ID: nht75-6.24

DATE: 04/16/75

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEOFFREY R. MYERS -- HALL & MYERS

TITLE: N40-30 (RED)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 01/01/75 (EST) LETTER FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHSTA CHIEF COUNSEL TO ALLEN B. FREDHOLD OF K-B AXLE COMPANY INC.; N40-30 (TWH); UNDATED LETTER FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHSTA CHIEF COUNSEL TO ADDRESSEE UNKNOWN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers:

This is in response to your letter of March 25, 1975, enclosing a circular to Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Association members, and a petition containing questions concerning the position of the NHTSA regarding conformity to Standard 121 by persons who alter chassis prior to their completion as trucks or truck tractors. You asked that we comment on your circular and answer the questions in your petition. In the interest of a rapid reply, I would like to respond in this letter to your request concerning your circular. We will answer separately the questions in your petition.

I will quote from our docketed memorandum of the meeting that we had on March 19:

"Under NHTSA interpretations and opinions of long standing, actual road tests are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard 121 or other standards, where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. The agency has recognized that small companies' such as many of the finalstage and intermediate manufacturers represented by the TEBDA, cannot be expected to test on the same scale or by the same methods as large integrated automotive manufacturers. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assemblers are expected to use statutory "due care" to see that their products conform."

You and the association have attempted to set forth our position to your clients, and I don't want to quibble over the precise form of words that you choose. On the other hand, I don't believe the agency should be in the position of appearing to endorse a description of its position that does not conform to its own statements.

Paragraph 5 of the circular represents us as having said that "road tests and the testing of brake release and actuation times are NOT REQUIREMENTS of the standard, but merely methods of assuring compliance." This point is not incorrect, but could be misunderstood out of context. Our position here is not limited to road tests or even Standard 121, but applies to all the requirements of all the motor vehicle safety standards. The standards describe the required capabilities of the vehicles in question; they are not instructions to the manufacturer as to how he ensures those capabilities. Thus, the standard does not specify who must test what and how. It requires that vehicles be capable of meeting the tests when the government tests them, and that manufacturers (including intermediate and final-stage manufacturers) use due care to see that they are so capable.

In the sixth paragraph, the circular states that

"you may still certify a vehicle under FMVSS 121 (even if you increase the GVW, move component parts and/or do not have available the height of the body's center of gravity), provided that your own expertise and judgment reasonably indicates to you that your work has not adversely affected the chassis maker's conformance statements. In other words, you must have no real reason to believe that the completed vehicle does not comply with FMVSS 121. (And this is true even if your reasonable judgment later proves to be wrong.)"

The key word in this passage is "reasonable." The judgment by which the alteration is made must indeed be reasonable to satisfy the due care test. The sentence beginning "In other words" may be misleading, if it leads the reader to believe that blissful ignorance is enough. In case of a failure to comply, a vehicle alterer should be prepared to show, where he used calculations, for example, that the calculations were a reasonable interpretation of the information that was available to him. If a company does not have the in-house capability of making such calculations and judgments, it should obtain it from outside sources such as suppliers or independent contractors. We noted at the meeting on which the circular was based that persons from the axle supplier represented indicated that they were prepared to assist their customers (such as the association members) in this regard.

You should note that our discussion of due care does not deal with the question of what action must be taken by a manufacturer by way of remedy, if a nonconformity is discovered in his vehicles that is not "inconsequential" within the meaning of section 157 of the Act (1974 Amendments). Except for the case of an inconsequentiality finding, the duty to remedy a nonconformity exists regardless of prior testing or any other measures taken by the manufacturer.

Yours truly,

ID: nht92-7.35

DATE: April 21, 1992

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Vernon Wright; Wisconsin Specification File

TITLE: Request for Interpretation: Reference: (1.) 49 CFR Part 571.131 Section S5.5. (2.) Wisconsin Administrative Code Trans 300.64 - Stop Signal Arm

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/92 from Paul J. Rice to Thomas Turner (A39; Std. 131)

TEXT:

Blue Bird Body Company is in the process of implementing changes to conform to the new stop signal arm requirements of FMVSS 131. Reference 1 requires that, "THE STOP SIGNAL ARM SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum WHENEVER THE RED SIGNAL LAMPS required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 ARE ACTIVATED (emphasis added); except that a device may be installed that prevents the automatic extension of a stop signal arm." The standard continues with requirements for this device including the requirement that an audible signal shall sound when the device is activated.

