ID: 21065.ztv

Mr. John Newton
Pajant UK Ltd.
8 Danesleigh Gardens
Leigh-on-Sea
Essex SS9 4NL
England

Dear Mr. Newton:

This is in reply to your fax of December 9, 1999, to Barbara Rhea of this agency, enclosing information on a "progressive brake light" system. We are providing our views as to the acceptability of the system under the Federal motor vehicle lighting laws of the United States which this agency establishes and administers.

As you describe it, "the device will consist of a single unit containing four banks of lights which would sequentially illuminate depending upon the vehicle deceleration. It is intended that the device would replace the third high mounted central brake light currently in use." Specifically, the outer lamps would illuminate each time the brake pedal is pressed. The additional lights would illuminate towards the center depending on deceleration. "If maximum deceleration were detected the entire cluster would become illuminated, with the two centre banks pulsing."

I am sorry to inform you that this device would not be permitted by our laws, either as original or replacement equipment. The device could not substitute for the center high mounted stop lamp because it does not meet performance specifications we have adopted for stop lamps including the center lamp. To cite two examples: we require all stop lamps to be activated when the brake pedal is depressed, and not sequentially. Further, the stop lamps must be steady burning, and may not pulse.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/29/2000

ID: 11135r

Mr. Charles de Saint Martin
Project Manager
The Fairchild Corporation
P.O. Box 10803
Chantilly, VA 22021

Dear Mr. de Saint Martin:

This replies to your letter of August 10, 1995, with reference to "Securiflash". Taylor Vinson of this Office phoned you on August 21 for a clarification.

We understand that, in the event of a deceleration of 0.8 g, such as caused by emergency braking, "Securiflash" automatically activates a vehicle's hazard warning system lamps; after 5 seconds, the lamps go off.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter that we sent Saline Electronics on April 24, 1995, which provides our views that a deceleration system that operates through the hazard warning system is impermissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

However, we are interested in your remark that the product "was developed after different European studies showed that 60 percent of rear end collisions would be avoided if the brakes had been applied one second earlier." We are unaware of such studies, and would like to receive copies of them so that the agency may enhance its knowledge of the conditions under which rear end collisions occur.

If you have any further questions, please call Taylor Vinson at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure NCC20:Vinson:6-2992:9-6-95:Lyn OCC# 11135 cc: NCC-0l Subj/Chron NCC-20 Vinson Interps. 108; Redbook (3) U:\ncc20\interp\108\11135r.ztv

ID: nht94-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 27, 1994

FROM: Harleigh Ewell -- Regulatory Affairs Division, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TO: David Elias, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/16/94 from John Womack to Harleigh Ewell (A42; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: As we discussed today, enclosed is a copy of our earlier inquiry.

August 23, 1993

David Elias, Esq.

Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Elias:

In reference to our telephone conversation on August 19, I have attached a letter from Mr. S. M. Rosen, who had a gasoline nozzle separate from its hose while he was filling his motor home at a gas station. I would appreciate your office's interpreta tion of whether the nozzle/hose is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and thus not a consumer product subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. @ 2052(a)(1)(C).

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I can be reached at (301) 504-0980 if you need further information.

Harleigh Ewell

Attorney

Regulatory Affairs Division

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Attachment

July 24, 1993

Chairman Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 18th St. Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman,

Several weeks ago my wife and I were returning home from a 9,000 mile cross-country trip in our motor home when we drove into a gas station for a fill-up. As the gas was flowing into my tank, the hose separated from the nozzle in my vehicle. I found my self holding a hose gushing gasoline freely. A fire erupted and our motor home was destroyed. We were lucky to escape with our lives.

Could you please inform me if your office ever received any compliants nationwide of gasoline hoses separating from nozzles? Could you also inform me if the federal government inspects the nation's service stations on any regular basis, and if so, what i tems are inspected to insure safety for motorists using the station?

Does the federal government have any code books which apply to the nation's service stations regarding safety and cleanliness, etc.?

Your assistance in the matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

S.M. Rosen

ID: nht94-8.39

DATE: January 27, 1994

FROM: Harleigh Ewell -- Regulatory Affairs Division, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TO: David Elias, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/16/94 from John Womack to Harleigh Ewell (A42; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: As we discussed today, enclosed is a copy of our earlier inquiry.

August 23, 1993

David Elias, Esq.

Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Elias:

In reference to our telephone conversation on August 19, I have attached a letter from Mr. S. M. Rosen, who had a gasoline nozzle separate from its hose while he was filling his motor home at a gas station. I would appreciate your office's interpretation of whether the nozzle/hose is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and thus not a consumer product subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. @ 2052(a)(1)(C).

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I can be reached at (301) 504-0980 if you need further information.

