ID: nht93-6.35

DATE: September 9, 1993

FROM: Anonymous

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/5/93 from John Womack to Anonymous (A41; Part 541)

TEXT:

This letter requests your confirmation that s proposed procedures for marking automotive parts would comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR Part 541.

The procedures in question would result in the marking of certain characters on such components as engine blocks or transmission casings, through the casting of these components at the time of production. Embossed (raised) characters would result, as contrasted with characters that are engraved or stamped into components or marked through other processes. The embossed characters would meet all of the performance requirements of the standard for permanence and tamper resistance. The embossed characters would be the vehicle manufacturer's logo and the "DOT" symbol. The characters would appear on both original equipment and replacement parts, and would be located in the specified target area under 49 CFR 541.6(e). The VIN number would be stamped on a plate, which is then affixed to the original equipment parts (in the separate original equipment part target area specified under 49 CFR 541.5(e)). The symbol "R" would be stamped directly on the replacement parts (in the replacement part target area). The enclosed figure shows the target areas for original equipment and replacement parts. The markings, processes, and locations are summarized as follows:

O.E. PARTS

Character Process Location

VIN stamped/affixed 541.5(e) Logo embossed 541.6(e) "DOT" embossed 541.6(e)

REPLACEMENT PARTS

Character Process Location

"R" stamped 541.6(e) Logo embossed 541.6(e) "DOT" embossed 541.6(e)

The use of the logo and DOT symbol on the O.E. parts, which is not required under the standard, results from the use of the same castings for original equipment and replacement parts.

It is our understanding that the Theft Prevention Standard does not prohibit the use of the embossing process for marking parts. The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, which required the establishment of the original theft prevention standard, provides that specified auto parts are to be identified by "inscribing or affixing" numbers or symbols. See 15 U.S.C. 2021(10). Although the Act does not define what is meant by "inscribing or affixing," the legislative history clearly provides vehicle manufacturers with broad discretion in selecting marking technologies. The House Report on the Act states as follows with regard to the standards:

As in the case of safety requirements, they are not to be design standards. The DOT will establish the tests or general criteria which the identification must meet, but not how it is to be inscribed or affixed. That is the choice of each manufacturer... In promulgating the standard, the Committee intends that the Secretary take into account the wide range of technologies available for numbering vehicles, and allow manufacturers to develop additional, better, or lower-cost technologies for compliance with the standard. The object of numbering motor vehicle parts is to make such parts traceable and recoverable.

Thus, the Committee expects, as already noted, that an important objective of devising the standard will be to ensure that the number is as permanent as possible and cannot be easily altered, tampered with or obliterated.

The method chosen to comply with the standard is at the discretion of each manufacturer, not the DOT.

See House Report 98-1087 (1984), pages 10 and 12.

NHTSA's rulemaking to adopt the standard reaffirmed the performance aspects of the standard. In the final rule adopting the standard and in the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA rejected comments suggesting that particular marking technologies should be specified in the standard. See 50 Fed. Reg. 43170 (October 24, 1985) and 51 Fed. Reg. 8834 (March 14, 1986).

It is also our understanding that the use of additional symbols (logo and "DOT") on original equipment parts (beyond the required VIN) is permissible. In a June 19, 1987, interpretation letter to Mr. Jim Moss of Auto Mark Corp., the NHTSA Chief Counsel authorized the use of an additional logo beyond the required markings under the theft prevention standard. That letter stated the following:

Using the same principles we have applied in the case of labeling requirements in our safety standard, manufacturers may label information in addition to that which is required by the theft prevention standard, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose.

The purpose of requiring the vehicle identification number to be inscribed on specified parts is to allow law enforcement officials to quickly and conclusively establish whether a vehicle or major part is stolen. We do not believe it is possible that law enforcement officials will be distracted from examining the markings inscribed on the parts by the presence of a stencil with your company name on it. Therefore, you are free to leave your company name on the stencil.