These requirements are logical and can be implemented in conjunction with the use of the eight light warning systems currently required in 46 of the 50 states; however, when these requirements are considered in terms of a four light warning system, there are certain operational issues that need to be considered. Specifically, the state of Wisconsin requires a four light warning system and a stop signal arm on school buses and has the following requirements for stop signal arms per Reference 2; "(2) Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation."

To meet these requirements, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. In order to comply with the new FMVSS 131 standard, we are adding a warning buzzer that will sound when the alternating red flashing lights are activated but the service door has not yet been opened to activate the stop signal arm. We believe that this system meets the intent of Standard No. 131 but are concerned about compliance with the wording of the standard in terms of requiring "automatic extension" of the stop signal arm. The system described above for Wisconsin provides for manual activation of both the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm and is not "automatic." However, it appears to meet the intent of the standard by having the stop arm extend when the service door is opened and the alternating red flashing lights are on, and by having a warning buzzer activated whenever the arm is not extended and the lights are on.

It is our understanding that the Wisconsin requirements are necessary so that the alternating red flashing lights can be used to warn traffic of an impending stop and the stop signal arm is used to actually stop traffic. They do not

want the stop signal arm to extend automatically when the red lights are activated. For an eight light warning system, the amber lights are used to warn traffic of an impending stop and it is proper for the alternating red flashing lights and the stop signal arm to be activated simultaneously to stop traffic. Since Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require as a minimum a four light warning system and allow an eight light warning system, the requirements of Standard No. 131 must be compatible with both systems.

Based on the above information and reasoning, and with the best interests of school bus safety in mind, Blue Bird requests confirmation that the warning light and stop arm system and operation, as required by Wisconsin and described above, conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 131 section S5.5. Specifically we request written confirmation that when a four light warning system is used and is activated by a driver actuated switch, it is permissible for the stop signal arm to be activated by opening of the service door, provided that an audible signal warns the driver when the alternating red flashing lights are on but the stop signal arm has not been extended.

Blue Bird is working to resolve all system design and operational issues regarding Standard No. 131 in the very near future so that changes in production can be implemented in time to meet the September 1, 1992 effective date. Your prompt consideration and response to this request is, therefore, urgently requested.

ID: hendrixMS_law_v2

Mr. William R. Hendrix
6790 Riverdale Road
Horn Lake, MS 38637-1518

Dear Mr. Hendrix:

This responds to your letter in which you ask if the State of Mississippis motorcycle helmet law is preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle helmets. We regret that we are unable to answer your question at this time.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Section 30103(b) of that Chapter states that when an FMVSS is in effect, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. (There is an exception for state standards applicable to vehicles or equipment procured for the States own use that imposes a higher level of performance than the FMVSS. )

In your letter, you state that you believe Mississippis helmet law to be pre-empted by 30103(b) because the state standard requires use of a helmet inspected and approved by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). You further state that AAMVA no longer "inspects and approves" motorcycle helmets.

We have been unable to reach Mississippi state officials for more information about Mississippis motorcycle helmet law. We cannot address the preemption issue without more information. If you can provide further information, you may contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:218#VSA
d.12/22/04

ID: nht90-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: VIRVE AIROLA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/26/72 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO K. NAKAJIMA -- TOYOTA; LETTER AND BROCHURE DATED 04/14/89 FROM VIRVE AIROLA OF OY TUPPI AB TO NHTSA CONCERNING ITS FINLAND COMPANY'S RANGE OF PLASTIC TUBES AND HOSE S PARTICULAR ITS AIR BRAKE TUBING

TEXT: 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 i nto 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 eac h 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 pen alty 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, nume rals 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 h ose 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 m eet 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-Scani a 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 equ ipment it manufacturers 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 supplyi ng 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 hav e enclosed a copy of this regulation for your information.