Harleigh Ewell

Attorney

Regulatory Affairs Division

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Attachment

July 24, 1993

Chairman Consumer Product Safety Commission 1111 18th St. Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman,

Several weeks ago my wife and I were returning home from a 9,000 mile cross-country trip in our motor home when we drove into a gas station for a fill-up. As the gas was flowing into my tank, the hose separated from the nozzle in my vehicle. I found myself holding a hose gushing gasoline freely. A fire erupted and our motor home was destroyed. We were lucky to escape with our lives.

Could you please inform me if your office ever received any compliants nationwide of gasoline hoses separating from nozzles? Could you also inform me if the federal government inspects the nation's service stations on any regular basis, and if so, what items are inspected to insure safety for motorists using the station?

Does the federal government have any code books which apply to the nation's service stations regarding safety and cleanliness, etc.?

Your assistance in the matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

S.M. Rosen

ID: nht93-9.23

DATE: December 23, 1993

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

TO: David L. Boren -- United States Senator (Oklahoma)

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/93 from Thomas D. Price to Senator David Boren (OCC 9395); Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from David L. Boren to Howard Smolkin; Also attached to letter dated 4/15/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to David Boren

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas Price, concerning this agency's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock braking system (58 FR 50739, September 28, 1993). Mr. Price states that the agency's proposal is discriminatory and would exclude his braking system from being considered for future use.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the NPRM in response to a requirement of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. As discussed in the NPRM, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, the proposed requirements are intended to increase heavy vehicle stability and control during braking, and thus significantly reduce the deaths and injuries caused when these vehicles jackknife or otherwise lose control during braking.

The purpose of publishing an NPRM is to provide all interested persons an opportunity to comment on regulations being considered by the agency. NHTSA then considers all of the comments before reaching a decision concerning whether to adopt the proposed requirements as a final rule.

Thus, if an interested person, such as Mr. Price, believes that a proposed requirement is unnecessarily design restrictive or otherwise objectionable, the appropriate place to make that argument is in a comment on the NPRM. Mr. Price has in fact submitted extensive comments to NHTSA concerning this proposal. Please be assured that this agency will carefully consider Mr. Price's comments, as well as all other comments, before it reaches a decision concerning a possible final rule.

Since NHTSA will reach a decision on whether to issue a final rule and the content of such a final rule only after considering all the comments to the docket, we cannot provide a specific response at this time to the comments raised by Mr. Price. Instead, after carefully considering all comments, NHTSA will provide its responses in the next relevant rulemaking notice, e.g., a final rule or a notice terminating the rulemaking.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht90-4.92

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 24, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gordon Bonvallet

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-5-90 from Gordon Bonvallet to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5282)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of October 5, 1990, with respect to a prospective headlighting system. It is contemplated that the lower beam on the system would be furnished by a gaseous discharge headlamp, an "integral beam" headlamp under Standard No . 108. The upper beam would be furnished by a replaceable bulb headlamp using an HB3 light source.

You comment that a combination system such as this is not specifically addressed by Standard No. 108, and you ask for confirmation of your opinion that the photometric requirements of Figure 15 would apply to both the upper and lower beam headlamps.

At the present time, such a hybrid headlighting system is impermissible under Standard No. 108. The standard establishes separate requirements for integral beam headlighting systems (S7.4), and for replaceable bulb headlighting systems (S7.5). Though " integral beam headlighting system" is not specifically defined by Standard No. 108, such a system would appear to be one that consists of integral beam headlamps. Standard No. 108 does define "integral beam headlamp", and that definition specifically ex cludes "a replaceable bulb headlamp" such as one containing an HB3 light source. Similarly, a "replaceable bulb headlamp system" is one that consists solely of headlamps containing HB1, HB2, HB3, HB4, or HB5 light sources.

It is true that Figure 15 is one of three lower beam photometric options that apply to an integral beam headlamp, such as one producing illumination through gaseous discharge. However, under the language of the standard, Figure 15 applies when the lamp is used in a four headlamp integral beam headlighting system (S7.4(a)(1)(i)). It is also true that the upper beam photometrics of Figure 15 apply to an HB3 replaceable bulb headlamp (S7.5(e)(3)(ii)), but only when used in a four lamp headlighting system in which each headlamp contains a single replaceable light source.

As you know, the policy of this agency for the last decade has been to reduce design restrictions on headlighting systems. Removal of the implicit prohibition against hybrid headlighting systems would be a further step in this direction. If your client is seriously considering such a system, it may submit a petition for rulemaking at the appropriate time.

ID: 2781y

Mr. Gordon Bonvallet
1686 Lighthouse Hill Road
Homer, NY 13077

Dear Mr. Bonvallet:

This is in reply to your letter of October 5, l990, with respect to a prospective headlighting system. It is contemplated that the lower beam on the system would be furnished by a gaseous discharge headlamp, an "integral beam" headlamp under Standard No. l08. The upper beam would be furnished by a replaceable bulb headlamp using an HB3 light source.

You comment that a combination system such as this is not specifically addressed by Standard No. l08, and you ask for confirmation of your opinion that the photometric requirements of Figure l5 would apply to both the upper and lower beam headlamps.

