ID: 24516.ztv

Mr. James A. Haigh
Vice President of Manufacturing
Transpec Worldwide
7205 Sterling Ponds Court
Sterling Heights, MI 48312

Dear Mr. Haigh:

This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 2002, addressed to John Womack of this Office. You related that Transpec has developed an LED sign that mounts on the rear of a school bus. The device is wired into the eight-lamp school bus warning lamp system. When the amber lamps of the system are activated, the LED sign alternately flashes "Caution-Stopping." When the red lamps of the system are activated, the sign flashes "Stop" or "Do not Pass" (the photograph you enclosed depicts this mode of the device as it operates). You also related that you have searched both Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 108 and 131, and have found nothing in either that would prohibit use of your device. You asked for confirmation of your findings.

Your letter did not relate whether your device will be installed by a school bus manufacturer as part of the vehicles original lighting package, or purchased by school districts to be installed on buses already procured. Generally, we allow local school bus jurisdictions to exercise considerable discretion in prescribing lighting specifications that they deem desirable for their vehicles under local conditions. Further, even if the installation of a supplementary lighting device on vehicles in use might be prohibited by Federal law, the prohibition is nullified if the installation is performed by the owner of the vehicle (e.g., if the modification of the school bus is performed in the school districts own repair shops). Thus, our general answer to your question is that your device is not prohibited under Federal law.

However, we think it important to explain to you our views on electronic message boards and school bus lighting. The eight-lamp school bus warning system you reference is a required lighting system under S5.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 (as an alternative to a four-lamp system). Paragraph S5.1.3 prohibits the addition of lighting equipment not required by FMVSS 108 (or any other motor vehicle equipment), prior to a vehicles initial sale, if it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by FMVSS 108. The issue of whether lighted messages have an impairing effect has been the subject of frequent interpretations from this Office. For a comprehensive understanding of the issue, you may access these interpretations on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations website, www.nhtsa.gov, using the search word "message." I am enclosing two representative letters, one of mid-1995 to K. Howard Sharp and the other, dated August 4, 1997, to Alan Robinson. The letter to Mr. Sharp indicates that message-board interpretations as late as 1995 had been "cautionary in tone, rather than prohibitive." The later letter to Mr. Robinson flatly states that "electronic message boards are not permitted on motor vehicles that have been manufactured to conform to Standard No. 108." However, we are willing to make an exception in those instances where school districts have concluded that, under local conditions, an electronic message board with the messages that you described would enhance the safety of school bus passengers.

We informed Mr. Sharp that "there is less possibility of impairment existing if the message visible to a following driver is related to the lamp function that occurs simultaneously." In the case of your device, "Caution-Stopping" appears simultaneously with the flashing of the amber lamps which are generally used with the stop lamps to indicate the school bus is stopping. The messages of "Stop" and "Do not Pass," appear only when the red lamps are flashing and the school bus is stopped. Thus, we do not see that the device you describe would create an impairment within the meaning of S5.1.3.

Although FMVSS No. 131 "establishes requirements for devices that can be installed on school buses to improve the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of stopped school buses," (paragraph S1), in fact only one such device has been specified, the stop arm. You are correct that nothing in FMVSS No. 131 would prohibit the installation of your LED sign.

Enclosures

ref:108

d.8/2/02

ID: 1984-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Postal Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 3, 1984

Mr. Joel S. Premack Research and Development Laboratories U.S. Postal Service Rockville, MD 20852-8101

Dear Mr. Premack:

This responds to your March 7, 1984 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111, Rearview Mirrors. In particular, you asked whether the covering of the rear and rear-side windows on Postal Service Vehicles would be consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 111.

FMVSS 111 (copy enclosed) establishes requirements regarding rearview mirror systems on new motor vehicles. New Postal Service vehicles would be required to employ one of three optional mirror systems. The first system is a system permitted for use on passenger cars, and includes an inside review mirror with a specified field of view and a plane, driver's side exterior mirror also having a specified field of view. The second permissible system is also a passenger car system and is identical to the first system, except that the inside mirror need not provide the specified field of view and an additional passenger side plane or convex rearview mirror must be provided to compensate for the more restricted field of view of the inside mirror. The third system has two plane mirrors of 19.5 square inches reflective surface area each, one mounted on each side of the vehicle.

Based on the materials you provided with your letter, it appears that Postal Service DJ-5G Models employ the second system described above. In that case, further reduction of the field of view of the inside rearview mirror would not affect compliance with our standard, since an additional passenger side mirror is provided.

If the proposed covering of the rear windows is to be accomplished as a modification to vehicles already delivered to the Postal Service, these modifications may not be subject to FMVSS 111 at all. Modifications to vehicles must be consistent with safety standards only to the extent those modifications are performed by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or private motor vehicle repair business which knowingly renders inoperative safety equipment installed on the vehicle. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). Thus, if the window covering is done by the Postal Service itself, FMVSS requirements are not applicable.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 7, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

The Engineering Support Center of the U.S. Postal Service has been requested to consider covering over windows identified as items 1, 2, and 3 in the enclosed figure. A set of mirrors would be installed to minimize the impact on rear and side viewing. He are interested in knowing whether such a retrofit is consistent with the existing vehicle certification.

We would appreciate your review of the proposed change in window area as it pertains to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 and related effectiveness of the rear viewing mirrors. Please contact Mr. Joel Premack on 443-3257 with your assessment of this issue.

Joel S. Premack Mechanical Engineer, Program Engineer Mechanical Design/Development Branch Engineering Support Center 11711 Parklawn Drive Rockville, MD 20852-8101

Enclosure

********INSERT GRAPHIC********

AM General Corporation MODEL KJ-5G

ID: nht73-1.26

DATE: 04/23/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Hyster Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 1, 1973, to Mr. J. E. Leveath of this Office, concerning the lighting requirements for special purpose dollies and trailers as manufactured by your company.

The first vehicle in question, which you identify as a helper dolly and(Illegible Word) on page 2 of your letter, would be classified as a trailer converter dolly for purposes of determining conformance to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As such, the vehicle is excepted from the lighting requirements specificed in FMVSS No. 108 (copy enclosed). The vehicle would, however, be subject to the applicable lighting requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) regulations when it is towed alone (without an attached(Illegible Word) in interstate commorce.

The second and third vehicles in question, as shown on pages 3 and 4 of your letter, would be classified as trailers for purpose of determining conformance to FMVSS No. 108. As such, the vehicles must be equipped with lighting devices as specified in the standard. If the vehicles are 80 or more inches in overall width, front clearance lamps, installed as specified in Table II of the standard, are required. An interpretation of the term "overall width" is provided on page S 108-5 of the standard.

The requirements of FMVSS No. 108 are applicable to each new vehicle (truck, bus, trailer, etc.) as manufactured and offered for sale. The possibility that one vehicle may be operated in combination with another in no way alters the specified requirements. Vehicles operating in combination on the public highway are subject to regulations of the individual States and to BMCS regulations (for vehicles engaged in interstate commerce). BMCS regulations permit deactivation of lamps which are obscured when vehicles are operated in combination, but temporary removal of such lamps is prohibited (see 49 CFR, Sections 390.1 through 390.7, 393.14, 393.15, 393.25 and 393.26).

Should you desire additional information concerning the requirements of FMVSS No. 106, please do not hesitate to contact me. For further information on the BMCS regulations, I would suggest that you contact Mr. W. R. Fiste, Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20590.

Sincerely,

MArch 1, 1973

Edward Leyseth National Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Leyseth: We build heavy duty low bed trailers and related dollies and booster axles. I need some information concerning legal definitions of some of our vehicles and lighting equipment required by Federal Standard No. 108.

The first vehicle in question is a helper dolly, which is not a converter dolly because of load transfer and kingpin, but is similar in appearance and use (see page 2). What is the legal definition of this vehicle and what lighting equipment is required? What lighting is required by a converter dolly?

also build beam frame trailers designed for hauling large machinery, usually tracked, which straddle the frame to keep the load low and the trailer light (see page 3). Does this trailer require a front clearance light directly in front of the undercarriage? The trailer shown is a folding gooseneck type and is 5 ft. wide across the frame.

Next is a booster dolly, which is a hydraulically loaded trailing axle or axles articulated at the rear of the trailer. The frame comes to a point similar to tow type trailer tongue at the point of articulation (see page 4). What is the legal definition of this unit? Are front side marker and clearance lights required?

Also, can lights be temporarily removed when another vehicle in a combination prevents their visibility (e.g., the rear lights on a trailer are removed when a helper dolly is attached and replaced when the trailer is pulled alone)? Any information you could give me would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

HYSTER COMPANY --

Jim Glover,

Project Engineer

ID: nht95-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 12, 1995

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

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: In Re: Saline Electronics

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO JEFFREY ECHT (REDBOOK(4)); STD. 108 AND 30122 (6)

TEXT: Saline Electronics, Inc., has developed and applied for a United States patent on a new type of automotive stop lamp system. During normal braking, this new system permits the stop lamps, which are original equipment, to operate in a steady burning mode . However, during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration, the system flashes the stop lamps it controls on and off. The flashing stop lamps could be the original equipment stop lamps required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ( FMVSS) No. 108 (49CFR571.108), or one or more lamps in addition to those required by FMVSS No. 108.

