ID: nht95-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert J. Ponticelli -- President, American International Pacific Industries Corp.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM ROBERT J. PONTICELLI TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11082)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ponticelli:

This responds to your letter asking about how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations apply to your product. You described your product as an aftermarket anti-theft device that is installed between the steering wheel a nd the steering shaft. The device is activated by "a key switch" and causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling, thus preventing actual steering of the vehicle. In an August 29, 1995 meeting with NHTSA staff, you demonstrated this device and stat ed that you also have plans to market it to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment. For the original equipment version of the device, you plan to incorporate a starter interrupt that will prevent the vehicle from starting while the device is in the freewheeling mode. You also requested information on how our regulations apply to regulated parties such as new car dealers and aftermarket service businesses. I will respond to your questions below.

First, I will give you some background information. NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an item of motor vehicle equipment such as your anti-theft device. However, since the steering wheel, steering column, and the area in front of the driver are among the most closely regulated parts o f a vehicle, your device could affect a vehicle's compliance with several safety standards.

Because the purpose of your device is to prevent vehicle theft, I will first discuss FMVSS No. 114, the safety standard that deals with theft protection. The pertinent part of Standard No. 114 requires most vehicles to "have a key-locking system which, w henever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both." Most motor vehicle manufacturers have chosen to comply with this requirement by in stalling a steering lock. Because a device that causes the steering wheel to become freewheeling prevents actual steering, or maneuvering of the vehicle, it could also be used to meet this requirement. However, to be used as a basis for certification wi th FMVSS No. 114, the device would have to be activated by removal of the key that controls engine activation.

In addition to possibly being used as a means of complying with FMVSS No. 114, your device could alternatively be operated by a separate key and installed in addition to a steering lock, assuming that it did not affect compliance of the vehicle with that or other safety standards. However, you should evaluate whether the device might pose a safety hazard if used without your planned starter interrupt. A driver who doesn't know (or forgets) about your device could start the vehicle in motion without re alizing that the turning of the wheel is not affecting the vehicle.

Other standards that you should be concerned about include FMVSS Nos. 203 (impact protection for the driver from the steering control system), 204 (steering control rearward displacement), and 208 (occupant crash protection). As our engineers explained i n our meeting, even small changes to the steering column can affect vehicle compliance with these standards.

Turning to the second part of your question, which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product is installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the ve hicle with your device installed complies with all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard Nos. 114, 203, 204, and 208. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g. by a new car dealer, the person who m odifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a commercial business, such as an aftermarket service business or new car dealer, that business would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violatio n.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners installed your device in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult St ate regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs and Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM MILFORD BENNETT (SIGNED BY F. LAUX) TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 1995 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and t he raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted.

Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not.

You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 per cent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached).

Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Seagren -- Dealer Principal, Pony Express Dodge, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/8/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Peter F. Marthy (A43; Part 580)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter sent to this office by telefax on September 12, 1995. In your letter, you ask whether it is permissible to alter an odometer that registers kilometers rather than miles by multiplying the kilometer reading by .62, when there had been a previous attempt to convert the reading to miles. Your letter states that the earlier attempt resulted in the odometer being set back to the equivalent in miles but the odometer continued to register distance in kilometers.

As you are aware from a Federal Register notice faxed to you by Eileen Leahy of this office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Federal agency with responsibility for the odometer disclosure regulations promulgated pursuant t o the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 (TIMA) has stated that it is permissible to reset the odometer from kilometers to miles by multiplying the number of kilometers shown on the odometer by .62, and that it is also permissible to certify that number of mil es as "actual" when completing the odometer disclosure statement when ownership of the vehicle is transferred.

The rationale for this policy is that "mileage" is defined in the Federal regulations as distance traveled, and it is permissible to express the number either in miles or metrically if it is known that it reflects the actual distance traveled and that th e disclosure of the odometer reading specifies which system of measure (miles or kilometers) is being used. Because the conversion from kilometers to miles can be accurately made simply by multiplying the kilometers on the odometer by 0.62, the agency b elieves that there is little likelihood that permitting odometer readings that have been converted from kilometers to miles to be recorded as "actual mileage" will result in an inaccurate or misleading representation of the distance a vehicle has travele d.

