ID: nht92-7.22

DATE: April 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George F. Reuss -- Reuss Engineers, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/92 from George F. Reuss to Barry Felrice

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to Barry Felrice, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, concerning your recently patented vehicle that is designed to transport passenger cars. You requested information about which specific regulations and standards would be applicable to your vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing the agency's general information fact sheet for new manufacturers and a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures," which summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to various vehicle types.

You explained that your vehicle consists of a chassis with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds and a structural frame between the cab and rear wheels. This frame includes moveable forks that can be extended from the framework and inserted beneath a passenger car's tires. The forks can be raised and retracted into the framework, thus allowing your vehicle to transport the passenger car.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. I note that you may be considered a "final-stage manufacturer" under Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, because you purchase the chassis.

Section 102 (3) of the Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

Based on the description in your letter, it appears that your vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. More specifically, it appears that your vehicle would be considered a "truck" under the agency's regulations. The term "truck" is defined, at 49 CFR Part 571.3, as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

Accordingly, your vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds and be certified as conforming to those standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-7.23

DATE: April 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen E. Selander -- Legal Staff, GM

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/17/92 from Stephen E. Selander to Paul Jackson Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your February 17, 1992 request for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, Controls and Displays and No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, as those standards would apply to an electric vehicle (GMEV) that General Motors (GM) is preparing to sell in the future. You requested the agency's concurrence with, or guidance regarding, nine proposed interpretations. Your questions are addressed below.

Before discussing the substantive issues that you raised, I note that you requested confidential treatment for portions of certain materials that you provided relating to the brake system planned for the electric vehicle. These materials were previously submitted to NHTSA, and the agency granted confidentiality for portions of the materials in letters dated July 18, 1991 and August 12, 1991. In a letter accompanying your request for interpretation, GM released from its request for confidential treatment portions of the materials for which confidentiality had previously been granted. NHTSA's earlier grants of confidentiality remain in effect for the remaining portions for which GM continues to seek confidential treatment. Accordingly, this letter does not cite any of the confidential information.

I also note that, in one of the attachments to your letter, you suggested several amendments to Standard No. 105 that you believe would facilitate the introduction of electric vehicles. As you know, NHTSA recently issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit comments to help the agency determine what existing standards may need modification to meet the needs associated with the introduction of electric vehicles and what new standards may have to be written specifically for electric vehicles. See 56 FR 67038, December 27, 1991. We will consider your recommendations concerning Standard No. 105 as we evaluate the comments on the ANPRM. The scope of this letter is limited to addressing how the current requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 105 would apply to your planned vehicle.

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

STANDARD NO. 101; CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS

GM PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS 1: PERMIT ELECTRICALLY POWERED VEHICLES TO USE SYMBOLS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR INDICATING ELECTRIC POWER RESERVE.

You asked two questions regarding how Standard No. 101 would apply to the GM electric vehicle. The first question concerned the identification for a gauge that would monitor battery charge as a percent of full charge. This gauge would serve as the functional equivalent of a fuel gauge in traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. You stated, however that it would be inappropriate and potentially misleading to use Standard No. 101's fuel symbol (a picture of a gasoline pump) for a gauge indicating electric power reserve. You stated that you planned to identify the gauge with the ISO battery symbol (a picture of a battery), which you indicated is substantially similar to that found in Standard No. 101 for electrical charge. You requested NHTSA's concurrence that electric vehicles are permitted to use symbols that are appropriate for identifying electric power reserve and not the Standard No. 101 fuel symbol.

Standard No. 101 requires that new vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. See S5(a). Thus, the primary issue raised by your question is whether a gauge indicating electric power reserve is among the displays listed in the standard, and if so, what identification requirements apply.

As you noted in your letter, one of the displays listed in Standard No. 101 is a fuel gauge. See S5.1 and Table 2. The dictionary defines "fuel" as combustible matter used to maintain fire, as coal, wood, oil, etc. See Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). Electrical power provided by a battery does not come within the meaning of "fuel." Therefore, a gauge indicating electric power reserve for an electric vehicle is not a fuel gauge.

Another display listed in Standard No. 101 is an electrical charge gauge. This term refers to gauges that indicate whether, and the extent to which, a vehicle's battery is charging. Therefore, a gauge indicating electric power reserve for an electric vehicle is not an electric charge gauge within the meaning of Standard No. 101.

Since a gauge indicating electric power reserve is not otherwise covered by Standard No. 101 or any other standard, its identification is at the option of the manufacturer.

GM PROPOSED INTERPRETATION 2: ALLOW THE "SERVICE SOON" TELLTALE TO INDICATE LOSS OF POWERTRAIN OIL PRESSURE FOR THE GMEV.

Your second question concerned whether low oil pressure may be indicated by activation of a "Service Soon" telltale instead of one identified by Standard No. 101's oil pressure symbol (a picture of an oil can) or the word "oil." You stated that a "Service Soon" telltale would be more appropriate for an electric vehicle, since it (unlike ICE vehicles) can continue to be driven without oil pressure.

One of the displays listed in Standard No. 101 is an oil pressure telltale. While the seriousness of low oil pressure may be different for electric vehicles than ICE vehicles, the condition for activation of an oil pressure telltale (low oil pressure) would be the same. It is our opinion that Standard

No. 101's identification requirements would apply to an oil pressure telltale for an electric vehicle. If a manufacturer is concerned that the oil pressure symbol or the word "oil" might be misleading to drivers familiar with ICE vehicles, the manufacturer is free to provide additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity. See S5.2.3.

It is not clear, however, that the telltale you plan would be considered a low oil pressure telltale within the meaning of Standard No. 101. You state that, as currently planned, the electric vehicle 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. It thus appears that the telltale might monitor several possible vehicle conditions, one of which is low oil pressure.

Standard No. 101 does not require that any of the displays listed in the standard be provided or that two or more displays, if provided, be provided separately. NHTSA has previously concluded that a multipurpose telltale which monitors two functions, oil pressure and coolant temperature, may be identified by the word "Engine." See December 29, 1978 letter to Ford Motor Company. The basis for this interpretation was that while Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for oil pressure and coolant temperature telltales, it does not specify any requirements for a single telltale which covers both conditions. For the same reason, if GM provided a single telltale monitoring several vehicle conditions, one of which was low oil pressure, the standard's requirements for an oil pressure telltale would not apply and the identification for that telltale would be at the discretion of the manufacturer.

STANDARD NO. 105; HYDRAULIC BRAKE SYSTEMS

You asked seven questions regarding how Standard No. 105 would apply to the GM electric vehicle. You provided the following general description of the brake system planned for the vehicle:

The brake system consists of front hydraulic disc (service) brakes, rear electric drum (service and parking) brakes, four-wheel ABS, and regenerative braking. Brake pedal forces and travel are comparable to conventional power assisted hydraulic brake systems, and are independent of the state-of-charge of the vehicle's battery pack. The design features a manual hydraulic "push through" to apply the front brakes in the event of any electrical failure.

Standard No. 105 applies to passenger cars and various other vehicle types with "hydraulic service brake systems." See S3. Since the service brakes of the GM electric vehicle would be partly hydraulic brakes and partly electric brakes, a preliminary issue is whether the standard would apply to the vehicle. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the standard would apply to the vehicle.

The term "hydraulic brake system" is defined in S4 as "a system that uses hydraulic fluid as a medium for transmitting force from a service brake control to the service brake, and that may incorporate a brake power assist unit, or a brake power unit." The term "service brake" is defined at Part 571.3 as "the primary mechanism designed to stop a motor vehicle."

The planned braking system would use hydraulic fluid as a medium for transmitting force from the service brake control to the front brake portion of the service brake. It is our interpretation that this is sufficient, under the definition of "hydraulic brake system," for the braking system to be considered a "hydraulic brake system," even though hydraulic fluid is not used for the rear brake portion of the service brake. Therefore, Standard No. 105 would apply to the vehicle.

GM PROPOSED INTERPRETATION 3: THE GMEV PARKING BRAKE IS MECHANICALLY RETAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF S5.2.

Your first question on Standard No. 105 concerned S5.2's requirement that vehicles be manufactured "with a parking brake system of a friction type with a solely mechanical means to retain engagement." You stated that the parking brake on the GMEV would be applied and released by electrical means, but would be retained by a mechanical latching device. You requested NHTSA's concurrence that the planned parking brake would satisfy the requirement for mechanically retained engagement. We agree that S5.2 permits the parking brake to be applied and released by electrical or other non-mechanical means, so long as engagement is held by solely mechanical means.

Your next several questions concern Standard No. 105's brake failure requirements. As noted by your letter, these requirements are set forth in S5.1.2 (partial failure), S5.1.3 (inoperative brake power assist unit or brake power unit), and S5.5 (failure in antilock or variable proportioning brake system), and the test procedures for these requirements are set forth in S7.9 and S7.10.

GM PROPOSED INTERPRETATION 4: THE SUBJECT BRAKE SYSTEM IS A "SPLIT SERVICE BRAKE SYSTEM" CONSISTING OF FOUR SUBSYSTEMS -- ONE AT EACH WHEEL.

Standard No. 105 specifies different partial failure requirements depending on whether a vehicle is manufactured with a split service brake system. The term "split service brake system" is defined in S4 as "a brake system consisting of two or more subsystems actuated by a single control designed so that a leakage-type failure of a pressure component in a single subsystem (except structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems) shall not impair the operation of any other subsystem."

We agree that your planned vehicle can be viewed as having four subsystems, one at each wheel. In only two of the subsystems, however, can leakage-type failures occur (the two hydraulic subsystems). Thus, in determining whether the vehicle has a split service brake system within the meaning of Standard No. 105, the key is whether a leakage-type failure of a pressure component in either of those two subsystems (except structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems) impairs the operation of any other subsystem (i.e., the other hydraulic subsystem or either of the two other subsystems). After reviewing the information provided with your letter, we have no reason to doubt that your planned system qualifies as a split service brake system.

GM PROPOSED INTERPRETATION 5: 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.

Standard No. 105's requirements for partial failure are set forth in S5.1.2. For vehicles with a split service brake system, 5.1.2.1 provides that, in the event of a rupture or leakage type of failure in a single subsystem, other than a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems, the remaining portion(s) of the service brake system shall continue to operate and shall be capable of stopping a vehicle from 60 mph within specified stopping distances. You suggested that certification of the requirements of S5.1.2.1, consistent with the procedure of S7.9.1 through S7.9.3, should be established by disabling each of the four subsystems in turn. You also stated that, for purposes of compliance testing, the subsystems would be disabled in such a way that the functioning of only one subsystem would be affected.