At the present time, such a hybrid headlighting system is impermissible under Standard No. l08. The standard establishes separate requirements for integral beam headlighting systems (S7.4), and for replaceable bulb headlighting systems (S7.5). Though "integral beam headlighting system" is not specifically defined by Standard No. l08, such a system would appear to be one that consists of integral beam headlamps. Standard No. l08 does define "integral beam headlamp", and that definition specifically excludes "a replaceable bulb headlamp" such as one containing an HB3 light source. Similarly, a "replaceable bulb headlamp system" is one that consists solely of headlamps containing HB1, HB2, HB3, HB4, or HB5 light sources.

It is true that Figure l5 is one of three lower beam photometric options that apply to an integral beam headlamp, such as one producing illumination through gaseous discharge. However, under the language of the standard, Figure l5 applies when the lamp is used in a four headlamp integral beam headlighting system (S7.4(a)(l)(i)). It is also true that the upper beam photometrics of Figure 15 apply to an HB3 replaceable bulb headlamp (S7.5(e)(3)(ii)), but only when used in a four lamp headlighting system in which each headlamp contains a single replaceable light source.

As you know, the policy of this agency for the last decade has been to reduce design restrictions on headlighting systems. Removal of the implicit prohibition against hybrid headlighting systems would be a further step in this direction. If your client is seriously considering such a system, it may submit a petition for rulemaking at the appropriate time.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:12/24/90

ID: 7614

Mr. Christopher Leone
NewBold Designs
765 Allens Avenue
Providence, R.I. 02905

Dear Mr. Leone:

This responds to your FAX of August 6, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for rules and regulations of the Department on electric vehicles. I understand that you talked with Mr. Vinson later in the day, and received an overview of the matter. I further understand that you intend only the construction of a single experimental vehicle, and have no plans for its production.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the introduction into interstate commerce, by any person, of a motor vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards is a violation, for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 may be imposed. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are set out in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. There are no standards that apply specifically to electric vehicles, and the standards that apply to your project car are those that apply to "passenger cars" in general.

However, the manufacturer of an electric vehicle may petition us for a temporary exemption (up to 2 years) from one or more of the safety standards on the basis that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle. The temporary exemption regulations are found at 49 CFR Part 555. An exemption covers up to 2,500 vehicles per year for any 12- month period that the exemption is in effect.

Regulations governing the licensing of motor vehicles are the prerogative of the individual States. Thus, you should inquire as to what Rhode Island requires for your contemplated vehicle.

There is a regulatory gap which your situation highlights, and that is the legal status of a person who intends to build only a single motor vehicle. Such a person is not a "manufacturer" under the Act, since the operative portion of the definition of "manufacturer" is one who manufactures or assembles "motor vehicles". The temporary exemption authority appears directed towards commercial enterprises and not single motor vehicles. Nevertheless, we believe we have the authority to exempt a single motor vehicle under these provisions.

If you wish to consult us further in this matter, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to help you.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:555 d:11/9/92

ID: 86-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. D. Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 6, 1986 Mr. D. Black Director, U.S. Engineering Alfa Romeo, Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, requesting an interpretation of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You stated that you plan to begin production of a 1987 carline in March 1986. This particular carline has been selected as one that will be subject to the requirements of Part 541. However, Part 541 does not become effective until April 24, 1986. You stated your belief that the introduction of the 1987 carline before the effective date of Part 541 means that none of the 1987 vehicles would be required to comply. Your belief is essentially correct. As you noted, the effective date for Part 541 is April 24, 1986. This effective date means that Part 541 applies to all selected carlines beginning with the 1987 model year. However, the legislative history for Title VI of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 et seq.), which Title requires that Part 541 be promulgated, expressly states: "The theft prevention standard cannot apply to a car in the middle of the model year." H. R. Rep. No. 1087, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 11 (1984). For the purposes of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act, NHTSA believes that the model year for a carline begins on the day on which a vehicle in that carline is introduced into commerce in the United States, the start of production does not constitute an introduction into commerce in the United States when the first vehicle is imported into the customs territory of the United States. Assuming that one of the 1987 vehicles in this carline is imported, and thus introduced into commerce, before April 24, 1986 (the effective date for Part 541), the 1987 model year for that carline would have begun prior to the effective date of the theft prevention standard. Obviously, the requirements of any standard do not apply before the effective date. Given the clear expression of Congressional intent that this theft prevention standard cannot apply to a carline in the middle of its model year, NHTSA concludes that a 1987 model year version of a carline introduced into commerce before the effective date of the theft prevention standard during the 1987 model year. It would, of course, be subject to the requirements during the 1988 model year. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht93-2.8

DATE: March 5, 1993

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-8-93 from John Womack to Jane L. Dawson (A41; Std. 217)

TEXT: Per our phone conversation yesterday, I am requesting a written response to the following question:

Is an exterior handle required on an emergency exit window in order to comply with the upcoming changes to FMVSS 217?