ID: 9137

Mr. Greg Biba
172820 Highway QQ #8
Waupaca, WI 54981

Dear Mr. Biba:

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, 103 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 151-159 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 108(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 108(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 108(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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:213 d:10/25/93

ID: 9142

Mr. Terry Karas
T.K. Auto Inc.
4116 Notre Dame
Chomedey, Laval, Quebec H7w 1T1
Canada

FAX 514-688-6968

Dear Mr. Karas:

This responds to the concern your expressed by telephone to Taylor Vinson of this Office that a phrase in our letter of October 18, 1993, may be misinterpreted by the U.S. Customs Service.

The final sentence of the paragraph that begins page 2 of that letter reads: "If this examination indicates that the vehicle is Canadian, and if it is being imported for commercial purposes, then the vehicle is subject to the registered importer process." In the context of the letter, we assumed that it was clear that the Canadian vehicle in question was one that did not comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You believe that Customs may interpret the word "Canadian" to mean any vehicle of Canadian manufacture, whether or not complying with the U.S. safety standards.

We are pleased to provide the following clarification. With reference to the examination of the Canadian-manufactured vehicle in question, if it indicates that the speedometer does not have mph markings, this will demonstrate that the certification is to Canadian standards. Consequently, the Canadian-manufactured vehicle is one that does not comply, and is not certified as complying, with the U.S. standards, and, if it is being imported for commercial purposes, is subject to entry under bond and the registered importer process.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567 d:10/18/93

ID: 9146

Barry H. Wells, M.D.
600 Ridgely Avenue, Suite 130
Annapolis, MD 21401

Dear Dr. Wells:

Thank you for your letter describing a device you called an "Emergency Brake Technology" (E.B.T.) system that you believe would eliminate jackknifing and improve the stopping distances of tractor trailers. A video tape accompanying your letter stated that the E.B.T. system operates by having a metal wedge slide below each wheel in response to an action by the driver. You requested the opportunity to testify or submit written comments about the benefits of this device. You also requested that the agency test the E.B.T. system.

As Marvin Shaw of my staff explained to you, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on September 28, 1993, that addresses the lateral stability and control of medium and heavy vehicles. The agency is proposing to require these vehicles to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) and to comply with a 30 mph braking-in-a-curve test on a low coefficient of friction surface. Mr. Shaw advised you that while the agency does not anticipate holding a public hearing on this rulemaking, you could submit written comments to the NPRM. In addition, we have submitted this correspondence, including your incoming letter and the video tape, to the public docket.

We regret that we are unable to fulfill your request for NHTSA to test the E.B.T. system. Given our limited research budget, it is not possible for us to test every automotive safety- related piece of equipment that is introduced into the marketplace.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's activities, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:121 d:11/30/93

ID: 9151

Mr. Ray Paradis
Manufacturing Manager
Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.
Box 1188
Mitchell, SD 57301

Dear Mr. Paradis:

This responds to your FAX of November 18, 1993, requesting a clarification of our letter of November 16 as it applies to the rear of the trailers shown in items #5 and #7 which accompanied your letter of August 31, 1993.

As we advised you with respect to rear markings, Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. With respect to the trailer shown in #7, retroreflective tape can be applied across the full width of the "approach ramp" to meet the requirements since the ramp will be in the down position when the trailer is moving.

As we further advised you, paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps, breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps. With respect to #5, we recommend applying red/white conspicuity treatment on either side of the identification lamps, with red material used in the remaining outboard areas.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:11/16/93

ID: 9161

Mr. Nicholas S. Copass
Sales Manager
Titeflex Industrial Americas
170 Tapley Street
Springfield, MA 01104-2893

Dear Mr. Copass:

This responds to your letter to Mr. David Elias, formerly of this office, concerning the manufacture of hydraulic brake hose assemblies by Titeflex and Russell Performance Products. I regret the delay in responding.

We recently responded to a letter from Mr. Jim Davis of Russell about the labeling of the hose assemblies. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. In that letter, we explain that both Titeflex's and Russell's designations need not be marked on the assembly. Instead, since Russell is manufacturing the assemblies and will market the assemblies, Russell's designation must be marked. The designation will identify Russell as the manufacturer of the assembly in the event of a possible noncompliance or defect with the assembly.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:106 d:5/12/94

ID: 9166

The Honorable Ken Calvert
Member, United States House of
Representatives
3400 Central Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92506

Dear Mr. Calvert:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Alexander H. Patnode of Lake Elsinore, concerning an engine stand your constituent purchased from Pep Boys. Mr. Patnode asked for assistance after the engine stand caused the engine to fall, injuring his ankle.

