Interpretation ID: aiam5093
Jordan Research Corp. 415 Howe Avenue Shelton
CT 06484;
"Dear Mr. Pokrinchak: This responds to your letter of November 7, 1992 with respect to the Tekonsha electronic brake control. You apparently wrote in reference to my letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, Inc., the manufacturer of the Tekonsha brake control, in which I discussed that section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) that prohibits certain named commercial entities from 'rendering inoperative' safety equipment on motor vehicles. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). You believe that this agency has 'approved' this brake control. Based on your belief that the Tekonsha brake control poses a safety hazard on the public roads, you asked us to reconsider our decision to 'approve' this brake control. Let me begin by emphasizing that this agency has no authority to 'approve,' endorse or offer assurances of compliance to any items of motor vehicle equipment. All that our letters of interpretation purport to do is to answer questions from manufacturers and other members of the public as to whether the manufacture, sale, and/or installation of equipment is permissible under applicable Federal laws and regulations. Our letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin, was a letter of interpretation, which concluded that 'it now appears that the sale of the Tekonsha Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.' This letter and conclusion can in no way be read as 'approving,' endorsing, or recommending the use of the Tekonsha system. You believe that 49 CFR 393.25(f) 'is quite specific when dealing with the actuation of the trailer stop lamps, either manually or automatically,' and has nothing to do with the 'render inoperative' prohibition of section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. The regulation you have identified (49 CFR 393.25(f)) is administered by another Federal agency, the Federal Highway Administration, acting under statutory authority other than the Safety Act. Obviously, only that agency can give an official interpretation of its regulations. However, based on my understanding of the Tekonsha system, it does not appear that the use of the Tekonsha system would be affected by the regulations in Part 393. Part 393, including 393.25, applies only to commercial motor vehicles. I understand that the Tekonsha control is used on smaller, personal vehicles, like pickups and vans, to tow trailers such as campers, travel trailers, and so forth. If my understanding is correct, the Federal Highway Administration's regulations would not apply. If you wish to receive an official interpretation of this matter, you may contact: Mr. James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590. With respect to your request that we reconsider our previous conclusion that the sale of the Tekonsha control would not violate the 'render inoperative' prohibition of the Safety Act, we do not now have, nor are we aware of, any data indicating that there is a real-world safety problem created by use of the Tekonsha brake control. Hence, we have no reason to change the conclusion announced in the April 3 letter to Echlin about the legality of the Tekonsha control. We would be willing to review this matter again if data become available indicating a potential problem. Thus, if you learn of any specific safety problems that have arisen for vehicles equipped with the Tekonsha control, please let us know. Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns. I hope that this further explanation of our April 3 letter is helpful. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking";