ID: nht92-9.39

DATE: January 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Richard Gray -- Secretary of Sports Car Club of New Zealand, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/11/91 from Richard Gray to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6724)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking for information about whether certain motor vehicles manufactured in the United States and imported into New Zealand comply with the requirements of the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (MOT) is introducing new vehicle safety standards in an effort to align New Zealand's standards with those of the United States, Europe, Australia, and the United Kingdom. To that end, you stated that the MOT is requiring importers to ensure that the vehicles they import meet the relevant safety standards of these countries. You further indicated that you are responsible for providing proof to the MOT that certain privately imported, "low volume vehicles" (built in numbers less than 200 per year) comply with the requirements of their country of origin, or that the country has a special exemption for low volume vehicles. Accordingly, you asked for clarification of Standards No. 205 and 208, and other Federal regulations, as they would be applied to these vehicles. I am pleased to be able to provide the following information.

In the case of the United States, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue a number of safety standards. The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufactured or sold in, or imported into, the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under S114...

Generally speaking, then, to the extent that the vehicles you import are manufactured and sold in the United States, those vehicles would have to comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 208, regardless of the number of such vehicles produced by the manufacturer.

The fact that your letter is seeking proof that a motor vehicle ACTUALLY COMPLIES with applicable safety standards may, however, indicate a misunderstanding of the certification process in the United States. The process of certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, many European nations require manufacturers to deliver motor vehicles to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the vehicle, the government approves the vehicle and assigns an approval code. In countries using such a pre-sale approval certification process, the governmental entity would have specific information about the ACTUAL COMPLIANCE of vehicles with applicable standards.

In the United States, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to do any pre-sale testing or approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Consequently, NHTSA does not have any "proof of actual compliance" of vehicles. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards by permanently affixing a label to the driver's side door hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Among other things, that label must contain the statement: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above."

Under the self-certification process used in the United States, NHTSA does conduct periodic enforcement tests on vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by their manufacturer to ensure that the products do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. In order for this agency to determine whether any of the vehicles imported into New Zealand were subject to an enforcement test or a defects investigation by this agency, you would have to provide us with specific descriptive information about each of the subject vehicles, including the date of manufacture.

It should be a simple exercise for you to check the area around the driver's side door of the vehicles in question to see if the manufacturer affixed a U.S. certification label, stating that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the vehicle has such a label, there would not seem to be any reason for questioning the manufacturer's representation. On the other hand, if there is no such label, neither the vehicle's manufacturer nor anyone else has suggested that the vehicle conforms with the safety standards of the United States.

Finally, you asked whether the United States has any Federal regulations regarding the installation of registration plates on the front of vehicles. The answer is no; vehicle registration is a matter addressed by each of the individual States, not by the Federal government. Thus, the requirements for display of registration plates on the front of

vehicles differ from State to State. If you are interested in further information on the requirements of the individual states, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, U.S.A.

ID: nht92-9.4

DATE: February 17, 1992

FROM: Stephen E. Selander -- Attorney, GM Legal Staff

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: General Motors Corporation; FMVSS 101, 105; Request for Interpretations

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Stephen E. Selander (A39; Std. 101; Std. 105)

TEXT:

General Motors Corporation (GM) is currently preparing an electric vehicle (GMEV) which will be offered for sale in the near future. The GMEV contains basic design strategies that differ from traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. While these strategies are intended to comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), questions have arisen about how to correctly apply the requirements of FMVSS 101 - Controls and Displays and 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems. The purpose of this letter is to seek the agency's concurrence with, or guidance regarding the proposed interpretations of these requirements.

FMVSS 101 PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS

FUEL GAUGE REQUIREMENTS Proposed Interpretation: Permit electrically powered vehicles to use symbols that are appropriate for indicating electric power reserve.

FMVSS 101 S5.2.3 requires that information pertaining to fuel level be identified by the fuel level symbol found in Table 2 of FMVSS 101 or by the corresponding word: FUEL. This identification appears quite appropriate for traditional ICE vehicles that consume combustible fuels. However, the GMEV will not use combustible fuel; rather, it will rely on electrical energy stored in its battery packs. In this context the fuel symbol is inappropriate and potentially misleading.

As currently planned, the GMEV will be equipped with a gauge that will monitor battery charge as a percent of full charge. This gauge is to be identified by a symbol substantially similar to that found in FMVSS 101 Table 2 for Electrical Charge. We believe that this type of gauge is more appropriate for Electric Vehicles (EVs). It will allow the operator to readily monitor electric power remaining in the batteries and will serve as the functional equivalent of a fuel gauge found in traditional ICE vehicles.

It should be noted that the GMEV is being designed for domestic and international sale. In order to optimize cost effectiveness, it is imperative that we harmonize requirements whenever possible. To that end, we have reviewed our current design strategy for the "electric fuel" gauge with the appropriate European agencies. They have agreed that the ISO fuel symbol is inappropriate to indicate "electric fuel" and that a more appropriate symbol is the ISO battery symbol.