Under the proposed procedure, the required VIN number would be stamped on a plate and affixed to O.E. parts and the "R" symbol would be stamped on replacement parts. The presence of a manufacturer's logo and the DOT symbol on the original equipment parts should not confuse law enforcement officials, since the VIN and the "R" symbol would distinguish between original equipment and replacement parts. Nor should the presence of the additional logo and DOT symbol on O.E. parts defeat the purpose of the standard, by facilitating thefts.

For example, if a thief were to attempt to make an O.E. part that was produced under the proposed procedure appear to be a replacement part, the thief would have to take two steps, (remove the VIN and add the R marking); deletion and addition of marked information would also be required if other marking procedures were used. Each of the two steps would provide theft investigators with clues of tampering.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you require additional information or have any questions on this matter, please contact of my staff, at (blank).

ID: nht93-6.36

DATE: September 15, 1993

FROM: Jack McIntyre -- V.Pres., Tie Tech Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/93 from Jack Womack to Jack McIntyre (A41; Std. 209; Std. 222) and letter dated 8/18/93 from Jack McIntyre to John Womack

TEXT:

I am writing in reference to my letter of August 18, 1993, concerning the requirements included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, S5.4.2., and would like to cancel my petition, and ask for an interpretation of this standard.

Thank you for taking this matter into consideration. A reply at your earliest convenience would be appreciated.

ID: nht93-6.37

DATE: September 17, 1993

FROM: Angela R. Caron

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/94 from John Womack to Angela R. Caron (A42; Redbook (2); Std. 208; Std. 213)

TEXT:

My letter is pertaining to the height of seat belts in cars. As you are probably aware, seat belts are not made for smaller people. Since the seat belts are not adjustable in either of my vehicles, I have been looking for alternative solutions. Enclosed are two ideas, SafeFit and the Child safer. My question is, is either of these restraints safe for an adult? I am 5 feet and of average weight. I would appreciate your input. It just seems so unsafe to have the seat belt across my neck, besides being very uncomfortable.

I was also curious about the travel vest for my 2 1/2 year old son. Can it really replace his child safety seat? I thank you for your help on an issue as important as this.

ATTACHMENT

SafeFit and Child Safer brochures. (Text omitted)

ID: nht93-6.38

DATE: September 19, 1993

FROM: Thomas J. Devon

TO: Senator Phil Gramm

TITLE: PRIVACY FORM

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/93 from John Womack to The Honorable Phil Gramm (A41; Std. 117)

TEXT:

I hereby authorize Senator Phil Gramm to request on my behalf, pertinent to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, access to information concerning me in the files of:

Dept. of Transportation/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Department or Agency)

Senator Phil Gramm is also authorized to see any materials that may be disclosed pertinent to that request.

Name (PRINT) Thomas J. Devon

Address 109 Katy Dr.

(STREET)

Longview, Texas 75601 (CITY, STATE, ZIP

PHONE: 903 - 757-9409

SS NO: 205-36-0742

PLEASE STATE NATURE OF PROBLEM: P.S. Rep. Jim Chapman has sent me some of the federal code regulations on new tires.

Concerns on safety standards of "retredded" or "recapped" tires as used on large tractor trailers. I have documented the deaths of two young ladies brought about by them running over a large section of tire tread causing them to lose control of their vehicle. My concerns are that such retread tires do not meet the standards of new tires in performance on interstate highways in summer heat. Would want to know if there is accident data on accident/death occurrences due to assignable cause of collision with such tread sections left on the roadway. Thank you very much.

ID: nht93-6.39

DATE: September 20, 1993

FROM: Lawrence F. Henneberger -- Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn

TO: John G. Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/25/94 from John Womack to Lawrence Henneberger (A42; Std. 105)

TEXT:

I am submitting this request for interpretation on behalf of my client, MICO, Incorporated (MICO), located in North Mankato, Minnesota, concerning the use of a brake lock supplementing the original equipment mechanical parking brake on a motor vehicle which in our opinion, (1) is not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 105, and (2) does not otherwise impair braking operations in compliance with FMVSS 105. (1)

MICO believes that its brake lock will not cause noncompliance with or impairment of compliance with FMVSS 105 since: (a) the MICO brake lock is the type of auxiliary parking brake device which has consistently been determined by NHTSA not to raise compliance problems with respect to FMVSS 105; (b) based upon test results and in-service use of over 30 years, these brake locks have not had any adverse effect upon the hydraulic service brakes of the vehicle involved; (c) there have been no confirmed accidents attributable to the use of the brake locks for the 30 year period; and (d) the brake locks are installed after the vehicle manufacturer has certified the brake system of the vehicle with the requirements of FMVSS 105.

