ID: nht93-7.33

DATE: October 21, 1993

FROM: Schaub, James (Bubba) -- Midas Muffler And Brake Shop

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 5/18/94 Letter From John Womack To James Schaub (A42; PART 570)

TEXT: First allow me to introduce myself. My name is James "Bubba" Schaub. I manage a Midas Muffler and Brake Shop in Slidell, Louisiana, located at 180 Gause Blvd., and have for 9 years now. My concern is in the area of ethical and sound business practice. I'm taught by Midas to replace Brake rotors and/or Brake Drums when they exceed the minimum thickness (on disc rotors) or maximum Diameter (on Drums), published by original Equipment manufacturers. My questions are as follows -

1. Please [ILLEGIBLE WORD] F.M.V.S.S. 105 HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

2. Is there any basis for [ILLEGIBLE WORD] in following this policy? (of disc rotor and/or Drum replacement when out of manf. safety [ILLEGIBLE WORD]).

Please understand that my concern lier only with doing the right thing - the safe way, for our customer. Let it be known that the [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] are not following their own recommendations, for safety in this matter, which causes my customers to believe that we (midas) are fraudulently, selling and installing parts on thier vehicles when [ILLEGIBLE WORD] not needed. But, if I can present on established standard to our (midas) Customers, I can prevent them from feeling they've been taken advantage of.

(ARTICLE FROM UNDERCAR DIGEST IS OMITTED.)

ID: nht93-7.34

DATE: October 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John P. Gach -- Marketing Coordinator, North American Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/1/93 from John P. Gach to Richard Van Iderstein (OCC-9084)

TEXT:

We are replying to your letter of September 1, 1993, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency with respect to the "Blu-Lite." You would like our views on this product "in both OEM and aftermarket applications."

The advertising circular which you enclosed shows Blu-Lite to be a three-compartment stop lamp that is mounted in the center of the parcel shelf adjacent to the rear window. The center compartment contains a blue light "that comes on immediately with heavy brake pressure and flashes quickly and independently from your regular brake lights." The center blue light compartment is flanked by compartments that contain a "red stop light."

It is clear that Blu-Light is intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has required to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, (and light trucks and vans since September 1, 1993). Blu-Light does not meet the original equipment specifications of Standard No. 108 because, among other things, it is not a single red lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle. Therefore, Blu-Light is impermissible under Federal law as original motor vehicle lighting equipment.

With respect to aftermarket applications, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Removal of the original equipment center lamp and replacement with Blu-Light would be a "rendering inoperative" as we interpret that term, and, hence, a prohibited act. However, the prohibition does not extend to persons outside the four named categories, such as the vehicle owner, and installation of Blu-Light by persons not named in the prohibition would not violate any Federal requirement. But the legality of the use of Blu-Light is determinable under the laws of each State in which the device is operated. As you note, many States reserve the color blue for lamps used to indicate emergencies. If you are interested in pursuing this question further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, can advise you whether any State allows the use of blue lamps for other than emergency use.

Further, there is no violation of Federal law involved in installing Blu- Lite on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. 108 to be originally equipped with one, i.e., cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and

other vehicles manufactured before September 1 of this year. In this instance, too, legality of use is determinable under State law.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: nht93-7.35

DATE: October 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Head, Safety Affairs and Operations, NAO Engineering, Safety Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from Milford R. Bennett (Signature by Richard F. Humphrey) to H. M. Smolkin (OCC-9189)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of October 7, 1993, to Howard Smolkin concerning information labels for vehicles covered by NHTSA temporary exemptions (49 CFR Part 555).

Paragraph 555.9(b) requires that a windshield or side window label containing an advisory statement be affixed securely to each exempted vehicle. You have concluded that this label is intended to notify prospective purchasers that the vehicle has been exempted from compliance with certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Because General Motors (GM) does not intend to sell its recently exempted GMEV, it believes that it is not required to place the label on its vehicles.