Therefore, we request the agency's concurrence that EVs are permitted to utilize symbols that are appropriate for identifying electric power reserve and not the FMVSS 101 fuel level symbol.

OIL PRESSURE REQUIREMENTS Proposed Interpretation: Allow the "Service Soon" telltale to indicate loss of powertrain oil pressure for the GMEV.

FMVSS 101 S5.2.3 requires information pertaining to oil pressure be indicated by the oil pressure symbol found in Table 2 of FMVSS 101 or by the corresponding word: OIL.

As currently planned, the GMEV will be equipped with a "Service Soon" telltale which will light in the event of a malfunction that could eventually cause damage to the vehicle powertrain, but does not require immediate attention. GM proposes to light this telltale in the event of a loss of oil pressure to the powertrain. We believe this to be a more appropriate telltale because the GMEV can continue to be driven without oil pressure.

The GMEV powertrain consists of an electric motor which drives a single speed transmission. Lubricating oil, contained in a reservoir below the powertrain, is splashed onto the gears and bearings of the powertrain by the motion of the vehicle and the turning of the transmission gears. Under normal conditions, the splashing oil sufficiently lubricates most of the powertrain pans except for the rear motor bearing. Oil is supplied to the rear bearing by an oil pump.

While a loss of oil pressure in traditional ICE vehicles causes significant damage in a very short period of time, a loss of oil pressure in the GMEV is not a catastrophic event. The normal motion of the GMEV supplies sufficient oil for it to continue to operate for some time. We estimate the GMEV would be able to operate approximately 500 miles without sustaining serious damage to the powertrain. This is a significant distance, especially for this commuter vehicle which has a maximum range between recharging of far less than 500 miles.

In the event of a loss of oil pressure, activating a traditional oil pressure telltale could send the wrong message to the operator of a GMEV. In its traditional context, an active oil pressure telltale means that severe engine damage is imminent. An explanation of low oil pressure found in a typical GM owner's manual of an ICE vehicle reads as follows:

CAUTION: An engine low on oil can catch fire. You could be seriously burned. If your oil warning light stays on, don't keep driving. Check your oil immediately and have the problem corrected.

The appropriate action by the operator is to stop the vehicle immediately, turn the engine off and correct the underlying condition.

In the event of a loss of oil pressure in the GMEV, the preceding action is not appropriate. It is not necessary for the driver to pull over immediately to prevent damage to the powertrain. Even if the operator did pull over, the oil could not be checked because the GMEV does not require traditional routine oil maintenance and therefore, is not equipped with an oil dip stick.

Therefore, in the event of a loss of oil pressure, we believe it is appropriate to light the "Service Soon" telltale which indicates that service is needed, but immediate action by the driver is not required.

FMVSS 105 PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS

GM has previously submitted a letter from Mr. R. A. Rogers to the agency (USG 2886, dated July 2, 1991) which describes the brake system planned for the GMEV. This brake system consists of front hydraulic disc service brakes, rear electric drum service and parking brakes, four wheel ABS, and regenerative braking. USG 2886 also describes the regulatory requirements within FMVSS 105 which must be addressed, either through interpretation or rulemaking, to facilitate introduction of the GMEV brake system. A copy of USG 2886, Part III with the cover letter and the information for which confidential treatment is requested removed, is attached to this document. (Note: The content of USG 2886 Part III is identical to that which was originally submitted as USG 2886, July 1991; however, the document has been revised to reduce the portions for which GM continues to request confidential treatment. There are a few very minor inaccuracies in this document with respect to current design intent for the GMEV brake system. These slight differences in the brake system do not affect the FMVSS 105 interpretations being requested. It is likely that additional minor changes in the brake system will occur as it is refined. GM will keep the agency advised of any changes which have new FMVSS implications.)

GM's request for interpretations, as described in USG 2886, Part III, have not changed, so we respectfully request that the agency refer to the attachment for a detailed discussion of the issues which we propose be addressed by interpretation. A summary follows:

PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS:

1. The GMEV parking brake is mechanically retained in accordance with the requirements of S5.2

2. The GMEV brake system is a "split service brake system" consisting of four subsystems, one at each wheel.

3. The four service brake subsystems may be certified to the requirements of S5.1.2 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.9.1 through S7.9.3 by disabling each subsystem in a way that does not affect the other three subsystems.

4. The GMEV brake system may be certified to the requirements of S5.1.3 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.10 by functionally disabling the Brake Control Unit (BCU). Such a procedure will completely disable the brake power assist, and since the electric motors within the hydraulic unit and the rear brake drums are separately disabled during S5.1.2 testing, there is no need to separately consider these electric motors when certifying to the requirements of S5.1.3.

5. The GMEV brake system may be certified to the requirements of S5.5 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.9.4 by functionally disabling the BCU. Since such a procedure will completely disable ABS and the variable proportioning function, no other testing is required in connection with S5.5.

