ID: 9211

Mr. Randolph Schwarz
141 North Madison Drive
South Plainfield, NJ 07080

Dear Mr. Schwarz:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids. Your letter has been referred to my office for a response. As a consumer retrofitting your vehicle with DOT 5 brake fluid, you had several questions concerning the possible effects that an ingredient in the brake fluid might have on elastomers used in brake systems. Your questions are answered below.

You mentioned "seal swelling additives" added to DOT 5 brake fluid, that contact various elastomers in the brake system. Your first question was, when brake fluid manufacturers combine additives with brake fluid, should consumers be concerned with the combined fluids' compatibility with various elastomers used in braking systems?

Standard No. 116 defines, at S4. Definitions, brake fluid as a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system where it will contact elastomeric components made of: styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR); ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR); polychlorophene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock; or natural rubber (NR). In order to minimize failures in hydraulic braking systems, Standard No. 116 specifies minimum performance standards for brake fluids. These performance standards include tests for styrene and butadiene rubber cups, the most common type of elastomer in a hydraulic brake system. The brake fluid manufacturer must certify that the brake fluid complies with Standard No. 116. (See S5.2.2(d).) While DOT 5 brake fluid must meet Standard No. 116, the specific ingredients in the fluid are not regulated by the standard.

The brake fluid manufacturer is expected to be aware that in addition to SBR, its brake fluid may contact EPR, CR, and NR elastomers in the brake system. Thus, the brake fluid manufacturers must ensure that contact between the fluid and the above stated elastomers would not result in a safety- related defect under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the brake fluid manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the brake fluid contains a safety related defect, the brake fluid manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective brake fluid and remedying the problem free of charge.

Your second question was whether DOT 5 brake fluid's compliance with Standard No. 116 ensures compatibility with elastomers. The answer is yes, for SBR elastomers. Further, besides Standard No. 116, the brake fluid manufacturer is subject to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act, that were previously discussed. At this time, NHTSA is not aware of safety related defects resulting from other ingredients used with brake fluid.

Your third question was whether Standard No. 116 only addresses SBR compatibility with brake fluid. Standard No. 116, at S4, addresses brake fluid that contacts four elastomer types. However, the tests specified in the standard are only of the most commonly used SBR cups.

Your fourth question was, if Standard No. 116 only mentions SBR elastomer, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification, or to discuss elastomer compatibility on the brake fluid container?

Information discussing the elastomer compatibility of the brake fluid, or other ingredients, may be voluntarily placed on brake fluid containers. Standard No. 116 specifies information that brake fluid containers must carry. However, Standard No. 116 does not prohibit manufacturers from noting on brake fluid containers, compatibility of the silicone brake fluid, or other ingredients, with various elastomers.

Finally, you asked what Standard No. 116 specifies as the maximum viscosity for DOT 5 brake fluid, at -40 degrees Fahrenheit. Standard No. 116 specifies, at S5.1.3(c), that the maximum viscosity is 900 centistokes (cSt).

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:116 d:5/5/94

ID: GF001032

ID: nht88-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1988

FROM: ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- TU-GROOVES

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL; NHTSA; SUSAN SCHRUTH

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-88, TO ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- TU-GROOVES, FROM ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A32, STANDARDS 205 AND 212; ALSO ATTACHED -- LETTER DATED 1-14-85, TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA, FROM ANDREW P. KALLMAN -- DIRECTOR , KALLMAN MARKETING; ; PATZIG TESTING LABORATORIES CO. INC., REPORT ON 1/4 INCH CLEAR, LAMINATED, SAFETY GLASS, AS 1 WITH SAFETY GROOVES FOR USE ANYWHERE IN MOTOR VEHICLES, DATED 10-30-85, LAB. NO. 219766

TEXT: On January 14, 1985 a letter was sent to the Chief Counsel's office regarding our windshield safety groove process. Included with that letter were reports from the Technical Research Centre of Finland on the grooves.

On March 1, 1985 we received a reply from your office that stated in general that the Finnish results did not address FMVSS 205 and that your office felt that testing needed to be completed to demonstrate the grooves' compliance with FMVSS 205.

On October 30, 1985 the Patzig Testing Laboratories, 3922 Delaware Ave., Des Moines, Iowa, 50313 (Lab No. 219766), issued a report on our grooving process stating that the grooves fully comply with ANSI Z26.1-1977 (Supp. Z26.1a-1980) and FMVSS No. 205 an d Canadian MVSS 205.

