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.

ID: nht93-7.42

DATE: October 27, 1993

FROM: Larry R. Lynch -- General Manager, AT&D Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from John Womack to Larry R. Lynch (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I have enclosed data describing a new product developed by our Company for the trucking industry. I am requesting that you peruse the information about the product and advise us as to how the current safety standard might be applicable.

Our product has been named the AeroCon System. It was developed from the original concept of typical air deflectors seen on most tractor trailer vehicles. The AeroCon could be referred to as an atypical air deflector/fairing. It incorporates aerodynamic principles to create a stable slipstream and provide aerodynamic braking to the vehicle. By opening doors on the fairing unit, the full force of the relative wind speed is redirected to strike the trailer face, greatly decreasing the stopping distance. The pneumatic power required to actuate the system's doors utilizes the auxiliary air system of the tractor.

Should you require additional data or information for your interpretation, please call us at (904) 588-2700 or FAX (904) 588-2701. Our physical address is: One Pasco Center 30435 Commerce Drive San Antonio, Florida 33576

Please return the enclosed materials, upon the completion of your interpretation.

Your attention to our request is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-7.43

DATE: October 28, 1993

FROM: Jelly, Rachel -- Executive Engineer, Legislation and Certification., Lotus Cars Ltd.

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 5/9/94 From John Womack To John Bloomfield (A42; PART 525)

TEXT: Lotus / Bugatti, request for clarification regarding CAFE petition(s) for alternative CAFE standards.

Since January 1986 General Motors has owned 100% of Group Lotus. Under GM ownership the fuel economy data from the Lotus vehicles has been included with the GM import fleet for the purposes of CAFE fines and reporting. As GM had enough fuel efficient vehicles in its import fleet to offset the shortfall of the Lotus vehicles fuel economy-performance, no fines were required and thus no waiver petition for an alternative CAFE value was necessary.

On the 27th August 1993 General Motors sold 100% of Group Lotus Ltd to Bugatti International. Bugatti is also a vehicle manufacturer and plans to market passenger cars in the USA commencing with the 1994 model year. Both companies actual/projected sales volumes when taken individually, and combined, will make the companies eligible for classification as a small volume manufacturer. Please see the supporting data on page 3 of this letter for sales projections and fuel economy information.

Lotus now finds itself in the position where it needs to apply for an alternative CAFE standard for the 1994 thru 1997 (and possibly subsequent) model years. Also Bugatti is planning to submit a petition for alternative standards in the near future.

Please could you officially advise me if Lotus will be permitted to petition for its own CAFE value for its vehicles and Bugatti will be able to petition for another value for its fleet, or will Lotus and Bugatti have to combine sales projections and fuel economy data and petition for a joint value? The two manufacturing companies are run as separate entities within the group to maintain the individual identity of the products.

If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me, my direct line telephone and fax numbers are 44 953 608131 (tel) and 44 953 608132 (fax).

CONFIDENTIAL.

Lotus and Bugatti US manufacturing and fuel economy data:-

ID: nht93-7.44

DATE: October 29, 1993

FROM: John B. Walsh -- Legal Affairs Manager, Corporate Attorney, American Suzuki Motor Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 208 - Sun Visor Label

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/4/93 from John Womack to John B. Walsh (A41; Std. 208)

TEXT:

American Suzuki Motor Corporation ("ASMC") requests an interpretation of FMVSS 208 regarding the sun visor label requirements issued by NHTSA on September 2, 1993 (Docket No. 74-14; Notice 82). I understand that the agency discussed this final rule at the most recent NHTSA/Industry public meeting and announced that the agency plans to respond to several pending requests for interpretation of the new rule at the same time that the agency responds to the pending petitions for reconsideration of the rule. ASMC respectfully suggests that its interpretation request contained in this letter could appropriately be handled in the same fashion. Although ASMC has framed this request as seeking an interpretation of the rule, ASMC would not object if NHTSA were to conclude that this request should be handled instead by means of an amendment to the final rule issued in the course of responding to the petitions for reconsideration.

1. Specifically, ASMC requests an very limited interpretation that use of the signal word Warning, but no other word, complies with the requirement to use the signal word Caution for the sun visor label specified in S4.5.1(b)(1).