6. Assuming the conditions established in proposed S6.2, regenerative braking is permitted to function normally when conducting the test procedures of S7. In particular, the phrase "service brakes shall be capable of stopping" (found in S5.1.4 and S5.1.5, for example) is not to be construed as prohibiting the normal operation for regenerative braking.

There is one additional FMVSS 105 interpretation that we would now request which was not discussed in USG 2886:

BRAKE TELLTALE ILLUMINATION

Proposed Interpretation: In addition to the explicit conditions for activation of the brake telltale set forth in S5.3 of the standard, permit illumination of the service brake telltale when an impending or latent brake system malfunction is detected during electrical diagnosis.

S5.3.1 of FMVSS 105 prescribes the conditions during which the brake telltale shall be illuminated. This section requires that the telltale illuminate when there is a gross loss of hydraulic pressure (or, alternatively, a drop in fluid level), a total functional electrical failure in the ABS or variable proportioning brake system, or when the parking brake is applied. On the GMEV, the brake telltale will illuminate whenever these prescribed conditions exist. However, a diagnostic capability will also exist to detect faults in the brake system which do not cause any of the conditions explicitly listed in S5.3.1. That is, a fault may be detected in a redundant component that does not affect brake system performance. However, such a fault would leave the brake system vulnerable to a single additional failure that could substantially diminish braking capability.

A specific example of this with respect to the GMEV's brake system could be a stuck solenoid within the hydraulic unit. Such a failure would not necessarily have an effect on brake system performance, nor would any of the explicit conditions listed in S5.3.1 be exhibited. Yet such a fault would decrease the overall reliability of the brake system and make the system more vulnerable to a significant degradation in performance should a second failure occur.

We believe that the opportunity should be afforded to alert the driver to brake system faults of the nature described above. Accordingly, we request the agency's concurrence that the language of S5.3.1 allows for illumination of the brake telltale when a fault is detected which INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD of a substantial degradation in brake system performance, even if the fault in question does not strictly fall into any of the categories listed in that section of FMVSS 105.

SUMMARY

GM would be pleased to discuss with the agency any of the issues that we propose be handled through interpretation. Our overriding interest is to provide the agency with the information it needs to quickly resolve any and all compliance questions involving the applicability of FMVSS 101 and 105 to the GMEV so that design work can continue and plans to offer the GMEV to the public can be carried out promptly.

We appreciate the NHTSA's consideration of these proposed interpretations. If the agency has any questions or requires additional information please contact me at (313) 974-1704.

Attachment

USG 2938 - Attachment 1 -- USG 2886 Part III. (Text omitted here.)

ID: nht92-9.40

DATE: January 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Terry Semprini -- Executive Director, Cycle Country Accessories Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/10/91 from Terry Semprini to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6779)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 10, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking whether a lighting device developed by your company, "is legal to run in all of the United States."

From the pictures you enclosed, we note that your device is a diamond-shape lamp, incorporating six amber lamps which form right and left turn signals. In addition, four red lamps are used for stop and hazard warning lamp purposes. These lamps are arranged in a V shape at the top of the device, and an inverted V at the bottom. In the photos you enclosed, the device appears installed near the top of the truck, to the left of the vertical centerline, midway between the centerline and the left edge of the vehicle. It appears that the intent of this device is, in the position depicted, to serve as the vehicle's turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and stop lamps in the event that the original equipment lamps were obscured by one or more intervening vehicles. This would occur were the stop lamps and turn signal lamps mounted at the bottom of the vehicle body, as depicted in your photographs.

By way of background information, Section 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR S571.108). Standard No. 108 applies to new motor vehicles and to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of original equipment lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. As noted above, it appears that your company's lighting device would be offered as an aftermarket item to supplement, not replace, the original equipment lamps. Assuming this is the case, Standard No. 108 would not directly apply to your company's lighting device and your company would not be required to certify that the lighting device conforms with Standard No. 108.

Even though Standard No. 108 does not appear to directly apply to this lighting device, there is a provision of the Safety Act that applies to the installation of after market items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an

applicable safety standard. The effect of this provision is to make it unlawful for any of the named commercial establishments to add or replace any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment on a motor vehicle if the commercial establishment knows or should know that the addition of the aftermarket lighting equipment results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108.

It appears that your company's lighting device would "render inoperative" the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness.

First, we note that the device as positioned fails to fulfill basic locational requirements of Standard No. 108 that rear lamps be installed one on each side of the vertical centerline and as far apart as practicable. The signal sent by these lamps could therefore be perceived as conflicting or unclear when viewed simultaneously with the original equipment lamps.

Second, we note that the hazard warning system of the device operates through the stop lamps rather than through the turn signal system as is the case with original equipment. This means that a viewer could be faced with the necessity of interpreting the meaning of simultaneously flashing red and amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle, as well as the meaning of the original stop lamps should the brakes also be applied.

Finally, we note that the stop lamp portion of the device, two lamps forming a V and two more an inverted V, form a lighting array that the public does not associate as a traditional stop lamp system, usually circular or rectangular lamps. Thus, a viewer to the rear could be faced with a momentary delay in interpreting the meaning of the simultaneous appearance of light from the stop lamps, and from the auxiliary device mounted to the left of center on the rear of the vehicle.

