ID: nht92-2.20

DATE: November 18, 1992

FROM: Joanna L. Campfield -- Vice President, ULTRA B-O-N-D, INC.

TO: Paul J. Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: Windshield Repair

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/93 from John Womack to Joanna L. Campfield (A40; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Our company is a windshield repair system distributor. We have a design patent pending on our equipment and issued patent #5,116,441 for the methods of repairing long cracks in windshields.

Since the development of windshield repair in the 1970's, equipment has upgraded, resins have been made stronger and results have improved. At that time it was the position of the U.S. Department of Transportation that windshield repair was not prohibited either by your Department or Federal law or regulation. Repairs are restricted from any area which may hinder the driver's vision as well as new windshields damaged in shipment, as per Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

As more and more insurance companies are favoring repair versus replacement, we would appreciate receiving an updated approval letter from your offices. If there is any information we can supply to you, please contact our office.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht76-3.30

DATE: 06/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Honorable John M. Murphy; House of Representatives

COPYEE: CONGRESSMAN VAN DEELIN

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to former Chairman Lionel Van Deerlin's April 21, 1976, letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, as applied to motor homes. His letter is particularly concerned with the request of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) for a delay in the standard's effective date of September 1, 1976, for the first phase of the requirements that apply to motor homes.

This effective date requires clarification in the case of multi-stage vehicles. RVIA members typically manufacture motor homes by installing bodies on chassis that have been supplied to them by other manufacturers. In such situations, the meaning of the September 1, 1976, effective date is not that all motor homes completed after that date must comply with the standard. Section 567.5(a)(7) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, permits the final stage manufacturer of a multi-stage vehicle to consider as the vehicle's date of manufacture any date that is neither earlier than the completion date of the chassis nor later than the completion date of the entire vehicle. The practical result of this provision is that the standard requires compliance only of those motor homes whose chassis are completed on or after September 1, 1976.

Because the ability of a motor home to comply with Standard No. 301-75 is substantially affected by both the design of the chassis and the manner in which the vehicle is completed, it is not meaningful to apply the standard directly to incomplete vehicles. All that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires of incomplete vehicles is the following: those that are manufactured after September 1, 1976, must be capable of being completed into complying motor homes and must be accompanied by the incomplete vehicle document described in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. That document will include, with respect to Standard No. 301-75, either (i) a statement that the motor home as completed will comply with the standard provided no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, or (ii) a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed motor home will comply with the standard. While Part 568 generally offers the incomplete vehicle manufacturer a third option -- to make no representation whatever of the compliance status of his product -- that option is unavailable in this context because his work substantially affects compliance.

The RVIA has argued that a delay in the standard's effective date for completed motor homes is necessary for its members to gain experience with chassis that have been designed for completion into complying motor homes. The NHTSA recognizes the need for such experience or its equivalent through the provision of technical information by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. However, the agency expects motor home manufacturers to obtain this experience or information, through cooperation with the chassis manufacturers, in advance of the September 1, 1976, effective date. While such advance manufacturing or provision of information on the part of chassis manufacturers is not required by any regulations of this agency, it is required by the commercial realities of their relationships with the motor home manufacturers. A simple delay in the standard's effective date would merely delay the date by which incomplete vehicle manufacturers would be required by the NHTSA to supply chassis that have been designed for completion into complying motor homes. Such a delay would thus not provide the relief that the RVIA has requested.

The RVIA has, in effect, requested the agency to establish an "experience interval" by retaining September 1, 1976, as the time by which chassis must be designed for ultimate compliance and setting a new and later "secondary" effective date for the activities of the RVIA members. With this approach, a completed motor home would be required to comply with Standard No. 301-75 only if it were based on a chassis manufactured after the secondary effective date. While the establishment of such an "experience interval" might at first appear to be a simple solution to an acknowledged problem, the NHTSA has concluded that it is not only unnecessary but inappropriate as well.