The purpose of this letter is to obtain clarification of the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with respect to our new system. We realize that individual states may regulate such devices, causing non-Federal limitati ons upon its use.

Apparently, deceleration warning systems, such as ours, are not specifically mentioned in FMVSS No. 108. Yet, in an interpretative letter, dated July 30, 1993, to the Virginia Transportation Research Council, the NHTSA stated:

Virginia could permit the use of a red or amber original equipment deceleration warning system operating in a steady burning mode through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones.

In the same interpretative letter, you also indicated that "unless otherwise provided by Section 5.5.10 [of FMVSS 108], all original motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether or not required by Standard No. 108, must be steady burning in use."

These interpretations suggest room for experimentation by governmental agencies with our new system, and also the possibility of aftermarket products designed for installation by the individual motor vehicle owners. Hence, we seek your opinion on the fo llowing questions, based solely upon Federal law:

1. May states specifically permit (by statute or regulation) the use of deceleration warning systems which are neither original equipment nor replacements for original equipment? For example, may states specifically permit the use of an aftermarket dec eleration warning system which a) permits all original equipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 to operate in a normal steady burning mode, and b) flashes one aftermarket center-mounted stop lamp or two side-mounted stop lamps, on vehicles not requ ired to be so equipped?

2. In the absence of state regulation of flashing deceleration warning systems, is it lawful for individuals, states or municipalities to install such systems on their vehicles, provided they do not alter the steady burning operation of the original equ ipment stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108? For example, may mass transist districts operate busses with flashing deceleration warning lamps, if the systems are installed by their own mechanics and the steady burning operation of the original equipment stop lamps is not altered? May individuals install such equipment on their own vehicles?

3. May individuals, states or municipalities, who are not manufacturers, distributors or motor vehicle repairs businesses, lawfully install flashing deceleration warning systems which would prevent the original equipment stop lamps from steadily burning during and after episodes of high, braking-induced deceleration? For example, may a mass transit district install a deceleration warning system which would flash some or all of the original equipment stop lamps during and after rapid deceleration due t o hard braking, if the system were installed by its own mechanics?

We know that the NHTSA receives many requests for interpretation and petitions for rule making with regard to vehicle lighting. We appreciate your consideration of our request and thank you for your prompt action. Saline Electronics, Inc., has no objec tion to this letter and your response becoming a part of the public record.

ID: 06-007886rls

ID: 07-000527es-as

ID: 86-6.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James R. Mitzenberg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James R. Mitzenberg Product Safety Engineer The Flexible Corporation 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, OH 13015

Dear Mr. Mitzenberg:

Forgive our delay in replying to your letter of August 21, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, with respect to a deceleration warning system you have been asked to install as original equipment on city transit buses However, on the basis of the information you provided Taylor Vinson of this Office in a phone call on August 13, 1986, we have a better understanding of the system described.

The system as described consists of three amber lamps mounted on the vertical centerline below the rear window. They provide a steady-burning light when the ignition is "on," and when the accelerator is released. They are extinguished when the accelerator is depressed. We have concluded that these aspects of the system are not prohibited by paragraph S4.1.3, which you cited, and which forbids the installation of equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

However, there are two further aspects to the system. The amber lights are also extinguished when the brakes are applied and the normal stop lamps are illuminated, but if the brake application continues for at least 3 seconds the amber lamps will flash at a rate of approximately 60 cycles a minute. You have cited paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108 which requires all vehicle lights to be steady-burning, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, and side marker lamps and headlamps that are flashed for signaling purposes. We have interpreted S4.6 as applying to all lighting equipment on non-emergency vehicles, and not just the equipment required by the standard. This means that the deceleration system must be steady-burning in every mode. There is a good reason for this requirement, as simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion in vehicles to the rear of the bus, and impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4.1.3.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 21, 1985

Mr. Jeffery R. Miller Office or Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Flexible Corporation, a manufacturer or city transit buses, has been requested by several city transit authorities to install a rear deceleration warning light system. These customers have demanded factory installation and operational hook-up of this deceleration warning light system. Other bus manufacturers are supplying such systems without question. Due to this, and by our not agreeing to install the system and make it fully operational, we have found ourselves to be at s distinct marketing disadvantage. We are concerned about certifying our vehicle to FMVSS 108 with an OEM installation or this deceleration light system.