For the above reasons, we view your device as having the potential to render inoperative certain rear lamps required on trailers by Standard No. 108. Accordingly, it would be a violation of Federal law for any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop to install your company's lighting device on a customer's trailer.

This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may add lighting devices or make other modifications to their own vehicles without violating any provision of Federal law, even if the owner's modifications result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108. However, the individual States are free to establish whatever restrictions, if any, they deem appropriate on individual owner modifications. Thus, a State or States might choose to prohibit individual owners from equipping their trailers with your company's lighting device. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States. You can obtain further information on State laws by writing to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht92-9.41

DATE: January 23, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert W. Smith -- President, Auto Safety Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/20/91 from Robert W. Smith to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 20, 1991.

In replying to your previous letter on November 19, I observed that "we are uncertain of the effect, if any, that the installation of your combination license plate frame/supplementary stop lamp would have upon conformance of a vehicle's license plate lamp(s) with the requirements of Standard No. 108." You have replied that "our engineering precludes any physical interference and obstruction of visibility of the vehicle's license plate," hoping that "this explanation clears up your uncertainty about the operation of our device." You have asked for "a response from your office to that effect."

We appreciate your assurance that your device does not result in any physical interference and obstruction of visibility. However, the device must not affect conformance with the incident light requirements as well. When installed on a vehicle, a license plate lamp must conform with SAE Standard J587 OCT81 License Plate Lamps (Rear Reqistration Plate Lamps). Conformance with the incident light requirements is determined with the lamp in the license plate holder. If the lamp in its holder conforms to J587 with your device installed, then you may be satisfied that we have no further concern.

I enclose a copy of SAE J587 for your reference.

Attachment

Copy of SAE J587. (Text omitted)

ID: nht92-9.42

DATE: January 22, 1992

FROM: Gordon W. Didier -- Butzel Long

TO: Office of the General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gordon W. Didier (A39; Std. 118)

TEXT:

We are counsel for a United States manufacturer of automobile sunroofs. Included among our client's production are sunroofs incorporating power operated roof panels which are affected by the amendments to Standard No. 118 to become effective September 1, 1992. Our client is proceeding with development and production of an automobile sunroof product which will comply with the requirements of Standard No. 118 under both Sections S4 and S5 of the Standard, as described below.

The power operated roof panel system of this sunroof incorporates a feature which can be set to automatically close the roof panel when the ignition key is turned to the "off" position. In addition, the sunroof will incorporate a feature which provides for an express close of the roof panel system while the ignition key is in the "on," "start" or "accessory" position upon the one-time activation of actuation control within the interior of the vehicle. During operation of either of these closing methods, the roof panel system will reverse direction when it meets a resistive force of 22 pounds or more as specified in Section S5 of amended Standard No. 118.

In addition to the automatic close and express close features described above, this same sunroof will also incorporate an override feature which provides for closing of the roof panel system upon continuous activation of an actuation control within the interior of the vehicle while the ignition key is in the "on," "start" or "accessory" position. When this feature is in operation and the actuation control is continuously activated, the roof panel system will not reverse direction when it meets a resistive force of 22 pounds or more since the control on the interior of the vehicle will be continuously activated as provided under Section S4 of amended Standard No. 118.

Many owners of sunroof equipped vehicles rely on opening the roof panel systems for ventilation during the winter months. It is important that they be able to close the roof panels as necessary for safety, comfort and security despite any accumulation of ice or snow. This override feature is essential in order to ensure that the roof panel system will be able to be closed after being opened under winter weather conditions when the tracks of the sunroof may become covered with ice or snow. However, the closing force necessary to overcome a resistive force of 22 pounds or more will only be available upon continuous activation of the actuation control within the vehicle while the ignition is in the "on," "start" or "accessory" position.

We have reviewed these design features with technical personnel in the Agency's Office of Crash Avoidance and understand that they believe these features will comply fully with the requirements of amended Standard No. 118. However, we will also appreciate receiving written confirmation from the Agency that these features will be in compliance with the new amendments to Standard No. 118.

Please call me if you have any questions or if I can provide any further information, and I will look forward to your earliest response.

ID: nht92-9.43

DATE: January 22, 1992

FROM: Cliff Chuang -- President, Prospects Corporation

TO: Dorothy Nakama -- Legal Counsel, Chief Counsel Office, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request of An Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Cliff Chuang (A39; Std. 118)

TEXT:

We have reviewed the FMVSS 118 rule published on April 16, 1991. It gives car manufacturers and automotive suppliers with substantial design flexibility to improve the vehicle power window and sunroof operation.

Prospects Corporation has developed a window/roof system (AEM: Automobile Environment Management) that provides many useful new features to help consumers to solve several of their automotive problems. One of the features is that the system can close all windows in a parked vehicle when unexpected rain occurs to avoid water damage.