It is unnecessary because the ordinary private dealings between motor home manufacturers and their suppliers can ensure that sufficient technical information, experience with redesigned chassis, or some combination of the two will be available before the "primary" effective date. The legal requirement of compliance by vehicles built with chassis that are manufactured after that date can be expected to trigger those market forces which will induce suppliers of incomplete vehicles to cooperate with RVIA members. Any "experience interval" would represent an intrusion by the government into the satisfactory operation of those forces. This position was announced in the agency's response to an RVIA petition for reconsideration of effective dates (39 FR 40857, November 21, 1974) (copy enclosed).

The design of those motor homes that do not already comply with Standard No. 301-75 can be modified in many ways to achieve compliance. Changes might be made in both chassis and bodies. Bodies might be redesigned in such a way that no change in chassis construction is necessary. Conversely, all of the necessary protection might be incorporated in an upgraded chassis design, assuming that the addition of a motor home body did not present protrusions that would degrade this protection. In fact, this latter approach is already being followed in the case of school buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of more than 10,000 pounds. I understand that the School Bus Manufacturers Institute and several of its major chassis suppliers have reached agreements that provide for substantially all the necessary impact protection in the chassis.

While RVIA members may not be as successful as the schoolbus manufacturers have been in inducing their chassis suppliers to redesign for compliance, the above example illustrates the importance of the government's avoiding involvement in such contractual relationships. This agency is concerned in the first instance with the performance of completed vehicles, rather than the allocation between incomplete vehicle manufacturers and final-stage manufacturers of the task of redesigning for such performance. The agency lacks both the information and the expertise to determine either the most appropriate form of such redesign or the time that each manufacturer might consider desirable to effect the transition. This determination is therefore best made through cooperation or negotiation between the private parties involved. Because this determination is inextricably connected with decisions concerning the advance supply of redesigned chassis, it is impossible for the NHTSA to become involved in negotiations over the latter without interference in the former. The creation of an "experience interval" as requested by the RVIA would therefore be inappropriate. In any event, such a modification of the standard's effective dates is prohibited by Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492).

Finally, the NHTSA has not found it necessary to take special steps to encourage incomplete vehicle manufacturers to furnish advance information to motor home manufacturers. We understand that such cooperation is already taking place.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND FINANCE

April 21, 1976

James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

The Recreational Vehicle Industry Association has contacted me regarding the Fuel System Integrity Standard (Standard 301) as it applies to manufacturers of motor homes. As you are aware, the first stage of the standard becomes effective on September 1, 1976.

It is my understanding that the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association has petitioned the NHTSA to delay the effective date of the Standard insofar as it applies to multi-stage vehicles. The Recreational Vehicle Industry Association maintains that motor home manufacturers should not have to comply with the new standard until they have received and had an opportunity to gain experience with the new complying incomplete vehicles. I can certainly appreciate the desire of NHTSA to see that the American motorist is provided the additional protection from Standard 301 as soon as possible, but I am also sympathetic to the difficulties which the motor home manufacturer may face.

I would appreciate your sending me any information you have explaining the NHTSA decision to deny the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association petition for an extension of time. Would you also please indicate what efforts, if any, NHTSA has made to see that chassis manufacturers supply the motor home manufacturers with information regarding the new complying chassis so that the second-stage manufacturer will be able to anticipate and plan necessary adjustments to insure that the completed vehicle also complies with the standard.

Thank you for your assistance.

Lionel Van Deerlin Chairman

ID: nht93-7.11

DATE: October 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bernhard Peer -- President, Peer Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from Bernhard Peer to John Womack (OCC 8968)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you request "Federal approval and certification" for the "TWIP," the product you plan to import into the United States. You state that this product is a battery driven, two-wheeled electric scooter with a maximum top speed of about 9 miles per hour. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the TWIP will be used in warehouses and for recreational purposes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Based on statements in your letter and in your telephone conversation that the TWIP would be used in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes, it appears that the TWIP is manufactured primarily for off-road purposes rather than for use on the public streets. Therefore, your product would not be a motor vehicle and thus would not be subject to any of this agency's safety standards.