The deceleration light system specified for installation on our bus is manufactured by Safety Development Systems, Haines, Oregon and requires installation on the rear centerline of our bus. See Attachment 11 which depicts the proposed installation method. The housing contains three horizontally aligned amber lights. These amber lights would be installed and operated independently from our normal rear lights and reflectors, which are required FMVSS 108 equipment. These three amber lights operate as described below:

A. When the ignition is "on", the amber lights are illuminated, burning.

B. When the accelerator is depressed, the amber lights are extinguished.

C. When the accelerator is released, the amber lights are illuminated, steady burning, and remain illuminated as long as the accelerator is released.

D. When the brake is applied, the amber lights are extinguished and the normal red atop lights are illuminated. If the brake is continually applied /or three seconds or more, the amber deceleration lights will flash (approximately 60 cycles per minute).

E. The normal amber (red color is optional) rear turn signal could then be illuminated simultaneously with the stop lights and the deceleration lights.

Paragraph S4.6 of FMVSS 108 provides that required signaling lamps shall flash when activated and all other lamps shall be steady burning, except that means mar be provided to flash headlights and side marker lights for signaling purposes.

Paragraph S4.1.3 or FMVSS 108 provides that no additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness or lighting equipment required by this standard.

In order that we may be customer responsive, we request an interpretation from NHTSA concerning any non-compliance with FMVSS 108 on an OEM installation of these deceleration warning lights functioning as described above.

Sincerely,

James R. Mitzenberg Product Safety Engineer

ID: 86-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Michael Love

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager Porsche Cars North America. Inc. 200 South Virginia Street Reno, NV 89501

Dear Mr. Love:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office, with respect to an aftermarket center high-mounted stop lamp kit that Porsche wishes to offer through its dealer network.

You initially reference the preamble of August 31, 1984 (49 FR 34488) in which NHTSA stated that it would study the request of General Motors to supply an aftermarket kit "and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use". You ask the following questions:

"1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?"

NHTSA has not proceeded to the study referenced because it subsequently decided such a study was unnecessary for the reasons set forth in our answer to your second question.

"2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?"

NHTSA does not consider that any Federal impediments exist to the sale, installation, and use of such aftermarket devices, and further is not aware at this time of any State impediments to such sale, installation and use. However, we strongly recommend that these devices be designed to comply as closely as possible with those meeting Federal requirements. For example, a State may have a law prohibiting interior-mounted lamps that cause reflections on the rear window; Standard No. 108 requires original equipment center high-mounted stop lamps to be provided with means to minimize such reflections, and aftermarket lamps should also be so designed to minimize reflections in order to comply with the State requirement.

"3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?"

NHTSA believes that retrofitting passenger cars with a center high-mounted stop lamp meeting original equipment specifications will prove to be as beneficial in reducing the incidence of low speed rear end collisions as in the population of passenger cars on which it has been installed as original equipment, and NHTSA encourages such retrofit. However, NHTSA's research study did not include other types of motor vehicles such as buses, trucks, and trailers though intuitively the concept would appear to have some merit.

(4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any States passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights?"

No.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

Z. Taylor Vinson Office of Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

Due to customer demand, Porsche AG is considering offering through Porsche Cars North America, Inc., a Center High Mounted Stop Light (CHMSL) aftermarket kit for sale and installation by its Dealer network.

This kit would be intended for installation on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1985 and not originally equipped with a CHMSL. Porsche has several questions regarding the language in the supplementary information for the August 31, 1984 final rule on FMVSS 108, 49 FR 34488. It states:

"GM further commented that the proposal did not address the after market package which General Motors had intended to make available through our dealers, since it only speaks of passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1989 and September 1, 1985".

Also,

"The agency was not aware that GM had intended to offer an aftermarket package until receiving its comment. Such an amendment would be outside the scope of the proposal, and accordingly, was not considered. Under paragraph S4.7.1, the standard covers the aftermarket only to the extent that GM (or any manufacturer) offers a lamp intended as replacement for an original equipment center high-mounted stop lamp. However, to encourage retrofit in the aftermarket, NHTSA will study GM's request and consider whatever legal action may be required to remove impediments to the lamp's use".

Specifically,

1) What is the result of NHTSA's study of GM's request?

2) What impediments are there to the sale, installation and use of an aftermarket CHMSL?

3) Does NHTSA advocate the sale and installation in the aftermarket of CHMSL retrofit kits by original vehicle manufacturers for vehicles not covered by the requirements of FMVSS 108?