Prospects is currently marketing this system to automobile manufacturers. The initial reception in the OEM market is very positive. However, a few OEM customers have asked a question regarding the AEM system complying with the FMVSS 118 rule. Their concern is that there is no "automatic" word in the section S5 (a) of the FMVSS 118 rule. In order for them to feel comfortable using the AEM system, a written interpretation from your office is necessary to clarify the AEM rain sensing close with pressureless anti-pinch safety feature complies with FMVSS 118.

The AEM system has a PRESSURELESS infrared anti-pinch safety protection feature. If the obstruction is detected before the automatic close, the system will refuse to activate the close operation. If an obstruction is detected while the window or roof is in closing operation, the system will stop and reverse open the window at least 200 mm immediately. If the safety sensing mechanism malfunctions, the system will disable the rain close feature. Because of the photo sensing technology, there is no pressure force is applied on the objection, therefore, the resistive force will be much less than 22 pounds, and in most cases, there is no extra resistive force.

The section S5 (a) of FMVSS 118 says: ".... may close: (1) Upon the one-time activation of a locking system on the exterior of the vehicle, (2) Upon the one-time activation of any remote actuation device, or (3) Upon continuous activation of any remote actuation device capable of closing the power window, partition or roof panel from a distance of more than 20 feet from the vehicle."

From the function definition, the AEM rain sensing close feature falls in the S5 (a)(1) description. Assuming a vehicle is equipped with the AEM system, and the driver decided to close the windows if unexpected rain occurs on a hot summer day during parking, so that he selected the Automatic Mode of AEM (the locking system, its control switch is on the dashboard or door panel). When rain drops triggered the AEM moisture sensor, the system closed the

windows with one-time activation. In this case, we interpret that this driver is CLOSING the vehicle windows by using a "locking system" (AEM) on the exterior of the vehicle, per S5 (a) (1) of FMVSS 118.

The AEM system brings an innovation to benefit consumers: they now have a choice of venting the hot air out of their cars in the appropriate parking environment, and close the windows when it becomes necessary (rain occurs). Because of the requirement for clarification from our OEM customers, we need your office to provide a written reply as soon as possible. Your earliest reply will significantly help this innovation become available to public consumers.

I am looking forward to your written reply.

Attachment

PROSPECTS CORPORATION AEM System Active Infrared Sensing Safety Protection Mechanism

September 20, 1991

The AEM system provides a safety feature that will ensure the vehicle window close operations: - Automatic close due to rain sensing; - Security close when the ignition key is removed; - "l-touch" express close while driving.

The safety mechanism includes several infrared sensors and emitors that will detect the upper window frame areas for obstructions just before and during the above close operations.

Before the AEM system commands the windows to do one of the above three close operations, the infrared device will perform the obstruction detection function. If an object is detected between a particular window frame and the window glass, the AEM system will not issue the close operation common to that window.

If the pre-checking has passed, the windows will begin to express close. The infrared devices will continue to work during the window closing process. Any point, if an object is detected between an upper window frame and the upward moving window glass, the AEM system will immediately stop that window and reverse it to open 200mm regardless of whether the window glass reaches the object or not.

If for any reason the infrared safety devices malfunction, the AEM system has the capability to perform a diagnostic test. It will detect the device malfunction on the particular window(s) and then disable the Express close, Security close, and Automatic close functions for that window(s). Therefore, the potential injury will be completely eliminated with this strict safety algorithm.

The same principle is being applied to the sunroof operation to eliminate the potential safety liability from the manufacturer.

Attached are 5 drawing diagrams to detail the method and mechanism that will ensure the safe operation with the advanced AEM system.

** (Prospects Corporation has filed a U.S. patent application for this device)

(Drawings, photos and text omitted.)

ID: nht92-9.44

DATE: January 22, 1992

FROM: Paul N. Wagner -- President, Bornemann Products Incorporated

TO: Harry Thompson -- Enforcement, Chief Vehicle Division, NHTSA; Barry Felrice -- Assn. Admin. for Rulemaking, NHTSA; Patricia Brescin -- Dir. Office of Vehicle Safety Std.; Steve Kratzke -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Jim Simons -- Plans & Policy, NHTSA; Bob Hellmuth -- Director Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

COPYEE: Nick Bilello

TITLE: Re: F.M.V.S.S. #208

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/2/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Paul N. Wagner (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to attempt to clarify some questions revolving around the application of F.M.V.S.S. #208 to the light truck industry, primarily those built in MULTIPLE stages, such as van conversions.

Last year, our firm, and others, traveled to the Agency AND worked with the automotive companies to achieve compliance with the dynamic requirements of F.M.V.S.S. #208 for light trucks, for our part in the van and pick-up truck industry. This involved vehicles manufactured in more than one stage.

In virtually all instances of communication during 1991 with the Agency, (including public forum contact with individuals such as your Mr. Bob Hellmuth), and the auto companies, the general response was that there would be NO EXTENSION in the application of dynamic testing (F.M.V.S.S. #208) of light trucks with a GVWR of less than 8,500 pounds and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less, effective 9/1/91.