It is our opinion that, in testing under S5.1.2.1, only the two hydraulic subsystems of your planned brake system would be disabled, as S5.1.2.1 only addresses rupture/leakage types of failures. It does not address any type of failure of a subsystem for which a rupture or leakage type failure cannot occur. We would not consider a break in an electrical system to be a "rupture" within the meaning of Standard No. 105.

We are uncertain as to the meaning of your statement that, for purposes of compliance testing, the subsystems would be disabled in such a way that the functioning of only one subsystem would be affected. This could be read as meaning that the agency must induce a rupture or leakage type failure in a place that doesn't affect other subsystems. However, under S7.9.1, any one rupture or leakage type of failure is introduced, other than a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems. If any such leakage type failure impaired another subsystem, the brake system would not, of course, be considered a split service brake system within the meaning of Standard No. 105.

GM PROPOSED INTERPRETATION 6: 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 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.

Standard No. 105's requirements for inoperative brake power assist unit or brake power unit are set forth in S5.1.3. You stated that your planned brake system would not utilize conventional power assist, but brake power assist would be provided by the combination of the BCU and four electric motors. You stated that this design does not lend itself to an obvious way of distinguishing brake power assist from other service brake subsystem components, and suggested that the brake system be certified to the requirements of S5.1.3 by disabling the BCU (which would disable all four electric motors and completely eliminate functional brake power assist) and then satisfying the provisions of either S5.1.3.1, S5.1.3.2, or S5.1.3.4. You

also sought the agency's concurrence that there is no need to otherwise take the four electric motors into account when certifying to the requirements of S5.1.3.

S4 of Standard No. 105 defines the term "brake power assist unit" as a device installed in a hydraulic brake system that reduces the operator effort to actuate the system, and that if inoperative does not prevent the operator from braking the vehicle by a continued application of muscular force on the service brake control. Under the options of S5.1.3.1, S5.1.3.2, and S5.1.3.4, stopping distance requirements must be met with one brake power assist unit inoperative.

We believe that each electric motor comes within the definition of "brake power assist unit." In addition, given the integrated nature of the BCU and the four electric motors, we believe that the combination of the BCU/four electric motors also comes within the definition of "brake power assist unit." It is therefore our opinion that the requirements of S5.1.3 must be met both when the BCU is disabled (which would disable all four electric motors and completely eliminate functional brake power assist) and also when each of the four electric motors is disabled individually.

We note that, under our interpretation of S5.1.2 discussed above, not all of the four electric motors are separately disabled during S5.1.2 testing.

GM PROPOSED INTERPRETATION 7: 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.

Standard No.105's requirements for failed antilock and variable proportioning brake systems are set forth in S5.5. You stated that the BCU is the functional power source for the GMEV's ABS, and that the BCU also regulates the proportion of front to rear braking. You sought the agency's concurrence that disabling the BCU is the appropriate means of complying with S5.5, and is consistent with the procedure of S7.9.4.

S5.5 provides that a vehicle shall meet certain stopping distance requirements in the event of failure (structural or functional) in an antilock or variable proportioning brake system. S7.9.4 provides the following test procedure:

With vehicle at GVWR, disconnect functional power source, or otherwise render antilock system inoperative. Disconnect variable proportioning brake system. Make four stops, each from 60 mph. If more than one antilock or variable proportioning brake subsystem is provided, disconnect or render one subsystem inoperative and run as above. Restore system to normal at completion of this test. Repeat for each subsystem provided.

We concur that your planned brake system should be tested to the requirements of S5.5 in accordance with the test procedure of S7.9.4 by functionally disabling the BCU, and that no other testing is required. Under S7.9.4, the antilock system is to be rendered inoperative and the variable proportioning system is to be disconnected. Both of these procedures are accomplished by functionally disabling the BCU. Further, it is our opinion that the planned

brake system would not have antilock or variable proportioning subsystems, since antilock at all four wheels and variable proportioning are all controlled by the BCU.

GM PROPOSED INTERPRETATION 8: 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.

In addressing how the current requirements of Standard No. 105 would apply to your vehicle, we cannot assume the conditions you recommend establishing in a new S6.2. The agency would need to add those conditions to the standard in rulemaking. I will therefore address how regenerative braking would be treated under the current requirements.

As discussed in your letter, regenerative braking assists in decelerating the vehicle by converting the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle into stored electrical energy within the vehicle's battery pack. Regenerative braking on the planned GM electric vehicle will supplement, under certain conditions, the friction braking provided by the service brakes. You stated that regenerative braking will only be available when the vehicle is "in gear." Since the large majority of Standard No. 105 tests are conducted with the vehicle in "neutral," regenerative braking will have no influence on the outcome of those tests. You indicated that since some Standard No. 105 tests, notably fade and recovery and the water test, are conducted with the vehicle "in gear," regenerative braking could occur during these tests.

You stated that you believe that regenerative braking should generally be allowed to function normally during Standard No. 105 testing. You argued that the regenerative braking which may occur during "in gear" Standard No. 105 tests is little different from the engine braking which occurs in conventional ICE vehicles. We agree that regenerative braking should function normally during Standard No. 105 testing, just as engine braking occurs normally during Standard No. 105's "in gear" tests.