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

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht76-3.47

DATE: 03/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Great Dane Trailers' February 23, 1976, letter asking if a trailer equipped with one or more axles that have a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Section S3. of Standard No. 121 provides in part that any vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1977, that has a GAWR for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more is excluded from the standard. The determination of GAWR is made by the vehicle manufacturer (49 CFR 571.3) and must be based on the capabilities of the axle system at 60 mph. Because the determination is made by the vehicle manufacturer, the NHTSA is unable to say that the components you mention in your letter would necessarily constitute an axle system with a GAWR of 24,000 pounds.

YOURS TRULY,

Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

February 23, 1976

James C. Schultz Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration D.O.T.

Re: FMVSS-121 49 CFR 571.121

In accordance with Part 571 Docket No. 74-10; Notice 16 issued May 12, 1975, Section S3. Application, it is stated that FMVSS-121 does not apply to any vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1976, that has a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more.

If we produced a structurally sound semi-trailer with dual tires having a capacity of 6000 pounds each, mounted on an axle with 24,000 pound rating with two springs per axle having a rating of 12,000 pounds each (therefore a 24,000 pound GAWR), is this vehicle exempt from the FMVSS-12 regulations?

I will be looking forward to receiving your legal opinion on this matter.

Dudley E. DeWitt Manager/R & D

ID: nht74-1.14

DATE: 07/03/74

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

TO: Imperial-Eastman Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 2, 1974, questions concerning the labeling of multi-piece end fittings, the use of hose marked with the DOT symbol in non-brake applications, and the acceptability of an end fitting design under the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake hoses.

The answers to your first two questions will appear in the upcoming notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of amendments to Standard No. 106.

As to the acceptability of a certain end fitting design, the standard specifies performance requirements for end fittings. Any design which meets the specifications of the standard may be manufactured after the effective date of the standard.

Yours truly,

May 2, 1974

Docket Room National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: FMVSS106, Docket 1-5, Note 10

Gentlemen:

Imperial-Eastman Corporation, a manufacturer of brake hose, couplings, and hose assemblies have a direct interest in FMVSS106, and hereby submit the following comments or requests for interpretations; they are not items for petition.

1. S7.2 Labeling

"Except for two-piece end fittings that are attached by deformation of the fitting about a hose by crimping or swaging, each air brake hose end fitting shall be permanently etched, embossed or stamped, in block capital letters and numerals at least one-sixteenth of an inch high with the DOT labeling information."

We assume that on three-piece air brake hose end fittings which utilize sacrificial sleeves or ferrules, and are considered permanently attached end fittings, that it would be permissible to mark only the coupling nut, with the DOT labeling information.

2. Thermoplastic air brake hose in accordance with SAE J844, Type 3 is currently being used by practically most major truck manufacturers in the United States on original equipment. This hose is normally used to replace copper tubing and/or rubber hose in air brake systems.

This type of thermoplastic hose with air brake hose end fittings is also used for auxiliary lines to windshield wipers, air horns, pressure gages, etc., and for fuel lines.

Fittings and/or fitting components used in these applications may be identical with those used in and marked for air brake applications. Is it permissible for these items to retain the DOT labeling information when used in these other applications?

3. The SAE has a committee which has proposed a fitting performance specification for SAE J844, Type 3, Nylon air brake tubing. One of the types of fittings that meet this performance specification and is currently being used by most major truck manufacturers on air brake systems, consist of a nut, sleeve, tube support and body. The tube support is a brass eyelet, pressed into the body by the coupling manufacturer, which prevents collapse of the tubing. The body is a standard air brake body which meets SAE J246 Standard. For service replacement a loose eyelet and sleeve are provided.

Such fittings are neither described within the DOT Standard, nor specifically excluded from it. Assuming that such fittings are qualified to the DOT test requirements of the standard, and are marked in accordance with the standard, may we then assume they are acceptable?

