ID: nht95-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 6, 1995

FROM: Terry M. Habshey -- Oxy Tire Incorporated

TO: Philip Recht -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/24/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERRY M. HABSHEY (A43; STD. 109; STD. 110; STD. 119; STD. 120; PART 534; PART 575)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

Your name and address was referred to me by Ms. Terri Droneburg of the Tire I.D. and Record Keeping Dept of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as the person responsible for giving a legal interpretation as to our request for a D.O.T. n umber for new tires.

I am the president of a tire company located in Montevallo, Alabama just South of Birmingham off interstate Hwy 65. We are a global tire distributer involved in export only. We export mainly to second and third world markets.

We are currently constructing a new building that will house a state of the art manufacturing facility. This facility is somewhat unique in function, which is why I am sure we were directed to you. We have made arrangements to take certain quantitie s of new first line tires from many of the U.S. tire manufacturers on an ongoing basis. These tires consist of original equipment overruns, appearance blems, etc. I would point out that all the tires we receive are new and meet or exceed the minimum st andards set forth by the Department of Transportation. In accordance with our contracts, and for marketing reasons only, we remove most of the information from the sidewalls of the tires. This fact makes our project necessary.

We intend to remove, by a new process, the surface areas on both sides of the carcass (tire). This process does not expose the original cord or bead of the tire, nor does it come in contact with the original tread. It only removes a thin layer of th e sidewall rubber. This is a necessary step in the preparation of the carcass to be able to receive a new sidewall which is achieved by applying a thin layer of new rubber to be followed by the next step in our manufacturing process which is "cooking" o r vulcanizing the new sidewall onto the tire. This is achieved by a process using specially designed equipment developed specifically for this project. The equipment uses heat and light pressure to the area of the tire that needs it (the sidewall). Th is process does not expose the original tread, inner cavity, or bead to heat or pressure. When the process is complete, we have a tire that has had its sidewall remade. It will have a new registered trade name, logo, and identifying marks along with the size, safety information, mounting instructions, maximum and minimum inflating instructions, etc. We would inspect and test each tire we had performed a manufacturing function on. In addition, we currently and will continue to carry a world wide produc t liability insurance policy. We believe and hope that you will agree that this new and unique process is qualified to receive a D.O.T. number designation of our tires as new tires. Since they are, in fact new tires. I want to make it very clear, so t hat their is no misunderstanding, that each and every tire we receive is a new tire recently produced and meets all minimum standards established by the Department of Transportation.

As you know, a new recapped tire is a tire that has had thousands of miles of use and can and does in many cases have small puncture cuts and so forth on the carcass. A new tread is then reapplied which is never as reliable as the original tread.

These differences, we believe, are significant. Our tires are new, they have never been mounted or used. They are recently manufactured with original tread and new in every respect. Also, each tire will be retested by us and we will stand behind ea ch prior to selling. For these reasons we request a new D.O.T. number and wish to be the manufacturer of record. Please excuse the length of this letter, however I thought that a complete outline of all the details were necessary to facilitate your eva luation in rendering a decision. Mr. Recht, please feel free to call me at (205) 665-4771 if you have any questions regarding this project. Or, if necessary, we invite you to visit our facility at your convenience.

ID: nht95-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Courtney M. Price -- Reid & Priest

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation/Brake Locker

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO COURTNEY M. PRICE (REDBOOK(4)); Part 567.7; STD. 105

TEXT: On behalf of Maatzorit Ltd. ("Maatzorit"), I am writing to request confirmation of Maatzorit's interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems; FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses; and Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Nationa l Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) as they relate to the BRAKE LOCKER (U.S. Patent No. 5,375,684) which Maatzorit has developed and will market. n1 Specifically, we are requesting confirmation that installatio n of the BRAKE LOCKER is not precluded by FMVSS 105 or Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. We understand that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") does not give approval of or certify devices such as the BRAKE LOCKER and that confirmation of Maatzorit's interpretation will be based upon the information provided and the circumstances described herein.

n1 FMVSS 105 and FMVSS 106 specify requirements for hydraulic brake systems and brake hoses, respectively. Section 108 of the Safety Act provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicl e safety standard.