The situation you describe is more complicated because a previous owner of the vehicle in question had already set back the odometer to the mileage equivalent after purchasing it with an odometer reading in kilometers, but according to your letter did no t execute properly the procedure necessary to make the odometer register miles rather than kilometers while being driven. The result of this error has been the addition of kilometers to a figure that reflected miles rather than kilometers traveled.

In order to permit recording of a conversion of the present odometer reading from kilometers to mileage as "actual mileage" in this circumstances, two criteria must be satisfied. First, it must be apparent that the calculation at the time of the first c onversion was done properly so that it reflects the actual number of miles the vehicle had traveled at that time. From the documents you submitted reflecting the events that occurred prior to your purchase of the vehicle, it appears that the previous ow ner properly converted kilometers to miles. Accordingly, the first criterion is satisfied.

It is then necessary to establish that the reading now shown on the odometer accurately represents the distance traveled by the vehicle since the first attempted conversion. There is no indication in any of the documentation you furnished that there hav e been any intervening alterations to the odometer or changes in the way it has recorded distance that would alter the accuracy of its current reading. In addition, you state that since your company has owned the vehicle, the odometer has consistently o perated in a way that shows that it was registering kilometers rather than miles. Based on these factors, it appears that it will be possible for you to ascertain with accuracy the distance the vehicle has traveled since the first conversion from kilome ters to miles was made.

The proper way to do this conversion is to subtract the number shown as the reading in miles as a result of the calculation made at the time conversion was first attempted, from the number showing on the odometer when you transfer ownership of the vehicl e. The result will be the total kilometers the vehicle has traveled since that time. To arrive at the number of miles traveled since the attempted conversion, the result of that subtraction is to be multiplied by 0.62 as described above. In turn, the number resulting from that multiplication is added to the number of miles at the time of the first conversion and the sum is the total number of miles traveled by the vehicle at the time of transfer. You may then properly certify on the odometer disclosu re statement when you transfer ownership of the vehicle that that number is its actual mileage.

Because the Kansas Motor Vehicle Department asked that you contact this office for our interpretation of the proper way to handle the sale of this vehicle under the Federal odometer disclosure regulations, it would be advisable to provide that office wit h a copy of this letter either before or at the time of your application for a new title.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this matter, please contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney in this office, at the address shown above or at (202)366-5263.

(9/12/95 telefax from David Seagren to NHTSA is not available.)

ID: nht92-9.34

DATE: January 30, 1992

FROM: David Klopp -- Freedman Seating Company

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Klopp (A39; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Freedman Seating manufactures seating systems which are used in a variety of vehicles including shuttle buses, tour buses, etc. Examples of our seats are attached. The frames are mounted to the floor and, in many cases, to the wall of the vehicle also.

We would like an interpretation of FMVSS 210 regarding seats having multiple seating positions and with their seat belt anchorages located on the seat frame. Does the strength test in FMVSS 210 require simultaneous testing of all seat belt anchorages for each seat?

Please give me a call if you require additional information.

ID: nht92-9.35

DATE: January 29, 1992

FROM: J. Yoshimoto -- Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TO: James G. White -- Surface Group, Transport Canada

TITLE: Subject: CMVSS 108 "Lighting Equipment"; Reference: Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 125, No. 26 dated December 18, 1991

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/5/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to James G. White (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your kind consideration which you have always extended to us through SAE meeting.

We have studied the amended CMVSS 108 "Lighting Equipment" by Canada Gazette Part II Vol. 125, No. 26 dated December 18, 1991. And we would ask for your kind interpretation about "O" Mark on vertical/horizontal aim indicator of integral headlamp aiming device, specified in paragraph 108(28)(b)(ii)(A) and 108(28)(c)(ii)(A).

108(28)(b)(ii) a scale that has (A) a "O" mark that represents the vertical aim of zero degrees, ----------. 108(28)(c)(ii) a scale that has (A) a "O" mark that (I) presents the horizontal aim of zero-degrees ----------.

For these descriptions, it is unclear for us whether a mark of figure "O" be literally required for indicating zero degrees on vertical/horizontal aim indicator, or not.

In FMVSS 108 (U.S.), vertical/horizontal aim indicator of integral headlamp aiming device is required to have a zero mark, which does not necessarily mean a mark of figure "O", but may be just a reference mark. (Please refer to the attached copy of FMVSS 108 S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and (2).

Size of indicator is so small, that there is no space to add a figure "O" on it. Moreover, from the viewpoint of harmonization to FMVSS 108, CMVSS 108 should not require a figure "O" on the indicator, we think.