Section 123(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1410(b)) specifies that "(t)he Secretary may require that written notification of (an) exemption be delivered to the dealer and first purchaser for purposes other than the resale of such exempted motor vehicle in such manner as he deems appropriate." NHTSA chose to exercise this discretionary power through promulgating paragraph 555.9(b) requiring windshield and side window labels on exempted vehicles, commenting that "(t)he window label appears to be the most appropriate way of providing written notification of exemptions to dealers and first purchasers" (37 FR 25534).

We read in The New York Times on October 14, 1993, that GM will build 50 Impacts (presumably the exempted GMEVs) "and lend them for two to four weeks to 1,000 drivers around the country over the next two years, with the help of 14 utilities." If these cars are made available through GM's dealer network, then we believe that the label should nevertheless be provided even if the vehicle is not sold, and that it should remain affixed until the vehicle is first lent or leased through the dealer. Although subsequent users of the GMEV will not have access to the temporary label in order to evaluate the risk they assume by accepting temporary use of a nonconforming motor vehicle, the permanently affixed exemption certification label will furnish this information should they care to consult it.

ID: nht93-7.36

DATE: October 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard A. Wennerberg -- Vice President, Marketing Services, American Gas Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 8/19/93 from Richard A. Wennerberg to John Womack (OCC-9019)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for a letter explaining the status of Federal regulations applicable to compressed natural gas (CNG) containers for motor vehicles and CNG fueled motor vehicles. As you stated, representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the United States Department of Transportation, met with the American Gas Association (AGA) on August 16, 1993 to clarify your understanding of this agency's statutory authority with respect to the notice of proposed rulemaking for CNG fuel containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. (58 FR 5323, January 21, 1993) This letter, which you plan to forward to State officials interested in CNG fueled motor vehicles, summarizes this information.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA does not have the statutory authority to issue a standard for CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. Therefore, if the Federal government were to issue a standard applicable to the manufacture of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle, NHTSA is the only Federal agency authorized to do so.

At present, NHTSA has not issued any standard applicable to CNG containers, CNG fueled vehicles or any regulation dealing with the conversion of vehicles to be equipped with such containers. Therefore, until such time as a standard is issued, a manufacturer is not required to comply with any NHTSA or Department of Transportation safety standard related to CNG fuel systems.

Nevertheless, manufacturers of CNG containers and vehicles are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that NHTSA or the manufacturer of the container or vehicle determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, NHTSA has certain restrictions on vehicle fuel system conversions, depending on who does the conversion and when the work is done.

I have enclosed a discussion that sets forth the implications under our present regulations of converting new and used gasoline-powered vehicles to use propane or other gas (such as CNG). That discussion addresses NHTSA's vehicle alterer requirements (49 CFR S567.7) which apply to work on new vehicles, and the Safety Act's "render inoperative" provision (S108(a)(2)(A)), which applies to work on new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed ... in compliance" with any FMVSS. If the agency were to ultimately decide to adopt the proposal, it would be necessary for NHTSA to revisit the "render inoperative" issues that relate to vehicle conversions. For example, if NHTSA were to issue a safety standard for CNG containers, all containers manufactured after the effective date of the standard would be required to comply with its requirements, whether they are placed on new vehicles or on new or used vehicles converted to CNG fuel.

In addition to these current regulatory provisions, as mentioned above, NHTSA issued a proposed rule for CNG containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. As we explained at the August 16, 1993 meeting, the agency is currently reviewing the comments to the proposal for CNG containers and vehicles using CNG as a fuel. We expect our next regulatory decision in early 1994. As we explained, the January 1993 notice was a proposal and does not necessarily reflect the precise requirements that will be contained in the final rule, assuming that a rule is issued.

If a Standard is issued, each manufacturer would be responsible for certifying that its products meet with the requirements of that standard. This is so because the "Safety Act" establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

You should also be aware that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of this Department has operational and equipment requirements for commercial vehicles used in interstate commerce. For information about possible FHWA requirements affecting your conversions, you can contact that agency's Chief Counsel's office at (202) 366-0650.

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: nht93-7.37

DATE: October 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas G. Cehelnik -- Ph.D., Accutron T.C.S., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/25/80 from Stephen P. Wood to Larry S. Snowhite (Std. 108) and letter dated 9/28/93 letter from Thomas G. Cehelnik to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-9172)

TEXT:

We are replying to your letter of September 28, 1993, requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (you will find the complete text of this standard at 49 CFR 571.108).