The purpose of the BRAKE LOCKER is to prevent the theft of parked vehicles by locking the brakes while theft is attempted. The product also is designed to enable regular brake usage while being driven by the car owner or another authorized driver.

The BRAKE LOCKER is installed in the engine compartment on the brake fluid line between the brakes and the brake pump. A controlled hydraulic tap enables two positions:

Position A: free passage of brake fluid from pump to brakes and back again.Position B: free passage of brake fluid from pump to brakes, and blockage of the passage in the other direction using a check valve.

Position B causes the vehicle to be stopped and locked, for 15-20 minutes after the brake is pressed.

The BRAKE LOCKER is designed to be controlled by an electronic coded transmitter. When preparing to move the car and activating the transmitter, the code will be recognized and the electric motor will be activated, thus bringing the hydraulic tap to Position A described above.

Upon parking the vehicle, a press on the transmitter push button activates the motor to transfer the hydraulic tap to Position B described above, thus preventing release of the brakes, after the brakes are pressed, for 15-20 minutes.

More specifically, the BRAKE LOCKER operates as follows:

1. The system is activated and a control light goes on in the driver's compartment.

2. Upon pressing the portable transmitter, the control light starts blinking, the electronic motor then turns the hydraulic tap to Position A which enables the brake fluid to pass freely in both directions, and the control light then turns off.

3. Upon turning the car ignition switch on, the hydraulic tap remains in Position A and the system is prevented from being activated.

4. Upon turning the car ignition switch off and then pressing the portable transmitter, the control light starts blinking, the electronic motor then turns the hydraulic tap to the Position B "active" position so that every press on the brake pedal ca uses the brakes to be locked, and the control light will be on.

If you need further information or if a meeting with representatives of Maatzorit would be helpful to you in confirming our interpretation, please call me. I look forward to receiving your response to our request at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

ID: nht95-1.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 7, 1995

FROM: Takashi Tohse -- Quality Assurance Group, Fabricated Glass general Division, ASAHI GLASS CO., LTD

TO: Marvin Show -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: Company ID in logo marks

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO TAKASHI TOHSE (A43; STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shaw;

We have made an inquiry regarding use of plural company Ids in our logo mark for automotive safety glazing materials and requested NHTSA's comments trough Mr. Clarke Harper of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. We understand that this matter was re ferred to you for a legal interpretation.

What is the status of your consideration on this matter? Would there by any other clarification necessary on our part?

It would be very much appreciated if you could provide us with some indication on these questions. Enclosed you will find our letter dated February 6th for your reference.

PREVIOUS LETTER:

February 6, 1995

Mr. Clarke Harper Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 U.S.A.

Rf: Company ID in logo marks

Dear Mr. Harper;

My Colleague Mr. M. Ojima in the automotive Glazing Group suggested that I write to you directly so that this matter can be expedited. Should this matter be handled by someone other than you, please refer it to the proper person.

Use of plural company IDs in our logo mark for automotive safety glazing materials is under consideration. It would be appreciated very much if you could provide with your views on the following two cases as to whether they comply with FMVSS 205 concern ing marking of glazing materials.

Case1: Is it permitted to use different kinds of IDs for different grades of products?

Please refer to the attached sheet

Sample 1: Current Asahi Glass logo mark.

Sample 2&3: Draft of secondary IDs.

Case 2: Is it permitted to use a common company ID for all members of our group? For example, for Asahi Glass Co. ltd. and AP Technoglass Company.

Please refer to the attached sheet.

Sample 4: Draft of AGC logo mark.

Sample 5: Current AP Technoglass logo mark.