Another issue that you raised in connection with regenerative braking is the state of battery charge during testing, which can affect the amount of regenerative braking. You proposed (for your recommended new S6.2) that tests be initiated with a full charge of the vehicle's battery pack, so that the amount of regenerative braking that would occur during the tests would be minimized to the least amount that could occur in real world driving, i.e., the tests would be conducted under "worst case" conditions.

While Standard No. 105 specifies many test conditions, it does not specify state-of-battery charge. In an interpretation letter to Mazda dated October 2, 1990, we provided general guidance concerning how NHTSA interprets a standard where it does not specify a particular test condition. First, we stated that, in the absence of a particular test condition, we believe there is a presumption that the requirements need to be met regardless of such test

condition, since the standard does not include any language which specifically limits applicability of its requirements to such test condition. We also indicated, however, that before reaching such a conclusion, we also consider the language of the standard as a whole and its purposes.

It is our opinion that the braking requirements of Standard No. 105 must be met regardless of the state of battery charge. The purpose of Standard No. 105 is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. Since an electric vehicle will be driven with the battery at various states of charge, safe braking performance can only be ensured if the standard's requirements can be met in all such conditions. This would generally be consistent with GM's suggestion that compliance testing be conducted under "worst case" conditions.

GM PROPOSED INTERPRETATION 9: 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.

As noted by your letter, S5.3.1 of Standard No. 105 requires a brake telltale to illuminate when there is a gross loss of hydraulic pressure (or, alternatively, a drop in fluid level), a total functional electrical failure in the antilock or variable proportioning brake system, and when the parking brake is applied. You stated that a brake telltale on the planned GMEV would illuminate under these prescribed conditions. Yon indicated, however, that a diagnostic capability will also exist to detect other faults in the brake system, and requested the agency's concurrence that S5.3.1 permits illumination of the brake telltale when other faults are detected which increase the likelihood of a substantial degradation in brake system performance.

While Standard No. 105 requires that a brake telltale be provided which activates under certain specified conditions, it does not expressly state whether the required telltale may also be activated under other conditions. It is our opinion that the telLtale may also activate under other conditions so long as such activation does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required telltale or otherwise defeat its purpose. I note that this test is similar to one the agency has long used in addressing the issue of whether additional information may be provide along with information that is required to be labeled on certain products in the context of our safety standards. See, for example, NHTSA's December 20, 1991 interpretation letter to GM concerning Standard No. 209.

The purpose of the brake telltale is to warn the driver of one of two conditions: (1) the parking brake is applied (and hence should be released before driving), or (2) the brake system has a significant fault which should be corrected. Since the additional conditions for activation which GM contemplates would represent significant brake system faults which should be corrected, it is our opinion that activation of the brake telltale under such conditions would not in any way defeat the purpose of the brake telltale.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-7.24

DATE: April 29, 1992

FROM: Dan Glickman -- Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Fourth District - Kansas

TO: Andrew Card -- Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/22/92 from Jerry Ralph Curry to Dan Glickman (A39; Std. 301)

TEXT:

I am writing this letter in regard to a request from David Lourana.

I have enclosed a copy of the correspondence I received from Mr. Lourana which explains the request. I would greatly appreciate any information you could share with me regarding the concerns detailed by the enclosed letter. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please feel free to contact Phillip Fishburn in my Hutchinson office as he is assisting me in this matter.

Attachment

April 20, 1992

Electman,

I am trying to find out if there is a specific law pertaining to the "big 3" automotive manufacturers as to requirement of gasoline tank capacity accuracy?

I had read an article years ago that it stated a automotive gas tank takes a certain amount to be filled that wasn't. As stated in article; completely dry up to and including the neck of the tank. If not required, how is a person to know if he or she is receiving what is paid for - "gas"?

I think there is a requirement but I am not 100% sure.

Could you please help?

Sincerely,

David Lourana

ID: nht92-7.25

DATE: April 28, 1992

FROM: Dave Durenberger -- United States Senator

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Jerry R. Curry to Dave Durenberger (A39; Std. 209)

TEXT:

I am writing on behalf of my constituent, McNaughton Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota to request your input concerning a safety belt product they have developed to encourage safety belt compliance for children.

As you know, all 50 states have child restraint laws and 41 states have mandatory seat belt laws with varying levels of compliance. Part of the problem, in general, is compliance. Another part of the problem is that although an adult may secure a child in a seat belt restraint, that doesn't mean the child will keep the belt on.

McNaughton Inc. has developed a product that will inhibit a child from unbuckling a seat belt until assisted by an adult. McNaughton would like to be advised of any regulations that may pertain to their product and how they can abide by any legislation that may effect the feasibility of such a product.

I have enclosed photos of the prototype for your inspection. The buckle part of the seat belt fits into the little "box". There is a slot through which you plug in the tongue of the belt. The release button is covered by a removable, FDA-approved "pull and turn" child safety cap. To undo the belt lock, one simply pulls and turns the cap and inserts a finger in the round opening to the release button.

This is an item that the individual consumer would purchase and personally position on their existing safety belts. It would not need commercial installation. Although an adhesive tape will be included to keep the device in place, the product is fully removable, temporary and does not alter the function of the buckle in any way other than its intended design.

In addition to ensuring that it remains in compliance with all regulations and legislation, McNaughton Incorporated would like to become involved in the Department's safety belt campaign. I would greatly appreciate receiving any pertinent information, input, comments and suggestions on ways that my constituent could participate in this endeavor.