Additionally, after proceeding with body-in-white sled testing, despite finding additional complications hampering the testing effort, our firm filed a petition with the Agency (copy attached), noting these and other problems occurring with light trucks manufactured in multiple stages. The petition itself is self-explanatory; however, it was promptly rejected as being untimely, among other things.

With this information, we proceeded with further sled AND barrier testing for compliance and liability reasons, with the research and testing costing nearly $200,000.00 in aggregate.

Now, five months after the submission of the attached petition, and three months after the Agency's rejection of said document, we have received notification (copy attached) from the trade group R.V.I.A. that indicates an extension is on the horizon.

Thus, in 1991, the general consensus from the Agency, the auto companies, R.V.I.A., N.V.C.A., and others, was that we must comply to the new requirements for all light trucks affected, with no extension possible. Now, in 1992, rumors of a possible extension are confirmed by the attached correspondence from R.V.I.A.

Please do not take this letter as a rejection of the safety aspects of F.M.V.S.S. #208, but as one of frustration of market perception. The problem at hand is not an extension, but the ultimate market confusion that exists, due to rumors and conflicting correspondence such as that enclosed.

One fair question that we believe we have is, will there or will there not be an extension of the F.M.V.S.S. #208 light truck requirements?? A timely response would be most helpful to curb the current market confusion.

There are many firms, such as Mark III Industries, and clients we work with, who have effectively put their compliance programs together in order to meet with the Agency's direction last year regarding F.M.V.S.S. #208. Many companies have hastily, but effectively, put their costly compliance programs in place, while others chose to complain and groan about F.M.V.S.S. #208, while ignoring its true safety attributes.

Arguments about F.M.V.S.S. #208 regarding light trucks can be presented at length, but what cannot be acceptable is confusion in the market regarding the status of this regulation.

We will not attempt to debate the merit of dynamic requirements for light trucks, nor will we argue over which trade group, if any, truly represents the van and truck conversion industry. We do believe, however, that because of our costly, good faith effort toward F.M.V.S.S. #208 compliance, we are entitled to a response concerning any extension of time on the above issue.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

Attachment (memorandum)

RVIA Recreation Vehicle Industry Association P.O. Box 2999 - 1896 Preston White Drive - Reston, Virginia 22090-0999 Telephone (703)620-6003 - Telefax (703)620-5071

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 17, 1992 TO: RVIA Members with 208 Interest FROM: Bruce A. Hopkins RE: NHTSA/RVIA Meeting - January 14, 1992

Automotive company representatives and the members of RVIA's FMVSS 208 Task Force and its technical subcommittee, met with key policy and enforcement officials of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to

discuss Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) on January 14 in Washington, DC.

RVIA requested the meeting to ask NHTSA officials to consider making effective dates for future amendments to FMVSS later for final stage manufacturers than for incomplete vehicle manufacturers.

Industry also wanted the opportunity to relate the substantial actions that have been taken to achieve compliance with the dynamic test requirements of 208 as well as the complex situations and problems that developed in the course of these efforts.

RVIA also requested a delay in the effective date of the already existing dynamic test requirements to FMVSS 208 until September 1, 1992. RVIA will file a formal petition for NHTSA's action.

RVIA feels that the meeting was very successful. Dave Humphreys said that NHTSA seems genuinely concerned about the problems our industry faces in complying with new FMVSS rules and is now fully aware of industry's compliance activities regarding dynamic testing and seemed please with these efforts. Humphreys expects NHTSA to grant both short and long term relief that will benefit the industry.

See the reverse side for the list of attendees.

NHTSA MEETING JANUARY 14, 1992

ATTENDEES

NHTSA Staff

Patricia Brescin Dir. Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Dan Cohen Rulemaking Barry Felrice Assn. Admin. for Rulemaking Jeff Giuseppe Office of vehicle Safety Comp. Steve Kratzke Office of Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Jim Simons Plans & Policy Harry Thompson Enforcement, Chief Vehicle Division Ken Weinstein Ass't. Chief Counsel for Litigation Steve Wood Ass,t. Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

FMVSS 208 Task Force and the Technical Subcommittee

Dusty Dickeson Seats-N-Stuff Grant Farrand Starcraft Automotive Tim Hooley Goshen Cushion, Inc. Dennis Rice Flexsteel Ind., Inc. Dave Dygert Dygert Seating Andy Verbeski Compliance Group Cliff Wieland Wieland Designs

Automotive Companies

Mick Cave General Motors Dick Humphrey GM, EA Staff, Safety Al Slechter Chrysler Corp.