As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers the engine stand to be "motor vehicle equipment," subject to our regulation. NHTSA has authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. section 30102(a)(7) defines "motor vehicle equipment" in relevant part as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part or component, or as an accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle... (emphasis added)

Although an engine stand is not a system, part, or component of a motor vehicle, it would be considered an "accessory" to a motor vehicle. NHTSA has typically used two criteria in determining whether a product is an "accessory." The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. Expected use is determined by considering product advertising, product labeling, the type of store that sells the equipment, and information about how the product is used. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by, ordinary users of motor vehicles. If a product satisfies both criteria, it is deemed an "accessory."

We have determined the engine stand is an accessory, and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Applying the two criteria

to the engine stand, (1) the engine stand is intended to be used in the maintenance of motor vehicle engines, and (2) assuming the stand was new when sold to Mr. Patnode, it was intended to be acquired and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

We have searched our files by computer for reported complaints about engine stands, and for manufacturers' service bulletins and recalls. The search was conducted according to manufacturer (Rally) and equipment type (motor vehicle equipment: jacks, and other). A summary of the search results is enclosed. We found no reported instance of an injury caused by an engine stand, or of a manufacturer's issuing a service bulletin or recall because of an engine stand problem.

We will keep a copy of Mr. Patnode's letter in our files on reported complaints. In the future, the letter may be helpful in establishing a pattern of safety-related concerns caused by the type of engine stand that resulted in Mr. Patnode's injury.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Harleigh Ewell, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Regulatory Affairs Division U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207-0001 ref:vsa102(4) d:6/18/95

ID: 9172

Thomas G. Cehelnik, Ph.D.
Accutron T.C.S., Inc.
Box 821 RD 1
Scottsdale, PA 15683

Dear Dr. Cehelnik:

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]ll 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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108 d:10/22/93

ID: 9173

Mr. Joe Takacs
Director of Engineering
Kinedyne Corporation
3701 Greenway Circle
Lawrence, KS 66046-5442

Dear Mr. Takacs:

This responds to your letter of September 21, 1993 in which you referred to this agency's final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, dated September 3, 1993 (58 FR 46873). You requested our interpretation of that notice as to whether the following is acceptable:

1. The webbing Kinedyne uses in its wheelchair strap assemblies is industrial-type 1 or 2-inch polyester webbing that meets the strength and other requirements of S4.2 of FMVSS 209.

2. The hardware Kinedyne uses on its wheelchair strap assemblies are industrial-type 1 or 2-inch overcenter, ratchet or cam buckles; wire hooks; snap hooks and track fittings, all of which meet the strength and other requirements of S4.3 of FMVSS 209.

With regard to the webbing used in your strap assemblies, paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches in width "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . ." That means that seat belt webbing must be 1.8 inches in width only where it touches the person of the occupant. The width of webbed belts or straps which secure a wheel chair to the bus floor and do not touch the person of the occupant is not specified in any standard. Accordingly, Kinedyne is free to use belts of 1 inch or some other width, so long as such belts do not touch the person of the occupant and meet the other requirements of S4.2, FMVSS 209.

S4.3 of FMVSS 209 addresses a number of requirements for seat belt hardware, including corrosion and temperature resistance, attachment hardware, buckle release, adjustment force, retractor requirements (if applicable), etc. If the hardware Kinedyne uses in fact meet all those requirements, then it would be acceptable. I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:222#209 d:11/23/93

ID: 9176

Mr. Timothy McQuiston
Vice-President Sales
California Dream
P.O. Box 11
Waukesha, WI 53187

Dear Mr. McQuiston:

This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company provides an aftermarket spoiler which incorporates a center stop lamp "that complies with SAE standards." You have asked us for a statement that you could provide your dealers that "would affirm that when the dealer installs a spoiler containing a high mount third brakelight meeting/exceeding SAE standards, they are, in fact providing an equivalent light source, thereby allowing them (dealers) to remain in compliance with federal regulations." You have also enclosed a November 1992 report from ETL Testing Laboratories rendered to Leegold Enterprise Co., Ltd. covering the lamp that we assume to be the one you are offering in your spoiler.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), in the fact situation you present, the dealer has the following obligations with respect to new and used vehicles. It is obliged to deliver a new vehicle to the buyer with a center highmounted stop lamp that is in full compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and if it does not, it may be in violation of section 108(a)(10(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). With respect to a vehicle in use, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, it may not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, the original center highmounted stop lamp unless it provides a conforming equivalent (agency interpretation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Therefore, as a general principle, we affirm your understanding that a dealer may knowingly render an original equipment center highmounted stoplamp inoperative on a vehicle in use, or cause it on a new vehicle to become noncompliant with the requirements of Standard No. 108 if the dealer provides a substitute lamp that meets Standard No. 108's requirements. The test report you provided indicates that the Model LG 03-60B lamp that was tested meets requirements specified in Standard No. 108 and SAE Recommended Practice J186a, and that that particular lamp is an equivalent in performance to an original equipment light source.