Even if your product is manufactured for on-road use a substantial amount of the time, it appears that the TWIP would still not be a motor vehicle under this agency's statutory definitions. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. These criteria are met by the TWIP. In your letter, you stated that the TWIP has a top speed of approximately 9 miles per hour. The sales material you enclosed show that the TWIP's steering mechanism and driver's seat are attached to elongated bars that fold down apparently to make the scooter more portable. This configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and, other two-wheeled vehicles.

I wish to clarify this agency's authority to provide "federal approval and certification." As noted above, under the Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each

manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, even if the TWIP had been found to be a motor vehicle, the agency would not have approved or certified it. Rather, you, as its manufacturer, would be responsible for certification.

Because your vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," under the Safety Act, none of this agency's standards or regulations applies to it. You may wish to contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply. Their address is:

Office of Chief Counsel 5401 Westbard Avenue Bethesda, MD 20207 Telephone: (301) 504-0980

You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of motor Vehicle Administrators at:

4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 522-4200

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any, other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 8968

Mr. Bernhard Peer
President
Peer Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 580237
Houston, TX 77258-0237

Dear Mr. Peer:

This responds to your letter in which you request "Federal approval and certification" for the "TWIP," the product you plan to import into the United States. You state that this product is a battery driven, two-wheeled electric scooter with a maximum top speed of about 9 miles per hour. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that the TWIP will be used in warehouses and for recreational purposes. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Based on statements in your letter and in your telephone conversation that the TWIP would be used in warehouses and for off-road recreational purposes, it appears that the TWIP is manufactured primarily for off-road purposes rather than for use on the public streets. Therefore, your product would not be a motor vehicle and thus would not be subject to any of this agency's safety standards.

Even if your product is manufactured for on-road use a substantial amount of the time, it appears that the TWIP would still not be a motor vehicle under this agency's statutory definitions. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. These criteria are met by the TWIP. In your letter, you stated that the TWIP has a top speed of approximately 9 miles per hour. The sales material you enclosed show that the TWIP's steering mechanism and driver's seat are attached to elongated bars that fold down apparently to make the scooter more portable. This configuration readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

I wish to clarify this agency's authority to provide "federal approval and certification." As noted above, under the Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, even if the TWIP had been found to be a motor vehicle, the agency would not have approved or certified it. Rather, you, as its manufacturer, would be responsible for certification.

Because your vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," under the Safety Act, none of this agency's standards or regulations applies to it. You may wish to contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply. Their address is:

Office of Chief Counsel 5401 Westbard Avenue Bethesda, MD 20207 Telephone: (301) 504-0980

You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at:

4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 522-4200

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:10/5/93

ID: nht71-3.29

DATE: 07/13/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your petition for rulemaking of June 28, 1971. You requested that Standard No. 208 be amended to allow the seat belt warning switch to be installed in the buckle instead of the retractor.

The action on petitions for reconsideration issued on July 2, 1971, in effect granted your request, allowing the warning shut-off to be keyed to webbing withdrawal or buckle closure.

ID: 1985-03.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bernard Cantleberry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bernard Cantleberry 5958 Maplewood Road Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124

Dear Mr. Cantleberry:

This responds to your letter to this office, in which you sought approval from the Department of Transportation and this agency for your hydraulic brake lock. Neither the Department nor this agency have the authority to approve any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the manufacturer of the vehicles or equipment is required to certify that it complies with all applicable standards.

The requirement for manufacturer certification is contained in section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (hereinafter "the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1403) which reads as follows:

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In the case of an item of motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

Under Section 114, motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers must them- selves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. The safety certification procedure thus differs from the government type approval procedure used in Europe. Under the European procedure, a manufacturer delivers its product to a governmental entity which tests the product and then determines whether it should be approved. If the product is approved, it may then be sold.