Sincerely,

IMPERIAL-EASTMAN CORPORATION Imperial Division

Robert C. Gibson Standards and Specifications Engineer

ID: nht87-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING NATIONAL SALES MANAGER

TO: SEBASTIAN MESSINA -- NJ DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION CHIEF MOTOR CARRIER INSPECTIONS & INVESTIGATIONS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K BROCK; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM TERRY K. BROCK. TO STEVE KRATZKE RE CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE 217; OCC 1009

TEXT: Dear Mr. Messina,

I am writing regarding the 25 passenger Diamond VIP bus sold by Mr. Fred Sarlo of Wolfington Body Company. It was brought to our attention that we had not provided adequate emergency escapes per F.M.V.S.S. Code #217.

It was our pleasure to speak to your inspector, Mr. Vince LaBosio, yesterday via the telephone. He requested that I follow up our conversation with this letter to your attention.

It is very much a concern to Coons Manufacturing, Inc. that we are meeting the F.M.V.S.S. Code #217. However, we along with other manufacturers of this type bus, have in the past considered our front entrance door as an emergency side exit. We have enclosed diagrams of this electric entrance door. We are requesting you to better assist us in understanding why it is unacceptable to use this as one of the required side emergency exits. Also, on the driver's side we have, in the past, considered th e driver's window, which is 20"x20" clear opening or 400 square inches, as an additional side emergency exit. Again, it is our desire to meet the F.M.V.S.S. requirements, as well as, your own New Jersey requirements.

Please respond as soon as possible, in as much as, the customer has a very limited amount of time left on the 60 day extension permit that you extended to him. It is our desire to correct this problem prior to that permit expiring. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht95-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Scott E. Mack -- Sr Product Manager, Philips Lighting Company

TO: Chief Counsel Office, NHTSA

TITLE: "Request for Interpretation: FMVSS-108" Color Clear TM Halogen Headlights

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/11/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO SCOTT E. MACK (A43; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Please review the attached ETL test report regarding Philips Color Clear TM Halogen Headlights and confirm your agreement that they are incompliance with FMVSS-108. While this product appears to be colored when not in use when lighted it produces white light as defined by J579C. The test report indicates that the color of the light is identical to that of a standard halogen headlight.

Please forward your confirmation to:

Scott Mack Sr. Product Manager Philips Lighting Co. 200 Franklin Square Driv Somerset, NJ 08875

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Attachment

REPORT

ETL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

INDUSTRIAL PARK CORTLAND, NEW YORK 13045

Order No. 97540-215

Date: April 11, 1995

REPORT NO. 550319

"PHILIPS H6054 DOT H" 142mm X 200mm TYPE 2B1 COLOR CLEAR SEALED BEAM HEADLAMP UNIT

RENDERED TO

PHILIPS LIGHTING COMPANY 300 FRANKLIN SQUARE DRIVE SOMERSET, NJ 08875-6800 INTRODUCTION

This report contains the results of examination and test of the above device to demonstrate compliance with the applicable test requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, effective as of the date of this report and indicated S AE Standards as requested by the client.

Summary

The following is a summary of the results of tests of the device performed in accordance with FMVSS 108 and subreferenced SAE Standards.

Tests Standards Remarks Color J578c Complies

AUTHORIZATION

Purchase Order No. HQ 133175K.

(Remainder of report is omitted.)

ID: 17174.wkm

Mr. Celso G. Longhi
Mr. Alfredo C. Filho
Product Development
SABO
Rua Gino Cesaro 210
Sao Paulo, S.P., Brazil 05038

Dear Messrs. Longhi and Filho:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter faxed to Mr. Marvin Shaw, formerly of this office. You state that you are developing a vacuum hose for Ford and that you were advised that you must identify the hose with "DOT" in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 106, Brake hoses (copy enclosed). You also state that you understand that this symbol identifies your company. You ask us to let you know what is necessary in order to mark your product.

For your general information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under U. S. law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The law establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA enforces the FMVSSs by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them for compliance with applicable standards. NHTSA also investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of that 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 that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 per violation.