Since November of 1985 we have been marketing the grooves under the trademark of Tu-Grooves and have grooved over 14,000 vehicles since that time.

Currently we are having problems with States which require inspections on motor vehicles. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all given written approval to use Tu-Grooves within their states. New York has given us a verbal o.k. and we are waiting for the letter confirming that. However, Maryland and New Jersey are bringing up issues for approval which have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the grooves comply with FMVSS 205.

The MVMA sent a response to N.J. which raised a question as to whether or not we might be in violation of FMVSS 212. N.J. has temporarily rejected our request for approval to cut grooves in N.J. based upon this question from the MVMA on FMVSS 212.

Our process is an aftermarket process only. The grooves can only be installed on an existing windshield. We do not remove or install a windshield at any time during our process. I am quite sure that if FMVSS 212 was applicable to our process that your office would have notified us of this in its letter of March 1, 1985 and also requested that we conduct "crash tests" to show compliance with FMVSS 212.

We recognize that the USDOT does not approve any process, however we have performed the necessary tests for FMVSS 205 as suggested in your letter to us of March 1, 1985. As a matter of fact, the samples that we submitted for testing exceeded the normal depth of the grooves and the grooves went right off the ends of the samples. Under normal conditions the grooves are only .3 mm (3/10ths) deep and are usually just an inch or two longer than the blades with the ends tapered to the surface of the windshi eld.

We would appreciate a response from you as to whether the steps we have taken are sufficient to show compliance with FMVSS 205. Also, we would appreciate a response regarding the MVMA's question as to FMVSS 212. It is our understanding that we do not n eed to show compliance with this section.

Would it be possible for us to indicate somehow on the windshields in which we place safety grooves that we have shown compliance with FMVSS 205 of the USDOT, (ie on a clear sticker)?

Since we have a temporary rejection from the State of New Jersey which impedes our licensee's ability(s) to conduct business there, we would like to thank you in advance for your help and consideration in this matter.

ID: nht79-1.22

DATE: 12/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 19, 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. M. Premo Director, Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima, Ohio 45804

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your November 12, 1979, letter asking whether several joints in your school bus must comply with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. All of the joints concern what you have called maintenance access panels.

As you are aware, the agency has discovered through its compliance testing that most school bus manufacturers have taken advantage of the maintenance access panel exemption from the standard. The result is that many joints in school buses are not as secure as they should be and, during an accident, might result in injury to children being transported in those buses. The agency is very concerned about this practice and is considering methods of limiting the maintenance access panel exemption.

Your letter asks the agency to consider the fact that the panels whose joints you are questioning are plastic and not metal. Therefore, you conclude that the edges are not sharp, and even if the panels come unfastened in an accident, their edges will not be likely to injure the occupants of your buses.

The standard establishes joint strength tests that apply uniformly to all joints regardless of the material used in the panel. While it may be true that plastic panels are less likely to injure occupants of buses when a panel becomes disconnected during an accident, Standard No. 221 addresses other safety areas beyond preventing the sharp edges of panels from cutting occupants. Joint strength is necessary for the vehicle integrity during accidents. This is as important as preventing cutting edges from panels. Accordingly, the agency will continue to subject all joints falling within the parameters of the standard to the requirements of the standard without regard to the material used in a panel.

With respect to the questions posed in your letter, you first ask whether the right and left hand windshield pillar covers must comply with the standard. You indicate that a hose runs behind one pillar cover and a cable control runs behind the other. The agency has indicated that the installation of a wire, hose or cable behind a wall does not make that wall a maintenance access panel. Accordingly, the agency concludes that the joints connecting the pillar cover panel are subject to the standard.

Your questions 2, 4, and 5 refer to panels that cover motors which you indicate must be serviced. The motors include the windshield wiper and heater motors. The agency is unable to determine from your pictures and sketches whether all of the joints surrounding these motors are subject to the standard. The joints connecting panels that must be removed for routine servicing of a vehicle's motors would not be considered as joints subject to the standard. However, these joints must be the minimum necessary for routine servicing of the motors. In compliance testing your vehicles, the agency will only exempt those joints that are necessary for routine servicing. We will not exempt adjacent panel joints simply because wires run beneath them.