Your company has developed "a light system to indicate the deceleration of the vehicle." You have been informed that this agency is "investigating the safety of such a device," and "that lights that indicate braking must be 'steady-burning.'" The agency is not investigating deceleration warning systems, thus I am unable to provide you with "information on the status of the safety investigation" as you requested. Paragraph S5.5.10 of Standard No. 108 applies to all lamps provided as original motor vehicle equipment, and lists the lamps that may flash, such as turn signal lamps, but this list does not include stop lamps. A final catchall subparagraph (d) requires that "(a)11 other lamps shall be wired to be steady-burning," and this includes stop lamps.

You also asked "is it and will it become legal to turn on a warning or stop light that indicates the particular dynamic state of the vehicle?" and "(m)ust such a system necessarily be considered as a brake light?" We have encountered some deceleration warning systems that activate the stop lamps by means other than application of the service brake pedal. This is prohibited by paragraph S5.5.4 which states that "(t)he stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." We have interpreted this as meaning that the stop lamps may be activated only by application of the service brakes, and that they may not be activated by reduced pressure on the accelerator pedal. A stop lamp can only be operated to indicate that the brake pedal has been applied for the purpose of slowing or stopping a vehicle. You may find of interest a letter of interpretation which I enclose (letter to Larry Snowhite, January 25, 1990) which expresses more fully our views on this subject.

ID: nht93-7.38

DATE: October 22, 1993

FROM: Jim Davis -- President, Russell Performance Products

TO: David Elias -- Chief Counsel, DOT

COPYEE: Bill Collins -- Titeflex; Rick Rohauer -- Russell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/12/94 from John Womack to Jim Davis (A42; Std. 106), letter dated 10/22/93 from Jim Davis to NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, and letter dated 11/16/93 from Jim Davis to David Elias

TEXT:

I am writing to you to formally describe our involvement with Titeflex Industrial Americas with respect to the submission Titeflex has made to the D.O.T. with regard to brake hoses and brake hose assemblies that meet D.O.T. Specification MVSS 106.

Titeflex developed a hose, hose end, and assembly procedure to produce a brake hose assembly utilizing a Teflon inner liner hose with a stainless braided outer covering that meets D.O.T. Specification MVSS 106. These hose assemblies have passed all the pertinent tests and these test results are on file with the D.O.T. from Titeflex Industrial Americas.

Titeflex has in turn given Russell Performance Products the exclusive license to manufacture, assemble, and market these hose assemblies to the marketplace. Titeflex supplies Russell with the Teflon stainless braided hose used in these assemblies. Russell manufactures the hose ends utilizing Titeflex engineering drawings. Russell permanently assembles the Titeflex hose to the Titeflex designed and Russell manufactures hose ends using special crimping machines. Russell personnel have been trained in these assembly procedures by Titeflex personnel.

Russell has also filed a copy of our identifying logo, a stylized symbol "R", with the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. Russell is selecting the option provided in S5.2.4.1 of MVSS 106 to identify each hose assembly produced by Russell Performance Products that will be marketed as a hose assembly that meets D.O.T. Specification MVSS 106.

We are awaiting directions from your office as to whether both the Russell "R" and the Titeflex "T" need to be stamped, etched or engraved on one hose end of the hose end assembly or whether just the Russell "R" will suffice.

The other issue which needs to be addressed is if the raw hose that we purchase from Titeflex has to be identified per S5.2.2. Due to the construction of the hose which has a stainless braided outer covering it is impossible to print any data directly on the hose as is commonly performed on rubber hose. To apply identifying labels every six inches is also impractical.

Russell and Titeflex's position is that this is not necessary for the following reasons:

1. Russell is the only marketer of this hose making the claim that it meets D.O.T. Specification MVSS 106. As a result of this exclusive arrangement the source of the hose, once it is made into an assembly by Russell and placed into use by a consumer, is directly traceable only to Titeflex in the event of any problem in the field. Titeflex will be the ONLY supplier of such hose to Russell. 2. Assuming the date of manufacture requirement has to do with determining shelf life on normal rubber hose, our position is that stainless braided covered Teflon hose has relatively unlimited shelf life and the actual date of manufacture is not an issue.