Standard No. 106, to which you alluded in your letter, specifies performance and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake hoses, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings. With respect to vacuum hoses, please refer to subsection S9, Requirements - vacuum brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings beginning on page 216. Subparagraph S9.1.1(a) requires hoses to be marked with the symbol "DOT" to represent the manufacturer's certification that the hoses comply with all applicable FMVSSs. A separate marking identifying the manufacturer is required by S9.1.1(b). The manufacturer's marking may consist of block capital letters, numerals, or a symbol, and must be filed in writing with the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.

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 Ford sells vehicles equipped with your brake hoses in this country. This rule requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment" - in this case, 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 that regulation to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplying their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the U.S. (see enclosed copy of NHTSA letter to Mr. Virve Airola, dated May 31, 1990; and enclosed Brake Hose Application).

Please note also that under 49 CFR Part 551, Subpart D (copy enclosed), SABO must designate an agent if SABO decides to offer its equipment for importation into the U.S.

Also enclosed for your information are fact sheets entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have an questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Ref:106
d.5/1/98

ID: nht79-3.36

DATE: 03/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lifetime Foam Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 8, 1979, requesting confirmation of your understanding of an October 7, 1976, letter of interpretation by our office concerning Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You are correct in your assumption that the standard applies only to completed vehicles and not to vehicle seats as individual equipment.

SINCERELY,

LIFETIME Foam Products, Inc.

February 8, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Gentlemen:

Attached is a copy of our inquiry to your office dated September 10, 1976, and the response from your office dated October 7, 1976.

Although we make every effort to build our merchandise to meet the provisions of Standard No. 207, we have understood your response to mean that our seating pieces did not have to meet the provisions of that standard if the pieces are sold to customers who purchase them out of retailer's catalogs to install in their own vehicles.

I would appreciate your confirming our understanding of your response.

Frank Tedesco PRESIDENT

September 10, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Gentlement:

Cortification of Optional Accossory Seats for Recreational Vehicles and Multipurpose Vehicles per FMVSS207

Lifetime Foam Products is proceeding toward the furbrication of custom, recreational vehicle seating accossories which would be marketed to the public through the catalog division of our parent organisation, Sears, Roobuck and Co. The following list of consumer-installed seating accessories is representative of this new product line.

1. Convertible bad/bench/dinette set.

2. Convertible couch/bed.

3. Tower-back seat.

4. Recliner chair.

Because we are entering a new aspect of our operations, we are most eager that the structural designs meet our high standards of quality as well as applicable operational standards. During the preliminary stages of our activitions, I talked with Mr. Robert Gardner of NHTSA on July 29, and he recommended that I contact your office. Therefore, the purpose of this inquiry is to obtain approval from DOT for certification of these seats according to the applicable sections of FMVSS207 using only "bench tests" (out-of-vehicle) which will certify everthing except the seat-to floor attachment. The reason for excluding the seat-to-floor attachment is that these optional accessory seats will eventually be installated by the consumer in many types of recreational vehicles, in numerous configurations and on floors whose structural integrity cannot be predicted (Illegible Word). These certification tests would be conducted in accordance with NHTSA approval "Laboratory Procedured for Seating Systems: Passenger Cars, Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Vehicles, TP207-06" or subsequent update of the procedure when they (Illegible Word) available.

As a result of this unknown condition of the floor structure in the user's vehicle, we plan to include in the installation instructions a cautionary statement to the following effect:

"Install per instructions using large area washers furnished in the installation kit. Those washers are to be installed on the underneath side of the floor pan between the attachment not and the vehicle floor. The washers will componsate for an (Illegible Word) 10% reduction in floor strength. In the event that the floor has detolorated beyond this point, it is recommended that the owner contact a qualified shop for assistance."

I would appreciate a reply to this request for approval as soon as possible. If approval is granted, we will then proceed with the certification tests as outlined above.

Frank Tedesco

cc: W. J. ANTLEFORD/SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE; L. C. CODKIN; S. A. WELLER/SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.