I appreciate your serious consideration of this request and look forward to your response.

ID: nht92-7.26

DATE: April 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William H. Spain -- Touch Wood

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/21/92 from William H. Spain to Taylor Vinson (OCC 6918)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 21, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this office, with reference to your "Auxiliary Lighting Device". I understand that you have also discussed the Device on the phone with Mr. Vinson on March 3, and with Mr. Van Iderstine of the Office of Rulemaking on March 26. You have referenced sections S5.1.3, S5.1.1.11, S5.3.1.1, S5.5.3 and S5.5.10(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and ask for an "initial first impression as to whether or not we might have a problem."

In your experience, "it is not an uncommon occurrence for a tractor/trailer to lose its taillamps due to a circuit or wiring malfunction." When this occurs, you point out that the driver's only choice is to activate his hazard warning system, which is not its intended purpose, and which defeats the normal turn signal circuits. Your Device would permit the operator of the tractor to employ the rear turn signal lamps as surrogate taillamps if the vehicle's standard taillamps were inoperative. Specifically, "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." The Device has an alternative function. It permits the turn signal lamps to be used at full intensity as fog lamps to increase rear visibility. The activation of the turn signal switch within 1/2 second overrides the Device and allows normal operation of the turn signal lamps. The Device is activated through a toggle switch on the dash, which glows to indicate to the driver that it is engaged.

The applicability of the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the "Act") and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to tractor-trailer combinations is not well defined. Standard No. 108 is, in essence, a manufacturing standard that applies to individual motor vehicles. It ceases to apply at the time of purchase by its first owner (other than the manufacturer or dealer). Once a vehicle is sold, questions of continued compliance with the standards, including Standard No. 108, must be answered with reference to the Act. The question presented by your letter concerns a device added to one vehicle before its first sale that is intended to affect the lighting performance on another vehicle after the sale of the second vehicle (i.e., when it has become a "vehicle in use", to use the statutory term). We recently provided another interpretation of the applicability of Standard No. 108 and the Act to towing and towed vehicle combinations which I would like to discuss, as it provides a basis for our interpretation to you, but is nevertheless distinguishable from it by its facts (letter of April 3, 1992, to Echlin Corp.)

The Echlin Corp. device (the "Control") was intended to control trailer sway by allowing the towing vehicle's driver to apply the towed vehicle's brakes through modulated pressure by use of a hand control in the towing vehicle. The wiring of the Control was such that the trailer stop lamps were not activated

when the Control was in use. Standard No. 108 and the laws of some States require that the stop lamps be activated when the service brakes are applied. We informed the manufacturer of the Control that, under the specific facts of the case, the question was not one to be answered under Standard No. 108 as applying to new vehicles, but to be answered under the Act as it affects vehicles in use. The Act contains a general prohibition (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2)(A)) against knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design on a vehicle in use that has been installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition applies to any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. With respect to the Control, the dealer of the towed vehicle adds the Control to the towing vehicle (a vehicle in use) at the time that the towed vehicle is purchased. In our opinion, the legal question was whether the dealer of the towed vehicle had rendered the stop lamps of the towed vehicle partially inoperative by its installation of the Control on the towed vehicle. In our opinion, it was not the installation of the Control but its use that was critical. The user of the Control, the vehicle operator, is not covered by the prohibition. Therefore, we informed Echlin that the sale and use of the Control does not violate the Act.

This interpretation can also be viewed as stating that "inoperability" as the word is used in the statute must result from a direct act, and not an indirect one. This, however, was not our intent. We do not believe that a person should be excused from responsibility simply because an intervening agency is required to operate a device that that person has manufactured or sold. Although many of the facts concerning the use of the Control and your Device are similar, the fact of importance in this instance is the primary purpose of the equipment in question. The primary purpose of the Control was to control trailer sway, not to affect the operation of the stop lamps. The primary purpose of your Device is to affect vehicle lighting, by serving as surrogate and supplementary lighting equipment.

A further fact in difference is that you envision the Device to be installed as part of the manufacture of the tractor trailer, and not added by the dealer of the trailer to a tractor trailer in use. This raises the question of the certification that the Act requires by the truck tractor manufacturer of compliance with Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.3. As your letter indicates, you are aware that S5.1.3 prohibits the installation of additional lamps or reflectors "or other motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108. It is manifest that installation of the Device has no effect upon the lighting equipment of the vehicle on which it is installed, the truck tractor. The question is whether S5.1.3 can be read as prohibiting the installation of a device on one vehicle that may affect the operation of lighting equipment on another vehicle.

We believe that S5.1.3. can be so read because the term "lighting equipment required by" Standard No. 108 is general in nature, and not restricted to the vehicle on which the additional equipment is installed. Although Standard No. 108 does not establish lighting requirements to be met by combinations of towing and towed vehicles, we interpret S5.1.3 as prohibiting installation of any original equipment on the towing vehicle that could impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 to be installed on a towed vehicle. The determination of whether impairment exists

is initially made by the manufacturer in certifying compliance of the towing vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a manufacturer installs as original equipment on one motor vehicle a device whose sole purpose is to affect the lighting performance of another motor vehicle, then that manufacturer must take into account whether that device would impair the effectiveness of the other vehicle's lighting equipment in certifying compliance to S5.1.3. If that decision appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA may make its own determination in order to effect compliance with Standard No. 108.