We would greatly appreciate if you would give us your kind interpretation to the above matter.

Thanking you for your kind and prompt reply in anticipation, we remain, With best regards.

ID: nht92-9.36

DATE: January 28, 1992

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

TO: William R. Willen, Esq. -- Managing Counsel, Product Legal Group, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/16/91 from William R. Willen to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6833)

TEXT:

This responds to Honda's request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays. You stated that Honda is developing a braking system for motorcycles that would offer full proportioning front and rear when utilizing either the front hand control, or the rear control. You asked whether such a system would be permitted by the standard, particularly in light of section S5.2.1. As discussed below, such a braking system would be permissible under Standard No. 123.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

S5.2.1, Control location and operation, includes the following language:

If a motorcycle is equipped with self-proportioning or antilock braking devices utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, the control shall be located and operable in the same manner as a rear brake control.

Table 1 of Standard No. 123 provides that a rear wheel brake control must be a right foot control and must depress to engage. (Table 1 also includes an additional option that is not necessary to address in this letter.)

Since Honda's motorcycle would be equipped with a self-proportioning device utilizing a single control for front and rear brakes, it would be subject to this requirement. If Honda's "rear foot control" is one that is operated by the right foot and must be depressed to be engaged, that control would satisfy S5.2.1.

It is our interpretation that so long as one control meets the specified requirements for location and operation, additional controls serving the same purpose may be provided voluntarily by the manufacturer and need not meet those requirements. I note that this view is similar to a position taken in an April 26, 1983 interpretation letter to an addressee whose identity has been withheld for reasons of confidentiality. In that letter, the agency stated, in the context of discussing S5.2.1, that

"(u)se of ... a self-proportioning device does not preclude additional brake actuation devices." I am, for your information, enclosing a copy of that letter. In the situation at issue, we would consider the front hand control on Honda's design to be an "additional brake actuation device," and therefore, not precluded by Standard No. 123.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-9.37

DATE: January 28, 1992

FROM: Carl J. Clement -- Clement Associates

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/30/92 from Paul J. Rice to Carl J. Clement (A39; Std. 302; Std. 201)

TEXT:

I am in the process of inventing an automotive sun-visor which has the promise of improving upon the safety of currently used sun-visors. Within a week or so I shall have completed a mechanical protype which will serve as a means of testing electronics and optics. Enclosed is a patent disclosure which explains the device in greater detail.

I have been advised that, before proceeding further, I should research Federal and State agencies which have to do with regulations concerning automobiles, particularly automobile interiors. For example, are there regulations which would preclude the installation of an automatically-moving 3" high X 6" wide visor between the driver's eyes and the windshield?

I should appreciate your advice and a copy of any regulations with which I must comply, or which might be changed should the invention be viewed favorably by your or other government agencies.

ID: nht92-9.38

DATE: January 24, 1992

FROM: Larry J. French -- President and CEO, Magnascreen

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Reference: 49 CFR, Part 571, Docket No. 91-11, Notice 2, RIN2127-AD81, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rearview Mirrors - Reflectance

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/26/92 from Paul J. Rice to Larry J. French (A39; Std. 111)

TEXT:

Magnascreen is presently developing electronically controlled dimmable (day/night) rearview mirror products for motor vehicles.

Magnascreen has reviewed the revised Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, 571.111, standard number 111, for motor vehicle rearview mirror requirements referenced above. Upon review, we are requesting that the NHTSA comment on the validity of Magnascreen's interpretation which follows:

"When a multiple reflectance level mirror is not powered by the vehicle power source, the reflectance of the mirror can be returned to a minimum of 35% reflectance (either automatically or by driver operated controls) USING AN ALTERNATE POWER SOURCE." (A power source other than the one intended to (illegible) the mirror.)

This interpretation allows multiple reflectance mirror designs to use an alternate power source to achieve the specified failsafe operation called out in CFR 49, 579.111, para. S11, Rearview Mirrors.

Your timely response will be appreciated, as this interpretation impacts Magnascreen's mirror product designs.

ID: nht92-9.39

DATE: January 23, 1992

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

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht92-9.4

DATE: February 17, 1992

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

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

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

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

TEXT:

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

FMVSS 101 PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FMVSS 105 PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS

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

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

PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRAKE TELLTALE ILLUMINATION

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

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

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

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

SUMMARY

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

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

Attachment

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