ID: nht92-1.5

DATE: 12/29/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: STAN KAPLAN -- SHIMAZAKI CORP.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-25-90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LARRY E. SNOWHITE (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM STAN KAPLAN TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 8107)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 10, 1992, with respect to the relationship of Federal motor vehicle regulations to the Red Alert device that you wish to import and sell in the United States.

The device is located on the accelerator rod. When there is a sudden release of the accelerator, the stop lamps are activated before the driver's foot has touched the service brake pedal. You state also that installation of the device is quick and simple, requiring 10 to 15 minutes and no special tools. You have asked if Red Alert "meets the standard set by your administration and the (sic) how we can get a waiver on this product or does it require one at all."

The descriptive literature that you enclosed notes (under "Authorization Requirements for Installation") that "there are many countries in which it is mandated by regulations that only the brake pedal activate the rear brake lights," and that "Red Alert, situated as it is on the accelerator rod, is illegal in these countries." The United States is one of these countries. Under Fedral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, the stop lamps may only be activated by the brake pedal. This means that a vehicle that is equipped with Red Alert no longer complies with Standard No. 108.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this means that the manufacturer of the vehicle, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who installs Red Alert is liable for a civil penalty for creating the noncompliance. In addition, if the noncompliance is created by the manufacturer of the vehicle, the manufacturer is obliged to notify owners of the noncompliance, and then to remedy it. However, the Act does not restrict the owner of the vehicle from such modifications as (s) he may perform, even if the modifications result in a noncompliance, unless State laws so forbid. Thus, Federal law does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Red Alert but (s) he may not enlist the services of a distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business to perform the installation. In no circumstance is importation and sale of the device itself a violation of Federal law.

These matters and the agency's views on the device are set forth more fully in the enclosed agency letter of January 25, 1990, concerning the Advanced Brake Light Device (ABLD). Nothing that both the ABLD and Red Alert originate in Israel, we surmise that Red Alert is a variant of the ABLD. Although the interpretation in this letter does allow installation of the Red Alert at the hands of the vehicle owner, our conclusion is based upon Federal law and should not be construed as an endorsement of the device. The same safety concerns that we expressed in January 1990 remain valid today.

ID: nht92-1.50

DATE: December 1, 1992

FROM: Allan "Buzz" Ferver -- Product Manager, Waekon Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/1/93 from John Womack to Allan Ferver (A40; Std. 301)

TEXT:

Waekon Industries would like to introduce to the Automotive Aftermarket a new product. I have contacted other members of your organization regarding any issues pertaining to compliance to any safety standards, Steve Chan-Fuel systems and Marvin Shaw-Advisor and was instructed to contact you in writing. The product is to be known as Universal Replacement Fuel Cap (sample enclosed).

The product is designed to replace lost fuel caps temporarily until the proper replacement can be obtained.

Both the gentlemen I contacted told me that NHTSA-was not concerned with component parts in this instance. Please advise me of any particulars regulated by your agency which may be relevant to our marketing this cap. Also, if you would please advise me of any other agencies or regulations. which I would have to satisfy.

I thank you very much for your considerations and look forward to your response.

ID: nht92-1.6

DATE: December 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Curtis J. Crist -- Product Development, US Marine

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/10/92 from Curtis J. Crist to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8136); Also attached to letter dated 10/8/76 from Frank Berndt (signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Donald I. Reed; Also attached to letter dated 12/21/77 from Joseph J. Levin, Jr. to Warren M. Heath

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 10, 1992, in which you ask for confirmation that the provisions of paragraph S4.3.1.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 relating to front side marker lamps for boat trailers remain unchanged from interpretations provided by this Office in 1976 and 1977.

I am pleased to confirm that these requirements remain the same. Paragraph S4.3.1.3, however, was renumbered S5.3.1.3 several years ago.

You have also asked as to what action you must take for elimination of the requirement for rear identification lamps on boat trailers 80 or more inches in overall width. You may file a petition for rulemaking requesting this change. I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 552, the regulation governing these petitions, which will advise you as to these procedures. Section 552.4 sets forth the information that the petition should contain, and the address to which it must be sent.