Discussion

a. The interpretation requested by ASMC conforms with the agency's concern that consistent information and instructions on sun visor labels be presented in a consistent format. All vehicles will bear uniform labels, with the only potential difference being the signal word used. Every signal word will be either Warning or Caution, consistent with the manufacturer's use of those signal words on other vehicle labels and in the vehicle owner's manual. Vehicle occupants will be constantly exposed to the same list of do's and don't's regardless of vehicle manufacturer, and will not be confused by the manufacturer's use of the appropriate signal word.

b. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z535.4-1991, Product Safety Signs and Labels, specifies that Warning or Caution (or Danger) be used as a signal word to indicate risk of personal injury. The ANSI Standard specifies that Warning be used to alert product users to non-imminent risks of serious injury or death. The language from the Standard is:

4.15 Signal Word. The word or words that designate a degree or level of hazard seriousness. The signal words for product safety signs are DANGER, WARNING, and CAUTION.

4.15.1 DANGER indicates an imminently hazardous situation which, if not avoided, will result in death or serious injury. This signal word is to be limited to the most extreme situations.

4.15.2 WARNING indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury.

4.15.3 CAUTION indicates a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, may result in minor or moderate injury. It may also be used to alert against unsafe practices.

Note: DANGER or WARNING should not be considered for property damage accidents unless personal injury risk appropriate to these levels is also involved. CAUTION is permitted for property-damage-only accidents.

If NHTSA permits use of the signal word "Warning" on the air bag sun visor label, this will be consistent with a national effort toward uniformity in safety labeling of products.

c. Many motor vehicle manufacturers currently use the word "Warning," rather than, or in addition to, the word "Caution", as a signal word in owner's manuals or on vehicle labels indicating risk of personal injury. A brief review of a small sample of 1991 through 1993 owner's manuals reveals that Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, Volvo, Saab, and Suzuki are in this group. Allowing manufacturers to use the signal word "Warning" on the air bag sun visor label would contribute to motor vehicle safety by assuring that occupants of vehicles already employing the word "Warning" for risks of personal injury will be provided with consistent messages about such risks.

d. In the preamble to the Final Rule, NHTSA relates that several commenters referred to various label statements as "warnings." Use of the word Warning as a signal word will not cause any confusion about the nature of the label, as Warning clearly indicates something related to a potential hazard.

2. In addition to the interpretation requested above, ASMC offers the following comment in support of the petitions for reconsideration submitted by General Motors and Ford regarding a change in the final rule to permit placement of the Part 575.105 label on the driver's sun visor.

Discussion

a. It is consistent with motor vehicle safety to permit two labels required by NHTSA to appear on the same portion of a motor vehicle. NHTSA has required both labels. The air bag label must be on the sun visor. The utility vehicle label would be permitted to be on the driver's sun visor, absent the prohibition of S4.5.1(b)(2). NHTSA can resolve the conflict by amending the FMVSS 208 final rule to permit the utility vehicle label to be placed on the driver's sun visor.

b. Having two labels on the sun visor will not cause information overload. The two labels relate to two different aspects of vehicle

use - basic do's and don't's that occupants should follow to obtain maximum protection from air bags, and an alert for drivers of utility vehicles to follow when driving utility vehicles on paved roads. Both labels will be present in air bag-equipped utility vehicles pursuant to regulation, so the utility vehicle label should not be banished from the sun visor because the manufacturer has installed an air bag. Encountering two required labels on two separate parts of the vehicle interior causes no more information overload than encountering the same two labels on the sun visor.

Thank you for considering this request for interpretation and this comment.

ID: nht93-7.45

DATE: October 29, 1993

FROM: Darryl Cobb (Abbeville, GA)

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/7/94 from John Womack to Darryl Cobb (A42; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Enclosed in this letter you will find information on a mirror that I would like to import into this country. My questions are, is there any prohibitions in the law that would keep the mirror from being sold as an AFTER MARKET PRODUCT? Would it be legal for people who sell the mirror to also install them? (I am specifically referring to outside rearview mirror-driver's side of the car.) Finally, will the law allow someone other than the owner of the car to install the mirror? Please send me an interpretation and copy of the law(s) which pertain to my questions. Thank you for your attention.

(Brochure and photos omitted.)