In your third question you describe a dash trim panel that covers a wiring harness, some chassis cowl mounting bolts, and an entrance door cable. The agency needs more information to make a formal determination with respect to this panel and its joints. Our inclination based upon the information that you have presented is that these would be joints subject to the standard, because the removal of this panel is not required for routine maintenance.

Your final question asks whether the entrance door control cover must comply with the standard. You state only that must be removed to remove the dash trim panel. As we stated in the last paragraph, we believe that the dash trim panel joints may be required to comply with the standard. If this is the case, it may also be necessary for the door control cover joints to comply with the standard. The key factor in determining whether this panel's joints must comply with the requirement is whether the panel must be removed for routine maintenance. You have not proven such a need in your letter, concerning the need for these joints to comply with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 12, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain rulings that the seven parts listed below will comply with the exclusions allowed under S.4 of FMVSS 221 as they relate to the need for maintenance.

The parts are made from a flexible plastic material called polypropolene. The purpose is to cover many unsightly conditons of components required to be installed, some due to assembly of the body to the chassis, and others required by either federal or state regulations. It is our opinion that a very important secondary purpose is accomplished in that due to the flexibility and rounded corners of the plastic parts, many edges and corners of steel parts will gain additional protection. Additionally if the parts were to come loose during an accident, which is unlikely unless of a violent type, they could do little, if any, physical injury due to the flexibility of the material.

(1) Right-hand & Left-hand Windshield Pillar Covers

(a) The left-hand pillar requires the running of an air or vacuum line to the top of the windshield to operate a mechanical wig wag signal that informs the driver of a drop in air pressure in the brake system and is required in some states.

(b) The right-hand pillar has a cable control anounced to the windshield pillar that connects the driver operated door control to the mechanism at the top of the doors to operate the entrance doors.

(2) Left-hand Dash Trim

This part must be removed to service the windshield wiper motor, mechanism and wiring.

(3) Dash Trim - Center.

Covers a wiring harness, some of the body to chassis cowl mounting bolts that need to be retightened occasionally and entrance door control cable.

(4) Right-hand Dash Trim

Requires removal to service the right-hand windshield wiper motor, mechanism, wiring for the windshield motor, right-hand heater and door control cable.

(5) Right-hand Heater Cover

Must be removed to service the motors, blower, and heater cores.

(6) Entrance Door Control Cover

This covers the body of the door control which houses the switches that operate a part of the roof light warning system and stepwell light. It also must be removed along with the door control assembly in order to remove the center dash trim.

Our planning is to use these parts in production January 1980, but final decision will be based upon your rulings.

We definitely are of the opinion this adds to the enterior safety as well as appearance, but requires decisions before the expense of tooling for these parts.

A photograph is enclosed showing a prototype with the subject parts installed.

Due to tooling lead time and present date, your prompt reply is requested.

Very truly yours,

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

RMP:cr Enclosures (2)

Photographs Dwg. #LO-21782-D

ID: 08-005949as

ID: 77-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 26, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, to rims modified subsequent to their initial marking by the rim manufacturer.

Standard No. 120, as it applies to rim manufacturers, requires only that the manufacturer mark the rim with the information outlined in section S5.2 of the standard. The standard does not contain substantive performance requirements for tire rims that would necessitate extensive testing to comply with the requirements.

In cases where your client modifies previously marked rims, he might have some responsibilities for compliance with the standard. For those rims where the center disc is only added or altered by your client, there would be no requirement for him to provide his own markings on the tire rim. The rim manufacturer's markings would still contain the accurate size information.

For rims that your client modifies by the insertion of a steel plate increasing the dimensions of the rim, he becomes the rim manufacturer. As a rim manufacturer, it is his responsibility to mark the rim with the information listed and in the manner prescribed in S5.2 of the standard. This information includes the DOT symbol which indicates that he has complied with the requirements of Standard No. 120. Since the rim would have been marked initially with a different size, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would require that the first markings be removed from the rim to avoid the possibility of confusion to persons who might read the incorrect size listing. This could result in the mismatching of a tire to the modified rim.

In a conversation between Ms. Maryanne Kane of your office and Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff, it was asked whether the NHTSA Standard No. 120 requirements would be applicable to rims manufactured entirely for off-road use. The NHTSA regulates only motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. By definition a motor vehicle is a vehicle used on the roads. Accordingly, vehicles designed for off-road use do not fall within the ambit of our regulations. The same is true for equipment designed for use on those off-road vehicles. The determination of whether a vehicle is an off-road vehicle depends upon its use. I have enclosed an interpretive letter that describes the criteria for determining what vehicles are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) (the Act).