We turn first to the question of the use of the Device as a surrogate taillamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps. When used as a taillamp surrogate, the Device would substitute one steady-burning red rear light for another. If, as you indicate, the intensity of the surrogate taillamp is no greater than that of the original taillamp (and thereby maintains the ratio of difference required in combination turn signal- taillamps), there would appear to be no impairment of rear lighting equipment.

When used as a fog lamp on a vehicle equipped with red rear turn signal lamps, the taillamps are not disabled, and the Device activates the turn signal lamps at full intensity in a steady burning mode. Commonly, combination rear lamps on large vehicles also include the stop function as well. Because of the similarity of intensity between the steady burning fog lamp and the stop function provided by the same filament, or the stop function in an adjacent lamp, we believe that the stop signal would be impaired when the Device is used as a fog lamp in a lamp configured as described in this paragraph.

When used on a trailer equipped with the amber turn signal lamps that Standard No. 108 permits, different considerations apply. All lamps that serve as marker lamps on the rear (taillamps, identification lamps, clearance lamps) are required by Standard No. 108 to be red in color. On a trailer equipped with amber rear turn signals, the use of your Device would result in a pair of steady burning amber marker lamps on the trailer rear where, heretofore, the motoring public has not been accustomed to seeing them. Thus, the question arises under S5.1.3 whether the effectiveness of the required red rear lighting equipment is impaired when the Device activates steady burning amber rear lamps.

You are aware of this possibility, but have pointed out to Mr. Vinson that the Device is intended for use when the taillamps are not available. Because taillamps, identification lamps, and clearance lamps share the same wiring, inoperability of the taillamps often means inoperability of the other rear marker lights. Thus, the steady burning amber lamps provided by the Device may be the only operating marker lamps on the rear of the vehicle. You believe that this is preferable to no lights at all. We would agree that, in this circumstance, there would be no impairment of required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of S5.1.3.

However, the Device provides no safeguards against operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the taillamp mode when the taillamps (and other rear marker lamps) remain operative.

Further, it permits operation of the amber turn signal lamps in the fog lamp mode regardless of the operability of the other rear marker lamps. Because the Device is intended for use only under conditions of reduced visibility, such as night and fog, when the headlamps are activated, there is a potential for confusion when a motorist is confronted with simultaneously operating steady burning red and amber lamps. In this situation, a conclusion could be drawn that the utilization of the Device to create a steady burning amber lamp could, within the meaning of S5.1.3, impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required to be red. You told Mr. Vinson of your willingness to provide a warning with the Device cautioning against its use when the taillamps are operative, and we appreciate your concern with the issue. You may wish to reexamine the efficacy of amber lamps as fog lamps. We understand that the most effective rear fog lamps are red, and that red is the only color permitted in Europe.

You pointed out in your letter that, absent the Device, the tractor operator might choose to employ the flashing hazard warning lights for other than their intended purpose. We believe that today's motorists interpret flashing red or amber hazard lamps on moving vehicles as a signal that the vehicle is moving slower than the stream of traffic, and that caution is advised. Thus, safety may be enhanced when the hazard lamps flash, as they provide a contrast with the steady burning but less intense red rear taillamps.

Finally, even if acceptable under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency, vehicles engaged in the commercial aspects of interstate commerce are subject to the regulations of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (OMCS) Federal Highway Administration, and to the regulations of the individual States where the trailer is operated. We are not able to advise you of their restrictions, if any. You may write the Director, OMCS, Room 3404, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 for an interpretation. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, may be able to provide you with an interpretation of State laws.

ID: nht92-7.27

DATE: April 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Michael Love to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7171)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 3, 1992, requesting concurrence by this Office in your interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

Porsche wishes to install a center lamp on the movable spoiler of its 911 Carrera, a configuration previously approved by this Office providing that all photometric and visibility requirements are met. However, S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108 requires that "If the lamp is mounted below the rear window, no portion of the lens shall be lower than 6 inches below the rear window on convertibles, or 3 inches on other passenger cars." Although Porsche's intended center lamp meets this requirement with the spoiler in the extended position (when the car reaches 45 to 55 mph and slows to 9 to 12 mph), at other times, when the spoiler is lowered, the center lamp would be 7.5 inches below the window on the coupe, and 9.5 inches for the convertible.

Nevertheless, you believe that this may be acceptable. You cite an opinion rendered Mazda in which NHTSA did not object to center lamps mounted on tailgates because, as we advised Mazda, the center lamp is a "supplementary" lamp, and that "Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamp lamps..." You further quote NHTSA's frequently repeated advisory that "Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position. . . ," and argue that Porsche's design "fulfills the spirit of the height requirements under all conditions" and the height requirement itself "under a majority of 'normal driving conditions.'" You further argue that even in the down position the triangular relationship between the center lamp and the stop lamps is retained. Finally, you argue that the proposed lamp conforms with NHTSA's philosophy to make Standard No. 108 more performance-oriented "by fulfilling the photometric requirements at all positions."

