ID: 9115

Mr. Cary Klingner
Trison Inc.
1414 Merryview Lane
Hibbing, MN 55746

Dear Mr. Klingner:

We have received your letter of July 12, 1993, with respect to Trison's "Daytime Running Lights" module. You have heard that "federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept", and ask whether the device "complies with the regulations."

As you have described it, the product activates the lower beam headlamps whenever the engine is running, and may be overridden by the vehicle's headlamp switch. The module "can be installed by any car owner."

On January 11, 1993, we amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment to permit motor vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps (other than parking and fog lamps) wired to operate automatically during daytime. Before the amendment, paragraph S5.5.3 of Standard No. 108 required taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. However, the amendment modified this requirement to state that taillamps "need not be activated if the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity" when in use as daytime running lamps. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. We have received petitions for reconsideration of aspects of the rule other than S5.5.3, and it is possible that the standard will eventually be amended in response to them.

The amendment does not establish requirements for aftermarket equipment such as your module. There is no Federal restriction on the sale of the module, but there are restrictions on its installation on new vehicles. A manufacturer, distributor, and dealer of a new motor vehicle must deliver it in full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As we understand it, your module would activate the lower beam headlamps at their full intensity, and the taillamps would not be activated until the main headlamp switch was used. This would create a noncompliance with S5.5.3, since the taillamps must be activated when the headlamps are activated at full intensity. In addition, the module also impairs the effectiveness of the taillamps within the meaning of a prohibition imposed by S5.1.3. For these reasons, a manufacturer or dealer could not legally install the module on a new motor vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

With respect to installation of the module in a vehicle after its first sale, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may "render inoperative, in whole or in part," lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. Because the taillamps apparently will not operate when the lower beam headlamps are activated at full intensity by the module, in our opinion, the taillamps have been rendered inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition.

However, the module can be installed by the vehicle owner. The statutory prohibition does not apply to the vehicle owner, and modifications by the owner are subject only to State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you seek an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

We do not understand your remark that "Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated," and believe that your interpretation must be incorrect. Under the Act, if a State has a standard on lighting performance, it must be identical to the Federal standard.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108#VSA

ID: 9119

Ms. Angela R. Caron
892 Murray Rd.
Meridian, MS 39305

Dear Ms. Caron:

This responds to your letter asking about the safety of aftermarket belt positioning devices. The devices you ask about alter the positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts, for the advertised purposes of improving the fit of the belts on children and small adults.

Although NHTSA understands your view that safety belts should be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant concerns about aftermarket belt positioning devices. The following discussion explains those concerns and the effect of our regulations on such products.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not have a safety standard that directly applies to belt positioning devices. Our safety standards for "Occupant Crash Protection," (Standard No. 208) and "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages" (Standard No. 210) apply to new, completed vehicles. In addition, our safety standard for "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard No. 209) applies to new seat belt assemblies. Because a belt positioning device is neither installed as part of a completed vehicle nor as part of a seat belt assembly, none of these regulations apply to belt positioning devices.

While none of these standards applies to a belt positioning device, the manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. To date, there have been no defect proceedings concerning these products. In addition, while it is unlikely that a belt positioning device would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the Safety Act prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "rendered inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

Belt positioning devices raise safety concerns you should consider in deciding whether to use these products. These devices could be used in a way that significantly affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to the occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. A device that moved that intersection from the side to the middle of the abdomen could greatly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen. An increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt.

There are other concerns about these devices. The realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle in a crash, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, the occupant's head would be more likely to contact the vehicle interior. Also, slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, which increase the risk of injury. We urge you to consider these factors when deciding whether to use a belt positioning device, or the manner in which to use one.

You also asked whether a "travel vest" can be used with your two and a half year old son, in place of a child seat. The travel vest is a "child restraint system" and is thus subject to our safety standard for child restraints (Standard No. 213). The manufacturer of the travel vest (which the standard refers to as a "harness") is responsible for determining the conformance of the vest to the requirements of Standard No. 213, and certifying that the vest so conforms. This agency periodically tests products for compliance with Standard No. 213. When properly used, harnesses that comply with Standard No. 213 provide good protection in a crash, similar to that provided by child seats. You should always follow the manufacturer's instructions for using the child restraint system, including the specifications for the weight of the child for whom the restraint is recommended.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208#213 d:3/16/94

ID: 9123

Mr. Jack McIntyre
Vice President
Tie Tech Inc.
Post Office Box 5226
Lynnwood, WA 98046-5226

Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This responds to your letter in which you withdrew your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead.

You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair.

Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, "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 at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards.