You should note further that my time your client undertakes an alteration of a rim, he is performing a manufacturing function that places him within the scope of the Act. Therefore, he would be responsible for any safety-related defects resulting from his manufacturing processes.

SINCERELY,

AKIN, GUMP, HAUER & FELD

September 26, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation

In accord with our recent conversation this letter will set forth our request for an interpretation of the application of 49 C.F.R. 571.120, Standard No. 120 (tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars) to certain processes used by our client, Southwest Wheel Manufacturing Company, whereby the rims and wheels of other manufacturers are altered or modified by Southwest Wheel to conform to certain customer requirements. I have enclosed a rough diagram of these changes to accompany the written explanation of each special application used by Southwest Wheel.

Special Application No. 1 (Diagram Nos. 1, 3 and 4) Diagram Nos. 1, 3 and 4 show a Goodyear rim in four different widths and three different diameters. Depending upon the application, Southwest Wheel adds the center disc to these Goodyear rims. The disc can be installed either as a formed disc manufactured by another company or a flat plate centered disc manufactured by Southwest Wheel. The disc can be located anywhere in the flat portion of the rim base. Placement of the center disc is determined by customer specifications for clearance or tracking or towing vehicles.

Special Application No. 2 (Diagram No. 2) Diagram No. 2 shows a process of splitting the rim and adding two inches to obtain additional width in the rim. This process is normally used for light vehicles, either pick-up trucks or trailers. As shown, the rims are split and Southwest Wheel adds additional rolled material to make the rim wider in order to accomodate special floatation tires used primarily in sand or in swamps. Although these are designed for off-road use, they are used on the highway in going to and from job sites. This process can also be combined with the Special Application No. 1 above, whereby the disc is added to the rims as shown in diagram numbers 1, 3 and 4.

Special Application No. 3 (Diagram No. 6) As seen from Diagram No. 6, Southwest Wheel may, on special order, cut the center disc from the rim base on lathes, move the center discs either in or out on the rim base to increase or decrease the wheel offset and then reweld to complete the process. Again, this is a special order process and done to customer specifications.

Special Application No. 4 (Diagram No. 5) Southwest Wheel purchases rims of the type shown in Diagram No. 5 from other manufacturers, and then installs the center disc to customer's hub application. Even though a wheel may be manufactured by one of the major wheel manufacturers, they do not make a wheel in either the diameter, the width, or both, that the trailer manufacturer wants to use on his equipment. Southwest Wheel then assembles the rim and the disc to its customer specifications.

Special Application No. 5 (Diagram No. 5, Pictures Nos. 10, 11, 12) Southwest Wheel manufacturers special wide-based wheels from rims shown on Diagram No. 5, such as taking two rims size 15 x 10 LBH, splitting them as shown in Picture No. 10, taking two wide sides, and welding them back together both inside and outside as shown in Picture No. 11. After this process, the center disc is then installed as illustrated in Picture No. 12. Thus, Southwest Wheel started out with two rims 10 inches wide and has coverted this product into one rim 13.75 inches wide with the center disc installed, changing the original 15 x 10 LBH rims to a wheel 15 x 13.75 LBH 8-holes 6 1/2 bolt circle.

I would be pleased to meet with you and discuss further any of the above processes and I would, of course, obtain any additional information you might require. Your earliest consideration is appreciated.

Jay D. Zeiler

ID: nht90-2.71

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1990

FROM: William F. Canever -- Staff Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Ford Motor Company

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to William F. Canever (A37; Part 535; CSA S 502(1))

TEXT:

As we discussed, Ford Motor Company will be submitting a credit allocation plan to cover a CAFE credit shortfall for its 1989 Domestic Light Truck Fleet. You have asked us to explain our proposed method of credit allocation.

Our credit allocation method is consistent with the methodology that was reviewed and approved by NHTSA when Ford filed a 1985 light truck credit allocation plan. (See letter from Diane K. Steed, dated April 26, 1988, approving the 1985 credit allocatio n plan.) Under that approved plan, Ford utilized 1986 CAFE credits earned on a combined reporting basis and prorated the credits based upon the sales mix of individual 4x2 and 4x4 vehicles to cover the 4x4 portion of its 1985 credit shortfall. Proratio n was necessary because Ford had elected to report its 1985 light truck CAFE on a class basis (4x4 and 4x2), while reporting its 1986 light truck CAFE on a combined basis. After proration, application of 4x4 credits to the 1985 shortfall and recombinati on, Ford has 3,208,660 combined light truck credits available from 1986. Ford intends to apply those credits to its 1989 combined light truck CAFE credit shortfall.