I am sorry that we cannot concur in your interpretation. When we judge whether a vehicle meets the location and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108, we determine compliance of the vehicle in what appears to us to be its normal operating or driving position. The fact that the vehicle may not comply under all conditions of operation is, of course, of concern to us, but we try to weigh the realities of vehicle design and usage against the need of the public for safety. In the Mazda interpretation, there was no question that the vehicle as manufactured would comply with the locational requirement for center lamps when the tailgate was closed. The "normal driving position" of a vehicle with a tailgate is with the tailgate in the closed position, and use of a vehicle with the tailgate not closed is likely to be infrequent compared with its use with the tailgate closed. In another interpretation, rendered years ago, the fact that a vehicle with hydraulic suspension would not

meet the minimum height requirements for headlamps with the vehicle at rest was considered a technical noncompliance only because by the time the vehicle was in its normal operating condition (with the engine running and the car ready to move into the stream of traffic), the suspension had raised the vehicle to a height where the headlamps exceeded the minimum height requirements.

By contrast, the center lamp on the Carerra will not meet the locational requirements from a state of rest up to a minimum of 45 mph, that is to say, under low-speed urban driving conditions where the center lamp is most likely to achieve its purpose of reducing the frequency and severity of rear end impacts. This, to us, is the "normal operating position" of the Carerra with respect to the location of the proposed center lamp.

I would like to close by pointing out that the agency went to a considerable extent in considering the comments of manufacturers before adopting the requirements of S5.3.1.8, in order to minimize design restrictions consistent with safety. NHTSA proposed three alternative locations, and adopted one that was less restrictive than any of the alternatives. Subsequently, pursuant to petitions for reconsideration by vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA relaxed the location requirements of S5.3.1.8 even further.

ID: nht92-7.28

DATE: April 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kevin J. Stoll -- Technical Advisor, Russell Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/27/92 from Kevin J. Stoll to Taylor Vinson (OCC 7066)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 27, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions relating to center high-mounted stop lamps.

Your questions are:

"1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?"

A center high-mounted stop lamp whose illumination is provided by LEDs is legal, provided that the light meets the photometric specifications for such lamp specified in Figure 10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and all other requirements.

"2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake light on pickup trucks?

b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer?

c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?"

With respect to (a), the center lamp may be installed at any point on the rear vertical centerline of pickup trucks. Because this requirement is not effective until September 1, 1993, we have no specific knowledge as to where the manufacturers of pickup trucks will locate the lamps.

With respect to (b), NHTSA discussed the relationship of center high-mounted stoplamps to aftermarket slide-in campers or caps in the preamble to the final rule adopting the requirement. I enclose a copy of the rule (56 FR 16015) with our discussion highlighted on pages 16017 and 16018. After reading this material, if you have further questions regarding the effect on truck cap manufacturers and dealers, we shall be pleased to answer them.

With respect to (c), we assume that the situation you envision is that a truck cap has been manufactured with a center stop lamp and the dealer is installing the cap on a pickup truck. If the cap is being permanently installed, the dealer may wire the cap's lamp directly to the existing center lamp light harness, as the cap lamp is intended as a surrogate for the original lamp. If the cap is removable, the dealer may also wire in the manner you discuss, provided that when the cap is removed (and the cap lamp disconnected) the

original lamp will perform in conformance with Standard No. 108. The specific connections to be made should be done in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations.

"3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck.

b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationery. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved?"

The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs. We can advise you as to whether designs appear to conform or not to conform with the applicable laws of our agency. Conformance with Standard No. 108 is determined with respect to the vehicle in its normal operating state. With respect to your question, this would be with the pickup cap window in its closed position. Thus, your design does not raise a question of conformance with Standard No. 108.

"4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated rulings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings?"

We do not maintain a mailing list of any sort. However, "rulings" are not "passed" at "committee meetings" but are published in the Federal Register, initially as proposed rules affording a minimum of 45 days in which to comment.

After evaluation of comments, a final rule may be published, with an effective date no earlier than 30 days after issuance. We believe it likely that any future proposals and amendments would be publicized, and that you would be likely to hear of them. There are no current plans to amend these requirements.

ID: nht92-7.29

DATE: April 27, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Wally Herger -- Member, U.S. House of Representatives

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/13/92 from Wally Herger to Nancy Bruce; Also attached to letter dated 2/28/92 from Bill Gaines to Wally Herger

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of Mr. Bill Gaines of Transfer Flow, Inc. Your letter has been referred to me for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for regulating motor vehicle safety. NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, the subject of Mr. Gaines' concern.

Mr. Gaines, a manufacturer of fuel tanks and fuel systems, requested your assistance about his company's "inability to meet" FMVSS 301. Mr. Gaines is concerned about the "inflexibility of testing and high cost of performing (the FMVSS 301) test."

Before I address Mr. Gaines' concerns, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each of the safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard.

The purpose of FMVSS 301 is to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes. It does this by limiting the amount of fuel spillage that can occur when a vehicle is subjected to specified front, rear, and lateral barrier impact tests.

FMVSS 301 has applied to passenger cars since 1968, to trucks, vans and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less since 1976, and to school buses over 10,000 pounds since 1977. The standard applies to completed new motor vehicles, and not to components of fuel systems. Thus, the manufacturer of a vehicle that is equipped with Transfer Flow's fuel system must certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 301. Similarly, a person altering a new vehicle by replacing the original fuel system with a new one must certify that the vehicle continues to meet Standard 301.