Having said that, however, we feel that further comments are in order. The first comment is to clarify a misunderstanding reflected in your letter. The lamp must comply with Standard No. 108, and not with SAE specifications as you have stated. Although Table III of Standard No. 108 does incorporate by reference SAE Recommended Practice J186a, "Supplemental High Mounted Stop and Rear Turn Signal Lamps," September 1977, certain provisions of J186a, such as photometrics, do not apply because they have been modified by the text of Standard No. 108 itself. We are pleased to note that the summary of the test report appears to recognize this distinction.

Our second comment is that, in addition to the assurances that you as the spoiler manufacturer provide the dealer, both you and the dealer are afforded a degree of protection from violations of the Act if Leegold's lamp, in fact, fails to meet Standard No. 108. This is true whether the dealer installs the spoiler either as original equipment or as aftermarket equipment.

With respect to original equipment (i.e., installed before delivery of the vehicle to its first purchaser), Leegold, as the manufacturer of the lamp, is required by section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) to certify to its dealers and distributors that the lamp complies with Standard No. 108 (which may be signified by the symbol "DOT" on the lamp). If the lamp is later discovered to be noncompliant, those who have sold the lamp and any new vehicle on which it has been installed are in technical violation of the Act, but are protected by section 108(b)(1) of the Act from civil penalties, unless they have actual knowledge that the lamp does not meet Standard No. 108 (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

With respect to a nonconforming lamp installed after the vehicle's first sale, the original lamp may have been disconnected or partially blocked by the aftermarket lamp, resulting in either case in a "rendering inoperative" of required equipment within the meaning of the prohibition. However, we would not view this as a "knowingly" rendering inoperative because the dealer's intent is to install a conforming lamp, as indicated by the lamp's certification.

One final comment, one directed more to Leegold than to your or your dealers. As a result of our experience over the years, we have come to realize the value of surveillance testing of production lamps to assure that the lamps continue to comply with Federal requirements. Periodic testing may be regarded as evidence of the manufacturer's exercise of due care in the event of noncompliances. If the November 1992 ETL test is of a prototype lamp, Leegold may wish to have new tests conducted on production lamps. Even if that test were of production lamps, sufficient time has elapsed, in our view, for Leegold to conduct a new test, to ensure that design tolerances have been maintained in production and that the lamp continues to conform to Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d.1/26/94

ID: 9181

Mr. James E. Walker III
Manager, LSI Laboratories
Lighting Sciences, Inc.
7830 E. Evans Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Dear Mr. Walker:

We are replying to your letter of October 4, 1993, with respect to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for taillamps.

You believe that a discrepancy exists because paragraph S5.1.1 "requires equipment to be designed to Tables I, II [you mean III], and S7, which references SAE J585e for the Tail Lamp," whereas paragraph S5.1.1.11 "requires Table 1 of this specification to be substituted for the values achieved by Figures 1a and 1b, and in addition, to substitute Table 1 of SAE J585e by the values achieved by multiplying the percentages of Figure 1a by Table 1 and 3 of SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps."

You assume that the photometric requirements are those of Figure 1a, 1b, and 1c. Your assumption is correct. However, there is no discrepancy in the standard. The requirements for motor vehicle lighting equipment are set forth in Section S5. Paragraph S5.1.1 requires lighting equipment to comply with the SAE materials contained in the tables, except as may be provided in succeeding paragraphs of Paragraph S5.1.1. Tables I and III incorporate by reference SAE Standard J585e, Tail Lamps, September 1977. However, on March 3, 1993, NHTSA redesignated Paragraph S5.1.1.11 (with its references to Figures 1a and 1b) as S5.1.1.6, and revised it to include, among other things, the reference in paragraph S5.1.1.12 to Figure 1c. The same notice removed paragraph S5.1.1.12 from the standard. New Paragraph S5.1.1.6 states that instead of the photometric values specified in Table 1 of SAE J585e, taillamps shall comply with those of Figures 1a, 1b and 1c.

I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information, and hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:108 d:11/16/93