The proration method was approved by NHTSA in a Notice of Interpretation. In the Notice, NHTSA's Chief Counsel stated:

The Agency interprets . . . the Act to require as much commonality as possible between classes in transferring credits, but not absolute identity. . . . In transferring credits earned in 1979-1980 model years the agency will attempt to assure that those credits are applied to offset civil penalties on the same type of vehicles as those which generated the credits. This will be pursue d by pro-rating the earned credits according to the number of vehicles in the credit-earning class which would fall in the class subject to the civil penalty in the prior or subsequent year. 44 Fed. Reg. 64943 (1979).

While the Notice of Interpretation was prompted by new standards which permitted manufacturers to comply with light truck CAFE standards on a combined basis or a class basis, the proration methodology was not specifically limited to any particular model year nor was it limited to a one time only application. In fact, the preamble to the final rule which established the three-year carryforward and carryback of fuel economy credits for manufacturers of light trucks reaffirmed the proration methodology ci ting examples which indicated that the methodology could be used in several different years.

This notice also reaffirms the policy set forth in the November 1979 notice of interpretation regarding the transfer of credits by a manufacturer between a year in which it complies with a single fuel economy standard applicable to al l light trucks and a year in which it complies with several standards for different classes of light trucks. 45 Fed. Reg. 83233 (1980).

Neither the preamble nor the notice of interpretation limit the proration methodology to any given year or to a single opportunity. Indeed, it is instructive to note that at the time the preamble was published light truck CAFE standards had been set onl y through 1985, and the preamble discussed the proration of credits as a choice available to a manufacturer for all of those years:

Additional examples are set forth below to illustrate how this procedure will be applied in light of the manufacture(r)s' choice in model years 1983-1985 to comply with either a single standard for all light trucks or with optional se parate standards for two-wheel (4x2) and four-wheel drive (4x4) light trucks.

(45 C.F.R. S535.4(e)) While the regulation states that credits may not be transferred between classes of light truck, it is clear that the proration methodology protects against such an occurrence. Prorating of combined credits assures that credits are applied to offset civi l penalties on the same types of light trucks as those that generated the credits. This fact was recognized by NHTSA when it first proposed and approved the use of the proration methodology.

The regulatory scheme creates two methods of complying with light truck CAFE standards, it does not create three classes of light trucks. Manufacturers can comply with light truck CAFE standards on a combined basis or on a class basis. However, there ar e only two classes of light trucks--4x4 and 4x2. No where is the term "class" applied to the combined light truck fleet. In fact, if a combined fleet were a separate "class" of light trucks, then the proration methodology would be prohibited even in th e circumstances identified in the Notice of Interpretation and in the preamble. Both the regulation and the discussion in the preamble to the final rule make it clear that there are only two "classes" of light trucks, and that there are two separate met hods of complying with the light truck CAFE standards. Complying with a single fuel economy standard applicable to all light trucks is a method of compliance--it does not create a new and separate class of trucks.

As you know, Ford has elected different means of compliance for different model years. In the past, Ford has reported its light truck CAFE on a combined basis for model years 1982, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989, while reporting on a class basis for model y ears 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, and 1985. Ford has, with NHTSA approval, utilized the proration method of credit allocation to cover shortfalls in 1982 and 1985. (Because NHTSA has eliminated the option of complying with the standard on a class basis begi nning in 1992, it can be anticipated that the proration

methodology may be employed by manufacturers to determine credit allocation. However, if NHTSA maintains a combined fleet standard, these issues will resolve themselves after the 1995 model year.)

The proposed use of 1986 credits to cover 1989 does not directly involve the use of prorated credits. Ford elected to report both 1986 and 1989 on a combined basis. Proration is involved here only to the extent that Ford prorated some of its 1986 credi ts to cover 1985 and then recombined the remaining credits to carry forward for future allocation. Because the proration and recombination of 1986 credits was previously accepted by NHTSA when it approved Ford's 1985 credit allocation plan, we do not be lieve that there are any outstanding issues to be addressed. However, as we discussed, we will not file our credit allocation plan for 1989 until you have had an opportunity to review this information. Please let us know if you require any additional i nformation or if we can be of assistance in any way.