ID: nht92-1.7

DATE: December 29, 1992

FROM: David H.B. Lee -- President, Lee Family, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/93 from John Womack to David H.B. Lee (A40; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I currently have in my possession a U.S. patent on a device created in Taiwan. I have included copies of the documents and have enclosed two samples of the Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor along with a demonstration videotape.

At the present time, Japan's Department of Vehicles is considering an alteration of their laws to include a requirement of blinking third brake lights. What we hope to accomplish in the near future is to reduce the rate of collisions by grasping the United States' attention that the Third Brake Light Conditions Sensor is helpful as a safety device in vehicles.

However, in order for our business to succeed, we need your assistance. What we are requesting of you is a thorough review and testing of our device by your highly trained technicians. Also a series of tests, we would greatly appreciate any comments and advice on the sale and promotion of our product.

Please contact me about the results as soon as possible. Your time and cooperation is greatly desired and appreciated. Thank you very much.

ID: nht92-1.8

DATE: 12/29/92

FROM: THOMAS L. WRIGHT -- COORDINATOR, TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNIT, MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

TO: PATRICK BOYD -- CRASH AVOIDANCE DIVISION, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS L. WRIGHT (A40; STD. 205)

TEXT: I am waiting to request an update on the status of the proposed rulemaking for window tinting standards as published in the Federal Register, Volume 57, Number 14, January 22, 1992.

The proposal states that a state may not establish a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance for equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Does this provision cause state laws which permit add-on window tinting material for medical or aesthetic reasons to be in violation of Federal law?

Additionally, I would like to request a copy of the referenced Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht92-1.9

DATE: 12/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JANET TAYLOR -- MARKETING AND SALES MANAGER, A-PEX INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-92 FROM JANET TAYLOR TO NHTSA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 7922)

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device called the "Tap Root Equipment Stand." The equipment stand consists of a base plate which is bolted to the floor of a vehicle, a vertical tube which attaches to the base plate, and a rotating shelf at the top of the tube. The stand is intended to be used for portable equipment such as laptop computers, facsimile machines, and car phones.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering equipment stands. However, it is possible that the installation of an equipment stand could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an equipment stand is installed in a certified vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety 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. Thus, if an equipment stand is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

In order to determine how installation of thRvrzz" $`@\"4)4) 4)%$4)%955Y54)Y5 YM4)MI4(4 of the device. The same safety concerns that we expressed in January 1990 remain valid today. xample, S5.4.2 and S5.4.2.1. Nothing in Standard No. 121 specifies an exception for vehicles with a maximum speed below 50 mph. Moreover, since the tests in question are dynamometer tests and not road tests, there would be no difficulty in conducting the tests at a speed higher than the vehicle's maximum speed.

I note that this opinion assumes that Standard No. 121 applies to the vehicles in question. Certain vehicles with slow maximum speeds are excluded from the standard's coverage. See S3. However, these exclusions do not appear to apply to the refuse trucks in question.

Your letter appears to imply that Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests are inappropriate for vehicles which have a maximum speed governed to less than 50 mph. We note, however, that a governor set at 45 mph does not prohibit a vehicle from achieving speeds greater than 50 mph in certain situations such as driving downhill. In addition, as indicated above, the specified decelerations are designed to heat the brakes to simulate the severe driving conditions caused by prolonged and severe use and long downhill driving. The same degree of heating can occur at speeds below 50 mph. Therefore, we believe that the specified tests are appropriate for vehicles with a maximum speed governed to below 50 mph.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. you please give me an interpretation of the Safety Standards as they apply to the CHILD-SAVER.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. at they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Although we do not have any safety standards that directly apply to your product, there are several provisions of the Safety Act that apply to the sale of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your head restraints are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, the use of aftermarket items could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design 92.

ID: nht92-2.1

DATE: December 1, 1992

FROM: Raymond S. Byers -- Engineering Manager, Research, Testing, and Certification, Utilimaster Motor Corporation

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-27-93 from John Womack to Raymond S. Byers (A41; Part 567)

TEXT: I am writing to you regarding the federal label location on Utilimaster Motor Corporation's "Aeromate" front wheel drive van. The approved label locations, as published in CFR 49, part 567.4, are not practical for the "Aeromate" vehicle. The Aeromate has a driver's door which slides between an inner and outer metal panel. However, access is available on the left-hand side of the driver's position. Therefore, we propose to install the federal label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's door opening. This location would be visible from the driver's position and to inspection from officials.