I hope this clarifies this matter for 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:209#222#571 d:11/23/93

ID: 9128

Mr. Christopher S. Spencer
Engineering
4100 Troy Road #206
Springfield, Ohio 45502

This responds to your letter about the brake reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are developing a new reservoir design to improve reservoir volume without increasing the need for space. You asked how to test your reservoirs since you believe that "(t)he safety standard does not clarify the test criteria specifically how the reservoir is to be sealed."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The standard's reservoir requirements for trucks and buses are set forth in section S5.1.2. That section requires these vehicles to be equipped with one or more service reservoir systems that meet specified performance requirements. Section S5.1.2.2 specifies the following:

Each reservoir shall be capable of withstanding an internal hydrostatic pressure of five times the compressor cutout pressure or 500 psi, whichever is greater, for 10 minutes.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that an air brake system reservoir has a minimum level of structural integrity. NHTSA has long interpreted the term "withstand" to require that there be no rupture or permanent circumferential deformation of the reservoir exceeding one percent. At one point, the agency issued an interpretation concluding that the term "withstand" meant that a reservoir can deform only slightly and must contain the applied pressure with only a limited pressure drop at any time during the test. However, NHTSA later withdrew that interpretation because it inadvertently increased the severity of the requirement. See 42 FR 64630, December 27, 1977, and 43 FR 9149, March 6, 1978.

You asked about this requirement in connection with a reservoir design that includes a bushing on the inside of an endcap. A weld is placed around the bushing.

You describe two different procedures you have used to seal the reservoir. In what you describe as "Test Criteria 1," a socket head plug is put into the bushing with 3 full wraps of tape. With this first method, you state that as the pressure is applied to the reservoir, the endcap starts to expand out. The bushing stretches with the endcap, and as the bushing stretches the threads are pulled away from the plug. The plug must therefore be retightened several times before the required pressure is reached. In your "Test Criteria 2," you state that a rubber grommet or washer is placed on the inside of the bushing and forced to expand to seal the bushings from the inside. You stated that this method checks the weld but removes the threads from the test. With the second method, you state that there was no failure at over five times the working pressure.

While Standard No. 121 does not specify a particular test procedure for this requirement, the language of S5.1.2.2 makes it clear that a reservoir must "withstand" for 10 minutes a condition where the reservoir is pressurized at the specified level. Therefore, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would pressurize a reservoir to the specified level. This would necessitate sealing the reservoir.

In considering how a particular reservoir would be sealed, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to evaluate the reservoir's structural integrity and ability to withstand pressurization. I can offer you the following comments on the two alternative test methods you described. The first method (Test Criteria 1) would appear to evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization. The threaded plug would appear to reasonably approximate how the reservoir would be sealed in an actual use situation. I note that the mere fact that the plug needs to be tightened during the test to achieve the specified level of pressure would not indicate a failure but would simply reflect minor air leakage around the plug.

The second method (Test Criteria 2) would not fully evaluate a reservoir's ability to withstand pressurization, since it would, as you recognized, remove the threads from the test, thereby creating an artificial seal. It is our opinion that a reservoir would not be capable of "withstanding" the specified hydrostatic internal pressure if the threads failed under such pressurization. This would represent a structural failure equivalent to a rupture.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, 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:4/25/94

ID: 9128_freshener

Mr. Robert V. Payne
Transcents, Inc.
11516 Gardenia Dr.
Pittsburgh, PA 15235




Dear Mr. Payne:

This responds to your letter and phone conversations with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) staff regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of interior materials, to an air freshener system manufactured by your company. As explained below, FMVSS No. 302 does not apply to your product.

In your letter, you described your product as an air freshener system that is installed in the evaporator compartment of a buss ventilation system. You explained that the system automatically sprays a fragrance into the vehicles occupant compartment air space. In a phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you explained that your system is typically separated from a vehicles occupant compartment by a louvered vent cover. You asked whether FMVSS No. 302 would apply to your product, or to an aerosolized version of it, when installed in a vehicle.

FMVSS No. 302 applies to new motor vehicles, and specifies burn resistance requirements for particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, used in the vehicle occupant compartment. The components listed in S4.1 are:

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

Air freshener systems are not listed in S4.1 of the standard. Also, it appears that your air freshener system is not incorporated into any component listed in S4.1. Thus, your product, including an aerosolized version, is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 302.

Please note that there are other requirements that could affect your product. NHTSA has jurisdiction over defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your systems are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)In addition, there are other agencies in the U.S. Department of Transportation that might have requirements for your product. We suggest that you contact the Research and Special Projects Administration at (202) 366-4400 for information about pressure vessels, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at (202) 493-0349 concerning requirements for large trucks and buses.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:302
d.2/11/05

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