ID: GF005146

Mr. Milo Plasil
Intertech
2629 Purdue Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Dear Mr. Plasil:

This responds to your e-mail to George Feygin of my staff in which you ask several questions regarding 49 CFR Part 555 (Part 555). Part 555 provides a means by which manufacturers of motor vehicles may obtain a temporary exemption from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of certain motor vehicles from compliance with one or more Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) or with NHTSAs bumper standard.

You ask about complex fact scenarios. We have simplified and restated your questions as we have understood them, and follow each question with our answer.

1. Suppose a manufacturer builds vehicles from various new parts and subassemblies. Later, its Part 555 petition is granted. Can a vehicle assembled from the parts prior to the agencys grant of the Part 555 petition be entered into interstate commerce as "used," "demonstration" or "testing" vehicles?

A vehicle may be sold if it is covered by the Part 555 exemption, but the vehicle would have to meet all applicable FMVSSs (except to the extent exempted by the grant of the petition). The FMVSSs apply to the vehicle until the vehicles first purchase in good faith other than for resale. Calling a vehicle a "used," "demonstration" or "test" vehicle before the vehicles first purchase in good faith other than for resale does not make the vehicle "used" in NHTSAs view. The vehicle would be considered "new," and would have to meet the applicable FMVSSs when it is sold or introduced into interstate commence.

2. How can a U.S. manufacturer of vehicles described in Question 1, "register" and "license" them for testing on public roads prior to agencys decision on the Part 555 petition?

Under the pertinent portion of 49 U.S.C. 30112, "a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States," any motor vehicle unless it complies with, and is certified as complying with, all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, test vehicles cannot be introduced into interstate commerce by being driven on public roads until they are certified in accordance with NHTSAs certification requirements for vehicle manufacturers (these requirements are attached to this letter).

3. If the petition for Part 555 exemption is granted, and the manufacturer sells less than the maximum of 2,500 vehicles in the first year of exemption, can this manufacturer sell more than 2,500 vehicles the second year if the two year total does not exceed 5,000 vehicles?

Carry-forward or carry-back credits are not permitted. If the manufacturer obtains a temporary exemption on grounds other than financial hardship (see 49 CFR 555.6 (b) through (d)), the number of exempted vehicles that can be sold is limited to 2,500 in any 12-month period. Accordingly, a manufacturer cannot sell more than 2,500 exempted vehicles in the second year of exemption, even if it sold less than 2,500 in the first year, and the two-year total is below 5,000.

If the manufacturer obtains a Part 555 exemption on financial hardship grounds, there is no limit on the number of exempted vehicles that can be sold. Note that under 555.6(a)(1)(v), to be eligible for a petition on financial hardship grounds the total number of motor vehicles produced by or on behalf of the petitioner in the 12-month period prior to filing the petition cannot exceed 10,000.

4. If the exemption is granted for 900 vehicles per year, and the manufacturer sells only 600 in the first year, can the manufacturer sell an extra 300 vehicles in the second year of exemption?

When the agency grants a petition for a Part 555 exemption, the agency generally does not specify the number of exempted vehicles that may be sold each year, so long as the number of exempted vehicles does not exceed 2,500 in any 12-month period. As stated in my answer to question 3, carry-forward credits are not permitted. As also explained in that answer, there are no limits on eligible manufacturers (manufacturing less than 10,000 vehicles in the past 12 months) exempted on financial hardship grounds.

5. If the petition for Part 555 exemption is granted, can the exempted manufacturer sell the same vehicle under a different name?Specifically, the manufacturer is uncertain as to the name of the vehicle. Must the application for exemption be name-specific?

Section 555.9(a) requires the manufacturer of exempted vehicles to submit to NHTSA a sample certification label that would appear on those vehicles (the relevant certification label requirements are attached). The certification labels must include the vehicle identification number (VIN). Under Part 565, the VIN must include the vehicle name. Because the VINs are name-specific, a mid-term change by the manufacturer of the exempted vehicles name would require that manufacturer to resubmit its sample certification label with a VIN that is formatted using the revised name. We note, of course, that a name change would have no affect on the maximum quantity of vehicles subject to the exemption.