MICO recognizes that NHTSA does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment, and emphasizes that the Company is not here seeking any such approval. Rather MICO requests from the agency an interpretation that FMVSS 105 does not preclude the installation of a MICO hydraulic brake lock as a supplement to the systems installed to comply with the FMVSS 105 requirements.

BACKGROUND

MICO manufactures a hydraulic brake lock which supplements the mechanical parking brake of a motor vehicle by providing supplemental holding capacity for the vehicle. The brake lock is installed by a body builder or owner of a vehicle after the manufacturer of the vehicle has certified its compliance with applicable safety standards. The brake lock consists of a one-way check valve which, when it is in the release position, does not in any way impede or interfere with the use and application of the hydraulic service brakes on the vehicle. The brake lock is installed in the hydraulic brake lines between the master brake cylinder and the foundation brakes.

The brake lock does not render inoperative any device or element of the hydraulic service or parking brakes as originally installed on the motor vehicle but serves only to supplement the existing parking brake in a positive manner. The brake lock is not to be applied during normal driving operations but is only activated after the vehicle has been brought to a stop, the mechanical parking brake applied, and the brake lock armed. When the operator steps on the hydraulic service brake pedal and produces pressure in the brake system, the brake lock is activated. When activated, the brake lock acts as a

one-way check valve which will allow hydraulic system fluid to pass from the master cylinder to the foundation brakes as the brake pedal is applied, but will not allow the brake fluid to travel back to the master cylinder as the operator removes his foot from the brake pedal. (2) When the brake lock is not activated, brake fluid passes freely in both directions of the braking system. The brake lock does not increase brake pressure. It merely locks in pressure generated by applying pressure to the brake pedal when the vehicle is not in motion.

REGULATORY APPLICATION

In the case of a hydraulic brake lock, there is no safety standard which applies to it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. Previous interpretations of NHTSA have indicated that installation of a hydraulic brake lock does not affect compliance with FMVSS 105. See July 10, 1985 Letter of Interpretation from NHTSA Chief Counsel Jeffrey R. Miller to Mr. Bernard Cantleberry.

This position "is consistent with the agency's long-standing view about the (non-preclusive) use of auxiliary parking brake systems." See, e.g., May 6, 1993 Letter of Interpretation from Acting Chief Counsel John Womack to Mr. Bob Brinton (attaching a December 9, 1976 Interpretation from then Acting Chief Counsel Frank H. Berndt to Mr. Leon W. Steenbock); August 5, 1993 Letter of Interpretation from Acting Chief Counsel John Womack to Mr. Richard Muraski.

MICO submits that, in view of the fact that its brake lock demonstrably does not affect the operation of a vehicle's hydraulic brake system and, as long term usage has shown, has had no adverse effect upon the vehicle's hydraulic brake system, the vehicle will not be rendered noncompliant with FMVSS 105 upon the installation of the MICO brake lock.

TEST RESULTS

MICO has performed systematic and continuous testing of its hydraulic brake lock product to determine its effect on the performance of vehicles. MICO has conducted tests on the product in its own facilities under a number of different vehicle applications since the product was introduced in approximately 1960. The results of these tests show that the MICO brake lock does not adversely affect the continued satisfactory and compliant operation of the hydraulic brake system with FMVSS 105.

In addition, MICO also commissioned Bendix Corporation to conduct repetitive cycle tests of the product on a vehicle chassis in 1976, and these test results indicated that the brake lock is not detrimental to the continued satisfactory operation of the brake system. A copy of the May 1976 Bendix test evaluation is attached hereto as Appendix 2.