In the case of your hydraulic brake lock, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if you want to have the hydraulic brake lock installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire brake system with the hydraulic brake lock installed satisfied the requirements of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.105; copy enclosed).

Generally speaking, the requirements of Standard No. 105 apply to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith, and not to aftermarket accessories for use with or in the vehicle. The general rule is that your hydraulic brake lock may be added to the vehicle after its first purchase, even if the addition of your brake lock causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105, without violating any legal requirements.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies : "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...". The performance capabilities of the hydraulic brake system on the vehicle are considered an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 105. Thus, if any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business adds your hydraulic brake lock to a vehicle and knowingly causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 105, that person or entity has violated the section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibition. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108, and each installation which rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 105 would be considered a separate violation.

You should note that the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design on his or her vehicle, and therefore hydraulic brake locks which are sold to and installed by vehicle owners need not be checked to see if they cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105. Of course, state product liability law would also affect the installation of your device. I suggest that you discuss this matter with a local attorney.

I would also recommend that you per form some testing or analysis to learn what effect the addition of your hydraulic brake lock has on the braking performance of vehicles on which it is installed. If its addition does not affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, the brake lock could be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses without violating any legal requirements. If the addition of the hydraulic brake lock causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 105, it may be sold as an aftermarket accessory, but may not legally be installed on a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

May 6, 1985.

Office of the Chief Counsel: To Whom It May Concern;

Dr. Carl Clark of your dept. recommended that I write to you and put forth what I have and what I want in relation to an innovative Anti Theft device.

I realize that what I have designed is not completely new to the field , but the inner workings, construction , design of operation, safety factors and Anti Theft capabilities are phenomenal, along with other uses.

I am describing a dual hydraulic brake lock that is operated by dual vacuum actuators that work in direct opposite of the way that vacuum actuators operate.

The system is designed in such a way that even while driving down the road and you lose engine power the system does not shut down causing brake failure. The system is also designed that in case of an electrical failure in the vehicle while the brakes are locked you always have full control to open the system to allow towing which is controlled by the only nonpickable lock on the market, and I am not referring to the key system that is designed for the Mercedes with the dimples. The system is designed in such a way that prevents anyone from overcoming it to allow removal of the vehicle, short of cutting the brake lines and driving the vehicle away with the use of the emergency brake, but that all takes time and that generally is what the thieves don't have.

When the hydraulic lock is set it is the absence of vacuum that operates the device, overcoming the device due to my design is impossible.

I keep referring to design , in actuality the partially finished product has been installed on in automobile and has been in test for about two months. By partially finished , I mean that only a single system has been prototyped and was installed on a front wheel drive vehicle. The dual system has been designed and is entering its completed stages. The system works exactly the way it was designed and is operating with no problems.

The device is installed downstream of the differential valve on some models and installed in the brake lines of others that have no differential valve, such as on the one that I am testing it on. The device does not upset the original brake system in any way or does it cause a difference in brake pressure or operation of the original system.

The reason that I am writing to you dept. is that I am looking for sanction from the dept. is that I am Dept. Of Natural Highway Traffic Safety, unless they are one in the same, for my device.

The beauty part of my device is that In testing on and off the vehicle the device held the brakes in a locked up position for a period of approximately two weeks with no pressure loss, unlike two of the other devices that have been produced and that I hive tested and that bears D. O. I. approval.

I am that Service Manager of the largest selling Ford agency in the country and the level of integrity that flows from xxxxxx Mr. Sam Marshall down thru all of his personal is something that would institute a desire for safety in something as in this hydraulic brake lock,I would greatly appreciate your response and requirements pertaining to this device, and what steps I have to take to obtain your approval and sanction.