Both cases mentioned above have Symbol and Item No. AS1, DOT-20, Material No. M354, Trademark LAMISAFE and company IDs.

It is our contention that these comply with FMVSS 205; however, we will await your comments before making any change.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could give your prompt attention to our inquiry.

Yours sincerely,

Takashi Tohse Quality Assurance Group Fabricated Glass General Division Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. 2-1-2 Marunouchi Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100 Japan Tel: 3-3218-5789 Fax: 3-3201-5810

ID: nht95-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Courtney M. Price -- Esq., Reid & Priest

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/4/95 LETTER FROM COURTNEY M. PRICE TO PHILIP R. RECHT

TEXT: This responds to your questions about how this agency's regulations apply to a product known as a Brake Locker that is manufactured by your client, Maatzorit. You requested this agency to confirm your understanding that installation of the Brake Locker i s not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, or Section 108(a)(2)(A) of what you refer to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act."). n1

n1 In 1994, Congress codified the Safety Act. The new citation for 108(a)(2)(A) is 49 U.S.C. 30122. In addition, please be aware that on February 3, 1994, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 135 Passenger Car Brake Systems that will eventually supersede FMVSS No . 105 with respect to passenger cars. Please note that your client's product will be subject to the same responsibilities, regardless of which FMVSS applies.

According to your letter, the Brake Locker prevents the theft of a parked vehicle by locking its brakes, without affecting brake usage while the vehicle is driven by an authorized driver. You stated that the Brake Locker is installed in the engine compa rtment on the brake fluid line between the brakes and the brake pump. An electronic coded transmitter is used to activate a motor which in turn activates a check valve, thereby preventing the release of the brakes by restricting the flow of brake fluid. When the check valve is activated, you state that "every press on the brake pedal causes the brakes to be locked."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the United States Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency pe riodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Nothing in FMVSS No. 105 nor FMVSS No. 106 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering such a product. Therefore, Maatzorit, as the device's manufacturer, would not have any certific ation responsibilities. Nevertheless, the requirements of FMVSS No. 105 are relevant to a hydraulic brake lock. That standard specifies a number of brake performance requirements to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify compliance. Since the ins tallation of a hydraulic brake lock requires the installation of a check valve on the brake fluid line between the foundation brakes and the brake pump, it is possible that the installation of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105.

If the Brake Locker is installed as original equipment on new vehicles prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, then the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that with the Brake Locker installed, the vehicle complies with all applicab le FMVSSs, including FMVSS No 105 and FMVSS No. 106. A vehicle manufacturer's specific certification responsibilities depend on when the brake locker is installed and are set forth in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. For instance, if a vehicle has already bee n certified by the vehicle manufacturer but has not yet been sold to the consumer, then the person doing the installation after that time would be considered to be an "alterer" who would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply w ith all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the Brake Locker is installed after the first consumer purchase, then 49 U.S.C. 30122 is relevant to your client's product. That section provides that

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Brake Locker, if such installation makes inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, such as FMVSS No. 105. For example, if the Brake Locker, caused the vehicle to no longer comply with the parking brake or service brake requirements in FMVSS No. 105, then installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safet y standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/15/95 FAX FROM TILMAN SPINGLER TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: We have received your FAX of February 15, 1995, asking whether a proposed design "for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108."

The agency does not advise manufacturers whether particular designs are regarded as "conforming." That determination is to be made by the manufacturer in certifying that its product conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Howe ver, we can provide you with an interpretive guideline. Section S4 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" as a headlamp "comprising a bonded lens reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources." The intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp. This means that, if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced. If your design is such that the lens cannot be removed from the reflector assembl y for replacement, it would appear to meet the definition in S4.

As you are well aware, NHTSA granted your company's petition for rulemaking, and, in November 1994, proposed an amendment of the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that would allow a replaceable lens if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2. Comments were due on this proposal February 21, 1995. In due course, after review of the comments, NHTSA will decide whether it will pursue further rulemaking or terminate the rulemaking action.