Several fleets have used and monitored the operation of these brake locks over substantial periods of time. MICO brake locks have operated for these fleets on a trouble-free basis on vehicles which travel between 25,000 to 40,000 miles per year. See, Report on Use of MICO Brake Locks, supra, at 3-4 and attached surveys. The locks have not caused any brake failure of any brake system component and there have been no accidents attributable to the use of the MICO brake lock. The results of this in-service experience have confirmed that the

MICO brake locks do not adversely affect the performance of the original hydraulic service brakes and associated parking brake systems in normal operation with the MICO brake lock released.

Based upon the test and usage data, MICO believes that the addition of the brake lock to a motor vehicle will not affect the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS 105.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, MICO, Inc. respectfully requests an interpretation confirming its view that the addition of a MICO brake lock to a motor vehicle is not precluded by FMVSS 105, and does not impair braking performance in compliance with FMVSS 105.

We appreciate your consideration of our request for interpretation and encourage you to contact the undersigned should questions remain.

1 Copies of MICO's brake lock product catalogs, including materials relating to its newest product, the MICO 690 Series, were provided to representatives of your staff and the Crash Avoidance Division on August 17, 1993.

2 For a detailed discussion of the description, application and usage of MICO brake lock products, see Report on Use of MICO Brake Locks by Messrs. Hall and Vogel (June 29, 1993), attached hereto as Appendix 1.

ID: nht93-6.4

DATE: August 9, 1993

FROM: Thomas Dougherty -- Research and Development, C.A.P.S. Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/12/93 from John Womack to Thomas Dougherty (A41; VSA 102(4))

TEXT:

I would like your opinion concerning any N.H.T.S.A. safety laws that might apply to our product as explained below. This product will be ready to sell to the general public in 30 to 60 days. Also, are there any labeling requirements?

NAME OF PRODUCT: E.A.R.S.

PURPOSE: To alert automobile drivers of an approaching emergency vehicle with siren activated. Our product can be used in all autos as an accessory. Drivers rendered hearing impaired because of sound-proofed autos as well as clinically hearing-impaired drivers will find our product very useful.

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: The E.A.R.S. processor is about the size of a pack of cigarettes. It plugs into the cigarette lighter for its power source. A small LED light and an 82db tone alerts the driver of the approaching emergency vehicle. A weather-proofed microphone plugs into the back of the processor and is placed outside the auto, preferably on the roof or rear windshield.

Our E.A.R.S. processor and microphone will be manufactured and tested in the United States. I would appreciate an answer from you as soon as possible.

ID: nht93-6.40

DATE: September 21, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James N. Doan -- Counsel - Operations, Eaton Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/17/93 from James N. Doan to John Womack (OCC-8805)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether an automatic vehicle speed control (also known as a cruise control), that you describe as "mounted on the transmission shift lever," must be illuminated. As explained below, the answer is no.

S5.3.1 sets requirements concerning controls which must be illuminated. S5.3.1 excludes from the illumination requirements hand operated controls that are mounted on the floor, floor console or steering column.

You believe that your proposed control would be considered "mounted on the floor or floor console" and thus excluded from S5.3.1's illumination requirements. We agree that locating the control on the shift lever is similar to locating it on the floor console for the purposes of the illumination requirements. This interpretation is based on agency precedent concerning S5.3.1's exception for controls on steering columns. In the preamble to a final rule of May 4, 1971 (36 FR 8296), NHTSA determined that the exception for controls mounted on the steering column extends to controls mounted on the steering wheel. Since the transmission shift lever bears the same relationship to the floor console as does the steering wheel to the steering column, controls on the transmission shift lever are excepted from S5.3.1's illumination requirements.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-6.41

DATE: September 21, 1993

FROM: Howard M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Charles E. Schumer -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/3/93 from Charles E. Schumer to Barry Felrice

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter requesting NHTSA's views on whether Title VI "Theft Prevention" of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., Cost Savings Act) places a limit of $15 on the cost of an antitheft device to be installed in a high theft vehicle pursuant to an exemption from the parts marking standard. You believe the answer is no. As explained below, we agree.