We submit that by identifying the hose assemblies with the Russell symbol "R" and additionally with the Titeflex symbol "T" provides all the traceability required to meet the intent of the D.O.T. specifications.

I believe this covers everything we discussed on the phone. If I have missed anything or you need further clarification on any points, please let me know.

ID: nht93-7.39

DATE: October 22, 1993

FROM: Jim Davis -- President, Russell Performance Products

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, NHTSA

COPYEE: David Elias -- DOT; Bill Collins -- Titeflex

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/12/94 from John Womack to Jim Davis (A42; Std. 106), letter dated 10/22/93 from Jim Davis to David Elias (OCC-9249), and letter dated 11/16/93 from Jim Davis to David Elias

TEXT:

At the direction of David Elias, Chief Counsel of the D.O.T., we are submitting a sample of our identifying symbol "R" that will be used in conjunction with brake hose assemblies that we will be manufacturing and marketing as meeting D.O.T. Specification MVSS 106.

Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or need further clarification.

ID: nht93-7.4

DATE: October 1, 1993 (EST)

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Horian -- President, Woodleaf Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 8/12/93 from Richard Horian to Michael Perel (OCC 9016)

TEXT:

This is in response to your FAX of August 12, 1993, to Michael Perel of this agency regarding your "sudden brake indicator hazard light."

You were informed on December 7, 1992, by Paul Jackson Rice, then the Chief Counsel, that this auxiliary item of lighting equipment would be permissible as original equipment since it did not appear that it would impair the effectiveness of any of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. You now ask "(w)hat is the fastest flash rate or range of flash rates expressed in 'flashes per minute' that are allowed by Federal law."

Standard No. 108 does not specify any range of flash rates for items of supplementary lighting equipment, thus, the choice is that of the manufacturer. The standard does specify a flash rate for turn sign and hazard warning signal lamps which are required by the standard. The flash rate for these lamps is 60 to 120 flashes per minute. In addition, S5.6 of the standard specifies a motorcycle headlamp modulation rate of 240 cycles per minute, plus or minus 40 cycles per minute.

The cycling and modulation rates of lighting systems are very important to motor vehicle safety because of a phenomenon known as "photic driving." This issue concerns potential adverse reactions in some people similar to epileptic seizures. The condition is brought on by certain regularly flashing lights, even in some persons not otherwise susceptible to epilepsy. From available studies, it appears that people are most likely to be affected if the flash rate is about ten flashes per second (600 flashes per minute) and/or when the background is very dark.

ID: nht93-7.40

DATE: October 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Greg Biba

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/93 Est. from Greg Biba to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-9137)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an "infant observation mirror" that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint.

By way of background information, S103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, 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 safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "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 ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by

commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the "rebound" phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized.

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

ID: nht93-7.41

DATE: October 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Campfield -- President, Ultra B-O-N-D. Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/22/93 from Richard Campfield to John Womack or Marvin Shaw

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter in which you address the repair of motor vehicle windshields. You explain that, as president of a window repair business, you are concerned with recent actions taken by the window replacement industry to form a committee to set a voluntary "standard" for window repair. According to your letter, the anticipated standard will be "archaic in its structure" because the committee is "prejudicial," in that virtually all the committee's members are in the windshield replacement industry. You contend that the effort to adopt the standard is intended to reduce competition from the window repair industry. You request that NHTSA recommend ways to prevent the window replacement industry from enacting the industry standard.

We read your letter with great interest. However, industry groups are free to adopt any voluntary standard they believe is appropriate for their needs. NHTSA does not become involved with the adoption of voluntary standards unless a voluntary standard raises safety issues that the agency ought to address. We are unaware of safety issues pertaining to the voluntary standard you described. While we are not aware of safety problems with the bonding process you describe, we do not have information to support your claims or those of your competitors.

Nevertheless, to keep our information on window glazing current, we will keep your letter on file in NHTSA's public docket dealing with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205). In addition, the agency's engineers have been briefed on the issues you raise in your letter.

I hope this has been helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.