ID: nht95-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard J. Kinsey -- Manager, Fuel Economy Planning & Compliance, Ford Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/28/94 LETTER FROM RICHARD J. KINSEY TO RICARDO MARTINEZ

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting our concurrence on a procedure for determining the domestic content and country of origin for foreign-sourced allied and outside supplier components. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you would like to obtain the relevant information from your present purchasing systems rather than by soliciting the information from your foreign suppliers. You stated that both processes will result in the same information, and that you believe requiring your foreign suppliers to respond to requests for information would impose costly and unnecessary burdens on those suppliers.

We are now in the process of completing our response to several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule on domestic content labeling. Your question is sufficiently related to some of the issues raised by the petitions that we believe it should b e addressed in the context of that response, rather than in a separate letter.

We realize, however, that manufacturers and suppliers have an immediate need for guidance regarding the procedures for making content determinations for the 1996 model year. In a recent letter (copy enclosed) to the American Automobile Manufacturers Ass ociation, we advised that NHTSA had decided to give manufacturers and suppliers for model year 1996 the same alternative they had last year, i.e., in lieu of following the required procedures, they may use other procedures that are expected to yield simi lar results. Therefore, your planned approach will not raise any concerns for model year 1996.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ken Daining -- Supervisor, Vehicle Test and Development, ITT Automotive

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/18/94 LETTER FROM KEN DAINING TO MARVIN SHAW (OCC 10316)

TEXT: This responds to your letter about Federal requirements applicable to an "on/off switch" for antilock brake systems (ABS). I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that Chrysler Jeep owners disengage their ABS in response to the "perceived degraded performance it offers on off-road situations." You mentioned the possibility of designing a vehicle's gear system so that the ABS function is automatically disengaged when the vehicle is shifted into the four wheel drive-LO configuration. As e xplained below, while both manual and automatic ABS on/off switches are permitted under the current requirements, neither is required.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicl e equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its produc ts meet all applicable safety standards.

The agency has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, which specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems. This Standard does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting ABS. Likewise, it does not contain any provision requiring or prohibiting either a manual or automatic ABS on/off switch. Accordingly, either type of switch is permitted under the standard, provided the vehicle complies with the standard both when the devi ce is "on" and when the device is "off."

FMVSS No. 105 will continue to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), notwithstanding the agency's recent adoption of FMVSS No. 135 Hydraulic Brake Systems; Passenger Car Brake Systems, which applies only to passenger car brake systems (60 FR 6 411, February 2, 1995). Even though FMVSS No. 135 does not apply to MPVs, you should be aware that FMVSS No. 135 prohibits passenger cars from being equipped with ABS disabling switches. The agency stated in a July 1991 notice that "such a switch could be left off when the ABS is needed, and that therefore, it would be more likely to be harmful than beneficial." Please note that this prohibition does not become immediately effective, even for passenger cars, since manufacturers can continue to certify compliance to FMVSS No. 105 for five years after FMVSS No. 135 takes effect.

If an automatic or manual ABS on/off switch were installed in a used vehicle, such a device must not "make inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105. Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, deale r or repair business from installing such a device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. For instance, if a vehicle could only comply with the stopping distance or other service brake requirements in Standard No. 1 05 when the ABS is activated, then installation of the switch would serve to make inoperative compliance with the safety standard.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1995

FROM: Barbara Bailey -- Administrative Assistant to Steve Altick, Director/CEO, CAMP Berachah Christian Retreat Center

TO: Walter Myers -- Attorney-Advisor Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Transportation of school students

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BARBARA BAILEY (A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: In our phone conversation today, I addressed issues of specific concern to us in relation to the use of our vans by a school. You had asked that these questions be put in written form so that your agency could respond. PLEASE EXPEDITE via fax as soon a s possible. Material being presented on Friday morning here.