Legal Consultants

Larry Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn Jerry Loftus, Esq. Jerome C. Loftus, PC

RVIA Staff

David J. Humphreys RVIA, President and General Counsel Bruce A. Hopkins RVIA, Vice President of Standards Ed Conway RVIA, Assistant General Counsel

Attachment

Petition to Redefine, Enhance or Amend Part 571, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #208, Chapter Five, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Title 49 (Text omitted)

Attachment

Letter dated 10/10/91 from Barry Felrice to Paul Wagner. (Text omitted)

ID: nht92-9.45

DATE: January 21, 1992

FROM: William F. Russo -- Margolis, Sakayan & Holtz

TO: Steven P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/18/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to William F. Russo (A39; Std. 210)

TEXT:

I am an attorney practicing in the area of automobile products liability, who is in need of your assistance in interpreting one of your agency's regulations. Specifically, I have a question concerning the definition of "Seat belt anchorage," as contained in 49 C.F.R. S 571.210 S3.

According to this provision, the definition "means the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." Basically, I need to know if this definition requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to include anchorage plates or similar devices in the car during the manufacturing process, or if it would be sufficient for the manufacturer to simply provide instructions to its customers and dealers on how to punch holes in a certain spot in the vehicle interior to create an anchorage location, should they wish to install the optional shoulder harness kit.

I hope I have stated my question clearly, but please feel free to call if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to hearing from you.

ID: nht92-9.46

DATE: January 21, 1992

FROM: William H. Spain -- Touch Wood

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to William H. Spain (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We have developed a lighting device for heavy duty trucks which may or may not fall under the purview of NHTSA statues.

We have very briefly discussed this with your Mr. Britell and Mr. Cavey, who suggested that we submit the information to you.

I am attaching a description of the device and as a separate item the way we feel the statues may or may not apply to it. Please be patient and understanding as I am not a lawyer.

I want to be clear in that we are not seeking an endorsement or even an opinion as such. We do not want to put you in the position of having to make a ruling. All we ask is your initial first impression as to whether or not we might have a problem. We have spent quite a bit of time and money on this device and are to the point of manufacture. If we have a problem then we need to stop now and back away from it. We do not intend to get into an argument over it, we will let it die first. We do however think it is a needed device that is totally in harmony with the stated purpose of 571.108 and that the device will save lives.

Realizing how very busy you must be as well as needing an indication at your earliest convenience, I have tried to keep the attached as brief as possible.

Your assistance is very much appreciated and we will be looking forward to hearing from you.

AUXILIARY LIGHTING DEVICE

As you are aware on trucks both the left and right turn signal circuits are separate from the tail lamp circuit. This device uses both the left and right turn signal circuit to act as either emergency/auxiliary tail lamps or as fog lamps. When in use neither of these new functions will interfere with normal operation of the turn signals. Each function shall be described separately.

These two new functions are controlled by a normal toggle switch mounted on the vehicle dash. In the toggle switches normal position, it is off.

It is not an uncommon occurrence for a tractor/trailer to lose its tail lamps due to a circuit or wiring malfunction. A obvious contributing factor is the constant switching of trailers between trucks. When this occurs the driver's only choice on the road is to switch on his hazard flashers which is not their intended purpose and is disconcerting to other motorists. It also defeats his normal turn signal circuits.

If our toggle switch is flipped upward to a position marked (on a nameplate) "EMERG T/LMPS", then two things happen. Firstly the center of the toggle switches lever, or paddle is illuminated and glows red. This is to remind the driver that he has something on that is not normal and to remind him to turn it off when it is no longer needed. Secondly a reduced voltage is fed through both right and left rear turn signal circuits to cause both turn signal lamps to illuminate at a reduced brilliance equal to that of a normal tail lamp. If either turn signal is activated then the full voltage is fed to that particular (left or right) lamp and the lamp flashes at its normal turn signal brilliance. To an observer the net effect is the same as normal turn signal operation (which it is).

In the event of a failure of the normal tail lamps this device provides a means of normal illumination on the vehicle's trailer and allows the driver to proceed in a safe manner to a location to have the failed, regular tail lamps repaired.

Another problem with all vehicles is reduced visibility in fog. In heavy fog the only present choice is for a motorist or trucker to activate their hazard flashers for increased rear visibility. Again this practice is disconcerting and defeats the use of normal turn signals. The European countries allow and on some trucks require a rear special fog lamp of increased brilliance for use in fog.

If our switch is flipped downward to a position marked R/FOG again two things happen. First the center of the switch will illumine red. Second a higher voltage is fed through both rear turn signal circuits to cause them to burn at approximately their full brilliance. If however either turn signal is activated then that particular (right or left) side reverts to normal turn signal operation. Therefore normal turn signal operation is not defeated.

The circuitry of our device is so configured that it automatically adjusts for the particular number of turn signal lamps on a particular truck/trailer.

STATUTES

First it shoUld be noted and considered that this device is totally in harmony with the stated purpose of 571.108.

There are obviously two directions to take in considering application of 571.108 to this device. It is very likely that 571.108 does not apply to this device. This is an auxiliary device. It does not affect those items which are required by 571.108 and auxiliary devices of this nature are not addressed by 571.108.

This device in its emergency tail lamp mode would be used only upon failure of the vehicle's regular lighting system. Its effect would be no different from the driver calling a wrecker which after hooking up would place the wrecker's own emergency tail lamps upon the rear of the towed vehicle. Obviously the wrecker's portable emergency/auxiliary tail lamps do not have to comply with 571.108 although they become the towed vehicle's tail lamps. Just as obviously they are needed on the rear of the towed vehicle on a temporary basis.