With regard to Mr. Gaines' concern about flexibility, I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, and/or actual testing. The manufacturer need only ensure that its vehicles or equipment will meet the applicable FMVSS's when tested by

NHTSA according to the procedures specified in the Standards. We do not believe that the information provided by Mr. Gaines demonstrates any need to update FMVSS 301's requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-7.3

DATE: May 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Raymond B. Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/29/92 from Raymond B. Kesler to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 7175)

TEXT:

This responds to your February 29, 1992 letter asking the agency to reconsider its decision to deny your earlier petition for rulemaking to amend Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. As explained below, your request is again denied, for the same reasons explained in the previous denial.

You initially petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. After reviewing the petition, the agency denied your request, finding that (1) a safety need for a wider field of view for passenger side convex mirrors had not been established and (2) your suggested mirror system would, by comparison with currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduced a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed. (56 FR 42715; August 29, 1991).

In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, styled a "petition for reconsideration," you restated your previous request for the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require a mirror with a 25 inch radius of curvature and a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. That request does not provide any new information beyond what was presented in your initial petition.

Petitions for reconsideration may be filed only in response to an agency rule. See 49 CFR S553.35(a). A denial of a petition for rulemaking is not a rule, since such denials do not amend any existing provision in the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for reconsideration.

It is possible that there might be instances in which additional information has become available since the agency considered and denied the initial petition for rulemaking. If such a situation were to arise, the petitioner could file a new petition for rulemaking, asking again for the requested action based upon the newly available information. NHTSA would consider this as a petition for rulemaking. As noted above, your correspondence did not provide any new information. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for rulemaking. Instead, your correspondence is simply a request for NHTSA to take the same action you previously asked us to take in a petition for rulemaking. Absent any new information, there is no reason for NHTSA to reexamine its previous conclusion on this matter.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of the agency's regulations on your part. In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, you made the statement that your product "should be

approved to be made available to the driver as an optional choice." In our notice denying your petition, the agency tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited from being installed on vehicles by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. However, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to the required mirrors, for the safety reasons explained at length in the denial notice. See 56 FR 42716; August 29, 1991. Hence, your product may be installed as a supplement to the required mirrors on current vehicles, without any amendments to Standard No. 111.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-7.30

DATE: April 23, 1992

FROM: C. Scott Thiss -- Chairman & CEO, S&W Plastics, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Congressman Jim Ramstad; Taylor Vinson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to C. Scott Thiss (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On April 16, 1992 we met with Mr. Taylor Vinson and other representatives from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to discuss a new product which we plan to manufacture and market. This meeting was initiated because of two letters sent to us on January 23, 1992 and March 31, 1992 from NHTSA, regarding objections to our aftermarket tail light product.

The purpose of this letter is to request NHTSA to formally reconsider and review its position as presented in your earlier letters.

BACKGROUND

S&W Plastics, Inc. has developed an auxiliary safety signaling device for trucks and semi-trailers. The name of this product is High Light. This product would be sold in the aftermarket to independent haulers, fleet operations and OEM suppliers.

Our master distributor, Cycle Country Accessories Corp. requested a review of this product in December 1991. Your agency responded with a letter dated January 23, 1992. In order to arrange a meeting with NHTSA S&W requested the help of Congressman Jim Ramstad's office. The response to Mr. Ramstad's letter on March 31, 1992, reiterated the objections raised in the January letter.

Because several changes had been made to the product since NHTSA's January letter, we requested a meeting with Mr. Taylor Vinson. At that meeting S&W was able to demonstrate the light, address NHTSA concerns and discuss the changes we have made.

The result was Mr. Vinson's suggestion that S&W request a reconsideration of the issues raised in previous letters.

NHTSA CONCERNS

The previous documentation provided by NHTSA raised concerns regarding High Light. These concerns centered on the issue as to whether our safety signaling device could possibly "render inoperative" the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. Three objections were raised.

- the device did not meet the locational requirements of Standard 108, and

- the hazard warning system, by operating through the brake system, could send a confusing message to following vehicles, and

- the stop lamp signal formed an inverted "V", which could be confusing to following vehicles.

By rendering inoperative the required lighting systems, it is be a violation of Federal law for a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair shop to install our light. This would greatly limit our market potential and we would not proceed with production and marketing.

PRODUCT CHANGES

As we demonstrated during the meeting with Mr. Vinson, the current version of High Light has undergone several revisions. In fact, based upon comments from the meeting, we have made additional changes to more fully meet Standard 108 and to eliminate the "render inoperative" issue.

First, while our device cannot be centered exactly on the centerline of a truck or semi-trailer, it is located only slightly off-center. Because of door openings and locking mechanisms, it would be impossible for our device to be placed on centerline. Its placement slightly off center to the left makes it very visible to a following driver, who would be in a direct line of sight.

A second change is the brake light signal. We have changed the lighting configuration from an inverted "V" to only the two horizontal lights in the center. This should not create an interpretation problem.

Third, we have dropped entirely the hazard warning lighting plans. This is to avoid a confusing message. Also there are many other warning devices and signals which a driver can use to indicate a hazard situation.

CONCLUSION

Based upon our meeting with NHTSA and product changes already made, we believe High Light complies with Standard 108. We believe this product will reduce truck accidents by providing better visibility of turn signals and brake lights to following vehicles.

In order that we may proceed with the manufacture and sale of the product, we ask you to review NHTSA's previous position. S&W does not intend to consciously violate any Federal law, and therefore we request a reconsideration in writing of your objections.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.