Thank you for your time and hopefully your assistance;

Bernard Cantleberry 5958 Maplewood Rd. Mayfield Hgts, Ohio 44124

ID: 21552

Mr. Juergen Lucht
WIKA Alexander Wiegand GmbH & Co (WIKA)
Dept. GLZ-ID-QN
D 63911 Klingenberg
Germany

Dear Mr. Lucht:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for an air brake pressure hose fitting used in a gauge manufactured by your company. I am pleased to provide this information.

By way of background, 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 hoses. NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new vehicles and equipment. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards 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. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which an item of original equipment is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 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
One of the standards we issued is Standard No. 106, "Brake Hoses," which applies to new motor vehicles and to brake hoses (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above.

From the information provided in your letter, it appears that WIKA manufactures a dashboard-mounted brake system pressure gauge which is connected to the brake system through a compressed air hose. Your letter did not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion as to whether the air lines and end fittings used with your product would be considered "brake hoses" and "brake hose end fittings" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106, or whether an assembly of hose and end fitting would be a "brake hose assembly" as defined in the standard. Note, however, that it has been NHTSA's long-standing position that accessory air lines and end fittings, such as those used in your product, are "brake hoses" and "brake hose end fittings" if a failure of the line or fitting would result in a loss of pressure in the vehicle's brake system. (See the enclosed June 5, 1987, letter to Albert Schwarz, and the August 3, 1984, letter to Terry Teeter.) Accordingly, if a failure of the accessory lines or fittings used with your product could result in a loss of pressure in the brake system, the hoses, fittings and assemblies are subject to the provisions of Standard No. 106. Chapter 301 states that "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any of the hoses, end fittings or assemblies unless the products comply with all of the applicable requirements in Standard No. 106.

A copy of Standard No. 106 is enclosed. In addition, you may access this standard and other Federal motor vehicle safety standards through the NHTSA website at www.nhtsa.dot.gov.

You ask several specific questions, which I will address below.

Registration Requirements
You first ask, "What are the usual procedures for a DOT registration like?" If you are asking about a pre-sale approval process, 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 self-certify its product as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you are asking about the labeling requirements of Standard No. 106, the standard requires manufacturers to label their brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies with certain information, including a manufacturer's designation (see S7.2.1(b), S7.2.2(b), and S7.2.3(b)). The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products. Assuming that your products are subject to Standard No. 106, the manufacturer must file its designation (which may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) in writing with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

Enforcing Standard No. 106
You also ask how a manufacturer establishes conformity with our standards and whether a manufacturer may perform certification testing on its own or must use an independent test facility or qualified expert. As noted above, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to certify that its products meet all applicable standards. In meeting this responsibility, the manufacturer need not use an independent test facility and is not required to test in a particular manner. However, manufacturers must exercise due care when making the certification. Once your company has determined that the hoses, end fittings, and assemblies comply with the requirements of Standard No. 106, the standard requires you to mark these products with the symbol "DOT" to show your company's certification of compliance, as specified in the standard.

This agency enforces the requirements of Standard No. 106 by purchasing brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies. The certified products are tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the products pass these tests, no further actions are taken.

Procedural Requirements
I would like to discuss two procedural requirements you must meet 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 manufactures 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 processes, 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.

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.

Fees or Costs
Finally, you ask what fees or costs are required for registration and inspection. As noted above, NHTSA does not approve products prior to sale and would inspect a product as part of its compliance testing program. Manufacturers and importers of brake hoses are required to register with the agency and all importers and manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are required to meet the identification requirements, and importers are required to provide NHTSA with the identification of an agent for service of process. There are no fees associated with these requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Mr. Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253 if you have any further questions or need additional information .

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:106
d.10/17/00

ID: nht88-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DONALD SMITH -- CHIEF INVENTOR NEW INNOVATIVE SYSTEMS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter regarding the "Highway Automatic Communications Indicator (HACI)", as supplemented by a telephone conversation between you and Stephen Wood of my staff on December 20, 1988. You have asked for approval of y our device.