4) Does NHTSA know of or anticipate any states passing requirements for aftermarket CHMSL's that are more stringent than those required by FMVSS 108 for original equipment lights:

Respectfully,

Michael Love Safety Compliance Manager

cc: Kurt Meier

ML/ma

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: nht76-1.16

DATE: 10/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Alfred Teves GMBH (Teves) petition of April 9, 1976, for amendment of S5.2.1 of Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to eliminate the striping requirement in the case of hose used in assemblies that have "keyed" end fittings at both ends. We interprete "keyed" fittings to mean those that can be installed in only one (or possibly several) orientation(s) to the vehicle.

This is to advise you that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined to grant Teves' petition with regard to hose that is assembled into an assembly whose fittings permit their installation into the vehicle in only one orientation. Detailed reasons for the limitations expressed in this letter will accompany any notice that proposes this change.

You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information in accordance with statutory criteria.

Your letter incorrectly characterized the amendment of S5.2.2 that was proposed in Notice 19 of docket 1-5 (40 FR 55365, November 28, 1975) and made final in Notice 21 (41 FR 28505, July 12, 1976). The amendment only stated that the labeling required on hose need not be present after the hose has become part of a brake hose assembly or after it has been installed in a motor vehicle. The conclusion in the second paragraph of your letter that ". . . brake hose does not require labelling according to S5.2.2. . ." is therefore incorrect.

With regard to your comments on Standard No. 116, Brake Fluids, I assume that you were referring to the agency's proposed definition of "brake fluid" published on December 5, 1975 (40 FR 56928). I also assume that the phrase "polychloroprene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock" in the proposed definition led you to conclude that only polychloroprene inner tube stock would be allowed for brake hose construction. This is incorrect. All of the materials specified in the definition, including SBR, EPR, CR, and NR, are considered suitable for use in brake hoses.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

Welfred M. Redler, P. E. -- Office of Crash Avoidance

April 9, 1976 PETITION

Ref.: Amendment to Standards FMVSS 106 49 CFR Part 571, Docket No. 1-5, Notice 19

In notice 19 DOT has proposed that S.5.2.2 should be altered, in that, the labeling information could be eliminated as soon as the brake hose becomes a brake hose assembly. According to S.5.2.1 the hose manufacturer was given the option to interrupt the 2 stripes by information according to S.5.2.2 and additional information.

We understand this DOT recommendation to mean that in future permanent brake assemblies do not require labelling information so long as the manufacturer documents all hoses before assembly. i.e the brake hose does not require labelling according to S.5.2.2 because the hoses are documented and can thereby always be identified

Notice 19 indicates that our interpretation in assuming the above is correct. Provided that our interpretation is correct then, we are in agreement with the proposed amendment and endorse it.

Although the deleting of S.5.2.2 for brake hoses used in permanent brake hose assemblies is apparent, the requirement S.5.2.1 which states: "each hydraulic brake hose shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes" is still required for brake hoses not part of a brake hose assembly.

The stripes are a visible indication of hose twisting during assembly. We are convinced that the brake hose marking would be unnecessary if the brake hose assembly could, by mechanical means, be prevented from twisting during and after installation. This mechanical means would eliminate the necessity of having two marking stripes.

Taking into account the foregoing we petition that S.5.2.1. should be amended to require the two marking stripes only when this mechanical means is not a part of the brake hose assembly in both ends.

We propose that FMVSS 106 should be amended as follows:

S.5.2.1 Each hydraulic brake hose, with the exception of those brake hose assemblies which have keyed ends (preventing twisting during and after instalation), shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opp. . . .

This amendment would prevent the unnecessary duplication of safety requirements thereby keeping costs to a minimum.

Ref.: FMVSS 116 49 CFR 571 116 Docket No. 71-13

The formulation of the definition S.4. suggests that brake hose inner tube stock must be of polychloroprene (CR). We have been using SBR for our inner tubes for years with excellent results. Naturally they meet the USA Standard FMVSS 106 and also have US approval through AAMVA based on a certificate from the independent test laboratory "ETL".

As the US standards FMVSS 106 has never objected to our brake hose material with regards to its properties and suitability for use in its designed environment we fail to understand why SBR together with the other materials EPR, EPDM, buthyl etc. are not considered suitable for use as brake hose inner tube.

May we suggest therefore that the definition S4 be formulated in such a way that this point is more clearly defined. In our opinion this should be changed to cover all materials which have a stable resistance to brake fluid.

Yours faithfully -- ALFRED TEVES GMBH