it is appropriate to amend the standard prospectively without prior notice and comment. Moreover, even if the agency had decided that an amendment was appropriate, it would still need to determine the precise form and content of the amendment. For example, we must ensure that the amendment goes no further than is consistent with safety. Identifying where and how to achieve that balancing is precisely the sort of decision that notice and comment was intended to help agencies analyze and resolve.

Under section 553.13 and section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. S 551(b)(B), NHTSA must provide notice of and an opportunity to comment on proposed rules unless the Administrator, "for good cause, finds that notice is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest ...." We are unable to make such a finding in this rulemaking proceeding. Courts have upheld agency actions bypassing the notice-and-comment requirement only under circumstances that are far more compelling than those which confront NHTSA and Philatron in this rulemaking.

The term "impracticable" is narrowly construed by the courts. The legislative history of the APA emphasizes that narrowness: "'Impracticable' means a situation in which the due and required execution of the agency functions would be unavoidably prevented by its undertaking public rulemaking procedures." S. Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 16 (1945). The difficulty of showing impracticability is demonstrated by the fact that the existence of a near- term statutory or judicial deadline is not, by itself, sufficient to establish impracticability. U. S. Steel Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 595

F.2d 207, 213 (5th Cir. 1979). An agency faced with such a deadline must go further and show that even had it acted diligently, there was insufficient time available to obtain public comment. The extent of the necessary showing is suggested in a case involving a different type of deadline. In that case, an agency was upheld after it adopted a last-minute temporary delay in the implementation of a new requirement without providing notice and comment. The agency was able to demonstrate that, despite its diligence in attempting to implement the requirement, it was forced to conclude shortly before the requirement's effective date that compliance by industry in general with the requirement was not yet feasible. Council of the Southern Mountains, Inc., v. Donovan, 653 F.2d 573 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

In the present situation, there is no showing that notice and comment would be impracticable. The oil resistance requirement has been a part of FMVSS No. 106 for many years. Pre-production testing by Philatron of its hose to determine whether there was sufficient basis to certify compliance with all applicable requirements should have revealed that there would be a compliance problem, and should have led Philatron to seek an amendment to the standard at that time.

"Unnecessary," as used in section 553, is confined to those situations in which the administrative rule is "a routine determination, "insignificant in nature and impact," and inconsequential "to the industry and to the public." Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission, 412 F.2d 740 (3rd Cir. 1969). It is clear that Philatron's requested amendment to FMVSS No. 106 is a significant matter that is important to the brake hose and motor vehicle industry. As you are aware, Philatron's petition for an inconsequentiality determination elicited a large and contentious response. Further, the issues in a rulemaking to amend the oil resistance requirement would not be limited, as they were in the inconsequentiality proceeding, to the safety significance of the failure of the hoses previously manufactured by Philatron to comply with that requirement. The agency would also have to address such issues as which applications of brake hose should be excluded from the oil resistance requirement, whether hoses so excluded should be subjected to a labelling requirement, and whether other requirements should be adopted in lieu of the oil resistance test. Therefore, we cannot conclude that notice and comment is "unnecessary."

Further, we cannot conclude that notice and comment would be "contrary to the public interest." According to the legislative history of the APA, "'Public interest' supplements the terms 'impracticable' or 'unnecessary;' it requires that public ride-making procedures shall not prevent an agency from operating, and that, on the other hand, lack of public interest in rule-making warrants an agency to dispense with public procedure." S. Rep. No. 752 at 16. The public interest exception only applies when the delay caused by notice and comment would cause real harm to the public, not mere inconvenience to the agency or members of the public.

NHTSA is aware of Philatron's assertion that if the standard is not amended promptly, the company will have to lay off workers. It is also aware of Philatron's claim about the performance of its hoses relative to the hoses of its competitors. However, the benefits and safety consequences of Philatron's hoses are not universally accepted. Based on the public response to the petition for an inconsequentiality determination, it is highly likely that there would be a similar outpouring of comments in response to a proposal to amend the oil resistance requirements as Philatron has suggested. Accordingly,

the agency is unable to conclude on the basis of the present record that the public interest warrants an immediate amendment of the standard.

In view of the foregoing, NHTSA will seek public comment on its impending proposal to amend FMVSS No. 106. Please be assured that the agency will take appropriate steps to complete this proceeding as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel, NHTSA