The $15 limitation applies only to the cost of complying with the parts marking standard. The cost limitation appears in S2024(a), which provides that "The standard under section 602 (section 2022) may not (1) impose costs upon any manufacturer of motor vehicles to comply with such standard in excess of $15 per motor vehicle..." (Emphasis added.) Further, S2024(a) makes no reference to S2025 or to the costs of installing antitheft devices pursuant to exemptions issued under that section.

Thus, unless the costs of an antitheft device installed in lieu of compliance with the standard can be regarded as costs imposed by the standard, the $15 maximum does not apply to the costs of those devices. We do not regard the costs of those devices to be costs imposed by the standard. Instead, they are costs which the manufacturer has chosen to bear by voluntarily seeking an exemption from the standard. Further, we note that S2025 does not itself contain any cost limitation.

Although the foregoing analysis of the statutory language is sufficient to answer your question, we note that the legislative history of the 1984 Theft Act speaks directly to that question. Chairman John Dingell of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce commented on concerns that the costs for antitheft devices will be far greater than the costs of parts marking. He believed that manufacturers will not install devices that add a substantial cost to a vehicle and indicated that, regardless of the potential costs, Title VI "does not provide for consideration of costs by DOT." (See, Congressional Record-House October 1, 1984, p. H 10462, at 10472.)

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Cost Savings Act does not limit the cost of an antitheft device that is installed pursuant to the issuance under S2025 of an exemption from the standard. Please note that the passage of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (ACTA) did not amend, in any way relevant to our conclusions, the provisions limiting costs of parts marking and authorizing the installation of antitheft devices in lieu of parts marking.

I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please let us know.

ID: nht93-6.42

DATE: September 21, 1993 Est.

FROM: Greg Biba

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/25/93 from John Womack to Greg Biba (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT:

In talking to Dee Fujita and George Mouchahoir about safety regulation specifications, they suggested I write you for an official confirmation about my questions.

I am developing and interested in patenting an infant observation mirror for car travel. This observation mirror is not attached to the car seat. Ms. Fujita and Mr. Mouchahoir said accessories that are not a part of the car seat have no safety regulations to their knowledge. Are there any regulations that limit what I do, are there any size or material regulations?

To give you a brief description: This infant observation mirror is different than others that have patented, in that it is supported by a stand that sits under the infants car seat as the seat faces to the rear of the car.

Please write at your earliest possible convenience about my questions or if you have any additional comments.

ID: nht93-6.43

DATE: September 21, 1993

FROM: Joe Takacs -- Director of Engineering, Kinedyne Corporation

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Ref: Final rule amending Standard No. 222 School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection FMVSS; Federal Register/Vol. 58, No. 170/Friday/ September 3, 1993/Rules and Regulations; Docket No. 90-05; Notice 5; 49 CFR Part 571

TEXT:

Based on the above referenced document that denied Kinedyne Corporation's petition but clarified the intent of implementing FMVSS 209 requirements for wheelchair securement systems, we would appreciate your comments on our interpretation of the final rule:

1. The webbing used in Kinedyne Corporation's wheelchair strap assemblies is industrial type 1.00 inch or 2.00 inch wide polyester webbing that meet the strength and other requirements of S4.2 of FMVSS No. 209. Therefore, this webbing is acceptable for use on wheelchair securement systems per FMVSS No.222.

2. The hardware used on Kinedyne Corporation's wheelchair strap assemblies are industrial type 1.00 inch or 2.00 inch overcenter, ratchet or cam buckles; wire hooks; snap hooks and track fittings which meet the strength and other requirements, as specified, in S4.3 of FMVSS No. 209. Therefore, these fittings are acceptable for use on wheelchair securement systems per FMVSS No. 222.

Industrial type webbing and hardware used in our wheelchair securement strap assemblies have been successfully used in wheelchair securement applications for approximately 20 years. We trust that these same assemblies meet the requirements of Amended FMVSS No. 222.

We would appreciate a reply within the next 30 days. Thank you for your assistance.