The enclosed photographs depict the proposed label location, submitted for your approval.

I am looking forward to receiving your decision regarding approval of our proposed federal label location.

ID: nht92-2.10

DATE: November 23, 1992

FROM: T. Kouchi -- Director & General Manager, Automotive Equipment, Development & Administration Department, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to T. Kouchi (A40; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are investigating the development of automotive tail & stop lamps using light emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

We have already asked you about Center High-Mounted Stop Lamp (CHMSL) using LEDs and have received your letter of January 9, 1986, in which you answered that such type of CHMSL would be acceptable when it complies with the photometric requirements and provides replaceability of light sources (S4.1.41(e)) specified in FMVSS No. 108.

From your answer, we consider that LEDs can be used in tail & stop lamps.

Now we would like to ask you additional questions as follows:

(1) Is it possible for us to group LED tail & stop lamps into three categories in terms of the number of lighted sections to determine applicable photometric requirements, as specified in paragraph 4.1.5.1 of SAE J1389 JUN83?

(2) Where the above view is acceptable, could we consider the number of lighted section as "one" in case of a lamp which contains three LED arrays arranged as shown in the attached drawing, if the circumferenc of three projected luminous areas does not exceed 150mm both in horizontal and vertical dimensions?

(3) Where the number of lighted section is determined as "one" in the above, can we locate "the geometric center of the illuminated area" at the point marked in the attached drawing, according to paragraph 2.6 of SAE J1389 JUN83?

We would be very pleased if you kindly inform us of your points of view for the above(1)-(3).

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht92-2.11

DATE: 11/23/92

FROM: HARRY CAMERON -- PRESIDENT, SAFETY, LTD.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-22-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO HARRY CAMERON (A40; STD. 209; VSA 108)

TEXT:

November 23, 1992 I am writing you at the suggestion of Mr. Jim Gilkey of the Vehicle Safety Office.

This letter is to inquire into the procedure to obtain certification for the repair and recertification of motor vehicle passenger restraints to comply with DOT 206-3206.

We have a request for a branch of the Defense Department to provide this service as they have a problem replacing belts which have worn and frayed webbing when new belts are not available or over priced.

This is a normal function for us as we are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration to repair, inspect and recertify aircraft belts. This is accomplished as FAA Repair Station FY5R9874M, with repairs complying with our operation specifications manual, "Repairs to aircraft seat belts per manufacturers recommendations, TSO and AC 43.13-1A Chapter 8, Section 3, Paragraph 361".

I understand this requirement has not surfaced in the past, but I believe there will be a need in the future resulting from the increased use of restraints in high milage vehicles and responsible procedures should be extablished.

Thank you.

ID: nht92-2.12

DATE: 11/20/92 EST

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: RON NOIRFALISE -- DIRECTOR OF PUPIL TRANSPORTATION, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

TEXT: This follows up your telephone conversation of November 10, 1992, with Walter Myers of my staff regarding a newly-effective statute in Missouri which revises state requirements on transportation of school children. You also stated that you were told by your counterpart in the State of Washington that Federal law prohibits transportation of school children in vehicles with a passenger capacity of less than ten people.

As discussed in your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers, I have enclosed four recent letters explaining Federal law and pertinent regulations applicable to school buses and transportation of school children. These four are a November 3, 1992 letter to Mr. G. Thomas Owens, a July 7, 1992 letter to Senator Jim Sasser, a May 27, 1992 letter to Mr. Gerald A. Guertain, and a January 15, 1991 letter to Ms. Carol C. Verenea. These letters cover a variety of issues that, I think, will clarify your understanding of the issues with which you are concerned. Also enclosed is a copy of a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, revised June 1989, and an information sheet issued by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

In addition, I am enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines that states may refer to in developing their highway safety programs. Guideline 17 was jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Among other things, Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed to carry more than ten persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

I hope the enclosed information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-1992.