6. The entity seeking exemption will initially assemble vehicles in the U.S. However, the same entity may later wish to import assembled vehicles from a foreign country. Are registered importers eligible for Part 555 exemptions? If so, may the same entity apply for a single exemption as an importer and a manufacturer?If not, must the foreign entity assembling these vehicles petition for a separate Part 555 exemption?

The exemption provisions in 49 U.S.C. 30113, implemented in Part 555, apply only to vehicle manufacturers. While a registered importer may file a Part 555 temporary exemption petition on behalf of a foreign manufacturer (if it acts in the capacity of the manufacturers agent in the United States), the agency will consider the circumstances of the manufacturer, and not the importer, in deciding on the petition (see 33 FR 14557, and an October 9, 1990 letter to Mr. William D. Rogers, copies enclosed).

7. How can the petitioner "reconcile possible honest differences of compliance interpretation, if they appear when the vehicles are selectively tested for compliance"?

Each of the FMVSSs specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. Manufacturers are not required to test their products in the manner specified in the relevant FMVSS as their basis for certifying that the product complies with that standard. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products in order to determine, in good faith, that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the FMVSSs when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. However, manufacturers often choose to follow the test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use in conducting compliance testing.

NHTSA may ask a manufacturer to provide basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the FMVSS. If in fact there is a noncompliance, a manufacturer would have to recall the product to bring it into compliance, at no charge to the customer. In addition, the manufacturer could be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it had no reason to know, despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product, that the product did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)).

8. Does NHTSA have an entity that can inspect a prototype vehicle subject to the exemption petition in order to ensure that they are accurately described in the petition for exemption?

Our statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Consistent with this statutory framework, NHTSA does not have an entity that inspects vehicles for compliance with our programs. Under 555.5(c), the knowing and willful submission of false, fictitious or fraudulent information will subject the petitioner to the civil and criminal penalties of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

9. How do I obtain information on NHTSA investigations pertaining to Land Rover Defender, model years 1993 to 1997?

Summary information on all NHTSA defect investigations since 1972 is available online at: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/defect/defectsearch.cfm. If this database contains files pertaining to the vehicle in question, you may purchase copies of the investigation documents online.

If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Feygin at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:555
d.12/9/04

ID: 04-004216drn

Mr. Larry Medina
101 East Whipple Extension St.
Prescott, AZ86301

Dear Mr. Medina:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements that your product, the "Emergency Vehicle Warning," must meet. Your product is designed to provide to drivers visual warning of the approach of emergency vehicles.

Your letter describes the "Emergency Vehicle Warning" as follows:

The concept is simple, sensors are placed on the outside of a car, sensors detect the sound of a siren (emergency vehicle), sensors then transmit a signal to a receiver, this receiver is placed on the instrument panel or rear view mirror or visor. The receiver is approximately 2 inches long and 1/12 wide with two or more light emitting diodes (lights). Its placement can be clipped or mounted with adhesive tape. Once the receiver detects a signal from the sensors, the lights flash giving the driver a visual alert of an approaching emergency vehicle.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you intend the "Emergency Vehicle Warning" to be provided on new motor vehicles and to be installed as aftermarket equipment. In my response to you, I will assume that the outside sensors described in your letter do not incorporate any type of lighting.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

We have previously addressed motor vehicle equipment similar to the "Emergency Vehicle Warning."Enclosed is an interpretation letter of May 4, 2000 to Mr. Lou McKenna (McKenna letter).

The McKenna letter addressed a system inside the vehicle that consisted of an audible alarm and a flashing red display of the words "Emergency Vehicle." The alarm and the red display are triggered by a signal from an emergency vehicle. We make clear in the McKenna letter that:

None of the laws and regulations that we administer preclude a flashing red message on the instrument panel or an audible siren in or on a motor vehicle. This means that the legality of such devices must be determined under state and local laws.

Similarly, in your case, none of NHTSAs laws or regulations would preclude a receiver with light-emitting diodes to be placed on an instrument panel, interior rearview mirror or visor, if installed in such a way that it would not interfere with any required safety function. NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs that are directly applicable to your product. However, something placed on the reflective surface of a mirror could affect its compliance with the field of view requirements of FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors.

If your "Emergency Vehicle Warning" were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, i.e., on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the product installed complies with all applicable FMVSSs. Also, if your product were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business on a new or used vehicle, that commercial entity would be prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 30122 from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. When your product is installed by the vehicle owner, our safety standards would not affect the sale or installation of your product.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA102(4)
d.7/21/04

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.