This device in its rear fog lamp mode would be two auxiliary lamps on the rear which do not interfere with normal operation of either the vehicle's normal tail lamps or turn signals. For that matter all new Jaguar automobiles imported into the U.S. come with two rear fog lamps as standard.

If however the position were to be taken that this device does fall under 571.108 then it becomes more complicated. S5.1.1.11 refers to minimum candlepower for turn signal LAMPS. This does not apply as it is common practice for manufacturers to utilize a common LAMP for both tail lamp and turn signal function. Although they do this by utilizing a dual filament bulb and dual circuits, there is no section of 571.108 requiring that this particular method be used. The net effect of our device would be identical to that of a dual filament bulb/separate circuit.

As our device does not impair the operation of any lamps required by 571.108 then we are in compliance with S5.1.3.

Whereas the normal location of rear turn signal lamps on any vehicle is assumed to be in compliance with 571.108 then these exact same lamps would also be in compliance when illuminated by our device (S5.3.1.1).

it is possible that we may have to configure our circuit in such a manner that when our switch is in the up position for emergency tail lamps it wold be on whenever the vehicle's headlamps were on. (S5.5.3).

Reference S5.5.10 (a) and when the turn signal lamps are used in conjunction with our device they are wired to flash. The lamps do not however become turn signal lamps until such time as the turn signal function is selected (by the operator). Prior to that time, the circuit, filaments, lamps, etc. can be used for other purposes as they are not turn signals until activated for that function and purpose. An example of this is the use of the turn signal circuit, filaments and lamps as stop lamps on many cars. The circuit, filaments and lamps are used in stop lamp mode until they are activated as turn signals at which time the stop lamp mode is interrupted on the appropriate side and they become turn signal lamps.

ID: nht92-9.47

DATE: January 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward F. Conway, Jr., Esq. -- Assistant General Counsel, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/14/91 from Edward F. Conway, Jr., Esq. to Jerry R. Curry

TEXT:

I have been asked to respond to your letter to Administrator Curry, in which you asked about the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, to van conversions and motor homes with raised roofs. In your letter, you suggested that the currently specified roof crush resistance test procedure is inappropriate for such vehicles because of their unique physical characteristics. Additionally, referring to the greater floor to roof height of a van conversion or motor home as compared to a typical passenger car, you questioned whether the five inch roof displacement pass/fail criteria are appropriate for these vehicles. I am pleased to have the opportunity to address these issues.

As you know, on April 17, 1991, NHTSA published a final rule extending the application of Standard No. 216 to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 (56 FR 15510). That rule requires that the roof of any such vehicles be moved not more than five inches when a force of one and a half times the vehicle's unloaded weight is applied to either side of the forward edge of the vehicle's roof. This is the same test procedure specified for passenger cars, with one exception. For passenger cars, the standard specifies applying a force of one and a half times the vehicle's unloaded weight or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less. As indicated above, the alternative 5,000 pound crush force limit that applies for passenger cars was not adopted for light trucks, buses, and MPVS.

During the rulemaking process that led to this extension of Standard No. 216, NHTSA received comments requesting that the agency consider modifying the roof crush resistance test procedure to accommodate the particular physical characteristics of some motor homes, vans and van conversions, including those with raised roofs. More specifically, some commenters including RVIA suggested that the specified test procedures could not be used to position the test device on some vehicles with raised roofs. Other commenters, especially Ford, questioned the need for a five-inch roof crush limitation for vehicles with full standing headroom and suggested that NHTSA consider relating the maximum roof crush requirement to the available occupant headroom.

After carefully evaluating these comments, NHTSA concluded that, based upon the available information, the roof crush resistance test procedure was practicable, met the need for motor vehicle safety, and was appropriate for MPVs, trucks, and buses, if those vehicles had a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. The issues identified by the commenters were

significant primarily for such vehicles with a GVWR of more than 6,000 pounds. NHTSA acknowledged that it was possible that there could be some light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less that would experience the same problems with the specified roof crush resistance test procedure as larger vehicles would. However, the agency had no information showing that those difficulties would actually be experienced by particular light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. See 56 FR 15514; April 17, 1991.

In your letter, you raised the same issues that had previously been raised in these comments; that is, you suggested that the test device could not be positioned properly on vehicles with a raised roof and that the five inch crush displacement limit was inappropriate for vehicles with a raised roof. As was the case with those comments, your letter did not provide any specific information identifying particular vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less whose physical characteristics would cause it to experience some particular compliance difficulties or testing difficulties.

If you have some information showing compliance or testing difficulties for actual light truck models with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, we would appreciate it if you would forward that information to the agency. At this time, NHTSA is not aware of any compliance or testing difficulties for light trucks subject to the extended requirements of Standard No. 216. Absent such information, NHTSA has no basis for changing its previous conclusion about the specified test procedures and requirements.