The HACI "will display, via a transparent display screen mounted in the rear window, pre-programmed distress messages, activated only when with the automobile is at a complete standstill." The diagram of the display alert indicates that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, rather than at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be. When not activated, the device would be transparent. It would be activated by a special switch, not by the brake pedal. It is our understanding that the HACI would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, and is not wired into the brake light or hazard light system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to approve or disapprove individual inventions or devices. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of the HACI to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under the authority of which the standards are issued. These standards must be met at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, and persons other than the purchaser may not modify a vehicle after its sale in a manner that, in essence, renders it noncompliant with any standard.

There are three standards potentially affected by the HACI. The first is the lighting standard, Standard No. 108. Since the HACI's display screen is mounted in the rear window, a problem could arise if the center high mounted stop lamp required by Stan dard No. 108 is also mounted in that area. The HACI is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp, or any other lamp required by Standard No. 108. While this determination is the r esponsibility of the vehicle manufacturer (or dealer, if the HACI is installed after vehicle manufacture but before sale to its first purchaser)

in the first instance, it appears to us that the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp would not be impaired. We base this conclusion on our understanding that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, instead of at the bottom of the w indow where the lamp would be and that it would apparently be activated only when the vehicle was stationary, such as parked on the side of the road.

The second standard potentially affected is Standard No. 111, relating to rearview mirrors. This standard specifies a field of view to be met by the inside rearview mirror; if the mirror does not provide this field of view, an outside mirror on the fron t seat passenger side must be provided. Since your device is reportedly transparent when not activated, and would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, it may well be that there is no necessity for the addition of an outside mirror. However , we do not have sufficient information to determine whether the HACI would impede the field of view under all conditions.

The third standard potentially affected is Standard No. 205, relating to glazing. This requires, in part, that all glazing in passenger cars have at least 70 percent light transmittance. To the extent that the display screen reduces light transmittance , it could create a noncompliance with this standard. However, because you have indicated that your display screen is transparent, it does not appear likely that any reduction in light transmittance would fall below the specified minimum.

With this guidance and your knowledge of the HACI, you should be able to judge whether installation of the HACI either before or after the initial sale of a passenger car might be regarded as creating a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard, or otherwise be in violation of the Act. An official judgment regarding noncompliance or violation is made by the agency only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

In addition, you should be aware that the HACI remains subject to the laws of the individual States. We cannot advise you of its legality under these laws. To obtain an opinion on this matter, you may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Ve hicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

ID: 3324o

Mr. Donald Smith
Chief Inventor
New Innovative Systems
1047 E. Vernon Road
Philadelphia, PA 19146

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter regarding the "Highway Automatic Communications Indicator (HACI)", as supplemented by a telephone conversation between you and Stephen Wood of my staff on December 20, l988. You have asked for approval of your device.

The HACI "will display, via a transparent display screen mounted in the rear window, pre-programmed distress messages, activated only when with the automobile is at a complete standstill." The diagram of the display alert indicates that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, rather than at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be. When not activated, the device would be transparent. It would be activated by a special switch, not by the brake pedal. It is our understanding that the HACI would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, and is not wired into the brake light or hazard light system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to approve or disapprove individual inventions or devices. We can, however, advise you as to the relationship of the HACI to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under the authority of which the standards are issued. These standards must be met at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, and persons other than the purchaser may not modify a vehicle after its sale in a manner that, in essence, renders it noncompliant with any standard.

There are three standards potentially affected by the HACI. The first is the lighting standard, Standard No. l08. Since the HACI's display screen is mounted in the rear window, a problem could arise if the center high mounted stop lamp required by Standard No. l08 is also mounted in that area. The HACI is permissible as original vehicle equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp, or any other lamp required by Standard No. l08. While this determination is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer (or dealer, if the HACI is installed after vehicle manufacture but before sale to its first purchaser) in the first instance, it appears to us that the effectiveness of the high mounted lamp would not be impaired. We base this conclusion on our understanding that the message would appear in the middle of the rear window, instead of at the bottom of the window where the lamp would be and that it would apparently be activated only when the vehicle was stationary, such as parked on the side of the road.