1. Camp Berachah has leased two vans. Those vans are borrowed for occasional use by a school for athletic activities, etc. Is it necessary for these vans to comply with Federal safety standards relating to school buses? Please discuss.

2. Must these vans comply with Federal safety regulations for school buses if Camp Berachah were to lend, rent or sublease them to a school? Please discuss.

Thank you for your swift response to this. And thank you again for your help over the phone.

ID: nht95-1.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1995

FROM: Tillie Fowler -- Member, House Of Representatives

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Goodlife Motors Corporation

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/19/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO TILLIE FOWLER (VSA 102(3)); ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/4/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO FORBES HOWARD

TEXT: Dear Dr. Martinez:

Enclosed is a letter from my constituent, Dail Taylor, regarding the letter he received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Mr. Taylor is concerned that bringing his electric car into compliance with NHTSA guidelines would be too costly and force him to stop manufacturing the vehicles. He has requested that I contact you to request a review of this situation. As a courte sy to my constituent, I am respectfully requesting that you review his letter and the letter he received from your office and contact me with information I can provide him. Also, please provide me with any alternative options that may be available to Mr . Taylor regarding-his electric car.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

ENCLOSED LETTER:

March 6, 1995

The Honorable Tillie K. Fowler Member of Congress, 4th District, Florida 4452 Hendricks Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32207

Dear Tillie:

Goodlife Motors Corporation has made considerable progress toward the development of an electric car, since I gave you a ride in our first prototype vehicle at Fred Cone's home in late 1993.

I have enclosed photographs of our other prototype vehicles, and I will be sending you a video which demonstrates their performance and utility within the next two weeks.

We are now ready to manufacture the vehicles, but we have encountered a formidable roadblock by way of a letter ruling we received from the U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Administration, dated January 4, 1995 (copy enclosed).

As you will note, the letter requires our vehicle to comply with current safety standards. Alternatively, we may petition the agency for an exemption.

Tillie, if we are going to manufacture this electric car, we need your help. It would be far too expensive for our small business to comply with current safety standards. We could not even afford to go through the formal petition process with the USDOT .

Therefore, it appears that all of our efforts have been wasted, unless you can help us move forward. I would appreciate your advice on how to proceed.

Sincerely yours,

Dail A. Taylor, President

Enclosure

ID: nht95-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1995

FROM: Jeffrey Echt -- President, Saline Electronics, Inc.

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO JEFFREY ECHT (STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Chief Counsel,

Thank you for your March 2, 1995 interpretation clarifying the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with regard to deceleration warning systems. In the interpretation, you cited paragraph S5.5.10(d) of FMVSS No. 108 as the basi s for prohibiting the flashing of a vehicle's stop lamps. Paragraph S5.5.10(a) of FMVSS No. 108, however, states:

Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall be wired to flash.

Based on paragraph S5.5.10(a) of FMVSS No. 108 and the fact that hazard warning indicators are commonly used to warn high-speed trailing traffic that a leading vehicle or leading vehicles are moving slowly or stopped, we seek your opinion on the followin g questions:

1. Would a device which automatically activated a vehicle's hazard warning system at the onset of high, braking-induced deceleration and deactivated the hazard warning system upon release of the brake pedal (following automatic activation) be permissibl e under FMVSS 108? This assumes that the device will not prevent activation or cause deactivation of the hazard warning system if the mandatory vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit has been activated by the driver.

2. If such a device is permissible in principle, would the rear lighting configuration of the vehicle on which it was installed affect its permissibility? Specifically, on which of the following vehicles would installation of the device be permissible?

a) a vehicle with red, combined stop/turn signal lamps

b) a vehicle with red stop lamps and separate, red turn signal lamps

c) a vehicle with red stop lamps and separate, amber turn signal lamps

Once again, we appreciate your consideration of our request and thank you for your prompt action. As before, Saline Electronics, Inc. has no objection to this letter and your response to it becoming a part of the public record.

Sincerely,