The second standard potentially affected is Standard No. lll, relating to rearview mirrors. This standard specifies a field of view to be met by the inside rearview mirror; if the mirror does not provide this field of view, an outside mirror on the front seat passenger side must be provided. Since your device is reportedly transparent when not activated, and would be activated only when the vehicle is stationary, it may well be that there is no necessity for the addition of an outside mirror. However, we do not have sufficient information to determine whether the HACI would impede the field of view under all conditions.

The third standard potentially affected is Standard No. 205, relating to glazing. This requires, in part, that all glazing in passenger cars have at least 70 percent light transmittance. To the extent that the display screen reduces light transmittance, it could create a noncompliance with this standard. However, because you have indicated that your display screen is transparent, it does not appear likely that any reduction in light transmittance would fall below the specified minimum.

With this guidance and your knowledge of the HACI, you should be able to judge whether installation of the HACI either before or after the initial sale of a passenger car might be regarded as creating a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, or otherwise be in violation of the Act. An official judgment regarding noncompliance or violation is made by the agency only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

In addition, you should be aware that the HACI remains subject to the laws of the individual States. We cannot advise you of its legality under these laws. To obtain an opinion on this matter, you may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:l2/29/88

ID: nht74-1.35

DATE: 06/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Committee on Transportation, Florida House of Representatives

COPYEE: W. R. EASON; NHTSA REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR -- ATLANTA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 7, to Dr. James R. Gregory, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the activation of headlamps during periods of reduced visibility, and the automatic illumination of vehicle headlights when the windshield wipers are activated.

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances is the custodian of the Uniform Vehicle Code. Any revision of @ 12-201 relating to operation of headlights in line with the Florida law could be duly considered by its Subcommittee on Vehicles and Highways. Perhaps you may wish to submit a proposal to revise this section of the UVC to Mr. Edward F. Kearney, Executive Director, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, M.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. If you choose to do so, this would be a timely action since the various Subcommittees of the National Committee will be meeting in the next few months to consider pending proposals to revise various chapters of the UVC.

With respect to automatic illumination of headlights with the windshield wipers, the NHTSA has conducted, and will continue to conduct, considerable research on improved headlighting. This research will include evaluations of means and features which will enhance the safety of driving during inclement weather, at which time the driver would normally use his windshield wipers. The simultaneous activation of headlights and windshield wipers would ensure that the headlights are in use during adverse weather conditions. This feature would, however, result in unnecessary use of the headlights under fair weather conditions; for example, when the driver is operating his windshield washer or when the windshield wiper is used while the vehicle is parked. Illuminated headlights under fair weather conditions will also decrease the conspicuousness of the front turn signal lamps which are normally located near the headlights. These and other factors must be carefully considered in determining the true merits of a feature which would provide for automatic illumination of the headlamps when the windshield wipers are activated. Based on the information available to date, we are not in a position to justify proposing a Federal requirement for such a feature.

Furthermore, since paragraph S4.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 establishes special wiring requirements (including simultaneous activation of taillamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps, with the headlamps), we would view differing State wiring requirements as preempted by Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and hence invalid.

An alternative approach to ensuring the use of headlights during adverse weather would be the strict enforcement of State regulations requiring the use of headlights curing periods of reduced visibility, normally less than 500 feet.

This approach might be more cost-effective, since the cost of the automatic feature would be precluded.

Thank you for bringing your Bill HB 3135 to my attention. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

NHTSA CONTROL NO. 1496

ATTACH.

FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

May 7, 1974

James B. Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Uniform Vehicle Code (Rev. 1971) Chapter 12-201 "When lighted lamps are required"

Dear Mr. Gregory:

I call your attention to the above cited requirement of the U.V.C. compared to Florida's law, Chapter 316.217, Florida Statutes. I will agree that Florida requires lamps to be lighted one hour per day longer than the U.V.C. does as well as Florida enumerates the conditions during which time lamps shall be lighted and the U.V.C. does not. We can therefore agree that Florida's law is more stringent in its requirements than your recommendations in the U.V.C.

As you can see from my efforts to change our law, HB 3135 and a timely letter to the editor in the Miami Herald, copies enclosed, we are having our problems in educating the people about and enforcing the provision of the law which requires head lamps to be lighted when it is raining. Rain is not a safety hazard peculiar only to Florida. Perhaps the distinguished drafters of the Code should speak more specifically to this problem, require all states to conform to this law and even require the automobile manufacturers to install the mechanism referred to in Section 2 of my bill which when the windshield wipers are activated, the head lamps will automatically be activated without any additional action required of the operator.

I fully realize just how impractical it is for only one state to have such a requirement placed on the manufacturers of automobiles. However, this is my way of impressing you with the gravity of the situation and that it is within your power to reduce this specific safety hazard by requiring the manufacturers install the aforesaid mechanism. The cost to install such an item will be very nominal, less than $ 2.00, yet the benefits can be very large indeed in the saving of lives and the reduction of property damage.

Sincerely, Vernon C. Holloway -- CHAIRMAN

Enclosures

cc: NHTSA Regional Administrator, Atlanta; Miami Herald, Miami

(Regular Session 1974)

By Representative Holloway

A bill to be entitled

An act relating to the operation of head lamps and windshield wipers during unfavorable atmospheric conditions; arending section 316.217(1), F. S., requiring head lamps and windshield wipers be operated under certain conditions; amending section 501.125, F. S., adding subsection (3) thereto and renumbering (3) as (4); requiring certain automobiles have specific equipment attached before they are sold and licensed in the state; providing an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Subsection (1) of section 316.217, F. S., is amended to read:

316.217 When lighted lamps are required. --

(1) Every vehicle upon a highway within this state at any time from sunset to sunrise, during fog, smoke, or rain, or atmospheric conditions, are such that there is inadequate light, shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices as hereinafter respectively required for different classes of vehicles, subject to exceptions with respect to parked vehicles. Stop lights, turn signals and other signaling devices shall be lighted as prescribed for the use of such devices. Whenever conditions are present which require the use of windshield wipers, headlamps shall be activated.

Section 2. Section 501.125, F. S., is amended by adding a new subsection (3) thereto and renumbering (3) as (4) to read:

501.125 Warranty on sale and manufacture of automobiles; energy absorption system, windshield wipers and head lamps. --

(3) Every private passenger automobile manufactured on and after September 1, 1975, and sold and licensed in the state shall be sold subject to the manufacturer's warranty that it is equipped with a mechanism which when the windshield wipers are activated, the head lamps are automatically activated without any additional required action on the part of the operator.

(4) The warranty provisions of this section shall not be applicable with respect to any private passenger automobile as to which the manufacturer files a written certification under oath with the department of highway safety and motor vehicles, on a form to be prescribed by that department, that the particular make and model described therein complies with the applicable standards of this section.

Section 3. This act shall take effect October 1, 1977.

LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY

Requires automobile headlight operation when there is inadequate light, at any time from sunset to sunrise, during fog, smoke or rain. Requires windshield wiper use whenever conditions necessitate. Requires every private passenger automobile manufactured on and after September 1, 1975 and sold and licensed in the state to be warrantied by the manufacturer that it is equipped with a mechanism which automatically activates the head lamps when the windshield wipers are activated.

The Miami Herald

Monday, April 22, 1974

Enforce 'Lights On in Rain' Law

To The Editor:

Is there any law less frequently enforced than the law requiring headlights on during a rainstorm?

I realize that it requires the police officer to get out of his car in the rain, but if nobody is going to enforce it then get the law off the books -- or enforce it.

BOB RESNIZK